[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2478-S2500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate continued with the 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 the language in the 
     bill proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 31), to 
     prohibit implementation of ``Know Your Customer'' regulations 
     by the Federal banking agencies.
       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.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, pursuant to rule XXII, 
the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the 
clerk will report.
  The bill 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. Inouye, John Breaux, 
           Carl Levin, Patrick Leahy, Byron L. Dorgan, Tom 
           Daschle, Edward M. Kennedy, Patty Murray, Harry Reid, 
           and Paul Wellstone.


                            call of the roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived.


                                  vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on the Kennedy-Daschle motion to recommit S. 280, a bill to 
provide for Ed-Flexibility partnerships, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) 
is absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--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

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Murray
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, nays are 55. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

[[Page S2479]]

                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  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, as modified, 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.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 37, as modified, 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 Washington Mrs. Murray, is 
absent because of a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 37 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--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Murray
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
44. Three-fifths of the Senators not having voted in the affirmative, 
the motion is rejected.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senators Jeffords and Frist and 
those who have worked so hard on the Ed-Flex bill. This is an 
outstanding piece of legislation. It has the support of our Nation's 
Governors, the National Governors' Association. They strongly support 
this legislation. Most of the educational leadership in the States and 
local communities support this type of legislation. My Governor of 
Alabama, a Democrat, Don Siegelman, supports this legislation. Mr. Ed 
Richardson, the State superintendent of education in Alabama, supports 
this legislation.
  The Ed-Flex bill came out of Labor Committee last year with a 17-1 
vote. Democrats and Republicans supported it. Now this year, the 
President indicates that he will support it and sign this legislation. 
The strength of it is that it is a clean bill. Basically, what it says 
is that we learned a lot from the historic welfare reform debate during 
the 104th Congress. We learned if you give State and local officials 
some flexibility and the ability to do things differently than the 
Federal regulations have mandated, they will find ways to be better. 
They will find ways to do a better job. It is an affirmation of them.
  I'd also indicate that a GAO report in 1998 said that the Department 
of Education officials have told the GAO that they believe that 12 Ed-
Flex States, the 12 States that now have this legislation as a pilot 
project, have used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.
  Mr. President, It simply goes against reason that people duly elected 
to run the school systems in our counties and States would abuse 
flexibility and should be denied creativity because those of us in this 
body believe we know how to run their school systems better. The 
Federal Government provides only 7 percent of the money for State and 
local education, but it mandates over 50 percent of the regulations.
  Let me read you a letter I received from the Montgomery public 
schools in Montgomery, AL. This is what I was told with regard to 
paperwork that has to be done for the Federal Government.

       Personnel in the schools of the Montgomery Public School 
     System and three Central Office assistants are estimated to 
     spend this year 16,425 hours in Title I program 
     documentation, bookkeeping, etc. What this boils down to 
     moneywise, is that the system spends $860,833.48 for the 
     personnel to take care of the paperwork. This is a 
     conservative estimate and does not include such programs as 
     HIPPY and other programs funded by Title I not housed in 
     schools.

  This is the kind of thing that is happening. This is the kind of 
money we need to get down to the classroom. I taught in public schools 
one year. My wife has taught in public schools a number of years. Our 
two daughters graduated from a large public high school in Mobile, AL. 
We have been involved in PTA. To suggest the principals and teachers 
and school superintendents do not care about their kids and are not 
trying to do better to get more bang for their buck every day is to 
demean them and put them down, while we have this idea that we have to 
protect the system by mandating what they do.
  I think the Ed-Flex bill is a wonderful bill. It is a clean bill. It 
is not a radical bill. It allows applications for waivers and that sort 
of thing.
  Mr. President as a teacher, as a spouse of a teacher, and as a parent 
of children in the Alabama public schools, I know that the most 
important event is that magic moment in a classroom when learning 
actually occurs. That magic moment is not enhanced by micromanaging 
regulations from Washington, DC. It simply does not help education.
  Mr. President, I care about education. I want to see our education 
system improved. I will support--as Congress has done for the last 10 
years--increased Federal funding for education. But I want to be sure 
it is used wisely and efficiently so that learning is enhanced, and not 
creating a bureaucracy that takes 35 cents out of every dollar before 
it ever gets down to the States. That is what we have learned. In fact, 
after this modest bill, I will be supporting a bill that will have even 
greater impact which will require that 95 percent of every Federal 
education dollar that is expended actually goes to the local classroom.
  Let me share with this body a response to a question I proposed to a 
principal of a Title I elementary school in Alabama, Mr. Thomas 
Toleston. He was asked what would he do if he had less Federal mandates 
which would help free up some extra money for his school; if the 
Federal Government would eliminate the regulations, how would he spend 
the freed up funds. This is what he said he would like:

       I would ensure that Southlawn would implement a 
     comprehensive summer school program in reading and math for 
     all students who score below average on the Stanford 
     Achievement Test 9.

  No one here even knows what the Stanford Achievement Test 9 is. He 
does; this is his career. That is what he would like to spend more 
money on--not building a new classroom or 100,000 new teachers.
  He said:

       This would include sufficient faculty, hardware and 
     software in an effort to bring those poor performing students 
     up to average performance.

  So you could take your year-long teachers and pay them extra to work 
in the summer school program.

       If additional funds were available, I would also attempt to 
     bring more faculty to our extended day program [afterschool 
     programs] to offer more exposure to our students. These 
     exposures would be in the areas of music, i.e. violin and 
     other musical instruments that are available in the 
     Montgomery

[[Page S2480]]

     Public School System, but are not being utilized.

  They would take extra funds to have teachers come down after school 
to do this, not new teachers.

       Another area of interest to me would be the ability to 
     provide students with scholarships of additional exposure. 
     This would include paid trips to the Huntsville Space Center 
     to increase students' interest in science and math.

  Now, we have been talking about building classrooms and adding 
100,000 teachers and all these ideas that people in this body, who have 
been doing some polling, and they think the polls are good so they 
offer to mandate it all over the country. Mr. Toleston never mentioned 
any of those ideas, yet we here in Washington want to force them on him 
and his school?

       The earlier we expose students to these hard core areas the 
     greater the chances for them to develop an interest.
       I would also like to expand our present extended day 
     program to begin classes in computer program at the 4th and 
     5th grade level. This is a career that will allow one to have 
     a fairly good paying job without a college degree. This 
     program would provide a net for some of the students who we 
     know will never make it to college. But, again, I think that 
     the interest must be presented at the elementary level to 
     make a significant difference.
       Since we all know that the greater the parent involvement 
     the better students do in school, I would like to have more 
     money set aside for parent programs. Presently, I have one 
     teacher who volunteers one night a week to teach parents how 
     to use computers. I would like to compensate her but the 
     funds are not available.

  Under this bill, if we have Federal mandates, they still won't be 
available.
  He goes on to say:

       Most of the planning for the school year takes place during 
     the summer months. The stipend paid to teachers is $50.00 per 
     day. I would like to have the flexibility to offer my teacher 
     an additional $50.00 per day. This still seems like a small 
     price to pay but it would be a worth while incentive for them 
     to give up one of their summer vacation days. I feel that 
     this would encourage more teachers to be apart of the 
     planning process during the summer. Once school starts it is 
     time to execute our plans--no time for planning.

  Mr. President, those are just some of the points that I would make.
  I would just say this: People are asking, Why won't this bill pass? I 
think they have to look at those on the other side of the aisle who say 
often that they are for returning control to the local people, to 
people we have elected in our communities to run our school systems. 
But when the chips are down, there is always some reason not to.
  I hope that we can work through some of these amendments, all of 
which ought to be debated during the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act that we will be taking up later this year, not on this bill. This 
is a clean bill, and should be kept clean. If we will do that, we can 
pass this important bill, and then we can deal with many of these 
issues later.
  Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I d also like to again thank 
Senators Frist and Jeffords for all of their hard work on this bill. I 
agree wholeheartedly with the premise of this legislation which is 
that, if given more flexibility, our local school systems can improve 
their ability to educate our children.
  I notice that the majority leader has arrived on the floor. I am 
pleased to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from Alabama for yielding so we can get 
this consent agreement before Members change their minds.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote scheduled to occur on Thursday be vitiated. I further ask that all 
amendments pending to S. 280 other than the Jeffords substitute be 
withdrawn and I be recognized to offer an amendment relative to IDEA/
choice and the amendment then be immediately laid aside. I further ask 
that Senator Kennedy be recognized to offer an amendment relative to 
class size and that amendment be laid aside.
  I ask unanimous consent that I or my designee be recognized to offer 
an amendment relative to the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act amendment and it be immediately laid aside.
  I ask consent that Senator Bingaman be recognized to offer his 
amendment relative to dropout programs and it be laid aside. I ask that 
myself or my designee be recognized to offer an amendment relative to 
the Individuals with Disability Education Act and it be laid aside and 
Senator Boxer be recognized to offer an amendment relative to 
afterschool programs, and it then be laid aside.
  I further ask that I or my designee be recognized to offer an 
amendment relative to IDEA and it be laid aside for Senator Feinstein 
and Dorgan to offer their amendment relative to social promotion and it 
be laid aside. I further ask that I or my designee be recognized to 
offer an another amendment relative to the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act and it be laid aside for Senator Wellstone to offer an 
amendment relative to accountability, and there then be 5 hours equally 
divided in the usual form for debate on these 10 first-degree 
amendments and no additional amendments or motions be in order to S. 
280, other than motions to table. I further ask that at the conclusion 
or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation 
to the 10 pending first-degree amendments in the order in which they 
were offered, with the first vote limited to 15 minutes, with all 
succeeding votes limited to 10 minutes, and there be 5 minutes between 
each vote for explanation.

  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following these votes the bill 
be advanced to third reading and passage occur, all without any 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
shall not, did the majority leader say between the votes tomorrow there 
will be 5 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. There was 
discussion previously with respect to my amendment. I wonder if the 
majority leader has anything to say with respect to my amendment?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have discussed the Reed amendment, and I 
believe there has been a good deal of work done on that amendment. An 
agreement has been worked out, and it will go into one of our 
amendments that will be put into the bill. So it will be included. It 
would not be necessary to consider it separately.
  Mr. REED. I thank the majority leader for that information. It would 
have been cleaner to have done it up or down, but the substance is 
important, and I am pleased that it will be included in the 
legislation.
  Mr. LOTT. I appreciate the Senator's attitude on this. Obviously, he 
has worked on it, he cares about it, and he would have liked to have it 
highlighted and considered individually. We were trying to craft an 
agreement, and the attitude he had was that he wanted to get it done; 
that was more important. I wish we had more Senators who were willing 
to make such a concession. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for 
that approach.
  Mr. REED. I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I 
shall not. Is the order which listed the amendments the order of the 
votes or the order in which the amendments would be laid down? Is there 
flexibility--to use that word--about how we might proceed this 
afternoon, for those of us who are here and ready to do our amendments?
  Mr. LOTT. I believe they would come up in the order identified and 
votes would occur in that order, too. However, I presume that if there 
is a scheduling problem, the managers would be flexible and we could 
get an agreement to change that order. But that was the agreement that 
was asked for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation 
in this effort, too. We found, a few moments ago, that we were very 
close to an agreement, even though it might not have appeared so. I am 
sure Members on both sides would have liked to have done it 
differently, but I believe this will allow us to get to a conclusion on 
this bill. It has broad support. We

[[Page S2481]]

can then move on to other very important national issues. So I thank 
Senator Daschle for his help in working out this modification.
  One last thing, and I will yield the floor. In light of the 
agreement, then, there would be no further votes today. The Senate will 
debate the amendments to S. 280 for the remainder of the session today, 
and up to 11 back-to-back votes will occur tomorrow morning. I hope 
maybe it won't be necessary to have all 11, but it could be 11, with 
the 10 amendments and final passage. All Senators will be notified of 
the exact time of the votes. I thank my colleagues for their 
cooperation. We did get the unanimous-consent agreement, correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We did.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to briefly thank those Senators on 
both sides of the aisle. This is a very important procedural agreement 
we have reached, after some deliberation and a great deal of 
willingness to cooperate on the part of many Senators. There were many, 
many Senators who had expressed the hope that they could offer their 
amendments; they were precluded from doing that. Frankly, I am 
disappointed that they were precluded. But I will say this: I am also 
grateful to the majority leader for agreeing to have up-or-down votes 
on the class size amendment, on the dropout amendment, on the social 
promotion amendment, on the amendment with regard to report cards, and 
on the amendments Senator Wellstone will be proposing on the 
accountability.
  This represents, I think, a compromise that we hoped we could reach. 
It represents an extraordinary amount of good-faith effort on both 
sides. I think the Senators from Oregon and Tennessee ought to be 
commended as well for their patience and tolerance in working with all 
of our colleagues in bringing us to this point.
  It goes without saying, the managers of the bill, the Senator from 
Vermont and the illustrious and extraordinary ranking member, Senator 
Kennedy, deserve a great deal of credit. We have come a long way. We 
have reached a point now where we are going to be able to finish this 
bill--a very good bill that deserves support. This also allows us to 
deal with the amendments that a number of Senators have been fighting 
to have votes on now for several days.
  I thank all Senators for their cooperation.
  Mr. President, there have been a number of questions about how we are 
going to be proceeding under the unanimous consent request. We 
consulted with the majority leader and with the manager of the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that all but 1 hour of time allotted under 
the unanimous consent agreement be consumed today, allowing 1 hour 
under the arrangement anticipated by the unanimous consent agreement to 
be used tomorrow. I then ask unanimous consent that those who might 
wish to express themselves on the bill or on amendments be allowed as 
if in morning business to speak later on this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we want 
to check with our leadership on this side.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is our 
intention that we use up the 4 hours for those members who have 
amendments to introduce and speak to them this evening. And that we 
have 1 hour evenly divided tomorrow for Members on either side to 
address the Senate, as if in morning business. That is what we had 
hoped to be able to do.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that under the previous unanimous consent order that the 
amendments should be offered at this time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I anticipate that the amendments would 
all be offered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That would be fine.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I modify my request to clarify that it 
would be my expectation that all amendments would be offered, and that 
there would be a period of 1 hour simply to discuss and further 
consider these amendments tomorrow. I withdraw the request at this 
point, and I certainly defer to the managers to renew their request at 
such time as the majority leader clears the request. But I don't 
anticipate an objection. I appreciate the indulgence of both managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn.
  Who seeks time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I want to indicate to our colleagues on this side that have 
amendments, that we expect those to be offered in the very near future. 
It is 3:15 now--we have 2 hours on each side. We are going to try to be 
in touch with those Senators that have amendments and work out a shared 
time to accommodate Senators' schedules.
  Senator Feinstein will take the first half hour, followed either by 
Senator Dorgan or Senator Wellstone for 15 minutes. Then we thought 45 
minutes on the other side, one-half hour on this side, one-half hour on 
the other side, and then those that either wanted to talk on the 
amendments or that wanted to be able to talk on the bill would be able 
to do so using up the time that has been allocated by the leader--that 
was our intention. We want to make sure all of our Members understand 
that we expect that those amendments are going to be offered this 
evening. We want them included in the Record so that those tomorrow 
morning are able to look at the exact wording. That was our intention.
  So we will proceed in that way, and we will be in touch with the 
sponsors of these amendments to work out with them appropriate time 
allocations.


                  Amendment No. 60 To Amendment No. 31

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding flexibility to 
    use certain Federal education funds to carry out part B of the 
 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and 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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of 
Senator Lott on the IDEA/choice amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), for Mr. Lott, for 
     himself and Mr. Abraham, proposes an amendment numbered 60 to 
     amendment No. 31.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, 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:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that the amount appropriated 
     to carry out part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) has not been 
     sufficient to fully fund such part at the originally promised 
     level, which promised level would provide to each State 40 
     percent of the average per-pupil expenditure for providing 
     special education and related services for each child with a 
     disability in the State.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that any Act authorizing the appropriation of Federal 
     education funds that is enacted after the date of enactment 
     of this Act should provide States and local school districts 
     with the flexibility to use the funds to carry out part B of 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

     SEC.   . IDEA.

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

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield one-half hour to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  I believe, Mr. President, that I have one-half hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator is recognized for 
30 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.


                  Amendment No. 61 To Amendment No. 31

  (Purpose: To assist local educational agencies to help all students 
  achieve State achievement standards, to end the practice of social 
                   promotion, and for other purposes)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

[[Page S2482]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), for herself, 
     Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     61 to amendment No. 31.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments submitted.'')
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which does two 
things. One of them is it deals with the practice, either formal or 
informal, of social promotion, and authorizes a remedial program of 
$500 million a year for a program of competitive grants.
  The second part has to do with school report cards.
  Senator Dorgan will be speaking on the second half, and I will 
address my comments to the first part.
  This amendment would authorize $500 million a year from the year 2000 
to 2004 for competitive grants to school districts to help provide 
remedial education for afterschool and summer school courses, for low-
performing students who are not making passing grades.
  Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to provide Federal 
incentives and Federal help to those school districts that abolish and/
or do not allow social promotion. As a condition of receiving these 
funds, school districts would have to adopt a policy prohibiting social 
promotion for students; require that all K through 12 students meet 
minimum achievement levels in the core curriculum defined as subjects 
such as reading and writing, language arts, mathematics, social 
sciences, including history, and science; test student achievement in 
meeting standards at certain benchmark grades to be determined by the 
States for advancement to the next grade; and, finally, provide 
remedial education for students who fail to meet achievement standards 
including tutoring, mentoring, summer, before-school and after-school 
programs.
  School districts would be authorized to use funds to provide academic 
instruction to enable students to meet academic achievement standards 
by implementing early intervention strategies or alternative 
instructional strategies; strengthening learning by hiring certified 
teachers to reduce class sizes, providing professional development, and 
using proven instructional practices and curricula aligned to State 
achievement standards; providing extended learning time such as 
afterschool and summer school; and developing intensive instructional 
intervention strategies for students who fail to meet State achievement 
standards. The amendment also addresses the special needs of children 
with disabilities by allowing school districts to follow the child's 
individualized education plan.
  Why do we need this amendment? Perhaps nothing better describes why 
we need this amendment than an article which appeared in the Los 
Angeles Times five days ago about the largest school system in the 
United States--California's--and I want to read the headline: 
``California Ranks Second to Last in U.S. Reading Test.''

       California ranks second to last among 39 States in a new 
     Federal assessment of fourth grade reading skills. The study 
     revealed Thursday that only 20 percent of the students are 
     considered proficient readers.

  Mr. President, California has 5.6 million students, more than the 
population of 36 other States, and only 20 percent of them are reading 
proficiently at the fourth grade level.
  That is an incredible statement of what the practice of social 
promotion has done.
  I truly believe that the linchpin to educational reform is the 
elimination of the path of least resistance whereby students who are 
failing are simply promoted to the next grade in the hopes that 
someday, somewhere they will learn.
  This practice alone, I believe, after visiting literally dozens of 
schools, is the main reason for the failure in the quality of public 
education today. It is largely responsible, in my view, for its 
decline.
  Achievement standards must be established--and enforced. To promote 
youngsters when they are failing to learn has produced a generation 
that is below standard and high school graduates who can't read or 
write, count change in their pockets, or fill out an employment 
application. It is that bad. And California is just about the worst.
  It is such a shame to hand a high school diploma to a youngster whom 
you know cannot fill out an employment application for a job. In my 
State, a state that is restructuring its economy and seen the emergence 
of a new high-skilled, high-tech work base, this means doom for the 
ability of these youngsters to sustain themselves with gainful and 
fulfilling employment in the future.
  This same article, discussing this assessment of reading skills, also 
shows that 52 percent of our fourth graders scored below the basic 
level, meaning they failed to even partially master basic skills.
  The news wasn't much better for California's eighth graders, who 
ranked 33rd out of 36 States, and only 22 percent were proficient 
readers. In December 1998, a study by the Education Trust ranked 
California last in the percent of young adults with a high school 
diploma--in other words, students are not even finishing and getting 
their diploma--37th in SAT scores, and 31st of 41 States in eighth 
grade math. Nearly half of all students entering the California State 
University system require remedial classes in math or English or both.

  The news is also grim nationally. I start out with California to say 
that this all begins right at home. But the news is also grim 
throughout the rest of the United States where our students are falling 
far behind their international counterparts. The lowest 25 percent of 
Japanese and South Korean eighth graders outperform the average 
American student. In math and science, United States 12th grade 
students fell far behind students in other industrialized countries, 
which is especially troubling when we consider the skills that will be 
required to stay ahead in the 21st century. United States 12th graders 
were significantly outperformed by 14 countries and only performed 
better than students in Cyprus and South Africa. We scored last in 
physics and next to last in mathematics.
  What is social promotion? Simply stated, social promotion is the 
practice, either formal or informal, of a school's advancing a student 
from one grade to the next regardless of that student's academic 
achievement. In some cases, it is even regardless of whether they 
attend school or not. It is a practice which misleads our students, 
their parents and the public.
  The American Federation of Teachers agrees. Let me quote from their 
September 19, 1997, study:

       Social promotion is an insidious practice that hides school 
     failure and creates problems for everybody--for kids, who are 
     deluded into thinking they have learned the skills to be 
     successful or get the message that achievement doesn't count; 
     for teachers who must face students who know that teachers 
     wield no credible authority to demand hard work; for the 
     business community and colleges that must spend millions of 
     dollars on remediation, and for society that must deal with a 
     growing proportion of uneducated citizens, unprepared to 
     contribute productively to the economic and civic life of the 
     Nation.

  That is well said. But merely ending social promotion and retaining 
students in the same grade will not solve the problem. We cannot just 
let them languish without direction in a failing system. Instead, we 
must provide ongoing remedial work, specialized tutoring, afterschool 
programs, and summer school. All must be used intensively and 
consistently, and that is what this amendment is designed to create. It 
is designed to create both the incentive and also the help to 
accomplish this.
  I know it can work. Last June, I led a delegation of California 
leaders to Chicago. We saw a dominantly poor, dominantly minority 
school district turned around, social promotion abolished, and the 
remediation, summer school, and tutoring put in place. And now test 
scores and grades are improving.
  How widespread is this practice, ubiquitous as it is? It is 
widespread. Although there are no hard data on the extent of the 
practice, authorities in schools and out of schools know it is 
happening, and in some districts it is standard operating procedure. In 
fact, 4

[[Page S2483]]

in 10 teachers reported that their schools automatically promote 
students when they reach the maximum age for their grade level. And the 
September 19, 1998, AFT teacher study says social promotion is 
``rampant.''
  It found most school districts use vague criteria for passing and 
retaining students. They lack explicit policies of social promotion, 
but they have an implicit practice of social promotion, including a 
loose and vague criteria for advancing students to the next grade. And 
they view holding students back as a policy of last resort and often 
put explicit limits on retaining students.
  Also the study found that only 17 States have standards--only 17 
States have standards in the four core learning disciplines: English, 
math, social studies, and science. Only these four have standards which 
are well grounded in content and are clear enough to be used, says the 
AFT study.
  In July of last year, I wrote to 500 California school districts and 
asked about their policies on social promotion. I must tell you, their 
responses are vague and often misleading, and they include the 
following: Some school districts say they don't have a specific policy. 
Some say they simply figure what is in the best interests of the 
student. Some say teachers provide recommendations, but final decisions 
on retention can be overridden by parents. And some simply just promote 
youngsters, regardless of failing grades, nonattendance, or virtually 
anything else. In short, the policies are all over the place.
  Last year, in California the legislature passed and the Governor 
signed into law a bill to end social promotion in public education, a 
giant step forward. In California now, this could affect fully half of 
California's students because 3 million children in California perform 
below levels considered proficient for their grade level. The grant 
funds authorized in this amendment can be very helpful in providing 
ongoing remedial and specialized learning and provide necessary help 
for these 3 million children in my State, and the millions of children 
in other States as well.
  President Clinton called for ending social promotion in his last two 
State of the Union speeches. Last year, he said: ``We must also demand 
greater accountability. When we promote a child from grade to grade who 
hasn't mastered the work, we don't do that child any favors. It is time 
to end social promotion in America's schools.''
  I will never forget, in 1990, when I was running for Governor of 
California and I appeared before the California teachers association, I 
said we must end social promotion, and I was roundly booed. How things 
change. We now have the President of the United States, and a Democrat 
to boot, saying we must end social promotion.
  I believe just as firmly in 1999 as I did in 1990 that the practice 
of social promotion is the Achilles heel of public education in the 
United States of America.
  The seven States that have a policy in place which ties promotion to 
State-level standards today are California, Delaware, Florida, 
Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. I really want to give 
them my kudos and say congratulations and right on.
  I mentioned that the Chicago public schools have ditched social 
promotion. After their new policy was put in place in the spring of 
1997, over 40,000 students in Chicago failed tests in the third, sixth, 
eighth, and ninth grades, and then went to mandatory summer school. 
Chicago's School Superintendent Paul Vallas has called social promotion 
``educational malpractice.'' He said from now on his schools' only 
product will be student achievement. What welcome words those are.
  In my own State, the San Diego School Board in February adopted 
requirements that all students in certain grades must demonstrate 
grade-level performance, and they will require all students to earn a C 
overall grade average and a C grade in core subjects for high school 
graduation, effectively ending social promotion for certain grades and 
for high school graduation.
  For example, San Diego schools are requiring that their eighth 
graders who do not pass core courses be retained or pass core courses 
in summer school.
  Let me conclude. A January 1998 poll by Public Agenda asked employers 
and college professors whether they believe a high school diploma 
guarantees that a student has mastered basic skills. In this poll, 63 
percent of employers and 76 percent of professors said the diploma is 
not a guarantee that a graduate can read, write, or do basic math. What 
a failure.
  I first got into this because I also serve on the Immigration 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. Every year I had California 
chief executive officers, particularly in high tech companies, come in 
and say: ``We can't find high school graduates we can hire. Please 
increase the quota of people from foreign countries who can come to us 
as temporary workers and work for us, because we can't find qualified 
Americans.'' What a condemnation.
  California employers tell me consistently that applicants are 
unprepared for work and the companies have to provide basic training to 
make them employable. High-tech companies say they have to recruit 
abroad. For example, last year MCI spent $7.5 million to provide basic 
skills to their employees. On December 17, a group called California 
Business for Education Excellence announced they were organizing a 
major effort to reform public education. These major constituencies--
the California Business Roundtable, the California Manufacturers 
Association, the American Electronics Association, companies like 
Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Pacific Bell--had to organize because they see 
firsthand the results of a lagging school system.
  So I offer this amendment today. It can provide the money to help 
teachers teach and students learn. It is estimated that this year the 
budget will have $4 billion more in it for public education. I say 
let's authorize the expenditure of $500 million for the kind of 
remedial and summer school programs that in fact can help us abolish 
social promotion and really have excellence and accountability in both 
our teachers and our students.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes 53 seconds.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will reserve the remainder of my time, if I might. 
I see Senator Dorgan on the floor. I know he wishes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first let me ask consent to yield myself 
15 minutes of the time allocated to our side, that I might be able to 
present my amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Does the Senator intend to offer an amendment this 
afternoon?
  Mr. DORGAN. I would say to the Senator from Vermont, the amendment 
Senator Feinstein has offered is an amendment that combines her 
amendment and my amendment. We have done that at the request of the 
majority leader. So rather than having two amendments, we will have 
only one and we will have only one vote on it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I appreciate that information.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am pleased today to join my colleague from California. 
I was listening to her explain the first portion of the amendment which 
deals with social promotion and remedial education. It reminded me that 
the last time we joined forces here on the floor of the Senate was also 
on an education amendment. We worked on a very simple amendment called 
the Gun-Free Schools Act. This is now the law in this country and has 
been for a number of years because we decided there ought to be a zero 
tolerance in this country for a student who brings a gun to school. You 
ought not have to worry, no matter where you are in the country, about 
guns in schools. Everywhere in this country, we ought to understand 
that guns and schools do not mix, and every student and every parent 
ought to understand there is a penalty of expulsion for one year for 
bringing a gun to school.

  I am pleased to have joined with my colleague from California to make 
that Federal law, and I wonder how many tragedies may have been avoided 
where guns were not brought to school because a student now understands 
there is zero tolerance with respect to guns in schools.

[[Page S2484]]

  Today we are here for a different purpose on the same subject: 
education. The first part of the amendment we have offered deals with 
social promotion. The second part is a piece that I have written with 
Senator Bingaman from New Mexico regarding the issue of a school report 
card. Let me explain that amendment.
  Every 6 to 9 weeks in this country, a parent with a child in school 
gets a report card that tells the parent how that child has done. 
Parents are able to see grades that describe how their child is doing 
in school, an A, a B, a C, or God forbid, maybe a D or even worse. 
Students are graded and parents know what grades those students are 
achieving in their school.
  But I raise a question: What does it mean when your child brings home 
the best grades from the worst school? Does that tell you much as a 
parent? You see, we grade students, but there aren't any grades for 
schools. There are no report cards for schools. Even though we spend 
over $300 billion on a system of elementary and secondary education in 
our country, parents and taxpayers have no way of knowing how that 
school is performing. We grade the children who are in that system, but 
we do not require a report card on how well our schools are doing so 
that parents also know how well their school is doing compared to other 
schools, how well their State is doing compared to other States.
  A number of States already have school report cards, but very few of 
them have report cards that provide a range of information on school 
quality indicators important to the public. And more notably, very few 
states get that information to the parents themselves. So the parents, 
as the taxpayers who own that school, who provide the resources to run 
that school, have very little information about how well that school 
does. Again, I return to the question: What does it mean for your child 
to be the best student in the worst school?
  With this amendment, we propose to offer a Standardized School Report 
Card Act, which would say to all the schools around the country that, 
most of you are already preparing some kind of report card, but let's 
all do it all in the same general way so that we can make some 
reasonable comparisons, school to school and State to State.
  We want the report card to grade a school on six areas: 1, student 
performance; 2, professional qualifications of the teachers; 3, average 
class size; 4, school safety; 5, parental involvement; and 6, student 
dropout rates.
  As I mentioned, more than 35 States now have some form of a school 
report card. My State does, although my State's report card doesn't do 
anything more than simply to ask the school to look ahead to prepare 
for changes in enrollment in the years ahead. It is not a very 
substantive report card, and most parents in my State have never seen 
this report card. I would like, at the end of this process, to provide 
virtually every parent in this country who has a child in school with a 
report that says, here is how your child is doing, and another report 
that says, here is how your school is doing related to other schools, 
other communities, other States. That would be good information for the 
taxpayers and the parents of our country to have.
  I was thinking, as I was listening to my colleague from California, 
about a young girl named Rosie Two Bears. She is likely in class this 
afternoon in Cannon Ball, ND. I toured that school some while ago. I 
don't know what a report card will say to the parents of Rosie. That 
school is unsafe and in desperate need of repair.

  I have described on the floor on previous occasions the condition of 
that school. They have 150 students, one water fountain, and two 
bathrooms, kids cramped together in classes without an inch between 
their desks and no place to plug in a computer to get to the Internet, 
because the school won't accommodate wiring of that sort. In the 
downstairs area where they have band and chorus, the room frequently is 
evacuated because sewer gas backs up and the students can't learn in a 
room full of sewer gas backing up into the school. It is an awful 
situation.
  What would a report card say about the school of Rosie Two Bears? 
Perhaps if there were a report card that drove home to parents and 
taxpayers the unsafe conditions of their children s school, there would 
be a public outcry to improve that school.
  The Ojibwa school, up on the Turtle Hill Mountain Indian Reservation, 
is another example of a tragedy waiting to happen, with all of these 
kids learning in detached trailers, going back and forth between 
classes in the winter. I have been there and seen exposed wiring. I can 
show you the reports that show that school is unsafe. Everybody knows 
it, and there is no money to build a new school for those children. 
Addressing this problem will be part of an another debate that we want 
to happen, but right now, this amendment is about four or five good 
ideas on education that won't break the bank, that represent good 
investments in our kids, represent good approaches to improve and 
strengthen education in this country. If we can do these things 
together, we will have done something very important for our children.
  When we consider a report card that all parents could receive, I go 
back to the point that wouldn't it be nice for the parents of 
students--whether they go to your school or my school or to the Cannon 
Ball School or the Ojibwa school--to be able to see what their child is 
getting from that school? What are we getting for our tax investment in 
that school? Are we proud, as parents, as the teachers who teach in 
that school, of the building we have housed our children in, of the 
textbooks we have provided? Are we doing the right things?
  That is what Senator Bingaman and I and others would like to achieve 
with this standardized report card for schools.
  The Senator from California knows, because I have heard her speak of 
it, that the American people view education as one of their top 
priorities. Often people talk about how far ahead of politicians the 
people are. Well, that certainly is true with respect to education. 
People know what is important. When people sit around the dinner table 
at night and talk about their lives, what are the first things they 
talk about? They talk about what their children are learning in school, 
are we proud of that school? Are our folks getting good health care? Do 
we have a good job? The central things in life. Children and school 
represent a priority for many of us. It is why I am pleased that one of 
the first bills on the floor of the Senate following impeachment is 
about education. It is why we have pushed so hard to be able to offer 
amendments to it. Our purpose is not to be destructive, but to focus on 
a number of steps we can take to improve education. I think Ed-Flex is 
fine. With this bill we are saying give the States some flexibility, 
but that is not all there is with respect to education policy. There 
are other ideas, good ideas.
  The attempt around here all too often is to get the worst of what 
both sides have to offer rather than the best of what each has to 
offer. We have some good ideas. Ed-Flex is a fine idea. Let us add some 
other good ideas to it: dealing with class size, a school report card, 
ending social promotion, addressing the problems of students dropping 
out. Those are good ideas and are central to what the American people 
believe could strengthen education in this country.
  I hope that, when we have offered these amendments--some good ideas, 
I think, from both sides--there will be some positive votes on these 
ideas, so that this Ed-Flex legislation will leave the Senate in a much 
stronger position to positively influence the lives of young Americans 
and families. I will have been proud to play one small part of that 
with my colleague from California.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from North 
Dakota, because I think, between us, we really have struck at the 
linchpin of reform.
  One is in the report card situation, to provide an ability for every 
parent to know some of the basics about the school that his or her 
children attend, and to be able to make some judgments on their own 
whether that child is in the best learning environment. And what the 
report card could do is spur competition, I think, I say to the 
Senator, among students, among schools,

[[Page S2485]]

among school districts, if they have a way to compare one to the other.
  When you were talking about Cannon Ball, North Dakota, I was thinking 
about Los Angeles, and going into a school that had 5,000 students K 
through sixth grade. Everything was in shifts. You can imagine the 
cacophony of sounds with 5,000 small children in this school. I had 
never seen a school this size before.
  As we debate social promotion, I am troubled by the size of some 
schools. I have read the views of educational experts and what they 
said about the size of the school. I read they advised that elementary 
schools be no bigger than 350 students to have that teacher-student 
quality relationship; middle schools, 750 students; and high schools 
maybe a maximum of 1,200 students.
  Because of the lack of money and the inability to do some of these 
things, schools just diminish their quality. Like you, I am very 
hopeful that there will be an additional amount of $4 billion for 
public education in this year s budget. I think the American people 
want it, I think our students need it.
  I just want you to know that I am very pleased to join with you on 
this amendment. I hope it can stay in. I hope it will survive 
conference. I hope people will realize that we have to make major 
structural changes in public education. Certainly a report card for 
schools to benefit parents, the elimination of social promotion, and 
the provision of remedial programs and summer school can help. Ongoing 
and consistent programs, in which children can be brought up to their 
grade level, are critical to helping these students learn and become 
productive citizens and are critical to ending this ``educational 
malpractice.''
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Feinstein-Dorgan amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. How much time remains on the 15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will not use all of that, but I did want to say to 
Senator Feinstein that the ending of social promotion is an opportunity 
to invest in young lives in a way that will solve problems now, rather 
than deferring them until much, much later. By ending social promotion 
we can prevent much bigger problems later in a young person s life.
  I happen to have, as most parents do, a profound conflict of interest 
here. I have two children in public elementary school: one in fourth 
grade and one in sixth grade. I do homework most evenings with them, 
and the homework is getting tougher these days. My children are in 
public schools, and I don't know what people are talking about when 
they talk about failing scores and how the public school system does 
not work.
  I am enormously proud of our public school system and what we have 
accomplished through public schools in this country. But I also know 
that the only way a public school system works is with parental 
involvement. If the parent is not involved in the child's education, it 
is not going to work very well. There are three things you need for 
education to work: a teacher who knows how to teach, a student willing 
to learn, and a parent involved in the education of that student. When 
those three things are present, education works.
  The Senator from California, in the first part of this amendment, 
offers a proposal that I think has great merit and is long overdue. I 
did not speak about it when I spoke about my half of the amendment, but 
I just want to tell her that I think what she is offering has great, 
great merit and will be profoundly important to children in this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
  I yield the remainder of my time, and yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Inquiry. I don't know whether we are finished with 
this amendment. If so, I am ready to send an amendment to the desk. I 
do not know whether my colleague from Vermont--
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to proceed to explain very briefly the 
position that we will have on the amendments that have been offered 
here.
  This is an agreement, unanimous consent agreement, that was made to 
enable us to get through this bill. And I appreciate all those that 
have entered into this agreement.
  I would like to explain to my colleagues, however, that because these 
are all--these two that are being talked about right now, the school 
report card and the ending of social promotion, are both amendments 
within the purview of the committee dealing with elementary and 
secondary education. It is my intention to listen very carefully and 
carry forward the information that is provided on these until such time 
as we are marking up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  However, it will be my procedure, in order to have an orderly hearing 
process in going ahead on these matters, to probably table the 
amendment of the Senator from California. But I do understand and 
believe that a great deal of what she says, if not all, is very 
relevant to our educational system but should be done in the orderly 
committee process. I want to make that clear so everybody understands 
when we vote on these things it is because they should be done in the 
proper order under an orderly committee process.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                  Amendment No. 62 to Amendment No. 31

            (Purpose: To provide accountability in Ed-Flex)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 62 to amendment No. 31.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, 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:
       On page 15, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(F) local and state plans, use of funds, and 
     accountability, under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
     Technical Education Act of 1998, except to permit the 
     formation of secondary and post-secondary consortia;
       ``(G) sections 1114b and 1115c of Title I of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Act of 1965;''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Do we have a copy of the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Vermont wish to object? 
The Senator seeks a copy of the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have an extra copy. Might I ask 
whether I could also get one Xeroxed while I am speaking?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this amendment, which I have talked to my colleagues 
about, speaks to the central issue with this legislation that a lot of 
colleagues, I think, are trying to step around, dance around; that is, 
accountability. In other words, this amendment says we are for 
flexibility, but we are also for flexibility with accountability.
  It is absolutely acceptable for school districts and States to make 
all kinds of decisions on the ground about whether or not you want more 
teaching assistants or more computers or more community outreach. All 
of that makes sense and is within the framework of flexibility.
  I say to my colleague from Vermont, this amendment combines two 
amendments, so let me start and devote maybe about 5 minutes or less to 
the Perkins program--a very important vocational education program. 
What this amendment essentially says is, look, there are certain kinds 
of core requirements, core accountability requirements, of the Perkins 
program--vocational ed, high school, college--that must be protected--
that must be protected.
  The requirement that school districts and vocational schools meet 
their States' performance standards, who can object to that? The 
requirement

[[Page S2486]]

that schools and districts provide professional development to 
teachers, counselors and administrators, who can object to that? The 
requirement that schools must provide programs of sufficient size, 
scope and quality to bring about improvement, what is objectionable 
about that? The requirement that schools and districts must evaluate 
the programs, including the assessment of how the needs of special 
populations are being met, what is objectionable about that? And 
finally, the requirement that schools and districts must tell the State 
about their process for local evaluation and improvement of the 
program.
  That is the Perkins Vocational Education Program. And the only thing 
I am saying, on the basis, I say to my colleague from Vermont, of the 
good work that we have done together on vocational education, why in 
the world, understanding the importance of flexibility, would we want 
to not at least protect this program and make sure that in every State 
all across the country that at least these core requirements are met? 
Let everybody be flexible as long as they meet these core requirements. 
Let's not sacrifice the quality of this program.
  Mr. President, the other part of this amendment is what troubles me 
the most. This is what troubles me the most about Ed-Flex. And let me 
just say to my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, I am quite 
sure that this amendment is going to pass overwhelmingly. For all I 
know, it may get 99 votes. But let me tell you one unpleasant truth 
that you have been unwilling to face up to. It is this: When the 
original title I program first passed in 1965, a lot of sweat and tears 
went into this program. We had some basic protections for poor children 
in America and we said there were going to be certain core requirements 
and in no way, shape, or form would those requirements ever be violated 
because this went to the very essence of what we are about as a Federal 
Government, which is making sure there is protection and quality of 
education for all our children.

  Here is what the core requirements are all about. This amendment is a 
different version from the amendment I had on the floor, because this 
is trimmed down and it refers specifically to sections 114(b) and 
115(c) of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  I am just saying we wrote this into this legislation in 1965, 
colleagues. This was over 30 years ago. What did we say? We said let's 
make sure that no State will ever be in a position of being able to 
give a school district a waiver from the following requirements: That 
for all of the title I children, low-income children, there will be 
opportunities for all children to meet challenging achievement levels; 
that they will use effective instructional strategies which will give 
primary consideration to extending learning time, like an extended 
school year; that we will serve underserved populations, including 
women and men, or girls and boys; that we will address the needs of 
children, particularly those who are members of the target population, 
who need additional help; that we will provide instruction by highly 
qualified professional staff; that we will minimize removing children 
from the regular classroom during regular school hours; and that we 
will provide the professional development for teachers and aides to 
enable the children in school to meet the State student performance 
standards.
  What is going on here? I came out here and spoke for almost 4 hours 
the other day and I never heard anybody give me a substantive argument 
about why they are opposed to this amendment. What is going on here? I 
am not going to use Senators' names, but one Senator with considerable 
stature here in the U.S. Senate said, ``Senator Wellstone, if your 
amendment passes, it will gut this bill.'' If that is what my colleague 
is saying, that is exactly what makes me worry about this legislation. 
How could this amendment gut Ed-Flex when this amendment just says we 
are going to do with Ed-Flex what the proponents of Ed-Flex say Ed-Flex 
does?
  Then my colleagues say, ``Don't you trust the Governors? Don't you 
trust the school districts across America?'' My answer is yes, I trust 
most of them, and therefore you should trust most of them, and 
therefore surely no one who is involved in education with children in 
our country would be opposed to the idea that for title I children, for 
poor children, there will be certain core requirements which will be 
the essence of accountability.
  How can you be opposed to it? I don't know of any Governor or any 
school board member who would say, ``Senator Wellstone, we don't want 
to live by the standard of making sure that our teachers are highly 
trained for title I children. Senator Wellstone, we don't want to live 
by the standard that there should be high standards for these children. 
Senator Wellstone, we don't want to have to give special help to kids 
who are falling behind.''
  What are you afraid of? Why is there not support for this amendment? 
This amendment, in a slightly fuller version, received about 45 votes 
last time. I am hoping, now that I have sort of refined this amendment 
and narrowed the scope, that it will receive a majority vote. Because 
if this amendment does not pass, this piece of legislation, I want to 
say to people in the country, this will not be a step forward. This 
piece of legislation is not a step forward for several reasons.
  Let me just make one point that I made earlier as well, that right 
now, with title I, we are spending about $8 billion a year, and 
depending on who you listen to--whether it is the Congressional 
Research Service or whether it is Rand Corporation--this program is 
severely underfunded. In my State of Minnesota, when I meet with school 
district officials, especially in our urban communities, they tell me, 
``Paul, what happens is we get money for schools with 65 or 75 percent 
poverty''--my amendment says schools with 75 percent poverty population 
should have first priority; that passed; I am glad it did--``but then 
we run out of money.''
  If we are serious about helping these kids, we ought to be providing 
the funding to our school districts so they can provide the support to 
the children who are behind. Many of our schools all across the country 
scream at us and tell us: ``Because you haven't provided us with the 
resources, we can only help half the students,'' or a third of the 
students. So if we want to do something significant, we ought to 
provide the funding.
  What we certainly should not do is turn our backs to what was so 
important about title I as a part of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. What was so important about title I--this is a big 
Federal program; this is a Federal program that matters to K-12. What 
was so important was, we knew way back in 1965 and we know today that 
we as a National Government, we have a responsibility to make sure 
there are certain standards which apply to the education that poor 
children receive, and so we made sure there were certain standards, 
certain core requirements, which would be part of accountability. We 
would say that every school district in the land and every school in 
the land which was serving title I children would never be able to 
violate these core requirements. That is what we as a Congress were 
doing for poor children. We were for school districts having 
flexibility. We are for school districts having flexibility.

  However, this piece of legislation strips away the most important 
accountability feature to title I. This piece of legislation does not 
any longer give these children the protection. This piece of 
legislation, therefore, in its present form, is not a step forward, it 
is a great leap backward. I am surprised there is not more opposition.
  I know it is called Ed-Flex. Great title. I know everybody can say 
this is what the Governors want and we just sort of give all the 
decisionmaking power to the States. Politically, it seems to be a 
winning argument. Maybe I am the only one in the U.S. Senate who feels 
this way. I am for flexibility and I am for some of these other 
amendments that deal with smaller class size and rebuilding crumbling 
schools, and I am for spending a lot more money on education for 
children that comes out of the President's budget, that is for sure. 
But as a U.S. Senator, I will not be on the floor of the U.S. Senate 
and not speak against a piece of legislation which strips away some 
core protection for poor children that makes sure these children also 
get a decent education, and that the title I program which deals with 
these children meets these core requirements.

[[Page S2487]]

  For any other Senator to say this amendment guts Ed-Flex troubles me, 
because I think if everybody thought Ed-Flex was such a good bill, they 
would want to at least make sure we had this elementary, basic 
protection for these children. How can we pass this piece of 
legislation without this accountability?
  This amendment improves this legislation, Senator Jeffords. This 
amendment makes it a better bill. Without this amendment, we don't have 
this protection for some of the children in this country. I will oppose 
it even if I am the only vote in opposition.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I reserve the remainder of my time, assuming that my 
colleague on the other side who disagreed may want to make some 
arguments.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe I was asked a question. I 
would be happy to answer. I prefer that the Senator finish his 
presentation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will, although I say, in the spirit 
of debate, it would probably be better if I had a chance to get some 
sense of why there is opposition to this amendment. Then I could maybe 
respond to that and we could have a little more of a give-and-take 
discussion.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will wait until the Senator finishes.
  I yield the floor.
  (Mr. SESSIONS assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, I have an amendment that is 
similar to the amendment colleagues voted on last time. I have tried to 
meet some of the objections that were made to that amendment. It now is 
based literally on sections 114(b) and 115(c) of title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It is the same language 
which deals with the core requirements of title I and makes it clear 
that we want to make sure no State is allowed to give any school 
district an exemption from these core requirements.
  Again, let me just list these requirements:
  To provide opportunities for all children to meet challenging 
achievement levels--the Senator from New Mexico is on the floor, and I 
will bet he would not object to that.
  To use effective instructional strategies that give primary 
consideration to providing extended learning time like an extended 
school year, before- and after-school, and summer programs;
  To use learning approaches that meet the needs of historically 
underserved populations, including girls and women;
  To address the needs of all children, but particularly the needs of 
children who are members of the target population through a number of 
means, including counseling, mentoring, college guidance, and school-
to-work services;
  To provide instruction by highly qualified professional staff;
  To minimize removing children from the regular classroom during 
regular school hours;
  To provide professional development for teachers and teaching 
assistants to enable all children in the school to meet State student 
performance standards.
  I listed the basic requirements on the program as well.
  I am thinking out loud while I am speaking. Let me try to figure this 
out. The Chair is a lawyer, and maybe I should be a lawyer at this 
moment. But it seems to me that this doesn't do any damage to the idea 
of flexibility. It seems to me that anybody who would argue that this 
somehow damages Ed-Flexibility, or any State or school district that 
makes that argument, must have in mind that they want to waive these 
core requirements. If they want to waive these core requirements--and 
we are now about to pass a piece of legislation that will enable them 
to do so--that is what is flawed in this legislation. That is the flaw 
in this piece of legislation. That is the problem.
  There is a reason we made these core requirements part of title I, 
which has been such an important program to low-income children. The 
reason, I say to the Chair, is that while many school districts in many 
States have done a great job--and I have seen great work done in 
Minnesota--the fact of the matter is that sometimes these children fall 
between the cracks. Sometimes these children's parents, or parent, are 
the ones without the prestige and clout in the community. Therefore, we 
want to make sure there is some protection for these children. We want 
to make sure they receive instruction from highly qualified teachers. 
We want to make sure that if they fall behind, they get some help. We 
want to make sure they are asked to meet high standards.

  I hope somebody is watching this debate. Why in the world is this 
amendment unacceptable? Why is this amendment unacceptable? Because, I 
am telling you, if what Ed-Flex is all about is to sort of say, on the 
part of the Federal Government, we are giving up on this core 
accountability and, State school districts, you do whatever you want, 
you don't have to worry about meeting these core requirements that deal 
with low-income children, I am against it. Do you know something? A lot 
of Senators should be against it.
  So, Mr. President, I hope we can go over 50 votes today, and I hope 
this amendment will pass. If it does, I think it will make this Ed-Flex 
bill a much better piece of legislation.
  There is one other thing we should do: Fund it. Fund it. I would say 
that in all the discussions I have had with people--I hope all of my 
colleagues have visited schools with title I communities in urban and 
rural communities. I will tell you, I have heard little discussion 
about how ``we don't have enough flexibility.'' I have heard a lot of 
discussion about not having adequate funds. Fund it.
  Fully fund title I. Then we would be doing something to help these 
children. Fully fund Head Start, and then we would be doing something 
to help the children. Fully fund pre-K, preschool, early childhood 
development, and make child care affordable for families. Then we would 
be really doing something to help these children. Lower class sizes. 
Now we are helping these children. Make sure we do something to help 
children who drop out so that they don't drop out. I say to Senator 
Bingaman, I was told by a judge in Minnesota that there is a higher 
correlation between high school dropouts and incarceration than between 
cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will soon yield the floor.
  I hope there are 100 votes for my amendment, because then I will 
believe the Ed-Flex bill is a good piece of legislation. Without this 
amendment, you don't have the accountability. You have given up on the 
Federal role of protecting poor children. That is a huge mistake.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the state of the business in the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to offer an amendment.


                  Amendment No. 63 To Amendment No. 31

   (Purpose: To provide for school dropout prevention, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Reid, Mr. Levin, Mr. Bryan, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 63 to Amendment No. 31.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before I start, let me just indicate my 
support for the amendment that the Senator from Minnesota is offering. 
I agree with him. I favor the Ed-Flex bill, and I intend to vote for 
the Ed-Flex bill. I also, though, believe we need to be sure the funds 
we provide at the Federal level get to the students who most need those 
funds, and to the programs that will benefit disadvantaged students. So 
I favor that amendment.
  The amendment I have sent to the desk here and that I will speak on 
right now relates to what I consider perhaps the most severe problem 
facing the

[[Page S2488]]

educational system in this country today--at least in my State, and I 
believe throughout the country--and that is the problem that too many 
of our students are leaving school before they graduate from high 
school.
  For an awful long time, this was a problem that people sort of 
ignored, and education policy wonks here in Washington and around the 
country essentially looked the other way and talked about other aspects 
of the educational issue. But more and more I have come to believe that 
this amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and Senators Reid, 
Levin, Bryan, and Boxer deals with a crucial issue for our young people 
and for our educational system. We can deal with the dropout problem. 
We can provide assistance to States and local school districts that 
want to reduce the dropout rate, and we can do that at the same time we 
are adequately funding special education. We can do it at the same time 
we are providing this additional flexibility in the Ed-Flex, which is 
what the Ed-Flex bill calls for.
  Last week, when I offered the amendment, it was plain that there was 
some sort of contest between the proposal to adequately fund dropout 
prevention and the needs of special education. I do not see that as the 
case. That is a false choice. There is no rule and there is no 
limitation or requirement on those of us in the Senate to deal with one 
and not the other. We can deal with both of these issues. I favor 
dealing with both of these issues. Special education is extremely 
important. In order to address this, I put a couple of provisions in 
the amendment that I just sent to the desk. Two key provisions relate 
to special education.

  The first says that there is a sense of the Senate that there is a 
great need to increase funding for special education. I support doing 
that. And the amendment makes it very clear that that is what we intend 
to it.
  A second provision I have added says that any funds that are 
appropriated for dropout prevention above the $150 million annual 
amount that is called for in this bill shall go to special education 
rather than to this dropout prevention need.
  So it is not an either/or decision. And I don't think we should see 
it that way.
  This legislation on dropout prevention was offered last year. It was 
adopted here in the Senate by a vote of 74 to 26. Its main provisions 
are very well known to the Members of the Senate. Let me just go 
through them.
  There are five main provisions. First, it provides better 
coordination and streamlining of existing Federal programs which serve 
at-risk students. We have several programs intended to serve at-risk 
students. This bill would try to bring those together and coordinate 
them.
  Second, it sets out a national plan to address the dropout crisis 
that exists at the State, local and national levels.
  Third, there is $150 million authorized in grants to schools with 
high dropout rates in each State.
  Fourth, there is a requirement for uniform dropout data to be 
provided so that parents will know where the problem exists most 
severely, and for policymakers to have that information so that we can 
make good decisions.
  Finally, it calls for what we designated here as a ``dropout czar,'' 
or a person who will have a full-time job working in the Department of 
Education to try to work with local school districts and States to deal 
with this issue. We ought to have at least one person in the Department 
of Education who comes to work every day with the responsibility of 
trying to help solve this problem. That is not too much to ask in a 
country of our size.
  So that is what the bill tries to do.
  The problem is serious. It warrants our attention.
  Since we have been debating this bill, there have been over 20,000 
young people drop out of our schools. There are over 3,000 young people 
who drop out of our high schools and our middle schools before 
graduation each schoolday. So the problem is severe. There have been 
over 400,000 students who have dropped out since last April when we 
last approved this amendment here in the Senate. These new dropouts 
join a large pool of unemployed, most of them unemployed adults who 
lack high school degrees.
  We have a serious problem here. I think many Senators and many people 
in this country would be shocked to know the extent of this problem. 
Let me give you some figures that came out of ``Education Week'' 
recently. According to ``Education Week,'' which is a very respected 
publication that does good research on education-related issues, 
according to their study, there are 30- to 50-percent dropout rates 
reported over the 4-year high school period in communities around this 
country.
  Let me give you some specific statistics which they reported.
  In Cincinnati, ``Education Week'' claims that 57 percent of students 
in Cincinnati's high schools do not complete high school, who drop out 
before the completion of high school; in Philadelphia, 54 percent; Salt 
Lake City, 39 percent.
  Everybody, at least in my part of the country, in the Southwest, 
looks to Utah, and says: ``Oh, they have a better educational system 
than we do in New Mexico, and they always do everything right in 
Utah.'' The truth is that 39 percent of their students don't complete 
high school--in Salt Lake City, not in Utah, but in Salt Lake City--47 
percent in Oklahoma City; in Dallas, according to ``Education Week,'' 
61 percent of students do not complete high school.
  I hope that Senators will come to the Senate floor and contradict 
these statistics and tell me that this is crazy, that they do not agree 
with these statistics. I hope they can do that, because, in fact, I 
find these statistics to be very startling.
  But I know for a fact that in my State the percentage of people not 
completing high school is very high. It is particularly high among 
Hispanic students in my State. We have a great many Hispanic students 
in my State, and way too many of them leave school before they complete 
high school and middle school. There currently is no Federal program 
that is intended to help solve this problem.
  We have a TRIO Program. People point to the TRIO Program. It is an 
Upward Bound Program. But less than 5 percent of the eligible students 
participate in those programs.
  There is a program just now getting started called GEAR UP. This is 
for middle school mentoring. The unfortunate thing about this is that 
it doesn't reach ninth or tenth graders. That is where the problem 
really occurs most severely.
  Then title I--title I, unfortunately, does not usually get any funds 
to the high school level. Most of the title I funding goes to 
elementary schools where the need is great. But what I am talking about 
is middle school and high school. And those schools see very little 
title I funding.
  One of the main reasons this bill is needed is to restore some 
balance to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which, at 
present, is heavily weighted toward the younger grades. I favor the 
assistance to the early grades, but I believe we need to do something 
at the middle school and high school levels as well.
  A lot of what needs to be done is reforming our high schools. Our 
high schools are too big. That is where the dropout problem is most 
severe. You get a 2,500-student high school, and, frankly, it is too 
anonymous. Too many of the young people come to that school; nobody 
knows whether they come in the morning or not. I have talked to high 
schools in my State, the large high schools, and I ask, ``What do you 
do if a student doesn't come to school?'' They say, ``After 3 days of 
them not coming to school, we send them a letter. We send a letter to 
their home address and ask them why they are not coming to school and 
complain to the parents.'' Well, the reality is you need a more 
personalized response and a more immediate and effective response when 
students start dropping out of school. This legislation can help us 
accomplish that.
  United States graduation rates are falling behind other 
industrialized countries. When the Governors met and President Bush met 
in Charlottesville in 1989 and set the National Education Goals, the 
second goal was that we want to have at least 90 percent of our 
students complete high school and graduate from high school. The 
reality is we have made virtually no progress towards achieving that 
goal since 1989. We are now in 1999, and we have made

[[Page S2489]]

virtually no progress. Clearly, we need to deal with this issue.

  Some have said: ``Well, let's put it off. Let's deal with it later on 
in this Congress. This is a 2-year Congress. We are going to eventually 
get around to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
reauthorization. We can deal with it then, maybe not this year. But 
surely next year we will get around to it. So just relax. We will get 
around to it.'' I believe we have a crisis with our high school dropout 
rates, and I believe we need to deal with it now.
  There is no logical reason why we can't do the Ed-Flex bill, which I 
support, and do whatever this Senate wants to do with regard to special 
education, and do something to assist local schools in dealing with the 
dropout problem. We can do all three of these things.
  As our former President, Lyndon Johnson, was famous for saying, ``We 
can walk and chew gum at the same time'' here in the U.S. Senate. This 
is not too much for us to take on.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope we get the 
same kind of strong vote this time that we got in the last Congress--at 
least have the 74 votes that we got in the last Congress. I hope we can 
get even a stronger vote.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 hour 57 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
previous agreement with respect to the Ed-Flex bill be modified to 
allow 1 hour of the 5-hour debate limitation to be used on Thursday 
prior to the vote with respect to the pending amendment, and, further, 
that hour of reserved time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                    Amendment No. 64 To Amendment 31

        (Purpose: To reduce class size, and for other purposes)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray and a long 
list of additional Senators whose names I will put in the Record, I 
send an amendment to the desk to help communities reduce class size for 
the youngest children in the school.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico, [Mr. Bingaman], for Mrs. 
     Murray, for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Durbin, 
     Mr. Harkin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Boxer, 
     Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Robb, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Reed, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
     Kerrey, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 64.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')


                  Amendment No. 65 To Amendment No. 31

  (Purpose: To improve academic and social outcomes for students and 
reduce both juvenile crime and the risk that youth will become victims 
 of crime by providing productive activities during afterschool hours)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Also, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I send an amendment 
to the desk to expand afterschool opportunities for children 
nationwide.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Kerrey, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. 
     Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 65.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                  Amendment No. 66 To Amendment No. 31

(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. JEFFORDS. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Lott, Senator Jeffords, Senator Gregg, Senator Collins, Senator Frist, 
and Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Lott, for 
     himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Collins, Mr. Frist, and 
     Mr. Sessions, proposes amendment numbered 66.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, 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:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. . IDEA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that if part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act were fully 
     funded, local educational agencies and schools would have the 
     flexibility in their budgets to develop dropout prevention 
     programs, or any other programs deemed appropriate by the 
     local educational agencies and schools, that best address 
     their unique community needs and improve student performance.
       (b) Amendment.--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.''.

     SEC. . AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       In addition to other funds authorized to be appropriate to 
     carry out part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.), there are authorized 
     to be appropriated $150,000,000 to carry out such part.


                  Amendment No. 67 To Amendment No. 31

(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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I now send to the desk an amendment for 
Mr. Lott on behalf of himself and Senator Jeffords, Mr. Gregg, Ms. 
Collins, Mr. Frist, and Mr. Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Lott, for 
     himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Collins, Mr. Frist, and 
     Mr. Sessions, proposes an amendment numbered 67.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, 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:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ____. IDEA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that if part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 
     et seq.) were fully funded, local educational agencies and 
     schools would have the flexibility in their budgets to 
     develop after school programs, or any other programs deemed 
     appropriate by the local educational agencies and schools, 
     that best address their unique community needs and improve 
     student performance.
       (b) Amendment.--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.''.

     SEC. ____. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       In addition to other funds authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.), there are authorized 
     to be appropriated $600,000,000 to carry out such part.


                  Amendment No. 68 to Amendment No. 31

(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, and to amend the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act with respect to alternative 
                         educational settings)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask on behalf of Senator Lott and 
others I send an amendment to the desk.

[[Page S2490]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Lott, for 
     himself, and Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered 68.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, 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:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ____. IDEA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that if part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 
     et seq.) were fully funded, local educational agencies and 
     schools would have the flexibility in their budgets to 
     develop programs to reduce social promotion, establish school 
     accountability procedures, or any other programs deemed 
     appropriate by the local educational agencies and schools, 
     that best address their unique community needs and improve 
     student performance.
       (b) Amendment.--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.''.

     SEC. ____. ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL SETTING.

       (a) In General.--Section 615(k)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1415(k)(1)(A)(ii)(I)) is amended to read as follows:

       ``(I) the child carries or possesses a weapon to or at 
     school, on school premises, or to or at a school function 
     under the jurisdiction of a State or a local educational 
     agency; or''.

       (b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to conduct occurring not earlier than the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       On page 13, line 14, strike ``and''.
       On page 13, line 15, strike ``all interested'' and insert 
     ``parents, educators, and all other interested''.
       On page 13, line 17, strike the period and insert ``, shall 
     provide that opportunity in accordance with any applicable 
     State law specifying how the comments may be received, and 
     shall submit the comments received with the agency's 
     application to the Secretary or the State educational agency, 
     as appropriate.''.
       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. ____. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       In addition to other funds authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.), there are authorized 
     to be appropriated $500,000,000 to carry out such part.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, at this time I would just like to make 
some brief comments on the amendments which have been presented by the 
minority. I would like to again reiterate for my colleagues that the 
process we are going into was an agreement reached in order to move 
this bill along. This bill, which is known as the Ed-Flex bill, is 
relatively noncontroversial. I think the only vote in opposition in 
committee, and may well be in the Chamber, was by Senator Wellstone. 
But we are in the process to move this bill along, to move it along 
with the House bill, which I believe was passed, or will be passed 
today in order to get it into law in time so that States may have a 
maximum benefit from its passage. It is a bill with which all 50 
Governors agree, a bill with which the President agrees, and the 
Department of Education has been sending the guidelines out for its 
utilization. All of this is ongoing.
  However--and it is understandable--the minority has a desire to be 
able to put amendments on the bill because they feel strongly that 
these initiatives ought to be put into law. However, as chairman of the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I must say that we 
are in the process now of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. That act is where most of these amendments should be. 
Some of them are perhaps relevant. For example, part of the Wellstone 
amendment is relevant to the Ed-Flex bill.
  If we are going to assure that the committee system works--where 
evidence is presented at hearings, where we have people from the local 
schools all the way up to the States' Department of Education testify, 
where we can be absolutely sure of what we are doing in this incredibly 
important bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which has 
some $50 billion in Federal dollars, I believe it should not be done in 
this kind of ad hoc process of attaching amendments. Well-intentioned 
as the amendments may be, some of which I would agree to, some of which 
I have even offered in the past, we can not offer them in a way that 
does not make sense when you are trying to be more effective with the 
expenditure of Federal funds.
  There is $50 billion included, and yet, as I mentioned earlier, over 
the last 15 years, ever since we understood we had some serious 
problems in education in this country, we have seen absolutely no 
measurable improvement in the test results of our young people.
  That is an intolerable situation. It does not make any sense to 
reauthorize a bill, which has obviously not had much impact on 
improving education in this country, without holding hearings or before 
fully examining it.
  I am put in the very difficult position of having to allow these 
amendments to be presented in order to move the bill along, and then I 
will be the one to have to move to table. A motion to table means you 
do not allow the amendment to be voted on, and I will do this because 
the amendment should be offered when the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act is before us. But, my move to table will give the 
political argument that I killed all these amendments. I am just trying 
to help this country's education system improve and not to do it in 
this ad hoc, messy way.
  Therefore, I must oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein. I have long advocated that we, as a Nation, 
need to address, head on, the issue of social promotion. In fact, we 
made some progress in this area last Congress. Funds made available for 
title II of the Higher Education Act, teacher quality enhancement 
grants, may be used by States to develop and implement efforts to 
address the problem of social promotion and prepare teachers to 
effectively address the issues raised by ending the practice of social 
promotion.
  ``Social promotion'' is a term which educators know, but I am not 
sure everyone does. It simply means that we sort of gave up on young 
people saying, well, it is not really that important that they know how 
to read because there are jobs that you can get without having to read.
  That situation has changed. We are going into the next century, and 
we know that unless a child has an excellent education when they 
graduate, they are not going to be able to get a good job. The literacy 
studies show that 51 percent--this is an incredible statistic--of the 
young people who graduated from high school, when measured for their 
performance, were functionally illiterate. We have to stop that. Ending 
social promotion is what that is all about.
  However, the amendment by Senators Feinstein and Dorgan is one I will 
reluctantly have to move to table, in order to make sure that we can 
move on in an orderly process on the ESEA reauthorization.
  The other amendment, by Senators Bingaman and Reid on school 
dropouts, is in a similar situation. We all know that we have to do 
something about school dropouts. We know that the so-called forgotten 
half in our educational system for years has been ignored, and when 
they get to sixth, seventh, and eighth grades they do not see any 
relevance to education in their lives. Everybody is pushing: You have 
to go to college; You have to go to college. And now we know there are 
many high-paying, skilled jobs that young people can get, and that 
young people would have the ability for if they had the proper 
schooling efforts in order to learn those skills that are necessary.
  And so we have to accommodate that. We have to make sure that the 
young people in the sixth and seventh grades understand that if they do 
things to get the education, they will be able to get a good job.
  There has been a tremendous move in that direction in some States. In 
Mississippi, with one of the worst records in the sense of educational 
performance, they are spending millions of dollars making sure that 
young people start looking at careers in the sixth grade so that they 
know there is a relevancy to the education and they won't drop out. It 
is very important. But it should be considered on the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, which is now before the committee,

[[Page S2491]]

and on which we are holding hearings. I certainly agree with Senator 
Bingaman in what he is doing.
  There is another amendment that has to do with report cards that we 
have listened to, and that is fine, as well. But that is an issue for 
the States to address, not for the Federal Government to mandate.
  In many cases, the States are ahead of us in addressing the quality 
of their schools. Mr. President, 36 States already require report 
cards. We need to also remember that funding for education is primarily 
a State and local responsibility. So, again, that is another good 
approach, but it is something we should do in the orderly committee 
function.
  Senator Wellstone has amendments. I have to say at least one of them 
is relevant to the underlying act. He is on the committee. He had an 
opportunity to offer it, but did not. Under the present situation, Ed-
Flex demands accountability of States that are participating. It is 
important to keep in mind that accountability has been part of Ed-Flex 
since its inception, and the managers' package builds on those strong 
accountability provisions. So, again, this one could have been offered 
in committee. He chose not to offer it in committee, so I must oppose 
that one as well.
  Mr. President, I again want to put everyone on notice that I have the 
responsibility to protect the ability of this committee to work in an 
orderly fashion. Because of that, I will have the unpleasant duty of 
probably moving to table these amendments when they come up, or to 
oppose them.
  I would like to also refer to the Boxer amendment. This is another 
one that is very familiar to me. The 21st Century Community Learning 
Centers is a program that I created back in 1994 as part of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I fought hard to include this 
program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and was 
successful, in spite of opposition from the very same administration. 
Getting the program funded was not easy in the face of the 
administration's opposition to this program. In fact, the 
administration proposed rescinding the fiscal year 1995 funding for the 
21st Century Community Learning Centers. All of a sudden, the 
administration woke up and said: Hey, Republicans sometimes have a good 
idea. It is an amazing thing for this administration to recognize. But 
anyway, all of a sudden they put $750,000 into the program--I am sorry 
they asked to rescind it at another time.
  More recently, the administration decided that they now like this 
program, and in fiscal year 1997 they recommended $15 million for this 
program. Now they are increasing it even more. So, obviously, I am a 
great friend of that one. It was a bill I got passed back in 1994 in 
the last reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  I have enormous interest in changes to any of this legislation, 
certainly changes as dramatic as proposed by this amendment. This 
amendment almost completely rewrites the 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers. It changes its purpose, use of funds, and other 
aspects of the legislation. Last year, the administration, through the 
competitive grants process, substantially changed the focus and, 
indeed, the very nature of it by rewriting regulations. That was an 
unfortunate matter. Overnight, an act to expand the use of existing 
school facilities became an afterschool program--retracted it.
  All these other things are just as valuable. Certainly I understand 
the desires of Senator Boxer to work on that bill. We will have plenty 
of opportunity. She will have all the opportunity she wants when the 
bill comes out of the committee later this year.
  So, I could go on and on. But right now I again want to reiterate, in 
order to get this bill through we have been forced to go into this kind 
of amendment process, which some will say gives them the opportunity to 
do something constructive, knowing full well at the end of the day they 
on the other side of the aisle will not prevail because they do not 
have the votes. Fortunately, I believe my colleagues in the Senate, at 
least the majority of them, will say: Yes, let's use the orderly 
process, the one this institution was designed to utilize, in passing 
out legislation, passing out bills. And the process of offering 
amendments should be done first in the committee where they can have a 
good review after hearings and then secondly done on the floor.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
discuss my support for the Education Flexibility Partnership Act or Ed-
Flex as it has become known. Ed-Flex provides much needed relief to the 
schools of 12 states currently included in a demonstration project 
begun in 1994. Like many of my colleagues, I believe it is time to give 
this relief to the other 38 states who suffer from government over-
regulation.
  In preparation for each new school year, teachers and school 
administrators throughout the country face the challenge of providing 
the highest level of education with a limited amount of resources. This 
has always been the case and will remain the true for generations to 
come. I know this from personal experience. My wife was an educator in 
the Tulsa Public School District for many years and both of my 
daughters are current teachers. In my conversations with them, I have 
seen first hand the problems associated with bureaucratic mandates 
handed down from Washington.
  Let me give you an example of what I am talking about. Over the last 
three decades, the Federal Government has piled on mountains of 
bureaucratic redtape on local school districts. Between 1960 and 1990, 
the average percentage of school budgets devoted to classroom 
instruction declined from 61% in 1960 to 46% in 1990. The most 
significant reason for this decline is traced to the explosion of 
administrators and non-teaching support staff while the overall number 
of teachers has reduced. One primary reason for the growth in 
administrative personnel is the growth in regulations, both state and 
Federal.
  Let me show you just one example of how this is evidenced in 
Oklahoma. In my hometown of Tulsa, the Tulsa Public Schools have 
approximately 42,600 students. In order to provide quality education to 
those 42,600 students, there are approximately 225 administrative staff 
employed by the Tulsa Public Schools system. Now, I realize that some 
of these are essential managerial and administrative staff, however, 
how many are doing nothing more than trying to keep Tulsa schools' in 
compliance with Federal regulations? How many of those staff could be 
better utilized in classrooms across the district instead of spending 
their time dedicated to paperwork? And, this is just one example of one 
public school system in my state. The problem is the same in every 
single school system.
  Mr. President, it is clear, the more people and resources it requires 
to comply with government regulations, the fewer people and resources 
dedicated to teaching our children.
  Each time we create a new Federal program, with it comes numerous 
forms and reports. The schools must understand, complete these forms 
and reports and submit to the appropriate departments within the 
appropriate agencies, by the appropriate deadlines. Whether schools use 
teachers and administrators, or support staff and volunteering parents, 
to fulfill this obligation, valuable time and resources are used for 
Washington's paperwork, not student education.
  Let me illustrate this point further. Currently, the Federal 
Government provides approximately 7% of overall school funding. 
However, Federal paperwork accounts for upwards of 50% of all school 
paperwork. It is estimated that completing this paperwork requires 
about 49 million hours each year. Mr. President, that is the equivalent 
of 25,000 employees working full time for an entire year. According to 
one expert, it is estimated that it takes six times as many employees 
to administer a Federal education dollar as it does to administer one 
state education dollar. Again, these people are not teaching or 
educating our children, but completing bureaucratic red tape.

  Earlier, I discussed the number of administrative positions in the 
Tulsa Public Schools; but the problem is more pronounced in the state 
as a whole. There are approximately 5,950 administrative and other 
certified staff performing non-teaching duties in Oklahoma. Those 5,590 
people represent

[[Page S2492]]

about 10% of the total public school personnel. That is 10% doing 
something other than teaching children. That concerns me greatly. I 
have to wonder whether we are using our resources in the best way 
possible to meet the educational needs of our children.
  Now, some of my colleagues, and the President, believe that we need 
the Federal Government to hire an additional 100,000 teachers in order 
to reduce class size around the country. However, I have to wonder if 
that is really the answer to the problem. As I have just demonstrated, 
we have too many professional and certified staff in my state that are 
not educating children. Instead, they busy themselves attempting to 
comply with government regulations. If we can unburden school districts 
of cumbersome regulation, the local districts can shift some of their 
resources back to educating our children. If the Federal Government 
does require the states to hire additional teachers, it will simply be 
one more mandate handed down from Washington for the states to comply 
with once the dedicated Federal funds expire. You can be sure that if 
there are additional Federal mandates there will be additional non-
teaching certified staff required to administer the program and that 
means another professional staff member not in the classroom teaching 
our children.
  As the bureaucratic mandates from Washington have increased, states 
needed a way to gain some flexibility to address their individual 
concerns. Our answer to the states was the Education Flexibility 
Partnership Demonstration Act of 1994, an effort I was proud to support 
while I was in the House of Representatives. First authorized in 1994 
for six states, and expanded in 1996 for six additional states, Ed-Flex 
has given 12 state legislatures the freedom to identify the most 
efficient and effective means possible to meet the needs of students 
and schools in their states. Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education 
gives to states and local districts the authority to waive certain 
Federal requirements that interfere with state and local efforts to 
improve education. In exchange for this flexibility, the state and 
local districts must agree to comply with certain federal core 
principles and agree to waive its own state regulations. The states 
must also agree to use the affected federal funds for their original 
purpose.
  Mr. President, I think it says something about the nature of our 
current bureaucracy that we have to give states the power to waive 
Federal regulations. If there were fewer onerous regulations in the 
first place, we would not have to pass legislation to give states the 
power to ignore federal regulations. Wouldn't it make more sense to let 
the states be responsible for the education of our children, not 
bureaucrats in Washington?
  In my State of Oklahoma, we have great diversity in our education 
needs. We have schools of all kinds; urban schools, rural schools, 
inner city schools, and suburban schools. In my conversations with 
educators and administrators, I hear them tell unique stories about the 
challenges they face in trying to educate their students. All of these 
educators tell different stories. However, not surprisingly, almost to 
a person, they tell me of the problems they have in complying with 
government regulations. It does not come as a surprise to me that the 
education challenges presented at urban schools like Tulsa McClain High 
School differ widely from the needs of smaller rural schools like 
Weatherford High School. Yet, they all have to comply with the same 
Federal regulations. Given the failings of the public schools today, it 
is little surprise that the cookie-cutter approach of the Federal 
Government has been a disaster.
  The time has come to move beyond a one-size-fits-all Federal approach 
in educating our children. As I look around our country, I see the 
great successes that our Governors are having in making progress in 
education reform. I am continually amazed at the policy innovations 
going on in State legislatures all over the country with regard to 
education. However, now, it is the Federal Government's responsibility 
to join with those Governors and give them more flexibility to continue 
to innovate and improve our public schools. I understand the need for 
accountability. However, I believe accountability is best when it 
closest to home and vested in Governors, State legislators, and local 
school board officials than with faceless Federal bureaucrats in 
Washington. State leaders understand this. That is why groups like the 
National Governor's Association and the National Conference of State 
Legislators have endorsed this legislation.
  As I have watched and listened to the debate on Ed-Flex, I have been 
surprised by many amendments offered by some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle. Many of the proposed amendments seem 
counterproductive to the central purpose of Ed-Flex. Ed-Flex is about 
easing government mandates and regulations. However, many of the 
amendments we have debated would add to the mountain of Federal 
mandates applied to State and local school districts. As much as I hate 
to say this, it appears that many of my colleagues would rather have a 
political issue than have meaningful education reform.
  Mr. President, the results Ed-Flex prove the effectiveness of the 
demonstration program. Whether it is giving local districts the 
resources to provide one-on-one reading tutoring or lower the teacher 
to student ratios in classrooms, Ed-Flex has been a tremendous success. 
These are all things we can agree upon. Based on its proven track 
record, the time has come to expand Ed-Flex to the rest of the country. 
We need to continue to identify programs that work and expand them, 
while eliminating the programs that are ineffective.
  In closing, Mr. President, I want to thank Senators Frist and Wyden 
for their leadership on this issue. Their efforts prove that we can 
work together to the benefit of our children when it comes to educating 
our children. As the Senate proceeds with the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act later this year, I look forward 
to working with them to continue to progress we have begun here today.
  Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to discuss my views on 
Ed-Flex and I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. 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. 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.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, for the convenience of all Members, I 
would like to let them know that, as far as I know, at least on the 
majority side of the aisle, there are no speakers desiring to come to 
the floor. I put them on notice that if I do not hear from them within 
10 minutes, we may end up drawing the session to a close. As far as the 
other side of the aisle, I also inform them. I believe we have notified 
the minority that if they have no further speakers, we would appreciate 
knowing that. If we hear from no one within 10 minutes, we will presume 
they have no further people to be heard and then yield the remainder of 
the time back so that tomorrow we can start on schedule.
  I also notify Senators that the order of the amendments tomorrow will 
be the order that was originally delineated and not as they may have 
been presented, so that Senators will know exactly when their 
amendments will be coming before us.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be charged equally to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to share a few remarks. I 
have had the pleasure to be able to preside over this body for the last 
hour and hear some excellent remarks from Senators who are concerned 
about education. I thought, as we heard some

[[Page S2493]]

good remarks from one of our brother Senators about an amendment to 
deal with the dropout rate, that this is how we have gotten where we 
are today in large part.
  The remarks were good. I personally am concerned about the dropout 
rate. I have been involved in youth programs in my hometown of Mobile, 
AL. We had a meeting with the police and the school boards on how to 
deal with truancy, dropout problems, and what we could do to confront 
that. That is happening, I suspect, all over America right now. Some 
schools have good dropout programs, others do not.
  The question was, are these numbers--showing 50 percent in many 
schools dropping out before graduating--are they accurate? I am not 
sure that they are, frankly. We questioned that in our community, 
because sometimes when people transfer from one school to another, they 
are counted as a dropout. But we do have higher dropouts than we need. 
And good school systems are identifying them at the earliest possible 
time in dealing with them.
  But I thought to myself as it was suggested--this amendment would 
suggest and mandate that we have a dropout czar in America--so this 
U.S. Senate now is going to take it upon itself to have a czar to deal 
with dropout problems. And that will be the 789th--if I am correct in 
my numbers--Federal program Congress would have adopted and that is now 
in effect, all to be added to a bill called Ed-Flex that is suppose to 
give more flexibility to the school systems, to allow them to use the 
resources we are sending to them now effectively to deal with the 
problems as they know they exist and they would like to deal with them.
  Yes, I wish I could wave a wand and create a program that would 
instantly eliminate the dropout problem in America. I would be tempted, 
as all of us are, to think we could appoint a czar in Washington who 
would stop the dropout problem. But I really do not think it is going 
to happen.
  What we have to do is strengthen our school systems in the classroom, 
where teaching occurs, making those schools more friendly, more 
motivating, more interesting, more challenging, educating the young 
people who are there, because really the only thing that counts is that 
magic moment in a classroom when the learning occurs between teachers 
and pupils.
  One of the Senators said our problem is schools are too big. Well, I 
guess next we will have a czar to set the sizes of schools in America. 
My daughters both graduated from a large high school in Mobile, AL. 
Bill Bennett came down and gave them an award as one of the best high 
schools in America--racially balanced--a big high school, Murphy High 
School, an outstanding high school. It is a large school. All large 
schools are not bad. In fact, our dog was named Murphy, named after the 
high school. We loved that school. My wife and I participated in the 
PTA and were most interested in what went on there.
  When I graduated, my senior class had 30 members. It was a public 
high school. The one who finished third in my class of 30 is now dean 
at the University of Alabama. And I finished below her. And the one who 
finished two below me--seventh--graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy.

  I do not think we need in this body to be saying what the sizes of 
schools ought to be and how school systems ought to run their programs. 
We need to help them in every way we can and to eliminate this problem, 
as I noted earlier today, where a system like Montgomery, AL, spends, 
according to the letter I got, $860,000 to comply with Federal 
regulations. The Federal Government gives 8 percent of the funding and 
over 50 percent of the regulations.
  So our chairman, Senator Jeffords, has presented a commonsense, 
reasonable, modest step toward allowing local school systems to 
petition for the right to have flexibility in how many of these 
governmental programs are ordered. That is so rational, it makes so 
much sense, and it in fact was proven effective in the welfare reform 
bill. That is all we are talking about.
  There is no doubt Senator Jeffords will conduct hearings on any of 
these matters. He will take testimony and receive it and consider 
matters to deal with truancy, matters to deal with drug problems, 
matters to deal with special education. We want to deal with that. But 
that will come up in the education bill that will come along later.
  This bill needs to remain a clean bill designed to create flexibility 
for our school systems in America. That is what it ought to be. We 
ought not to allow it to be clogged up with every Senator's view of 
what would be wonderful if they just ran schools in America, because 
that is how we have gotten in this fix. That is what we are trying to 
make some progress toward completing.
  I care about education. I care about public education. I taught. My 
wife has taught. Our children have participated in public education. We 
want to make it better. But I am not at all persuaded that the Members 
of this body have studied the problems of the Mobile, AL, or Vermont 
school systems. They have not studied those problems. They do not know 
how to fix them. They read a study somewhere that says something, and 
they feel obligated to come down here and present the next program, the 
789th program, Federal Government mandate, to fix it. Then they can go 
back home and say, ``I fixed truancy, I fixed dropout problems,'' or 
whatever.
  I just say to my colleagues that this is not the way to do it. We 
have elected school board presidents, school board members. We have 
superintendents of education. We have principals. We have teachers. 
They know our children's names. We need to put as much power and as 
much money into the hands of the people who know our children's names 
as we possibly can. If they do not care about our children, we need to 
make sure we have someone there who does. But I submit to you they do 
care about them. They are better trained than we are in education. They 
are seeing kids every day in their classrooms. They know what 
facilities are in existence. Do they need more teachers? Do they need 
more classrooms? Do they need more computers? Let them decide 
that. That is what we should do; give them the flexibility to make the 
decisions needed.

  I think we will find, if we pass this bill, that instead of just the 
12 States indicated in the chart from the GAO report this past 
November--the GAO studied this Ed-Flex bill that gave 12 States the 
right to have more flexibility in their educational programs. They 
concluded that they have used their authority well, the flexibility 
given to them, and that the waiver authority has been used carefully 
and judiciously.
  Why would we expect otherwise? Why would we expect that the people we 
have elected and hired to take care of our children, who know our 
children's names, are not going to use freedom and financial support 
from Washington carefully and expeditiously? I feel very strongly about 
this.
  I see the Senator from Arkansas has come to the floor. I will be 
anxious to hear his remarks, because he has served on this committee, 
that I have just joined this January, for the past 2 years. He is 
passionately concerned about improving education. He has a bill that I 
am proud to support--Dollars to the Classroom. That bill goes much 
further than this Ed-Flex bill. I believe it would be a historic step 
toward empowering our local education system to get out from under 
Federal regulations and be able to focus entirely on educating our 
children, get that money and authority to the classroom where it can be 
used wisely.
  I thank the Chair for the time and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of the Senator from Alabama and thank him for his kind remarks 
concerning the Dollars to the Classroom proposal. I look forward to 
working with him on the committee.
  I am dismayed that a bill that has the kind of bipartisan support--
support in this Chamber, support across the country among educators, 
support among our Nation's Governors--would have been held up as long 
as this has been held up and would have had the kind of amendments, 
many of them worthy of debate but that would have been far more germane 
to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which, as the chairman 
has said, will be debated and will be marked up in committee later this 
year. I think it is

[[Page S2494]]

unfortunate that we have had all of these amendments filed.
  As Senator Sessions said, I have a bill, that I feel very strongly 
about, that would go further than Ed-Flex. I have resisted offering 
that as an amendment. We could have brought that to the floor. We could 
have offered that to the Ed-Flex bill. However, it is important that 
this piece of legislation move forward uncluttered, clean, with the 
support of both parties, and be presented to the President for his 
signature.
  I want to especially address in the next few minutes one of those 
amendments which has been offered, an amendment that sounds so good: 
The 100,000 teachers funded at the Federal level over the next 7 years. 
I think it is kind of a cotton candy amendment: It looks good, it is 
sweet, it tastes good, but it is not very filling, it is not very 
satisfying, and it is not very good for you. The 100,000 teachers--when 
you say that at first blush to the average American, that sounds very, 
very appealing, but I think when you look in greater depth and you look 
more closely at what that amendment would do, then, I think in fact it 
is not worthy of our support.
  We have already decreased class size across this country. At the same 
time we have seen a dramatic reduction in class size across the United 
States, we have not seen a comparable improvement in achievement. 
Between 1955 and 1997, over 42 years, school class size has dropped in 
the United States from 27.4 students per classroom to about 17 students 
per classroom, according to the National Center for Education 
Statistics--a very dramatic drop, from 27 to 17. At the same time, the 
number of teachers has grown at a faster rate than the number of 
students. This chart illustrates that very clearly. We see a very 
dramatic increase in the number of teachers and the student ratio 
decreasing appreciably.

  While public school enrollment has decreased in Arkansas, in my home 
State, going from the broad international statistic to what it looks 
like in Arkansas, we have seen our public school enrollment drop 
slightly, by 1.3 percent, during the last quarter century. The number 
of teachers during that same period of time has dramatically increased 
in Arkansas, from 17,407 in 1965 to 29,574 in 1997. Now, that 
represents a 70-percent increase in teachers in the State of Arkansas. 
At the same time, we saw a slight decrease in the number of students in 
our public schools. What that represents is a very dramatic improvement 
in classroom size. We have smaller classes, we have more teachers 
teaching those classes, but studies have shown that unless the class is 
very, very large to begin with, modest reductions in the size of the 
class do not correlate with gains in student performance.
  Here is the point: Effective teachers can generally handle, studies 
indicate, an ordinary class of 19 students as easily as they can handle 
a class of 14 students.
  I want teachers to have smaller classes. I think that is a desirable 
goal. It is a goal that is being achieved in States all across this 
country. But I do not believe it is something we should mandate from 
Washington, DC, nor fund from Washington, DC. Senator Sessions said it 
better than I can: I don't believe we need the 100 Members of the U.S. 
Senate to become some kind of super school board making those kinds of 
decisions as to what schools need most.
  At the same time teacher-student ratio has dropped in Arkansas from 
21.9, almost 22, in every class in 1970, to 17 per class in 1995, 
student achievement has failed to show a measurable increase during 
that same time period. I want to say that again: We have seen classes 
drop from about 22 per class to 17 per class over the last 25 years in 
Arkansas. It has dropped more dramatically nationally, but in Arkansas 
we have seen it drop from 22 to 17. We have not seen student 
achievement show comparable improvement during the time that classes 
got smaller.
  Now, the initiative that has been presented by Senator Kennedy, the 
amendment offered by Senator Kennedy and Senator Murray, is expensive 
indeed, and there is no demonstrable evidence that for what we will be 
paying for this new program, we will see a corresponding improvement in 
academic performance. If enacted, the President's teacher initiative 
will provide enough money to hire only 361 additional teachers in the 
entire State of Arkansas in the first 2 years. All of the hoopla, all 
of the excitement about the 100,000 new teachers--which sounds like 
such a dramatic number--over the next 2 years in the entire State of 
Arkansas, it means 361 additional teachers.
  Now, we have in Arkansas 314 school districts. Many have argued we 
need fewer. Perhaps that is true; perhaps we need to consolidate some. 
But we have 314 school districts. We are going to receive 361 new 
teachers. That is 1.15 new teachers per school district. If we want to 
break that down a little more, it amounts to about half a teacher per 
elementary school. Since the focus of the amendment and the initiative 
is supposed to be grades 1 through 3, when you calculate that, it means 
.18 new teachers.
  Here we have that clearly outlined: In the State of Arkansas, 1.15 
new teachers per school district; a half a teacher per elementary 
school; or .18 new teachers for each grade 1 through 3.
  It is simply not enough of a commitment if that is what we are trying 
to do, it is not enough of a commitment on reducing class size, to make 
an appreciable difference in Arkansas or the Nation. If this initiative 
were carried out for the full 7 years, Arkansas would be able to hire 
only 939 new teachers for the whole State over the whole 7-year period. 
That equals 3 new teachers per school district, or 1.4 teachers per 
elementary school, or half a teacher in grades 1 through 3, to do the 
whole program for the whole 7 years. For such an expensive proposal, I 
believe Americans expect more results than that.
  This will do little to actually reduce the student-teacher ratio when 
there is only one new teacher in an entire school district, which is 
the result we would have under this initiative.
  Lisa Graham Keegan, one of the most innovative directors of public 
instruction in the country, superintendent of public instruction for 
the State of Arizona states:

       In the first year of the President's new program, Arizona 
     will receive more than $17 million. $17 million is a lot of 
     money; what do we get for that kind of investment? At $30,000 
     per year--a good, but not great wage--we can pay for a little 
     over 500 new teachers, as the program asks. In Arizona, that 
     comes to a bit under 2 teachers per school district. Not per 
     school, but per school district.

  They would average two new teachers per school district in the State 
of Arizona. Not every school district--and I think this is so 
important--finds that their greatest need is having more teachers or 
smaller classes. Many school districts do not need more teachers. They 
may need more books or more computers. Maybe they just need better-
trained teachers. A one-size-fits-all approach is not what States and 
school districts need or want.
  Again quoting Lisa Graham Keegan, she states:

       President Clinton made it abundantly clear that he had 
     decided that smaller class sizes are a good thing, even 
     though research has provided no clear indicators of the 
     impact that class size has on a child's ability to learn. 
     Nevertheless, because class size had been a good thing in 
     some of the classrooms the President had visited, then 
     smaller class sizes had to be a good thing for every 
     classroom in America.

  Well, that is a pretty strong allegation. But I think it is accurate 
on the basis of effectively anecdotal evidence. The President concluded 
this sounds good, looks good, this is appealing, and this was going to 
be his education initiative: 100,000 new teachers, paid for by the 
Federal Government, without having the research to demonstrate that, in 
fact, it correlates to better academic performance.
  This program requires that the money be used for new teachers. Yet, 
many States have already implemented class size reduction programs on 
their own. At least 25 States, including California, Florida, Nevada, 
Tennessee, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Maryland, have either tried a class 
size reduction program or are currently considering a class size 
reduction program.
  What about the 25 States that, on their own, many times at the 
expense of their constituents and their school patrons, have 
implemented their own class size reduction programs? What about those 
who are ahead of the curve

[[Page S2495]]

and have sought to address this at the local level? Are we now going to 
say we are imposing this upon you, that you have to hire these new 
teachers if you want the benefit of this Federal program?
  In his testimony before the Senate Health and Education Committee, on 
February 23, Michigan Governor John Engler said this. I know our 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Michigan, will concur with this. 
Governor Engler has been one of the most creative and innovative 
Governors both in the area of welfare--pushing welfare reform a number 
of years ago and seeing a tremendous revolution in the welfare system 
in Michigan--and he has now been pushing hard for greater flexibility 
for the schools in Michigan and the schools across this country. He 
said in his testimony before our committee:

       Many Governors feel so strongly that the bureaucracy is the 
     problem that we cannot imagine being unable to improve 
     education with greater funding flexibility.

  He didn't say send us more money. He might not turn that down, I 
don't know; but he didn't say that was the greater need. He said the 
problem is the bureaucracy. Give us greater flexibility and we will 
improve education.

  Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania said in his testimony before our 
committee:

       We all care about teacher competency, social promotion and 
     class size and many other things, yet, we must recognize that 
     the States themselves are designing programs that meet their 
     unique needs.

  The States themselves are designing programs. Once again, it is a 
matter of trust. Who are we to conclude in the U.S. Senate that we can 
be trusted to know what is best for local schools in Michigan, 
Arkansas, Vermont, and Washington State, but the Governors don't, the 
school superintendents don't, or that the local elected school boards 
can't be trusted? I think that is a misconception and an insult to 
those local leaders who care as much about the welfare and the 
education of children as we do here in the Senate.
  Reducing class size simply does not necessarily mean we are going to 
have improved performance. It does not deliver the results. States 
performing exceptionally well on achievement tests do not have an 
extraordinarily high number of teachers per student. For example, the 
State of Minnesota ranked third in the 1996 NAEP test scores for eighth 
grade mathematics. They ranked third on the NAEP test in eighth grade 
math. They rank 42nd in students per teacher.
  If lowering class size were the panacea, then Minnesota, I think, 
would have a hard time explaining why they rank third in the Nation in 
eighth grade math and 42nd in class size. There simply is no clear 
correlation. Without the research, without the hearings, without the 
evidence, why would we want to pass it? Is it because, like cotton 
candy, it looks good and sweet?
  On the other hand, schools that have a low student/teacher ratio do 
not necessarily have a high achievement score. Example: The District of 
Columbia has the lowest number of students per teacher--13.7--of any 
State or Federal jurisdiction. It is 13.7. Yet, it ranked 41st in its 
1996 NAEP test scores for eighth grade math. In contrast, we have 
Minnesota. I know there are a lot of factors that can be involved, but 
that tells me there is not a clear correlation between class size and 
academic performance.
  Eric Hanushek, an economics and public policy professor at the 
University of Rochester, maintains that teacher quality ``has 20 times 
the impact of class size. Teacher quality just swamps all the evidence 
we have on class size. If I had a choice between a large class with a 
good teacher and a small class with a lousy one, I'd take the large 
class any day.''
  The teacher quality is far more critical in ensuring the quality of 
the education of our children than the student/teacher ratio, the class 
size.
  I remember, vaguely, when I was in the second grade we had too many 
second graders; we had 37. And so the superintendent decided we were 
going to take 7 of the second graders--me being one of them--and put 
them in a joint class with second and third grade. Mrs. Hare was the 
teacher. Some of the parents expressed concern that we were going to 
have a combined class because the class was too big. But we had an 
extraordinary teacher, a quality teacher, in a combined class of 7 from 
one grade and 20 from another grade. But it worked. It worked not 
because the class size was perfect, or because the student/teacher 
ratio was perfect, but because, as Senator Sessions referred to it, the 
magic of learning in a classroom was taking place. We had a quality 
teacher who cared about the kids and instilled in us students a desire 
to learn. That is what we can do about education--improve the quality 
of teachers in the classroom, not some feel-good measure of hiring 
100,000 teachers, whether that be the need or not.
  Mr. President, about 1,100 studies have been made of class size. Out 
of those 1,100, only a very small few made any link at all between 
small classes and improved achievement. The research and the evidence 
is simply not there.
  The proponents of this measure keep mentioning that we need to 
fulfill the promise made last fall in the omnibus appropriations bill, 
which funded the Class Size Reduction Program, at a price tag of $1.2 
billion.
  What I would ask is this: What happens at the end of the 7 years when 
this authorization expires? We then have a new mandate that must be 
funded, or the States and localities will bear the burden of continuing 
the program which we started. Hiring 100,000 new teachers with the 
spending schedule to expire at the end of 7 years will result in one of 
two things: Either a new heavier tax burden upon our States in trying 
to pay for these teacher salaries, or a permanent entitlement 
established at the Federal level, and another step in nationalizing 
education control in this country.
  What happens with new Federal education programs? Once in place, they 
grow. They grow. Year after year, they grow. And this will become a new 
prescriptive program that places more regulations on the localities and 
further contributes to a Federal oversight of what should be and has 
always been a local issue.
  Some Members have been talking about the urgency with which we must 
enact class size legislation. But, before we create a new Federal 
program, shouldn't we, I ask my colleagues, fully fund the mandates 
that Congress has already placed on school districts?
  Every time I meet with parents, teachers, principals and local school 
board members from across Arkansas, they have one common theme and one 
common complaint. And it is this: Senator Hutchinson, please fully fund 
special education.
  When we placed that mandate upon the schools, we made a commitment 
and a pledge that we were going to provide 40 percent of the funding of 
that mandate at the Federal level. Now, before we have even gotten 
close to meeting that commitment, we start a host of new programs, 
including the initiative to hire 100,000 new teachers.
  During the 1995-1996 school year, 53,880 students in Arkansas were 
served under IDEA. That is about 12 percent of all students in the 
State served under IDEA special education.
  Funding for special education affects all schools and all school 
districts. It is not a problem limited to Little Rock, or Rogers, AR, 
or to the State of Arkansas. Every State has to deal with this critical 
funding problem.
  We are failing to miss a critical point: If we provide more funding 
for special education, then schools will have more money available to 
hire more teachers, create afterschool programs, or build new schools, 
whatever the need is at the local level.
  If we would, rather than funding 100,000 new teachers ``one size fits 
all'', whether that is the need at the local level or not, if we would 
instead take that funding, place it in IDEA special education funding, 
it then would allow the local school districts to determine with the 
resources that are now free where the greatest need is--computers, 
books, tutors, or even school construction. But the decisions would be 
made locally.
  In 1975, Congress first mandated a free appropriate public education 
for school-age children with disabilities. We have, Mr. President, not 
fulfilled the responsibility to which we committed.
  The formula for providing grants to States is authorized at 40 
percent, the national average per-pupil expenditure. Congress has never 
provided more than 12\1/2\ percent of IDEA funding, and that

[[Page S2496]]

was back in 1979, 20 years ago. For fiscal year 1999, allocations to 
States represented only 11.7 percent of average per-pupil expenditures. 
Schools get only 11 percent of the funding, but 100 percent of the 
Federal mandates, and what an expensive mandate it is.
  This shortfall in funding does not just affect special education 
students. Because schools are mandated by Federal law to provide a free 
and an appropriate public education, they must provide these services.
  As Fort Smith public schools superintendent, Dr. Benny Gooden, wrote 
in a letter last week--one of our outstanding superintendents in Fort 
Smith, AR, who writes regularly about the burden that IDEA places upon 
local resources:

       For almost 25 years, local elementary and secondary schools 
     and their governing boards of education have attempted to 
     deliver essential educational services to children with 
     disabilities under these Federal guidelines. During this time 
     period, the costs associated with providing these services 
     have escalated dramatically, while the level of Federal 
     support has never approached the promised 40 percent of 
     applicable costs which accompanied the initial passage of the 
     legislation.

  While providing an education to disabled students is necessary and 
desirable, we must recognize the effect of imposing unfunded mandates 
on our school districts.
  The more that we fail to pay our fair share of the cost of educating 
disabled students, the more we force local school districts to take 
money away from other programs to fulfill their duty to special 
education students.
  With all of the talk about the importance of enacting class size 
reduction programs now when school districts are working on their 
budgets, it is important to fully fund IDEA and allow school districts 
to free up more money for other uses.
  The costs for educating a special education student can be 5 to 10 
times the district average.
  In addition, as we all are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court recently 
ruled that the related services provision in IDEA includes medical 
services. This is going to dramatically increase this figure even more.
  Whether this was the intent of Congress or not, we made a commitment 
to fund 40 percent of IDEA costs. And we simply have not kept our 
promise.
  How can we in good conscience make more promises? We are going to 
give you 100,000 new teachers across this Nation. In Arkansas, it is 
about one per school district. How can we think of making more promises 
when we have not fulfilled the ones we already made to them in regard 
to special education? We are imposing an undue burden on school 
districts. And, if school districts had to spend less money on special 
education, they could use the available funds in the way they see fit. 
If that is entirely for teachers, so be it. If it means professional 
development, so be it. If it means buying new computers, we ought to 
let those local districts make those decisions.

  I see Senator Coverdell, who has been one of the great leaders on 
educational reform in meeting our Republican vision for education, and 
I have spoken quite a while on this at this point.
  I hope my colleagues know how strongly I feel about this. This is an 
important bill. It is an important step that we are taking.
  Senator Jeffords did an outstanding job. I can't say enough about the 
leadership of Senator Frist on this. We need not clutter this bill with 
amendments. We certainly don't need to start a new mandate on our 
schools. I hope that we will pass the bill quickly, pass a clean bill 
and send it to the President.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think we are down to two speakers. We 
have agreed that Senator Coverdell will speak for 5 minutes, and then I 
believe Senator Baucus will speak for about 6 or 7 minutes.
  I want to commend the Senator from Arkansas for his very eloquent 
discussion of the differences on how money ought to be spent. I 
appreciate him coming and sharing those with us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of the Senator from Arkansas. His eloquent statement delineates 
what is at stake here. I will expand upon it just briefly. As Senator 
Jeffords said, I will limit this to 5 minutes.
  I would like to make three points with regard to what we will begin 
voting on tomorrow.
  First, I want to make it very clear that from my perspective the 
amendment suggests that we should have a Federal program that envisions 
100,000 Federal teachers, which is a bad idea. It is just not a good 
idea.
  Mr. President, it envisions, or it suggests, that some Washington 
wizard wonk has some better idea about what ought to happen in 
Arkansas, Georgia and your State of Michigan. I just have to suggest 
that most of those wonks have never been to any of these locations. 
They have no idea--none--as to what that school board requires or 
needs. Some will require teachers. Some will require transportation. 
Some require construction. Some require a playground. And every 
American in the country knows that the needs of all of these school 
districts all across the Nation are all different. The Senator from 
Massachusetts would have us believe there is only one requirement, that 
only Washington knows what it is, and you are going to do it our way, 
the old Frank Sinatra song.
  You are going to fill out this zillion-page application, and you are 
going to do it our way.
  I suggest that if most Americans had a chance to evaluate whether the 
wonk from Washington should do it or the local school board should do 
it, they are going to go with the local school board.
  That takes me to my second point. This idea that Washington is going 
to do it after you fill out the 15-20 page application is going to lead 
to systems that have not met their responsibilities being weighted to 
the advantage of this program. It will tend to reward those who have 
not yet done the job they were supposed to do. If you talk to the 
Governors of the States, many, including mine, have already expanded 
their numbers of teachers to reduce class size--all across the country, 
Texas, California, to Georgia. So a system that has one solution is 
only going to be weighted to those school districts that didn't do 
anything about it. True, maybe they need some assistance because they 
had a harder time meeting that standard, but mark my word, you will 
tend to reward systems that have not stepped up to the bar with this 
kind of program.
  My third point. The fact that Washington bureaucrats, guided by the 
administration, are going to decide who is a winner and who is a loser 
suggests that it is going to be politically correct, that political 
correctness will suddenly weigh in on this. If you look at the record 
of decisionmaking about who the winners and losers are during the 
course of these last 6 years, it will substantiate the assertion I 
make. In department after department, agency after agency, the town is 
aswirl with politics getting in the way of policy. A program that picks 
winners and losers in Washington is already susceptible to it but 
particularly so now.
  So the point that the Senator from Arkansas made that we should fully 
fund our previous commitments, which will have the effect of freeing up 
funds in local school districts all across the country to make their 
own decisions about what their priorities are, is a better idea; it is 
a better idea than having a bureaucrat who has never been on the scene, 
could not name one school superintendent, one school board member, or 
even the name of the communities to be affected, deciding what the 
priorities are all across the country. It makes no sense. It is a bad 
idea. It should be defeated so that we can proceed with this 
legislation that has been endorsed by 50 Governors. And I might point 
out those 50 Governors have not endorsed the amendment of the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I thank the manager for granting me this time, and I 
yield back whatever of the 5 minutes might remain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will yield time as he may consume to 
the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. I thank my good friend, the Senator 
from Vermont, for yielding time.

[[Page S2497]]

  Mr. President, I am very strongly in favor of the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act. That is very simply because if there is 
any investment that makes sense in this country, it is investing in 
education, pure and simple, full stop, end of subject.
  At all levels--whether it is Head Start, whether it is the early 
years zero to 3, whether it is after Head Start, whether it is 
kindergarten, whether it is elementary and secondary, whether it is 
college, whether it is postgraduate education, whether it is continuing 
education, whether it is technical skills development--education is the 
investment which is going to make the difference in our country and 
assure our future as Americans, the time we spend continuing to educate 
our people in a very thoughtful, constructive way. Of course, we do not 
want to just throw money at the problem but, rather, we want to invest 
wisely; and this legislation, S. 280, is very much, in my judgment, a 
step in that direction.

  Let me address Ed-Flex, that is, the basic underlying bill, and tell 
you why I am so proud to be a cosponsor of the bill and why I think it 
is important legislation.
  The name of the bill basically explains it--Ed-Flex. It is 
flexibility for educational programs, and particularly at home. It is 
very simple. The Federal Government, I believe, ought to trust parents, 
trust teachers, and trust local school boards. We should do everything 
in our power here in Washington to liberate our children from Federal 
Government rules that might make sense in Manhattan, NY, but perhaps do 
not make sense in Manhattan, MT.
  I was a little surprised at the previous speaker, my good friend from 
Georgia, saying an amendment on this bill is Washington wizard wonk 
stuff telling local governments what to do. That is just not true. This 
is Ed-Flex. It is giving more flexibility to local communities to 
decide more on their own what makes most sense. For example, let's talk 
a little bit about computers. Right now, for example, a well meaning 
but distant Federal bureaucracy does too often stand in the way of a 
school district.
  For example, let's talk about Federal funds allowed to a small 
Montana school, or even a large New York City school, to purchase 
computers for students with disabilities. We know those computers 
probably will not be used all day long, that is, computers, mandated by 
Washington, for students with disabilities. It obviously makes sense 
that these computers should be utilized to help other students when the 
disabled students do not need them. But there is a rule, a Washington 
rule, that prevents this from happening, preventing other students from 
using those computers.
  That is the point of this bill, more flexibility. Under Ed-Flex, the 
underlying bill, States can get a waiver to use these computers to 
educate our kids. In short, the bill makes eminent sense. It is the 
next logical step to help our kids be better educated.
  Let me address an amendment that has been under discussion, the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and 
the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, an amendment to lower class 
size in our country.
  This is pretty basic stuff. There aren't many things we can do to 
help students more than lowering class size. I hear some Senators in 
the Chamber say the opposite; they at least are very strongly implying 
that lower class size does not help kids, does not help the quality of 
education.
  If we just think about it intuitively, Mr. President, that just 
doesn't make sense. But what is the evidence? One Senator recently 
mentioned Minnesota, a State that ranked third in recent national test 
scores but apparently, according to the Senator, has high average class 
sizes.
  I cannot speak about Minnesota, but I can speak about my State of 
Montana. Our teacher-to-student ratio is much lower than the national 
average, but we are very proud of the quality of education in our 
State. Montana's fourth graders and eighth graders placed among the top 
four States in three of the four categories, again, with class sizes 
that are lower than average. I can tell you from at least my experience 
years ago going to Montana schools that we had smaller classes, and it 
made a big difference. I have very vivid memories of very good teachers 
in classes that were not too large.
  I also want to relate an experience that is not directly relevant to 
this discussion, but I think it does have some bearing on the basic 
underlying point.
  Mr. President, like a good number of other Senators, I have what I 
call a ``workday.'' About 1 day a month I work at some different job. I 
might wait tables, work at a sawmill, work in a mine. I show up at 8 in 
the morning with my sack lunch and I am there to work. I am not there 
to watch, I am there to work. My good friend, Senator Graham from 
Florida, has been doing this for many, many years. Frankly, I got the 
idea from him about 6, 8, or 10 years ago. It is a great idea and it is 
one of the best parts about this job, frankly--to be able to do things 
like that.
  One day on my workday in Helena, MT, I was assigned to a health care 
center. In the morning I helped an Alzheimer's patient. This patient 
was obviously in great need of care and I learned a lot, I must say, 
about the problem of Alzheimer's disease--both for the person who has 
it and with respect to the care giver.
  But in the noon hour, for 2 hours the center assigned me to the Meals 
on Wheels Program. They gave me a little van loaded up with hot lunches 
and a list of names and told me which part of town to go to, to drive 
around and deliver these meals. This is the basic hot lunch program. 
About the second or third name on the list was a name that seemed 
familiar. It rang a bell; I wasn't sure what. It was Mrs. Foote.
  I asked myself: Why is that familiar, that name, Mrs. Foote? I didn't 
think a lot about it. I knocked on the door and the lady said come in. 
She opened up the door, and way back in this hot little kitchen, 
sitting at the kitchen table, was a lady. Then it dawned on me.
  I said, ``Mrs. Foote, by any chance did you ever teach 
kindergarten?''
  She said, ``Why, yes, I did.''
  I said, ``Did you teach kindergarten in the basement of the First 
Christian Church, at the corner of Power Street and Benton Street?''
  ``Why, yes, I did.''
  That was my kindergarten teacher, whom I had not seen since 
kindergarten.
  Why did I have such a strong memory of Mrs. Foote? One, I do vaguely 
recall, I must say we didn't have a large class. I must be honest and 
say I don't remember much about that. I do remember Mrs. Foote being a 
super teacher. She didn't remember me from Adam, as I must confess, but 
as I was talking to Mrs. Foote she then pulled out some newspaper 
articles about her.
  I then realized why in many respects Mrs. Foote meant so much to me. 
Mrs. Foote had a master's degree in art history, she had a master's 
degree in English literature, yet she was teaching kindergarten. She 
was one of these wonderful Americans who was sacrificing her time to be 
a teacher, a high-quality teacher, and also a teacher, as I recall, who 
did not have an awful lot of kids in her class.
  Not too long ago, in fact about a half-hour ago, I heard a Senator 
here on the floor saying, ``Gee, you give me a choice between a high-
quality teacher and a large class size and I'll make the choice every 
time for the quality teacher.'' Obviously, that is a false choice. That 
is not what we are talking about here. We want high-quality teachers. 
But we also want small class sizes, because smaller classes--all things 
being equal--do help provide a better education.
  This amendment, the Murray-Kennedy amendment, is an additional sum of 
money for teachers. We in Montana will get about $4 to $5 million. In 
addition, the amendment has a 15-percent provision, which is that 15 
percent of the funds can be used to train teachers. It gives that 
additional flexibility.

  I must say, this is a no-brainer, to me. I just don't know why school 
districts and teachers and parents would not like to have a little 
extra help, some extra help to hire a few more teachers, a little extra 
help to train a few more teachers. That is all this is. This is not 
rearranging the categories, the boxes. This is not taking money from 
one program to give to another. This is an add-on. This is additional.

[[Page S2498]]

  So I hope some of the viewers and listeners--who earlier heard other 
Senators speak--realize this is not Washington telling State and local 
district school boards what to do. Rather, it is saying: Here is some 
additional money for some teachers, for some training, because we want 
to help you. We want to form a partnership with you to make sure our 
kids get the best quality education they could possibly get. That is 
all it is. It is that simple.
  I strongly urge when we do vote on this tomorrow that the amendment 
pass. I know the bill is going to pass. It is a very important step we 
will be taking to help invest in our Nation's future.
  I yield the floor.


           Amendment No. 60, As Modified, To Amendment No. 31

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk for 
amendment No. 60, which I offer on behalf of Senator Lott.
  I ask unanimous consent the amendment be modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Is there objection?
  Without objection, so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 60, as modified, to amendment No. 31), is as 
follows:

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC.  IDEA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that if part B of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Act (20 USC 1411 et seq.) were 
     fully funded, local educational agencies and schools would 
     have the flexibility in their budgets to design class size 
     reduction programs, or any other programs deemed appropriate 
     by the local educational agencies and schools that best 
     address their unique community needs and improve student 
     performance.
       (b) Amendment.--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.''.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to 
amendment No. 60, as modified, Senators Gregg, Collins, Frist, and 
Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is 
not present and ask the time be charged equally to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to compliment my colleague 
and friend, Senator Jeffords, for his leadership on this bill. I am 
confident that tomorrow we will pass this bill.
  Also, I wish to compliment Senator Frist and others on the Labor 
Committee who have worked very, very hard to put together a good 
package, a responsible package, to allow the States to have more 
flexibility in dealing with Federal education programs so they can 
deliver a better product, and that is basically improving the education 
of our kids. That is a very noble goal.
  By doing so, they are saying we want to set up a program, which we 
have already done in a pilot program in a few States, and make it 
available to all States. All State Governors, Democrats and 
Republicans, say we want to have that flexibility, give us the ability 
to ask the Federal Government for a waiver from a lot of the rules and 
regulations in managing these programs so we can do a better job.
  Frankly, they are telling us they can do a better job, without Uncle 
Sam's rules and regulations, in trying to manage their schools. They 
did not need so much Federal help. It is really what the States were 
telling us.
  Democrats as well as Republicans were saying that. I think they are 
exactly right in doing so. I compliment the sponsors of this 
legislation, and I am going to be pleased tomorrow when we pass it.
  Unfortunately, there are a few amendments that are circulating around 
that I think would be very detrimental to this bill. As a matter of 
fact, I believe if they are adopted, we shouldn't pass this bill.
  The main amendment I am going to address is the one that maybe has 
received more attention than others--the so-called 100,000 teachers 
that Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray and others have been so laudatory 
about, saying, ``This is exactly what we need to improve the quality of 
education.''
  A couple of comments: One, I think if schools need more teachers, the 
schools should be able to make that decision. That decision should not 
be made in Washington, DC. When I say ``the schools,'' I am talking 
about the school board administrators, the parents, the teachers, the 
local officials, the school board officials, the Governor. They should 
be making that decision. I do not think that is Senator Kennedy's 
decision to make. I do not think that is the U.S. Senate's decision to 
make. Nor do I think it should be made by President Clinton. That is 
not our responsibility. That is a State responsibility. That is a local 
responsibility.
  Frankly, the local government knows best what they can do to improve 
education, not Washington, DC. It may be a school in the Northeast 
needs more insulation because of the cold or maybe they need more 
computers, maybe they need a new building, maybe they need building 
repair, maybe they need more teachers. I don't know. I wouldn't think 
that we have the guts or the gall to say we know best, the government 
knows best, but when I look at Senator Kennedy's amendment, that is 
exactly what it says.
  Here we have a national program. We are going to have 100,000 
teachers. It is going to be paid for by the Federal Government. Keep in 
mind, almost all teachers, K through 12, are paid for by State and 
local governments, yet now we have an amendment on the floor of the 
Senate that says, We want 100,000 teachers at a cost of over $11 
billion, to be paid for by the Federal Government--100 percent paid for 
by the Federal Government. In some of the districts, the teachers will 
be paid for 65 percent by the Federal Government and 35 percent by the 
State government.
  It is interesting. I have asked, What is the impact? Somebody said 
that we did part of this last year. We passed a bill last year that 
cost $1.2 billion, and we increased the number of teachers 30,000. Boy, 
that has really done a wonderful job. I looked at my State. As part of 
the bill that we passed last year, part of this 30,000 teachers, 
Oklahoma is going to get 348. Big deal. For the life of me, I do not 
think that is a Federal responsibility. Oklahoma is going to get $13 
million to help pay for 348 teachers. Big deal. Is that really what the 
Federal Government is supposed to do? Is that our responsibility? I 
don't think so. At least Republican amendments are saying, ``Instead of 
teachers, let's at least allow the States to have the option. If we are 
going to have Federal money, let's have the money go to give the 
schools the option for teachers or for meeting our responsibility with 
kids that have special needs, giving States the flexibility to use the 
money either for schools or students with special needs,'' which we 
already have a Federal law stating the obligation for the States to do 
it, an unfunded mandate. So at least we give the States some 
flexibility. That is not in Senator Kennedy and Senator Murray's 
amendment.
  I am looking at this amendment. There are lots of things in here that 
deal with regulations and how the money is going to be used, basically 
telling the States here is how to do it; we know best. The Federal 
Government knows best. Senate Democrats know best. President Clinton 
knows best.
  For the life of me, I just think that is a serious mistake--the 
Federal Government passing a bill last year that says Oklahoma gets 348 
more teachers paid for for 1 year. I might mention, if we don't pay for 
it next year, what happens to that Federal teacher? I hate to say it, 
but we have 1,800 schools in the State of Oklahoma. We are going to get 
348 teachers. That is about one-fifth or one-sixth of a teacher for 
each school, not each class, each school. Does that really make sense? 
I don't think it makes any sense. Which school is going to get a 
teacher? Which school is not going to get a teacher?

  I know my colleagues on the Democrat side have an amendment that says 
we are going to have a Federal school building program, and the 
President proposed billions of dollars, I guess $11

[[Page S2499]]

billion, for more teachers and several billion dollars for more school 
buildings. Which school buildings are going to be replaced? Which 
school building is going to be repaired? We are going to be making 
those decisions in Washington, DC? Is that the proper use for 
incremental dollars? Do they get more bang in educational value out of 
buildings or in teachers? We are saying we don't know. We are saying 
why don't we free up some of the resources that we are now spending 
from the Federal Government to the States and let the States make the 
decision? Let the local school boards make the decision. Let the 
teachers make the decision. Let the parents make the decision.
  Instead, my colleagues that are offering the amendment are saying, 
no, no, we will decide; the Federal Government is going to decide we 
need 100,000 teachers. I disagree.
  It is interesting. Somebody said, well, we really need lower class 
size. For a little bit of history, most States have already been 
reducing the average sizes of their classes. That trend is expected to 
continue. My guess is that President Clinton feels, since he has 
promoted this, class size has really declined. In 1955, the average 
public school class size in the United States was 27 students. In 1975, 
it dropped to 21. Today it is down to 17.3. If you are talking about 
only elementary schools, the numbers are slightly higher, but they 
still show a decline, from 30.2 in 1955 to 18.5 today, 18.5. ``Well, it 
ought to go to 18.'' Well, it looks to me like demographically we are 
going to 18 anyway. That will happen whether the Federal Governments 
gets involved in hiring 100,000 teachers or not. We have spent $1.2 
billion last year to hire 30,000 teachers. That money is only good for 
1 year. Then under this bill, it says, well, let's spend more than 
that. Let's just spend billions every year.
  It has amounts allocated: $1.4 billion for the year 2000; $1.5 
billion for 2001; $1.7 billion for 2002, and on; I see $2.8 billion for 
the year 2005. This says here is a recipe where we can have the Federal 
Government spending more money, and it stops at the year 2005. We are 
going to pay for these Federal teachers only up to the year 2005 and 
then stop? Sorry, States, now it is your responsibility.
  I just think that is a serious mistake. In my State of Oklahoma, I 
don't know exactly the number of teachers that we have, but 348 
teachers, when we have 1,800 schools and lots and lots of teachers in 
each school. I just fail to find the wisdom in doing it.
  There is a difference in philosophy between the Democrats and 
Republicans on this issue. We have basically said the States and local 
school districts should make a better decision. Senator Kennedy and 
some of my colleagues on the Democrat side seem to think that they have 
the answer. They are going to dictate 100,000 teachers. They are going 
to dictate billions of dollars of the Federal Government building 
school buildings. I think that is a mistake.
  I had my staff--this is almost 2 years old, a year; it was done May 
15, 1997, so it is a little obsolete--I asked them, How many Federal 
programs are involved in education right now? I know there are a lot, 
but I don't know them all. I haven't served on the Labor and Education 
Committee for a long time--I was on it for several years--but I know 
there are a lot. As a matter of fact, there are a lot more than I 
imagined.
  I will put this in the Record and maybe somebody can update it for 
me. According to this, in May of 1997, there were 788 Federal education 
programs, 788 Federal education programs that were spending at that 
point $968 billion. That is a lot of money. That is about one-
seventeenth of all the Federal spending that we are spending today. 
Someone can't say we do not have any emphasis in education. What we 
have is a lot of Federal programs, probably 700-some, too many Federal 
programs, and we are spending billions of dollars, almost $100 billion, 
probably if this is updated it is over $100 billion, because I know we 
had significant increases in the last couple of years in education. 
Just in the Department of Education alone, there were 307 education 
programs, totaling $59 billion. Again, this is 1997.

  So it shows you there is a lot of Federal input. I personally think 
we need to consolidate most of those programs, get rid of them, and 
give the money and the power back to the States and to the local school 
boards. What I think is, we do not need to have another program. ``Here 
are 100,000 teachers. Let's make this, instead of 788 programs, 789.'' 
I think President Clinton has proposed 8 or 9 new education programs 
alone.
  We do not need more education programs. What we need to do is free 
the States and local school boards to where they can do a better job 
with the resources they now have without all the strings and redtape 
and bureaucracy they now have to comply with.
  So I hope that will be what we will do. I hope that tomorrow when we 
are voting on this series of amendments, when we have amendments that 
are trying to micromanage how States spend money, run their schools, 
that we will table those amendments, that we will defeat those 
amendments, and we will pass the Ed-Flex bill which will give more 
flexibility to States and local school boards in actually administering 
Federal programs. They can do a better job in educating our kids, to 
improve the quality of education for the children of America.
  So I encourage my colleagues to vote against these amendments that 
try to micromanage education from Washington, DC, and pass the Ed-Flex 
bill to give the flexibility to the States and to the local school 
boards to do a better job for our kids.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for an excellent 
statement. He has certainly put in perspective what we are trying to do 
here. We started out with a very simple bill, and now we have--well, we 
have the monster pared down somewhat by getting agreements on both 
sides. But I just remind everyone that we will be voting tomorrow on 
these amendments. There will be some debate time tomorrow morning for 
that purpose.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield for just a second?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. One, I compliment Senator Jeffords for his management on 
this bill. I am delighted we have an agreement and we will get it 
completed. I compliment him for his leadership in the Labor Committee 
in putting this bill together. I somewhat regret the fact that the 
Democrats failed to show up at his markup. They want to amend the bill 
on the floor. They did not want to amend the bill in committee.
  With the chairman's indulgence, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record the table showing the number of departments, 
programs, and funding for the various education programs throughout the 
Federal Government.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    DEPARTMENT, PROGRAMS AND FUNDING
                   [Number of programs in parentheses]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Department                         Federal dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appalachian Regional Commission (2)...................        $2,000,000
Barry Goldwater Scholarship Program (1)...............         2,900,000
Christopher Columbus Fellowship Program (1)...........                 0
Corporation for National Service (11).................       501,130,000
Department of Education (307).........................    59,045,043,938
Department of Commerce (20)...........................       156,455,000
Department of Defense (15)............................     2,815,320,854
Department of Energy (22).............................        36,700,000
Department of Health and Human Services (172).........     8,661,006,166
Department of Housing and Urban Development (9).......        81,800,000
Department of Interior (27)...........................       555,565,000
Department of Justice (21)............................       755,447,149
Department of the Treasury (1)........................        11,000,000
Department of Labor (21)..............................     5,474,039,000
Department of Transportation (19).....................       121,672,000
Department of Veterans' Affairs (6)...................     1,436,074,000
Environmental Protection Agency (4)...................        11,103,800
Federal Emergency Management Administration (6).......       118,512,000
General Services Administration (1)...................                 0
Government Printing Office (2)........................        24,756,000
Harry Truman Scholarship Foundation (1)...............         3,187,000
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Program (1).........         2,000,000
Library of Congress (5)...............................       194,822,103
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (12)....       153,300,000
National Archives (2).................................         5,000,000
National Institute for Literacy (1)...................         4,491,000
National Council on Disability (1)....................           200,000
National Endowment for the Arts/Humanities (13).......       103,219,000
National Science Foundation (15)......................     2,939,230,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (3).....................         6,944,000
National Gallery of Art (1)...........................           750,000
Office of Personnel Management (1)....................                 0
Small Business Administration (2).....................        73,540,000
Smithsonian (14)......................................         3,276,000
Social Security Administration (1)....................        85,700,000
State Department (1)..................................                 0
United States Information Agency (8)..................       125,558,000
United States Institute for Peace (4).................         3,371,000
United States Department of Agriculture (33)..........    13,339,630,410
U.S. Agency for International Development (1).........        14,600,000
    Total number of programs (788).
                                                       -----------------
    Total funding.....................................    96,869,343,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on Thursday evening, March 4 and Friday, 
March 5, I was necessarily absent because of several long-standing 
commitments in Bismarck. It was important

[[Page S2500]]

that I be in North Dakota for a conference I cosponsored, Women's 
Health-Women's Lives, to join Secretary of Energy Richardson for 
meetings on a range of energy issues, and for a meeting with the 
Governor and other state leaders about the state's water resources.
  Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 32, to table the Jeffords 
amendment to S. 280, the Ed-Flex legislation, I would have voted 
``nay.'' On rollcall vote No. 33, to table the Gramm amendment to 
prohibit implementation of the ``Know Your Customer'' banking 
regulations, I would have voted ``nay'' had I been present.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, on Tuesday, March 9, 1999, I missed 
the second cloture vote on S. 280, the Education Flexibility Act.
  I fully intended to be in the chamber for the vote yesterday, and had 
I been there I would have voted against cloture. While I support the 
concept of flexibility for education, I also believe that Democrats 
deserve right to offer education amendments on key priorities such as 
reducing class-size, providing after-school care, addressing the 
concern of crumbling schools, and a few other major priorities.
  Senate Democrats have offered in good faith to accept time agreements 
and limited debates on our education priorities.
  It is disappointing that instead of voting on education priorities 
for American students, teachers, and parents, we are debating 
procedural motions and closure petitions. Instead of using the time 
wisely to discuss the major education issues facing our schools, we are 
facing gridlock on procedure. That is not what the American people sent 
us to the Senate to do. We are willing to have our debate and cast our 
votes to reduce class sizes, to fix crumbling schools and to provide 
after-school care for children that need it to learn and be safe while 
parents work. If our Democratic amendments prevail, we strengthen the 
Education Flexibility Act and help schools. If our amendments do not 
get a majority, then we had the opportunity to debate and we can move 
forward on the underlying bipartisan legislation.
  I wish I had been here on Tuesday to participate. Unfortunately, I 
got trapped in Charleston, West Virginia when the Ronald Reagan 
National Airport closed at 11 a.m. on March 9, 1999 due to the snow 
storm in Washington, DC. I had been in Charleston, West Virginia to 
vote in the mayoral election and to participate in the United Airlines 
announcement of two Mileage Plus Service Centers in my state which will 
create 600 new jobs. The new centers will be located in Charleston and 
Huntington. This is exciting news for my state, and I have been in 
touch with officials for months about this economic opportunity. At the 
time, I felt that I could personally vote in the local election, attend 
this exciting announcement and return in plenty of time for the 2:45 
vote on the Senate floor. Due to the snow storm, I missed the vote.

                          ____________________