Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join Cape Verdeans in the July 5th celebration of Cape Verde Independence Day. Every country is rich with its own history and unique story of how it achieved democracy, and Cape Verde is no exception. In 1462, Portuguese settlers arrived at Santiago and founded Ribeira Grande, now Cidade Velha, the first permanent European settlement city in the tropics. After almost three centuries as a colony, in 1951 Portugal changed Cape Verde's status to an overseas province. Then in December 1974, an agreement was signed which provided for a transitional government composed of Portuguese and Cape Verdeans. In 1975, Cape Verdeans elected a National Assembly, which received the instruments of independence from Portugal. For the first fifteen years of independence, Cape Verde was ruled by one party. Then in 1990 opposition groups came together to form the Movement for Democracy. Working together they ended the one party state and the first multi-party elections were held in January 1991. Cape Verde now enjoys a stable democratic government. It is an example to other States as to what can be accomplished. These democratic changes have meant better global integration as the government has pursued market-oriented economic policies and welcomed foreign investors. Tourism, light manufacturing and fisheries have flourished. Cape Verde has made the difficult transition from a colony to a successful independent and democratic State. Today, there are close to 350,000 Cape Verdean-Americans living in the United States, almost equal to the population of Cape Verde itself. These Americans hold a special right since the Cape Verdean Constitution formally considers all Cape Verdeans at home and abroad as citizens and voters. Thus, July 5th is a day of independence for all Cape Verdean-Americans as well as those in Cape Verde. As we approach the independence day of our own country and reflect on freedom and democracy, it is especially fitting that we remember and celebrate those special independence days of other peaceful democracies, such as Cape Verde. Join with me in wishing all those with direct and ancestral ties to Cape Verde a happy independence day.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to support the McCain-Edwards- Kennedy bill and to commend the authors. They have done some great work in trying to reconcile a very pressing need in this country; that is, to give patients the ability to get the health care they need and, indeed, that they either paid for or their employer paid for. Today I have heard discussion that this is just about lawyers who are going to enrich themselves. But I think that argument misses the point. The point is, there are lots of lawyers on the other side, on the HMOs' side, who are using their skills to deny patients what they thought they purchased with their health care plan, where they are able to use all the loopholes that are rife throughout our statutes, not to provide care but to provide the insurance companies with an out. The McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill clarifies the rights of patients. It makes them specific. It makes them less debatable. Let's make these rights less a contest of lawyers on both sides and more something that the patients of America, the citizens of America, can expect will be their right to demand and receive when they pay for health insurance. So when you have situations where, instead of specifying, as the McCain-Kennedy-Edwards bill does, the right to a pediatrician as the provider of health care services for a child or a pediatric specialist for a child, you have something nebulous like a physician with age- specific qualifications, that is the type of ambiguity that is rife for the competing proposals, and that leads to the denial of care to Americans. In fact, it leads to lots of controversy, strife, discussion, and debate. So this legislation has been well crafted over many months to specify, delineate, and clearly give patients their rights; in fact, to give them what they believe they are paying for. And they are already paying a lot. So I believe that this bill has made great progress in moving from the version we considered in the last Congress in this Senate Chamber, and the version that has been proposed by Congressman Norwood and Congressman Dingell in the other body; and we are moving close, I hope, to legislation that can receive the support of this Senate, which can go forward and be combined with a very similar bill on the House side offered by Congressman Norwood and Congressman Dingell, and then go to the President for his signature. What it would do, I believe, is to, again, specify clearly, unequivocally, what Americans can expect from their health care provider. There has also been lots of discussion that this really is going to pull in countless numbers of employers, small businesses, who are going to be ensnared in a web of litigation because of this legislation. But that ignores the very specific language in the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill that says that an employer can only be liable if that individual played a direct role in a decision to deny a treatment of health care services to a patient. This is not the situation where a small business buys a Blue Cross plan or buys an HMO plan. This is a situation where an individual in that business organization makes the decision to say: No, don't give that service to that individual who is covered by my plan--a very unlikely circumstance, but one I think most people would agree, if you are making those types of decisions, you should at least be potentially liable for the consequences of those decisions. I believe the discussion of an employer as being ensnared in this web of lawsuits misses the very specific language of the bill. It certainly is not the intent of this legislation. It never has been. With the refined language and the very specific language, I don't think it will be the effect of the legislation either. We know that this issue is creating a great deal of controversy around the country. It is generating the activity of interest groups left and right. This morning, early today, the junior Senator from Utah spoke about a doctor who was contacted by the American Medical Association to call the Senator and support the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill. In the course of the discussion, he discovered that he really didn't support the bill but he favored the Frist-Breaux-Jeffords approach. That is not the only calls that are being made out there in America as we speak and debate here. My office received a call from a businessman in Rhode Island instigated by the National Association of Manufacturers who said: Call your Senator and tell him not to vote for Kennedy-Edwards-McCain. But when we spoke with the individual, when we explained the provisions of the bill, particularly the provisions with respect to potential lawsuits against employers, he concluded that the Kennedy-McCain-Edwards bill was the type of legislation he could support because he is not just an employer; he is just not a businessperson; he is a family man. His wife had recently been sick, and he understood the difficulties that are faced in trying to get health care out of an insurance company that is committed to the bottom line, not the health care, principally, of their insured members. He preferred, after discussion, the type of protections included in this bill. I hope that is a sign that when we can come here to the Chamber and clearly explain the contents of this legislation, we can convince many people across the country that this legislation is in the best interest of the families of America. Now, I have for several years been working to ensure that this type of legislation pays particular attention to children. I am very pleased to say that the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill incorporates many of the provisions of legislation I have submitted along with many colleagues. It protects the right of families to have a pediatrician as a primary care provider and the right to make referrals to a pediatric specialist, not just a specialist. There is a vast difference between an adult cardiologist who may have seen a child 1 or 2 years ago and a pediatric cardiologist who specializes in those types of problems for children. If you are a parent, that is the specialist you want to see. This legislation provides for that access clearly, unequivocally. The alternative legislation would say the company can find someone who has a specific qualification. Again, the lawyers for the insurance company can find many ways to suggest that that is the gentleman or woman who might have seen a child 2 years ago, a cardiologist, rather than the more expensive doctor not in their plan who is, in fact, a pediatric cardiologist. This is real progress on the bill. I commend the authors for doing this and pushing forward. There is one area I would like to see included in addition to what has been done. That is a proposal I have made previously on a bipartisan basis with Senators Jeffords and Collins to create for each State an ombudsman, someone who can be a point of reference and referral to individuals who have questions about their health care plan. Before you even get into a long, protracted internal review or external review, there should be an individual you can contact and say: Do I have a problem here? I think I am covered for this procedure. Am I really covered for this procedure? That type of advice, that type of objective information on a systematic basis can do much to resolve the potential specter of a plethora of lawsuits. It is a worthwhile initiative. I hope my amendment can be incorporated into this bill. Indeed, I am preparing to offer such as amendment along with Senators Wellstone, Wyden, and Clinton. I hope when the process begins for amendments, we can make that improvement to what is already a very fine bill. This is a very clear issue when you boil it all down. Do you stand with the families of America who deserve health care coverage they paid for or do you stand with the insurance companies whose major concern is their financial solvency and well-being? This legislation stands with and for the families of America. I support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that I believe is very pertinent to the current debate over managed care protections. My longstanding concern has been to ensure that the needs of children in managed care are not left out of the debate. That is why I am reintroducing the Children's Health Insurance Accountability Act. This legislation sets the standard for what kinds of protections ought to be in place for children who receive care through health maintenance organizations. Specifically, this bill provides common sense protections for children in managed care plans such as: access to necessary pediatric primary care and specialty services; appeal rights that address the special needs of children, including an expedited review if a child's life or development is in jeopardy; quality measurements of health outcomes unique to children; utilization review rules that are specific to children with evaluation from those with pediatric expertise; and child-specific information requirements that will help parents and employers choose health plans on the basis of care provided to children. I am pleased that the major provisions of this legislation are incorporated into the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patient Protection bill, S. 1052. It is difficult enough to have a sick child, but to face barrier after barrier to necessary care for your child is unconscionable. Our current system is often failing our kids when they most need us. It is this simple: if we do not have health plan standards, there is no guarantee that we are providing adequate care for our children. And when it comes to our children, we should not take risks. Not one of us can deny that managed care plays a valid role in our health care system. Managed care's emphasis on preventive care has benefits for young and old alike. And HMOs have resulted in lower co- payments for consumers and higher immunization rates for our children. However, many questions have arisen about patient access to medical services and the consequences of cost-cutting measures and other incentives under managed care. The Children's Health Insurance Accountability Act seeks to address these concerns as they relate to children. Children are not small adults and often have very different health and developmental needs. We should be sure that we are always vigilant when it comes to their health and well-being, not only in the context of patient protection legislation, but in other policy measures we consider this year. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a number of children's health and advocacy organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Defense Fund and the National Association of Children's Hospitals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that I believe is very pertinent to the current debate over managed care protections. My longstanding concern has been to ensure that the needs of children in managed care are not left out of the debate. That is why I am reintroducing the Children's Health Insurance Accountability Act. This legislation sets the standard for what kinds of protections ought to be in place for children who receive care through health maintenance organizations. Specifically, this bill provides common sense protections for children in managed care plans such as: access to necessary pediatric primary care and specialty services; appeal rights that address the special needs of children, including an expedited review if a child's life or development is in jeopardy; quality measurements of health outcomes unique to children; utilization review rules that are specific to children with evaluation from those with pediatric expertise; and child-specific information requirements that will help parents and employers choose health plans on the basis of care provided to children. I am pleased that the major provisions of this legislation are incorporated into the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patient Protection bill, S. 1052. It is difficult enough to have a sick child, but to face barrier after barrier to necessary care for your child is unconscionable. Our current system is often failing our kids when they most need us. It is this simple: if we do not have health plan standards, there is no guarantee that we are providing adequate care for our children. And when it comes to our children, we should not take risks. Not one of us can deny that managed care plays a valid role in our health care system. Managed care's emphasis on preventive care has benefits for young and old alike. And HMOs have resulted in lower co- payments for consumers and higher immunization rates for our children. However, many questions have arisen about patient access to medical services and the consequences of cost-cutting measures and other incentives under managed care. The Children's Health Insurance Accountability Act seeks to address these concerns as they relate to children. Children are not small adults and often have very different health and developmental needs. We should be sure that we are always vigilant when it comes to their health and well-being, not only in the context of patient protection legislation, but in other policy measures we consider this year. I am pleased that this legislation is supported by a number of children's health and advocacy organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Defense Fund and the National Association of Children's Hospitals. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, as we come to the end of the debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, reauthorization bill, I would like to share my thoughts on the bill. I plan to support S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers, BEST, Act, but not without serious reservations. We have been working on this legislation for 3 years now, and we certainly have made some needed improvements over current law. The bill contains tougher accountability, more along the lines of what Senator Bingaman and I pressed for back in 1994. For the first time, States, districts, and schools will be held accountable for improving the academic performance of all students. Moreover, the bill requires the timely identification of failing schools so additional resources and support can be supplied to help those schools turn around, coupled with real consequences if that failure continues. We will have to be vigilant, however, to ensure that the accountability system is workable, and not weakened, during Conference. Over the past few weeks of debate, key amendments have passed, adding further value to the legislation. One such amendment was offered by Senators Harkin and Hagel to increase funding for IDEA by annual increments of $2.5 billion until the full 40 percent share of funding is reached in fiscal year 2007. This amendment also frees up at least $28.9 billion, and up to $52.5 billion, in education funds by shifting IDEA funding from discretionary to mandatory funding. This amendment serves two worthy and important goals: meeting our commitment to fully fund IDEA and by doing so, freeing up some of the needed resources for title I and other elementary and secondary education programs. I was pleased to support this extremely important amendment, as well as two amendments by Senator Wellstone to improve the testing regime in the bill. The first amendment ensures that the assessments meet relevant national testing standards and are of adequate technical quality for each purpose for which they are used. The Wellstone amendment also provides grants to States to enter into partnerships to research and develop the highest quality assessments possible so they can most accurately and fairly measure student achievement. The second amendment makes the quality of the test, rather than speed in developing the test, the factor for determining bonuses for states. As my colleagues know, I have made improving our Nation's school libraries a top priority in the Senate and during my time in the other chamber. Our school libraries have wasted away since dedicated Federal funding was eliminated in 1981, and, as a result, too many students lack access to up-to-date, enriching books and other reading material. Given the direct correlation between well-stocked, well-staffed school libraries and literacy and overall student achievement, my amendment, which passed on an overwhelming 69 to 30 vote, authorizes $500 million for up-to-date books and technology and other needed improvements for our Nation's school libraries. Moreover, it rightfully makes school libraries a key component of our effort to increase literacy, as embodied by the President's Reading First initiative included in the bill. I have also worked to bolster current law's parental involvement provisions based on the simple fact that parental involvement is a major factor in determining a child's academic success. Parental involvement contributes to better grades and test scores, higher homework completion rates, better attendance, and greater discipline. The bill already contained provisions I had pressed for, including ensuring title I families can access information on their children's progress in terms they can understand; involving parents in school support teams that help turn around failing schools; requiring technical assistance for title I schools and districts that are having problems implementing parental involvement programs; having States collect and disseminate information about effective parental involvement practices to ensure schools have information on how to encourage and expand parental involvement; ensuring parents are involved in violence and drug prevention programs so parents can reinforce the safe and drug-free message at home; requiring States and districts to annually review parental involvement and professional development activities of districts and schools to ensure the activities are effective; and requiring each local educational agency to make available to parents an annual report card which explains how a school is performing. In addition, this week, several amendments I offered to further strengthen parental involvement were adopted. Key provisions were added to ensure that teachers will receive training on how to work with and involve parents in their child's education and to allow the use of technology to promote parental involvement. Most importantly, a grant fund of $100 million will be established to help districts implement effective parental involvement policies and practices. All of these changes go a long way to ensuring a coordinated focus on bringing schools and parents together in the effort to increase student achievement, something that is particularly needed in light of the bill's annual testing requirement and other accountability mechanisms. Also, I am pleased that this bill contains important provisions from my Child Opportunity Zone Family Center legislation to foster the coordination and integration of key services to improve student learning. In addition, I am pleased that the Senate handily rejected vouchers, which would have been the wrong approach to helping our public schools. In the midst of all of these improvements, however, there are some troubling aspects to this legislation--the lack of guaranteed resources, the testing regime, and the Performance Agreement block grant. While every Senator recognizes that historically, constitutionally and culturally, educational policy is the province of State and local governments, the Federal Government does play a role. And, we have played this role quite robustly since 1965. The role may be described as encouraging innovation and overcoming inertia at the local level so that every student in America, particularly students from disadvantaged backgrounds, has the opportunity to seize all the opportunities of this great country. We have an obligation to continue to work with the States and localities, in a sense as their junior partner, but as an important partner, to ensure that every child in this country will have the ability to achieve and obtain a quality public education. President Bush and our Republican colleagues claim that this bill will leave no child behind, but simply adding testing and flexibility to our elementary and secondary schools without providing adequate resources will not do the job. I have had many opportunities to talk with the Secretary of Education and other leaders in this administration with respect to their education goals. They talk a good game. They talk about accountability; they talk about standards. But then when you ask them: Where are the resources? They say: Well, we really don't need resources. That is just not the case. Every American understands that education is worthwhile and that we must invest in education, not just with words but with dollars, to make a high quality education a reality in the life of every child. Access to increased resources and funding plays a crucial role in improving student achievement and turning around failing schools. For example, recent changes in the Texas public school financing system that preceded President Bush's terms as Governor of Texas have led to substantially equalized access to revenue for low and high income school districts. Accordingly, reports indicate that test scores in Texas have risen markedly in those poorest districts that received additional money under the new financing plan. This has been the case especially in Houston, the home of Secretary Paige. Now, for the first time, these local school systems are getting the needed funding to repair and modernize their schools, reduce class size, improve professional development, and increase parental involvement--conduct the kinds of programs that really help children succeed. A school district cannot pay for these programs with accountability; real resources are necessary. In addition to the lack of a real commitment of resources beyond Senator Harkin's IDEA amendment, I am also particularly disappointed that both Senator Harkin's school construction amendment and Senator Murray's class size reduction amendment failed. Another troubling aspect of this bill is structure of the mandate that States test each student from grades 3 to 8 in order to receive Federal education funding. We all recognize that testing is an essential part of education, but this mandate puts a lot of practical pressure on the States to harmonize their standards with their evaluations. Some States have found out it is not practical to give a test to every child every year because the tests have to be very individualized to capture all the nuances of those standards. My sense is, and I have talked to educational experts in the States, the sheer requirement to test every child every year for grades 3 through 8 will inexorably lead the States to adopt standardized testing which may or may not capture the standards in that particular State. So this testing regime could unwittingly move away from one of the central elements we all agree on, carefully thought out standards and evaluations that measure those standards. And that is why I supported Senator Hollings amendment to give States flexibility to waive the mandate of annual testing if circumstances warrant. I am disappointed the amendment failed. I hope we all recognize that testing alone is not sufficient to improve our schools. Identifying children who are falling behind and schools that are failing is just the first step. But, the hardest step is fixing the problem. As we proceed to Conference, we need to ask ourselves: What are we really doing to our kids? I believe we are imposing very strict testing regimes upon our children. Yet if we don't provide adequate resources to support improvement, such as smaller class sizes and quality teachers, we will just be setting them up for failure. We will be turning our backs on the children of this country, and I am sure that is no one's intention. That is why I will continue to fight for adequate resources to make sure that every child truly has the opportunity to achieve. Another aspect of this bill that is of great concern to me is the Performance Agreements demonstration program. Otherwise known as Straight A's, this block grant has the potential to undermine the continued viability of important Federal standards, such as targeting funds to schools and children with the greatest needs, improving teacher quality, strengthening parental involvement, and providing children with safe and drug free schools. We have a longstanding commitment to the children of this country to address the needs that the states and localities cannot. By placing Federal dollars into state and local block grants, without targeting the Federal dollars on programs identified to be of great national concern or ensuring compliance with Federal requirements and basic commonsense guidelines, we may be abandoning the neediest children of this country, denigrating parents' rights, and abrogating our commitment to ensure that every child has the opportunity to obtain a quality education. In fact, the States' track record in ensuring that low-income students get their fair share of education funds is less than commendable. A March 2001 Education Trust study of education finance equity found that in 42 of 49 states there are substantial funding gaps between high and low- poverty school districts. The average gap for the Nation was $1,139 per year per student. That translates into a total of $455,600 for a typical elementary school of 400 students. The Performance Agreement pilot is also not a benign, limited demonstration project by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, if the Secretary selects the 7 most populous States and the 25 largest school districts, the number of students subject to Straight A's would be as high as 51 percent of the Nation's student population. For example, if the Secretary selects California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to participate in Straight A's, then, based on 1998 figures, approximately 23 million children would be subject to Straight A's. If the Secretary then chooses the 25 largest school districts in states other than those 7 states, then over 26 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 would be subject to Straight A's. Earlier this week I discussed this issue and my amendment, No. 537, which sought to limit this unproven, Straight A's experiment to States and districts that serve a combined student population of 10 percent of the total national student population. I believe we must have ample opportunity to review and analyze data regarding this program's effect and its impact on student achievement before we consider subjecting more than half of our Nation's children to this new and unproven initiative, and I will continue to pursue this issue of the scope and consequences of this ``demonstration project'' as we move forward into Conference. Another problem with this program is its impact on key existing and new parental involvement protections. During negotiations on the Performance Agreements, protections were added to ensure that some of the parental involvement requirements of title I would have to be followed. Unfortunately, those protections don't go far enough. Left unchanged, the bill would void large parts of the title I parent involvement requirements and other key parental involvement provisions that I, along with the National PTA, Chairman Kennedy, and others worked to include in this bill. The last thing we should do is adopt an education bill that reduces parent involvement and family rights. We should not put families in a position where they find themselves with fewer rights by virtue of the fact that the State or district in which they live has chosen to participate in this program. Every other initiative to provide flexibility to States and districts, including Ed-Flex, has put parent involvement provisions off limits, and this bill should too, and I will continue efforts to address this issue to ensure that we protect, rather than weaken, parental involvement as S. 1 moves to Conference. Our Nation's parents deserve nothing less. Today, we live in a challenging, international economic order, and students from Rhode Island are not just competing with students from Mississippi and California; they are all competing against the very best and brightest around the globe. That requires investment. It requires raising our standards and giving every child a chance to reach those standards to ensure that we have the best-educated workforce that is competitive in a global economy. If the education of our young people is truly the No. 1 domestic priority in the United States, as the President claims, then we must put our money where our mouth is. Unfortunately, we have not seen the administration come forward and pledge the kind of resources necessary to achieve any real reform. Instead, we are in danger of having a risky testing scheme and no accountability without the resources to make it all work. While I support this bill and the significant reforms we have passed, I will continue to work vigorously to ensure that we provide every child with the opportunity to achieve a world-class education.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senator from Connecticut for his amendment and for his passion. He is exactly right. He is focusing on a very important program, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. I speak not theoretically but from experience. About 2 weeks ago I went to Central Falls, RI, the poorest community in my State, a community so poor that the school system has been taken over by the State of Rhode Island. I was there because they were announcing the opening of a support center that would integrate all the services necessary today to effectively deal with the education of a child. It was located right next to one of the elementary schools. It would be open to parents and provide the resources and services necessary, health care services, screening services. This initiative was sponsored by the United Way of Rhode Island. The good news, it is spreading from Central Falls to other communities in Rhode Island, starting next with Providence, our biggest city. At the core of this initiative: A grant for the 21st century learning program from Federal education. This grant helped the United Way move forward and provided additional momentum, the thrust to go forward with this. That is an example of how this program has materially affected the education of students in Rhode Island. Central Falls is the poorest community, heavily Latino, with new Americans coming in. It needs all sorts of services that you don't typically find the extra dollars in the budget to deal with. And the 21st century grant provided the additional necessary resources. That is an example of how we can make a real difference. This 21st century learning program has made that real difference. The Senator from Connecticut is so right, we are sacrificing this ability to go ahead and make these critical differences, inspiring local participation of the United Way, combined activities, doing what we all say we want to do--bring the whole community into the education of children. The risk of a block grant is that these priorities will fall by the wayside. A school district that is faced with paying salaries, fixing buildings, everything else, will say: I would love to do this. This is exactly what we have to do, but we don't have the resources to do it. I commend the Senator. Let me suggest two other areas with respect to the Straight A's program that I think are very important. First, the program is being presented as a pilot program. The reality is, if you do the mathematics, and if you take seven States, such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and then you take the 25 largest school districts outside of those states, Straight A's could potentially apply to about 51 percent of the students in the country. That is a rather significant amount of children subject to this pilot program. We have to be very clear that this program could be far from a pilot, that within a year or so we could see 51 percent of the students of America subject to this block grant program, magnifying all of the concerns expressed by Senator Dodd of Connecticut and others. Let's be very clear, this is a pilot, but the pilot is flying a stealth aircraft. We could find ourselves not with a pilot program to evaluate, but in the midst of a widespread, significant change in public policy in the United States. I originally filed amendment No. 537 to try to truly restrict this to a pilot program, but I think, because of many factors, this is a discussion that will probably take place in conference, as the House version comes over without the widespread application that is potentially in this bill. One other point about Straight A's: I have been insistent on getting parental involvement in this legislation. With the cooperation of Senator Gregg and Senator Hutchinson and everyone on the committee, we have made real strides. But unfortunately, some of those parental involvement protections would not have to be followed in Straight A's states and districts. I filed amendment No. 399 to ensure that those other parental involvement requirements of S. 1 would have to be followed, such as various provisions of section 1118, and other provisions throughout S. 1 which require parental involvement, including teacher quality and safe and drug free schools. I would hate to see the parental involvement provisions go by the wayside because of a block grant approach. I don't want to get involved in an extended debate over each of the parental involvement provisions right now, and will not offer this amendment, but will continue to address these issues as S. 1 moves to Conference. Let me return to the issue at hand and conclude. Senator Dodd's amendment is well placed, well stated. This is about practical improvement of schools. I have seen this improvement in Rhode Island. We will lose it if we go to a block grant. If you ask yourself what is wrong with American education, one of the things that has been wrong is that the governance of education for too many years has ignored problems that have festered--poor professional development, poor infrastructure, many things such as that. Who are these people? They are the Governors, the school committees, and the Congress. But what we propose to do in a block grant is to reinforce this lack of performance, this turning over of the keys and keep doing what you are doing. I suggest there is a middle ground between a block grant program and micromanagement. One example of how that works successfully is the 21st century learning centers. I hope we can maintain that. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Gregg-Hutchinson amendment which authorizes a voucher program for private schools for 7 years, encompassing 10 cities and 3 States. I don't believe this is an appropriate educational policy we should be pursuing. Our first and foremost commitment should be to strengthen and improve reform of public education. Frankly, as we go forward with the constrained resources, that primary challenge will be difficult to achieve. Dissipating funds for vouchers for private schools to me is not the appropriate response to a crisis in public education in the United States. For over 30 years, the Federal Government has made a commitment to help the students of America throughout the public education system. Particularly, we have committed to ensuring that low-income students are given a chance to succeed. We have created reforms over the last several years to help improve the learning environment and ensure a vigorous public education. Back in 1994 we streamlined reform of the title I program and other Federal programs. The thrust, the purpose, the constant theme is how we can help, working with the States and localities, to improve public education to ensure that every family in America has an opportunity to send their children to excellent, free, public schools. This amendment takes us off that track, off that purpose. It would not improve public education in the United States. It would not respond to the need for safe schools, quality teachers, smaller classes, buildings that are well repaired and well maintained, or greater parental involvement. It would not ensure that all students reach high academic standards. It diverts scarce Federal resources from the public schools, our first and foremost priority. And it does so at a time when the massive tax cut that has just been passed weakens our ability to respond to the overwhelming needs of public education throughout this country. As a result, I do not believe we should engage in this policy endeavor. In a world of finite resources, we have to be careful and conscious of our obligations to public education and our foremost responsibility, to ensure that public education is well served. There are proponents of this legislation who say this amendment is really about giving families a choice. I do not believe this really is an issue of choice. Realistically, this amendment will never reach all the children in all the failing schools. So we know, even if this amendment is adopted and accepted, there will be children left behind in failing schools. That is not a choice for parents. It seems to me, then, that we have to go back to our initial purpose, which is to try to improve every school in this country so no parent has to keep their children in a public school that is not performing. We need to give parents real choice, and we do not deal with the issue of choice by dissipating resources, by inviting some children to go to private schools and leaving others behind. We do it by confronting our responsibilities to reform each and every public school in this country. There are other issues that complicate this approach to choice. First, giving a voucher to a family for their child does not ensure that child can go to the school the family chooses. Frankly, the nature of private education is they exclude students. They exclude students because they are not smart enough. They exclude students because they just do not fit in with their approach to education. They exclude students because, frankly, they are difficult or have discipline problems. Public education cannot do that. Public education has to be inclusive. Public education has to reach out and embrace every child-- those who are difficult and those who are honor students. So this approach to reform fails on one other principal ground. We are not giving every family the full range of choice because private schools will exclude again and again and again. That is the nature of being a private enterprise. That, in some respects, some might argue, is one of their strengths. They can ensure all the children are part of their patent, that they fit in. That is not a luxury, frankly, that public education has. We have to recognize that. So this argument of choice is not something I think really carries the day. Also, there are other issues. If we do embark on a voucher program such as this, it will invariably raise issues of the rights of parents to demand entry to these private schools. It will raise issues of whether or not it is conscionable to exclude these children, who now have public funds, from these schools. So there may be many in the private education community who would like to see this development, but they might, when it becomes, or if it becomes, a reality, think otherwise. There are many things we have to do to ensure the education of the young people in America is excellent. We have to raise standards. We have to improve the professional development of teachers in public education. We have to enhance the ability of our schools to embrace and bring parents into the school system. We have to ensure that the buildings, the very buildings that children occupy, are places where they feel comfortable in terms of security and safety, in terms of just the feeling of being in a place that is esteemed enough to have the floors clean, the ceilings fixed, all the facilities working. There are too many schools in America that fail that test. There are too many schools that do not have the appropriate programs to involve parents. There are too many schools that are not conscious of doing their best--too many public schools in this country. That is where our attention must lie. That is where our focus must lie. That is the purpose for which we come here--to ensure every public school in this country offers the families of America excellent, free, public education. To embark on this approach of vouchers for private education is a mistake. It dissipates our resources. It also does not truly give the families of America choice. There are today, within the public system, more and more opportunities for parents to choose among different schools within that public school system. There is the recognition that public systems simply cannot stand pat any longer, they have to improve the quality of education, they have to reach out to teachers and parents and the community at large to restore trust, to rebuild not just the physical structure of the school, but also the educational scope and commitment to excellence of all schools. That is their job. We can help, not by providing vouchers for private education, but by funding and authorizing programs that will require, and insist, that every public school in this country meets the standards of excellence. I hope we will do this. I hope we will reject this amendment and get on with the business of the education bill before us and make a real commitment to public education. Mr. President, I will yield the floor, but on behalf of Senator Kennedy, at this time I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Care Quality Incentive Act of 2001, which seeks to provide incentive grants to improve the quality of child care in this country. The child care system in this country is in crisis; the need for affordable and accessible high quality child care far exceeds the supply. As long as an estimated 14 million children under age six, including six million infants and toddlers, spend some part of every day in child care, the availability of quality programs and settings will continue to be a serious issue facing this Nation. With full-day child care costing as much as $4,000 to $10,000 per year, per child, and with Federal assistance severely limited, many working families cannot afford quality child care. For low-income families with young children, the cost of child care can consume anywhere from 25 to 45 percent of their monthly income. And the demand for all types of child care is likely to increase, as maternal employment continues to rise, as well as the need to meet the requirements of welfare reform. At the same time the need for care is growing, we must focus on the quality of care provided for our children. Many studies, including research findings from the National Institute for Child Health and Development, show that quality early care and education leads to increased cognitive abilities, positive classroom learning behavior, an increased likelihood of long-term school success, and consequently, a greater likelihood of long-term and social self- sufficiency. High quality child care not only prepares children for school, it helps them succeed in life. We must therefore be more diligent in our efforts to improve the quality of child care in this country. Quality of care means providing a safe, healthy environment for our children; well-trained providers; good staff-to-child ratios so staff can interact with the children in a developmental setting; low staff turnover that fosters a sense of security for the children; and age- appropriate activities that enhance learning. When we look at the quality of our current system, the findings are appalling. A study of Federal, nonprofit, for-profit, and in-home child care settings conducted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission found that two-thirds of these child care settings had at least one major safety hazard. The study documented at least 56 deaths among children in child care settings since 1990, and reported that in 1997, 31,000 children ages four and younger received emergency room treatment for injuries in child care centers or schools. Another study in four States found that only 1 in 7 child care centers provide care that promotes healthy development, while 1 in 8 child care centers provide care that actually threatens the safety and health of children. The results of a very recent study conducted by the Center for the Child Care Workforce are also startling. It finds that the child care industry is losing well-educated teaching staff and administrators at an alarming rate and hiring replacement teachers with less training and education. This study, conducted over a six-year period from 1994 to 2000, found that 76 percent of the teaching staff employed in the centers surveyed in 1996, and 82 percent of those working in the centers in 1994 were no longer on the job in 2000. And of those teaching staff who left, nearly half had completed a bachelor's degree, compared to only one-third of the new teachers who replaced them. Furthermore, the study found that director turnover rates were exceedingly high, contributing to staff instability. Teaching staff and directors reported that high turnover among their colleagues negatively affected their ability to do their jobs. We frequently hear of the critical shortage of qualified elementary and secondary school teachers. In contrast, the staffing crisis in early care barely registers in the public awareness, but is equally important and worthy of our attention. The inability of many child care centers to offer competitive salaries is a serious obstacle to attracting and retaining qualified staff. Despite recognition that higher wages contribute to greater staff stability, compensation for the majority of teaching positions has not kept pace with the cost of living over the last six years. Wages, when adjusted for inflation, have actually decreased six percent for day care teaching staff, and K-12 teachers earn up to twice as much as child care providers with equivalent education and experience. At present, there is little economic incentive to begin or continue a career in child care. Researchers have consistently found that the cornerstone of quality child care is the presence of sensitive, consistent, well-trained and well-compensated caregivers. Yet many centers are unable to provide children with even this most essential component of early care. This high rate of safety hazards and unstable workforce results significantly from low payment or reimbursement rates for the provision of child care. Prior to October 1996, states were required to make payments to (or subsidize) child care providers based on the 75th percentile of the market rate, or the level at which parents can afford 75 out of 100 local providers. However, with the passage of welfare reform legislation, this requirement, which had not been effectively enforced in the first place, completely vanished. Currently, federal Child Care Development Fund regulations require states to conduct market rate surveys every other year, but there is no requirement for States to actually use the market rate surveys to set payment rates. Indeed, according to a February 1998 report by the Department of Health and Human Services, 29 out of the 50 States and the District of Columbia did not make payment rates that were based on the 75th percentile of the current market rate, often asserting that budget constraints prevented them from doing so. Furthermore, a January 1998 General Accounting Office report noted that while states conduct biennial market surveys, some set reimbursement rates based on older surveys. And when States set reimbursement rates significantly lower than actual costs, child care choices for families become severely limited. When States set low rates or fail to update rates, they force working families into a difficult dilemma, they must either place their children into lower cost, lower quality child care programs that will accept the State subsidy or come up with extra dollars to supplement the State subsidy and buy better quality child care. The Children's Defense Fund, in a March 1998 report entitled, ``Locked Doors: States Struggling to Meet the Child Care Needs of Low- Income Working Families,'' noted that when rates are set below the market rate, child care providers are forced to cut corners ``in ways that lower the quality of care for children.'' And when rates fall below the real cost of providing care, child care providers who do not choose to reduce staff or lower salaries and benefits, allow physical conditions to deteriorate, forgo educational book, toy, and equipment purchases, may simply not accept children with subsidies, or may go out of business. These dilemmas can be avoided if we help States set payment rates that keep up with the market. Recently, Rhode Island and many other States celebrated the sixth annual national Provider Appreciation Day, which presented us with an opportunity to honor one of the most under-recognized and under- compensated professions. I am therefore pleased to be joined by Senator Chris Dodd, a leader in improving child care, along with Senators Kennedy, Murray, Kerry, and Corzine in introducing the Child Care Quality Incentive Act, which seeks to redouble our child care efforts and renew the child care partnership with the states by providing incentive funding for States to increase payment rates. Our legislation establishes a new, mandatory pool of funding under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. This new funding, coupled with mandatory, current market rate surveys, will form the foundation for significant increases in state payment rates for the provision of quality child care. Increasing payment rates for the provision of child care is the key to quality. Better payment rates lead to higher quality child care as child care providers are able to attract and retain qualified staff, maintain a safe and healthy environment, and purchase age-appropriate educational materials. At the same time, increased payment rates expand the number of choices parents have in finding quality child care, as providers are able to accept children whose parents had previously been unable to afford the cost of care. While there is currently money available through the CCDBG that may be spent for quality initiatives, most states opt to expand availability of care rather than focus on quality. This bill allows funding to be used only for quality initiatives. We have received overwhelming support for this bill from the child care community, including endorsements from USA Child Care, the Children's Defense Fund, Catholic Charities of USA, YMCA of USA, the National Child Care Association, and a host of organizations and agencies across the country. Children are the hope of America, and they need the best of America. We cannot ask working families to choose between paying the rent, buying food, and being able to afford the quality care their children need. We've made a lot of progress in improving the health, safety, and well-being of children in this country. But as we approach the 21st century, we need to do more. If we are serious about putting parents to work and protecting children, we must invest more in child care help for families. Our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, our children, deserve better from us. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Murray, Kerry, Corzine, and me in this endeavor to improve the quality of child care by cosponsoring the Child Care Quality Incentive Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent we now go into a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes, with the exception of Senator Murray, who wishes 15 minutes, and Senator Feingold for 15 minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Wellstone amendment and a strong supporter of the amendment. I believe what Senator Wellstone is doing is calling our collective bluff. We talk about high standards, high accountability for every school in America. We talk about not leaving any child behind. We talk about authorizing significant amounts of money for title I. In fact, we have all come together, 79 of us, to vote for a substantial increase in title I spending--authorization, not appropriation, under the leadership of Senator Dodd and Senator Collins. What he is saying is, if we are all in favor, if we have all voted for it, let's make sure we do it. Let's make sure we do it in conjunction with the testing, not after the fact, not testing first, money later. Let's do it together. That is very wise public policy. It reflects what we have all been talking about for weeks and weeks now. I have heard in the course of the debate analogies to other realms of endeavor, talking about the efficacy, the importance of testing. We know testing is important. There is no one in the Senate who does not recognize that if you test students to see if they are making progress, you have to evaluate the test scores of schools to see if they are adequate. No one is arguing with that logic. Let's look at, for example, a medical situation. If you showed up in one hospital, you would get the same test as another hospital across town. But in one hospital, you are discovered to have a serious heart problem. They don't have a lot of money, so they give you some chewing gum. The other hospital across town has lots of money, so they give you beta blockers and all sorts of exercise counseling, nutrition, everything under the sun. You are besieged by counselors and therapists, people organizing your life so that you can deal effectively with this discovery. It is the same test, however, with much different results. Senator Wellstone is arguing, we will have those tests, but we want the same results. Frankly, it is about money. It is about resources. The difference, as he pointed out so well, between the performance of students on tests is inextricably, invariably linked to the income levels of those students and, as a result, the income levels of those schools. We all know the basic source of funding for public education in the United States is the property tax. Inner cities with declining property values put less into their programs than affluent suburbs. The reality is, if we really want the system to work, if we want the tests to work, to do more than just identifying failure, if we want to guarantee success, we have to put these resources in. That is the heart of the amendment. I have also heard--and we hear this every time we engage in a debate on education--we are doing so much worse compared to other countries, particularly European countries. We very well may be. The answer, however, might not be testing. The answer might be having a comprehensive health care system for every child. It might be to have a program of daycare for every child, a very elaborate parental leave program for every family. Maybe if we did those things, our test scores would look very good relative to France or Germany or Great Britain or other countries. So be very careful and wary of these comparisons internationally. We know that we can improve the quality of our education if we have accountability, and that requires some testing. But we also should know and recognize, as Senator Wellstone does, that accountability in testing without real resources won't make the difference we want to achieve. That is not unique to Senator Wellstone. A recent Aspen Institute report noted: In the effort to raise the achievement of all American students, an extremely serious barrier is the huge disparities in resources for education across districts and states. It is not unusual for per student expenditures to be three times greater in affluent districts than in poorer districts of the same state. That accounts for many of the reasons why some students succeed and others fail. The real test, in fact the essence of democracy in America, is not what we say but where we send our children to school. Many parents recognize that when they purchase homes in areas that have good public schools versus those areas that are not funded as robustly. Now, in addition, the Center for Education Policy concludes, in a recent report, that policymakers ``should be wary of proposals that embrace the rhetoric of closing the gap but do not help build the capacity to accomplish that goal.'' Testing is just one aspect of that capacity building. We have to have good professional development, good parental involvement, and resources so that the school building itself is a place that children will want to go to and not try to shun and leave as quickly as they can. The Wellstone amendment is very straightforward. It simply states that the new tests authorized under title I need not be implemented unless title I appropriations have reached $24.72 billion by 2005. That was the amount authorized by the Dodd-Collins amendment for the year the tests are scheduled to go into effect, also 2005. This amendment has widespread support: The American Association of School Administrators, the Council of Great City Schools, the Hispanic Education Coalition, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the NAACP, the National Association of Black School Educators, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association, the National PTA, and the National School Boards Association--all of these groups representing those individuals closest to the issue of education. The school boards, the PTAs, they recognize the logic and the wisdom of the Wellstone amendment. I hope we can recognize that logic, that we can support this amendment. And, frankly, if our intentions are good, and I believe they are, this amendment will be merely hortatory. If our intentions are good, we will appropriate the money. We will reach those targets. Testing will go into effect. But if it is the intention or the mishap that we vote for testing but we don't vote for resources to title I, then rather than ruing that day, we should vote for this amendment and provide a real check. I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back my time to Senator Wellstone.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. I make that request now pending the decision as to when a vote will be scheduled.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from New Hampshire. He is exactly right. We have to be very careful about picking our shots with respect to Federal policy and recognize the predominance of the State and local community in education policy. Essentially, we have already made that decision. We made it years ago in the structure of title I. We passed laws requiring parent-school compacts, we required a whole host of parental involvement issues, because we recognized, as we do today, parental involvement is absolutely critical. It was not being performed, it was not being incorporated into the life of the schools, as it should be. The question today is, Are we going to simply once again engage in a more general rhetorical exercise, or are we going to put up real resources? I guess we could go into these title I schools, the quarter of them that have not yet even completed, after 4 years, their parent- school compact, and perhaps order them to do it. Perhaps we could threaten to remove funds. That, to me, is not helping accomplish what we want to accomplish, which is making sure that these legislative requirements are, in fact, in place in the schools of the United States. The answer is providing them the resources to do what they want to do and what we want them to do but, because of conflicting priorities, are not being done. In affluent communities, that typically don't have many title I students, for a variety of reasons--one spouse is not working and is at home and able to participate; it is not difficult to communicate with schools because of the existence of the Internet; because the parents are college graduates--there are a host of reasons that we find there is parental involvement. Our challenge is to go where it is harder to get the parental involvement: Parents may not have English as a first language or be college graduates; parents may not be a couple; rather, a single parent; parents might be forced to move periodically throughout the school year from school to school. It is a difficult challenge. We recognize that, and we have for years. We have said: Listen, schools, you have to develop these plans, these compacts. You have to reach out, you have to do better. In this legislation, and the work of Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Gregg, we have incorporated even more the recognition of parental involvement in our schools. The question we face today, the classic question, is: Will we match our words with dollars? Will we match our requirements on schools to accept title I funds with real dollars to do what we want to do? I hope we answer that question in the affirmative. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 431.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to help parents meaningfully become involved in the education of their children. We all believe--every individual in this Chamber--that parents are essential parts of the educational process. Our challenge is to translate that feeling and that rhetoric into real involvement by parents in the schools of America. We know that research has shown us that regardless of economic or ethnic or cultural background, parental involvement is a major factor in the academic success of children. Parental involvement contributes to better grades, better test scores, higher homework completion rates, better attendance, and greater discipline. When parental involvement is a priority in a school, those schools do exceptionally well. It improves not only the performance of children, it improves staff moral, and it creates and helps engender a climate where educational excellence is the norm, not the exception. We know this through research and through our own observations. Parents themselves have declared invariably in survey after survey that their participation in the school is critical to the success of their children. A 1999 American Association of School Administrators nationwide survey found that 96 percent of parents believe that parental involvement is critical for students to succeed in school. Eighty-four percent believe in parental involvement so strongly that they are willing to require such involvement on a mandatory basis. However, in the midst of all of this support--our observations, the research, and the expression of parents themselves--parental involvement is something that is not found frequently enough in our schools. Over 50 percent of the parents surveyed thought that schools were not doing enough to inform them, not doing enough to involve them. In fact, they felt they didn't even have basic information about their children's studies and the issues confronting their children's school. A recent bipartisan survey sponsored by the National Education Association ranked the lack of parental involvement in children's education as the No. 1 problem in schools today. We understand that this is a critical issue. The finding of the NEA was echoed recently by a poll cited in a Democratic Leadership Council Update from December, 2000. This newsletter pointed out that: Parental involvement is critical to the success of both individual students and their schools. It concluded that we must get serious about ``schooling'' parents and making sure that parents understand how they can access their schools and how critical it is that they be involved in the lives of their children and how important it is that they are a part of the educational process in a very real way. Now, to succeed in this endeavor, we have to work collaboratively with everybody. We have to get school administrators and teachers prepared to respond to parents. We have to get parents prepared to assume the responsibility of being a major force in the educational lives of their children. For many of us, this seems obvious. But that is not the case across the country. We should recognize that. We have to prepare in this legislation to make parents real partners in the education of their children. We need to train schools leaders, teachers, and parents; and we have to make the climate in schools welcoming to parents. All of these tasks require our support, encouragement, and our leadership. I am pleased to say the bill before us today contains many of the elements that will help us along this path to successful parental involvement. Many of these elements were included in legislation that I introduced earlier in the session called The Parent Act. These elements include ensuring that title I families can access information on their children's progress in terms they can understand--not education-speak, not technical jargon, but in terms they can all understand. It would also involve parents in school support teams that would help turn failing schools around--recognizing that they, too, are part of the education of their children. It would also require technical assistance for title I schools and districts that are having problems implementing parental involvement programs. Again, we think this is obvious, easy, simple. But when you go into a typical school today, you have problems such as transient populations, people coming into this country from other lands where English is not the first language, and a host of other problems-- schools have to be better prepared to involve the parents. The legislation before us would also authorize, indeed require, the collection and dissemination by the States of information about effective parental involvement programs. We know the models work, and we want them disseminated across the full spectrum of schools in the United States. The legislation would require involvement by parents in the violence and drug prevention efforts because we know that is a critical part of the challenge today in many schools across the country. It would also require an annual review by States and districts to look at the parental involvement and professional development activities for the school to ensure that these activities are effective, and that teachers are being trained to involve parents, and that the involvement efforts are working. Finally, it would require each local educational agency to make available to parents an annual report card which explains whether schools are succeeding or not. These very meritorious initiatives are included in the legislation. So I come today to say we have made some progress working together with my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. But I believe we can do more, and I believe we must do more. We are raising the stakes dramatically in schools throughout this country by requiring every child in grades 3-8 to take annual tests. When we raise the stakes, we also have to recognize that we have to do more to make sure these children have an opportunity--a real opportunity--to succeed and to pass these examinations. My amendment, quite simply, would build on an existing structure of law and increase the revenue stream going to schools so they can actually implement these parental involvement programs. They can move from rhetoric to real practice, from sentiment to accomplishment. I hope that is what we can do today with respect to this amendment. Already, title I of the existing legislation--legislation that has been on the books for years now--in section 1118, requires districts all across this country to develop written parental involvement policies and requires schools to develop school-parent compacts. It also requires that schools hold annual meetings for parents, and it would require that parents be involved in school review and improvement policies. That is the law today, but the reality is not enough schools are doing this because the funds are not there because other priorities, as they always seem to, intrude. Districts are actually required to spend 1 percent of their title I allotment for the purposes I just discussed--school compact preparation, annual meeting with parents, involvement in school reviews--unless that 1 percent amounts to less than $5,000. In many school districts, this 1 percent is less than $5,000. In fact, in Rhode Island, 25 out of my 34 school districts are not required to spend any money because the total would be less than $5,000. As a result, this legislative standard is seldom achieved. In fact, 4 years after they were required by law, a quarter of the title I schools throughout the United States have not yet developed a school-parent compact. As Secretary Paige testified--and he came from the Houston school system after working there and doing his best to improve and reinvigorate that school system--he indicated at the confirmation hearing that ``increased assistance will be needed''--his words--to enhance parental involvement. We know what we want to do. We actually improved the legislative framework in this legislation, but we have to provide more assistance. My amendment, which is strongly supported by the National PTA, does not add to these mandates, but what it does is add resources. It gives localities flexibility. It does not require what is in the school- parent compact, it does not tell them there is only one method to contact the parent, but what it says is we are serious. We are not just going to talk about parental involvement. We are going to give them the means to involve parents. I believe this is a very powerful way to enhance education, and certainly it is a concept that no one here would argue against. The question comes down to, in my mind, Will we give these schools the resources to do the job we want them to do? My amendment provides the resources so parents can get more involved, as recommended by the Independent Review Panel in the Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I. We will adopt legislation that emphasizes accountability, but accountability without the resources to do many things, including involve parents, is not going to improve the educational process of the United States. My amendment is critical to ensuring that we can develop a coordinated focus that works in the schools for parental involvement. It elevates parental involvement from something nice to do and maybe something you want to do if the money is available to something you can and should do because the language is clear and the resources are available. I strongly hope my colleagues will support this amendment and give to the schools of America the resources to do what we all want them to do: improve the education of children by involving parents, by ensuring that the parent as the first teacher does not surrender that critical role when that child enters school. I will at the appropriate time ask for the yeas and nays when it is judged to be in order. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, last evening, the Senate of the United States confirmed MG William J. Lennox, Jr., of the U.S. Army, to be the 56th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point. General Lennox is an extraordinary officer and gentleman. I have known him for a long time. In July of 1967, we entered West Point together. He proceeded through West Point and for 30 years he has been an extraordinary soldier. He represents the very best of what our Army is all about. He is a soldier and he is a scholar, but he is a soldier first. He was commissioned in field artillery and served in various demanding assignments from platoon leader, battery commander, executive officer of the 2d Battalion, 41st Field Artillery in Germany; Deputy Commanding General to the U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and School at Fort Sill; Chief of Staff, III Corps at Fort Hood; and Assistant Chief Of Staff, United Nations Command for the United States Forces Korea. In his most recent assignment, General Lennox was the liaison for the Department of the Army to Congress. He has performed all of these duties in extraordinary fashion. Bill Lennox understands our Army is composed of the greatest soldiers in the world. He respects these soldiers. He has committed himself to lead these magnificent men and women with the same dedication, the same professionalism, the same fidelity to duty and country that these soldiers demonstrate every day. He is a great soldier, but he is also a distinguished scholar. Bill was assigned to the Department of English at the Military Academy after receiving a master's degree from Princeton University. He accomplished a remarkable feat while teaching English at West Point. While being active as an officer and professor at the Military Academy, he also obtained his Ph.D. from Princeton University in English. He is a rare combination of a great soldier and a real scholar. In fact, typical of the Army life, nothing is very easy. The day Bill was scheduled to take his final Ph.D. examination and present his oral defense was also the day that his family was moving from West Point to his next assignment. So as Bill was taking these exams, and after spending the week preparing not only for a demanding analysis of English literature but also a move, fortunately, his wife and his partner, Anne, had to pack up the house and get them moving. It illustrates something else that General Lennox brings to West Point. He has an extraordinary family. His wife Anne has not only played a large part in his life, but also a large role in his career. Their sons are extraordinarily talented young men. Together, Bill and Anne will represent to a whole generation of cadets, both male and female, the exemplar of what an Army family should be: committed, patriotic, and dedicated. They will ensure that cadets are conscious not only of their role as a professional members of the military service but also of their role as people and neighbors. Bill is following a distinguished predecessor, LTG Dan Christman. The United States Military Academy today has compiled a remarkable record. Dan has reinvigorated the Academy in terms of academic performance, physical infrastructure, and commitment to basic values that make our Military Academy and our Army a very special one indeed. I am confident that Bill Lennox can meet the very high standards established by Dan Christman and a whole succession of predecessors: people such as William Westmoreland, Douglas MacArthur, and Robert E. Lee. West Point has a very storied tradition and great legacy. Bill Lennox brings to that great tradition the character of a soldier and something else: Bill understands and appreciates that he is helping to train the leaders of the army of democracy; that unlike other countries around the world, we do not have a separate military caste. The men and women who lead our Army, the soldiers who man our Army come from every walk of life. They understand that they defend this great democracy, with all its contradictions, with all its unmet, untidy, and messy proceedings. They do it with great faith and great fidelity, with great competency and great patriotism. I am delighted and honored to be able to say a few words about my friend and the next Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. I am pleased to commend Bill Lennox for his career and to celebrate his new appointment. But I am also honored to convey to my colleagues not only deep respect and affection for Bill, but also the sense that our Army is producing and promoting an individual who recognizes what we do here is very important. As Superintendent of the United States Military Academy, he will ensure that this democracy will continue. Ultimately, it is not our weapons, but it is the brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States that allows this experiment in freedom and democracy to continue day in and day out. He will instill in a generation of cadets a deep devotion to the credo and core values of the Military Academy: duty, honor, country. He will do that because he has lived his life according to that credo of duty, Army, country. To Bill and Anne, good luck, Godspeed, go forward, and lead a right institution into this new century. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records of the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am in strong opposition to the tax cut bill that the Senate has been considering over the past few days. I am sorry to say that this legislation fails the basic tests of responsible government. It is fiscally irresponsible to use $1.35 trillion of the surpluses projected over the next 10 years to pay for a tax cut, since these estimated surpluses may never materialize. Even the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty in their forecasts. In fact, within the CBO's estimates, they suggest that even a 1 percent per year slower growth in GDP would reduce the 10-year surplus by $2.4 trillion. With that much uncertainty, this tax cut is too large and risks squandering the fiscal discipline that has been so hard fought and earned over the past several years. With these excessive revenue losses, we will certainly sacrifice our ability to adequately provide for critical programs in the areas of health care, education, the environment, transportation infrastructure, defense and further paying down of the national debt. Now, many of the supporters of this legislation also tout the theory that government should be run like a business. However, no chief executive of a corporation would allow dividends to be locked in for 10 years, when earnings forecasts are so unclear. In addition, no corporation would ever submit a budget that would have critical elements missing, such as is the case with defense spending in this budget. The tax cut also fails the test of responsible budgeting. The bill before the Senate is so backloaded that the full costs don't appear in the 10-year estimates provided by the Senate Finance Committee. Analysis by the CBO and the General Accounting Office, GAO, shows that the retirement of the baby boom generation will put enormous pressure on the budget starting a little over a decade from now. This is at the exact time when the full cost of the tax cut will be felt and will almost surely aggravate the deficits that many analysts expect to emerge at that point. Simply put, this bill is far more expensive than it appears. For example, 60 percent of the costs in the legislation don't occur until the second half of this decade. Some of the most expensive provisions, such as the full repeal of the estate tax, don't appear until the last year, so their real costs are truly masked. Other provisions expire in 5 years, such as Alternative Minimum Tax relief and tuition tax deduction, so their full cost is hidden. The effect of these sunset provisions also ensure that these issues will have to be considered again by a future Congress. Some analysts have also suggested that if all of the provisions in the bill were effective immediately, the full cost over ten years would likely be over $2 trillion, while the costs in the next ten years could exceed $4 trillion. Lastly, this legislation is a sham as it purports to include a complete tax package for the next decade, when realistically, many more tax items that are expiring shortly, otherwise known as ``extenders,'' will have to be added down the road. Again, far too much money is in play here while budgetary gimmicks and tricks are dictating the process. This tax cut is also markedly unfair. Cuts in marginal tax rates above the 15 percent bracket and repeal of the estate tax benefit a small group of taxpayers who have experienced remarkable growth in income and wealth over the past five years. However, the legislation appears to neglect one important group of people: those taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket. Although the proponents of this bill would suggest that most taxpayers are in the 28 percent bracket or higher, the facts are otherwise. Research by the Democratic staff of the Joint Economic Committee and the Budget Committee point out that an overwhelming majority of those who pay income tax are in the 15 percent bracket, close to 75 percent, and would get no benefit from the upper bracket rate cuts in this bill. Now, the bill does provide a tax cut for everyone who pays income tax by creating a new 10 percent tax bracket immediately, albeit a minuscule one for those in the lowest bracket. In addition, the bill makes the child credit refundable, and in a manner that reduces marginal tax rates for many working families with children. Both of those provisions are worthwhile and should in fact be expanded. Nonetheless, Citizens for Tax Justice, CTJ, has provided an analysis of the legislation's rate cuts, and many of its findings are disturbing, to say the least. Some of these include: the top one percent of all taxpayers, with income of $373,000 or more, would receive one-third of the entire tax cut; the top one percent would receive an average yearly tax cut of over $20,000, while the bottom 20 percent would receive an average yearly cut of $64; and the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, incomes ranging from $27,000 to $44,000, would receive 9 percent of the tax cut, an average of about $600 per year. One prominent example of the unfairness in this tax bill is the repeal of the estate tax. Supporters of this legislation perpetuate the myth that the estate tax is a ``death tax.'' The truth is that 98 percent of Americans face no tax liability under the estate tax when they die. In fact, the repeal of the estate tax takes away budget resources that could be used to pay down the debt and increase national saving, and it uses those resources to benefit a tiny group of very wealthy taxpayers. The effect on the Treasury will be astounding: although the Finance Committee estimates the estate tax portion of the bill to cost $146 billion over 10 years, because this provision is backloaded, the real costs will come after full repeal in 2011, costing almost $1 trillion over the next ten years. The impact on states will also be overwhelming. A majority of the states use a ``pickup'' system for their estate tax, whereby they essentially receive a portion of the Federal estate tax receipts. I know that in my State of Rhode Island, the estate tax accounted for $34.2 million in state revenue for fiscal year 2000. What can $34.2 million pay for? In fact, it can pay for 681 more police officers, or 729 more firefighters, or 575 more elementary school teachers. If the estate tax is repealed, States like Rhode Island will no doubt have to make up the shortfall in revenue by raising State taxes or cutting their budgets. Total State revenue loss when the estate tax is fully repealed could exceed $9 billion. Toward what end is this repeal aimed? In 1999, Rhode Island had 134 estates that were subject to the estate tax, 15 of which were estates of $5 million or more. That is out of a total of about 486,000 taxpayers. Although the numbers for other States will fluctuate based on their size, we are again talking about a very small proportion of our whole population. That is why I have supported an alternative that would reform, rather than repeal the estate tax system. By raising the tax exemption levels to $4 million for individuals and $8 million for couples, almost all family-owned farms and businesses will be erased from the estate tax rolls. However, the tax would remain on the largest estates that have the ability, and the responsibility, to pay for the enormous wealth they have been fortunate enough to acquire. To put things into perspective, the supporters of this bill and the Bush administration are hoping to pass a huge tax cut and increase military spending, while relying on rosy estimates of our economy 10 years down the line. Much of this debate recalls an earlier era during which Congress and the Reagan Administration attempted to do the same thing. Why are we rushing to pass a tax cut that is even more irresponsibly constructed than the 1981 tax cut; a tax cut which caused spiraling deficits and mounting debt in the 1980s and early 1990s? This bill takes the wrong approach and it is irresponsible. There is an approach we can take to provide meaningful and targeted tax relief to hard working American families, while ensuring that we have the resources to pay down the debt and invest more fully in our nation's environment, health care, education and other critical priorities. Sadly, the legislation before us rejects that balanced approach and embraces a policy which will threaten our prosperity and undermine our ability to respond to the needs of working American families.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this modification deals with my underlying amendment which would authorize funding for the acquisition of library books and library materials for our school libraries across the country. This original amendment I offered on behalf of myself and Senator Snowe, Senator Chafee, Senator Kennedy, and others. While I was debating the amendment initially, there was some concern raised by my colleague and friend, Senator Collins from Maine, that my amendment would in some way detract from the President's Reading First Initiative. I support that initiative and compliment both him and Senator Collins. It is focused on raising the literacy of our children across the country. It is an effort that has to be undertaken and I am pleased it is being undertaken. I want to make it clear that my proposed amendment to restore funding for school libraries is a complement to the President's program and not a subtraction from that program. The modification to the amendment does just that. It clarifies that what I am attempting to do is add to the Reading First Initiative and not subtract from it. My amendment will complement the President's initiative and Senator Collins' correcting amendment that were unanimously adopted last week in this Chamber. It will do that by providing an essential part of any literacy program, and that is high-quality reading material. The President's focus and Senator Collins' focus is improving the instruction with respect to reading skills and literacy in this country, which is an important goal. But it cannot be fully accomplished, the goal of having literate American students, without also having high-quality reading material. Most people understand this intuitively. It is one thing to teach the techniques of reading; it is something else to open up to children a realm of discovery and wonder and opportunity by having good, high-quality school libraries--we hope in every school in this country. I see my proposal as a very important component of the overall strategy of the Reading First Initiative. This is a proposal that would essentially allow local communities to receive Federal resources to acquire library materials: books and the materials necessary for a modern, up-to-date school library. It would give extraordinary flexibility and discretion to local communities because it would allow them to make the choice of what is the most appropriate material. It responds to an obvious need throughout this country and the need is chronic, and that is to provide for good school libraries. Unfortunately, if you travel throughout this country, if you go back to your home State, and you visit school libraries, most of those collections are out of date; most of those collections have not been renewed and have not been improved over many years. This is not because of the intentions or the wishes of local authorities. The reality is, library acquisitions are the type of program that can be put off year to year to deal with more pressing needs, and year 1 becomes year 2, which becomes year 3, and you find yourself, as we find ourselves in so many schools across this country, in a situation where the library is deplorable. We know that good libraries are connected to good literacy skills and, for the purpose of this legislation, good results on tests--both standardized tests and nonstandardized tests. The latest results in the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that from 1992 to the year 2000, reading scores have remained flat for fourth graders. One aspect of that finding is the fact that there are too many schools in this country where the library books are out of date and inadequate, in addition to problems with teaching the mechanics of reading. We have to solve both problems if we really want to see test results take off. As you find throughout the country, in looking at different studies, there is a clear indication that well-stocked, modern, up-to-date school libraries contribute directly to success on achievement tests. And that seems obvious to most people because libraries are the places which will have the information, but are also attractive to young people. They will want to go to the library because it is modern, up to date, interesting, exciting--all the things we want education to be in this country. One of the reasons why school libraries are in such poor condition is the lack of dedicated funding. In the beginning of our efforts to improve elementary and secondary education in 1965, in the confines of the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we provided for specific funding for school libraries. However, several years later, we rolled all of this funding into one block grant, title VI. As a result, the commitment to libraries, because of local pressures to spend on other endeavors, has resulted in a situation across the country of very poor school libraries. We can do better. When we improve school libraries, as I indicated before, we improve the performance of students. It has been found in one study that for every school, in every grade level, in which there was a strong school library and strong school library services, there were improvements in test scores regardless of social and economic factors in the particular community. This study was conducted in States such as Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Alaska. So it is not a regional effect; it is not an urban effect versus a rural effect; it is the effect of good libraries in the schools. These findings echo earlier findings which found that students in schools with well-equipped libraries and staff performed better on achievement tests for reading comprehension and basic research skills. Interestingly enough, the President has appointed, as his nominee for Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, Dr. Susan Neuman. Dr. Neuman, a professor at Temple University, is a nationally renowned expert in early literacy development. She has written about the importance of books in developing and enhancing the literacy skills of children. Dr. Neuman wrote an article in the Reading Research Quarterly entitled ``Books Make A Difference: A Study of Access to Literacy.'' She talked about a literacy program in Pennsylvania childcare centers and concluded that access to books matters and is critical for early literacy; children exposed to books outperformed a control group on every measure of early literacy abilities. That is the distinguished individual who has been nominated by President Bush to be the key individual with respect to elementary and secondary education. Through her academic research, she has concluded that access to high-quality library material--books and other materials--is critical to literacy. I think that is a compelling argument that my initiative today will complement the President's approach to literacy training through our schools in this country. As I said, if you go through the school libraries of America today, the books are terribly out of date. I could rattle off another litany of arcane books that are inaccurate, politically incorrect, stereotypical, out of date, that talk about the fact that someday we might land on the Moon. But I believe most people at this point understand that because you have been in your communities; you have looked at your schools; you have been in schools where the library is an old closet or it is at the end of a hallway that is not being used. You have been in schools where you can take books off the shelves and the copyright is 1967. In fact, some of them are still stamped: ``Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,'' indicating from where they originally came. So we can do better. We have to particularly do better when it comes to disadvantaged students because we know this is one of the particular burdens urban school systems and poorer rural school systems bear. That is where the resources do not filter down into the library. If what we are asking and demanding is that these young, low-income, disadvantaged children do well on tests, then we have to give them the tools to do that job--not just training in literacy but give them the books that will allow them to practice what they have been taught and open up worlds of excitement and information and knowledge to them. That is what I hope my bill can do. We are going to, I hope and believe, train these teachers because of the President's initiative. But without the books to complement that training, I do not know if in fact we are going to make the progress we need to make. We also understand this is a burden that is increasingly more difficult for local communities to bear. The price of an average school library book today is about $16. Yet it has been estimated that across the country the average amount of money expended per pupil on library material is $6.75 in elementary schools, $7.30 in middle schools, and $6.25 in high schools. And that is an average. I think you can understand there are some wealthy communities that are spending more, but there are a lot of very poor communities. So we can help. It is important, I believe, to help. We want to go ahead and ensure that our children have excellent instruction in literacy but also excellent access to books so that they can in fact be literate, not just during the schoolday but throughout the day, not just as students but we hope as lifelong learners. My amendment will, I hope, do that. It would provide $500 million in funding support for school libraries. It would not take away any resources from the President's Reading First Initiative. It also would target the funding to the poorest schools because we know that is the greatest need. We know that is where the library budget is usually close to zero. We know there we can make a difference--and we should make a difference. It would provide great flexibility to these schools. There would be no standardized issue of books from Washington or elsewhere. It would allow local communities to make decisions about what they purchase. It would allow them to use these resources to train library specialists. And it would also establish, we hope, or inspire resource-sharing initiatives as exist in Ohio and Rhode Island, so that school libraries could be linked to academic libraries and to public libraries, to broaden the reach of the library program in each school. It would also allocate funding on a formula basis to school districts, so that all needy districts and schools get the assistance they need to improve their libraries. I believe it is very important to adopt this amendment in the context of this reauthorization. This bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Chafee, Bingaman, Wellstone, Murray, Clinton, Sarbanes, Johnson, Baucus, Levin, Reid of Nevada, Rockefeller, Durbin, Dayton, and Schumer. It is supported by the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers, and a wide array of educational organizations. It is a bipartisan amendment. Let me again, for the record, reiterate several points. My proposal does not create a separate standalone program. It incorporates school library acquisition funding as a component of the Reading First Program. This approach is as old as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. In 1965, when we first committed ourselves at the national level to help elementary and secondary schools, an important part of that commitment was helping school libraries directly to acquire books and library material. I know there is a desire to consolidate many programs, but we have seen, at least in the case of the library program, where this consolidation has led to a diminution of resources for school libraries. If we are serious about literacy, we have to enhance the resources for school libraries. So I urge that this amendment be adopted. I urge that we get on with the great task before us of ensuring that every child has access to excellent instruction in reading and also excellent books to read. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) is absent attending a funeral. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) would vote ``aye.''

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Maine not only for her gracious statement and her support but also for her leadership on the Reading First Literacy Program, the President's program. As we all know, last week unanimously we adopted her amendment which focused and refined the President's proposal. I believe, as Senator Collins believes, that a complement to that program is the program that I am supporting today, which would allow local communities to acquire library materials for their school libraries. I thank her very much for her cooperation, her leadership, and her collaboration on this effort. Mr. President, let me just emphasize what my amendment, as modified-- working closely with Senator Collins--would do. It is designed to complement the President's approach to literacy, to improve reading so that those improvements in reading can be translated to better academic performance and better performance throughout a person's entire life. It gives flexibility to the States. It authorizes $500 million. It is a targeted program going to the poorest schools because that is where the greatest need is. It allows local communities the flexibility to decide what library materials they need for their school libraries. It is a bipartisan effort. I am so delighted to have been joined at this point by Senator Collins, along with Senator Snowe and Senator Chafee, and many colleagues. It is an amendment that is supported by the American Library Association and the Association of American Publishers. It is important to note, as was suggested by my colleague, Senator Collins, what the amendment does not do. It does not preempt or distort the President's program, the Reading First Initiative. It is not a new program or a separate program. It is part of America First, and is as old as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In 1965, the first time this Congress spoke out decisively to help local schools, a large part of that was direct funding for school libraries. In fact, those books, in some cases, are still on the shelves today. Interestingly, the President has appointed Dr. Susan Neuman as his nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Her research shows that books are important. In fact, she published an article in ``Reading Research Quarterly,'' the title of which is, ``Books Make A Difference: A Study of Access to Literacy.'' My amendment could properly be subtitled: ``Books Make A Difference.'' We have a strong program for reading instruction, for literacy, championed by Senator Collins, but books make a difference. We can make that difference by supporting the Reed amendment. Again, the President has entrusted Dr. Neuman with the implementation of this literacy program. I hope that she would echo today my comments here and say: Once again, books do make a difference. I hope that when the roll is called in just a few moments we will have strong bipartisan support for this amendment which will allow local communities to acquire the materials they need so their children--every child in this country--can succeed. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve whatever time I have. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I will reiterate the importance of this amendment and summarize it. But I also understand that the Senator from Maine is here, and I am delighted and honored to yield 1 minute to her.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the endeavors of the citizens and Town Council of Westerly, RI, in establishing and promoting Neighbor Day. Neighbor Day is an opportunity to learn more about others in our communities. It is also a celebration of friendship, civility, peace and cooperation. Since 1993, when a dispute between two teenagers left one youth dead and another charged with murder, Westerly has celebrated Neighbor Day in an effort to prevent similar tragedies at home and throughout the world. Westerly's tradition has been adopted throughout my state. The Rhode Island General Assembly in 1999 designated the Sunday before Memorial Day as Neighbor Day for annual statewide observance. It is the hope of the citizens of Westerly that Neighbor Day will gain nationwide and worldwide recognition, and that its ideals--community, tolerance, and nonviolence--will one day become a reality for all. I hope my colleagues will join with me in recognizing Westerly's achievement in encouraging friendship and respect among all people. I ask that following this statement the resolution of the Rhode Island General Assembly, declaring statewide recognition of Neighbor Day, be printed in the Record. Senate Resolution Declaring May 19, 1996 To Be Neighbor Day in Rhode Island Whereas, Go out of your way to get in touch with your neighbors. Ring doorbells and say ``Hello.'' These are but some of the things we each can do to learn more about the people in our communities; and Whereas, In 1993, Westerly became the first town in the Ocean State to declare the Sunday before Memorial Day to be Neighbor Day, and the State of Rhode Island swiftly followed its splendid example. Hopefully national and international recognition of this special day will make its ideals a reality for all; and Whereas, While respect and justice for all is often upon our lips, it will take a strong personal commitment by each and every one of us to actualize this dream; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this Senate of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations hereby declares May 19, 1996 to be Neighbor Day in Rhode Island. It is so important that all Rhode Islanders learn that the most important moral obligation we all share is to ``Love Thy Neighbor''; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of State be and he hereby is authorized and directed to transmit a duly certified copy of this resolution to Mary Jane DiMaio, MJD Enterprises.