Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for 5 minutes at the conclusion of the quorum call and prior to the vote.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand the quorum call is being charged to my time. I ask unanimous consent that, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, it be evenly divided and charged equally to both sides.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for those insightful words and also for his leadership on this legislation. He, along with Chairman Jeffords, has been battling and moving along to try to bring, ultimately, a bill that will improve education in the United States. I believe, as evidenced by this amendment, that one very pragmatic, practical way to do this is to help local communities acquire library materials for their schools. In fact, I am always amazed that there is any controversy about this issue. It seems to me to be the most obvious complement to the President's program for literacy and also one of those programs which doesn't raise issues of curriculum, doesn't raise issues of local control, doesn't raise issues of any seriousness. Frankly, I hope that each of my colleagues will recognize that allowing local communities, local school systems to buy books is something we should be doing and not rejecting. I hope that at 1:45, when the roll is called, we will have the strongest possible support. This is a bipartisan initiative, cosponsored, along with many Senators, by Senators Snowe and Chafee. I hope we can get a good, solid vote for school libraries when this roll is called. I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent under consideration there will be a vote scheduled on my amendment at 1:45. At this time I ask unanimous consent to make a modification to amendment No. 425. I send that modification to the desk for immediate consideration.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, the modification is critical, whether or not the modification is accepted by your side. I wanted to clarify, the modification has been accepted in your unanimous consent request?

Mr. REED. There is a modification of my amendment which is being reviewed by your staff and Senator Jeffords' staff. If that is in order, then I believe we will have to wait until I get word.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Murray's amendment to authorize class size reduction. I have been listening to this rather pedantic discussion of studies and analyses. We can point on one side to a study from Tennessee and on another side to a study from an eminent expert from the University of Rochester. The reality is much more obvious. Ask any parent in America if they want to have their children in a class of 27 or 15. The answer is always 15. Go to any prestigious private school in America and they are not advertising: Come to our school; we have 50 in a class just like Taiwan. They are saying: Come to our school; small class size; constant contact with teachers--the kind of atmosphere that provides for academic success. Look around. Just last week, the headline in the Washington Post read: ``Pr. George's Test Scores Show Best Gains Ever.'' What did the superintendent want to do with these remarkable results? The superintendent said she hoped that the county and State leaders would see the test scores as proof that the county is serious about improving academic achievement and that they would reward it with more funding to reduce class size and repair deteriorating buildings. That is not some scholar from Rochester or some statistician looking at Tennessee. That is the superintendent, a local school official, who said: We are doing better, but we can do better if we lower class size and repair our buildings. The other point that should be made is that this program is voluntary. It is not a mandate. It does not say: If you take this program, you cannot have any other Federal program in the realm of education. I have seen the results firsthand. In Providence, the capital city of my State, they use this program very flexibly, very innovatively. They sought a waiver to use class size funding for literacy coaches that would coteach in elementary schools half the time, and deliver school-based professional development the other half of their working time. Through this program, we are able to do what everyone on this floor seems to be talking about: reduce class size and enhance professional development. This is a program that we have supported over the last several years on a bipartisan basis. We made a downpayment to help communities hire 100,000 teachers. That is something that every parent in this country wants. That is something, apparently, that school leaders such as Superintendent Metts of Prince George's County want. It is something that scientists and researchers have indicated is working in Tennessee and elsewhere. It is something that obviously should be done, and I support Senator Murray. I make two other points: First, class size reduction has to be tied to funds to increase the number of classrooms. That is another portion of an amendment that has been brought to the Chamber. In addition to that--and this is reflected in a note I received from Jonathan Kozol--by gearing up with an elaborate testing regime, we are putting the cart before the horse. We should first be reducing class size. We should be first increasing title I moneys. We should then go ahead and provide for funds to improve the physical structure of schools. Maybe at that point, maybe when urban children have the same environment, the same teacher ratios as you see in suburban communities, we can start testing them. We are going to test these children, and urban kids are going to do much worse than suburban kids. Why? Not because they are not capable. But when you are in a school that is falling down, when you are in a school with a large number of children, much larger than the suburban areas, when you have teachers who are not getting the professional development they need, you are not going to get the kind of results you get elsewhere. That is the reality. We can talk about tests and studies in Rochester and elsewhere, but the reality we know. Frankly, most of us, if we had a choice to send a child to school, we would look for smaller classrooms. We would look for buildings that are not falling down, teachers who are highly motivated, highly qualified, and highly prepared. That is where we would send our child. Let's give every American family that chance. The one way to do it is to support the Murray amendment. I yield back the time to Senator Murray.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Antoinette F. Downing. Mrs. Downing, acclaimed architectural historian and founding member of the Providence Preservation Society, passed away on Wednesday morning, May 9, 2001 at the age of 96. During her extraordinary lifetime, Antoinette believed in the intrinsic value of historic buildings, a revolutionary idea that changed Providence and Rhode Island. Mrs. Downing began her distinguished career as a scholar, researching and recording the State's historic structures. In 1937, her book Early Homes of Rhode Island was published, and remains the standard reference on 17th, 18th, and early 19th century building in the State. During the 1930s and 1940s, Mrs. Downing raised a family and taught school. In the late 1940s, she returned to the study of architecture by assisting the newly founded Preservation Society of Newport County with a program to document and bring attention to the magnificent historic buildings in Newport. The effort produced the publication of The Architectural Heritage of Newport, Rhode Island, co-authored by Vincent J. Scully, Jr., in 1952. In the 1950s', Mrs. Downing's scholarship turned into activism in the College Hill neighborhood of her adopted hometown of Providence, an area with many dilapidated and unappreciated historic buildings threatened by plans for demolition. Mrs. Downing and other residents, determined to maintain the character of this neighborhood, organized the Providence Preservation Society. A report, which she helped to research and write, College Hill, A Demonstration Study of Historic Area Renewal (1959), became the blueprint for the neighborhood's restoration and a national model for using historic preservation as a means of community renewal. Through her hard work and conviction, Mrs. Downing made historic preservation part of every life in Rhode Island. Under her leadership, the Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission's statewide survey has identified about 50,000 historic buildings and sites in Rhode Island's 39 cities and towns. In all, more than 15,000 Rhode Island properties have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore, the reuse and rehabilitation of historic buildings has become an important part of the state's economy in the last decade. Throughout Antoinette Downing's lifelong work has run the belief that our historic districts, structures, and sites are resources worth keeping. Her work has created for our time and coming generations a way of connecting to history while building links to the future. We remember and thank Antoinette for her tireless efforts to save our heritage. We are all the beneficiaries of her visionary leadership.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. REED. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk an amendment on my behalf and of Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Levin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Dayton. This amendment is a bipartisan attempt to ensure that the President's Reading First initiative is a success. Let me commend the President for emphasizing literacy as a very important part of education reform. His proposal would recognize the importance of literacy and increase and support the training of teachers, but it would not reach another important aspect of achieving literacy, and that is a well-equipped school library. My amendment would help students achieve literacy by authorizing funds so schools could acquire new library books, new library material. Funding school libraries has been part of the educational authorization for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since its beginning in 1965. The very first ESEA authorized the purchase of library materials. One of the sad commentaries about school libraries today is that much of that material is still on the shelves, with copyright dates of 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1970. Clearly, the world has moved a great deal from those days. We have landed on the Moon. We have created the Internet and done lots of other interesting things. Many other aspects of life have changed since the mid-1960s and early 1970s. My proposal would provide resources, based upon a targeted formula, so the poorest schools would have access to these funds, so we could, in fact, replenish library collections throughout the United States. Last week the Senate uniformly voted for Senator Collins' Reading First amendment, where she incorporated additional provisions into the President's proposal for Reading First. I support this effort by Senator Collins, but I believe there is a deficiency within this initiative. It fails to include an essential component that would ensure students learn to read. We have to fund school libraries so students have the necessary books, technology, and materials, which is an integral part of our effort to improve reading in our schools. What we are finding is the gap between the highest and lowest achieving students is widening. But what we are also finding, when we look at data, is that in those schools that have first- rate libraries and trained library personnel, achievement goes up consistently. That is a factor I believe we cannot ignore. It is one of those factors that provide additional support for my proposal today. Again, the President's underlying proposal authorizes $900 million for the Reading First Initiative. It has been enhanced and improved by Senator Collins' amendment. This proposal, which I and my colleagues have offered, would provide further enhancement to this worthwhile goal of ensuring every child in America reads, and reads well. Let me also acknowledge the great work of Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy who have brought us this far. But even though they have brought us this far, even though we have, with the President's direction, emphasized literacy, we still have this gap in achieving literacy. We have to provide funds for school libraries so they can buy the material and books necessary to support the scientifically based reading programs the President has made the centerpiece of his Reading First Initiative. School libraries are really the places where we reinforce those reading skills. They are, in one sense, the laboratories where children explore their ability to read and explore a great world beyond the confines of their classroom or their community. You can go into a library and, figuratively, travel around the world, even reduce yourself to the size of a microbe, and travel, coursing through the veins of the body. That is what is remarkable about reading and so fundamentally important about reading. It is also something that has to be a lifelong pursuit. Frankly, even though we can instruct children with respect to literacy, unless we provide them with stimulating books and expose them to the library as students, it is not that likely that they will appreciate reading or continue the habit of reading, this habit of self-improvement. Children leave schools, but we hope they will not leave the library. That is one of the great lessons they will take from their schooling--not just the mechanics of reading but a love of reading so they will leave the school but never leave the library, they will be patrons of public libraries, they will be patrons of books. The library is the foundation for independent learning, and I cannot think of a more worthwhile goal in this reauthorization than creating that type of spirit and that type of ability within the students of America. As I mentioned before, as we look at high levels of literacy, we find a very strong correlation between these high literacy levels and good school library programs. In one study, this was the case for every school and in every grade level tested, regardless of social and economic factors in the community, and in very dissimilar States: Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Alaska. These findings echo earlier studies which found that students in schools with well-equipped libraries and professional library specialists performed better on achievement tests for reading. Again, we understand one major focus of this legislation is testing students to standards, bringing those standards up and bringing every child up to those standards. Without the support of good public libraries in the community but, more particularly, good school library programs, we are not going to be able to give these children the tools to reach the standards, to pass the tests we are prescribing now for a vast section of American students. As I indicated, there is an array of scientific evidence, research evidence, that demonstrates this fundamental point. A 1993 review of research, ``Power of Reading'' by education professor Stephen Krashen of the University of Southern California, demonstrated that higher test scores result when there is a greater investment in better qualified school library staff and more diverse school library collections. A 1994 Department of Education report on the impact of school library media centers noted that the highest achieving students tend to come from schools with strong libraries and library programs. So I believe this evidence is further proof that we can improve reading by making a wise and efficient investment by enhancing our school libraries. We also understand that we have today on our shelves, in our libraries, books that are simply out of date and inaccurate. I have made something of a cottage industry of bringing my favorite anomalous books to committee hearings, such as a book that talks about what is it like to be a flight attendant; only they use an incorrect term ``stewardess.'' If you look through this book, if you look through these pages, you get a distinctly different impression of what it is like to be a flight attendant. First of all, they are all women. We know that is not the case today. Second, there are very few minorities. We know that is not the case today. Third, they talk about the rule that you must leave if you want to get married, because they all have to be single. They have pictures of flight attendants doing sit-ups and describe that as their homework. These are images that are totally out of sync with today's times. But yet this book was on the shelves of the school library. Ask yourself. If a young man is interested in that profession and takes that book off the shelf, what impression will he get? Obviously, it is not going to open up the possibility of a career for him as a flight attendant. That is just one example. There are examples of books on the shelves of today's schools that say things like some day we will get to the Moon. I received a book from a librarian in Arizona that has the title, ``Asbestos, The Magic Mineral,'' suggesting a book that was not written recently. One of my favorite selections that was sent to me is the story of the U.S. Constitution, and an analysis of the Constitution, with a foreword by President Calvin Coolidge--a little bit out of date but still on the shelves of a school library. We can do more than provide our children with outdated sources of information. We also now know that we are in a situation where books are not the only way we are communicating information to children. Libraries need sophisticated, computer-based media. They need the technology of the computer. Yet what you find at the local level is a situation where despite the best intentions of school committee men and women and the best intentions of Governors and mayors, school library collections are the first casualties of unexpected expenses. It is not a surprise. Here is typically what happens across this country day in and day out. A school superintendent has worked hard all year. She reserved $50,000 for a new library, new books, and new media. Then she gets a call. Their unexpected expenses have gone up $75,000. Where do you get that kind of money for an unexpected expense? We will do the library improvement next year. Next year becomes the following year, and the following year. As a result, we have a crisis at school libraries. Some shelves are near empty and the books are out of date. They are not opening up new, modern vistas to students. In some cases they are giving them erroneous stereotypes about the world at a very impressionable age. Let me suggest, as I said before, some of the books that we find on the shelves of our libraries. There is one called ``Rockets Into Space,'' copyright 1959. This book, by the way, has been checked out of a Los Angeles school library 13 times since 1995. It informs the student that there is a way to get to the Moon. Obviously, it was written before there was the successful voyage to the Moon by man. It states that it will take two stages to get to the Moon, first to a space station, and then to the moon. Essentially, that is not what we did. But the book has been checked out numerous times within the last decade. There is another book which I found interesting. This was from a school library in Richmond, VA, entitled ``What A United States Senator Does,'' copyright 1975. It notes that the Vice President of the United States and the President of the Senate is Nelson Rockefeller, and that there are two Senate office buildings, the Old Senate Office Building and the New Senate Office Building, which we now call the Dirksen Building. There is a book from a library in Tarzana, CA, entitled ``Women At Work,'' copyright 1959, which informs the reader that there are seven occupations open to young woman: librarian, ballet dancer, airline stewardess, practical nurse, piano teacher, beautician, and author. These are not positions open exclusively to women and are certainly not the only professions open to women today. Here is one from a Pennsylvania library entitled, ``The First Book Atlas,'' copyright 1968, which states that the five most populated cities in the world are New York City; Tokyo, Japan; Paris, France; London, England; and Shanghai, China. That might have been correct in 1968. But, for the record, the five most populated cities in the world today are Seoul, South Korea; Sao Paolo, Brazil; Bombay, India; Jakarta, Indonesia; and Moscow, Russia. In a rapidly changing world when we expect our students to be internationally adept and not just locally competent, we are providing them with information that is woefully out of date. I am sure there are atlases and maps throughout most schools and in school libraries that do not have all the present sovereign nations of the world. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, we know there has been quite a few new nations emerging into the world. But this is what we find consistently. I believe if we do not provide better materials for our libraries, we are not going to fully complement the President's initiative and Senator Collins' amendment. It is one thing to be literate and to have the mechanics of reading, but there is something else. A child must have material to read which provides accurate information and that is not full of stereotypes and misinformation. If you don't provide access through school libraries, students will not acquire the skills and love for reading necessary to boost scores on reading tests. That is what my legislation will do. It will give the school libraries the opportunity to become up to date, to entreat children with the idea of reading so that in their lifelong pursuits they will know that libraries are the place to go to find knowledge and information that is accurate. Let me also talk about the situation from the perspective of low- income students because typically this is where you find the most chronic absence of a good school library for the reasons I talked to previously--budget pressures that are so compelling and constraining on municipalities, and the idea that next year we will fix the library. Next year never comes. Jonathan Kozol, who has been referred to many times on this floor, and who is a passionate advocate for students everywhere but who has a particular passion for those disadvantaged students that he works with on a daily basis, wrote in May in a school library article, entitled ``An Unequal Education,'' that a fiscal crisis in the 1970s reduced school libraries and the poorest neighborhoods in New York City to: ``little more than poorly stocked collections of torn, tired-looking, or outdated books. As student populations grew and school construction was postponed by scarcity of funds, libraries themselves were soon co-opted to be used as classroom space. Librarians were fired or, more diplomatically, `retired'--and, as they retired, were not replaced. Books were frequently consigned to spaces scarcely larger than coat closets.'' He continues: Few forms of theft are quite so damaging to inner-city children as the theft of stimulation, cognitive excitement, and aesthetic provocation by municipal denial of those literacy treasures known to white and middle-class Americans for generations. The reason for this sad state of affairs is the loss of targeted national funding for libraries, which we had provided in the 1965 ESEA authorization. I would challenge all of my colleagues to go to their States and go to a school library. It won't take too long until you find a book that has a copyright of 1967, and maybe with a stamp, as they do in the Philadelphia school system, that says, ``ESEA 1965.'' About 20 years ago, however, a decision was made to roll this dedicated funding into a block grant competing with other programs, and the funding for libraries declined. Schools have not been able to replace outdated books. At the same time funds have diminished, as everything else, the price of quality school library books goes up. The average school library book costs $16. But the average spending per student for books in elementary schools throughout this country is approximately $6.75, $7.30 in middle schools, and $6.25 in high schools. You can't buy lots of high-quality books at those types of prices. Earlier in this session, I introduced bipartisan legislation addressing the need for adequate library books, which is the predecessor of this amendment. On February 20, 2001, there was note of that introduction in the Washington Times. Then there was a response on February 23 from a school librarian who described the real frustrations we are talking about, and that I have tried to suggest. She has worked for 27 years, and she saw the article and took it upon herself to write the newspaper. Here is what she said: The money coming down for spending has been diverted by administrators for technology. The computers are bought with book money and the administrators can brag about how wired the schools are. The librarians are ordered to keep the old books on the shelves and count everything, including unbound periodicals and old filmstrips dating back to 1940s. And most of all keep their mouth shut about the books--just count and keep quiet. Now do you wonder why librarians keep quiet? Well they are not keeping quiet anymore. They have taken a very strong position with respect to this amendment. Coincidentally, they have come to Washington, and I believe they have visited most of my colleagues' offices, to talk about the need, not some esoteric hypothetical pie-in-the-sky need, but the real need for investments in school libraries. What happens is that we have a situation where schools face this Hobson's choice: with declining resources, and other demands, do we remove all of the outdated books, leaving only bare shelves or keep outdated books on the shelves, hoping that students wont be confused or turned off by reading? The result is too many of our students don't have the tools they need to learn to read and achieve. Too often schools sacrifice improvement in libraries. We can help change that dynamic. We can pass this legislation. We can give them flexibility at the local level, although targeted to low-income schools, to go out and buy library materials, to fulfill an important part of our national purpose today to improve the literacy of all American children. Now I believe that we should, and we must, complement the President's Reading First Initiative. He has, quite rightly, identified the problem. He has very astutely suggested we need to train teachers in the latest scientific methods, that we need to have classroom material, that we need to do many other things. But one aspect is still lacking; and that is books - books to practice the skills they learn in class and books to foster a love for reading which is the key to success in school and beyond. This amendment addresses that need. My amendment specifically would add $500 million in funding reserved to support school libraries. It would not take away any resources that have been already identified for the President's Reading First Initiative pursuant to Senator Collins' amendment. It targets funding to schools with the highest levels of poverty. Recall now the comments of Jonathan Kozol: the diminishment of the educational experience by a lack of access to materials which in suburban schools are taken for granted. If we can get this spirit of inquiry, this excitement about reading, if we can infuse that into every child in every public school, particularly in our disadvantaged schools, we will accomplish a great deal with this reauthorization. This amendment also provides the districts and the schools with the flexibility to use the funding to meet local school library needs. Who better than a local school system and local librarians to decide what they need? A new atlas, new materials for the younger readers, a better library media that can be used by all the students--all of that will be decided by local individuals. It also includes language that would help enhance the training of library specialists. There is a misconception sometimes that all you need to do is have the teacher just take the children into the library and say: Pick a book. That overlooks the huge contribution a well-trained librarian can make to the education of young children. A well trained librarian is essential to helping students read. It is also important to have librarians with particular skills to be able to show children different means of research, different techniques, to be able to answer their questions, to find material for them, and to show them how to find material. That is not done simply by walking the children into the library, and saying: Pick a book. You need to try to get a sense of their interests and you need to try to lead them from one interest to another interest. This might be the most fundamental aspect of education, and yet if you do not have the trained professionals to do it, you will not get the kind of high-level achievement we seek in this legislation. The amendment would also allow establishing resource sharing initiatives. In my home State of Rhode Island, and in Ohio, the school librarians have set up a wonderful network with other school libraries, with public libraries, with academic libraries, so they can multiply the resources at their disposal. That would provide the kind of support that I believe is not only necessary but long overdue with respect to school libraries. This amendment allocates funding on a formula basis to school districts, so that all needy districts and schools get the assistance they need to improve school libraries, rather than authorizing a very limited, competitive grant program which would only help certain districts that have a knack for grant writing. This amendment is built upon the initial legislation I introduced along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Snowe, Chafee, Daschle, and others. The amendment, as I indicated, has broad support. This bipartisan amendment I offer today, along with Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Chafee, Bingaman, Wellstone, Murray, Clinton, Sarbanes, Johnson, Baucus, Levin, Reid, Rockefeller, Durbin, and Dayton, is a modified version of that legislation because, rather than being a separate, stand-alone portion of the ESEA, this amendment includes support for books as part of the Reading First initiative. In conclusion, since I have talked about what the amendment does, I would like to briefly talk about some of things the amendment does not do. First of all, this is not a new program. This amendment would incorporate school library funding into the Reading First Initiative, the President's reading initiative. Unanimously, last week, we embraced Senator Collins' amendment, so I assume, without contradiction, we are all for Reading First, we are all for literacy. This would be incorporated into that. This is not a new program. The second point I make is that this is not, as I said before, a novel Federal intervention into school policy. In 1965, we authorized funds to buy library materials. It worked. Those materials are still on the shelves. It is something that has been long associated with our Federal effort to help local schools. Now we all want to consolidate programs. I think that makes a great deal of sense. As you look across the board, some programs could be more efficient. But here is an effort to present, within the context of the Reading First Initiative, a comprehensive reading program: training teachers to teach reading based on scientific principles, classroom materials, and then, if you will, the laboratory for reading, which is the school library and the books to read. If we are serious--and I know we are--that we want to see every child succeed, if we want to see every child meet challenging standards, and in a very real sense pass the test, then we have to invest more in our school libraries. It is not simply enough to just prescribe the test and hope for the best. We have to give children books to read, the tools to master these techniques and, hopefully, I think in a broader sense, to acquire a passion for reading that will carry them far beyond their schooldays into their adult days. That truly, in my view, is the sign of an educated person. Let me conclude my initial remarks by citing the Department of Education's guide for parents entitled ``A Guide For Parents: How Do I Know a Good Early Reading Program When I See One?'' In that guide they say that a good early reading program has: ``a school library [which] is used often and has many books.'' We must take this opportunity to dispense with inaccurate, out-of- date books that line the shelves of our school libraries. We have an opportunity to complement the President's proposal and provide the funding that is critical to making the program work so it can actually improve the reading and literacy skills of our nation's students. I hope we will seize this opportunity and urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the outstanding service to our nation of Lieutenant General Daniel William Christman, the 55th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. On June 30, 2001, General Christman will retire from the United States Army after an outstanding career of more than 36 years of service in peace and in war to the Army and the Nation. General Christman is a modern model of the soldier-scholar. After graduating first in his class from West Point in 1965, then young second Lieutenant Christman traveled to Fort Benning to undertake the Ranger Course. He then served as a Platoon Leader and later as a Commander in the 2d Infantry Division, Korea. In 1969, he commanded a company in the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam. Returning from combat, General Christman went on to distinguish himself in numerous command and staff positions with U.S. Forces, both overseas and in the Continental United States. In Europe, his assignments included serving as the 19th U.S. Representative to the NATO Military Committee in Brussels, Belgium, and Commander of the 54th Engineer Battalion in Wildflecken, Germany. General Christman's key command positions included service as the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Engineer Center and Commandant of the U.S. Army Engineer School at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and Commander of the Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Savannah, Georgia. General Christman occupied senior executive positions in Washington, D.C. which required creative leadership and strategic vision. He served as a Staff Assistant with the National Security Council during the Ford Administration, and as Assistant to the U.S. Attorney General for National Security Affairs in the Reagan Administration. General Christman was the Director of Strategy, Plans and Policy at the Department of Army Headquarters. In this capacity, he supported negotiations relating to the Conventional Forces in Europe arms control talks between NATO and the Warsaw Pact on behalf of the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He also served as Assistant to General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff advising the Secretary of State on a broad range of military and national security issues such as arms control with the Russian Federation and the Middle East peace negotiations between Israel and Syria. Over the years, General Christman also found time to continue his own education. He earned a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering and a Masters Degree in Public Administration from Princeton University, and holds a Law Degree from George Washington University. For his service, General Christman has received, among others, the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Merit Service Medal and the Air Medal. General Christman has made many valuable contributions to our nation and the Army, but I believe that he has left his most indelible mark on the United States Military Academy, the institution where he began, and will soon end his Army career. After his graduation, General Christman first returned to his alma mater in 1970 as an Instructor, and later Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Sciences. Then in 1996, General Christman undertook his last assignment as Superintendent. For the past five years, he charted the course for officer education into the new century. Under his guidance, the Academy crafted a new mission statement, strategic vision, and a new public funding paradigm to enable the institution to compete and excel in an era of transformation. His assessment of current needs and insight of future possibilities has resulted in a revised academic curriculum and an increased focus on the profession of officership. From the outset, General Christman sought the insight of Academy graduates and the neighboring community, where appropriate, to give these groups a closer identification with his decisions. A consummate professional, General Christman's dedication to excellence and his unsurpassed devotion to duty, honor, and country have marked his distinguished service over the last 36 years. His service reflects a deep commitment to West Point, the Army, and our nation. I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking General Christman for his honorable service to the citizens of the United States of America. I wish him, his wife Susan, and their children, continued success and happiness in all their future endeavors.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to state my opposition to the nomination of John Bolton to be Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. I want to clarify that I respect the right of the President to choose those who will serve him in his Administration. I also recognize that many of the appointees in this Administration will have views which differ from my own--and those differences are not reason enough to vote against a nomination. However, in this case, I believe there is ample evidence that Mr. Bolton has deeply held views which run so contrary to stated U.S. policy that he will not be able to effectively perform his duties. If confirmed, statute dictates that John Bolton would be the senior assistant to the Secretary of State in matters ``related to international security policy, arms control and non-proliferation.'' He would oversee a number of issues including the fate of the ABM Treaty, negotiation with North Korea on the Agreed Framework and aid to dismantle Russian nuclear stockpiles. At a time when the danger from nuclear weapons is at least as great as during the Cold War, it is essential that this Undersecretary be committed to using every possible diplomatic option for reducing the weapons stockpile and diffusing tensions. Unfortunately, because of his previous statements, I cannot be confident of Mr. Bolton's commitment to this goal. As Joseph Cirincione, the director of the Carnegie Non Proliferation Project, stated: ``John Bolton is philosophically opposed to most of the international treaties that comprise the nonproliferation regime.'' Mr. Bolton was a vocal opponent of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He said that supporters of the CTBT were ``misguided individuals following a timed and neo-pacifist line of thought.'' He also stated that ``Mere promises by adversaries and rogue regimes, unverifiable in critical respects, simply do not provide adequate protections and may actually hobble our ability to maintain the most important international guarantee of peace--a credible U.S. nuclear capability.'' I would like to note that history would indicate Mr. Bolton is incorrect, since the United States has been able to maintain an awesome nuclear stockpile while complying with arms control treaties that have been the cornerstone of the prevention of nuclear war for the past fifty years. Furthermore, while Mr. Bolton is certainly entitled to his opinions on arms control treaties, his opinions indicate that he may not be best suited for a position which requires upholding and negotiating treaties on a daily basis. Mr. Bolton also does not seem to have a very high opinion of the United Nations, the organization with which he would have to work closely in developing and maintaining U.S. international security policy. At different points in the past few years, Mr. Bolton has stated that ``If the UN secretary building in NY lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.'' He also stated that the U.S. has no obligation to pay its UN dues because ``The UN Charter is fundamentally a political, not a legal document. On finances it amounts to little more than an `agreement to agree.' '' Despite the fact that the UN may seem bureaucratic and slow to act at times, it is the primary instrument for international cooperation, and I believe U.S. participation is vital to ensure U.S. national security. In addition, Mr. Bolton does not appear to believe that the tenets of international law are binding. In 1999, Mr. Bolton asserted that, ``In reality, international law, especially customary international law, meets none of the tests we normally impose on `law', while treaties may be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not `law' as we apprehend the term.'' Since the founding of this nation, Administrations have put faith in international law and treaties created under international law and entered into by the United States have been regarded, as the Constitution dictates, ``as the supreme law of the land.'' Mr. Bolton is clearly an intelligent and capable individual. However, his publicly stated views and past actions indicate that he believes that it is in the best interests of United States security to act unilaterally, with little regard for the views and agreements of the international community. We live in an increasingly interdependent world. Today, it is more important than ever before to use such tools as the United Nations, international law and treaties to promote and ensure international security and arms control. I believe the Undersecretary of State for International and Arms Control should be willing to pursue these avenues, and I think the evidence indicates that Mr. Bolton would not be the best person for this job. Therefore, I will oppose his nomination.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for the gracious yielding of time and for offering her amendment. She has offered a very admirable and very important amendment that will increase literacy in the United States. It tracks closely President Bush's proposals for increased literacy throughout this country. In fact, it builds on the Reading Excellence Act which this body passed in 1998. I believe it is a measure that should be broadly supported. I, too, also commend Chairman Jeffords and Ranking Member Kennedy for their efforts in the committee to bring this measure to the Chamber and, again, Senator Collins for her excellent amendment with respect to literacy in reading. I want to use this opportunity to not only commend Senator Collins but also to suggest that as important as her amendment is, there is a piece I believe that could be added to make it even better. That piece is providing access to materials in school libraries. For years I have been advocating a return to Federal support for school libraries. Back in 1965, with the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Congress passed an initiative that would allow--and did allow--school libraries to purchase library materials. It was widely successful. In fact, I will suggest that my colleagues go to any school in their State--particularly those schools in rural or urban areas--go to the school library and look through the shelves. I am sure you will find books that are stamped ``ESEA, 1965.'' You certainly will find many books with a 1966, 1967, or 1968 copyright. Sadly, that is the status of our collections in school libraries throughout this country: Many old and out-of-date books purchased originally by ESEA. We can do better and should do better. The thrust of Senator Collins' amendment and the President's program is teacher technique, teaching pedagogy, and teaching instruction. But, as I said, there is another aspect; that is, having the materials available for young people to actually read. Research clearly shows that the modern up-to-date library with new material contributes significantly and positively to student performance. The research consistently shows this. It suggests that we have to do much more in terms of not only providing new technique, new instruction, new pedagogy, we have to provide books and media for children so they can, in fact, practice what they are taught, and not only practice what they are taught but become enthused about using libraries and reading books. You cannot do that with some of the out- of-date collections we have in our school libraries today. That is why, as soon as it is appropriate, I will suggest an additional amendment. I was tempted, momentarily, to offer a second degree to the Collins amendment, but I believe she deserves the opportunity to make her case undiluted by other proposals. My proposal would, in fact, increase funding authorized for the President's program of reading and literacy so school libraries throughout the country could actually buy materials as part of the Reading First initiative and target these funds to the schools that are most in need, the highest poverty schools. It would also provide districts and schools with the flexibility to use funding to meet local needs. There would be no preset list of books or materials. It would be a very local choice which they could use themselves to acquire what they need in their particular circumstances. It would also encourage resource-sharing initiatives such as those that have been established in Ohio and Rhode Island, effectively linking all the school libraries together with public libraries and with academic libraries in higher education institutions, so that children can access, through computerized records, a vast array of material. This modern, updated approach can be another additional improvement in education throughout the United States. Also, it would provide resources and support to train school librarians and those people who work in the libraries. Sometimes we overlook the fact that we have to have trained professionals in the library. It is not sufficient simply to have a teacher walk a class in and say, pick a book, children, and go out. It helps immeasurably if there is someone in that library who knows not only how to do research but also how to use library materials to enhance the education of all the children in that school. This legislation I am proposing is based upon a bill I introduced along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Snowe, Chafee, Daschle, and others. It has been modified because, rather than being a separate stand-alone portion of the ESEA, this amendment that I will propose next week will be part of the President's initiative, part of the Reading First initiative. It makes sense simply because we are all trying to focus in our resources and our attention. In addition, it responds to some complaints I have heard that this is not the time to embark on a new program. Let me, as a fundamental point, state that this is not a new program when it comes to school library support. In 1965, it was specifically authorized and funded under the original ESEA. In 1994, we reauthorized this particular library program. Unfortunately, it was essentially defunded in previous Congresses, and it was made part of a larger block grant. As a result, the resources have diminished significantly. I commend the Senator from Maine. I look forward to her amendment. I ask her to consider, along with others, this improvement which I will offer at the soonest possible moment. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I thank the chairman very much.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate and commend one of my constituents, Andy Robinson of Narragansett, RI. At the end of last year, Andy Robinson retired from teaching after thirty years in the classroom. This Sunday his family, friends and innumerable former students will celebrate Andy's career and the impact he has had on the lives of so many Rhode Islanders. Andy Robinson is a model public servant and I would like to take a few minutes to express my appreciation for his commitment to our community. Born and raised in East Providence, Andy graduated from my alma mater, LaSalle Academy. After receiving his bachelors degree from Providence College, Andy became a student teacher at Narragansett Junior High School. He then took a position for three years as a social studies teacher at Burrillville Junior-Senior High School while completing his masters degree at Providence College. In 1975 Andy accepted a job as a social studies teacher at Narragansett High School, and I doubt he imagined at the time that he would dedicate the next 25 years to forming the minds of the students attending that school. Andy worked hard to improve and broaden the social studies program at Narragansett High School. He introduced Project Close-Up, Rhode Island Project Insight, the Rhode Island Model Legislature Program, the Mock Trial Program, the Junior Achievement Applied Economics Program and the Center for Civic Education ``We the People'' Program and Constitution Competition. He also obtained a federal grant to bring the Youth and the Law Program to the School. Andy served as the Social Studies Department Chair, a member of the school Steering Committee, a member of the School Based Improvement Team, and a member of the Review Committee for National Standards in Social Studies. For his endless energy and unflagging commitment to education, Andy has received the ``Ocean State Center for Law And Citizenship Education Outstanding Law Educator'' and is named in Who's Who in American Education. Moreover, Andy's public service did not end in the classroom. From 1968 to 1989, Andy served in the Rhode Island National Guard. He has held positions in the Narragansett Lions Club, the Narragansett Democratic Town Committee and the Eastward Look Property Owner Association. He continues to serve as a member of the Narragansett Chamber of Commerce, the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of South Country, the Board of Incorporators South County Hospital, the Prout School Board and the Prout School Academic Affairs Committee. Andy shares his commitment to the community with his wife Jane, who is a teacher at the Narragansett Elementary School. Together they raised two daughters, Catherine, who will soon begin serving the U.S. Army as a JAG, and Elizabeth who is carrying on the family tradition as a teacher of special education in Virginia. Recently, Narragansett High School dedicated its yearbook to Andy Robinson. Several students wrote tributes to him and they all had common themes, students looked forward to Mr. Robinson's class, he made the material interesting and easy to learn, and he cared. Andy Robinson is an uncommon teacher. I think one student, Melissa Deluca, spoke for everyone when she wrote, ``Mr. Robinson, our teacher, our guide, my friend. Thank you.'' Andy Robinson is an inspiration not only to his students, but to all who have the pleasure of knowing him. On behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island, I want to thank Andy for his years of hard work and selfless dedication and congratulate him on a well deserved retirement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Michael Yudin, be granted floor privileges throughout the pendency of the debate on S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teaches Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of the ROTC Program at Providence College on the occasion of their 50th Anniversary. ROTC dates back to 8 January 1951, when the Very Reverend Robert J. Slavin, O.P., President of the College, received word that the Department of the Army had approved the establishment of a Reserve Officer Training Corps within the curriculum. On 19 September 1951, Colonel Roy P. Moss, officially opened the Military Science Department of Providence College Transport Corps Unit. In 1951-52, the original student enrollment was 512 cadets and in 1953, the first class of seven received commissions in the Transportation Corps. In the 1954-55 academic year, the unit was re-designated as a General Military Science program. In 1956, a rifle range was built and had its official inauguration as Company K-12. During the Vietnam era, the ROTC program at PC provided many qualified officers and as a result of the ROTC Vitalization Act of 1964, students from local colleges without programs became eligible to participate. The act also resulted in both four-year and two-year ROTC scholarships going into effect. In the late 60's and early 70's, changing public opinion lead to a decline in enrollment in programs throughout the country until the revitalization of ROTC began in the 1973-74 academic year as women were allowed to enroll. In 1982, Bryant College was added to the Patriot Battalion and along with Brown University, Johnson & Wales University, UMASS Dartmouth, Rhode Island College, the Community College of Rhode Island, Bristol Community College. As of May 2000, 1,690 officers have been commissioned through the Providence College Program. The ROTC Program at Providence College was recognized in 1996 as one of the top programs in New England and the New York area. As it celebrates this milestone in the history of the program, we pause to recognize the many students who have learned about the history and structure of our military and who have gone on to study tactical operations and military instruction as well as advanced techniques of management, leadership and command. These proud cadets have earned scholarships and upon graduation are Commissioned Officers in the Army. The strength of this program lies in patriotism and dedication to duty. The Patriotic Battalion faculty and staff are indeed to be commended for the success of the program and for the significant part they play in instilling leadership and good citizenship in these young people. I would respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the proud tradition of the Providence College ROTC Program on the occasion of its 50th Anniversary.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wellstone for his articulate and very passionate discussion of the issues today. I, too, am concerned that we are moving forward on legislation that has not yet been finalized. Technically, we voted this morning to proceed to S. 1, this piece of legislation. But we recognize and understand that this piece of legislation, the committee print, has already been overtaken by events and negotiations, and that what we will ultimately be confronted with on the floor is still being written. When there are so many important and outstanding issues that have yet to be resolved, it is, indeed, premature and, I think, unfortunate that we would begin this debate. S. 1, the committee bill, was carefully and thoughtfully considered in committee, and it represents accommodation between the administration's proposal and the ideas of the committee members in both Republican and Democrat caucuses. I hoped it would come to the floor as the vehicle by which we could discuss educational reform in the United States. But as I indicated, this has been overtaken. The few hundred or so pages, for all practical purposes, are irrelevant. What is being discussed today is how we will deviate from the agreed- upon committee print. That committee product represented a balancing of several important principles. First, there was the principle of enhanced accountability, the principle that I recognized, indeed, in the last ESEA reauthorization in 1994 and fought strenuously for to increase accountability, recognizing that unless we had agreed-upon educational standards and ways to evaluate those standards, we were not going to make significant educational progress in the United States. The second principle is flexibility, to give the States more discretion and authority to ensure that their plans are developed, carried out, and evaluated. The third principle is increased resources, because without adequate resources, testing and flexibility will lead, in my view, to very little progress, and may be even detrimental, as my colleague from Minnesota suggested. But today we still do not have a resolution of the funding. We have an agreed-upon authorization number in this bill. But we have not seen the administration come forward and pledge the same kind of resources that they are about to announce for the Department of Defense and for other areas. If this is truly the No. 1 domestic priority in the United States-- the education of our young people--then we can put our money where our mouth is; we can put the resources to work. To date, we have no real resolution. So, we are in danger of having a testing scheme and flexibility but without the resources to make it all work. But in addition to that issue, there is still the issue to be resolved in terms of accountability. What I think we would all concede is a tough accountability standard within this legislation is now being watered down and diluted because, frankly, it has suddenly dawned on many people, particularly the State education officials and Governors, that real accountability costs money, and not just Federal money. When we really measure the progress of education and the progress of individual schools throughout this country, and we commit to making these schools all successful, we are not just talking about some extra Federal dollars, we are talking about a profound shift in spending at the State and local levels, to make sure that truly no child is left behind. So it comes as no surprise to me that suddenly, having figured it out, the States are very concerned about accountability. So you have three major issues which form the core, the foundation of this legislation, that are now in flux subject to continuing negotiation. In that context, I believe it is inappropriate to proceed. That is why I voted this morning not to proceed to the bill, so we could wait until we have real language we can talk about, debate, and study before we consider the bill in the Chamber. We should wait until we have real resources committed--not just reauthorization language but a real commitment to appropriations. When we do those things, then I think we are ready to move forward. But we have, in any case, taken up this debate. We have seen over the last several weeks and months an attempt to work on a bipartisan basis to develop legislation, understanding that when we came to the Chamber more controversial elements would be introduced, such as the Straight A's Program, which is essentially a block grant for the States rather than categorical programs. There would be discussions on school vouchers and charitable choice. We understood that those issues would be debated in this Chamber. But the assumption was at least we would start with the language we had worked on, the language we agreed upon, the language in the committee proposal of S. 1. That, again, seems to be overtaken by events, overtaken by pending negotiations, and, as a result, rendering this particular version of the legislation obsolete as we begin. We have seen in these negotiations language on some of the controversial elements, but we have not seen a resolution yet. For example, with regard to Straight A's, this is a proposal that essentially would provide a block grant to the States to operate the educational programs without regard to the categorical provisions of existing programs. One of the problems of the Straight A's proposal is that it is not yet clear whether States participating in this program on an experimental basis could use Federal resources for vouchers. I think that is an important point that should be resolved before we consider it in this Chamber, not hurried in while we are still in the midst of the debate. Also, there are additional problems we have. It is not quite clear whether key provisions with respect to title I will still be part of the Straight A's Program if the State is operating under one of these pilot programs. One of the provisions that is particularly important is parental involvement. In the 1994 ESEA reauthorization, in title I, we understood that parents were a critical aspect of education. But the existing title I law before that was merely suggestive of parental involvement. So in 1994, we put in real requirements for parental involvement, authorizing the States to use a certain amount of their title I moneys--in fact, we directed them to use it for parental involvement, to develop parental involvement plans. I believe the title I moneys, the title I program, should be infused with parental involvement. But as the current draft of the Straight A's seems to suggest, they are going back, prior to 1994, and making parental involvement simply something that might be done, could be done, should be done. I think we know enough about the role of parents in education to make this an important part of education, not simply an optional provision of educational policy in the United States. As I mentioned before, there still is this issue of accountability. What will be the standards? Who will set the standards? It is clear that there will be increased testing. This testing raises significant questions. Most of the States, if not all the States, engage in rather elaborate testing already. Most of the States are acting under the provisions of Goals 2000. The 1994 ESEA reauthorization embarked on a very elaborate process of setting State standards: What a child should know, developing evaluations so those standards are tested, and imposing a scheme of evaluations--not every year for every child, but a scheme that made sense to a particular State. Now we are saying, no, one size does fit all for every child, every year, for grades 3 through 8. That puts a lot of practical pressure on the States because if you are trying to harmonize your standards with your evaluation, it takes time. 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 leave 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--standards carefully thought out and evaluations that measure those standards. In these ongoing discussions, there is also included the notion of supplemental services, the idea that in failing schools there will be money given for supplemental services. It seems to me that raises a very profound question: Are you interested in merely giving a few children this option, because given the caps on this program, all children, even in the failing schools, may not be able to realize this program? Or are you interested in fixing the schools so that not only that class of children but succeeding classes of children will enjoy excellent education in a reformed, revitalized school? It seems to me we are diverting resources from the main point, to fix our schools, giving some children access to some supplementary education alternatives. That is another issue. Then there is the issue of charitable choice, which will come up, which raises profound issues about civil rights. What is the policy if we are going to use this approach by encouraging charities and religious groups to become more involved, more directly involved in Federal funding? Does that impose requirements on these groups to recognize civil rights laws in hiring? Does that impose requirements in the type of curricula they can use? All of these are very difficult questions, and they have to be addressed. I believe they should have been addressed as best we could before we brought this bill to the floor. There are some other practical issues here, too. It goes back to the overarching concern. The overarching concern is, who is going to pay for all this? It has been estimated by the National Association of State Boards of Education that testing alone of every child in grades 3 through 8 could cost between $2.7 and $7 billion over 4 years. That type of money is not in the appropriations language I am seeing in the President's budget. That type of commitment is certainly not there. And that is just for testing alone. That is just to diagnose the problem. But we all recognize that simply identifying children who are falling behind and schools that are falling behind is just the first step, the hardest step of fixing the problem. As my colleague from Minnesota pointed out, we hear time and time again money is not the problem. Well, it is a refrain we seldom hear from other departments when they come in and say they have to confront new issues, new changing forces in the world. The classic example is the problem with defense. We are all reading this week that it is likely the Secretary of Defense will recommend an increase of $25 billion a year in defense spending to adjust to new threats, new technologies, new opportunities. I am not hearing anyone say to him: Money is not the problem. Reorganize, evaluate your forces better. Resources is not the sole answer, but it is an important part of dealing with the issue. So we have to do that. Again, we are not seeing that type of commitment, that real commitment. Without that real commitment, we will not be able to attract the kind of teachers we need; we will not be able to provide continuous professional development so that teachers stay current on teaching techniques; we will not be able to fix school buildings so that children believe they are going to a place that is held in esteem by their community, a place that is treasured enough so that it is maintained. If you go to the schools in many parts of this country today, you find they are decrepit, that they are obsolete. They are places that no one would go voluntarily and certainly no one would go with the sense of excitement and joy that every child should bring to school. We will need more money to fix those schools. We are going to proceed on this debate. One of the presumptions of this debate, for those who are suggesting that we engage in a regime of testing without adequate resources--one of the presumptions is the sense that our schools are failing America. There is another perspective. The perspective is that this Congress and preceding Congresses, State Governors, and State assemblies have for years and years been failing our schools. We have not been giving them the resources they need. We have not been recognizing that educational problems today, in many cases, result from problems of health care for children, problems of poverty for children, problems of housing for children. Until we recognize these issues and until we confront these issues, not just rhetorically but, more importantly, with real resources and a real commitment, to say that our schools are failing America is missing a much larger point. What have we done truly to give these embattled teachers and students, these difficult schools, the help they need to succeed, not just a mandate to test and evaluate, but the support so that every child goes to school ready to learn? That was the first core principle of our reform movement, which President Bush's father began a decade or more ago. There are still too many children going to school without adequate health care, coming from homes that are dangerous because of exposure to lead in paint on the walls. There are still too many children who will fail because they don't have these types of supports and these types of help. As we consider this bill, we have to recognize that group as well. There are many things that will be debated in the course of the next few days in terms of education reform. I hope we can debate and I hope we can successfully adopt provisions that will decrease the size of classrooms throughout the country, knowing that children perform better when they have a smaller ratio between the teachers and the students. I hope we improve the quality of the physical condition of our schools-- better classrooms, modern classrooms, and safer schools. I hope we can improve the quality of our teachers and principals by providing real professional development. I hope we can improve our school libraries, and add additional school counselors. If we can do that, then we can take this legislation and make a real contribution to the quality of education in the United States. I hope we can do that. I hope we can do that on behalf of the thousands and thousands of youngsters who are going to school today and the generations to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join with Armenians throughout the United States, in Armenia, and around the world in commemorating the 86th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. This week, members and friends of the Armenian community will gather together to remember April 24, 1915. On that day, nationalist forces of the Ottoman Empire started an eight year campaign of massacre and deportation that would impact the lives of every Armenian in Asia Minor. Armenian men, women, and children of all ages fell victim to murder, rape, torture, and starvation. By 1923, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians had been systematically murdered and another 500,000 had their property stolen and were driven from their homeland. With World War I occupying center stage at the time, the Armenian people's situation went unaided. Unfortunately, the residents of Armenia still suffer today. Armenian efforts at democracy and economic development have been hindered by regional conflict, natural disasters and internal strife. Yet, despite these setbacks, the Armenian people have maintained a persevering spirit that has kept hope alive. In the past few months, optimism has grown as internationally mediated peace talks between Armenian President Kocharian and Azerbaijani President Aliyev have made progress. Commemoration of the Armenian genocide is important not to keep alive the memory of those Armenians who died, but to remind the world of its duty. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu noted in 1999, ``It is sadly true what a cynic has said, that we learn from the history that we do not learn from history. And yet it is possible that if the world had been conscious of the genocide that was committed by the Ottoman Turks against the Armenians, the first genocide of the twentieth century, then perhaps humanity might have been more alert to the warning signs that were given before Hitler's madness was unleashed on an unbelieving world.'' It is my hope that the world has begun to pay attention to history because, unlike in 1915, the international community heeded the warning signs in Kosovo and did not sit back and watch, but reacted quickly and decisively. We must always bear witness to the terrors of yesterday so that we can respond to acts of oppression in the future, ensuring that the deaths of all victims of hatred and prejudice are not in vain. Therefore, on the 86th anniversary of the terrible tragedy of the Armenian genocide we remember the past and rededicate ourselves to supporting Armenia as it looks to the future.