Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Mr. Michael Yudin, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of my statement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the last election demonstrated clearly and graphically the importance of education as a concern to the American people. It is perhaps their highest priority. They have indicated overwhelmingly in poll after poll that education reform and improvement is something they desperately want and that this Nation desperately needs. They have also indicated their top priority for the use of the Federal budget is investment in education. Indeed, 81 percent of individuals polled recently indicated they would approve of a bold national commitment to improve education similar to our commitment to build the Interstate Highway System and to do many other projects of critical importance to the American public. It is, indeed, fitting then that President Bush would embrace this notion of education reform. I commend him for his interest. I welcome the beginning of a very serious debate about how we can at the Federal level assist local communities to improve elementary and secondary education in the United States. We should begin, I believe, by recognizing that over the past 8 years, we have made progress. We established in Goals 2000 a focus on educational reform. In the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1994, we insisted that high standards be the benchmark and the measuring rod of our commitment to educational reform. We have also over the last few years passed legislation to diminish class size and to repair and renovate crumbling schools throughout this country. So we begin this process with success, but we also begin with the idea that we have to do much more, and we have to do it together. We recognize 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 at the local level and also overcoming inertia at the local level so that every student in America, particularly students from disadvantaged backgrounds, have the opportunity to seize all the opportunities of this great country. This has been our role since 1965. A characteristic of Federal participation in elementary and secondary education is that it is targeted, particularly with respect to low- income students. We have an obligation to continue this support. We have an obligation to continue to work with the States and localities, in a sense as their junior partner, but as their important partner, to ensure that every child in this country will have the ability to achieve and obtain a quality public education. President Bush's proposal at this juncture is an outline, it is a prospectus, it is a vision, if you will, for some of the things he would like to see done to improve education. There are elements which we all share, including concentration and focus on high standards and accountability, emphasis on reading, teacher quality, and school safety. And there are other elements with which we disagree. Among the first order of these elements is the notion of vouchers. I am pleased to see or at least sense that the President has retreated a bit from his campaign discussions about vouchers, recognizing this is not the answer for addressing the needs of our public school system. We have to emphasize parental involvement, teacher preparation, resources to improve curriculum--things that have to be done in the context of public education. I hope if we continue to emphasize these approaches and deemphasize vouchers that we will make much more progress as we work on educational reform in this Congress. There is another aspect of the President's proposal that has drawn, I think, justifiable criticism. That is the notion of block granting all of the Federal funds, essentially giving the States a check and saying: Do what you will. We recognize that we are, as I said previously, the junior partners in this enterprise. Federal spending is roughly 7 percent of all spending on elementary and secondary education. Our focus has always been on assisting the neediest children. To put all of our funds into a block grant and simply hand it over to the States would, I think, lead to a loss of focus, and, more dangerously, a loss of emphasis by Federal dollars on those poor disadvantaged students. There are many examples of how a block grant has distorted what was a good program before. One which comes to mind is library books. Back in 1965, we specifically committed, as an aid to local school systems, to provide funding to acquire library books. In fact, many of the books on the shelves today, if you open them up, are stamped ``ESEA, 1965.'' It was a successful program. It put books on the shelves. But, more importantly, it put books in the hands of students throughout this country. Years ago, this specific program was rolled into a larger block grant. What we have seen is that libraries throughout this country in the schools in America are not what they should be. We have seen books on the shelves that are grossly out of date. Interestingly enough, an effort on my part to publicize and address the lack of appropriate library books through bipartisan legislation was reported in the Washington Times on February 20. Most interesting, though, was a response on February 23 by a school librarian that showed some of the real frustrations that school personnel face with the lack of focused Federal funding for specific programs. This school librarian, who has worked for 27 years, saw the article and then described the problem in her words. The money coming down for spending has been diverted by administrators for technology, she says. 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 the 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? The point is, there is an advantage and value in Federal programs that have specific and explicit policy choices for localities. What we sometimes get in flexibility is lost in focus. We should be conscious and careful as we embrace educational reform to be very clear about those programs we believe should be supported specifically--something like library books--and make sure our education funding is not lumped into some vast category where local administrators, under severe pressure, can find ways to distort our intent to support a specific program. There is another aspect, too, of the issue of block grants. People will say: This is not about money. If you just give the States more flexibility, they don't need the extra money. It turns out that most public school reform is based not only upon administrative changes but increased resources for schools. That is the case in Texas. Preceding Governor Bush's term, in fact, going back several terms before that, Texas embarked on a process of redistributing its local school aid. In fact, today it is one of those States which takes resources from wealthy districts and gives them to poor districts. That process began before the testing regime was put in place in Texas. One can argue that as much as testing might have been a source of improvement, just as much or perhaps more was the fact that now for the first time, local school systems are getting the needed funding to conduct the kinds of programs--buying technology, professional development--that are so necessary. We have to be conscious, too, as we talk about the Federal role, to recognize if we are going to talk big, we have to have the resources to back it up. It is not all done simply by changing the chairs around the table, by talking about noneconomic reforms, nonresource reforms. There is another issue, too, that the President has advanced. This is an issue for which I commend him. It is an issue in terms of accountability that I fought for in 1994, along with my colleague, Senator Bingaman. I was a Member of the other body. Senator Bingaman was here. In the context of the debate on Goals 2000, we attempted for the first time to talk about not only standards that children must achieve, but the resources those schools must have so these children can meet those standards. During the course of this debate, we ran into significant opposition, principally opposition from our colleagues on the Republican side. They objected, sometimes in principle, to the notion we would be telling local school systems what to do. I think this debate was important because it recognized for the first time that Federal resources should not be committed without tough standards of accountability, and that these tough standards should be a way to move the system forward. It recognized when we have tough standards and adequate resources you are more likely to get the kind of improvement in educational quality that we all desperately want. After the Goals 2000 debate, we started discussions on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This legislation focused on changes to title I. In the context of this debate, I proposed several amendments which would deal with corrective action, to essentially require local school districts to identify those schools that were failing the State standards, and then develop a plan of action that would bring those schools up to the State standards. Once again, we ran into opposition. I was successful in passing an amendment that exists today in law that requires the State to take corrective action for title I schools following several years of failing to meet the State educational standards. That is on the books today. In fact, the States are already identifying those schools that are not performing up to standards. In 1998-99, 8,800 schools were identified as needing improvement by the States. Now, interestingly enough, the States are not required to transmit specific school names to the Federal Department of Education, so we don't know specifically what schools are failing, but we know there are at least 8,800 schools throughout the country that are not meeting State standards. Unfortunately, because of the time to work through the process of evaluation and corrective action, it is not yet clear whether or not the States have taken effective corrective action. But this notion of accountability, this notion of making sure the States look at their schools, evaluate their schools, propose corrective action and follow through is not a new idea. It exists today for the title I schools. I hope in the process of this debate and reauthorization we can expand the concept of accountability to all schools, that we can put in place real accountability standards, and that these standards will move forward dramatically the educational achievement of our children throughout the United States. Again, another aspect of the President's proposal related to accountability is his insistence to date that we mandate States to require testing of 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 I hope we all recognize that testing alone is not sufficient to improve our schools. Once again we have to have the resources and once again we have to have the commitment to ensure that the resources go to those schools that are most in need. Tests should be an indicator of how well a school is doing, but they should not be a high-risk evaluation of an individual child, in my view. They are diagnostic tools. We can use them to see generally how well a school is doing. But, as we have been cautioned by the National Research Council, ``no single test score can be considered a definitive measure of a student's knowledge,'' and that ``an educational decision that would have a major impact on a test taker should not be based solely or automatically on a single test score.'' As we approach this issue of testing, let me be clear: If we are evaluating how a school or school system is doing as a way to provide additional resources or additional corrective action, these tests can be valuable. But if we allow these tests on a one-time basis to determine the future of students, we will be making a very significant mistake. Also, we should understand the science of testing is a difficult one indeed, and there are many consequences, both intended and unintended, from the application of testing in schools. Again, I think it is appropriate to look at the example of Texas since it is so much in the forefront of our discussions these days. The Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, the TAAS, the test that is used in Texas, has been promoted as almost miraculous in its ability to generate significant gains in educational improvement. But there is evidence that indeed the success reflected in TAAS is not also shown when other tests are applied to roughly the same group of students in Texas. The National Assessment of Educational Progress is a well recognized test, and studies have shown significant differences between the success rates of students in Texas on that test versus the success rate touted by Texas officials using their own tests. We have to be very careful about State tests because there is both the technical difficulty of developing those tests and also the political pressure to make tests that everyone will succeed in passing because it helps avoid tough choices about helping schools and tough actions about ensuring that schools that do not work are adequately addressed. So we have a situation where we have to be careful about the test. We also have to be careful about the effect on students. One other statistic from Texas is that students who are leaving high school short of a diploma and taking a GED instead has increased in Texas significantly from approximately 47,000 in 1989 to 74,000 in 1996. That is an increase of 57 percent. The increase nationally was only 26 percent. So we have to ask ourselves, were people dropping out or being subtly or not so subtly encouraged to leave because of the testing regime that was in place in Texas? There is another aspect that I alluded to: Not just those who choose to take the GED but those who choose to leave school entirely, forfeit the opportunity to improve their education, at least temporarily, and seek other means, either working or simply just leaving school. Once again, if you look at the cohort class of 1991, the year TAAS was implemented, the percentage of students who progressed from grade 6 to graduation dropped from 65 percent to 55 percent for black and Hispanic students and from 75 percent to 68 percent for white students. Once again you have to ask yourself: Is this testing causing unintended consequences: Dropouts and alternate approaches to educational attainment, like the GED? We have to be careful as we go forward. We also have to consider another characteristic, and that is whether or not all the students taking the test are being counted in the test results. Another statistic in Texas is the increase in those students who are being classified as ``in special education,'' who are then not counted in a school's accountability ratings. Again, we have to be very careful as we go forward on this testing issue to ensure that these tests are benchmarks of school performance and are not unfairly marking students on a one-time basis for success or failure, or driving students away from school when in fact school could be more beneficial. The other factor, too, and something we have to be very much concerned about, is that these testing regimes cost money. It has been estimated that in my State of Rhode Island, if we were to adopt the President's proposal, each year we would have to spend $3.2 million simply for test development. On top of that, funding would be needed to implement and administer the tests. That is a significant amount of money in a very small State to devote just to testing, because we also want to do many other things: We want to improve professional development, we want to improve parental involvement, and we want a host of other things that cost money. If all the extra resources, new resources at the local level, are tied up in testing, that is going to take us away from other important initiatives. As a result, I believe if we are going to embark on any form of mandated Federal testing, the Federal Government should provide this testing money, which is an additional cost that has not yet been recognized by the President's proposal. This brings us, of course, to the notion of how much money will there be for educational reform in this administration. Everyone wants education reform. We are about to embark on a process of debate and deliberation that will lead, I believe, rather quickly, to a new reauthorization. But whatever we do depends upon how much we are willing to support this legislation with real resources. The President last week announced he is proposing a $4.6 billion increase in education spending which, by his calculation, will be an 11.5- percent increase in educational spending in our budget. Let's look a little more closely at those numbers. First, the President's proposal disregards the fact that we have already advanced funded $2.1 billion in last year's appropriation for the coming year. So you have to, I think, fairly, subtract that $2.1 billion we have already committed in terms of evaluating how much extra money is going to education. When you do that, you find out the increase is not 11.5 percent but it is 5.7 percent, about $2.4 billion extra. You also have to put this in context. That is a 5.7-percent increase, which would be less than what we have done in the last 4 out of 5 years. So one can ask, where is all this extra money? Where is this massive commitment, this bold innovation to fix American education? Where is it? Indeed, if you look back over the last 5 years, we have been averaging up to 13-percent increases in educational spending. We need the money as well as the rhetoric. I hope whatever we do legislatively in terms of authorization we match with robust appropriations. There is another aspect of the budget with respect to education. This educational increase is not solely devoted to elementary and secondary education, because we also have a significant support system for higher education. When you look at that, the money available just for elementary and secondary education in the President's proposal is about $1.6 billion. Again, that is not the robust, huge sums that we need to start an educational revolution in conjunction with the States. If you look at the President's proposal, his commitment to Reading First, which is his literacy program, is $900 million. That is far above what we are spending for literacy now. If that commitment is made, then less than $1 billion would be available for all the other programs, including title I, new testing provisions, teacher quality, safe schools, and afterschool programs. So we really have to ask ourselves, is there anything beyond the rhetoric, beyond the rhetoric? Are there resources that are going to go into this educational reform? If we don't commit the money, then this will be an exercise that will be ineffective in addressing the reality of the public education problem in this country. I believe we have to have real education reform. I believe we can do it. We should build on the success of the past. We should recognize that we already have in place accountability provisions of title I schools upon which we can build. But we also have to do other things such as reinvigorate our direct support of library materials. We have to ensure that there is effective parental involvement. We have to provide teachers with sustained, effective, and intensive mentoring and professional development, as well as provide principals with effective leadership training. We have to help schools and communities work together to address not just the educational challenges of children but some of the health care and social challenges that detract from their education. We can do this, and we should do this. I hope over the next several weeks and months, throughout the deliberations on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will come together on an elementary and secondary education development plan that will be significant and meaningful, that will be built on our past success, and that will assist States and localities, and that we will find the funds necessary to translate our words into deeds. By doing so, we will realize educational improvement in America and ensure well- educated young people who can not only man the increasingly complex positions in our economy but continue to be citizens who will sustain and move the country forth. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that seeks to remove barriers to learning by encouraging communities to coordinate community services through school-based or school-linked family centers. These centers would provide a comprehensive array of information, support, services, and activities to improve the education, health, mental health, safety, and economic well-being of children and their families. As we strive to ensure the academic and future success of our students, we must recognize that the increasingly complex needs of children cannot be met by our schools and teachers alone. Children bring many social, health, and family problems to school, which leaves them in no shape to learn. Some facts to illustrate this point: Today, 7.5 million children under the age of 18 require mental health services, while the National Institute of Mental Health estimates that fewer than one in five receive the help they need. 11.3 million children--more than 90 percent of them in working families--have no health insurance. It is estimated that nearly five million school-age children spend time without adult supervision during a typical week. Meanwhile, FBI data show that the peak hours for violent juvenile crime occur during the after-school hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Also according to the FBI, juveniles accounted for 17 percent of all violent crime arrests in 1997, and juveniles are victims in nearly 25 percent of all crimes. Programs and services exist to deal with these and other needs facing children--SCHIP, WIC, and after school programs, to name a few. However, too many children can't access such programs and services, and, consequently, too many children don't get the help they need. This is because these services are often too disjointed and fragmented, making it difficult for many families to find a point of entry. This problem is especially acute in low-income urban and rural areas. To address these and other serious issues facing our children and families, a few states and localities have established centers and developed programs designed to provide families with access and linkages to needed social services, like health and mental health care, nutritional programs, child care, housing, and job training, in a location that is easily accessed by families--their children's school. The aim of my legislation is to support and expand such efforts. Research indicates that school-linked family center programs are a cost-effective way to provide supports to children and families. According to a report by the Department of Education's Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, school-linked services can also ``help to increase student achievement, save money and reduce overlapping services, reach those children and families most in need, make schools more welcoming to families, increase community support for the school, and help at-risk families develop the capacity to manage their own lives successfully.'' Moreover, according to a 1999 American Association of School Administrators Nationwide Survey, 82 percent of parents would like family centers in their schools to help improve their schools. My legislation, the Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act, builds on a successful model in my home state of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Child Opportunity Zone (COZ) Family Center initiative, as well as Kentucky's Family Resource and Youth Service Centers, and Minnesota's Family Service program. The Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act, which is supported by more than 30 health, education, and children's organizations, would provide grants on a competitive basis to partnerships consisting of a high poverty public school; school district; other public agency, such as a department of health or social services; and non-profit community organizations. Partnerships would be required to complete a needs assessment, and then use this information to provide children and families with linkages to existing community prevention and intervention services in core areas such as education, child care, non- school hours care and enrichment programs, health services, mental health services, nutrition, family support, literacy services, parenting skills, and dropout prevention. In addition, partnerships would provide violence prevention education to children and families, as well as training to enable families to help their children meet challenging standards and succeed in school. The guiding principle of Rhode Island's COZ Family Centers is to help children and families get the assistance they need so children are ready to learn in the classroom. This principle is reflected in my legislation, which contains accountability provisions to ensure that partnerships focus on improvements in student achievement, family participation in schools, access to health care, mental health care, child care, as well as family support services, and work to reduce violence among youth, truancy, suspension, and dropout rates in order to continue to receive funding. As we again begin to consider the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I believe that it is critical that we do all we can to provide a seamless, integrated system of support for children and families. By giving families an opportunity to get the support they need, we can truly help children come to school ready to learn and in turn help children succeed in school and life. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with a letter of support.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional Development Reform Act to strengthen and improve professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators. I have long worked to improve the quality of teaching in America's classrooms for the simple reason that well-trained and well-prepared teachers and principals are central to improving the academic performance and achievement of students. In the 105th Congress, I introduced the TEACH Act to reform the way our prospective teachers are trained, and I was pleased that this legislation was included in the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the focus shifts to increasing support for both new and veteran classroom teachers, as well as school principals. Research shows that professional development programs, however, too often consist of fragmented, one-shot workshops, at which teachers passively listen to experts, and lack significant opportunity for teacher interaction. The Department of Education recently evaluated the Eisenhower Professional Development program and found that the vast majority of professional development opportunities are not of sufficient duration or intensity to generate significant improvements in teaching. Other studies support that finding and show that such professional development fails to improve or even impact teaching practice. We do not expect students to learn their ``ABCs'' after one day of lessons, and we should not expect a one-day professional development workshop to yield the desired results. Indeed, the Department of Education found that teaching would improve if teachers experienced consistent, high-quality professional development. Moreover, a recent survey of teachers found that professional development is too short-term and lacks intensity. In fact, recent studies indicated that the majority of teachers participated in professional development activities from one to eight hours, or for no more than one day a year. As a consequence, only about 1 in 5 teachers felt very well prepared for addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency, those from culturally diverse backgrounds, and those with disabilities, or integrating educational technology into the curriculum. There is also widespread agreement that a good principal is the keystone of a good school. However, there is great concern that the supply of quality principals may not meet the increasing demand for quality school leadership. Unfortunately, the depth and quality of support and development programs for both new and veteran principals varies widely, which creates another gap in our education system. I am introducing legislation today which would reform professional development for teachers and principals. There is broad consensus among experts about the elements that truly constitute an effective professional development program. Research shows that effective professional development approaches are sustained, intensive activities that focus on deepening teachers knowledge of content; allow teachers to work collaboratively; provide opportunities for teachers to practice and reflect upon their teaching; are aligned with standards and embedded in the daily work of the school; and involve parents and other community members. Such high-quality professional development improves student achievement. Indeed, a 1998 study in California found that the more teachers were engaged in ongoing, curriculum-centered professional development, the higher their students scored on mathematics achievement on the state's assessment. Further, Community School District 2 in New York City has seen its investment in sustained, intensive professional development pay off with significant increases in student achievement. Professional development in District 2 is delivered in schools and classrooms and focused on system-wide instructional improvement, with intensive activities such as observation of exemplary teachers and classrooms both inside and outside the district, supervised practice, peer networks, and offsite training opportunities. I have visited District 2 and have seen this outstanding professional development first hand. My legislation builds on these successful models and the research on effective professional development to create a new formula program for high-quality professional development that is sustained, collaborative, content-centered, embedded in the daily work of the school, and aligned with standards and school reform efforts. To achieve this enhanced professional development, my legislation funds the following activities: mentoring; peer observation and coaching; curriculum-based content training; dedicated time for collaborative lesson planning; opportunities for teachers to visit other classrooms to model effective teaching practice; training on integrating technology into the curriculum, addressing the specific needs of diverse students, and involving parents; professional development networks to provide a forum for interaction and exchange of information among teachers and administrators; as well as release time and compensation for mentors and substitute teachers to make these activities possible. The Professional Development Reform Act also requires partnerships between elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education for providing training opportunities, including advanced content area courses and training to address teacher shortages. In fact, Department of Education data show that the Eisenhower Professional Development program activities are most effective when they are sponsored by institutions of higher education. My legislation will also provide funding for leadership training to encourage highly qualified individuals to become principals, and to develop and enhance leadership, management, parental involvement, and mentoring skills for principals and superintendents. Indeed, ensuring that our principals have the training and support to serve as instructional leaders is critical. Further, my legislation will provide funding for programs to encourage highly qualified and effective teachers to become mentoring teachers. We know that our schools with the highest percentage of poverty have the greatest need for professional development improvement and resources, and that is why my bill targets funding to these schools. Importantly, the Professional Development Reform Act offers resources but it demands results. The bill's strong accountability provisions require that school districts and schools which receive funding actually improve student performance and increase participation in sustained professional development in three years in order to secure additional funding. In sum, my legislation seeks to ensure that new teachers and principals have the support they need to be successful educators, that all teachers have access to high quality professional development regardless of the content areas they teach, and that professional development does not isolate teachers, but rather brings teachers together as part of a coordinated and comprehensive strategy aligned with standards. The time for action is now because schools must hire an estimated 2.2 million new teachers over the next decade due to increasing enrollments, the retirement of approximately half of our current teaching force, and high attrition rates. Ensuring that teachers and principals have the training, assistance, and support to increase student achievement and sustain them throughout their careers is a great challenge. But we must meet and overcome this challenge if we are to reform education and prepare our children for the 21st Century. The Professional Development Reform Act, by increasing our professional development investment and focusing it on the kind of activities and opportunities for teachers and administrators that research shows is effective, is critical to this effort. I urge my colleagues to join me in this essential endeavor by cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the ESEA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parent Act, which seeks to increase parental involvement in the educational lives of their children. Research, experience, and reason tell us that providing parents with opportunities to play active roles in their children's schools empowers them to help their children excel. When parents are actively involved in their child's education, not only does their own child go further, but their child's school also improves to the benefit of all students. Indeed, as I have witnessed in Rhode Island, and I am sure my colleagues can attest to this in their states, our best schools are not simply those with the finest teachers and principals, but those which strive to engage parents in the education of their children. Research shows that regardless of economic, ethnic, or cultural background, 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. Further, when parental involvement is a school priority, schools have fewer failing students, achieve better reputations in the community, and show improvements in staff morale. In 1999, the American Association of School Administrators conducted a nationwide survey and found that 96 percent of parents believe that parental involvement is critical for a student to succeed in school and that 84 percent believe in parent involvement so strongly that they are willing to require such involvement. Further, a recent National PTA survey revealed that 91 percent of parents recognize that it is extremely important for parents to be involved in their children's school. Unfortunately, even as we extol the virtue of parental involvement, we must recognize that reality falls far short of that goal. The National PTA survey also found that roughly half the parents surveyed felt they were inadequately informed about ways in which they could participate in schools, or even gain access to basic information about their children's studies and their children's teachers. There are also other obstacles to greater parental involvement, such as working parents who find it difficult to get to schools and be involved or parents who have had negative schooling experiences and are wary of entering schools to participate in their children's education. With more than 90 percent of parents believing that parental involvement is critical to a child's academic achievement and less than 50 percent of parents believing that their schools adequately involve them in their children's education, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA provides an opportunity to help bring schools and parents together, and to ensure parents have the tools to become meaningfully and effectively involved in their children's education. While the ESEA currently contains parental involvement provisions, they mainly apply to Title I schools and students, and have not been fully implemented. That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senators Wellstone and Murray and Representative Lynn Woolsey in the other body in introducing the Parent Act. This legislation would amend the ESEA to bolster existing, and add new, parental involvement provisions. The Parent Act requires that all schools implement effective, research-based parental involvement best practices, and it provides technical assistance to schools that are having problems implementing parental involvement programs. My bill also seeks to improve parental access to information about their children's education and a school's parental involvement policies; ensure that professional development activities provide training to teachers and administrators on how to foster relationships with parents and encourage parental involvement; utilize technology to expand efforts to connect schools and teachers with parents; and promote parental involvement in drug and violence prevention programs. Further, the bill requires each local district to make available to parents an annual report card which explains how a school is performing with respect to student achievement, teacher qualification, class size, school safety, drop-out rates, the actions the school is taking to involve parents in school activities and decision making, and other school performance indicators. The Parent Act also offers $500 million for school districts, with strict accountability measures, to supplement and support recognized and proven initiatives that improve student achievement through parental involvement. Currently, section 1118 of Title I requires districts to develop written parental involvement policies and requires schools to develop school-parent compacts, hold annual meetings for parents at schools, and involve parents in school review and improvement policies and plans. Local districts are required to spend 1 percent of their Title I allotment for this purpose, unless that 1 percent amounts to less than $5,000. In Rhode Island, however, in only 9 of the 34 districts that receive Title I funds is this amount above $5,000, and this situation is similar across the nation. In fact, the Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I found that a quarter of Title I schools do not have required school-parent compacts, more than four years after they were required. As Secretary Paige stated at his confirmation hearing, ``increased assistance will be needed'' to enhance parental involvement. Last Congress, during the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee debate on ESEA, many provisions of the Parent Act were added to S. 2, the ESEA reauthorization bill. But S. 2 did not go far enough to ensure the parental involvement provisions of ESEA are actually implemented. The accountability provisions of the Parent Act and its grant resources are essential to making sure all of the elements for effective parental involvement are in place. To succeed in the endeavor of increasing parental involvement, we must depend on parents, teachers, and school administrators throughout the country to work collaboratively to implement effective programs. However, federal leadership is needed to provide schools, teachers, and parents with the tools required for this task. The bottom line of federal support for education is to increase student achievement. Parental involvement is essential to ensuring that our students succeed. This legislation is strongly supported by the National PTA, and I urge my colleagues to join Senators Wellstone and Murray, Representative Woolsey, and me in supporting the Parent Act, and working for its inclusion in the ESEA reauthorization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, in introducing a resolution commemorating the letter sent by President George Washington to Touro Synagogue in Newport Rhode Island, the oldest Jewish house of worship in the United States. When Roger Williams came to Rhode Island in the 1630s, an individual's right to worship without government interference was unknown in other colonies or countries of the world. He made religious tolerance the core principle of his new settlement, and it became a beacon of hope for those suffering from persecution. By the middle of the 17th century, 15 Jewish families, who knew the pain of intolerance firsthand, arrived in Newport to reclaim their faith and rebuild their lives. This group included Jews from Spain and Portugal who had been forced to become Christian converts to escape persecution. Rhode Island's lively experiment promised a new beginning. The 18th century say many steps toward the realization of this promise, as increasing trade and religious tolerance spurred the growth of Newport and its Jewish community. By 1759, with about 75 families totaling some 300 people, the Congregation turned to the construction of a permanent house of worship. Four years later, this Synagogue was dedicated in a service led by Reverend Isaac Touro, the spiritual leader of the Congregation. As this country's first President, George Washington was the leader of a nation still crafting its ideals and identity. Although the new Constitution had won ratification, many Americans feared that its concentration of power in a federal government threatened the individual liberties for which they had so recently gone to war. To alleviate these fears, Washington began a nationwide tour in support of a Bill of Rights that would explicitly protect basic freedoms of Americans against government intrusion. This tour brought Washington to Newport in August 1790. During his visit, Washington received an eloquent letter from Moses Seixas, the warden of Touro Synagogue. Seixas commended the President for his work and leadership in establishing a government that respected the inalienable rights of all citizens. Washington's response embraced Seixas' simple, elegant phrases to renew his and the nation's commitment to Rhode Island's founding principle. Addressing a Congregation dedicated to religious liberty in a state based on this ideal, Washington reaffirmed religious freedom as essential to the new nation's identity. When Washington declared that ``the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens,'' he made Rhode Island's history of religious liberty a model for the nation. ``To bigotry no sanction.'' It is for good reason that these words continue to resonate today, as we confront the challenges of an ever more closely linked, yet endlessly diverse community of nations. We all know too well the destruction that bigotry causes, and this plague is still with us. The fight for tolerance is as necessary now as in the days of President Washington or Roger Williams. This fight for tolerance is the reason the original letter sent by George Washington remains on permanent display at the B'nai B'rith Klutznick National Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. This fight for tolerance is also the reason Americans of all religious faiths gather at the Klutznick Museum each February and at Touro Synagogue each August to hear readings of the letter. It is my hope these commemorations inspire us to follow the examples set by Roger Williams and President Washington and continue to fight for religious and personal liberty for all.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional Development Reform Act to strengthen and improve professional development opportunities for teachers and administrators. I have long worked to improve the quality of teaching in America's classrooms for the simple reason that well-trained and well-prepared teachers and principals are central to improving the academic performance and achievement of students. In the 105th Congress, I introduced the TEACH Act to reform the way our prospective teachers are trained, and I was pleased that this legislation was included in the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. As Congress turns to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, the focus shifts to increasing support for both new and veteran classroom teachers, as well as school principals. Research shows that professional development programs, however, too often consist of fragmented, one-shot workshops, at which teachers passively listen to experts, and lack significant opportunity for teacher interaction. The Department of Education recently evaluated the Eisenhower Professional Development program and found that the vast majority of professional development opportunities are not of sufficient duration or intensity to generate significant improvements in teaching. Other studies support that finding and show that such professional development fails to improve or even impact teaching practice. We do not expect students to learn their ``ABCs'' after one day of lessons, and we should not expect a one-day professional development workshop to yield the desired results. Indeed, the Department of Education found that teaching would improve if teachers experienced consistent, high-quality professional development. Moreover, a recent survey of teachers found that professional development is too short-term and lacks intensity. In fact, recent studies indicated that the majority of teachers participated in professional development activities from one to eight hours, or for no more than one day a year. As a consequence, only about 1 in 5 teachers felt very well prepared for addressing the needs of students with limited English proficiency, those from culturally diverse backgrounds, and those with disabilities, or integrating educational technology into the curriculum. There is also widespread agreement that a good principal is the keystone of a good school. However, there is great concern that the supply of quality principals may not meet the increasing demand for quality school leadership. Unfortunately, the depth and quality of support and development programs for both new and veteran principals varies widely, which creates another gap in our education system. I am introducing legislation today which would reform professional development for teachers and principals. There is broad consensus among experts about the elements that truly constitute an effective professional development program. Research shows that effective professional development approaches are sustained, intensive activities that focus on deepening teachers knowledge of content; allow teachers to work collaboratively; provide opportunities for teachers to practice and reflect upon their teaching; are aligned with standards and embedded in the daily work of the school; and involve parents and other community members. Such high-quality professional development improves student achievement. Indeed, a 1998 study in California found that the more teachers were engaged in ongoing, curriculum-centered professional development, the higher their students scored on mathematics achievement on the state's assessment. Further, Community School District 2 in New York City has seen its investment in sustained, intensive professional development pay off with significant increases in student achievement. Professional development in District 2 is delivered in schools and classrooms and focused on system-wide instructional improvement, with intensive activities such as observation of exemplary teachers and classrooms both inside and outside the district, supervised practice, peer networks, and offsite training opportunities. I have visited District 2 and have seen this outstanding professional development first hand. My legislation builds on these successful models and the research on effective professional development to create a new formula program for high-quality professional development that is sustained, collaborative, content-centered, embedded in the daily work of the school, and aligned with standards and school reform efforts. To achieve this enhanced professional development, my legislation funds the following activities: mentoring; peer observation and coaching; curriculum-based content training; dedicated time for collaborative lesson planning; opportunities for teachers to visit other classrooms to model effective teaching practice; training on integrating technology into the curriculum, addressing the specific needs of diverse students, and involving parents; professional development networks to provide a forum for interaction and exchange of information among teachers and administrators; as well as release time and compensation for mentors and substitute teachers to make these activities possible. The Professional Development Reform Act also requires partnerships between elementary and secondary schools and institutions of higher education for providing training opportunities, including advanced content area courses and training to address teacher shortages. In fact, Department of Education data show that the Eisenhower Professional Development program activities are most effective when they are sponsored by institutions of higher education. My legislation will also provide funding for leadership training to encourage highly qualified individuals to become principals, and to develop and enhance leadership, management, parental involvement, and mentoring skills for principals and superintendents. Indeed, ensuring that our principals have the training and support to serve as instructional leaders is critical. Further, my legislation will provide funding for programs to encourage highly qualified and effective teachers to become mentoring teachers. We know that our schools with the highest percentage of poverty have the greatest need for professional development improvement and resources, and that is why my bill targets funding to these schools. Importantly, the Professional Development Reform Act offers resources but it demands results. The bill's strong accountability provisions require that school districts and schools which receive funding actually improve student performance and increase participation in sustained professional development in three years in order to secure additional funding. In sum, my legislation seeks to ensure that new teachers and principals have the support they need to be successful educators, that all teachers have access to high quality professional development regardless of the content areas they teach, and that professional development does not isolate teachers, but rather brings teachers together as part of a coordinated and comprehensive strategy aligned with standards. The time for action is now because schools must hire an estimated 2.2 million new teachers over the next decade due to increasing enrollments, the retirement of approximately half of our current teaching force, and high attrition rates. Ensuring that teachers and principals have the training, assistance, and support to increase student achievement and sustain them throughout their careers is a great challenge. But we must meet and overcome this challenge if we are to reform education and prepare our children for the 21st Century. The Professional Development Reform Act, by increasing our professional development investment and focusing it on the kind of activities and opportunities for teachers and administrators that research shows is effective, is critical to this effort. I urge my colleagues to join me in this essential endeavor by cosponsoring this legislation and working for its inclusion in the reauthorization of the ESEA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parent Act, which seeks to increase parental involvement in the educational lives of their children. Research, experience, and reason tell us that providing parents with opportunities to play active roles in their children's schools empowers them to help their children excel. When parents are actively involved in their child's education, not only does their own child go further, but their child's school also improves to the benefit of all students. Indeed, as I have witnessed in Rhode Island, and I am sure my colleagues can attest to this in their states, our best schools are not simply those with the finest teachers and principals, but those which strive to engage parents in the education of their children. Research shows that regardless of economic, ethnic, or cultural background, 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. Further, when parental involvement is a school priority, schools have fewer failing students, achieve better reputations in the community, and show improvements in staff morale. In 1999, the American Association of School Administrators conducted a nationwide survey and found that 96 percent of parents believe that parental involvement is critical for a student to succeed in school and that 84 percent believe in parent involvement so strongly that they are willing to require such involvement. Further, a recent National PTA survey revealed that 91 percent of parents recognize that it is extremely important for parents to be involved in their children's school. Unfortunately, even as we extol the virtue of parental involvement, we must recognize that reality falls far short of that goal. The National PTA survey also found that roughly half the parents surveyed felt they were inadequately informed about ways in which they could participate in schools, or even gain access to basic information about their children's studies and their children's teachers. There are also other obstacles to greater parental involvement, such as working parents who find it difficult to get to schools and be involved or parents who have had negative schooling experiences and are wary of entering schools to participate in their children's education. With more than 90 percent of parents believing that parental involvement is critical to a child's academic achievement and less than 50 percent of parents believing that their schools adequately involve them in their children's education, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA provides an opportunity to help bring schools and parents together, and to ensure parents have the tools to become meaningfully and effectively involved in their children's education. While the ESEA currently contains parental involvement provisions, they mainly apply to Title I schools and students, and have not been fully implemented. That is why I am pleased to be joined by Senators Wellstone and Murray and Representative Lynn Woolsey in the other body in introducing the Parent Act. This legislation would amend the ESEA to bolster existing, and add new, parental involvement provisions. The Parent Act requires that all schools implement effective, research-based parental involvement best practices, and it provides technical assistance to schools that are having problems implementing parental involvement programs. My bill also seeks to improve parental access to information about their children's education and a school's parental involvement policies; ensure that professional development activities provide training to teachers and administrators on how to foster relationships with parents and encourage parental involvement; utilize technology to expand efforts to connect schools and teachers with parents; and promote parental involvement in drug and violence prevention programs. Further, the bill requires each local district to make available to parents an annual report card which explains how a school is performing with respect to student achievement, teacher qualification, class size, school safety, drop-out rates, the actions the school is taking to involve parents in school activities and decision making, and other school performance indicators. The Parent Act also offers $500 million for school districts, with strict accountability measures, to supplement and support recognized and proven initiatives that improve student achievement through parental involvement. Currently, section 1118 of Title I requires districts to develop written parental involvement policies and requires schools to develop school-parent compacts, hold annual meetings for parents at schools, and involve parents in school review and improvement policies and plans. Local districts are required to spend 1 percent of their Title I allotment for this purpose, unless that 1 percent amounts to less than $5,000. In Rhode Island, however, in only 9 of the 34 districts that receive Title I funds is this amount above $5,000, and this situation is similar across the nation. In fact, the Final Report of the National Assessment of Title I found that a quarter of Title I schools do not have required school-parent compacts, more than four years after they were required. As Secretary Paige stated at his confirmation hearing, ``increased assistance will be needed'' to enhance parental involvement. Last Congress, during the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee debate on ESEA, many provisions of the Parent Act were added to S. 2, the ESEA reauthorization bill. But S. 2 did not go far enough to ensure the parental involvement provisions of ESEA are actually implemented. The accountability provisions of the Parent Act and its grant resources are essential to making sure all of the elements for effective parental involvement are in place. To succeed in the endeavor of increasing parental involvement, we must depend on parents, teachers, and school administrators throughout the country to work collaboratively to implement effective programs. However, federal leadership is needed to provide schools, teachers, and parents with the tools required for this task. The bottom line of federal support for education is to increase student achievement. Parental involvement is essential to ensuring that our students succeed. This legislation is strongly supported by the National PTA, and I urge my colleagues to join Senators Wellstone and Murray, Representative Woolsey, and me in supporting the Parent Act, and working for its inclusion in the ESEA reauthorization. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that seeks to remove barriers to learning by encouraging communities to coordinate community services through school-based or school-linked family centers. These centers would provide a comprehensive array of information, support, services, and activities to improve the education, health, mental health, safety, and economic well-being of children and their families. As we strive to ensure the academic and future success of our students, we must recognize that the increasingly complex needs of children cannot be met by our schools and teachers alone. Children bring many social, health, and family problems to school, which leaves them in no shape to learn. Some facts to illustrate this point: Today, 7.5 million children under the age of 18 require mental health services, while the National Institute of Mental Health estimates that fewer than one in five receive the help they need. 11.3 million children--more than 90 percent of them in working families--have no health insurance. It is estimated that nearly five million school-age children spend time without adult supervision during a typical week. Meanwhile, FBI data show that the peak hours for violent juvenile crime occur during the after-school hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Also according to the FBI, juveniles accounted for 17 percent of all violent crime arrests in 1997, and juveniles are victims in nearly 25 percent of all crimes. Programs and services exist to deal with these and other needs facing children--SCHIP, WIC, and after school programs, to name a few. However, too many children can't access such programs and services, and, consequently, too many children don't get the help they need. This is because these services are often too disjointed and fragmented, making it difficult for many families to find a point of entry. This problem is especially acute in low-income urban and rural areas. To address these and other serious issues facing our children and families, a few states and localities have established centers and developed programs designed to provide families with access and linkages to needed social services, like health and mental health care, nutritional programs, child care, housing, and job training, in a location that is easily accessed by families--their children's school. The aim of my legislation is to support and expand such efforts. Research indicates that school-linked family center programs are a cost-effective way to provide supports to children and families. According to a report by the Department of Education's Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory, school-linked services can also ``help to increase student achievement, save money and reduce overlapping services, reach those children and families most in need, make schools more welcoming to families, increase community support for the school, and help at-risk families develop the capacity to manage their own lives successfully.'' Moreover, according to a 1999 American Association of School Administrators Nationwide Survey, 82 percent of parents would like family centers in their schools to help improve their schools. My legislation, the Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act, builds on a successful model in my home state of Rhode Island, the Rhode Island Child Opportunity Zone (COZ) Family Center initiative, as well as Kentucky's Family Resource and Youth Service Centers, and Minnesota's Family Service program. The Child Opportunity Zone Family Center Act, which is supported by more than 30 health, education, and children's organizations, would provide grants on a competitive basis to partnerships consisting of a high poverty public school; school district; other public agency, such as a department of health or social services; and non-profit community organizations. Partnerships would be required to complete a needs assessment, and then use this information to provide children and families with linkages to existing community prevention and intervention services in core areas such as education, child care, non- school hours care and enrichment programs, health services, mental health services, nutrition, family support, literacy services, parenting skills, and dropout prevention. In addition, partnerships would provide violence prevention education to children and families, as well as training to enable families to help their children meet challenging standards and succeed in school. The guiding principle of Rhode Island's COZ Family Centers is to help children and families get the assistance they need so children are ready to learn in the classroom. This principle is reflected in my legislation, which contains accountability provisions to ensure that partnerships focus on improvements in student achievement, family participation in schools, access to health care, mental health care, child care, as well as family support services, and work to reduce violence among youth, truancy, suspension, and dropout rates in order to continue to receive funding. As we again begin to consider the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I believe that it is critical that we do all we can to provide a seamless, integrated system of support for children and families. By giving families an opportunity to get the support they need, we can truly help children come to school ready to learn and in turn help children succeed in school and life. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record along with a letter of support.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join the chorus of support for the Home Health Payment Fairness Act. The intent of this important legislation is two-fold--first, eliminate the impending 15 percent reduction in home health payments scheduled to take effect in October 2002, and second, restore a modicum of stability and predictability to the home health funding stream after years of volatility and turmoil. I was pleased to introduce similar language with Senator Collins last Congress; I am pleased to do so again. Over the past several years, Congress has worked to address the unintended consequences of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, BBA. Specifically, we have sought to alleviate the tremendous financial burdens that have been borne by the home health industry and the patients who rely on these agencies for care. Since the enactment of the BBA, there has been a remarkable 48 percent decline in Medicare home health expenditures. Moreover, across the nation, home health agencies have been forced to cut back on services, and in some cases, close their doors forever. As a result, vulnerable and frail Medicare beneficiaries are being deprived of medically needed health services that enable these populations to receive care while remaining in the comfort of their homes and communities. While we have been able to correct for a number of the problems, one issue we have yet to resolve affirmatively is the impending 15 percent for home health services. This reduction, which was originally scheduled to take effect in October 2000, has been delayed since 2002. While this delay is certainly significant, we can and must do more to restore predictability to the home health reimbursement system. We must see to it that the 15 percent cut is eliminated--and I hope we can achieve that goal this year. As we have already seen, reductions of this magnitude are all too often shouldered by small, nonprofit home health agencies and the elderly and disabled beneficiaries they serve. Home health care agencies in my home state of Rhode Island have been especially hard hit by these changes. We have seen a significant decline in the number of beneficiaries served and access to care for more medically complex patients threatened by these cuts. These reductions have clearly had negative impact on patients who heavily rely on home health services. Nationally, between 1997 and 1998, the number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health services has fallen 14 percent, while the total number of home health visits has fallen by 40 percent. We have seen a similar trend in Rhode Island, where over 3,000 fewer beneficiaries are receiving home health care--representing a decline of 16 percent--and the total number of visits has fallen 38 percent. These individuals are either being forced to turn to more expensive alternatives, such as institutional-based nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities for their care, or these individuals are simply going without care, which places an immeasurable burden on the family and friends of vulnerable beneficiaries. I truly do not believe this is the path we want to remain on when it comes to home health care. In light of the impending ``senior boom'' that will be hitting our entitlement programs in a few short years, we should be doing all we can to preserve and strengthen the Medicare home health benefit. We can begin to do so by eliminating the 15 percent reduction in home health payments. By taking this step, we will alleviate an enormous burden that has been looming over financially strapped home health agencies as well as the frail and vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries who rely on these critical services. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this critical legislation, and I look forward to working with Senator Collins and my other colleagues on the home health issue this Congress.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation to support and strengthen America's school libraries. Research shows that well-equipped and well-staffed school libraries are essential to promoting literacy, learning, and achievement. Indeed, recent studies in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Alaska reveal that a strong library media program, consisting of a well-stocked school library staffed by a trained, school-library media specialist, helps students learn more and score higher on standardized tests than their peers in library-impoverished schools. These findings echo earlier studies conducted in the 1990s, which found that students in schools with well-equipped libraries and professional library specialists performed better on achievement tests for reading comprehension and basic research skills. Mr. President, with our ever-changing global economy, access to information and the skills to use it are vital to ensuring that young Americans are competitive and informed citizens of the world. That is why the school library is so important in supplementing what is learned in the classroom; promoting better learning, including reading, research, library use, and electronic database skills; and providing the foundation for independent learning that allows students to achieve throughout their educational careers and their lives. While the promise of a well-equipped school library to promote literacy, learning, and achievement is boundless, and its importance greater than ever, the condition of libraries today does not live up to that potential. As Linda Wood, a school-library media specialist from South Kingstown High School in Rhode Island, noted during a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing two years ago, school library collections are outdated and sparse. Many schools across the nation are dependent on books purchased in the mid-1960s with dedicated funding provided under the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Many of the books still on school library shelves today were purchased with this funding and have not been replaced since 1981, when this dedicated funding was folded into what is now the Title VI block grant. As a result, many books in our school libraries predate the landing of manned spacecraft on the moon, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the end of Apartheid, the Internet, and advances in DNA research. Mr. President, over the past several months I have received over one hundred books pulled from library shelves across the country which further illustrate the sad state of school libraries today. I would like to cite just a few examples. A book entitled Rockets Into Space, copyright 1959, informs students that ``there is a way to get to the moon and even distant planets, [but the trip must] be made in two stages. The first stage would be from earth to a space station. The second stage would be from the space station to the moon. It would cost a lot of money to buy a ticket to the moon.'' This book was checked out of a Los Angeles school library 13 times since 1995. Further, a book found on a Rhode Island school library shelf, entitled Studying the Middle East in Elementary and Secondary Schools, copyright 1968, contains the following information: ``UNDERSTANDING SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARABS--It is difficult to generalize about any group of people and yet there are some characteristics which seem predominant and helpful in understanding the Arabs.'' Needless to say, the book then proceeds to describe characteristics of Arab people in derogatory terms. And finally, a book entitled Colonial Life in America, copyright 1962, found on a shelf in a Philadelphia school library, informs the student that life on ``a large plantation in the South was like a village. Slave families had their own cabins.'' This book describes southern plantation life as idyllic, without reference to the harshness and injustice of life as a slave. As you can see, in a rapidly changing world, our students are placed at a major disadvantage if the only scientific, geographical, and historical materials they have access to are outdated and inaccurate. The reason for this sad state of affairs is the loss of targeted, national funding for school libraries. In sum, school library funding is grossly inadequate to the task of improving and supplementing collections. Library spending per student today is a small fraction of the cost of a new book. Indeed, while the average school library book costs $16, the average spending per student for books is approximately $6.75 in elementary schools; $7.30 in middle schools; and $6.25 in high schools. Consequently, many schools cannot remove outdated books from their shelves because there is no money to replace these books. My home state of Rhode Island is working on an innovative effort to ensure that students gain access to materials not available in their own school libraries. RILINK, the Rhode Island Library Information Network for Kids, gives students and teachers 24-hour Internet access to a statewide catalog of school library holdings, complete with information about the book's status on the shelf. RILINK also allows for on-line request of materials via interlibrary loan, with rapid delivery through a statewide courier system, and provides links from book information records to related Internet research sites, allowing a single book request to serve as a point of departure for a galaxy of information sources. Unfortunately, such innovations, which could benefit schoolchildren across the nation, cannot be expanded without adequate library funding. Indeed, the only federal funding that is currently available to school libraries is the Title VI block grant, which allows expenditure for school library and instructional materials as one of nine choices for local uses of funds. Since 1981, states have chosen other needs above school library books and technology. Sadly, districts only spend an estimated 17 percent of funds on school library and instructional materials. This amount is wholly insufficient to replace outdated books in both our classrooms and school libraries, and this lack of targeting and diffusion of funding is why block grants are so harmful. Mr. President, well-trained school library media specialists are also essential to helping students unlock their potential. These individuals are at the heart of guiding students in their work, providing research training, maintaining and developing collections, and ensuring that a library fulfills its potential. In addition, they have the skills to guide students in the use of the broad variety of advanced technological education resources now available. Unfortunately, only 68 percent of schools have state-certified library media specialists, according to Department of Education figures, and, on average, there is only one specialist for every 591 students. This shortage means that many school libraries are staffed by volunteers and are open only a few days a week. I am introducing this bipartisan bill today, along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Dodd, Bingaman, Wellstone, Murray, Mikulski, Clinton, Chafee, Rockefeller, Reid, Sarbanes, and Baucus to restore the funding that is critical to improving school libraries. The Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Act authorizes $500 million to help school libraries with the greatest needs update their collections and would ensure that students have access to the informational tools they need to learn and achieve at the highest levels. This bill allows for maximum flexibility, enabling schools to use the funds to update library media resources, such as books and advanced technology, train school-library media specialists, and facilitate resource-sharing among school libraries. The bill also establishes the School Library Access Program to provide students with access to school libraries during non- school hours, including before and after school, weekends, and summers. Providing access to the most up-to-date school library collections is an essential part of increasing student achievement, improving literacy skills, and helping students become lifelong learners. The bipartisan Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Act is strongly supported by the American Library Association, and will help accomplish these essential goals. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill and a letter of support written by the American Library Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation to support and strengthen America's school libraries. Research shows that well-equipped and well-staffed school libraries are essential to promoting literacy, learning, and achievement. Indeed, recent studies in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Alaska reveal that a strong library media program, consisting of a well-stocked school library staffed by a trained, school-library media specialist, helps students learn more and score higher on standardized tests than their peers in library-impoverished schools. These findings echo earlier studies conducted in the 1990s, which found that students in schools with well-equipped libraries and professional library specialists performed better on achievement tests for reading comprehension and basic research skills. Mr. President, with our ever-changing global economy, access to information and the skills to use it are vital to ensuring that young Americans are competitive and informed citizens of the world. That is why the school library is so important in supplementing what is learned in the classroom; promoting better learning, including reading, research, library use, and electronic database skills; and providing the foundation for independent learning that allows students to achieve throughout their educational careers and their lives. While the promise of a well-equipped school library to promote literacy, learning, and achievement is boundless, and its importance greater than ever, the condition of libraries today does not live up to that potential. As Linda Wood, a school-library media specialist from South Kingstown High School in Rhode Island, noted during a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing two years ago, school library collections are outdated and sparse. Many schools across the nation are dependent on books purchased in the mid-1960s with dedicated funding provided under the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. Many of the books still on school library shelves today were purchased with this funding and have not been replaced since 1981, when this dedicated funding was folded into what is now the Title VI block grant. As a result, many books in our school libraries predate the landing of manned spacecraft on the moon, the breakup of the Soviet Union, the end of Apartheid, the Internet, and advances in DNA research. Mr. President, over the past several months I have received over one hundred books pulled from library shelves across the country which further illustrate the sad state of school libraries today. I would like to cite just a few examples. A book entitled Rockets Into Space, copyright 1959, informs students that ``there is a way to get to the moon and even distant planets, [but the trip must] be made in two stages. The first stage would be from earth to a space station. The second stage would be from the space station to the moon. It would cost a lot of money to buy a ticket to the moon.'' This book was checked out of a Los Angeles school library 13 times since 1995. Further, a book found on a Rhode Island school library shelf, entitled Studying the Middle East in Elementary and Secondary Schools, copyright 1968, contains the following information: ``UNDERSTANDING SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ARABS--It is difficult to generalize about any group of people and yet there are some characteristics which seem predominant and helpful in understanding the Arabs.'' Needless to say, the book then proceeds to describe characteristics of Arab people in derogatory terms. And finally, a book entitled Colonial Life in America, copyright 1962, found on a shelf in a Philadelphia school library, informs the student that life on ``a large plantation in the South was like a village. Slave families had their own cabins.'' This book describes southern plantation life as idyllic, without reference to the harshness and injustice of life as a slave. As you can see, in a rapidly changing world, our students are placed at a major disadvantage if the only scientific, geographical, and historical materials they have access to are outdated and inaccurate. The reason for this sad state of affairs is the loss of targeted, national funding for school libraries. In sum, school library funding is grossly inadequate to the task of improving and supplementing collections. Library spending per student today is a small fraction of the cost of a new book. Indeed, while the average school library book costs $16, the average spending per student for books is approximately $6.75 in elementary schools; $7.30 in middle schools; and $6.25 in high schools. Consequently, many schools cannot remove outdated books from their shelves because there is no money to replace these books. My home state of Rhode Island is working on an innovative effort to ensure that students gain access to materials not available in their own school libraries. RILINK, the Rhode Island Library Information Network for Kids, gives students and teachers 24-hour Internet access to a statewide catalog of school library holdings, complete with information about the book's status on the shelf. RILINK also allows for on-line request of materials via interlibrary loan, with rapid delivery through a statewide courier system, and provides links from book information records to related Internet research sites, allowing a single book request to serve as a point of departure for a galaxy of information sources. Unfortunately, such innovations, which could benefit schoolchildren across the nation, cannot be expanded without adequate library funding. Indeed, the only federal funding that is currently available to school libraries is the Title VI block grant, which allows expenditure for school library and instructional materials as one of nine choices for local uses of funds. Since 1981, states have chosen other needs above school library books and technology. Sadly, districts only spend an estimated 17 percent of funds on school library and instructional materials. This amount is wholly insufficient to replace outdated books in both our classrooms and school libraries, and this lack of targeting and diffusion of funding is why block grants are so harmful. Mr. President, well-trained school library media specialists are also essential to helping students unlock their potential. These individuals are at the heart of guiding students in their work, providing research training, maintaining and developing collections, and ensuring that a library fulfills its potential. In addition, they have the skills to guide students in the use of the broad variety of advanced technological education resources now available. Unfortunately, only 68 percent of schools have state-certified library media specialists, according to Department of Education figures, and, on average, there is only one specialist for every 591 students. This shortage means that many school libraries are staffed by volunteers and are open only a few days a week. I am introducing this bipartisan bill today, along with Senators Cochran, Kennedy, Dodd, Bingaman, Wellstone, Murray, Mikulski, Clinton, Chafee, Rockefeller, Reid, Sarbanes, and Baucus to restore the funding that is critical to improving school libraries. The Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Act authorizes $500 million to help school libraries with the greatest needs update their collections and would ensure that students have access to the informational tools they need to learn and achieve at the highest levels. This bill allows for maximum flexibility, enabling schools to use the funds to update library media resources, such as books and advanced technology, train school-library media specialists, and facilitate resource-sharing among school libraries. The bill also establishes the School Library Access Program to provide students with access to school libraries during non- school hours, including before and after school, weekends, and summers. Providing access to the most up-to-date school library collections is an essential part of increasing student achievement, improving literacy skills, and helping students become lifelong learners. The bipartisan Improving Literacy Through School Libraries Act is strongly supported by the American Library Association, and will help accomplish these essential goals. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work for its inclusion in the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill and a letter of support written by the American Library Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join the chorus of support for the Home Health Payment Fairness Act. The intent of this important legislation is two-fold--first, eliminate the impending 15 percent reduction in home health payments scheduled to take effect in October 2002, and second, restore a modicum of stability and predictability to the home health funding stream after years of volatility and turmoil. I was pleased to introduce similar language with Senator Collins last Congress; I am pleased to do so again. Over the past several years, Congress has worked to address the unintended consequences of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, BBA. Specifically, we have sought to alleviate the tremendous financial burdens that have been borne by the home health industry and the patients who rely on these agencies for care. Since the enactment of the BBA, there has been a remarkable 48 percent decline in Medicare home health expenditures. Moreover, across the nation, home health agencies have been forced to cut back on services, and in some cases, close their doors forever. As a result, vulnerable and frail Medicare beneficiaries are being deprived of medically needed health services that enable these populations to receive care while remaining in the comfort of their homes and communities. While we have been able to correct for a number of the problems, one issue we have yet to resolve affirmatively is the impending 15 percent for home health services. This reduction, which was originally scheduled to take effect in October 2000, has been delayed since 2002. While this delay is certainly significant, we can and must do more to restore predictability to the home health reimbursement system. We must see to it that the 15 percent cut is eliminated--and I hope we can achieve that goal this year. As we have already seen, reductions of this magnitude are all too often shouldered by small, nonprofit home health agencies and the elderly and disabled beneficiaries they serve. Home health care agencies in my home state of Rhode Island have been especially hard hit by these changes. We have seen a significant decline in the number of beneficiaries served and access to care for more medically complex patients threatened by these cuts. These reductions have clearly had negative impact on patients who heavily rely on home health services. Nationally, between 1997 and 1998, the number of Medicare beneficiaries receiving home health services has fallen 14 percent, while the total number of home health visits has fallen by 40 percent. We have seen a similar trend in Rhode Island, where over 3,000 fewer beneficiaries are receiving home health care--representing a decline of 16 percent--and the total number of visits has fallen 38 percent. These individuals are either being forced to turn to more expensive alternatives, such as institutional-based nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities for their care, or these individuals are simply going without care, which places an immeasurable burden on the family and friends of vulnerable beneficiaries. I truly do not believe this is the path we want to remain on when it comes to home health care. In light of the impending ``senior boom'' that will be hitting our entitlement programs in a few short years, we should be doing all we can to preserve and strengthen the Medicare home health benefit. We can begin to do so by eliminating the 15 percent reduction in home health payments. By taking this step, we will alleviate an enormous burden that has been looming over financially strapped home health agencies as well as the frail and vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries who rely on these critical services. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this critical legislation, and I look forward to working with Senator Collins and my other colleagues on the home health issue this Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am honored to be able to welcome my friend and great leader in our religious community in Rhode Island, Rabbi Leslie Gutterman. Rabbi Gutterman is the rabbi at Temple Beth-El, Providence, RI. He has been leading his congregation since 1970. He has become a leader in our community not just within the Jewish community but within all the communities in Rhode Island. The Talmud says the Torah gives honor to those who study it. Rabbi Gutterman has studied it and has been honored for this study. He honors us by his wisdom, his wit, his compassion, his generous spirit, in all he endeavors throughout our community. It is indeed an honor to be here today to welcome him, to hear his words of prayer and reflection, and to go forward knowing that he is not only a friend but also a powerful force in our State for tolerance and decency. I thank him for being here today. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Debra Ferland, who is being installed as the president of the Women's Council of the National Association of Home Builders on February 11, 2001 in Atlanta, Georgia. I would like to thank her for her twenty- three years of work, and honor her for her achievements within the housing industry. After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, Debra began her long and admirable career by working for several prominent national property management firms, including Picerne Properties, First Realty Management, and Diversified Properties. She has been a Construction Manager at HUD approved rehabs, consulted for rent supplement and Section 8 programs, and is currently Director of Special Projects at the Ferland Corporation. Debra has taken an active role in the industry on both a state and national level by assuming numerous leadership roles, including local Council President, Membership Chair, and National Convention Chairman. She has been appointed as a member of both the Labor Shortage Task Force and the National Association of Home Builders Capital Club, and is the Women's Council Life Director. In addition to her tremendous career achievements, Debra has devoted herself to family, including her husband A. Austin Ferland, her daughter Nicole, and her extended family of Fred, Deborah, and four year old grandson, Ben. She is a chef and an avid golfer, and has displayed her commitment to her local community through Habitat for Humanity, the Lincoln School for Girls, and the Tomorrow Fund. The citizens of Rhode Island are indeed fortunate for Debra's many contributions and for her ongoing commitment to creating housing opportunities both within our state and nationwide. I congratulate her on the leadership role which she is about to undertake and know that she will continue her good work for years to come.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, after listening to the testimony given before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee and after much reflection, I decided to oppose the nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. This has been a difficult decision; one that I take very seriously. Just as the Constitution gives the President the unfettered right to submit nominees to the Senate, the Constitution requires the Senate to give ``Advice and Consent'' on such nominations. The Senate does not name a President's Cabinet, but it also does not merely rubber stamp his choices. Senatorial consent must rest on a careful review of a nominee's record and a thoughtful analysis of a nominee's ability to serve not just the President, but the American people. Unlike other cabinet positions, the Attorney General has a very special role--decisively poised at the juncture between the executive branch and the judicial branch. In addition to being a member of the President's Cabinet, the Attorney General is also an officer of the federal courts and the chief enforcer of laws enacted by Congress. He is in effect the people's lawyer, responsible for fully, fairly and vigorously enforcing our nation's laws and Constitution for the good of all. In addition to being intellectually gifted, legally skilled and of strong moral character, I believe that the position of Attorney General requires an outlook and temperament that will allow the American people to believe that he will champion their individual rights more than any particular and potentially divisive dogma. During the past several weeks, I have listened to John Ashcroft's words in the context of his lifetime of public conduct. As a state attorney general, a governor and a United States Senator, he has established a pattern of activism that challenges important civil and individual rights. Instead of being a positive force for reconciling the races, as Missouri's Attorney General John Ashcroft conducted a futile struggle to frustrate the voluntary integration of public schools. He fought a voluntary desegregation plan for the city of St. Louis, showed defiance of the courts in those proceedings and used that highly charged issue for political advantage instead of for constructive action. Instead of accepting commonsense approaches to limiting the damage done by guns in our society, he has rigidly worked against such solutions--such simple solutions as asking that guns be sold with safety locks He also has aggressively worked to dismantle some of our country's most basic legal tenets, such as the separation between church and state. On the nomination of Judge Ronnie White to the United States Federal court, he appears to have mischaracterized Judge White's record unfairly, and at the end of the process, raising issues that really did not go to the merits of Judge White's nomination. This raises serious concerns and questions about both his sense of fair play and his respect for judicial independence. In sum, although he claims he will enforce the letter of the law, I fear he will not recognize the true spirit of the law. I believe he will use the considerable power of the Attorney General in directing resources, initiating lawsuits, and interpreting the law to clearly and consciously impose his views as he has done in the past. His views are not the views of a vast majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation. Given the extremely divisive nature of the last election, and the nature of some of the voting irregularities, our nation needs an Attorney General who can lead us on critical civil rights issues, unite us in the pursuit of justice, and help heal some of these wounds. I believe that John Ashcroft lacks the temperament needed to serve as Attorney General of the United States and I cannot support his nomination as our next Attorney General. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Absolutely.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise tonight to express my deep disappointment that this final package does not include a provision that allows Liberian nationals living in this country to adjust to permanent residency. As I have told this body many times, approximately 10,000 Liberians fled to the United States beginning in 1989 when their country became engulfed in a civil war. In 1991, Attorney General Barr granted Liberians Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and renewed it in 1992. Under the Clinton administration, Attorney General Reno continued to renew TPS for Liberians on an annual basis until last year when she granted Deferred Enforced Departure. DED was renewed again this year. While Liberians can now legally live in the United States for another year, it does not change the fact that they have lived in limbo for almost a decade. The Liberians have lived in a ``protected status'' longer than any other group in the history of this country. These individuals have played by the rules. From the beginning, they have always lived in this country legally. They have established careers, opened businesses, bought homes, had American-born children, and contributed to our communities. Yet, they are unable to enjoy the basic rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. These people deserve better. For several years I have been working to see that the Liberians receive the justice they deserve. In March 1999, I introduced S. 656, the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act which would allow Liberian nationals who had received TPS to adjust to permanent residency. For almost two years I have been unable to convince my colleagues to hold a hearing, debate this issue on the floor, or pass the bill. I did everything I believed was necessary to garner support for this legislation. I spoke on the floor, I wrote ``Dear Colleagues'', I gathered cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, I spoke personally with the leadership of both parties and the White House. Despite these efforts, the plight of the Liberians has not been recognized and their status has not been resolved. The situation facing the Liberians is not a novel issue for Congress. In the time that the Liberians have lived in this country, several other immigrant groups, including 52,000 Chinese, 4,996 Poles, 200,000 El Salvadorans, 50,000 Guatemalans and 150,000 Nicaraguans, who lived in the U.S. under temporary protective status for far less time have been allowed to adjust to permanent status. Just last month we passed a bill adjusting the status of 4,000 Syrian Jews. There are those who have argued that it is time to stop passing ``nation specific'' immigration fixes and to implement a system that is comprehensive and fair. I fully agree. But until we reach that point and are ready to pass such legislation, I do not believe that we can, in good conscious, arbitrarily deny certain groups a remedy for the unintended and unjust consequences of our immigration law. I would also like to state that I believe that we have a special obligation to the Liberians because of the special ties the U.S. has with that country. Congress should honor the special relationship that has always existed between the United States and Liberia. In 1822, groups of freed slaves from the U.S. began to settle on the coast of Western Africa with the assistance of private American philanthropic organizations at the behest of the U.S. government. In 1847, these settlers established the republic of Liberia, the first independent country in Africa. Liberians modeled their constitution after the U.S. and named their capital Monrovia after President James Monroe. Mr. President, many of the Liberian nationals in this country can trace their ancestry to American slaves. We owe them more than we are giving them tonight. When Liberians arrived in this country, they expected to stay only a short time and to return home once it was safe. But one year turned into many and they moved on with their lives. They are now part of our community. They deserve the same benefits that we have given so many others--the rights of citizenship. It is my hope that we can address this grievous situation early in the 107th Congress. We need to right a wrong.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I hope will help states which have been stricken by managed care plan failures to overcome the devastating effects of such an event on the health insurance sector. Over the past several years, we have seen an alarming upswing in the number of HMO failures across the nation. According to Weiss Rating, Inc., the nation's only provider of financial safety ratings for HMO's, the number of HMO failures grew 78 percent between 1998 and 1999. Furthermore, Weiss found another 10 HMO's were at high risk of failure due to mounting losses and capital deficits. The growing financial instability we are seeing in the managed care market has serious ramifications for state insurance regulators, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Americans who rely on these plans for their health care. In light of this volatility in the health insurance market, I believe that the Federal Government can be a constructive and stabilizing force for states dealing with the aftermath of an HMO liquidation. The legislation I am introducing today would create a mechanism that would provide an added layer of protection for providers and subscribers when a participant in the health insurance market fails. Specifically, the bill establishes an HMO Guaranty Fund, which would be used to pay outstanding health care providers' claims for uncovered expenditures and to fulfill contractual obligations made prior to an HMO's bankruptcy. For those families left without health insurance, the fund would also subsidize temporary coverage for subscribers as they seek alternative sources of health insurance. Many states have responded to a health plan insolvency and the unpaid bills they leave behind by creating a temporary fund designed to at least partially reimburse hospitals and providers for the expenses incurred during the course of providing care to patients. These guaranty funds are typically financed by levying a fairly sizable fee on the remaining health insurers in the state. While this may work in some cases, it is not necessarily appropriate in every circumstance. In other words, not every health care provider and subscriber has the opportunity to access this kind of guaranty fund. For instance, when Harvard Pilgrim Health Plan of New England failed in my home state of Rhode Island, there was discussion of setting up just such a fund. However, the extremely small size of our insurance market and the few plans that remained in operation simply could not support a bailout of this magnitude. Fortunately, the Rhode Island Insurance regulator was able to reach an agreement with the Massachusetts parent organization of Harvard Pilgrim to pay outstanding provider and hospital claims. Unfortunately, other States might not be as lucky. It is my view that the Federal Government may be better positioned than an individual State to spread the risk and the premiums required to subsidize the fund across health insurance plans operating around the country. Furthermore, it would also enable both ERISA and non-ERISA plans to be covered under a nationally-based standing fund. I hope the legislation I am introducing today will mark the beginning of an ongoing discussion that will explore some of the issues surrounding the financial health of HMO's in this Nation. In closing, Mr. President, while it is unlikely that action will be taken on this legislation late in the session. I look forward to working with interested organizations as well as my colleagues to strengthen and enhance the legislation I submit today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to first commend my colleague, friend, Senator Reid from Nevada, for not only his statement but his leadership in this body to try to move the process along. Unfortunately, we have reached an impasse. We have sent to the President an appropriations bill for the Commerce- State-Justice Departments which will be vetoed because of glaring deficiencies in that bill. We are holding in abeyance for the moment a conference report which not only deals with Medicare readjustments because of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but also contains provisions dealing with assisted suicide--a hodgepodge of issues, all of which will, once again, elicit a Presidential veto. Let me just speak for a moment about this pending bill, although in some respects it defies description. It is more of an accumulation of different ideas thrown together to get out of town. But part of it deals with Medicare and balanced budget refinement proposals. All of us in this body for the last several years have been pointing out some of the consequences--many of then unintended--of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 with respect to Medicare reimbursement in an effort to make sure that our health care system continues to be vibrant and continues to be sustainable. And we are resolved to try to address these issues and in a bipartisan way. But we have found ourselves with a very partisan approach--an approach that has not included any of my Democratic colleagues on the Finance Committee, and has included no real participation by the Democrats in this body at all with respect to issues that are of concern to all of us which should be dealt with on a bipartisan basis. As a result, we are faced with legislation that comes to us which is terribly distorted and terribly slanted, and which will not deal with the real crisis we face. In fact, many health care providers, such as hospitals, home health care agencies, hospice agencies, nursing homes, and others are literally being shortchanged in the process where a significant and inordinate amount of money is going to HMOs that operate Medicare managed care plans. These are the same HMOs that abruptly, in many cases, withdrew from the market because they could not make their margins--that walked out on seniors. And, in effect, we are rewarding them for abandoning seniors and walking away from them by giving them a huge amount of money with the presumption, of course, that this money will be passed on to the providers who care for our elderly and disabled. That is not the case at all. With respect to the not-for-profit HMOs, their first instincts will be to build up their reserves and continue to negotiate very tough reimbursements with hospitals and nursing homes. In some cases, they are the only game in town. They can go to a hospital or a nursing home or a home health agency, and say: These are the terms--take it or leave it. But their goal will not be simply passing on the generosity of the Federal Government to providers--the people actually giving the care. It will be to enhance their own financial positions by continuing to put aside money for the proverbial rainy day. When it comes to the for-profit HMOs, their incentive is not only to enhance their financial position because that is what enhances their stock price in the market, but also to provide dividends to their shareholders. After all, they are profit-making enterprises. I think it is entirely fallacious to believe that by simply giving money to HMOs for seniors, with no accountability and no requirements, they will in return provide coverage. Simply giving them the money is the wrong way to ensure that our seniors and disabled receive adequate health care. That is precisely the path that has been chosen in this partisan Republican legislation that we will see in the days ahead. We would like to see Medicare managed care plans succeed. We would like to see that happen. But we can't simply wish by giving them money that they will change the practices they have pursued over the last several years. When they looked at the situation, when they thought they were not getting the kind of return and the kind of profits they should in these programs, they simply walked away. Yet we are not requiring them even with this great infusion of money to commit to stay the course for our seniors. It is the wrong approach. The right approach--the approach that was advocated very forcefully by my colleagues on the Finance Committee on the Democratic side--is to provide additional reimbursements and additional support for the actual providers--the hospitals, the hospice agencies, and home health agencies--all of the agencies that are struggling just to stay afloat and to stay viable. In particular, we have seen over the course of the last several years with respect to home health agencies that many have gone out of business because of severe cuts in the reimbursements. We originally estimated that $16.1 billion would be saved over five years. It turns out that we have already saved $19. 7 billion in just two years and are on track to save four times what we originally projected. It is about time to put the money back in to these important activities. Yet, that is not what this bill would do. As I mentioned before, this conference report contains several last minute additions coming from the outfield, including the misnamed Pain Relief Promotion Act, which is an attempt to undercut the legislation and the will of the people of Oregon with respect to the very sensitive issue of assisted suicide. I strongly disapprove of assisted suicide. I am pleased that my State of Rhode Island has, in fact, adopted legislation that outlaws this practice but still makes the prescription of drugs by physicians for the purposes of alleviating pain a medical matter and not a law enforcement matter. The fallacy of the approach embodied in the Pain Relief Promotion Act is to take the Drug Enforcement Agency and make it the arbiter of good medical practice. I can't think of a more inappropriate combination of institutions and functions than that. But that has been thrown into the mix in this conference report. We have been endeavoring over many months to come up with bipartisan solutions to these issues of Medicare reimbursement and of the restoration of funds that were cut in 1997 under the Balanced Budget Act. But it has come to naught so far. I hope that in the next few days in anticipation of a Presidential veto there will be a second or third or fourth look at these issues and we can try to deal with them in a thoughtful and constructive way. One particular issue is the fact that we face a further 15-percent reduction in home health care reimbursement rates, which is currently scheduled to take effect in October of 2001. We already know that these agencies cannot sustain such a further reduction. But the only thing that this bill does is temporarily delay it for another year. I have joined with many of my colleagues, including Senator Collins of Maine, to suggest the elimination of this 15-percent cut because agencies have to know not only that they have a 1-year reprieve, but they can plan with some confidence for the years ahead, and that they won't face such a further draconian cut in their reimbursement. It is the only way they can attract the kind of financial lending support they need to cover expenses. It is the businesslike thing to do. That is another irony. For a party that styles themselves as conscious of the business community and knowledgeable of the ways of business, the massive distribution of funds to HMOs defy the logic of both the not-for-profit and for-profit HMO because they will not pass them on. They will either disgorge them to their shareholders as profits or they will put them aside so that their ratings and their financing will be that much more secure when they are raided by outside groups. So this legislation is not only unhelpful for the people who need the help, the providers and ultimately the seniors, but it is, I think, contradictory to the obvious business practices that will be undertaken by the HMOs and others who receive these great funds. I suggest, again, we go back to the table, that we look hard at all these proposed solutions to the problems engendered by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act in regard to Medicare, and that we strive for a bipartisan approach that will get the money to the providers who give the care to the seniors. If we do that, we are going to make great progress. If we don't do that, we will be back here again next week dealing with another proposal after a Presidential veto. Now that is just one aspect of what has been transpiring in this body, one aspect of the impasse we face. Today we sent to the President legislation providing appropriations for Commerce, Justice, and State Departments. What we did not send forth was legislation that would include the Latino Fairness Act, that would include, also, fairness for other groups. One group in particular of which I have been very supportive is the Liberian community in the United States. I have heard my colleagues on the other side say the reason we are not doing this is because we will not engage in country-specific relief in our immigration laws. That is nonsense. We have had country-specific relief. We have had it throughout the history of this country. One just has to look at the Cuban community in this country to see very specific and very helpful country-specific relief in terms of the rules of immigration, rules of establishing permanent residence. Also, people suggested we don't want to legitimize people who come here illegally and stay here illegally without the color of law. In the case of the Liberian community, these individuals have been recognized and allowed to stay here under temporary protective status issued first by President Bush and continued subsequently. Now, however, they face deportation because their TPS status has lapsed. They are now under a status called deferred enforced departure--still legal status, allowing them not only to stay here but also to work. So this is a group of people who are legally recognized to be here, and they have the same rights, I believe, or should have the same rights, as everyone else. This whole issue with respect to Liberians, with respect to Latinos-- really, hundreds of thousands who have come here; many have been here for decades or more--who are part of our economy, just as all of those high-tech workers whom we labored so diligently to accommodate under the H-1B visa program. In fact, in places such as Nevada, the home of my colleague, Senator Reid, the business communities are asking us to pass the Latino fairness bill because it is their workers who are affected by not being recognized or allowed to establish permanent residence. I think we can do much more and should do much more. This discussion leads invariably to a litany of lost opportunities and partisan action which undercuts the very brave language of Governor Bush who talks about bipartisanship. Certainly we haven't seen any bipartisanship here. We haven't seen a great deal of leadership here on issues that are important to all of us and are particularly important to the American people. If we finish next week simply by adopting the remaining appropriations bills, we will have neglected to deal with the real issues that the American people have demanded of us for months and months and months. There will be no prescription drug benefit for seniors. Yet I hazard a guess that each and every one of us has gone back to our States and talked with fervor and passion about how critical it is these seniors have access to a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Yet that is not likely to happen. Another lost opportunity, another missed chance at the issue, another disappointment to the legitimate hopes of the American people that we would work together and accomplish something for them. We have not enacted a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights. Yet for months and months and months we have been talking about it. We have seen our colleagues in the other body pass a bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights. Yet in this body it has languished, and its days are now numbered. So we will not have, for the American people, something they want: Simply to be able to get from their managed care organization the benefits they thought they were entitled to and that their employer typically thought he or she had paid for. But we are not doing that because in this body we didn't pass a real Patients' Bill of Rights. We passed a sham. My collages hoped that sham would be enough of a diversion so the American people will forget what we failed to accomplish. Education reform. Governor Bush is talking about education and touting his record of education. The Rand study has showed some evidence that is not really a record of success but it is a record of less than success. We haven't even gotten around to doing the routine business of the Congress. This is the first time in decades we have failed to pass the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act. It is the first time we didn't do it in a bipartisan way, listening to the voices of all of our colleagues, trying to accommodate them, all to try to come up with a product that would represent further progress in reforming education. Reforming education or providing incentives for States to do the bulk of that work because that is their responsibility more than ours--we haven't done that. As a result, we haven't made progress on improving teacher training, we haven't made progress for modernizing libraries, we haven't made progress with parental involvement, we haven't reduced class size or repaired crumbling schools or done all we can to keep our schools safe from violence. Frankly, one of the reasons we did not have the will to bring this legislation to the floor was a paranoia on the side of the Republicans that we would actually vote on sensible gun controls that would help improve the safety not only of our schools but of our streets and our communities all across this country. And as a result, we sacrificed on the altar of fidelity to the NRA a chance to pass elementary and secondary education legislation in this Congress. We haven't passed a hate crimes bill that would say stoutly, vigorously and courageously that we just don't talk about tolerance in the United States, we actually have laws to require the same. We would actually have a Federal statute that would assist communities when they find themselves convulsed by the kind of vicious hate crimes that we saw in Wyoming with Matthew Shepard, that we saw in Texas with Mr. Byrd, so that there would be a Federal response, not just an alternative way to prosecute, but resources to prosecute, with help and assistance. By doing this, we would send a very strong signal that this is not an issue of East or West or North or South, but this is at the core of our American values. This is a country that was built on the idea that men and women from very different backgrounds, very different cultures, very different traditions, could come together and form a perfect union. We have failed in that. We could go on, too, talking about some of the commonsense gun safety and juvenile justice legislation that has languished and will shortly expire. We have not closed the gun show loophole. That was the loophole that was used by the killers at Columbine High School to obtain some of the weapons they used on that attack. How soon we have forgotten. We have not passed legislation to require child safety locks on weapons. Yet we know that could save the lives of some children, and even one child's life saved because he or she would not get access to a firearm in the home is something for which we would be very proud. We have not done it, despite Senator Lautenberg's great efforts and the efforts of many of my colleagues. Although we have engaged in debates about policy, we are looking ahead at the consequences of this election where several things will be extraordinarily important--obviously. First, this election will help cast the composition of our Supreme Court. That is not just a jurisprudential matter, that is not just something that should be of interest to law review editors and students at law schools. It will shape whether or not this Federal Government can still play a vital, active role in the lives of its citizens, because the trend of the Court, the trend of the Republican appointees of the Court, has been to circumscribe, dramatically, the power of the Federal Government to act in lieu of the States. When people talk about the Federal role in education, that role might diminish dramatically, regardless of what we do in this body, if we have Justices who believe there is no real congressional/Federal role in education. That is a part of the consequences of this election. Governor Bush has proposed a tax policy that is hard to understand, except for the fact that it seems to leave very little for the other issues with which we must deal: making sure we transform our Armed Forces, making sure we can protect the solvency of the Social Security trust fund, making sure we can keep our Medicare obligations to seniors, making sure we can continue to invest in this country, in its infrastructure--both its physical infrastructure and its human and social infrastructure--through education and training. We are at a point now where, at the end of this Congress, we are facing the turn point, the turning back from the kind of fiscal discipline that has produced the record prosperity over the last several years, to a situation where we fall back again into deficits, into the high interest rates, into the economic stagnation of the late 1980s and early 1990s. We could miss this opportunity to invest in our people, to strengthen our country, its physical strength and its economic vitality and its military prowess, and also its spirit as a nation of neighbors helping others to make their lives better and to make their communities better. We have reached this impasse. I hope we can break through this impasse. I hope we can, through deliberations over the next few days, reach a Medicare refinement proposal that will truly help providers and not just HMOs. I hope we can see a Commerce-State-Justice bill that will come back with Latino fairness legislation, that will recognize that these are good people, struggling to be Americans through work and family and all of the attributes that we see as part of America--not a legal status but a condition of the heart and a habit of the heart. I hope we can do that. But that will take bipartisan effort. It will take all our efforts. I hope over the next several days we do something we have not done over the last many months--work together for the benefit of the American people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, thank you very much.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to echo the strong support of my colleagues for the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. In July, we celebrated the 35th anniversary of the Older Americans Act, a milestone for a program that has meant so much to millions of America's seniors. The Older Americans Act brings critical support services to the elderly in communities throughout this nation and has greatly benefitted seniors in my State. The long overdue reauthorization of this Act is particularly significant for the State of Rhode Island. The Older Americans Act has had a long and rich legacy in my State since the Act's inception. Indeed, former Rhode Island Congressman John Fogarty played a key role in authoring the original Act, and I am pleased to have played a role in the reauthorization of this historic Act. Since 1965, thousands of Rhode Island seniors have enjoyed the benefits of Older Americans Act programs--from congregate and home delivered meals, senior center programs, protective and legal services for the elderly, among other essential programs and services, all of which have brought comfort and enrichment to the lives of seniors in my State. For example, this year, Older Americans Act funding has helped to provide the following services to seniors in my State: 667,101 congregate meals at 74 sites; 540,008 home delivered meals; and 3,500 clients served through the home visitation program. For many unfortunate reasons, authorization of this legislation lapsed in 1995 and since that time, Congress has been wrangling with its reauthorization. And if it were not for the hard work and sheer determination on the part of Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, DeWine, and Mikulski and their staffs frankly we would not be here this afternoon. I would also like to recognize Janette Takamura, the Assistant Secretary for Aging, for her insights and expertise that have proven invaluable throughout this process and for her tremendous leadership at the Administration on Aging. Indeed, getting to this point has not been easy. I commend my colleagues for their diligence and willingness to compromise on key issues, and I have been pleased to support these efforts. Their long and hard work has resulted in a thoughtful and balanced bill that lays out a vision for Older Americans Act programs for the next several decades. Specifically, this legislation streamlines and updates existing programs and authorizes new programs designed to meet the needs of the growing population of American seniors and their families in the coming century. In particular, as an original cosponor of S. 707, legislation introduced by Senators Grassley and Breaux, I would like to highlight the inclusion of the Family Caregiver Support program in the Older Americans Act reauthorization. The Family Caregiver Support program is designed to meet the critical needs of families who are caring for loved ones with chronic illnesses or disabilities. This program will support respite services for caregivers, counseling and caregiver training and information about additional support services in the community. Family caregivers are the unsung heros in the provision of long-term care in this country. Nationally, more than 7 million Americans serve as caregivers for relatives, friends and loved ones. Last Fall, I held a Special Senate Committee on Aging field hearing in Rhode Island to explore the burdens and challenges that face family caregivers in my State. My home State of Rhode Island has the third highest concentration of people over the age of 65 in the Nation, has enjoyed a longstanding commitment to community-based services for the elderly. Consequently, over 90 percent of Rhode Island seniors are living outside of institutional-based care settings, thanks in large part to the selfless contributions of families and friends in providing elders with the support they need to remain in their homes and communities. Indeed, my State has already begun to work on creative ways to provide caregivers the resources they need. Recently, the Rhode Island Department of Elderly Affairs was one of 16 national recipients of an Administration on Aging demonstration grant to develop and implement a model to provide training, support and qualified respite care for Alzheimer's families. Monies provided through the new Family Caregiver program under the Older Americans Act will greatly help to fortify and expand ongoing home- and community-based initiatives in my State. I would also like to commend my colleagues for the inclusion of funding under Title IV to help States start to address the transportation needs of our Nation's seniors. Indeed, in Rhode Island, there is a growing demand from senior centers for transit vans to move seniors who cannot drive and are not served by regular mass transit. This is an issue of growing importance in my State, and I look forward to further considering ways to improve senior transit. In closing, I would again like to express my appreciation to my colleagues and their staffs for their tremendous efforts to reauthorize this monumental piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss the issue of Liberians in the United States who, up until a few days ago, faced an imminent threat of deportation. Today, through Executive action, that has been stayed at least for a year, but it is a community of people residing here who are literally living on the edge, not knowing if next year at this time they will, in fact, be deported back to Liberia, which is a country in great turmoil and crisis as we speak. For the last several years I have tried with diligence and determination to do justice for these people, to give them a chance to become permanent residents of this country and ultimately citizens of this country. In my determination and my dedication, I have objected to the consideration of other legislation regarding immigrant groups, not because this legislation lacked merit, but because, in my view, it was unfair not to consider in some way the plight of the Liberians who are in the United States today. I hope at this point, given assurances by the White House that this issue of justice for Liberians in the United States is a paramount issue for the President in the final days of this Congress in his negotiation with the congressional leadership, that the legislation I have objected to can and will move forward promptly. Let me try to explain briefly the status of Liberians in this country. In 1989, Liberia, which historically is a country with close ties with Africa and the United States--it was founded by freed American slaves; its capital is Monrovia, named after our President James Monroe--this country in 1989 was engulfed in a brutal civil war. This civil war over the next 7 years would claim 150,000 lives; it would displace the population; it would destroy infrastructure. In 1991, realizing the gravity of this crisis, the Attorney General of the United States granted temporary protective status to approximately 14,000 Liberians. They were allowed to remain in the United States. They could apply for work authorization, and they could work during this temporary protective status. This status was renewed annually because of the crisis in Liberia until 1999. In that year, it was determined that since there had been at least an election of democratic reform in Liberia, and since the situation of armed conflict had subsided, temporary protective status was no longer required. But rather than immediate deportation, the President decided to authorize something which is known as deferred enforced departure, or DED, essentially telling the Liberian community in the United States: You are subject to deportation today, but we are simply deferring that for at least a year. Just recently, again at the end of last month, we were able to get another Executive extension, but essentially what we are doing to these good people is putting their lives on hold one year at a time. They are unable to establish the same kind of permanency that we are seeking for other groups in this country. They are good and decent people who have worked hard. They are a vital part of our community, and in the intervening almost 10 years, they have established themselves; quite literally many of them have children born here who are American citizens. Yet each year we force these people to worry, to be concerned, to contemplate the very idea of leaving a home they have found and established here, taking with them children who know nothing of their native land, taking with them their skills which are not particularly useful, and going into a country that is violent. Yesterday, the President of the United States and our Department of State declared the President of Liberia, Charles Taylor, persona non grata in the United States. He cannot get a visa to come here because of his deportations within Liberia, because of his support of a campaign of terror in Sierra Leone. We have all been horrified by the pictures of mutilated children in Sierra Leone. This is all part of his involvement there--his trading guns for diamonds, his attempt to destabilize the country, and defy international law. That is the situation in Liberia, a situation, I might add, which we have also recognized is a threat to Americans. Our State Department is advising Americans they should not go to Liberia. We are withdrawing nonessential embassy personnel from Liberia. Yet we are unable to tell these Liberians in America: You can stay here and become permanent residents. In fact, we are saying: We are prepared to deport you at the end of next year because that is the message that DED gives. I think it is wrong. I think it is unjust. So I objected to certain measures. I think it is important to point out these measures. First, there was legislation, H.R. 4681, to provide an adjustment status for Syrian Jews. These individuals came to the United States in 1992 through an arrangement between President Bush and President Assad of Syria. They were allowed to leave the country to seek refuge in the United States. But part of the negotiations, part of the fiction was that they would leave Syria on tourist visas. So they came to the United States. They did not come as refugees. They came as asylees. They sought asylum when they entered here. Under our immigration law, there is a limit on the number of asylees that can adjust to permanent status each year. But it is important to point out, these individuals, these very good decent people, these Syrian Jews, are not in danger of being deported back to Syria. Liberians are in grave danger of being deported back to Liberia. Essentially what this legislation would do--and I would support this legislation--is it would jump in ahead of other asylees who are waiting to fulfill the yearly quota of the number of asylees who can become permanent residents. So this is a situation of concern and importance, but not the level of criticality, I believe, with respect to the Liberian community. Yet this legislation has moved through this House promptly, is on the verge of passage, while still the Liberian legislation languishes. I do not think that is right. I do not think it is just. I don't care. I certainly am pleased literally within a few days these Syrian Jews will have a chance to adjust to permanent status. Again, what about the Liberians? There is another piece of legislation, the religious worker visa extension bill, which is also known as the Mother Teresa Religious Worker Act. This bill will allow the religious to come to the United States on a visa to do pastoral work. It has been in effect for several years. It is a good program. About 2,500 workers come in a year. Very importantly, once these individuals are here, they can also adjust to permanent residency status, unlike the Liberians who now, under our DED, cannot do that. It is a worthy program, but it is a program, again, that I do not think has the same kind of compelling justice that the Liberians have in their case. We again applaud the fact that this piece of legislation is likely to become law. But what about the Liberians? There is also another piece of legislation that would grant immediate citizenship to children adopted internationally by the American public. Once again, these children are not in any danger of being returned to their homeland involuntarily. The Liberians are in such danger. Each time now that a child is adopted, they come in on a visa. The adoptive parents can fill out an application for citizenship on behalf of the child and pay a $2,500 fee. The application is then considered with all other applications for permanent residency. It takes a few years, but these children are virtually assured of becoming American citizens. Let me try to suggest the incongruity of not dealing with the Liberian legislation in the same way we are dealing with this type of legislation. If we do not, next September, grant DED, we could be in the awkward position of having legislation which would allow an American couple to adopt a Liberian child and automatically make that child a citizen while at the same time we deport Liberian families in which the children are already American citizens having been born here. Again, not fair, not just. Even though this adoption bill is quite worthy--it will likely become law; I will support it-- what about the Liberians? So what we have seen is that legislation that has been introduced after legislation I introduced has already proceeded through the House and the Senate and will likely become law to the benefit of these good people, but what about the Liberians? I have tried all I can to get a fair hearing for the Liberians in this country. I hope, in the last few days, we will get that hearing, through the intervention of the White House and through the consideration of my colleagues. There are about 10,000 people here who have become important parts of our communities, who have sunk roots deep in our communities, many of whom have children who are Americans. It is not fair and it is not right that they are being ignored. I have tried to prevent at least that from happening, of them being completely ignored and being deported. They have suffered our indifference. I hope we can work this out in the next few days. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I yield the floor.