[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2459-S2464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EDUCATION 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 legislative 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 (for Jeffords) Modified Amendment No. 37 (to Amendment 
     No. 35), 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.
       Gramm (for Allard) Amendment No. 40 (to Amendment No. 31), 
     to prohibit implementation of ``Know Your Customer'' 
     regulations by the Federal banking agencies. (By 0 yeas to 88 
     nays, 1 voting present (Vote No. 33), Senate failed to table 
     the amendment.)
       Jeffords Amendment No. 55 (to Amendment No. 40), 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.
       Kennedy/Daschle motion to recommit the bill to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions with 
     instructions to report back forthwith with the following 
     amendment: Kennedy (for Murray/Kennedy) Amendment No. 56, to 
     reduce class size.
       Lott (for Jeffords) Amendment No. 58 (to the instructions 
     of the motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions), 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.
       Lott (for Jeffords) Amendment No. 59 (to Amendment No. 58), 
     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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote scheduled to occur at 4 p.m. today occur instead at 2:45 and that 
the time between now and 2:45 be equally divided between the chairman 
and the ranking member of the committee.
  I further ask that immediately following the vote the Senate stand in 
adjournment until 12 noon on Wednesday, and that the routine requests 
through the morning hour be agreed to, the morning hour be deemed to 
have expired, and the Senate proceed for 1 hour of debate to be equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
committee relative to the cloture votes.
  I further ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. on Wednesday the 
Senate proceed to the cloture vote with respect to the Kennedy motion 
regarding class size, and the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be 
waived. I also ask that immediately following that vote, if not 
invoked, the Senate proceed to a cloture vote relative to the Lott 
amendment regarding IDEA and choice.
  Finally, I remind all Senators that under the provisions of rule 
XXII, all second-degree amendments must be filed by 12 noon on 
Wednesday, March 10, in order to qualify postcloture.

[[Page S2460]]

  Before the Chair rules, I just want to advise the Members that the 
purpose here is that staff and others be able to avoid what may be a 
very difficult afternoon rush hour with the snow coming down. And 
indications are it is probably going to increase even more. But we do 
want to have this cloture vote, so we will have 30 minutes equally 
divided for debate and then the vote, and then we will be back up with 
this very important bipartisan education flexibility bill on Wednesday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are going to have 
15 minutes a side. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct. 
There will be 30 minutes equally divided between now and 2:45.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in just half an hour the Senate will vote 
on the second cloture motion to terminate debate on the Ed-Flex bill, 
and then tomorrow we will have two more cloture votes. It is our 
position that these cloture votes are completely unnecessary--what we 
would like to be doing here this afternoon and in the course of 
tomorrow is voting on education policy.
  We were given assurances by the majority leader at the annual 
National Governors Association Conference that we would have the debate 
for 1 or 2 weeks. Now the minority leader has proposed limiting our 
side to just five different amendments, and we would be glad to have a 
number of amendments on the other side. We are glad to enter into time 
limits. There is no reason we cannot end the whole education debate 
tomorrow.
  We have no assurance--none--from the majority leader, none from the 
chairman of the Health and Education Committee, that we will have 
another vehicle before the end of this year to debate education. This 
may very well be the only opportunity that we have. Why not have a 
reasonable time to debate and discuss the issues that are before the 
Senate in education, primarily the issue of class size reduction from 
grades K to 3, which is enormously important and very successful in 
terms of enhancing student performance. What about the afterschool 
programs? What about enhancing the effort to terminate school dropouts? 
The range of different, important policy issues--all we want to be able 
to do is debate them. We are being denied that by the majority.
  That is part of our frustration. We believe the discussion on 
education is one of the most important debates that we will have. We 
are here, ready to debate. We were here last week on Friday and were 
closed out. We were here on Monday and are here Tuesday and continue to 
be closed out from being able to consider these amendments. That is the 
wrong policy.
  Parents do not understand why we cannot debate it. Various 
organizations representing teachers, parents, school boards, and local 
communities are all pleading to the U.S. Senate to go ahead and have 
the debate on these issues.
  There is widespread approval for continuing Federal support for 
reducing class size nationwide. This initiative is supported by the 
National Parent Teacher Association, the National School Boards 
Association, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American 
Association of School Administrators, the Council of Great City 
Schools, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the 
National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the 
National Education Association, the International Reading Association, 
the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Association of 
School Psychologists.
  These groups are all saying please, go ahead with this debate. Go 
ahead and have the votes on these matters. We will abide by whatever 
the Senate does, but do not close us out.
  Mr. President, that is what is happening here this afternoon. I hope 
we will not have the cloture vote to close it out. I am still hopeful 
somehow at this late hour we will be able to work out a process so we 
can consider the educational amendments which families all over this 
country want us to consider.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are on the right subject. The question 
here is education. But in this great deliberative body, as it is 
called, we have some who do not want us to debate the principles of 
education and ideas that exist, here in the Chamber of the Senate.
  Let me show a graph, if I might. It will be hard for people to see 
this, but it describes where we are. We have an education bill on the 
floor of the Senate. To that education bill is offered an amendment by 
Senator Gramm, an amendment to the Gramm amendment by Senator Jeffords, 
then a Jeffords substitute, then a Bingaman amendment, and then the 
Lott substitute. Then we come in with the Kennedy motion to recommit in 
order to do the class size amendment. Then we have a Lott amendment to 
that, followed by a Lott amendment to the Lott amendment.
  What does all that mean? It is a legislative way of plugging up this 
system so nothing can happen unless those who run the place want it to 
happen. It is a legislative mechanism to prevent debate and action on 
the ideas that we have about education.
  What are those ideas? The bill on the floor is called Ed-Flex. That 
is an idea about flexibility. There are other ideas--one we debated 
last year, reducing class size K-3; 100,000 new teachers who reduce 
class size, because kids learn better when they are in classes of 15 
than if they are in classes of 30 kids. That is common sense. That is 
an idea, the Kennedy-Murray amendment.
  School construction--repairing and renovating and building schools 
where we have schools in disrepair. I have talked at length about 
schools that are in disrepair; classrooms with sewer gas coming up into 
the classrooms and kids have to be removed; classrooms that are unsafe. 
I have talked at length about those issues here on the floor of the 
Senate.
  Afterschool programs is another idea. An idea I want to offer, an 
amendment I want to offer that I am prevented from offering by this 
plugging system here in the legislative assembly is a school report 
card. Every 6 or 9 weeks all across this country parents get report 
cards about how their kids are doing. How is the school performing, 
however? What about how is the school doing? What does it mean if your 
kid gets the best grades in the worst school? What does that mean? How 
does your school do compared to other schools? How does your State do 
compared to other States? What are you getting for hundreds of billions 
of dollars we are spending to educate our kids? How about grading our 
schools? I want to offer that amendment. I want that grading system to 
be a system that every parent in every corner of this country can 
understand and recognize and use.
  Mr. President, I graduated in a high school class of nine. We didn't 
have particularly advanced mathematics courses, but I know enough about 
what is going on from that kind of education to understand what is 
going on here on the floor of the Senate. We have an education bill on 
the floor of the Senate. A number of us have amendments we want to 
offer to that bill, have a debate, and have votes on our amendments. 
Those who run this place say no, it is not how we are going to operate. 
It is our ideas or no ideas. It is our agenda or no agenda. It is a 
vote on our bill or on our amendments, or no votes.
  That is not the way this place ought to operate. Education is a 
priority and should be a priority in the legislative agenda of this 
Senate. But it ought not be a narrow agenda that says we will only 
consider a piece of legislation called Ed-Flex and then prevent 
everyone else from offering their amendments.
  I heard a speaker yesterday say about this class size amendment, that 
is the Senate wanting to run the local school districts. Nonsense. Let 
me read a comment from a Republican last year when we passed a piece of 
legislation that called for some additional teachers. Congressman 
Goodling, a Republican, said, ``This is a real victory for the 
Republican Congress, but more importantly, it is a huge win for local

[[Page S2461]]

educators and parents who are fed up with Washington mandates.''
  So I hear somebody stand up over there yesterday and say what we are 
trying to do somehow is to run the local school systems--absolute 
nonsense. It is nonsense, as indicated by Mr. Goodling, a Republican, 
who last year said this is good public policy; this is policy everybody 
ought to support.
  In fact, this is Republican policy, he said. Now it appears we cannot 
even get a vote on it. So I urge the majority leader and others to 
bring a piece of legislation to the floor, open it up, let's have a 
debate, let's offer amendments--let's get the best of what everyone has 
to offer here on the floor of the Senate.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we approach the vote to invoke cloture on 
S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1998, I wish to 
express my dismay with the procedural battle evoked by this 
legislation. We have now spent close to three full days on this bill, 
but the Senate has expended most of its time and energy on procedural 
tactics intended to preclude one party or the other from debating those 
topics of utmost importance to them. I find this greatly disturbing. 
Education is a serious topic which deserves the substantive attention 
of this body. It merits an in-depth examination from a multitude of 
levels and angles so that our nation's children can someday reap the 
full benefit of a well-rounded learning experience. With so many 
priority items to discuss and debate in this Congress, there is, of 
course, great difficulty with accommodating and balancing the wishes of 
100 Senators, but I hope that we could come to an understanding by 
which Republicans and Democrats alike could use this opportunity to 
further discuss and debate education policy. People all across the 
United States from California to Maine tell us that education is their 
top priority. Obviously there are concerns. Can we not set aside our 
differences and use this opportunity to help address the many problems 
facing our nation's education system?
  As part of this debate on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act 
of 1998, I would like to take some time to discuss the issue of 
education accountability, a topic which has received much attention 
from my colleagues during these past few days. I am pleased to note 
that greater accountability has been built into this legislation to 
ensure that states granted this so-called Ed-Flex status are held to 
higher standards of accountability in exchange for increased 
flexibility at the state level. I am, however, reluctant to support the 
notion of expanding this Ed-Flex designation nationwide, given the 
limited performance results from the twelve demonstration states and 
the lack of accountability data on which a state or school currently 
reports. Perhaps, before embarking on this mission of handing over 
greater authority to states to waive federal education requirements, we 
should consider the somewhat startling fact that more than sixty 
percent of parents have never seen an individual report card on the 
performance of their area school.
  I find it ironic that, in an age where a wealth of information 
abounds about any imaginable field, precious little information exists 
about the performance of our nation's schools. Mr. President, I bring 
to the attention of the Senate a recent publication by Education Week 
and A-Plus Communications, entitled ``Reporting Results,'' that 
discusses this new buzzword of 1999. While I find encouraging the fact, 
as reported in Education Week, that thirty-six states are expected to 
issue school accountability data or ``report cards'' this year, that 
practice, it seems to me, should be undertaken by all fifty states.
  Furthermore, of the thirty-six states that will have report cards in 
1999, only thirteen states ensure that the report cards actually get 
sent home to parents and few include all the information that parents 
report that they actually want to see most. Moreover, the information 
on these report cards rarely finds its way to the community at large, 
which has an interest in the education of its young people. I am 
baffled by this phenomenon! Why go through the process of creating such 
a document for it to end up as yet another soiled piece of paper in the 
garbage can? And without this kind of documentation from schools, 
should we really be proceeding with the expansion of Ed-Flex authority 
to waive certain federal education requirements without significant 
knowledge of how our nation's schools are performing in the first 
place?
  Of all the decisions in life that a parent has to make, the decision 
about where to send a child to school is one of the most difficult and 
important. I find it unbelievable to think that parents often, for the 
lack of better information, rely upon word-of-mouth to make such 
important decisions. Where are the numbers on student achievement, test 
scores, teacher certification, and graduation rates? Parents need to 
have this information before them as a key resource for making an 
informed decision.
  I feel for parents who, despite their best efforts to learn about the 
quality of their local schools, cross their fingers as they send their 
children off each day in the hope that their children will be spending 
those hours in an enriching and safe environment. I find it terribly 
disconcerting that the quality of our schools in different corners of 
the same community can differ so dramatically as to force families to 
move from neighborhood to neighborhood on the trail of the best 
schools. I find it sad that so many families have felt compelled to 
give up on public schools in favor of private schools or home 
schooling.
  Mr. President, I believe that greater education accountability is the 
key to unlocking this trend burdening so many families today. With more 
information, and I am talking about the real stuff--test scores, 
teacher qualifications, graduation rates, tracking of students from 
grade school into college and after--parents will have substantive data 
at their fingertips to truly determine what is in the best interest of 
their child and their family as a whole. Perhaps, at the same time, 
this could provide a better framework for gauging how Ed-Flex is 
impacting student achievement levels and enhancing teacher preparation.
  Competition is at the heart of creating better schools for the 
nation. During this debate, my colleagues will raise the important 
issues of school construction, class-size reduction, and others of 
great concern to the American people, but I believe that fostering a 
competitive environment among schools is perhaps one of the more simple 
and effective ways of improving our nation's schools for the 21st 
century.
  By forcing schools to annually report on performance data, such as 
test scores and other quantitative measures, teacher qualifications, 
and safety indicators, parents will have a framework for weighing one 
school against another, and communities will have data they need to 
force improvements in their school systems. As Education Week pointed 
out in its report, so many of the report cards that actually make their 
way into a parents' hands are difficult to read, with extraneous 
information of little benefit to educators and parents. Mr. President, 
there needs to be uniformity in gathering key data that parents are 
seeking and a model that all parents can follow. Holding schools 
accountable for the students they are producing and the teachers they 
have chosen, while making this information readily available to 
parents, will turn up the heat on schools, and apply much long-needed 
pressure to those at the helm to up the ante on teacher qualifications 
and curriculum requirements.
  But test scores and other achievement data will mean little to 
parents if we continue upon this so-called trend of ``teaching to the 
test.'' What good will come of teaching students skills simply to ace a 
standardized test? Mr. President, if we hope to produce well-rounded 
students prepared for the challenges ahead in today's workforce, a 
standardized test should not drive the curriculum. Life is not multiple 
choice. Life is an essay, to be written well or poorly by educated 
students.
  Education accountability is a serious issue which has been left 
behind for many years at the expense of our nation's parents and 
educators. It is time to examine the necessity for reporting data both 
as part of this Ed-Flex legislation and at the local level in the form 
of school report cards. I look forward to working with the Health, 
Education,

[[Page S2462]]

Labor, and Pensions Committee in ensuring that our nation begins to 
navigate this challenging territory.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. REID. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing my 
concern about the gridlock we find ourselves in here on this bill. Let 
me, first of all, commend the majority leader and majority for bringing 
up an education bill. I think most Americans feel that this is one of 
the most important issues for us to be addressing. So I want to begin 
these brief remarks by commending the majority for bringing up an 
education bill.
  The regrettable part is that having now brought up this matter of the 
so-called Ed-Flex bill, we are now being deprived of the opportunity to 
discuss a number of critical issues which affect the quality of 
education in the country. We are not suggesting here that this be an 
unlimited debate with countless amendments. There are just several very 
key and important issues the American public would like to have us help 
address.
  One is class size. Most Americans know if a teacher has too many 
students, not only can the teacher not teach, the students do not 
learn. This is not any great leap of logic to understand this. Too many 
of our classes are too big. We know that. One of the proposals we would 
like to raise in the context of this education bill is that amendment. 
You could vote it down, if you would like. But I do not think this 
institution, or the American public, ought to be deprived of having the 
Senate of the United States debate an amendment that would assist 
reducing the size of classes in America. That ought not be denied the 
American people. Yet under this present sort of Rubik's Cube we have 
created here legislatively, we cannot even get to that amendment.
  Americans would like to see us address the issue of afterschool 
programs. It is a major problem. Parents worry about where their 
children are between the hours of 3 and 6 o'clock. It is a major 
problem. We may disagree over how best to achieve the results of having 
a good afterschool program. But here we are unable to debate it, 
befuddling the American public. For the life of me, it is hard to 
explain why when we have an education bill before the U.S. Senate, we 
cannot even bring up an amendment and discuss and debate and vote on an 
amendment. An amendment that would simply offer an idea and a plan on 
how we might alleviate this growing concern among Americans about what 
happens to their children after school hours when they are not at home, 
when parents cannot provide for their needs and are concerned about the 
trouble they can get into, the difficulties they can encounter. That 
ought not be a great leap of logic to expect us to be able to discuss 
in this context of an education bill that the majority has brought up.
  Americans would like to see us address the issue of the condition of 
our classrooms, our school buildings. This morning, I met with some of 
our mayors down from the State of Connecticut. One of the issues raised 
by one of those mayors is that the school buildings in his town are 
more than 40 or 50 years old. They need new buildings. Now, they are 
willing to participate in the cost of that. But they would like to see 
some of the dollars they send to Washington come back to help improve 
the quality of these classrooms and these buildings. I do not think 
that ought to be too difficult. If the majority doesn't agree with 
that, doesn't think that is a priority, vote against the amendment, but 
do not deprive us of raising it, debating it and voting on it. That is 
not too much to ask.

  Again, I commend the majority. They have said this is an important 
issue; education is critical. We are bringing up the education bill. 
How ironic that having brought up this bill, they now deprive us from 
raising three or four amendments that we think would contribute to the 
well-being of the educational system of this country. We cannot even 
discuss, debate, and vote on them.
  I had hoped that we could do better on one of the first actions of 
this Congress, having gone through the difficulty of this impeachment 
proceeding, and get back to the issues that affect the American public. 
We took an awful lot of time on the issue of impeachment. Now, the 
public, our constituents, would like to see us spend some time on their 
issues, the things they worry about every day. When you bring up an 
education bill and then deprive us of the right to debate, discuss, and 
vote on critical issues that they think are important, they wonder what 
we are doing, what our agenda is--a Rubik's Cube of parliamentary 
maneuvering or actually addressing these underlying and critical 
questions that the American people care about.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield whatever time is remaining----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, until someone shows 
up on the other side, that Senator Bingaman be allowed to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you very much. I thank my friend and colleague 
from Nevada for yielding me some time.
  Mr. President, I agree with the sentiments that were just expressed 
by the Senator from Connecticut about his frustration about not being 
able to vote on some of the crucial issues that relate to education in 
this country.
  I wanted to particularly draw attention to this issue of the Dropout 
Prevention Act that I offered last week, along with my colleague from 
Nevada, Senator Reid. This is legislation which is not new to the U.S. 
Senate. It is legislation that passed in the last year. There were 74 
votes in favor of this Dropout Prevention Act. What we are trying to do 
now is get this same legislation, identical legislation considered as 
part of this Ed-Flex package of legislation. We think that will be good 
for the American people. We think it would advance the handling of this 
very important issue. Otherwise, we will be put off for perhaps a year, 
perhaps 18 months into the new year. I believe very strongly that we 
ought to go ahead and deal with this.
  In my State, when I go around my State and say what is the No. 1 
concern that people have about education----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico will suspend his 
remarks. The time has expired on the minority side. By unanimous 
consent, it was extended until someone came to the majority side. The 
Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am sorry to interrupt, but it is our 
time.
  Today marks the fifth day of discussion by the Senate on the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. We have spent time 
discussing several education issues that are important to debate, but 
do not necessarily pertain to the underlying bill.
  The Education Flexibility Partnership Act, which has overwhelming 
support on both sides of the aisle--all the Governors in the Nation; 
the President supports it; everybody supports it--what is it? The 
Secretary of Education gives a State some authority to determine 
whether some schools may be granted waivers pertaining to certain 
requirements for the purpose of enhancing services to students through 
flexibility and real accountability.

  It is important to note that States cannot waive any requirements 
pertaining to health and safety, civil rights, maintenance of effort, 
comparability of service, equitable participation of students and 
professional staff in private schools, parental participation and 
involvement, and the distribution of funds to State or local agencies.
  Currently, 12 States have ed flexibility authority. Through Ed-Flex, 
these 12 States have been better able to coordinate programs which 
create a seamless education delivery system that benefits both teachers 
and students.
  During the first day of debate, I offered a managers' package which 
contained various accountability provisions which we worked out through 
a bipartisan agreement. Those provisions and additional accountability 
provisions which were added last Thursday

[[Page S2463]]

will improve school and student performance, which should be the 
mission of every education initiative. I will remind my colleagues that 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is up for review this year. 
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the foundation for most 
of the Federal programs that assist students and teachers in our 
elementary and secondary schools, and it accounts for $15 billion in 
Federal spending, excluding IDEA--that is, special ed money and 
vocational education.
  We are currently engaged in the hearing process. One of the first 
hearings we held regarding this legislation looked at various education 
proposals offered by Members of this body. I look forward to working 
with all of my colleagues as we draft the first Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of the 21st century. We only do that once every 
5 years. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the most 
important education legislation we will consider this year. There are a 
number of good ideas being discussed which deserve a thorough review. 
That is what these amendments are about. They deserve a thorough review 
before we leap off prematurely, ahead of the committee process, to put 
the President's programs, which have not been reviewed, in place 
without thorough hearing and understanding.
  It is for this reason that we should not be debating many of the 
amendments that have arisen in the Ed-Flex debate. We should be 
debating these proposals in conjunction with the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. Last year, as I pointed out earlier, we passed 
10 education bills, all out of the committee, by either unanimous or 
close to unanimous votes, because we worked in committee to work the 
matters out, like we should, and not to do it on the floor before any 
hearing.
  I urge my colleagues not to short circuit the process of offering 
major elementary and secondary education initiatives on Ed-Flex. The 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act is not designed to be the sole 
response by the Federal Government to improving school and student 
performance. However, Ed-Flex does give States the ability to augment 
education services for students and teachers.
  I also point out that the amendment that I have is perfectly 
consistent with this policy. What it says is, okay, we appropriated 
last year $1.2 billion for a program--and this was decided in the back 
halls of the Capitol somewhere; I was not present--that we should take 
the President's 100,000 teachers, put the first year in effect. We are 
saying, wait a minute, we haven't had any review of that, but we will 
do this. We will let the local governments for this year decide whether 
they would prefer to have it, not knowing what is going to happen in 
the future, until we work it out in the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  We would like to give them the flexibility at the local level to 
determine as to whether or not they would prefer this year to use that 
money to augment their special education funds or whether they want to 
start off on a course, which may not be followed, to start hiring new 
teachers. I point out, there are a lot of questions about a bill which 
gets you on the route to new teachers. If you have 100,000 new 
teachers, you need 100,000 new rooms. If you have 100,000 new teachers 
and you do not know where the funds are going to come from in the 
future, how are you going to pay for it? These are all important 
questions to be answered when that bill gets into final shape, if it 
does get into final shape.
  Mr. President, I hope that we can make progress. I urge my friends on 
the other side of the aisle, we are at a point where we can either vote 
this out and get on with other business or we can just spend the rest 
of the year in this kind of a debate and inability to act together.
  I am proud of our committee. We have worked so many things out in a 
bipartisan manner. And to think that we could get stalled and find 
ourselves without the ability to pass a simple bill which merely gives 
flexibility to the States--I do not understand how we could go forward 
with that kind of process. We have important bills coming up. We have 
health care bills, we have all sorts of bills out of my committee, 
extremely important bills, and we are getting off to a rough start here 
by the inflexibility of the minority.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator would yield for a brief question.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would like to also have the Senator yield 
to me for a minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield to the Senator from 
North Dakota?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Just briefly I will yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the courtesy.
  One of the difficulties we have is being able to offer amendments. 
And the Senator seemed to suggest at some other point education issues 
will be brought to the floor with an open opportunity for people to 
offer a series of ideas and amendments. Is the Senator speaking for the 
majority leader on that? Because we have had great difficulty in 
obtaining that status on the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. So far I have had no problem with the majority leader, 
and I do not expect we will. This committee had worked together very 
well last year, and I expect we will this year.
  I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  The underlying bill is the Ed-Flex bill, which is a bill that I and 
Senator Wyden introduced in a bipartisan way, supported by all 50 
Governors, a straightforward bill which strips away Washington redtape, 
which empowers our teachers to teach instead of filling out paperwork. 
Seven percent of the Federal money is coming down with over 50 percent 
of the Government regulations there. Strip it away so that they can 
really teach, accomplish the objectives we set out for them, meet the 
standards of accountability, and we will be able to innovate, offer 
some creativity.
  This bill all of a sudden has taken off, and we are having 
innumerable amendments placed on it, and most of them are huge new 
programs, new spending, all of which has an appropriate forum to be 
addressed. I just hope, for the American people, that we are not in a 
gridlock here. The fact that we are going to be voting on cloture in 
about 2 or 3 minutes demonstrates there is gridlock here. Let's help 
our American children, let's help the American people, by passing this 
bill, voting on it, Ed-Flex, not all these new spending programs.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and a half minutes are remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, the chairman of the 
committee and Senator Frist, who is the author of this bill, in stating 
that I find it really disheartening that the Members on the other side 
have decided to use this bill, which was bipartisanly supported, was 
supported by the President, in order to make political points, not 
substantive points.
  The amendments which the other side is offering on this bill are not 
appropriate to this bill. They basically represent amendments which 
accomplish obfuscation and delay of what is a very good bill. The 
underlying bill will give local communities flexibility in how they 
deal with Federal regulations.
  I understand that that is anathema to some people on the other side 
of the aisle. I understand that some people on the other side of the 
aisle would like to have the ability to regulate and control and direct 
and have the input into how the day-to-day education should occur in 
our school systems. That happens to be their philosophy. They want to 
centralize decisions here in Washington. We want to take decisions and 
give them back to communities.
  Their reason for opposing this bill, by throwing out all these 
amendments, isn't that they actually think these amendments are 
substantively going to go anywhere. It is because they want to make a 
political statement, and because they want to slow down a bill which is 
a good idea and which releases the local school districts from the huge 
weight of Federal regulation. It really is unjustified. It contradicts 
the purposes which the President has already subscribed to in saying 
that he supported this bill.

[[Page S2464]]

  So when the American public asks the questions, ``Why don't we have 
more flexibility at the local level? Why do we get stuck with all these 
Federal regulations?'' the answer is very simple. Look to the 
Democratic membership of this Congress. They are the ones who are 
slowing up a bill which would give the communities flexibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the chairman of the committee, the 
manager of the bill, yield for a question?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Before the Senate conducts the cloture vote and then 
adjourns for the day, it is my intention to file another cloture motion 
with respect to amendment No. 37, as modified, the Lott IDEA, special 
education/choice amendment.
  I still hold out hope that during the session tomorrow Senators will 
be able to agree to a small, limited number of amendments remaining to 
the pending education flexibility bill and that our Democratic 
colleagues will then allow the Senate to conduct a passage vote on this 
very important bill, which has broad support, which would give the rest 
of the country, along with 12 other States, this flexibility to allow 
the paperwork, bureaucracy, to be waived so we could get the education 
money to the schools, to the children, where it really belongs. I hate 
to see this delay taking place on this broad bipartisan bill. In the 
event that such an agreement cannot be reached, I feel the need to file 
another cloture motion.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. 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, 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, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Chuck 
           Hagel, James M. Jeffords, Michael B. Enzi, Mike DeWine, 
           Tim Hutchinson, John H. Chafee, James M. Inhofe, Larry 
           E. Craig, and Don Nickles.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this 
cloture vote, if necessary, will occur on Thursday of this week.


                            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.
  Mr. LOTT. I belief, Mr. President, we are ready for the vote.


                             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 state.
  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, Bob Smith, Thad 
           Cochran, Arlen Specter, Slade Gorton, Mitch McConnell, 
           Richard Shelby, Bill Frist, Larry E. Craig, Jon Kyl, 
           Paul Coverdell, Gordon Smith, Peter G. Fitzgeraid, Judd 
           Gregg
  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. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I also announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) is 
absent attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yes 55, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     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
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Graham
     Murray
     Rockefeller
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
39. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________