[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 86 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7294-S7296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2614

  Mr. LOTT. I now ask unanimous consent the Senate turn to Calendar No. 
404, H.R. 2614, the Reading Excellence Act, and immediately following 
the reporting by the clerk, the chairman be recognized to withdraw the 
committee amendment and there be 30 minutes for debate to be equally 
divided in the usual form with no amendments or motions in order.
  I further ask that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, 
the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 2614, all without any 
intervening action or debate.
  I would like to note that I have discussed this with White House 
officials, and they have urged that we try to find a way to get this 
legislation up. Actually, this was a week or two ago, so we have been 
trying to get something worked out. I would like very much for us to be 
able to do that.
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, and I do not 
have any caveat to the unanimous-consent agreement, but would the 
majority leader modify his request to include an amendment from the 
Democratic side which would be the only amendment in order, and that it 
be the text of the committee-reported substitute amendment as modified; 
that there would be 1 hour for debate on the amendment equally divided, 
and that upon the use

[[Page S7295]]

or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the 
committee-reported amendment?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would have to object to that at this time 
because if we add any amendments to this bill in its present form, then 
it would require further House action. And, of course, the House has 
already adjourned for the July 4 recess until July 14.
  I note also, if we do not do this bill now in the form that it was 
called up, the money that would have been used for this Reading 
Excellence Program, some $206 million, I believe it was --something of 
that nature--would then go over to the IDEA, Individuals with 
Disabilities in Education Act, so that money would be gone. So we 
really are in a box here.
  I think everybody would like to do the Reading Excellence Act. But if 
we don't do it in the form that I have called it up, it would have to 
go back to the House. Basically, then, we wouldn't get anything done. 
We need to send it directly to the President.
  So that is why I would be constrained to object to that modification.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is hard for me to understand, when this 
was a House bill and it came over and the Senate committee studied it 
and sent it to the Senate floor with a substitute amendment, and then 
we don't want to take the committee substitute amendment.
  ``There is something about that,'' as we would say down in West 
Kentucky, ``that ain't right.'' So we are again telling the committee 
you can go through all of your work, you can do your hearings, you can 
do your markup, but you did the wrong thing.
  So I think the amendment that we offered, which was a committee 
amendment as modified, was appropriate. If the majority leader wishes 
to object to that, why, that is the way it has to be.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe, Mr. President, then, the Senator objects to the 
original request?
  Mr. FORD. You objected to mine, so that ended it right there.
  Mr. LOTT. You never said you object to it, then, as proposed. So you 
object to it as proposed?
  Mr. FORD. Sure, and you object to mine as proposed by the committee.
  Mr. LOTT. I do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the House version of the Reading 
Excellence Act, and I also oppose the process by which it is being 
brought to the Senate at the last minute in an effort to pass this bad 
bill under the pressure of the July 1 funding deadline.
  On May 13th, six weeks ago, the Labor and Human Resources Committee 
approved an alternative bill on this issue, with unanimous bipartisan 
support, and with the strong backing of educators, reading specialists, 
and community organizations across the country. Despite this 
overwhelming support for the Senate committee bill, the Republican 
leadership refused to allow the full Senate to act on it. Instead, they 
did nothing for six weeks. Now, as the July 1 deadline is upon us, they 
insist that we swallow the deeply flawed House bill.
  What is at stake here is nothing less than the way teachers and 
schools across the country will be allowed to help children learn to 
read.
  Organizations throughout the nation who know this well are adamantly 
opposed to the House bill. These groups include the American 
Association of School Administrators--the International Reading 
Association--the Council of Chief State School Officers--the National 
School Boards Association--the National Parent Teacher Association--the 
National Council of Teachers of English--the American Federation of 
Teachers--the National Education Association--the National Association 
of Elementary School Principals--the National Conference on Language 
and Literacy--the Conference on College Composition and 
Communications--the National Association of State Boards of Education--
Reach Out and Read.
  All of these groups are doing the hard day-to-day work, helping 
children learn to read. They say that no bill would be better than the 
House bill, because the House bill will not help them do the work they 
need to do.
  In last year's appropriations legislation, Congress reserved $210 
million for a child literacy program if enacted by July 1. By missing 
the July 1 deadline, we miss an initial opportunity. But we will have 
many other opportunities this session to pass a bill we can all 
support--and fund it accordingly.
  Many successful models to help children learn to read well now exist, 
but they are not yet available to all children. As a result, far too 
many children in communities across the country are denied the 
opportunity to learn to read well. The statistics are appalling. Forty 
percent of 4th grade students do not achieve the basic level in 
reading, and 70 percent of 4th graders do not achieve the proficient 
level.
  We must do more--much more--to help all children learn to read well. 
Many of the reading difficulties experienced by teenagers and adults 
today could have been prevented by adequate intervention in early 
childhood. By working to ensure that all children learn to read well in 
the early grades, we can also reduce the need for costly special 
education instruction in later grades.
  The time has come to pass a bill that will help all children learn to 
read well. Child literacy is an important goal, and if we are to reach 
this goal, we need well-educated, well-trained teachers prepared to 
give children the special assistance they deserve. We need dedicated 
and trained volunteer tutors. We need support for successful community 
programs to improve family literacy and teach parents how to read more 
effectively with their children at home. We need support for innovative 
community efforts to help children learn to read before they enter 
school.
  This House-passed bill is not an adequate response to these problems. 
This bill undermines state and local responsibility for public 
education. My Republican colleagues want to create a new state 
bureaucracy and new federal control over public education. These are 
the same Republicans who say they want school vouchers and block 
grants, in order to give parents and communities more choice and more 
control over their children's education.
  State and local education agencies and school administrators are 
doing well in creating, implementing, and coordinating innovative 
efforts to help children learn. We should do more to support these 
efforts. We should provide community organizations with the resources 
they need to bring successful programs to more people. Instead, my 
colleagues want to bypass state leadership, undermine local control, 
and create a new state bureaucracy, when states and communities are 
already prepared to implement new literacy programs and oversee the use 
of new Federal funding.
  State Departments of Education and local education agencies are 
already working successfully to coordinate local, State, and Federal 
resources to improve education and provide higher quality education to 
children. It makes no sense to bypass the current State leadership and 
require states to create a new State bureaucracy.
  Another serious problem with this bill is that it brings Federal 
control into the classroom and dictates how teachers teach reading. 
This bill specifies only one way to teach reading skills. It ignores 
the research and recommendations of the leading educators. During the 
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee hearing on child literacy, 
we heard from two of the most distinguished researchers--Doctor 
Catherine Snow of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who chairs 
the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties at the National 
Academy of Sciences, and Doctor Reid Lyon of the National Institutes of 
Health. They emphasized that the best way to help all children learn to 
read is to promote a variety of the best practices and give local 
educators the freedom to tailor programs to meet local needs.
  Doctor Snow testified that a solution to reading problems has not 
been achieved because of an:

       Unrealistic desire for a simpler answer. Reading is a 
     complex and multifaceted outcome, determined by many factors. 
     Ensuring adequate reading progress for every child . . . 
     requires providing all of the many, varied experiences that 
     will benefit their reading.

  Doctor Lyon testified that:

       Learning to read requires different skills at different 
     levels of development. . . . It does

[[Page S7296]]

     not have anything to do with philosophy, and it does not have 
     anything to do with politics. It has to do with making sure 
     the kids get the ideas. That is it. . . . To be able to read 
     our language, you have to know the sounds. You have got to 
     know how to map it onto the letters . . . you have got to do 
     it quickly, and you have got to know why you are reading and 
     have good vocabulary and the things that Dr. Snow spoke 
     about. It is never an either/or.

  This bill will prevent teachers from following that sound advice. 
Instead, teachers will be forced to follow a mandate from Washington 
requiring all teachers across the country to follow one formula to 
teach reading--regardless of local needs. Is this what the Republicans 
mean when they ask for more local control of education? Schools and 
communities already have control over education. The Federal Government 
shouldn't start micro-managing their reading programs.
  We should be doing more, not less, to ensure that teachers and school 
districts are free to design programs to meet the unique local needs of 
the children. The Reading Excellence Act approved by the Senate 
Committee by a unanimous, bi-partisan vote would give local educators 
the flexibility and training the experts say they need.
  This bill doesn't just take control away from public schools. It also 
takes money away from public schools. We all recognize that recruiting 
and training more tutors is an important goal. President Clinton began 
his effort two years ago, with his ``America Reads Challenge.'' The 
Senate Committee bill would build on the success of that program, so 
that local schools will benefit from available community resources.
  The House bill is a detour away from these worthy goals. Instead of 
helping schools capitalize on volunteer tutors and community resources, 
it wastes funds on private tutoring programs. It denies support for 
successful school-based programs in which tutoring assistance is 
closely linked to a child's classroom instruction.
  The bill also requires local schools to spend time, money, and other 
scarce resources overseeing private tutoring programs. Funneling scarce 
public dollars into these private programs will undermine 
accountability for academic results and expenditure of federal dollars.
  This bill has major flaws. It does little or nothing to help public 
school children learn to read or improve their chance of receiving a 
good education. Other provisions in the bill are worthwhile, because 
they encourage better teaching, more trained volunteer tutors, and more 
support for community-based family literacy programs. These initiatives 
will ensure that many children get the extra assistance they need to 
learn to read well and early.
  These issues are too important for us to leave this House bill as the 
final word. I will do all I can to pass a strong bipartisan bill in the 
Senate in the coming months--the nation's children deserve no less.

                          ____________________