Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 36 (Monday, March 8, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 36 (Monday, March 8, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2392-S2409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 280, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 280) to provide for education flexibility
partnerships.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:

Jeffords amendment No. 31, in the nature of a substitute.
Bingaman amendment No. 35 (to amendment No. 31), to provide
for a national school dropout prevention program.
Lott amendment No. 37 (to amendment No. 35), to authorize
additional appropriations to carry out part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Gramm (for Allard) amendment No. 40 (to amendment No. 31),
to prohibit implementation of ``Know Your Customer''
regulations by the Federal banking agencies.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts
that I desire to make a statement for a while, if that is all right
with him.
Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are again back with the Ed-Flex bill,
which is a bill, as everybody knows, that would merely attempt to make
it easier for States to be able to utilize regulations to their
advantage by being able to waive them for communities or school systems
within their jurisdiction. This has been used successfully by 12 States
now--6 originally, and then another 6. It has demonstrated that there
are problems in the present system which make it impossible to take
care of very, very minute differences in schools in order to get them
to be able to have the flexibility for the utilization of the title I
funds.
We are also facing, apparently, a filibuster. Therefore, we will have
a cloture vote at 5 o'clock this afternoon. It is my hope that we can
proceed perhaps on to another amendment, and then we will be able to
make some progress on this bill.
This is our fourth day on the Ed-Flex bill. This bill, which is
supported by the administration and all 50 Governors, has broad
bipartisan support in both the Senate and in the House. I urged my
colleagues last week to limit their amendments to the bill before us.
As we have shown, we are perfectly willing to work with the limited
issues raised by the Ed-Flex bill.
As my colleagues know, later this year we will be considering the
statute that governs the K-through-12 educational programs, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and that is where the debate on
these larger questions should take place. I say this not because I am a
stickler for procedure, but because the whole point behind the
committee system is so that complicated issues can be debated and
examined in detail. That is not possible on the floor of the Senate.
This doesn't happen in every instance, and I have been on both sides of
the question, but I cannot recall when we have been in a similar
situation where one side is trying to load up a small, noncontroversial
proposal when the logical vehicle for the debate and consideration of
these larger questions is only a few months away.
We have never really considered these issues in committee. To be
fair, Senator Murray offered her class size amendment to the Ed-Flex
bill last year. But Republicans felt then, as we feel now, that this
issue should be considered as part of the ESEA reauthorization. The
amendment was not adopted.
Reducing class size in our Nation's schools is a fine idea. Common
sense tells us that a smaller class allows a teacher to spend more one-
on-one time with each student. According to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, common sense has been backed by data that also
reinforces that small class size is correlated to higher student
achievement.
There is something else that most of the data says. It says that the
quality of the teacher leading that classroom makes a significant
difference. Contrary to statements made on the floor last week, the
class size proposal of my colleague from Washington does little or
nothing toward improving teacher quality. Funds allocated for
professional development are limited to 15 percent in the first 3 years
it is authorized. Worse yet, the legislation prohibits funds from being
used to enhance teacher quality in the last 2 authorized years. What
kind of sense does that make?
Only after class size is reduced to an average number of 18 students
does a school district have the flexibility to use those funds to
improve the quality of teaching in the classroom. Proponents point to
studies which show that smaller classes make a difference and improve
academic achievement. I argue that class size is less important than
having a quality teacher. That, to me, is common sense.
As I mentioned, this common sense idea can also be backed with hard
data. Ronald Fergeson, in an article entitled ``New Evidence on How and
Why Money Matters,'' notes:

What the evidence here suggests more strongly is that
teacher quality matters and should be a major focus of
efforts to upgrade the quality of schooling. Skilled teachers
are the most critical of all schooling input.

Bill Sanders, a statistician at the University of Tennessee, stated
in a 1997 article in ``The Tennessean'':

Teacher effectiveness is the single largest factor
affecting the academic growth of students. Poor teachers hold
students back,

[[Page S2393]]

while strong teachers can push students ahead by nearly a
grade. When compared to class size, expenditures, and so
forth, they all fail in comparison. The residual effects of
teachers can linger at least three years, regardless of the
performance of subsequent teachers.

The report ``Doing What Matters Most; Investing in Quality Teaching''
states that:

Studies discover again and again that teacher expertise is
one of the most important factors in determining student
achievement, followed by smaller, but generally positive
influences of smaller schools and small class size.

Eric A. Hanushek, a researcher from the University of Rochester,
concludes:

All things being equal, small classes are preferable to
larger ones because teachers can give students more
individual attention. However, all things are seldom equal,
and other factors, such as the quality of the teacher, have a
much more decisive impact on student achievement. Moreover,
the huge expense of class-size reduction may impede the
ability of schools to make other important investments in
quality.

In fact, in nearly all the studies that I looked at on the subject
mentioned quality and class size together. While my colleagues say that
the class size reduction proposal has quality components, this program
actually prohibits funds from being used for improving teaching in the
outyears.
This legislation is seriously flawed. It puts quantity over quality.
In my opinion, it is not a well-thought-out proposal, and, not
surprisingly, it is becoming apparent that it will not work very well
in rural America. We have not held one hearing on it. We have not heard
from anyone at the local level as to whether this program will meet the
real needs that they have in their communities. And we have not heard
where these tens of thousands of well-qualified teachers will come
from.

Where is the emphasis on teacher quality in this proposal? My
colleagues keep telling me there is an emphasis on quality, but nowhere
in this proposal do I see a real commitment to professional
development.
This amendment would have us agree that a teacher's being
``certified'' is synonymous with ``high quality.'' Does ``certified''
equal ``high quality''?
Not necessarily. Currently 91 percent of teachers are ``certified''
in their main field of teaching assignment. Are we all comfortable
saying that 91 percent of our nation's teachers are highly qualified?
There is a great deal of debate on that issue.
Furthermore, State certification requirements, in many instances, are
lacking. Title II of the Higher Education Act we adopted last year
recognized that fact and actually encourages States to improve
certification standards. Sadly, by today's measure, certification is
not a ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.''
And as I mentioned before, the proposal actually prohibits the use of
funds for professional development for teachers in 2004 and 20005
unless the local educational agency has reduced its average class size
to 18.
We have an opportunity to address these problems and consider this
legislation in a timely yet thoughtful manner during consideration of
the Elementary Secondary Education Act Reauthorization.
Let's not rush ahead. Let's take some time to consider what will
really make a positive difference for our nation's students.
The class size initiative is built on a foundation of sand. It came
about because President Clinton insisted that it be part of the omnibus
appropriations bill last October. It was drafted in a back room by a
few people with virtually no input from anyone else.
This happens from time to time, and it doesn't really bother me. But
I think it is a bit of a stretch to characterize this process as a
``bipartisan agreement'' that the Senate is obliged to extend. As I've
said, I don't think we should be getting into these issues on the ed
flex bill.
But if the ed flex bill is going to spill over in to broader issues,
I think we should perhaps revisit whether this attempt to hire one
teacher in a hundred or more is the best use of federal funds.
At this point, I think the answer is ``no.'' Education policy must be
built on consensus, not focus groups. I have no doubt but that this
class size initiative is politically appealing, and the chair of the
Democratic Senatorial Committee has already made clear that he wants to
use it against those of us who might be running for reelection next
year.
But that is exactly my point. As soon as educational policy is driven
by the electoral needs of one party or another, we have undermined it.
It will change every two years based on the outcome of the elections.
And state and local governments, which already chafe at the
restrictions that accompany the 7 percent of funds derived from the
federal government, will become even more frustrated.
My Democratic colleagues argue that school districts need certainty
in planning for the future. Yet the source of the uncertainty is their
own failure to build consensus for this proposal. You can, and we all
do, force things through in the waning hours of a Congress. But you
cannot expect that this process transforms a weak idea into a strong
one.
I do not want to paint too bleak a picture. We do have plenty of
consensus in education policy. In the last Congress we passed an
amazing number of major pieces of education legislation by unanimous or
nearly unanimous votes. And none of this would have been possible
without support from our Democratic colleagues.
I do not think there is any greater consensus than on the subject of
the federal role in helping schools educate the disabled.
The first hearing we held and the first bill we passed were on
Individuals with Disabilities Act. I don't think there is any more
important federal role than to meet the basic commitment which we made
nearly 25 years ago.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a
hearing last month on education budget proposals that drove home this
point.
Representative Albert Perry from the Vermont State Legislature and
Allen Gilbert, a school board member from Worcester, Vermont, told us
unequivocally that the single most important thing we could do to help
local school districts was to fulfill our pledge to fully fund IDEA.
Fulfilling an old promise is not as exciting as raising new
expectations with new programs. We won't get much press coverage for
simply doing the right thing.
But if we fulfill our obligation to fund IDEA, state and local
agencies will be able to target their own resources toward their own
very real needs.
For some districts this may mean school construction or class-size
reduction. In other districts the most pressing needs may include
teacher training or music and art education.
If we decide to use this forum to discuss budget priorities, we
should all come together and agree that no new and untested elementary
and secondary education programs should be funded until we fulfill our
basic commitment to programs--like IDEA--that are tried and proven.
The real issue today is not whether the legislation before us
addresses all of the problems that plague our education system.
There are issues which are important to me--for example, in the areas
of professional development--which I have not addressed on this bill
because I believed that it was more appropriate that these issues
should be addressed in the context of the reauthorization of ESEA.
My own view is that we should have a longer school year, that
children lose too much ground over the summer months. But is this area
ripe for federal involvement? I don't know.
The real issue we are considering today is simple. Are we going to
give state and local communities the flexibility they have requested to
improve the performance of their own students?
I want to emphasize this point. They have not requested this
flexibility solely to make their lives simpler or as a way to avoid
delivering important services. The accountability requirements that are
contained within this bill and that have been implemented in current
Ed-Flex states like Texas and Vermont make it clear that this is not
their goal.
And we would not expect this to be their goal. I have traveled across
the State of Vermont meeting with students, parents, and educators. I
can tell you that no one cares more about the

[[Page S2394]]

educational achievement of students than do their own parents, teachers
and community leaders.
Let us keep ourselves focused on this simple but important task. We
must fulfill the commitment we made more than 25 years ago and we must
move to quickly pass this important legislation.
In order to do so, I am offering an amendment proposing that all
funds made available in Fiscal Year 1999 for class-size reduction will
be used instead for part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA).
I believe it is important that we honor past commitments before
taking on new obligations--particularly those as expensive, untested,
and fractious as the class-size reduction initiative. We have never
come close to providing local school districts with the level of IDEA
assistance promised to them in 1975.
Yet, rather that meeting this long-standing commitment, we are
instead encouraging them to take on additional obligations in order to
reduce class size. These are obligations for which States and
localities will be solely responsible once Federal assistance for
class-size reduction efforts disappears.
It is not too late to correct this mistake. No funds are scheduled to
be distributed until July. Most school districts have not yet received
guidance on the class-size reduction program, as the guidance was not
issued until this past weekend.
Perhaps the situation will change now that guidance is available, but
school officials in Vermont have been telling me that they have been
unable to get answers to even relatively simple questions about the
program.
Supporting programs for students with disabilities is a far better
use of the $1.2 billion provided in fiscal year 1999 than is starting
up an untested teacher hiring program which was written in about a day-
and-a-half in the closing days of the 105th Congress as part of an
appropriations bill.
In fact, several school districts may be faced with entirely
unforeseen increases in their IDEA funding needs because of last week's
Supreme Court decision. Freeing up these funds for IDEA, a program
which is in place and the contours of which are well known, is a better
use of the appropriations scheduled to be distributed this coming July.
Mr. President, I see the Senator from Washington. I believe she is
ready and desires to introduce her amendment.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Washington
if she would like to discuss her amendment, and I would be happy to
yield to her 15 minutes for debate only and then take a look at things
as they exist at that time and decide whether or not we should proceed
with the offering of her amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the regular order, Mr. President.
Regular order is that a Senator can yield for a question. We are now
in debate time; we are not under a time agreement, and I make a point
of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time agreement until 3 o'clock.
Mr. KENNEDY. How do we yield time if there is no time agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I have the floor, and I am yielding for a certain
number of minutes. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I
am asking unanimous consent. Object to it.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would object to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the State of Vermont has the
floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. KENNEDY. I object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The quorum call continues.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont is recognized.

Amendment No. 55 To Amendment No. 40

(Purpose: To require local educational agencies to use the funds
received under section 307 of the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 1999, for activities under part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an
amendment numbered 55 to amendment No. 40.
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:

SEC. . IDEA.

Section 307 of the Department of Education Appropriations
Act, 1999, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2);
(B) in paragraph (1), by redesignating subparagraphs (A)
and (B) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
(C) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting ``(b)''; and
(2) by striking subsections (c) through (g) and inserting
the following:
``(c) Each local educational agency that receives funds
under this section shall use such funds to carry out
activities under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) in accordance with the
requirements of such part.''.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment in hopes that we
can, again, emphasize what the proper procedure is for this bill--to
try to see if we can get it through with the least possible delay. At
the same time, since there seems to be a desire to utilize the
amendment process, we can try to rectify what was an attempted
procedure on an appropriations bill at the end of the last session, to
get to the question of funds for schools.
We believe very strongly, as we have emphasized over and over again,
that the best way to help the schools out, with the money that was
appropriated at that time, is to have that money flow to the schools to
assist in taking care of children with disabilities. There is no
question in the mind of anybody outside of Washington that the best way
to help local communities is to get them out from under the problems
that were put on them by the Federal Government when it promised to
fund 40 percent of special education and only funded it at around 10
percent. That has put huge stress on the local communities, and this
stress has just been made even worse by the recent Supreme Court
decision which has emphasized, that it is the school's responsibility
to have health care available to a child in order for the child to get
what is promised under the Constitution, an appropriate education which
is free. And ``free'' is the key word here with respect to the recent
Supreme Court decision.
Obviously, if a child cannot concentrate or be effective, as far as
the learning process goes, without some help from medication or a
nurse, then, without that help, that free and appropriate education is
not being provided.
Just to emphasize again where we are, this is the time for us to be
helping the States out, to increase their flexibility and their ability
to use title I funds in particular. It is not a time to try to place
upon them new restrictions or to utilize the funds for less desirable
programs than those which are available now, and encumber them with
only being able to do it through the decrease in class size, as in the
amendment as passed out of the Congress last year.
So I am hopeful we can take the time now to analyze where we ought to
be going in education. I already discussed

[[Page S2395]]

that to a substantial extent previously, but would like to point out
again, as we go forward trying to improve the education of this Nation,
this can only be done by the Federal Government and the local
communities and the States all working together to provide the kind of
educational changes which will maximize the ability of our children to
learn. Certainly all the Governors in the country have agreed that the
best way to do that is to free the communities from the huge burden we
placed upon them back in 1975. Although we made a commitment to take
care of 40 percent of that, as has been explained on the floor, we are
well lacking that. We have been showing a chart to you for some time
which dramatically emphasizes that huge shortfall.
I am hopeful as we go forward today, we will continue to try to find
a way to get this bill passed. It is unfortunate it is being objected
to for reasons which really are not relevant. It is very important, as
we progress towards the end of this year, that we not keep stalling and
preventing action that would result in benefiting communities, and stop
encumbering ourselves with legislation which will accomplish what is
not the highest priority. Depending upon where you are, we would
accomplish relatively low priorities. The need for flexibility is
immediate in order to help students and teachers, and in order to allow
the local communities to be free to provide the education which would
be much more beneficial than what could be achieved with the
restrictions they currently face.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Motion to Recommit with Amendment No. 56

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I
move to recommit the bill to report back forthwith with the following
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mrs.
Murray, for herself and Mr. Kennedy, moves to recommit the
bill to report back forthwith with the following amendment
numbered 56.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

amendment No. 56

(Purpose: To reduce class size)

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. __. CLASS SIZE REDUCTION.

Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``PART E--CLASS SIZE REDUCTION

``SEC. 6601. SHORT TITLE.

``This part may be cited as the `Class Size Reduction and
Teacher Quality Act of 1999'.

``SEC. 6602. FINDINGS.

``Congress finds as follows:
``(1) Rigorous research has shown that students attending
small classes in the early grades make more rapid educational
progress than students in larger classes, and that these
achievement gains persist through at least the elementary
grades.
``(2) The benefits of smaller classes are greatest for
lower achieving, minority, poor, and inner-city children. One
study found that urban fourth-graders in smaller-than-average
classes were \3/4\ of a school year ahead of their
counterparts in larger-than-average classes.
``(3) Teachers in small classes can provide students with
more individualized attention, spend more time on instruction
and less on other tasks, cover more material effectively, and
are better able to work with parents to further their
children's education.
``(4) Smaller classes allow teachers to identify and work
more effectively with students who have learning disabilities
and, potentially, can reduce those students' need for special
education services in the later grades.
``(5) Students in smaller classes are able to become more
actively engaged in learning than their peers in large
classes.
``(6) Efforts to improve educational achievement by
reducing class sizes in the early grades are likely to be
more successful if--
``(A) well-prepared teachers are hired and appropriately
assigned to fill additional classroom positions; and
``(B) teachers receive intensive, continuing training in
working effectively in smaller classroom settings.
``(7) Several States have begun a serious effort to reduce
class sizes in the early elementary grades, but these actions
may be impeded by financial limitations or difficulties in
hiring well-prepared teachers.
``(8) The Federal Government can assist in this effort by
providing funding for class-size reductions in grades 1
through 3, and by helping to ensure that the new teachers
brought into the classroom are well prepared.

``SEC. 6603. PURPOSE.

``The purpose of this part is to help States and local
educational agencies recruit, train, and hire 100,000
additional teachers over a 7-year period in order to--
``(1) reduce class sizes nationally, in grades 1 through 3,
to an average of 18 students per classroom; and
``(2) improve teaching in the early grades so that all
students can learn to read independently and well by the end
of the third grade.

``SEC. 6604. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this part, there are authorized to be
appropriated, $1,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$1,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, $1,700,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002, $1,735,000,000 for fiscal year 2003,
$2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, and $2,800,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005.
``(b) Allotments.--
``(1) In general.--From the amount appropriated under
subsection (a) for a fiscal year the Secretary--
``(A) shall make a total of 1 percent available to the
Secretary of the Interior (on behalf of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs) and the outlying areas for activities that meet the
purpose of this part; and
``(B) shall allot to each State the same percentage of the
remaining funds as the percentage it received of funds
allocated to States for the previous fiscal year under
section 1122 or section 2202(b), whichever percentage is
greater, except that such allotments shall be ratably
decreased as necessary.
``(2) Definition of state.--In this part the term ``State''
means each of the several States of the United States, the
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
``(3) State-level expenses.--Each State may use not more
than a total of \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amount the State
receives under this part, or $50,000, whichever is greater,
for a fiscal year, for the administrative costs of the State
educational agency.
``(c) Within State Distribution.--
``(1) In general.--Each State that receives an allotment
under this section shall distribute the amount of the
allotted funds that remain after using funds in accordance
with subsection (b)(3) to local educational agencies in the
State, of which--
``(A) 80 percent of such remainder shall be allocated to
such local educational agencies in proportion to the number
of children, aged 5 to 17, who reside in the school district
served by such local educational agency and are from families
with incomes below the poverty line (as defined by the Office
of Management and Budget and revised annually in accordance
with section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act
(42 U.S.C. 9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size
involved) for the most recent fiscal year for which
satisfactory data is available compared to the number of such
individuals who reside in the school districts served by all
the local educational agencies in the State for that fiscal
year, except that a State may adjust such data, or use
alternative child-poverty data, to carry out this
subparagraph if the State demonstrates to the Secretary's
satisfaction that such adjusted or alternative data more
accurately reflects the relative incidence of children living
in poverty within local educational agencies in the State;
and
``(B) 20 percent of such remainder shall be allocated to
such local educational agencies in accordance with the
relative enrollments of children, aged 5 to 17, in public and
private nonprofit elementary schools and secondary schools in
the school districts within the boundaries of such agencies.
``(2) Award rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if the
award to a local educational agency under this section is
less than the starting salary for a new teacher in that
agency, the State shall not make the award unless the local
educational agency agrees to form a consortium with not less
than 1 other local educational agency for the purpose of
reducing class size.

``SEC. 6605. USE OF FUNDS.

``(a) In General.--Each local educational agency that
receives funds under this part shall use such funds to carry
out effective approaches to reducing class size with highly
qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for
both regular and special-needs children, with particular
consideration given to reducing class size in the early
elementary grades for which some research has shown class
size reduction is most effective.
``(b) Class Reduction.--
``(1) In general.--Each such local educational agency may
pursue the goal of reducing class size through--
``(A) recruiting, hiring, and training certified regular
and special education teachers and teachers of special-needs
children, including teachers certified through State and
local alternative routes;
``(B) testing new teachers for academic content knowledge,
and to meet State certification requirements that are
consistent with title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965;
and
``(C) providing professional development to teachers,
including special education teachers and teachers of special-
needs children, consistent with title II of the Higher
Education Act of 1965.

[[Page S2396]]

``(2) Restriction.--A local educational agency may use not
more than a total of 15 percent of the funds received under
this part for each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2003 to
carry out activities described in subparagraphs (B) and (C)
of paragraph (1), and may not use any funds received under
this part for fiscal year 2004 or 2005 for those activities.
``(3) Special rule.--A local educational agency that has
already reduced class size in the early grades to 18 or fewer
children may use funds received under this part--
``(A) to make further class-size reductions in grades 1
through 3;
``(B) to reduce class size in kindergarten or other grades;
or
``(C) to carry out activities to improve teacher quality,
including professional development activities.
``(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--A local educational agency
shall use funds under this part only to supplement, and not
to supplant, State and local funds that, in the absence of
such funds, would otherwise be spent for activities under
this part.
``(d) Prohibition.--No funds made available under this part
may be used to increase the salaries of or provide benefits
to (other than participation in professional development and
enrichment programs) teachers who are, or have been, employed
by the local educational agency.
``(e) Professional Development.--If a local educational
agency uses funds made available under this part for
professional development activities, the agency shall ensure
the equitable participation of private nonprofit elementary
and secondary schools in such activities. Section 6402 shall
not apply to other activities under this section.
``(f) Administrative Expenses.--A local educational agency
that receives funds under this part may use not more than 3
percent of such funds for local administrative expenses.

``SEC. 6606. COST-SHARING REQUIREMENT.

(a) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out under this part--
``(1) may be up to 100 percent in local educational
agencies with child-poverty levels of 50 percent or greater;
and
``(2) shall be no more than 65 percent for local
educational agencies with child-poverty rates of less than 50
percent.
``(b) Local Share.--A local educational agency shall
provide the non-Federal share of a project under this part
through cash expenditures from non-Federal sources, except
that if an agency has allocated funds under section 1113(c)
to one or more schoolwide programs under section 1114, it may
use those funds for the non-Federal share of activities under
this program that benefit those schoolwide programs, to the
extent consistent with section 1120A(c) and notwithstanding
section 1114(a)(3)(B).

``SEC. 6607. REQUEST FOR FUNDS.

``Each local educational agency that desires to receive
funds under this part shall include in the application
submitted under section 6303 a description of the agency's
program under this part to reduce class size by hiring
additional highly qualified teachers.

``SEC. 6608. REPORTS.

``(a) State.--Each State receiving funds under this part
shall report on activities in the State under this section,
consistent with section 6202(a)(2).
``(b) School.--Each school receiving assistance under this
part, or the local educational agency serving that school,
shall produce an annual report to parents, the general
public, and the State educational agency, in easily
understandable language, regarding student achievement that
is a result of hiring additional highly qualified teachers
and reducing class size.''.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the
presence of a quorum.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue to call the roll.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Under the previous order, the hour of 3 o'clock having arrived, there
will now be 2 hours of debate equally divided.
Mr. JEFFORDS. As I understand it, no amendments can be offered on the
motion to debate relative to the cloture?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No amendments are in order. The order
prohibits amendments at this time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, let me give Members a little bit of
information on where we are. We are now on debate for cloture. We are
trying to get this bill--which is very small in the sense of the number
of words--but would be very helpful to the Governors with respect to
trying to utilize their title I funds in a better way. The States would
be able to assist the maximum number of children in need of help. The
50 Governors support it as it will help them have more flexibility. It
does no damage to anyone and would be helpful to many. According to the
latest estimates for the Department of Education, this school year
there are 6.1 million schoolchildren.
We are also looking at an alternative--if you continue to refuse to
let the bill go out in order to help the Governors to help the
children, we have offered, and will continue to offer, second-degree
amendments. These amendments will not run into the problem of being
under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act jurisdiction of the
committee, where we are now holding hearings, as the other amendments
have. These amendments will say that the highest priority now and the
best thing to do now, would be to take the funds appropriated last year
or authorized last year and to have those instead utilized to reduce
the burden on our local schools caused by the failure of the Federal
Government to live up to their promise to provide 40 percent of the
funding for children with disabilities. We believe that is, by far, the
better option and would not in any way impair our ability to continue
to move forward on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
However, and it is unfortunate, the minority believes they would
rather try to have the President's program. There are many parts of the
President's program that I don't have a problem with. To put these
proposals up at this time, however, without going through the normal
process of debate, analysis, and hearings that normally go on in the
committee process, is irresponsible. We must be able to determine
whether the programs work, how best to put them in, what kind of law
change would be needed--all those things are normally handled during
the committee process. We have already had several hearings and we will
have many more hearings on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I am anxious to move forward now and continue with those hearings, and
at the same time give the Governors maximum flexibility in their
ability to be able to utilize funds presently appropriated, especially
under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Twelve States have demonstrated how you can utilize this to enhance
the education of your children. Texas and Vermont have had a special
success in utilizing these flexibilities, but there are now 38 other
States that would like to have the same benefits. Why we would want to
stall and delay that time, I am not sure, but that is the situation we
are in right now.
We, therefore, are going to have 2 hours of debate from now until 5
o'clock on the motion to invoke cloture so that we can proceed to this
very important but relatively simple bill.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am sure that many Members of the
Senate, and certainly Americans who have been watching the Senate for
the past few days, must have a question on their minds about what is
going on in the U.S. Senate. For many of us who have been here for some
period of time, it is becoming painfully clear what is going on. Our
good friends on the other side look up to the Parliamentarian and ask,
``There is no opportunity for them to offer an amendment at all, is
there?'' and after they get their assurance, then they permit this side
to speak. If you agree with them, you get a chance to speak, and they
don't object to calling off the quorum; but if you don't agree with
them, then you don't get a chance to speak.

This is the new U.S. Senate. I guess this must be part of the
attitude we all heard about after the impeachment--that we were going
to try and work things out in a way of comity and understanding, and we
are going to have give-and-take on both sides. We were denied an
opportunity to debate this issue or offer amendments last Friday when
we wanted to, and we were denied

[[Page S2397]]

the opportunity to offer amendments here today. There are evidently
objections to the consideration of the Murray amendment, even though
the majority and the chairman of the committee were quite prepared to
tag amendments on to this Ed-Flex legislation, which is of so much
importance to local districts. I supported this legislation, but it
doesn't really compare in importance to the Murray amendment which will
result in the reductions of class size.
We saw the acceptance of a far-reaching banking amendment, and I
doubt very much whether there are five Members in the U.S. Senate that
would be able to explain it. And then the majority talks to us about
not trying to clutter up this legislation with amendments, like the
Murray amendment to reduce class size, whose only purpose is to
continue the commitment made last year which the Republicans signed on
for and took credit, to make sure this commitment was going to continue
for the next 6 years, but we have been denied the opportunity to bring
it to the floor. But we have accepted a banking amendment of enormous
significance and importance and there isn't a complaint over here, not
a complaint over here.
So now we have a prohibition on offering amendments from 3 o'clock to
5 o'clock. It is neatly timed to divide the time up so that we can talk
about this. I dare say when the majority leader comes over here, we
will have the same kind of situation tomorrow, the same situation since
he has filed the cloture motion. We will have the explanation, ``Look,
we have been on education for a number of days now and it is time we
resolve it.''
Madam President, maybe that explanation satisfies some Americans. But
it defies logic, Madam President, if we are prepared to try to debate
and discuss these matters, why we don't let the Senate make a judgment
on it.
I listened to my friend talk about the amendment. Last year, the
amendment that was accepted on teachers was drafted in a back room. As
I remember, the good Senator from Vermont was in that back room at that
time. I didn't hear him complaining at that time about being in the
back room. When the chairman of the House committee, Congressman
Goodling, went out there to announce this, he was quite prepared to
take very considerable credit for what had been done in terms of
expanding the classrooms. He went out and stated at that time:

This is a real victory for the Republican Congress, but
more importantly, it is a huge win for local educators and
parents who are fed up with Washington mandates, redtape and
regulation.

That is what the chairman of the House committee said on this.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield for a question.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Were you in the back room?
Mr. KENNEDY. I was there part of the time, but not when he had his
press conference. I was in the room, yes, I was, and glad to be there,
because we were fighting then for smaller classrooms.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I think if you check your memory, I was not there.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator wasn't there, I apologize to the Senator.
It was, as I see now, Senator Gorton, Chairman Goodling, Congressman
Clay, and myself.
So I apologize to the Senator. Would the Senator have complained in
the back room last year if he had been there?
Mr. JEFFORDS. If I had been there, there would not have been anything
to complain about.
Mr. KENNEDY. We will let the record stand and let the people figure
it out.
The point is, Madam President, what we have tried to do with this Ed-
Flex legislation, which some Democratic Governors and Republican
Governors desire, is to create greater flexibility, while at the same
time insisting that we are going to have some accountability--those
issues have not been completely resolved--and to ensure that Federal
funding that was going to be available was going to be targeted to the
neediest students. We all want to make sure that we are going to be
able to judge the Ed-Flex by how the students' achievement and
accomplishment actually are enhanced over a period of time.
There is another amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island, who
wants to ensure that parental involvement in these decisions will be
considered. That has not been accepted. We certainly hope that will be
included, because every single study that has been made with regard to
the importance of early education shows the importance and significance
of parental involvement.
So we still have to resolve those issues. As our majority leader
pointed out when he addressed the Governors two weeks ago, we would get
a chance to debate the issue of education. This is what our Majority
Leader Lott, who spoke to the National Governors' Association, said:

Now, when we bring up the education issues on the floor
next week, there will be some amendments and some
disagreements. But at the leadership meeting we had yesterday
afternoon, I said, ``That's great. Let's go to the Senate
floor, let's take days, let's take a week, let's take 2 weeks
if it's necessary, let's talk about education.''

What happened, Madam President? What happened to that kind of
commitment that was made to the Governors? What happened to the
opportunity to be able to address the issue of class size and to be
able to vote on it? What happened in the last two weeks which has
denied the Senator from Washington the opportunity to offer her
amendment last Friday and denied the opportunity to offer it today? I
daresay she will be denied the opportunity to offer it tomorrow. What
happened here, Madam President?

What is more important to the families of this country than the
issues of education? What is more important than having a good debate
on issues such as classroom size? What is more important than
considering other issues that our colleagues wanted to bring up for
Senate consideration, such as the afterschool programs to try to assist
children that too often are finding themselves in trouble or spending
too much time watching the television in the afternoon? What is wrong
with an amendment to expand that program? Let's hear the arguments and
have a vote here. Let's have a short time limit. The Senator from
Washington had indicated that she would be willing to enter into a time
agreement. We don't need to have a cloture vote tomorrow. We could vote
on the Senator's amendment late this afternoon, if that is the desire.
I bet the membership would stay here during the evening, if that was
the desire and others wanted to speak on it because of its importance
to people in communities all across this country--parents, children and
schoolteachers. We can do that.
We can reach a time agreement, as our minority leader said, on the
floor of the U.S. Senate, for five or six amendments with time
limitations. We could wind this whole debate up by tomorrow. But, no.
Are we sure we can't have any amendments this afternoon? Yes, the
Senate can be assured that it is not possible for any Member of the
U.S. Senate this afternoon to offer an amendment. Fine. Then you can go
ahead and speak.
That is known as a gag rule, Madam President. We had that kind of
problem at the end of the last session. We had the gag rule on minimum
wage. We had the gag rule on the Patients' Bill of Rights. And now we
start off this Congress and we have a gag rule on education. If the
majority agrees with you, you can bring up your amendment. But if you
have an amendment like Senator Bingaman and Senator Reid on school
dropouts, where we had a very substantial number of Republicans who
supported that, absolutely not. Absolutely not.
The amount of time spent in quorum calls last week when they brought
up this simple amendment that had been debated and discussed and
accepted and dropped in conference last year is beyond belief. We had a
small number of amendments that could have been worked out. All of us
understand that there is a program and a schedule, and Senator Daschle
spoke for all of us on our side to try to reduce any number of
amendments, and to try to get a time limitation and to move on. But
that continues to be denied.
``Not as long as school class size is one of the amendments,'' they
say. Isn't that wonderful? No agreement as long as school class size is
an issue. What is this terrible issue about school

[[Page S2398]]

class size that they won't even permit Republicans or Democrats to vote
on?
I see my colleague, the author of this amendment. I am glad to yield
to the Senator from Washington and withhold the remainder of the time.

Cloture Motion

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair, directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to
a close the debate on the Kennedy-Daschle motion to recommit S. 280:
Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, Ernest F. Hollings, Max
Cleland, Tom Harkin, Daniel K. Akaka, Daniel K. Inouye,
John Breaux, Carl Levin, Patrick Leahy, Byron L.
Dorgan, Tom Daschle, Edward M. Kennedy, Patty Murray,
Harry Reid, and Paul Wellstone.

Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you. Madam President, let me just commend the
Senator from Massachusetts for his tremendous work on the education
issue and for his repeated help with those of us who would like to
offer amendments that would make a difference for young children in
this country--in their education and in our responsibilities to live up
to promises we made to our voters to deal with the issues of education,
whether it is reducing class size; training our teachers; dropout
prevention, as Senator Bingaman has brought to us; afterschool care, as
Senator Boxer has talked about; and numerous other issues that will
affect children's education.
I listened to the chairman this morning as he talked about my
amendment, which has yet to be offered, on class size. I agree with him
that the best thing we can do for our kids in our classes is to have a
quality teacher. That is exactly what this amendment that we would like
to offer does.
Reducing class size allows 15 percent of the funds to go to
recruiting, hiring, and training certified, regular, and special
education teachers, and teachers of special needs children, including
teachers certified with State and local governments.
I am reading from my amendment, Madam President. This amendment makes
sure that the teachers who are put into our classrooms are well
qualified. In fact, I worked with Senator Jeffords, chairman of the
committee, last year, along with our ranking member, in order to deal
with the issue of quality teachers. We passed an agreement last year
that began to make sure that our young people out in the colleges today
who are learning to be teachers are given skills in technology, a very
important issue, making sure that every new teacher who is certified
from here on out has training in technology. We intend to work with the
chairman of the committee when we reauthorize the ESEA, to make sure
that our teachers who are out there are already getting the training
and help they need so they can be the best teachers possible.
But it isn't good enough to just have a teacher in the classroom. We
need to make sure that those teachers have enough time with individual
students to help them with their reading skills, to help them with
their math skills, to help them with their introduction to science, to
help them with their writing skills. There is nothing more frustrating
to a first-grade teacher who is trying to help the young student in her
classroom learn to read, and one young student can't get the time and
individual attention he or she needs so that they can break through the
barrier and learn to read. And there is nothing worse than for a
teacher to go home at night and be completely frustrated because they
had 30, 35 kids in their classroom and they weren't able to help one
child. There is nothing more difficult for a teacher than to recognize
that they left the child behind that day or that night or that year
because they didn't have the individual attention they needed.
We go out to our communities--all of us--and we talk to business
leaders in our communities. Every one of them tells us that they want
to hire kids from their local schools to go into their businesses. They
look directly at us, and they say, ``We want to know when those kids
graduate from high school that they know how to read, write, that they
have the basics in science and math.'' What we have found from all of
the studies we have seen is that when class sizes are reduced in the
first through third grades, those students go on through high school
and they graduate with competency in those requirements. It does make a
difference.
Madam President, last year I introduced legislation on reducing class
size. It was turned down on a partisan vote in the beginning of the
year. But we did have a bipartisan agreement. We changed the language
of my original bill to add training for teachers, because that is what
my Republican colleagues wanted. We added language that included local
alternative routes. That was directly in relation to the Republicans
asking us to put this in the amendment. We worked the wording back and
forth and, last October, agreed with Congressman Goodling, Senator
Gorton, Senator Kennedy, and others who were in the negotiations, who
were representing all of us in those negotiations, to come up with a
bipartisan agreement. And it was passed in a bipartisan fashion.
It is now not only extremely timely but necessarily timely that we go
back to those districts and tell them that this wasn't just a
commitment from October; we are firmly committed to making sure that
young children in our schools get the class size reduction that they
need to have the ability to learn the skills they need so that we can
make a real commitment to education.
Don't just look at me for this. I am a former teacher. I am a former
school board member. I am a parent of two students who went through our
public schools. I have been out there as a PTA member. I have been a
State legislator dealing with education. And I have been on the
committee here that deals with education. I have seen education from
every angle--from being a teacher, a parent, a school board member, a
legislator--and I can tell you that all of those groups, every one of
them, know that when you reduce class size you make a difference in a
child's learning.
We all agreed on that last October. We all agreed on that language.
We said yes, this is a commitment that we need to make as a Federal
Government. We looked at the bill and did everything we could, and
brought our Republican colleagues into the discussions, so that there
were no new reports, there was no additional paperwork, that the money
went directly to our school districts so they could hire qualified
teachers. We worked this through in a bipartisan fashion.
Today school boards are out there and they are calling my office--I
am sure they are calling every office here--saying, ``We are putting
our budget together for next year. We are beginning the hiring process
to hire our teachers. Is this a commitment that is just a hollow
promise, or are you going to follow through?'' Our amendment, a 6-year
authorization, says we are going to follow through, that we didn't just
do it last October, that we meant it as a commitment, that we as a
Congress know that class size reduction is absolutely critical.

Madam President, the President has made this a top priority. The Vice
President issued a statement in support of it today. The administration
is going to be there with us. We will get class size reduction. We all
know that. We know we are debating an amendment now. But the school
boards don't know that. They need a commitment now so they can put
their budgets together and hire those teachers.
I was a school board member. I can tell you, we didn't deal with
promises when I was a school board member. When you are putting the
budgets together to hire these teachers, everybody loves you. But you
don't want to be the school board member a year from now or 6 months
from now who tells those teachers, ``We are going to fire you, let you
go.'' They do not care if it was the Federal Government or not. They
will come to your school board meeting saying, ``How can you fire our
teachers?'' School board members can say, ``Well, the Federal
Government didn't follow through on their

[[Page S2399]]

promise.'' But that doesn't make a difference when you are a school
board member and you have to go to the grocery store the next day with
all the parents who are going to be affected by a decision we made.
Madam President, we made a good, solid commitment. We worked a year,
along with our Republican colleagues, to add their language to our
proposal. That is what was agreed on last October. That is what we have
in front of us today, if we are allowed to offer it. And that is a
commitment that we ought to make to parents, to students, and to school
boards who are doing their budgets, and to our Government, which is
also counting on us to make sure that we have our commitments in order
to our young children across this country.
Madam President, I have worked long and hard with my Republican
colleagues on this issue. It is an extremely timely and necessary
issue. We agree that the Ed-Flex bill is one that we can all agree on.
But why not do what is really important in this country on this bill?
Why should we be precluded from offering these amendments? If our
Republican colleagues now don't agree with those on class size, fine;
vote no. But let's let our school board members know. They have a right
to know. We have an obligation to tell them. That is why we feel so
strongly about offering this amendment.
Again, I offer to my Republican colleagues, we would like to work
with you on this. We believe this is a commitment that was made last
year that we should stand up to. The administration stands with us.
Let's put the words in writing, and then we can go on to other issues.
I heard the chairman of the committee say, ``Well, let's wait until
the ESEA is reauthorized.'' I have been here in the Senate for 6 and a
half years. I know that reauthorizing a bill, bringing it here to the
floor, and having it move forward is no guarantee. I know it could be a
year from now. It may not happen. I have seen reauthorizations not
agreed to. I want to make sure that our class size allocations don't
get lost because we can't get a bill through the floor 6 months from
now or 8 months from now. Again, our school boards are hiring teachers.
They need to know now. They cannot wait.
I have studies, which I will go through when we get our amendment to
the floor, which show that reducing class size makes a difference. I
have many, many letters, and I have had phone calls from parents. I
have heard from students. I have teachers who would like to have their
words be put on the floor of the Senate in support of this proposal. I
am hearing from them. I am sure many of our colleagues are as well.
This is an important and timely issue. I sincerely hope that our
Republican colleagues will allow us to vote on it. I heard the chairman
of the committee, the manager on the floor, talk about the fact that
perhaps it would be agreed on now. I again urge you to allow us to vote
on it. Let's have the debate.
I heard the chairman talk about the fact that he would second-degree
my amendment with legislation to take all of the class size money that
was allocated last year and give it to IDEA funding for special
education children.
Madam President, I agree with the chairman of the committee, funding
for IDEA is absolutely essential. I offered this amendment on the floor
during the budget process last year to fund IDEA. I believe in that
commitment. But let's not rob those schools of money that we promised
them last October for this year to reduce class sizes in first through
third grade and give it to IDEA. We can't pit student against student.
What an empty promise, to anybody who depends on the future of
education, if we come back 6 months later, after a bipartisan agreement
has been reached, and say, ``Well, gee, sorry. Politics have changed.
We are taking the money that we promised you and giving it to another
group.''
Madam President, kids in the first through third grade in school
districts, whether they are in Shoreline, or Seattle, or Wanaque,
Kentucky, Florida, or any other community, know that reducing class
size makes a difference. Ask any parent how many times, when their
child comes home on the first day of school--every parent--the first
question is, ``How many kids are in your classroom?'' Every parent
knows that if the class size is small enough--we are asking for 18 in
first through third grade--their child is going to get a good
education. If the answer is 32, as it was for a friend of mine just a
few days ago in enrolling her child in kindergarten, you know your
child is not going to get the help they need and deserve in this
country today to get a good education.
Madam President, I will retain the remainder of our time. I am happy
to hear what our Republican colleagues say.
But I again offer to them that I am more than willing to have a time
agreement on my amendment and an up-or-down vote. I am more than
willing to do it in an expeditious fashion. I am positive we could
finish the bill in the next 24 hours. With a time agreement on my
amendment and the other amendments that I am sure our leader, along
with yours, can work out on the floor, we can finish this bill by
tomorrow and have the whole bill done in a week. But it will allow us
to let people in this country know that this is a commitment we have an
obligation to keep.
Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time, and I look
forward to the debate, and I again plead with our colleagues to allow
us to offer these amendments.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. ``A commitment we have an obligation to keep.'' That is
what we are hearing from the other side. ``A commitment we have an
obligation to keep.'' Tell the special ed child that. Tell the special
ed child, whose funds you are raiding. You are raiding those funds to
start these new initiatives. That is where the funds are coming from.
Every time the President goes to the podium to propose a new program,
where does that money come from in education? It comes from the
children. It comes from the special ed child.
Why? Because this administration year in and year out has refused to
fund special education. In fact, ironically, if you take all of the
President's new initiatives, which have been thrown at us on poll
number after poll number--every time he takes a poll, he puts out a new
initiative. If you take all of his new initiatives on education, they,
ironically, happen to add up to almost exactly the amount of money it
would take for the Federal Government to fulfill its obligation to the
special needs children of this country, an obligation which was made--a
commitment, the term used by the other side, a commitment which was not
made last fall in order to entertain the concerns of the teachers
unions in this country; it was a commitment that was made in 1975--
1975--when we passed 94-142, a law which said that the Federal
Government would pay 40 percent--40 percent--of the cost of the special
needs child.
What happened? The Federal Government reneged on that obligation, to
the point where it was down to only 6 percent that was being paid by
the time the Republicans took over this Congress.
We have been able to reverse that trend as a Republican Congress. We
have increased that funding by almost 100 percent in the last 3\1/2\
years. We have gone from 6 percent up to 11 percent but without any
help from this White House. Not once did they send up a budget that has
said, let's look at the needs of the special ed child. Not once did
they send up a budget that said, we have a 40-percent obligation here;
we are only fulfilling 6 percent of it, so let's start to fill up the
rest of the obligation.
No, every time they send up a budget, it is take the money that
should have gone to special education, put it into some brand new
program which moves responsibility back here to Washington so we can
have more control here in Washington purchased with the money that is
supposed to be going to the special needs child.
We have another example of it right here on this floor today that is
going to be proposed by the Senator from Washington. Let's add 100,000
teachers. How much does that cost? Billions. Does it say anything about
taking care

[[Page S2400]]

of the special needs child, the 40-percent obligation? No, nothing.
Nothing.
Let me point out that if we took the money that was going to the
100,000 teacher program proposed by the President and sent it back to
the communities to spend on their special needs children, that would
free up the local dollars so that the local principal, the local
teacher, the local school board could make the decision as to whether
they needed a new teacher, a new classroom, a new afterschool program,
a new computer, a new science program, a new math program, a new
language program.
But, no, no, the President and his Members on the other side of the
aisle are not going to let that sort of freedom fall into the hands of
the local education folks. They are not going to let parents suddenly
have some power or teachers have some power or principals have some
power.
No, don't let that happen. We have to set up a new program and take
all the money going to special ed, which would have freed up local
dollars, and tell the school districts how to spend it. Tell them that
we, here in Washington, know better. My goodness, we all know that the
folks down here on, I think it is 600 Independence Avenue, the
Education Department, know a heck of a lot more about the kids in the
Epping Elementary School than the principal of the Epping Elementary
School.
We all know that. That is sort of one of those prima facie facts here
in Washington, that the bureaucrat in that building, in that back room
there on the 15th floor of some office building knows a heck of a lot
more about how to educate a child in Epping, NH, or in Concord, NH, or
in Nashua, NH, than the teacher who sees that child every day and the
principal who works with that teacher every day or the parent who
happens to be involved with this child more than every day, obviously,
24 hours a day.

No, it is the great theory of self-worth which says that Senators
here in Washington and bureaucrats here in Washington, especially the
President here in Washington, know more about how to educate the child
than the child's parents, the child's teachers, the child's principal,
or the child's school board. So they take the money that should have
gone to special ed and they put it into these new programs.
Let me reiterate what the practical effect of that is, because this
is the insidiousness of the proposal that is being made from the other
side. You see, if the Federal Government actually funded what it said
it was going to fund in special needs, actually paid for the cost of
the special education child to the full 40 percent as required, that
would free up the local resources, because today what happens is the
Federal Government is only paying 11 percent of the cost. It would have
been 6 percent of the cost if this administration had been allowed to
have its way for the last 3 years. But we changed that. We raised it to
11 percent.
So the next amount of the cost, the difference between 11 percent and
40 percent, has to be found somewhere else; that Federal share that is
not being paid by the Federal Government has to be found somewhere
else.
Where is it found? It is found in the local taxpayers' pockets and
the State. And so the local school district has a special needs child,
or maybe a series of special needs children who are costing them a
considerable amount of money, and we should fund that; we should take
care of them. And they know that and so they pay for that child's
proper education. But when they make the decision to pay for that
child's proper education, instead of getting 40 cents back on the
dollar from the Federal Government for every dollar they spend, they
only get 11 cents back, and so they have to find the difference
somewhere else.
Where do they find it? Well, maybe they do not hire another teacher
that they want for history or art. Or maybe they do not put in a
computer room. Or maybe they do not start an afterschool program. Or
maybe they do not build a new building or add on to their building.
They have to make a decision such as that at the local level. It is a
daily decision that is made in this country. All across this country
that decision is being made, because the Federal Government refuses to
pay its fair share of special education costs to which it has
committed.
No, instead we have this arrogance of power that says we are going to
take the money from special ed; we are going to create a new program;
we are going to give it to you but you have to spend it exactly as we
tell you. You have to spend it to hire teachers. You have to spend it
for an afterschool program. Or you have to spend it to hire
consultants, which is the way it usually works out.
The local school district, instead of having flexibility to make its
own decisions with money that it should be getting from the Federal
Government, suddenly finds itself hit twice. First, it does not get the
money the Federal Government was supposed to send it. And then it is
told that if it wants to get the money the Federal Government was
supposed to send it, it has to create a brand new program that they may
not even want. It is an arrogance of power.
The other side has said, we don't want to pit student against
student. We don't want to pit student against student. Tell us about
the special needs child and their parents going to a school board
meeting in my State.
We have town meetings. School budgets are voted in the open in a town
meeting. Anybody can go. Anybody can vote who is a member of that town.
Let me tell you, student is pitted against student; parent against
parent. It is awful. Why does it happen? It happens because we have
failed to pay the obligations of the Federal share of special ed. It is
absolutely inexcusable that we put special ed kids and their parents
through the nightmare of having other kids and their parents saying to
them, ``You are taking our money.'' But that is what happens every day
across this country because the Federal Government refuses to pay its
fair share.
So, what does the other side propose? Let's pit more students against
students. Let us not increase special ed funding; let's create a brand
new program so the special ed kid is once again left out there without
the protection of the dollars that were supposed to come from the
Federal Government, and once again is thrown into the meat grinder,
unfairly and inappropriately being accused by other students and
parents in the school district that funds going to that child should be
going to the general education activities.
So this student-against-student argument is--well, it is like arguing
that black is white, to say that this new teacher program is somehow
going to relieve the student-against-student issue. It is just the
opposite, just the opposite. It is going to create an excessive problem
for the special needs child.
Do they need teachers? I don't know. I don't know whether the town of
Epping or Concord needs new teachers. I do know this: The people in the
town of Epping and the city of Concord know whether they need teachers.
I am not going to tell them whether they do or they do not. What I am
going to try to do is give them the money and the flexibility to make
the decisions themselves, rather than have it directed here from
Washington. But that seems to be an anathema to the President and to
the people who are carrying his water in this Congress; the concept
that the local community should make these decisions, the concept that
the local teacher or the local principal, or even, God forbid, the
parent might know more about what the child needs than we know here in
Washington. That is the attitude.
That is the attitude that leads to this arrogance which takes the
money from the special needs child and moves it over for new programs
which happen to poll well, and therefore create some sort of political
statement that allows you to create an election event, because that is
what this is all about. If this administration wanted to help the
children of this country get a better education, the absolute first
thing it would have done would have been to fund special education at
the full 40 percent, or made a commitment to try to get there. The fact
that they did not, the fact that they have not, the fact that the only
people who have been committed to this have been on our side of the
aisle, reflects the insincerity of their effort in the area of
education. It reflects that they are interested in politics, while we
are interested in actually producing quality education.
This bill, by the way, is another example of that. It stuns me that
this bill

[[Page S2401]]

would be held hostage for these really blatant political weapons,
especially ones which make so little sense. That is what is happening
here. This bill is being held hostage so somebody can take a poll and
do a focus group and decide we need a new program. I imagine we will
get another one after this teacher one, where the Federal Government
can tell the local communities how to run their educational system.

It is inappropriate, to say the least, because everybody supports
this Ed-Flex bill. It is supported by the Governors. It was supported
by the President. It was even supported by Members on the other side of
the aisle. Why? Because it is a good idea. It gives flexibility to
local school districts. It allows local school districts to make
decisions as to how Federal dollars are spent without the Federal
strings. In fact, I think 12 States are already functioning under this
and doing extraordinarily well, and all this bill does is expand it to
the rest of the States. It is ironic that 12 States should have this
benefit, but the rest of the States should not have this benefit.
This second-degree that has been offered, which I think is absolutely
on target, takes the money which was stuck in the bill last year for
this teachers initiative and moves it over to the special ed accounts,
which is where it should be--should have been in the first place. We
made a mistake last year. This is an attempt to correct it. This
mistake has been confirmed beyond any question by the recent Cedar
Rapids decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said just last
week that not only do the local school districts now have to pay for
the special needs child's educational activities, they are going to
have to pay for the medical activities within the school system that
are required in order to educate that child.
I can tell you, those medical costs are going to be extraordinary.
This is an exponential increase on the local school districts in order
to pay those medical costs. Those medical costs used to come out of
Medicaid in most instances. Sometimes they came out of other accounts,
but a lot of these kids were Medicaid qualified, so if they were really
high they might have come out of there. But they didn't come out of the
local school budget. Now they are going to come out of the local school
budget.
Many of the New Hampshire school districts, for example, have small
numbers of people in them. If you have a child who needs an extreme
amount of medical help in order to be mainstreamed--and they should be
mainstreamed; this is critical, it works, it is a good idea--but they
have to have full-time nursing care, or they have to have very high
caliber medical assistance, devices like ventilators or a variety of
other things, oxygen, it gets extraordinarily expensive. And every one
of those dollars, according to the Supreme Court, is now going to come
out of the school budget.
Where is it going to come from? It is not going to come from the
Federal Government, because we are not going to pay our 40 percent. No,
it is going to come from maybe the math/science department. Maybe the
decision to buy new computers will be put off. Maybe the decision of
hiring a new teacher will be put off. Maybe the decision to add a wing
onto the building will be put off. Maybe the football team will be
dropped. Who knows? But somebody is going to have to lose, because
there is now a Constitutional requirement that the health needs of that
child, when that child is being educated, must be paid for by the
school department.
The Federal Government is not going to come through with its 40
percent of that cost. Instead, the administration is going to take the
money which should have gone for that cost and move it into some new
program which is going to be directed out of Washington where the local
school district will be told from Washington how and when they can hire
a teacher, and what sort of qualifications that teacher can have. It
is, in light of that decision in Cedar Rapids, absolutely inexcusable
that we would be initiating new programs without funding the special
needs program first--absolutely inexcusable. It is going to put
extraordinary pressure on every school district across this country
unless we face up to that reality.
So, the $1.2 billion that last year we put into this teachers program
should be taken out of that and moved over to special needs and the
special needs child's program, in light of the Cedar Rapids decision.
To not do that is to really be derelict in our duty as a Federal
Government. We have already walked away from that duty by not funding
the full 40 percent. But to fail to do it in light of the decision on
Cedar Rapids is really to add insult to injury--to rub salt in the
wound.
So I congratulate the chairman of the committee for offering this
amendment. I think it is right on. I look forward to this debate,
because this is the issue we should join. Are we going to support the
special needs children in this country with dollars, not rhetoric? Or
are we going to start new programs, directed by Washington, decided by
Washington, under the control of Washington, which take the money from
special needs which would have freed up local flexibility and put them
into categorical decisions out of Washington?

That is the debate here. That is the substance of the education issue
and the difference between the two parties on education. It is not an
issue of dollars. It is an issue of how local communities get to manage
those dollars and where those dollars get spent. There isn't a
community in New Hampshire which, if given the option, would take the
special ed dollars before they would take a new categorical program
from Washington.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, how much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators from your side have 34 minutes
remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, let me, first of all, very briefly explain what this
means to Minnesota. I think we on the floor have already gone over what
this proposal is. It is $12 billion over 7 years, $7.3 billion over 5
years. It is an initiative to enable our school districts to reduce
class sizes, grades 1 through 3, to an average of 18 students. It is an
additional 100,000 teachers. Estimates are that we are going to need to
hire 2 million really good teachers over the next 10 years in our
country. This is our way, at the Federal Government level, of providing
some resources to States and school districts that are sorely needed.
Under this proposal, Minnesota would receive $19 million in fiscal
year 2000 to support 519 teachers. Minneapolis would receive
$2,355,271; St. Paul, $1,761,943; and Anoka-Hennepin, $489,090. This
money is sorely needed, and it would be put to great use.
I am pleased to announce that this comes as a complement to what the
Ventura administration is planning on doing, which is to provide $150
million in the next 2 years to reduce class sizes in kindergarten
through third grade, with the goal of having no more than 17 students
per classroom.
Let me say to my colleague from New Hampshire that in Minnesota, at
least, I do not think you are going to get any argument whatsoever that
the Federal Government ought to do a better job of providing money for
special ed children. There is no question about it, the IDEA program is
a great idea. We want children with special needs to be in our schools.
We want them to get the best education possible.
What troubles me is two things. No. 1, what troubles me is this sort
of playing off one group of children against another group of children.
I will say right now that in the State of Minnesota, we have also made
it a goal to try to reduce class size because we know--I try to be in
the schools about every 2 weeks--that there are a couple of things for
sure that work. One of them is to make sure that we have the parents
involved, and one of them is to make sure that children come to
kindergarten ready to learn. We are not there as a Nation.
One of them is smaller class size. At the elementary school level, it
makes a huge difference. It makes a huge difference, I say to my
colleague from Washington, at the middle school level, at the junior
high school level, and at the high school level. So why are we

[[Page S2402]]

talking about these proposals as if it is one versus the other?
I say to my colleagues that what disappoints me the most is that the
evidence is crystal clear. Let me just lay this out as I talk about
this. Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee.
Students in small classes perform better than students in large classes
in each grade from kindergarten through eighth grade. In Wisconsin, the
Student Achievement Guarantee in Education Program is helping to reduce
class size in grades K through 12 in low-income communities; again,
showing significant improvement in reading, math, and language tests.
In Flint, MI, efforts over the last 3 years to reduce class size in
grades K through 3 have produced a 44-percent increase in reading
scores and an 18-percent increase in math scores.
The research shows that it makes a huge difference. When we talk to
the teachers, they tell us it makes a huge difference. When I am in
schools and I ask students, ``What do you think represents real
education reform?'' the first thing they talk about is reducing class
size. They say, ``Smaller classes.'' I ask them, ``Why would smaller
classes make a big difference?''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 additional
minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, why would smaller classes make a
difference? Students go on and they say, ``Well, because with smaller
classes, we might get more of a chance to interact with our teachers.
If we need special help, we get the help from our teachers. The
teachers get to know us better as individuals. We establish more
rapport with our teachers.''
I say to my colleagues, there is not an educator in the country who
doesn't believe that we ought to try to reduce our class size. I say it
would be better to have classes no larger than 15 students at the
elementary school level.
Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy bring an amendment to the floor.
What we are saying--I think all of my colleagues know my views about
the Ed-Flex bill; I won't go over my views again--today is, if we are
going to be talking about education and we are going to pass a piece of
legislation, then we bring to the floor a good-faith, positive effort,
which will make a huge difference.
Again, in Minnesota, hardly any student I have ever talked to said,
``Please, Senator, we want you to support Ed-Flex.'' They do not even
know what it means. Then if I were to tell them about the debate about
title I, personally I think most of the students would say, ``We are
all for flexibility by way of giving the school districts the
discretion to do more on community outreach, if that is what they want
to do, or more on teacher assistance, if that is what they want to do,
or more on special instruction, if that is what they want to do, but
certainly, Senator, we want to keep the basic standards in place.'' I
think most students would agree with that. Most students do not know
this debate. What the students and the teachers and the parents and the
people in the community who care fiercely about education tell all of
us is, ``Here is something you can do.''
In Minnesota, I do not always agree with the Ventura administration
on issues. They did a good job in their budget. They made it a priority
to reduce class size. I think that what Minnesota would say is,
``Listen, some additional resources that enable us to do this job, we
are all for it.''
For some reason, I guess my colleagues do not want to let us have an
up-or-down vote on this amendment, I say to Senator Murray; is that
correct? I want to try to stay at as high a level as possible, but I
guess I say to the majority leader that I am surprised he is surprised
that Democrats on an education bill would come to the floor with an
amendment that Senator Murray has now presented to reduce class size.
It is amazing to me.
Now we are not going to have an up-or-down vote? My colleague, the
Senator from Vermont, who is an education Senator, knows that this is
an important initiative and knows that we have an education bill out on
the floor, that we are going to have this debate, and we are going to
have this amendment. Apparently, we are going to have no vote.
I do not like saying this, but I will: From my point of view, if this
piece of legislation goes nowhere, the Ed-Flex bill, that is fine. I do
not think it is a step forward; I think it is a great leap backwards. I
am saddened by the fact that, for some reason--and this reminds me too
much of the last Congress--it looks to me like the majority leader and
the Republican majority have made the strategic decision that we will
not be allowed to have amendments on the floor, debate, and up-or-down
votes so all Senators are held accountable about education. You cannot
dance at two weddings at the same time. You cannot say you are for
education, education, education, you are for children, children,
children, and then say, when Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy and
some of the rest of us come out here on the floor of the Senate with an
amendment to reduce class size, that you won't even let us vote on it.
This isn't going to work.
This isn't going to work, because one of the best things we can do is
to provide some additional resources so that our school districts can
reduce class size and, at least at the elementary school level, our
teachers can do better by our students, our parents can do better by
our students.
I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to speak on behalf of this
amendment. I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate with a mixed mind. On
the one hand, to use ``Fiddler on the Roof,'' I am not disappointed
that the majority leader is blocking Senators from offering amendments,
because I think it is going to mean this bill is going to go nowhere,
and I think that will be better for the country. On the other hand, I
am really saddened by it and outraged by it because I think this
amendment to reduce class size is real. This is real stuff. This makes
a little bit of a difference. I would rather we do even more on this.

So with all due respect, I think it is a shame. I think my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle are making a huge mistake in trying to
block a debate, in trying to block a vote, in trying to block an effort
to reduce class size. And if it is blocked on this bill, I assume this
amendment will come up over and over and over again, and all of us will
be out here talking about it on other pieces of legislation. And we
will be talking about pre-K, and we will be talking about rebuilding
crumbling schools, and we will be talking about support services for
kids at a very early age, and we will be talking about a whole lot of
other things that lead to an improvement in the quality of education
for our children.
I say to my Republican colleagues, you are not going to gag us on
this. You are not going to silence us on this. We are going to have
debates about education on the floor of the U.S. Senate. This is just
the beginning.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I just want to remark very briefly. All we have done--
and I do not understand why my good friend from Minnesota cannot agree
with it--is to give the Senate a choice. Do you want to send it for
special ed, where it is desperately needed, or do you want to see
whether the States would prefer to have it to put more teachers in
place? It is as simple as that. We are not getting an opportunity to
vote on our amendment either.
Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee----
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JEFFORDS. For 9 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, thank you.
It must be really confusing to people following this debate over the
last several days, especially after people have been away for the
weekend coming back now. In about an hour, we will have a vote called a
cloture vote on a topic that means a great deal to the American people.
I had a chance to review some of this in some town meetings over the
last 2 days. I have come back even more convinced we have a real
obligation to pass this simple, direct bill that will be translated
into

[[Page S2403]]

improving education opportunities for people all across America.
This bill--a simple bill--is a bill I brought to the floor last week
called the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. The cloture vote, in
55 minutes, is an attempt on our part to say, let's bring this bill in
as clean a fashion as possible, addressing flexibility, addressing
accountability, at no expense --at no cost; this bill does not cost a
single cent--and let's vote on that bill. Let's not clutter it with all
sorts of different amendments from either side of the aisle.
I think it is very sad that we are having to file cloture on this
bill to bring it to a vote, because it is a worthy bill. It is a bill
that has the support of every Governor in the United States of America.
It is a bill that is bipartisan. My principal cosponsor is the
distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden.

It is ostensibly supported by the President of the United States. He
first called for this bill, in fact, about 13 months ago, and has been
in support of the bill since that time. Just last week he spoke out in
support of the bill and said let's pass Ed-Flex. I think it is sadder
still--yes, we are voting on cloture--but sadder still that now we are
playing politics, playing politics with the future of our children,
with our children's education. And that is what it is.
It became really clear to me as I was at home and I was in Mountain
City, which is at the far east end of Tennessee, and went across
Tennessee and ended up in Memphis yesterday talking about education.
They said: ``If there's one thing we want you to do, U.S. Senate,
Congress, the Washington Federal Government, it is to stop playing
politics and pass useful legislation that you know will work.'' And we
have in this Ed-Flex bill. We have 5 years of experience with a program
that has been demonstrated to work. Numerous examples have been cited
again and again. Stop playing politics.
Let me just very briefly bring people up to date in terms of the
history of this legislation. Senator Wyden and I worked together on a
task force on the Budget Committee which complemented much of the work
we did last year on the Labor Committee and identified a particular
program that, as we held our hearings, very clearly worked. We heard
the examples from Texas and from Vermont and from Massachusetts--all of
whom came forward and said this is a program that allows us to focus
the resources, with the intent out of Washington, DC, but to do it in
such a way as we do it with respect to our needs in our local
communities, in our local schools, in our local school districts--with
the same goals, with the same money, with the same intent of the
Federal Government, but without the Washington red tape, without the
excessive bureaucratic regulations. And that is what Ed-Flex is about.
I did not bring this bill to the floor to be cluttered with another
25 different spending programs, however well intended they are. No.
There is a more appropriate place to be dealing with that, and that is
on the reauthorization which is currently underway in the Health and
Education Committee, that reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
Ed-Flex is a valuable program. It is a bipartisan program. It has
been demonstrated to work. We introduced Ed-Flex just last July. I
worked very closely with the Department of Education: How can we make
absolutely sure that we have strong accountability provisions built
into this piece of legislation? It only makes sense, if you are giving
local communities more flexibility, to innovate, to be creative, and to
answer those challenges that are out there in educating our children--
by taking into account those local needs specific to whatever school
might be considering a particular issue.
The Department of Education came, and we worked closely together. I
worked with Secretary Riley, and last year he endorsed this very bill.
The Labor Committee approved this bill 17-1--not 9-9 or 10-8, but 17 in
favor of Ed-Flex and 1 against. We ran out of time last year.
We reintroduced Ed-Flex this year. The Health and Education Committee
again reported this bill out of committee, and now we are on the floor
of the U.S. Senate debating this simple, straightforward bill on
education flexibility with accountability. Yet clearly we are getting
off in other directions. We have had a list of amendments come in. One
program cost $12 billion, we want to add; another cost $80 million. I
plead with both sides of the aisle, let's step back and pass the bill
we brought to the floor.
Let me also say--and again it is an important point--it is important
for my colleagues who are not on the Health and Education Committee to
understand, and for Americans and Tennesseans to understand, that the
vehicle, the appropriate vehicle to which we should be considering,
whether it is construction or whether it is getting dollars all the way
to the classroom or whether it is 100,000 new teachers or better
teacher preparation in terms of quality, the appropriate place is not
on the Ed-Flex bill, which does not cost anything, which allows for
this innovation, but through the authorization process currently
underway. We are having hearings right now, and will over the next
several weeks and months, on the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, where we look at all of these programs, kindergarten through 12.
Some, as I said, would rather play politics with this bill. I really
call upon my colleagues to put the politics aside and pass this bill.
Ed-Flex does not cost a dime. The bill on the floor does not cost a
single dime, yet an amendment just came to the floor which costs $12
billion over 6 years--$12 billion. The appropriate place to debate that
is where you are looking at other resources we need to put into
education and have that debate.
Chairman Jeffords offered an alternative to those expensive plans,
and that is we should not be out there funding all these new programs
which have come along as amendments until we fulfill a promise we made
in 1974.
The Senator from New Hampshire just outlined that we should not be
debating funding new programs until we fully fund our special needs
children, special education, where we made a promise in the past.
Indeed, the Senate voted 100 to 0 to support that approach, although it
seems now we have people backing away from that commitment.
Madam President, the floor debate has not focused on the real merits
of the Ed-Flex bill. In fact, I bet if we can get cloture today, when
this bill comes to the floor the vote will be probably 99-1 in favor of
the Ed-Flex bill. I plead that people vote in favor of cloture so we
can vote on the Ed-Flex bill without introducing myriad amendments.
We have moved beyond talking about Ed-Flex to the political posturing
and the doublespeak. America is not going to tolerate it, I don't
believe, based on my experiences around Tennessee this week. Every
Member on the other side of the aisle voted to fund the needs of
special education students before spending on new programs, yet today
we have seen another amendment discussed which is yet another new
spending program.
We cannot be occupied by political rhetoric. What is at risk is the
Ed-Flex bill. This bill could be brought down if we overload it with
all of these new programs. That would be a travesty because we could
have this bill passed here and in the House and on the President's bill
in 6 weeks, and 38 States that don't have Ed-Flex now would have that
program available for them if we passed it here in the next several
weeks. Ed-Flex streamlines our education process, it cuts through
redtape, it allows States greater flexibility.
Let me briefly refer to this chart, and please don't try to dissect
the chart. Let me use it as an example of what I am up against. This is
the General Accounting Office, and as everybody in the Chamber knows,
the General Accounting Office will come in and look at a field and make
advice. At one of their presentations, this chart was presented. It
basically says here are some target groups that are very important to
education. One is teachers, the other is at-risk and delinquent youth,
and the other is young children. I asked that group a simple question:
What programs do we have today--out of Washington, DC, or what
Departments--looking at at-risk and delinquent youth? I don't
understand because I have heard that there were hundreds--200 and 260;
500 and 560. I asked a simple question: What is Washington doing for
teachers, for example?

[[Page S2404]]

This is the chart they came back with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield an additional 60 seconds to the Senator.
Mr. FRIST. The point I end with, what we are hearing today is to have
a new program put on the outside to address a population that we know
is important.
Look at the complexity of this on this chart, which my staff jokingly
calls the spiderweb chart. Look at the 15 different programs for
teachers. What the other side wants to do is put another program out
there.
Our argument is to pass a simple program--that allows innovation; it
has bipartisan support--instead of introducing a new program. The
appropriate debate here is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I plead with my colleagues to pull back on all of these amendments,
pass Ed-Flex, vote in favor of cloture today so we can address a bill
that has bipartisan support, that is supported by all 50 Governors,
supported by the President of the United States, the Department of
Education, and, I bet, 99 U.S. Senators.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam President.
I want to express my appreciation to Senator Frist for his excellent
leadership on this bill. Senator Jeffords, who has managed it, brought
it out of the committee last year 17-1. It has broad bipartisan
support, and was crafted by Democrats and Republicans. Yet, we get here
now and we get into this kind of political brouhaha, this kind of spat
that does nothing for education. It is not healthy for America and
confuses people about what is important.
As Senator Frist noted, we are talking about a bill, Ed-Flex, that
will give our school systems some flexibility as we gave the State
welfare systems flexibility. We know how well they did when we gave
them that flexibility. It would give the school that same kind of
flexibility and not cost one dime. It would not cost any money.
Blithely now, we have a Senator walking in here to propose a $12-
billion amendment--just like that--100,000 teachers. Somebody ran a
focus group, I suppose, did a poll somewhere and the people said, ``We
like teachers; we like smaller class sizes.''
We have hired Ph.Ds and experienced teachers to lead our school
systems. Principals all across America are concerned about the schools
in your community and in my community. I don't know why we should have
some mandate here; we haven't even had hearings on this. We will spend
$12 billion on teachers--maybe we ought to consider whether we should
spend it on something else.
This legislation is supported by the National Governors' Association.
There is not a Governor in America today who didn't get elected who
promised to improve education in his State. They are committed to the
improvement of education in their States. They love their children in
their States as much or more than Senators love the children in each of
the 50 States. They want good school systems. They support this bill.
They are calling on us to pass this bill and get out of this political
folderol we are going through. Our new Governor in Alabama, a Democrat,
Don Siegelman, supports this bill. Dr. Ed Richardson, the Alabama State
superintendent of education, supports the legislation.
I will share some information with this body. One of my staff people
visited a Montgomery title I school in a poor neighborhood, sat down
with the principal, and asked him what he would like for his school
system if he could name it right now. The principal, Mr. Thomas
Toleston, from Southlawn Elementary School, when asked what he would do
if he could be free from redtape and Federal regulations, said:

I would ensure that Southlawn implement a comprehensive
summer school program.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1
additional minute.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I don't have the time to give you.
Mr. KENNEDY. We will give you 1 additional minute, Senator.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Thomas Toleston listed a number of items, including
taking kids to educational programs like NASA, afterschool programs, he
mentioned bringing in extended-day programs and for paying faculty for
extended-day programs.
I just say this: The people we elected in our communities care about
our children. We ought to allow them to do their job with the least
possible headache from Washington. It is arrogant of us to think we
know better how to spend the money to educate the children than the
people who elected us.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to just take a few moments at
this time, because we have others who would like to speak, to say that
I am somewhat perplexed at some of the arguments that have been made
here this afternoon about the importance of local control and the role
of the States in terms of education, because just last fall, in
October, we gave assurance to the States that there would be help and
assistance toward making the classrooms smaller. We gave them those
assurances. Communities all across the country were depending on them.
Now we have an amendment on the floor that effectively wipes out that
commitment. So not only do local school districts not know how to plan
for the future, but they don't even know now--even with the assurance
they have gotten from HEW--about what funds would come into local
communities and whether they would have the resources to be able to
plan for the fall. If that makes a great deal of sense, it makes a
great deal of sense to others, not to me.
Now, Madam President, I will include in the Record what we have done
over the past several years on increasing funding in education. We have
seen that, since 1995, we have made a bipartisan commitment to increase
IDEA funding by $2 billion. That has been very worthwhile. Many of our
Republican friends initiated that. I am glad to support it. It made
sense and it continues to make sense. We also had a bipartisan
commitment to help the neediest children in America by increasing Title
I funding by one billion dollars. We have initiated bipartisan
commitments for the funding of afterschool programs and education
technology by about $700 million. Since 1995, we have expanded
opportunities for qualified students to go to college. And last year,
we made a 1-year downpayment on a bipartisan commitment to reducing
class size across the country over 7 years.
We reject the idea of pitting children against children. I listened
to the eloquence of my friend from New Hampshire, talking about how we
wanted one group of children to benefit at the expense of other
children. Let me just mention that I am strongly committed toward
enhancing the resources available to the IDEA, just as I am for
supporting the Murray amendment. Improving teacher quality, having
well-trained teachers, can identify children with special needs early
and better address their needs. They can also better teach all
children. If you are talking about special needs children, improving
the teacher quality and getting well-trained teachers helps us to meet
that responsibility.
Reducing class size, as the Murray amendment provides for, would help
all children--all children--including children with disabilities. They
would get more individual attention, which they need. Modernizing the
school buildings--school construction--would offer support and help for
all children, including those with disabilities and give them access to
safe and modern schools. Children with disabilities would benefit from
having buildings with appropriate access to school facilities and
buildings equipped to handle modern technologies. Expanding the
afterschool programs would help all children, including those with
disabilities, stay off the street and out of trouble and help them get
extra academic help. The Reading Excellence Act will help all children
read well early. It will help teachers address reading difficulties
early and possibly eliminate the need for costly special

[[Page S2405]]

education later. All of these initiatives would help all children,
including children with disabilities, get better educations.
We are committed to all of these factors, to try to help children all
across the country. So we welcome the opportunity to work with the
Senator from New Hampshire, or any others, to see expanded resources
for IDEA. It is essential and important. But we don't want to penalize
some children to benefit others. Let's make a commitment that we move
all the children along together.
I withhold the remainder of my time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote for
cloture on this bill. This is an important piece of legislation in
which there is bipartisan support. I just plead with my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle--who are being obstructionists and are
holding up a piece of legislation that the National Governors'
Association supports, Republicans and Democrats support, educators
across this country support, and which makes good sense--let's vote for
cloture and move on to the debate so that we can give the American
people what they deserve in better education.
In voting for cloture, we will be voting to cut educational
bureaucracy and ensure greater resources going to the children. In the
State of Arizona--
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. What is the objection of the Senator to agreeing to a
time limitation on the five amendments and to move toward final passage
on tomorrow?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. The five amendments that have been proposed add
billions and billions of dollars in costs when the first obligation,
the commitment the Senator speaks of, has already been made to the
educators in IDEA, in providing the full funding for special education
across this country.
Reclaiming my time, to vote for this cloture is to vote to cut
educational bureaucracy. In Arizona, 165 employees--nearly half of the
whole workforce of their Department of Education-- oversee only Federal
programs accounting for only 6 percent of the funding. I say that is
where we can take a step in the right direction in the passage of this
bill.
We should not be funding new programs. This amendment that Senator
Kennedy refers to is a $12.635 billion amendment. That is the kind of
amendment that will destroy the possibility of passing this bill into
law and ensuring better education for our children. We don't need new
spending programs until we have made the commitment that we made to the
Nation's Governors in providing a full 40 percent of funding for
special education. If there is a complaint from local schools, it is
not that we are not starting enough new programs, it is that we are not
funding the programs that we already mandated to them.
I look forward to debating the amendment for 100,000 new teachers--
$12 billion. Let me just refer to my home State of Arkansas where,
between 1955 and 1997, class size dropped from 27.4 students per
classroom to 17 students per classroom. We are doing the job on cutting
the size of classrooms, but we have not seen a comparable improvement
in academic performance. Why do we assume that this is the only great
need that schools have and we are going to decide it in Washington, DC?
While public school enrollment in Arkansas has decreased by 1.3 percent
in the last 26 years, the number of teachers has grown by over 12,000--
from 17,000 to 29,000.
We don't need to give them the .3 teachers per classroom that they
will get under this amendment. We need to give them greater flexibility
so they can do a better job. I ask my colleagues: After 7 years, if we
do this, after we fund this, if we fund these 100,000 teachers for 7
years, what then? How will the schools fund those teachers then? I
suggest to you that it will be the COPS Program all over again.
I had a call this week from the director of the State police in
Arkansas who said, ``We hired 90 State police officers under the COPS
Program, and now the money is ending. What do we do? How do we pay for
them? You have to keep the money coming.''
After 7 years, what we will have done is either pull the rug out from
under local educators, where they have to come up with additional local
funding--schools that are already strapped--or they are going to look
to Washington, as they have before, and we will have created another
new entitlement in permanently funding teachers from Washington, DC.
That is not what we need to do to improve education in this country.
That is not what we need to do for the children of this country. What
we do need to do is to pass this bill, eliminate some of the hoops we
currently make the States jump through, allow them greater flexibility
in doing reforms, and improve education creatively at the local level
where the decisions can best be made.
Let's reject the ``one-size-fits-all'' solution from Washington.
Let's approve this cloture motion and move on to provide educational
flexibility for the schools of this country.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, as a newcomer to the Senate, I have
been perplexed by the great debate over Ed-Flex. I would like to say
that Ed-Flex is not the beginning and the end in terms of education.
When we first talked about Ed-Flex early on in this session, the
thought was that we would move it out early before we got into the
great debate over the reauthorization of elementary and secondary
education and to understanding that there are a lot of things we needed
to discuss --more teachers, school construction; on our side of the
aisle, block granting all the money into the classroom, and many other
things. It was a bipartisan effort.
As chairman of the National Governors' Association a year ago, I was
at the White House. I said to the President, ``We would like to see Ed-
Flex for all the States.'' By the way, we don't need it in Ohio. We
were one of the first States to get Ed-Flex. I thought it would be
wonderful if the other States had the same opportunities we had in
Ohio. The President said, ``I am for Ed-Flex.'' Tom Carper, now the
chairman of the National Governors' Association, Governor Carper, was
at the White House. Again, the President said, ``I am for Ed-Flex.''
This bill is just aimed at giving the other 38 States in the United
States of America the opportunity to use these waivers the way we have
in Ohio. We believe they have helped us do a better job with the money
that has been made available under various Federal programs. We can
show, for example, where we have been able to get waivers under title
I, and how it has improved the performance of our children in our title
I schools. We have been able to show that by getting waivers to the
Eisenhower professional grants that the money has been used better than
it was before.
One of the things we all ought to be concerned about here in the
Senate is you can't get an Ed-Flex waiver without putting a kind of
Goals 2000 plan together, getting a State to waive their regulations
and some of their statutes, and allowing a school district to look at
all of these programs and come up with a plan that is going to do a
better job of taking care of their boys and girls in their respective
school districts.
I was saying to one of the Senators yesterday that in terms of Ed-
Flex I wish every school district that was title I would ask for a
waiver, because at least you would then be able to go back a year later
and find out whether or not that title I money is really making a
difference in the lives of those children.
I just think the issue of--a lot of these great things have been
talked about, Senator Kennedy and others have--but I think the thought
was that we need to spend the time discussing those things as we move
through the reauthorization of elementary and secondary education.
There were a lot of people on my side of the aisle who didn't want to
go along with Ed-Flex because they thought it would spoil their bills
that block grant money into the classroom.

So I just think that all of us who really care about the kids ought
to get

[[Page S2406]]

on with Ed-Flex and talk about these other programs as we move through
this session as we had originally anticipated.
As I say, the President agrees. All the Governors agree. It is an
opportunity for the Federal Government to become a better partner to
States and local governments to do a better job in providing help for
our children. I just think this concept of ``one size fits all'' coming
out of Washington doesn't work. We don't have a national school board.
I must tell you that in Ohio what came out of Columbus, ``one size fits
all,'' did not work. ``One size fits all'' doesn't work in individual
school districts because of the fact that those districts are
different.
This legislation gives all of the States an opportunity to take
advantage of Federal money and meld it with money they are spending on
the local and State level and make a real difference in the lives of
our boys and girls in this country and achieves measurable improvement
in the classroom. That is what people want--accountability.
I urge my colleagues to end the debate. Let's get on with it. Some of
these other issues that are so very, very important which are near and
dear to their hearts--I am not going to get into the argument about
whether class size or the Federal Government should hire more teachers,
and so forth; I will not get into that. I have feelings about that. But
I think we need to do that later on and not on this piece of
legislation.
One other thing that I think needs to be pointed out, Ed-Flex does
not cost one dime--not one dime.
What we should think about is that I think it will allow us to use--I
don't think--I know it will be able to use the money we are getting
from the Federal Government in a more effective way of helping our
children in the classroom.
Some of the other things that have been talked about here are the
amendments to this legislation are going to cost money. The question
is, Where is the money going to come from? That ought to be taken into
consideration when we are looking at the whole smorgasbord of
educational priorities and look at the dollars that are available, and
then conclude that is it better to, say, fund IDEA rather than putting
the money into new teachers or into new classroom construction?
As Senator Kennedy notes, I am very interested in zero to 3. We would
be better off taking money from new classrooms and for hiring new
teachers and focusing it on zero to 3 where we know that a lot more
needs to be done, and where we know that if we invest early on in the
child's life we are going to get a better return.
I ask my colleagues to vote for cloture. Let's get Ed-Flex done.
Let's get on with the debate over how we are going to spend the money
available to make the biggest difference in the lives of our children
in this country.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from
Massachusetts yielding me some time to speak.
I strongly support the Ed-Flex legislation. In fact, New Mexico has
seen the benefit of being one of the Ed-Flex States for the last 3-plus
years. So we have seen there is some value in that. We certainly favor
expanding that authority to other States as well. But I don't
understand why we are in the condition or situation we are in here on
the Senate floor today. I am not opposed to Ed-Flex. I am just in favor
of going ahead and doing a few other things at the same time.
I proposed an amendment which incorporates the provisions of the
Dropout Prevention Act, which passed this Senate by 74 votes in the
last Congress. All we are saying is that is a bill which had 30
Republican Senators supporting it. It had, I believe, virtually all
Democratic Senators, or nearly all Democratic Senators, supporting it.
That is something we can agree upon. Let's go ahead with that. That is
a priority.
We do not need to say, ``Look, it has to be Ed-Flex alone, or it can
be nothing.'' That is the part of this debate that I don't really
understand. The notion is sort of being left out there that somehow or
other we are trying to stall a resolution of this issue or stall the
final vote on Ed-Flex.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I would be happy to have a
vote on this Dropout Prevention Act amendment which I proposed last
week after 15 minutes of debate on our side and 15 minutes of debate on
the other side.
So there is no effort by me or my cosponsors to slow down the
consideration of this Ed-Flex bill. I believe that the other Senators
who are interested in having amendments brought to the floor for
consideration would also be glad to have short time limits so that
those amendments could be considered and voted upon by the Senate.
Clearly, if the Senate believes that some of these proposals are too
expensive, then we can vote against them. If the Senate believes that
some of these proposals are not yet refined enough and need to be
postponed until the Elementary and Secondary Education Act comes to the
floor, that is fine; you can vote against the amendment at this time
and explain that is the reason. But I do not understand why we can't at
least have votes on the other important education proposals that people
feel strongly about going ahead with.
My own State, as I said, has this Ed-Flex provision in law already.
We have had it for over 3 years now. During that time, 1 of the school
districts--we have 89 school districts in New Mexico--1 of our 89
school districts applied for a waiver 1 time during those 3 years. As
you can see, we have not used the Ed-Flex authority to great advantage
in our State, and I think that may be partly our fault.
But Ed-Flex is not a cure-all. I support expanding the authority to
all States. I support putting it in permanent law. But I do not think
we should be out here on the Senate floor leaving the impression that,
once we pass this, all the problems of education are going to be
resolved and the States are going to have this tremendous capability to
resolve everything and the problems will go away.
During the 3 years we have had Ed-Flex authority in New Mexico, we
have had 1 application by 1 of the 89 school districts for 1 waiver,
and at the same time--and that waiver was granted --we have had 20,000
of our New Mexico students drop out of school before they graduate.
So I come to this from the point of view that it is at least as
important with my State that we go ahead and consider the problem of
students dropping out of school in the early part of this Congress.
Some say we can deal with that later. Well, if later means a year and a
half or 18 months from now, at the end of the 106th Congress, if that
is as soon as we can do it, fine. But if it is important for the Senate
to move ahead at this point on Ed-Flex, it is also important that the
Senate move ahead at this point on this dropout prevention initiative.
A preliminary analysis of last week's fourth grade reading scores
showed where the problem begins--or early indications of the problem.
Between 1992 and 1998, the gap in reading skills between Hispanic
students and non-Hispanic students in nine of our States widened, and
only in four States did that gap decrease. So we are going in the wrong
direction as far as heading off this dropout problem. I do not think
Ed-Flex is going to solve that. I favor giving that authority to the
States. I favor using it more effectively in my own State of New
Mexico.
I certainly intend to vote for this bill, but I also think it is
appropriate that Senators be allowed to offer amendments and get votes
on them. As I say, if people want to vote against the amendments, that
is fine. But I don't see why we cannot have a vote on an amendment
unless that amendment somehow passes some kind of litmus test.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I do urge my colleagues to oppose
cloture at this time so we can offer our amendments.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Rhode Island from the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
for 5 minutes.

[[Page S2407]]

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
I rise today to join my colleagues to urge that we not only debate
this Ed-Flex bill but we also consider thoughtfully, carefully, and
completely many of the amendments that are being put forward by my
colleagues.
Senator Bingaman has talked with great eloquence and knowledge about
dropout prevention. He has worked for many years to make sure there is
a response to that growing problem here in the United States. That is
certainly a legitimate issue to bring to this debate on education
flexibility. And there are other amendments that should and must be
considered.
Many--in fact, all--who have spoken about education flexibility have
stressed the need for accountability. The Governors have stressed it.
Several Governors appeared before our Education and Labor Committee to
talk about not only the need for Ed-Flex but also to insist that they
need real accountability to accompany this legislation.
Real accountability means something more than just words. I, for
example, have an amendment that would provide for parental involvement
in accountability in this process, for notification of parents of the
proposed State plan, the pulling together of comments by parents,
teachers, and others, and the incorporation of these comments in the
application that goes forward to the Secretary of Education. If we
can't give parents a voice in education flexibility, then we are not
only missing a great opportunity but missing a significant and primary
responsibility, and yet that is pending without a vote.
So there is much work left to be done, and I hope we will defeat the
motion for cloture so that we can get on with this work, so that we can
fairly consider these amendments, we can vote them up or down, but we
can consider them. I hope that is the case.
Interestingly enough--and I know this is something that all of my
colleagues do--I spent this morning in a school in Rhode Island. I went
to the Norwood Avenue Elementary School in Cranston, RI, and I read to
first graders, which is a very challenging assignment. And after that,
I am even more in favor of smaller class sizes that Senator Murray
proposes.
Then I went to the Warwick Neck School in Warwick, RI, and read to
first graders. Then I concluded the morning by going to the Mandela
Woods School in Providence, RI. This is a new school which just opened,
and it has the most diverse population you would want to see in an
America school--African Americans, Asian Americans, Latin Americans. It
is a tapestry of urban education in the United States. While I was
there, it struck me again and again the importance of the issues we are
talking about --not just educational flexibility but all of the issues,
how smaller class sizes contribute to better performance. And this is
the case in the Warwick Neck school, because that is a small school in
and of itself with small class sizes. The principal was very, very
proud of the fact it had done very well in statewide mathematics
testing as a result of their efforts.
So the issue of small class size is there, but also--and I know we
have talked about special education--we are beginning to understand now
that special education is in many respects a function of early
childhood intervention, not just educationally but also in terms of
health care. There is a problem in Rhode Island, a terrible problem in
Rhode Island, and other places, of lead paint exposure, and that
problem leads directly to educational complications.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. REED. I thank the Chair for reminding me, and I again urge that
we continue this debate, because it is an appropriate, indeed,
important, debate, and I hope it continues past this cloture vote.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 6 minutes remaining on the Senator's
side.
Mrs. MURRAY. And how much on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, if I could take just a few minutes, the
vote is going to occur here on cloture in a few short minutes. I have
to say, I have listened to the debate over the past week, and we are
coming to the last several minutes. We are going to be voting at 5
o'clock whether or not to have cloture on the Ed-Flex bill that is
before us. If cloture is invoked, essentially what will happen is, all
of the education amendments we have been talking about--class size
reduction, dropout prevention, parent accountability that Senator Reed
of Rhode Island just talked about, afterschool care--we will be
precluded from offering these amendments.
I have been out here for the last week ready to offer my amendment on
reducing class size, willing to work with my Republican colleagues on a
time agreement, willing to do what we needed to do in terms of any
language that they would like to be amended or changed, but knowing
that school boards across this country are waiting for us to make a
decision on whether or not we are actually going to authorize reducing
class size and make a firm commitment to putting 100,000 new, well-
trained teachers in classrooms.
Madam President, I have to say that I am baffled as we come into the
last several minutes before we vote on cloture. We worked very hard
last year, last fall, as we put the budget agreement together, to put
together a bipartisan agreement on class size, and we got that.
Republicans and Democrats alike said yes, we are going to make a
commitment to reduce class size in the first through third grade. We
agree with what the studies show. We agree with what parents are asking
us to do. We understand that it makes a difference in the learning of a
child in the first, second, and third grade if they are in a class size
that is reduced. We understand that their grades will be better as they
get into high school. We understand that discipline problems will be
reduced. We understand they will have a better and higher likelihood of
going on to college. We understand that as the Federal Government we
need to reach out and be a part of the solution and give a commitment
of dollars to those school districts to hire teachers. It was a
bipartisan agreement. I am baffled today by my Republican colleagues
who now no longer are supporting this.

Last fall I watched the campaign and elections, and, as did many in
my State, I am sure, I watched the ads from the Republicans saying they
support reduced class size. Madam President, this is our opportunity to
vote to authorize this program and really say we are committed to doing
this. It will make a difference. It is absolutely essential. It is
important that we be a part of this.
Over the last 6\1/2\ years that I have been here, I have listened to
a number of my colleagues come to the floor to speak as ``a
businessperson who has run a major million-dollar business.'' I have
listened to my colleagues, who come here as former Governors or former
attorneys general or former State legislators, talk about their
experience in their fields. Madam President, I stand before you today
as a former teacher. I can tell you that it makes a difference whether
you have 18 students in your class or you have 24 or you have 30. It
makes a difference whether or not you have the ability to take that one
young boy or girl and help that child really get his or her alphabet
down so that child can read later, or if you ignore that child and say,
``Gosh, I really would like to help, but I have 30 kids here and there
are winners and losers.''
Those young children you cannot help because your class size is too
large still grow up. They go on to high school. They probably don't go
on to college. They become failures at an early grade.
We have a responsibility. We actually have an ability right now to
send a message to those little boys and girls, to young students, to
teachers, that we are going to give them the attention they need in
first, second and third grade. Our amendment authorizes a 6-year
investment in helping school districts hire 100,000 well-trained
teachers. If we follow through on this commitment I guarantee, as a
former teacher, as a parent, as a school board member, that 12 years
from now we will have

[[Page S2408]]

young boys and girls, young students, graduating from high school who
will be competent in reading, writing and math, because they were in a
class with a size we helped reduce today.
If we do not make that commitment, there will be kids who may not
graduate from high school, may have discipline problems, will not go on
to college. They will become a burden to all of us. They will not be
able to get a job in the high-tech industries that are saying, we need
highly skilled students who graduate. They will not be able to compete
and go on to college. They will become economically disadvantaged, and
the Senate will be here, 12 years from now, wondering how we, as a
nation, are going to be able to afford to continue to help kids who we
didn't help 12 years ago.
Madam President, we have an opportunity to vote on this amendment and
on the amendments of several of my colleagues who have made very good,
strong arguments about what we can do to make education better in this
country; reducing class size, training teachers, school construction,
afterschool programs--real issues that will help young students. We
will have the opportunity to do that if the majority leader will only
allow us to offer our amendments.
We should not be precluded on the floor of the U.S. Senate from
offering our amendments. If our colleagues want to vote no, they can
vote no. If they want to vote with us, they can vote with us. But no
one should come to this floor and be told that you cannot present your
amendment.
I am ready to go. I am ready to have a time agreement. I ask my
colleagues to support us in opposing cloture, and I will be back again
and again until I can make a difference with class size reduction. I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

cloture motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 31
to Calendar No. 12, S. 280, the Education Flexibility
Partnership bill:
Trent Lott, Jim Jeffords, John H. Chafee, Robert Smith,
Thad Cochran, Arlen Specter, Slade Gorton, Mitch
McConnell, Richard Shelby, Bill Frist, Larry E. Craig,
Jon Kyl, Paul Coverdell, Gordon Smith, Peter G.
Fitzgerald, and Judd Gregg.

Vote

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the substitute amendment No. 31 to S. 280, a bill to
provide for education flexibility partnerships, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the
Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) are
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--41

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Graham
Landrieu
Lautenberg
McCain
Torricelli
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). On this vote, the yeas are
54; the nays are 41. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn
not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

Amendment No. 37, As Modified

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I modify my pending amendment No. 37 with
the text of an amendment that I now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is
so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:

SEC. . IDEA.

Section 307 of the Department of Education Appropriations
Act, 1999, is amended by adding after subsection (g) the
following:
``(h) Notwithstanding subsections (b)(2), and (c) through
(g), a local education agency may use funds received under
this section to carry out activities under part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411
et seq.) in accordance with the requirements of such part.''.

Cloture Motion

Mr. LOTT. In light of the recent cloture vote, I send a cloture
motion to the desk to the pending amendment No. 37.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

cloture motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment No. 37
to Calendar No. 12, S. 280, the Education Flexibility
Partnership bill:
Trent Lott, Judd Gregg, Sam Brownback, Jeff Sessions,
Paul Coverdell, Bill Frist, John H. Chafee, Craig
Thomas, James M. Jeffords, Michael B. Enzi, Mike
DeWine, Rick Santorum, Spencer Abraham, Jim Bunning,
Wayne Allard, and Jon Kyl.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this cloture vote, then, will occur on
Wednesday, March 10.

Call Of The Roll

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under
rule XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 58 To The Motion To Recommit With Amendment No. 56

(Purpose: To provide all local educational agencies with the option to
use the funds received under section 307 of the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 1999, for activities under part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the
pending motion to recommit and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report and read the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Jeffords,
for himself and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered
58 to the instructions of the motion to recommit S. 280 to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

In lieu of the instructions, insert the following:
Report back forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. . IDEA.

Section 307 of the Department of Education Appropriations
Act, 1999, is amended by adding after subsection (g) the
following:

[[Page S2409]]

``(h) Notwithstanding subsections (b)(2), and (c) through
(g), a local educational agency may use funds received under
this section to carry out activities under part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411
et seq.) in accordance with the requirements of such part.''.

Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 59 To Amendment No. 58

Mr. LOTT. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] for Mr. Jeffords,
proposes an amendment numbered 59 to amendment No. 58.

The amendment is as follows:

In the pending amendment, strike all after the word
``IDEA'' and insert the following:
Section 307 of the Department of Education Appropriations
Act, 1999, is amended by adding after subsection (g) the
following:
``(h) Notwithstanding subsections (b)(2), and (c) through
(g), a local educational agency may use funds received under
this section to carry out activities under part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411
et seq.) in accordance with the requirements of such part.''.
(i) This section shall become effective 1 day after
enactment of this Act.

____________________