Congressional Record, Volume 145 Issue 39 (Thursday, March 11, 1999)

[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 39 (Thursday, March 11, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2556-S2573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.

Amendment No. 60

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 60 offered by
Senator Jeffords for the majority leader. There is 5 minutes of debate
equally divided. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my understanding the yeas and nays have already

[[Page S2557]]

been ordered on all of these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. President, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment for your local
school districts. This is the most important amendment you will have
this afternoon. I emphasize that this is extremely important for your
local school districts.
The pending amendment would amend the class size reduction provisions
of the fiscal year 1999 Department of Education Appropriations Act. It
would allow any local educational agency the choice of using its share
of the $1.2 billion provided under those provisions either to hire
teachers or to carry out activities under part B of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
We reauthorized IDEA last year, and this is the perfect time to do
this. Local school officials would have the opportunity to determine
which of these two activities is a greater need for their schools, and
to spend the additional funds accordingly.
In addition, the amendment contains a finding that reemphasizes a
simple fact--full funding of IDEA would offer LEAs the flexibility in
their budgets to develop class size reduction, or other programs that
best meet the needs of their communities.
I believe this approach offers a good middle ground. It is a
compromise between those of us who are urging we live up to our
promises, with respect to IDEA funding, and those who believe we should
undertake a massive new effort to hire teachers for local schools.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it
ought to be unanimous.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last year we made a bipartisan agreement
to support the hiring of additional teachers. We had a $500 million
increase in IDEA and $1 billion increase in terms of the teachers,
including special needs teachers.
Communities need funds both for IDEA and smaller classes--and for
other top priorities too. We can reduce class size and give children
with disabilities a better education. There is no reason to choose one
or the other--both are priorities and both can be met.
Every local community in this country is trying to decide whether
they are going to hire additional teachers within the next few weeks.
If we say now we are going to accept the Lott amendment, you are
emasculating this particular provision, which the local communities
have been basing their judgment on, and saying, no, that isn't what you
are going to do, you are going to have to come up with a new kind of a
program.
If we make a commitment to a local community that permitted them to
hire general teachers or special needs teachers, I daresay one of the
principal reasons that the special needs community supported this
amendment last year was because we added that specific provision. We
are saying let us, let the local communities live out the bipartisan
commitment that we made to them 5 months ago. They can make that local
judgment depending upon the needs of the community.
How can you have greater flexibility than that--rather than overturn
the whole proposal that was out there and dump this on the school
committees that are all finalizing their budgets in the next few weeks?
I hope that the amendment would not be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute 9
seconds.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I reiterate what I said before. If you want
flexibility, vote yes. This amendment gives the local communities total
flexibility to meet the needs they have. If you want to limit them down
to one thing, hiring new teachers, vote no.
All of our schools want total flexibility, especially in order to
have money for special education. We have promised them 40 percent, but
have given them 11 percent. We are the cause of the terrible problems
local schools have in trying to do what they can to improve their
school systems.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. This is the language:

. . . to carry out effective approaches to reducing class
size with highly qualified teachers to improve educational
achievement of both regular and special needs children.

That is defined as ``providing professional development to teachers,
including special education teachers and teachers of special-needs
children. . . .'' We already have it. The local school communities are
committed to making their own judgment and decision. Why are we turning
that all over, Mr. President, now in the final hours of this? It makes
absolutely no sense whatsoever. The special needs community supported
that amendment last year.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Does the Senator yield his time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield back my time.

Quorum Call

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to determine the
absence of a quorum.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names.

[Quorum No. 5]

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). A quorum is present.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to table the Lott amendment. I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President----
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I made a motion to table, and I asked for
the yeas and nays. It is not debatable. I asked for the yeas and nays
on the motion to table. I made a motion to table, and I have asked for
the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been made to table.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Massachusetts to lay on the table the amendment of the
Senator from Mississippi. On this question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and 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 (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 61, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

YEAS--38

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

NAYS--61

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Conrad

[[Page S2558]]

Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kyl
Leahy
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 motion to lay on the table amendment No. 60 was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
60.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
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 result was announced, yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]

YEAS--60

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

NAYS--39

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

NOT VOTING--1

Murray

The amendment (No. 60) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 64

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the prior order, we are now on amendment
No. 64. There are 5 minutes equally divided.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Am I correct that the 5 minutes is for debate only?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, the 5 minutes is for debate
only. It is equally divided.
Who yields time? The 5 minutes is equally divided.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is the Murray amendment. Senator
Murray is not here today, due to a death in the family, otherwise, she
would be making the presentation at this particular time.
Basically, the Murray amendment builds on what was agreed to in the
budget last October by providing 6 years of funding. It gives certainty
to school boards all across the country that we are making a national
commitment to see smaller class size in schools all across the Nation.
In the President's budget, there is $11 billion that is effectively
allocated for this particular purpose. It follows the pattern that was
agreed to last year that states if a particular district has already
achieved 18 students, they can use the funds for professional
enhancement or for special needs children. That is why it has the
support of the special education community.
This amendment has the wholehearted support of all the school boards,
of all the parent-teacher organizations, of the school teachers and
local authorities across the Nation. It is a major national effort to
try to get smaller class sizes.
We are going to need 2 million teachers over the next 10 years. This
is only going to provide 100,000, but it will make sure that they are
well-qualified teachers. It will place support the early grades, which
ought to be our priority. I hope it will be accepted.
It also includes, Mr. President, the sense of the Senate that the
budget resolution shall include an annual increase for the IDEA part B
and funding so that the program can be fully funded within the next 5
years. So, we are committed to that as well. And it also says these
increases shall not come at the expense of the other education
programs.
If you support this amendment, you are also supporting a commitment
to fund the IDEA over the period of the next 5 years.
I withhold the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will not support the amendment offered
by my colleagues from Washington and Massachusetts.
First and foremost, the 100,000 teacher proposal is flawed. It puts
quantity over quality. There is little or no emphasis on improving
teacher quality in the proposal. Yet, the research shows with certainty
that the quality of the teacher leading the class is significantly more
important than the size of the class.
Furthermore, adopting a new, untested, multi-billion dollar program
without hearings or local input is no way to make good public policy.
We have begun the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, and we should examine this proposal during consideration
of that bill. I give my assurance to my friends on the other side of
the aisle that I intend to fully examine this question. But the proper
way to do it is under the orderly committee process. We are in the
middle of that right now. We have begun the process of reauthorizing
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and this issue should be
appropriately addressed during this process.
So I inform my colleagues that I will, at the time of the vote, move
to table the amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues
Senator Murray, Senator Kennedy and others in introducing this Class
Size Reduction amendment, which builds on last years successful effort
towards reducing class sizes in grades 1-3 to 18 or fewer students
nationwide. Last year, President Clinton proposed this historic
initiative and Congress approved a down payment on this request last
year, providing a $1.2 billion appropriation to help communities hire
approximately 30,000 teachers nationwide.
Under the initiative enacted into law last year, school districts
will begin to receive funding this July 1 in order to hire teachers to
begin reducing class size this fall. While last year's appropriation
provided an important start on this seven year initiative, the
amendment before us gives us a chance to support effective local
planning by giving school districts the confidence they need that
funding will be available under this initiative for future years.
The average U.S. class size is 24 students with some as high as 30
students per class. A consensus of research indicates that students
attending small classes in the early grades make more rapid educational
progress than students in larger classes and that those achievement
gains persist through at least the middle grades. More specifically,
class size reduction leads to enhanced teacher-student quality
relationships, higher student achievement, solid foundation for further
student learning, and the ability of students to read independently by
the end of the 3rd grade.
Mr. President, there are 3,750 schools in my state of Michigan. Some
of these schools have been fortunate enough to reduce some of their
classes in the early grades. Last month, I visited about a dozen of
them, witnessing first

[[Page S2559]]

hand the benefits of smaller classes. I also visited several of the
numerous schools in my state that are disadvantaged by large class
sizes. For example, at the Calvin Britain Elementary School in Benton
Harbor, where the student to teacher ratio is higher than the national
average, teachers worry that they are not able to identify their
students' learning needs. When I asked 2nd grade teacher Louise
Hufnagel what it would mean to reduce her class of 26 down to 17 or 18,
she said, ``It would make a world of difference. A lot of the children
have special needs and it would make it easier to give them the
individual attention they need.''
At East Leonard Elementary School in Grand Rapids, principal Tina
Barwacz said she is convinced that lower class size improves academic
performance. Teachers there are now giving more personalized attention
to their students because their classes are smaller. Third grade
teacher Dan Mayhew, with 17 students this year down from 23 last year,
says that now he can get to each student more often and make sure the
individual masters the standards and the core curriculum. Another third
grade teacher, Sharon Uminski, with 17 students this year, down from 28
last year, says she gets to know her class better, including learning
faster students strengths and weaknesses. She went on to say that it
also allows her to initiate remedial education in a subject when
necessary on an individual basis; and that she encounters less
discipline problems resulting in more class time for instruction. First
Grade teacher Teresa Guinnup who had 25 students last year and 17 this
year says now she can talk to each child and check his or her ability.
The students told me that they like smaller class sizes because it was
easier to concentrate, there was more room and some kids get to sit at
their own desk.
At Winchell Elementary School in Kalamazoo where some classes have
gone from 29 down to 17, teachers are seeing major improvements in
their pupil's reading skills. First grade teacher, Mary Trotter, who
had 28 students last year and has 19 this year said, ``I'm able to give
children much more individual help. It's a dream.'' First grade teacher
Kitty Wunderlin who had 29 students last year and 19 this year, said
``it is divine to have 19 students. I can give them one to one
attention. With 29 students I felt overwhelmed.'' And, first grade
teacher Kathie Gibson told me, ``I've seen great gains in my students
reading skills this year.''
In Lansing, at Harley Frank Elementary School, kindergarten teacher
Mrs. Zimmerman, who has been teaching for 34 years and who last year
planned to retire until she heard class sizes were going to be reduced,
said that she now has more control over her class, the kids are happier
and more adjusted and in short, they are able to learn more. With
smaller classes, teachers can assess each student's progress in a more
timely manner and students develop more interest in learning, all of
which create higher student achievement.
Many other direct experiences of teachers and students were shared
with me. For instance, at Merrill Community Elementary school in Flint,
which started a class downsizing program five years ago for grades K-4.
Before this program began, their student to teacher ratio was 30-1. One
teacher, Mrs. Stephanie Thibault told me that ``having 30 first and
second graders in a classroom was overwhelming and exhausting.''
Teachers would literally find themselves counselling some of their
students in the hallways because their buildings and classrooms were so
overcrowded. After the implementation of their new program, that ratio
changed to 17 students to 1 teacher, and listen to the difference
expressed by Mrs. Thibault. She exclaims ``As a teacher, my role has
expanded beyond instruction. Having a 17-1 ratio allows me to know my
students and their families better, allows me to personalize learning
tasks for each child and it gives me opportunities to provide one-on-
one help. Students benefit because they receive the attention and
caring they deserve.''
Because of a class size reduction program, Mrs. Thibault can now give
students the instruction they deserve. Isn't that exactly what we
should strive for? Our teachers should not be overwhelmed and exhausted
at the end of each day. Our students should not be competing with each
other to get the attention of their teachers. Each child deserves that
attention and caring that teachers like Mrs. Thibault can provide. But
some teachers are not capable of providing that teaching environment.
Too many of our classrooms are spilling out into the hallways and until
we change this by reducing class size, our young people will be at a
disadvantage.
When we reduce class size, we not only help our teachers and
students, but we meet needs of parents whose children are learning more
and performing better in school. When the program to reduce class size
first began in the Flint Community School District, test scores for
students were low. For the 1994-95 school year, only 8 percent of the
students at Merrill Elementary passed the ``Reading/Story'' portion of
the Michigan Education Assessment Program, the MEAP test. For that same
year, only 26 percent passed the ``Reading/Info'' section and just 10
percent passed the Math portion of the MEAP test. Since the
implementation of the program, the students at Merrill Elementary
school have seen their scores rise dramatically, and I'm not just
taking about a couple of percentage points. Last school year, after
just 4 years of smaller class sizes, 54 percent of those elementary
students passed the ``Reading/Story'' portion of the test, an increase
of 45 percent. In addition, 70 percent of Merrill elementary students
passed the ``Reading/Info'' portion, a 44 percent increase and 55
percent passed the ``Math'' section of the MEAP test, a 44 percent
increase. In just a few years, these students were receiving more
attention in a better academic environment and were simply, learning
more.
Let's take the important lessons from these elementary schools in
Michigan and apply them to this legislation. We must start reducing
class sizes now. If we fail to pass this amendment, reducing class
size, we fail the students of Michigan and the rest of the nation.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor
of the Murray/Kennedy Class Size Amendment. This amendment continues a
major six year effort to help local school districts hire 100,000
teachers nationally. It is one the most important pieces of legislation
the Senate will consider this year. This amendment will strengthen our
schools today and build a framework for the future.
Last year we made a down payment by including $1.2 billion in the
budget for class size. This year, we must continue the fight for our
schools and the fight for our kids. We must give our schools the
support they need to lower class size. We must get behind our kids by
passing this critical legislation.
Last year, we worked together in a bipartisan fashion to reduce class
size in the FY99 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Last year we got $1.2
billion in the Omnibus to reduce class size using highly qualified
teachers. Nationally, this allowed us to hire some 30,000 new teachers
this year. My state of Maryland alone received $17.5 million and will
get about 425 new teachers this summer.
Mr. President, I have visited these classrooms and I have talked to
these kids. These children have told me over and over again that they
want to learn. They have told me they need more individualized
attention. I have received letters from kids in school who are begging
for our help. They tell me their schools are overcrowded and the
teachers can't control the large classrooms. They tell me they are
scared to go to school and that they can't learn because the teachers
are too busy trying to manage the overcrowded classes.
Mr. President, this is a sad time for our students. A child should
never fear going to school. We need to work and work hard to ensure
that our efforts are not short circuited because of politics. I have
told many teachers and students about the important strides we made
last year to make sure they will have smaller and more effective
classrooms. These children are excited about having more opportunities
to learn. They are eager to learn to read and learn about science and
technology. They are excited about all the wonderful possibilities that
lie ahead for them with a proper education. But we need to do more. By
passing this amendment today, we in the Senate

[[Page S2560]]

have an opportunity to prove our commitment to education.
Efforts are already underway in my state of Maryland to reduce class
size. I have heard from at least five counties in my state that they
have class reduction programs already in place or in development. The
schools in Montgomery County, Maryland, for example, are reducing class
size for reading at the primary grade level. In the primary grades,
they have started a program where there are only 15 students per
teacher for a 90 minute reading block. They are also reducing class
size in math at the middle and high school levels and have added an
extra math teacher to each school to ensure success in algebra. I
applaud these efforts, but they need federal help to do more.
These programs started this school year and are being phased in over
the next three years focusing initially on low-performing schools. And
do you know what these programs will do? They will prepare Maryland
kids for the new millennium. They will prepare our children to go onto
college and gain the important skills they will need in the future.
These class reduction programs are the building blocks that will help
prepare our kids to be our future leaders.
The American people are counting on us to help fix an education
system which failed so many children. Our education system has been
ignored for far too long. If we don't pass this amendment today, we are
sending the wrong message to the American public. Because of our
efforts last year, our schools will be able to hire new teachers this
summer. If we don't pass this amendment, we are telling those school
that we are not committed to improving America's education system. We
need to continue this effort to provide 100,000 new teachers for
America. Let's get behind our kids and pass this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have any time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute. The
Senator from Massachusetts has no time.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time remaining.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield back the remainder of my time and I move to
table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the Murray amendment No. 64. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. 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
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 41 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 motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 64) was agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 66

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, we will now debate
Lott amendment No. 66 with 5 minutes equally divided.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is very similar to the amendment we
previously voted on, referred to as the Lott-Jeffords amendment. The
pending amendment would amend the class size reduction provisions of
the fiscal year 1999 Department of Education Appropriations Act to
expand the choices available to local school officials. They would have
the opportunity to determine whether hiring teachers or educating
children with disabilities is a greater need for their schools, and to
spend the additional funds accordingly.
I am sure that many areas would choose to hire teachers, although I
strongly suspect that most communities in my home State would choose to
use their funds for IDEA. A number of small States are already at the
level of teachers they need, but we are grossly underfunded in taking
care of our special needs children. I have heard many times during my
trips home, that the current level of funding for IDEA falls far short
of the 40 percent we promised in 1975. Full funding of IDEA would offer
local school officials the flexibility in their budgets to develop
dropout prevention or other programs that best meet the needs of their
communities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is very difficult to hear. The Senate is
not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment and do
so with a sense of some regret. I offered an amendment a year ago with,
in fact, Senator Coverdell, our colleague from Georgia, on the $7 tax
break proposal as an alternative where real money--$1.6 billion--would
go toward IDEA.
I think all of us appreciate the fact that many of us over the years
wanted to raise our level of support for that program. But in this
particular issue, to kind of ask in a sense that we now take needed
dollars to try to bring down class size and throw this item in--by the
way, I lost on that amendment where we would have had $1.6 billion for
IDEA. I got voted down on that proposal. Here we have a real issue of
class size.
One of the major problems in IDEA is the learning disabilities. Two-
thirds of IDEA kids are learning disabled; primarily speech, and
language is the second disorder. That problem is not discovered until
the third or fourth grade in most schools. You don't discover that with
a younger child.
The irony here, in a sense, is that we are trying to reduce class
size, which is what the underlying amendment would do, so that you try
to avoid the problems from being created in the first place. Here we
are sort of competing against each other. We have a legitimate issue
that we are trying to get dollars into, and that is to reduce class
size. To the extent that we do that, we are going to reduce the IDEA
problem. That is what we ought to be trying to do, instead of creating
this false choice out here, in a sense. If you can choose between these
dollars, clearly, in many communities, because it is a tax issue, they
are going to go with IDEA. The underlying problem with IDEA gets
addressed if we reduce the class size.
I urge my colleagues in this particular case--after we increased by
$500 million last year IDEA funding--that we reject the amendment. Do
what we can in this partnership and bring down class size, which is
what most Americans would like us to do across the board, and still
work on the IDEA issue and reducing the obligations there.
For those reasons, I urge the rejection of this amendment.

[[Page S2561]]

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I point out that all we are doing is
giving flexibility to States like Wyoming, North Dakota, Vermont, and
other States that are already at the reduced class size. Why not let
them spend it for IDEA, which is grossly underfunded? That is where the
money is really needed. That is where the kids will be helped.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Mississippi. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
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
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 38, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

YEAS--61

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
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--38

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

NOT VOTING--1

Murray

The amendment (No. 66) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 63

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are now on amendment No. 63. There are 5
minutes equally divided for debate. But before we begin that, we will
need to get the attention of the Senate. Will Members in the well take
their conversations to the Cloakroom?
Who seeks recognition?
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to commit the
Federal Government to help local school districts deal with a very
serious problem, the problem of students dropping out of school before
they graduate. There is no Federal program that is intended to resolve
this problem. I hear a lot of talk about how there are other Federal
programs. There is no Federal program that is funded that is intended
to solve this problem. This amendment would help us do this.
Clearly, this is a major issue in all of our States.
This is particularly an important issue in our States where we have
large numbers of Hispanic students. The dropout rate is 30 to 50
percent among that community.
I yield the rest of the time to the Senator from Nevada who is a
cosponsor on this amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have over 1 million people, men and
women, in prison in this country. Let's round it off and say we have 1
million people in prison, and 820,000 of those people in prison, men
and women, have not graduated from high school. If there were no better
reason to do something about the dropout problem, that would be it. We
have to keep young men and women in school. Three thousand children
drop out of school every day, 500,000 a year. This amendment would do
nothing to take away from local school districts absolute control as to
how they handle dropouts, but it would give them additional resources
and assets they now do not have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am reluctant to oppose this amendment
because I have such great empathy and sympathy for the problem, and,
because I respect the Senator from New Mexico a great deal. We have
worked together on so many programs and problems over the years, and we
will continue to do so. And I respect his judgment. However, to address
this issue at this time is not appropriate. This is a program already
in existence, though obviously, not working well. The program is within
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am dedicated to working
closely with the Senator from New Mexico to find out how and what we
should do to amend existing programs in order to have better dropout
programs. So I hope he would understand that, and that by opposing this
amendment, which I will move to table eventually, I am not doing
anything other than saying wait--wait until we go through the
reauthorization of the ESEA this year. We are going to hold hearings
and make sure we do the best thing possible to solve the dropout
problem.
Right now, I cannot accept this amendment. I retain the remainder of
my time.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, is there additional time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute. The
Senator from New Mexico has no more time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. That is all the time that is available?
Mr. President, for the reasons that I have stated, I move to table
the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. 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 result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 43 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

NOT VOTING--1

Murray

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 63) was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me explain what we intend to do on
this side of the aisle. I intend to arrange for a voice vote on the
next two amendments. They are Lott amendments. They are very similar to
the ones that we had before. I do not believe it is worthy of time to
get votes on those, because that dye is well cast by the previous vote.

Amendment No. 67

Mr. JEFFORDS. The amendment we have now is Lott No. 67. Fulfilling a

[[Page S2562]]

promise is not as exciting as raising new expectations with new
programs. We don't get much press coverage, presumably, for doing the
right thing, but if we fulfill our obligation to fund IDEA, State and
local agencies will be able to target their own resources toward their
own, very real needs. These may be needs for afterschool activities, or
for dropouts, or for any number of the pressing needs facing our
Nation. All of this is going to be discussed in the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
With that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Are there further remarks on
amendment No. 67?
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Just a point of information, is this the Boxer amendment
that the Senator has just spoken against?
Mr. JEFFORDS. This is the Lott amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Fine, I will withhold.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask to vitiate the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 67.
The amendment (No. 67) was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 65

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. In 2\1/2\ minutes I hope to
convince my colleagues to support this afterschool amendment.
The Senator from Vermont said it is not so exciting to fund new
programs. This is not a new program. This is a tried and true program.
This is a program that works. This is a program that we all agreed we
would spend $200 million on last year. The response in the community
has been overwhelmingly positive and we need to fund it at a greater
level.
What we do in this amendment is authorize the same amount of funding
that the President has put in his budget; $600 million would
accommodate over 1 million children. Look at these children, look at
their faces, look at how they are involved with a mentor after school.
After school programs keep children like them from getting into trouble
by involving them in positive activities. We can see here, if we look
at this chart, that the time when juvenile offenders commit violent
crimes is during the after school hours. You do not need a degree in
criminology or sociology or psychology to understand that youth
offenders are more likely to commit crime or become involved in
criminal activity when they are home alone or unsupervised. We see
criminal activity among youth peaking here at 3 p.m., when schools let
out. Gradually, as the hours move into the early evening and parents
come home, the peak drops. Additionally, law enforcement supports
afterschool programs. We call this particular amendment an anticrime
amendment. It has been endorsed by police athletic leagues from across
the Nation. Members have been calling in favor of this amendment. Here
is the list of the many law enforcement groups, just a handful of them,
to show you how popular this program is.
Who supports afterschool programs in America? In a recent poll,
August of 1998, 92 percent of Americans support afterschool programs.
After school programs are anticrime, pro-education, pro-community, and
make common sense. Again, I hope Senators will vote in favor of
afterschool programs. This is not a new program. I thank my colleagues
for their attention.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this legislation
to provide quality after school programs for our nation's youth. There
are 23.5 million school-age children who have working parents, and of
these children, 5 to 7 million are considered ``latchkey'' kids, or
children who are alone at some point in the day.
Mr. President, law enforcement statistics show that from the hours of
3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., students between the ages 12 to 17, are more
likely to commit violent acts or be the victims of violent activity. We
know that they are more likely to engage in these activities if young
people are without adult supervision. According to a report published
by the U.S. Departments of Education and U.S. Department of Justice in
June of 1998, entitled Safe and Smart: Making After School Hours Work
for Kids, ``first and foremost, after school programs keep children of
all ages safe and out of trouble.''
There is no question that after-school programs keep most kids out of
trouble, unfortunately, there are not enough of them to keep all kids
on the right track. According to findings of Mr. Herbert Moyer of the
Michigan State Board of Education, which were published in the March
10, 1999 Oakland Press:

More than 80 percent of parents want their children to
attend an after-school program, but only 30 percent of
elementary and middle schools offer such programs. After-
school hours are when juvenile crime rates triple and youth
without positive alternatives may do drugs, smoke, drink or
engage in sexual activity . . . eighth-graders who are left
unsupervised for 11 hours or more a week are twice as likely
to abuse drugs or alcohol as those under adult supervision.

Mr. President, this amendment would make a substantial effort to
resolve that problem. By increasing the appropriations for the 21st
Century Learning Centers program to $600 million, a three fold increase
over last year's funding, public schools will be able to develop after
school centers for children that provide educational, recreational,
cultural, health and social services. Specifically, activities and
services may include: Literacy programs, telecommunications and
technology education programs, mentoring, academic assistance, job
skills assistance, expanded library services, nutrition and health
programs, summer and weekend school programs, services to individuals
with disabilities, drug, alcohol, and gang prevention.
Last year, 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants were
awarded to four school districts in my State. Schools in Armada, Benton
Harbor, Grant Rapids and the Highland Park School have received these
grants. I would like to share with you some of the possibilities that
these grants can provide to local school districts around my state and
nationwide.
In the Armada Area Schools, the district planned a virtual network of
middle school computer centers (called ``clubhouse''). The centers are
meant to increase student engagement in learning through computer use;
foster collaboration among students, schools and communities; and
develop a model of statewide collaboration through the sharing of
resources.
The Benton Harbor Area Schools planned to partner up with local
community groups and Western Michigan University to provide Community
Learning Centers, which are established to assist middle school
students in developing literacy and technology skills and they plan,
produce, and present constructive projects that deal with community-
wide issues such as poverty, violence, drug use, and teen pregnancy.
The Grand Rapids Public Schools planned to create four local Learning
Centers in its middle schools. The program is designed to operate on
afternoons, one evening per week, and several hours on Saturdays and
provide enrichment activities, recreational activities, parent and
child activities and community support activities.
The Highland Park School District, which collaborated with
government, nonprofit groups, and local universities, planned to create
two Learning Centers in their area. At these centers, students and
community members can participate in academic programs, sports and
recreational activities, literacy and family recreational activities.
I would like to applaud the innovative ways in which Michigan
educators have provided students with after school programs. These
school districts were selected for the 21st Century Learning Centers
grants because of their innovative projects in addressing their after-
school needs. And, let me say, Mr. President, that Michigan students
and parents are lucky to have people like Kathleen Strauss, Vice
President of the Michigan Board of

[[Page S2563]]

Education, who has championed the cause of after-school programs for
our youth for many years. We are also lucky to have such dedicated
educators, especially in Armada, Benton Harbor, Grand Rapids and
Highland Park, who have helped students gain access to computers and
new technologies, and to encourage student involvement in the
community.
I am pleased that Michigan schools are benefiting from these grants,
and am hopeful that the model set by these school districts will
encourage the establishment of similar initiatives in communities
throughout my state and the nation. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I rise today as an original cosponsor of Senator
Boxer's After School Education and Anti Crime Amendment. I am very
pleased to support this important legislation with Senator Boxer. One
of my highest priorities as Senator is to promote structured,
community-based after school activities to help kids stay safe. I will
support this amendment for three reasons. First, there is a desperate
need in this country for constructive after school programs for our
youth. Second, it authorizes increased funding for after school
programs. Third, this amendment specifically includes Police Athletic
Leagues as part of the after school effort.
Mr. President, America's youth needs our help. Kids need constructive
after school activities to keep their young minds healthy and active.
In many families today, both parents have to work. And that's if they
are lucky enough to have two parents. Many kids are raised by single
moms who hold down one or more often, even two jobs just to make ends
meet. I talk to single moms in my state of Maryland who can barely get
by. Many of them hold down steady jobs while trying to go to school.
They are trying to improve themselves so they can get better jobs and
take care of their families. These parents can't always be there after
school to supervise their children. They cannot leave their jobs at
3:30 when school lets out. They cannot quit their jobs because even if
there are two parents working, they still need every dime.
So what do we tell these people to do with their kids after school?
What if they aren't lucky enough to have grandparents or aunts and
uncles to take care of the kids after school? Most of these parents
can't afford the high costs of day care. Do we just blame the parents
when their kids get in trouble? No. This is a responsibility for us
all. This situation presents a problem for us all. Gangs, drugs, and
violent crimes has become an epidemic among our children. These kids
are the future of our country. One day, they will be our leaders. Here
in Congress we have the ability and the duty to save our youth. And
this amendment helps communities build after school programs for our
youth.
I also support this amendment because it authorizes $600 million for
after school programs. This money will allow 1.1 million kids each year
to go to an after school program. In the budget last year, we put $200
million in after school programs. Last year, we made the downpayment.
This year, the President has tripled that amount to $600 million. And
what will this funding mean? It means that after school programs could
get more space. They could hire more staff and add programs and
services. It means that these program can serve more young people.
Mr. President, I will also support this amendment because it
specifically includes Police Athletic Leagues as part of the after
school effort. I have made it a priority to do all I can to help the
PAL programs in Maryland. We have 27 PAL centers in Baltimore,
Maryland. The first PAL center in Maryland was in 1995, in northeastern
Baltimore, located in a transformed convenience store. Our PAL centers
were not started with the help of the federal government. The success
of this program is due to the hard work of the Baltimore Police
Department and the support and involvement of members of the community.
But now it's time for the federal government to help fund the PAL
centers and the excellent work that they do.
The PAL centers provide adult role models for our kids. They promote
character & responsibility. The people there help kids with their
homework. They teach them about art, cultural activities and sports.
This is all part of our effort to get behind our kids and combat
juvenile crime. PAL centers help to make our streets safe and give kids
the tools for success. These programs recognize that we need to give
kids alternatives to the streets.
Mr. President, after school programs must be a priority. We don't
have the luxury of funding after school programs just because we want
to do something extra for our kids. After school is not an extra
anymore. After school programs are now a necessary fact of life. We
need to give kids a fighting chance. I will be fighting to enact this
bill into law and I encourage all of my colleagues here to get behind
our kids and vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will likely oppose this amendment
because, again, this will be reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. Actually, this program is already part of the law in a
way. It is the 21st Century Schools program I got in in 1994. The
administration has, by regulation, kind of changed it into an
afterschool program. I do not mind that, but I think the 21st Century
Schools was much broader and a better program. We can argue this out,
and we will have hearings on it and evidence presented during the next
few weeks and months. At this point, I would have to oppose the Boxer
amendment, and eventually, after time runs out, I will move to table
it.
I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 58 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I will take that time, if I
might. I knew I could speak fast, but I did not realize I had left all
that time.
Again, I say to my friend, this is a moment, an opportunity for us.
We have an education bill before the U.S. Senate. Why would we wait to
put more teachers in the classroom? Why would we wait on afterschool
programs when, in fact, it is so necessary? Throughout America, people
are asking us to act. If you go to the community and say, well, we are
waiting for a different vehicle to come before the Senate before we
address after school programs, they will look at you and say, wait a
minute, we need these funds now. Our kids are getting into trouble
after school. We have an opportunity, with a good bill that Senator
Wyden has brought to us and Senator Frist, to make it even better. I
urge my colleagues, please vote in favor of this amendment for
afterschool programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, again, I just reiterate, this is not the
time to be arguing about this. The time is with reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Therefore, I would strongly
urge Members of both sides to vote against this amendment.
Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I yield back the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator ask for the yeas and nays?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment
of the Senator from California. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
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 result was announced--yeas 55, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 44 Leg.]

YEAS--55

[[Page S2564]]

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

NOT VOTING--1

Murray

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 65) was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 68

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am going to now ask for a voice vote
on Lott amendment numbered 68. This is basically the same amendment we
have been voting on. I think I talked to the other side of the aisle
and they have no reason not to have a voice vote.
At this point, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays
on Lott amendment No. 68.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me explain this amendment. Like the
previous Lott amendment, this would amend the class size reduction
provisions of the fiscal year 1999 Department of Education
Appropriations Act to expand the choices available to local school
officials. They would have the opportunity to determine whether hiring
teachers or educating children with disabilities is a greater need in
the schools and spend the additional funds accordingly.
I am sure that many areas will choose to hire teachers, although I
strongly suspect that most communities in my home State would choose to
use their funds for IDEA, special education. If a locality has a
plentiful supply of unemployed qualified teachers and lacks only the
funds to hire them, that locale will use the $1.2 billion to hire
teachers. If that is not the case, those funds will be put to better
use by supporting existing efforts to educate special education
students.
I urge my colleagues support this amendment. I retain the remainder
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to make it crystal clear that I am
not in favor of amending IDEA in any significant way, now or in the
near future. In the last Congress, members of both the House and the
Senate worked hard to bring all sides together to reauthorize IDEA.
Now, Congress owes children and families across the country the most
effective possible implementation of this legislation.
The amendments enacted in 1997 were the product of comprehensive,
bipartisan negotiations involving Congress and the Administration, with
extensive public input. The final product involved compromises on many
sensitive and complex issues, and it has been widely recognized as a
significant improvement of this landmark legislation, to protect the
rights of 6 million children to a free, appropriate public education.
The Department of Education moved quickly to propose regulations, and
the final regulations are expected this Friday.
In many communities, schools are only just beginning to use the tools
that are available to them under current law in cases where
disciplinary action is warranted for a disabled student. Schools have
broad power to develop and implement behavioral intervention plans for
children with disabilities, and to use early intervention in ways that
can avoid the need for disciplinary actions at all.
The 1997 changes in the law and the implementation of the regulations
under it must be given a chance to work. At this point, it is clearly
premature to make substantive changes in the statute. The goal of this
Congress should be to give all children the educational opportunity to
pursue their goals and dreams. We should not prematurely undermine the
implementation of this landmark legislation.
Mr. President, for the reasons outlined earlier, we were prepared to
move towards a voice vote.
There is one change in terms of the IDEA regulations. There will be
some IDEA regulations with regard to discipline that have been included
in this amendment that are generally not objectionable. However, since
it does effectively undermine the previous agreement, I hope it would
not be accepted.
Mr. President, I have three letters--one from the National Parent
Network on Disabilities, the Disability Rights Education and Defense
Fund, and the National Organization on Mental Retardation--from
organizations that are opposed to this amendment, and I ask unanimous
consent they be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Parent Network

on Disabilities,

Washington, DC, March 11, 1999.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the board and members of
the National Parent Network on Disabilities (NPND) we are
opposed to any amendments to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) now or in the near future.
In the last Congress, members of both the House and Senate
worked hard to bring all sides together to pass the
rauthorization of IDEA. The vote in both Houses was near
unanimous in favor of reauthorization.
Tomorrow the regulations to implement this law will be
promulgated. With these regulations there is an opportunity
to move forward with full implementation of the law. Congress
owes the children and families across the country the most
effective possible implementation of this legislation.
The amendments which were enacted on June 4, 1997 were the
product of comprehensive, bipartisan negotiations involving
both chambers of Congress and the Administration, with
extensive public input. The final product, which involved
compromises on many sensitive and complex issues, has been
widely recognized as a significant improvement of this
landmark legislation, which protects the rights of 6 million
children to a free, appropriate public education.
In many communities, schools are only just beginning to use
the tools that are available to them under current law in
cases where disciplinary action is warranted for a disabled
student. Schools have broad power to develop and implement
behavioral interventions plans for children with
disabilities, and to use early intervention in ways that can
avoid the need for disciplinary actions at all.
The NPND represents 147 organizations nationwide that serve
parents and families of students with disabilities. NPND
provides a voice and a presence at the national level to
influence public policy on behalf of its constituents. NPND
is opposed to any amendments to IDEA.
Sincerely,
Patricia M. Smith,
Executive Director.
____

Disability Rights Education

and Defense Fund, Inc.,

March 11, 1999.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy, the Disability Rights and Education
Fund (DREDF), is an organization which specializes in
disability, civil rights and education law. We are strongly
opposed to any amendments to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
In the last Congress, the House and Senate worked hard in a
bipartisan manner to bring all sides together to pass the
reauthorization of IDEA. The amendments which were enacted on
June 4, 1997 were the product of intense negotiations
involving both chambers of Congress and the Administration,
with extensive public input. Parents, family members,
educators, administrators and legal scholars came together
week after week prior to passage to provide input to assist
in crafting this landmark legislation which protects the
rights of 6 million children to a free, appropriate public
education.
The final regulations for IDEA are going to be promulgated
tomorrow. With these regulations, we expect full
implementation and enforcement of the law. We believe that it
is imperative that Congress allow this law to be implemented
on behalf of these students nationwide.
One of the major points of contention in the
reauthorization was the subject of discipline. Section 615 of
IDEA reflected very carefully crafted language dealing with
discipline. In many communities, schools are only beginning
to use the tools that are available to them under Section 615
in cases where disciplinary action is warranted for a
disabled student. Schools have broad power

[[Page S2565]]

to develop and implement behavioral intervention plans for
children with disabilities.
Please, as you have done so many times before, continue to
fight to protect the rights of children with disabilities and
their families.
Sincerely,
Patrisha Wright,
Director of Governmental Affairs.
____

The Arc of the United States,

Governmental Affairs Office,

Washington, DC, March 11, 1999.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Ranking Minority Leader, Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy, it has come to the attention of The
Arc that the Senate intends to vote on the Ed-Flex
legislation, S. 280, today. Much to our chagrin, a last
second amendment which would amend the discipline provisions
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has been
added to S. 280. While we know that IDEA funding has been
heavily debated during consideration of this bill, there has
been no debate on the IDEA discipline provisions. Amending
IDEA at this time and under this circumstance is absolutely
unacceptable to the disability community and The Arc. The
last Congress, after more than 2 years of intense
negotiation, made major changes to the IDEA discipline
provisions. These provisions have not had a chance to be
fully understood and implemented since we still do not have
the final regulations to implement these complicated
provisions. Further amending IDEA this way is fraught with
danger and will lead to considerable more confusion in the
education and special education communities. It is simply not
the time and the Ed-Flex bill is not the place to amend IDEA.
Thus, we reluctantly recommend you oppose final passage of
the Ed-Flex bill.
We thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Lorraine Sheehan,
Chairman.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from
Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, so that he can explain a provision that he
drafted for Amendment No. 68, an amendment that he and I have offered
to the Ed-Flex bill.
Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Majority Leader for this opportunity to
give an explanation of the provision.
Mr. LOTT. It is my understanding that the Senator from Missouri's
provision makes an important clarification to a discipline provision
within the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes, that is correct. I am proposing this provision in
response to specific concerns I have heard from Missourians.
Mr. President, a message that I am hearing from parents and teachers
and students is the issue of school discipline. For the past few months
my staff and I have been looking into this issue to see if there are
changes that can and should be made to the Individuals with
Disabilities Act Reauthorization legislation, in order to give local
schools the flexibility they need to apply disciplinary measures in a
fair, uniform, and logical manner. I will have more to say on this
issue when the Senate takes up the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act.
But one issue has come to my attention that I believe Congress should
address right now, and it involves the issue of a school's ability to
discipline IDEA students who carry or possess weapons to or at schools.
Mr. President, I have proposed a provision within Amendment No. 68
which makes an important addition to a provision in the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. The revision I propose will ensure
that the IDEA legislation accurately reflects the intent of Congress
that schools should have the ability to place a child with a disability
in an alternative setting for discipline situations involving weapons.
Specifically, this provision revises the law to explicitly allow a
school to place a child with a disability in an appropriate interim
alternative educational setting for up to 45 days if the child carries
a weapon to or possesses a weapon at school, on school premises, or to
or at a school function. Currently, the law says that a school could
take such action only if the child carries a weapon to school or to a
school function.
The problem with the current statutory language is that it creates an
unintended loophole which could prevent a school from placing a child
in an alternative placement if the child at question is in possession
of a weapon.
Some school boards in my state have expressed concerns about the
language in the IDEA reauthorization allowing a 45 day change in
placement of a child who ``carries'' a weapon to school. Schools want
to know whether that language means they can change the placement of a
child whom they found to be in ``possession'' of a weapon, as well as a
child found to be simply ``carrying'' the weapon to school. They are
afraid that the language of the statute sets up a distinction that is
going to create a big loophole which kids can jump through to avoid the
45 day change in placement.
Right now, there is a situation in a school district in my state
involving two students, both with individualized education programs
(IEPs). I have been asked not to name the specific school district at
issue because proceedings are still pending on this matter. But here
are the facts: Student A carried a weapon into the school and gave it
to Student B, who then put the weapon into his (Student B's) locker.
The school knew that it could put Student A into an alternative
placement, since Student A literally ``carried `` the weapon into
school. But could the school also change Student B's placement, since
technically he didn't ``carry'' the weapon into school, but instead was
simply ``possessing'' it?
The school went ahead and also placed Student B in an alternative
placement as well. However, the school is now worried that at the
pending proceeding, Student B will raise the issue of ``carrying'' as
opposed to ``possessing'' the weapon. The school says that it doesn't
know how it will be able to get around an argument from the child or
his parent that the child did not literally carry the weapon to school.
Surely Congress did not intend to set up such a situation in the 1997
IDEA reauthorization. Surely we intended that schools have the ability
to place a child in an alternative setting for up to 45 days if the
child possessed a weapon on school premises, as well as carried a
weapon to the school. And this is why we should pass this amendment: to
ensure that schools have the ability to take the appropriate measures
against students when weapons are involved.
I would like to point out that even the Department of Education has
acknowledged that the current statutory language ``carries a weapon to
school or to a school function'' is ambiguous, and that it was the
clear intent of Congress to cover instances in which the child is found
to be in possession of a weapon at school.
Now this amendment, if passed, would not apply to the school district
in Missouri that is facing this dilemma, since that is a pending case.
But we would be addressing this problem for any future situations,
providing the clarity that schools, parents, and children need.
Mr. President, schools, teachers, principals, and administrators want
and need to be able to treat all students on a uniform basis when
weapons are involved. We need to be sure that our laws allow a school
to remove any student from the regular classroom if that student is
found with a weapon at school. We need to close up any loopholes in the
law that would prevent a school from taking this immediate action to
maintain a safe learning environment for our students.
Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will join with me in making
this vital addition to the IDEA law, so that schools will be able to
exercise the authority we intended to give them to maintain a safe
school environment for all our children.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is an amendment which I think
everyone would agree is an appropriate amendment regarding the rules
with respect to discipline and carrying a weapon into a school. A
decision was made, that the law only applied to those individuals who
carried a weapon to the school. But, if the weapon was in the
possession of someone within the school, the law did not apply. This
would make sure that possession, as well as carrying it in, is a
violation. That is why I will obviously support the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S2566]]

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray)
is absent because of a death in the family.
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 21, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 45 Leg.]

YEAS--78

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerrey
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--21

Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Cleland
Daschle
Dodd
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moynihan
Reed
Sarbanes
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Murray

The amendment (No. 68) was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 61

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SMITH of Oregon). There are now 5 minutes
evenly divided on amendment No. 61.
Who yields time?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to share my 2\1/2\
minutes with Senator Dorgan. The amendment before the body right now is
a combined amendment. My amendment is on social promotion and provides
funding for--
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may we have order the Chamber.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the amendment before the body is a combination
amendment with Senator Dorgan. It is remedial education and a report
card amendment. He will speak on the report card provisions. My
amendment is on social promotion and remedial education. I hope this is
one area this body can agree on; that is, the practice, formal or
informal, of promoting youngsters from grade to grade when they
sometimes don't even attend school and often fail classes. That is not
the way to educate young people in the United States of America.
Increasingly, States are doing away with the practice of social
promotion and providing standards and enabling school districts to
implement those standards in the basic core curriculum--reading,
writing, math, and social sciences.
This amendment tries to provide Federal incentives and Federal help
for the remedial education that is necessary to make the abolition of
the policy of social promotion a realistic possibility.
So it would authorize $500 million to school districts for remedial
education for afterschool, summer school, intensive intervention for
students who are failing or at risk of failing. As a condition of
receiving the funds, the school districts would have to adopt a policy
that prohibits social promotion. District would have to require
students to meet academic standards. And they would test students for
achievement.
Now, I think the problem is clear. This course of least resistance,
of simply promoting youngsters, has really led to declining test
scores, failure, frustration, and certainly the inability of many to
even fill out an employment application to be able to get a job after
graduation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
So I feel very strongly that the linchpin of reform of the public
education system is the elimination of social promotion. But if you
eliminate it and you do not provide any help for failing students, it
will not work. So this is a small authorization, $500 million to help
those students and not just leave them languishing. I very much hope
that both sides of the aisle will vote for it.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am sorry.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent for 1 minute.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to my good friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Chair.
The second half of this amendment would allow for the opportunity to
have a standardized report card on schools--not students, schools. What
does it mean if your child gets the best grades in the worst school in
the school district? We know about our children. Our children bring
home report cards every 6 weeks or 9 weeks. We don't know about our
schools.
Do you get a report card on your school? You sure don't. Oh, there
are some 30 States that call for a certain kind of report card. Most
parents have never seen one. This would suggest that parents ought to
be able to understand what they have received from that school with the
investment they have made. How does that school compare to other
schools? How does your State compare to other States?
That is what this report card proposal would do. It would say, let's
do for schools what we do for students, and let's allow parents the
opportunity to understand how well their school does in educating
children.
I have been joined by Senator Bingaman in offering this amendment. We
have added it to the Feinstein amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise in opposition and
also will move to table after I finish. But I oppose it only because it
should be in the reauthorization act which we are doing for elementary
and secondary education. I promise my colleagues that I will work with
them to improve programs that make sure that we do a better job in
ending the problems we have with so-called social promotion.
How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty seconds.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will yield it back.
I move to table the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 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 result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

YEAS--59

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

[[Page S2567]]

NAYS--40

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

NOT VOTING--1

Murray

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 61) was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the motion was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 62

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 5 minutes evenly divided on the
Wellstone amendment. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, following is a list of requirements
this amendment will make unwaivable under Ed-Flex: providing
opportunities for all children to meet challenging achievement levels;
using learning approaches that meet the needs of historical underserved
populations, including girls and women; provide instruction by highly
qualified professional staff; provide professional development for
teachers and aides to enable all children in the school to meet the
State's student performance standards.
I am for flexibility, but we ought to also have, in addition,
accountability. These are the core requirements of the title I program
as a part of ESEA passed in 1965. There is a reason for these core
requirements. We want to make sure that there will be no loophole so
that we give protection to poor children in this country. Right now,
this ed flexibility bill, unless this amendment is agreed to, creates a
loophole whereby a State could allow a school district to be exempt
from these basic core requirements, which is our effort as a national
community to make sure that poor children have educational
opportunities.
The Ed-Flex bill, if this amendment is not agreed to, could take away
opportunities for poor children. I ask for your support in relation to
title I, in relation to the vocational education program. This is the
right thing to do. If this amendment is not agreed to, this piece of
legislation will not be a step forward for low-income children in
America. It will be a great leap backward.
Please support this amendment, colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am sorry that I must disagree with the
words of my colleague and member of my committee.
Ed-Flex, as it currently operates, demands accountability of
participating States. It is important to keep in mind that
accountability has been a part of Ed-Flex since its inception, and the
manager's package builds upon those strong accountability provisions.
The manager's package, adopted last week, adds the following
accountability features: State Ed-Flex applications must be coordinated
with the title I plan or with the State's comprehensive reform plan;
emphasis on school and student performance; requires additional
reporting by the Secretary regarding rationale for approving waiver
authority.
It is very important to keep in mind that the Department of
Education, the Secretary, is the entity that determines whether or not
a State qualifies as an Ed-Flex State. That is retained.
The September 1998 GAO report stated:

The recent flexibility initiatives increase the amount of
information districts need, rather than simplifying or
streamlining information on Federal requirements. Federal
flexibility efforts neither reduce districts' financial
obligations nor provide additional dollars.

For those reasons, I ask my colleagues to oppose the Wellstone
amendment.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Minnesota yield back the
balance of his time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I do.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to table the Wellstone amendment,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No. 62.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
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 result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 47 Leg.]

YEAS--57

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
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
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--42

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

NOT VOTING--1

Murray

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 62) was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we are through with the list of
amendments and we will be ready to go to final passage.

Order Of Procedure

Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, the Senate after this
vote will be finished for the day. We will not have any recorded votes
on Friday, and because we have been able to work out an agreement on
how to proceed on the national missile defense issue, we will not have
any recorded votes on Monday either. We will be on the bill. We worked
it out where we would not have to have a cloture vote on the motion to
proceed. I think this is a positive. I want to commend the Democratic
leader for working with us on that.
Also, before we vote, I want to say how pleased I am that we have
completed this Education Flexibility Act. The managers of the bill have
done a good job. We have been through all these votes today and we are
going to complete this legislation, and the story will be that the
Senate passed a bipartisan education bill that is going to help the
children at the local level.
I commend all who have been involved with it, and I am pleased that,
as a result of that, we will not have to have recorded votes on Friday
or Monday.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the Jeffords
substitute to the Ed-Flex bill today because it is a small step forward
in improving the federal, state, and local partnerships in education.
It helps to guarantee that accountability goes hand in hand with
flexibility, and that increased flexibility will in fact lead to
improved student achievement.
But I'm concerned that we are not fulfilling the 7-year commitment we
made only a few months ago to help communities reduce class size. It
makes no sense to take a small step forward by passing Ed-Flex, and a
giant step backward by breaking the class size commitment.
The National Parents and Teachers Association, the American
Federation of Teachers, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and
the National Education Association strongly oppose the Lott Amendment,
because it undermines the commitment to class size reduction that was
approved with broad bipartisan support only a few months ago, and
because it pits class size reduction against helping disabled children.

[[Page S2568]]

Congress made a specific promise last fall to help schools hire
100,000 new teachers over the next seven years to reduce class size. We
should keep that promise, not undermine it, and not put it in
competition with IDEA.
School districts can't choose to do what is right for some children
and not for others. They must--and do--serve all children. They need a
federal helping hand to make sure all children get a good education. We
should not force communities to choose between smaller classes and
students with special needs. Pitting one child against another is
wrong. We should meet our commitment to improving education for all
children.
Nothing is more important on the calendar of schools right now than
their budgets. Over the next few weeks, schools across the country will
be making major decisions on their budgets for the next school year.
And in many of these communities, the budgets are due by early April.
In Memphis, school budgets are due on March 22. In Fayette County,
Kentucky, school budgets are due on March 31. In Boston, Savannah, Las
Vegas, and Houston, school budgets are due in the first week of April.
In San Francisco, they are due by April 1. In Council Bluffs, Iowa,
school budgets are due April 15th. In Altoona, Pennsylvania, school
budgets are due in April.
Communities can't do it alone. They want the federal government to be
a strong partner in improving their schools--not sit on the sidelines--
and certainly not break its promises to help.
The Senate should not turn its back on our promise to help
communities reduce class size in the early grades. We need to act now,
so that communities can plan effectively for the full seven years. No
school can hire teachers one year at a time. That makes no sense.
Communities want to reduce class size--and they need to be sure that
Congress will do its part to help them over the long term, as we
promised.
I intend to vote for the final Ed-Flex bill to move this defective
legislation to the next stage, where I hope we can reach a satisfactory
compromise.
Clearly we should not break promises to communities. We should make
commitments and keep them. And I will oppose a conference report that
includes any provisions to undermine our commitment to reducing class
size.
I will continue to work to make sure that we meet our commitments to
helping communities give all children a good education. The nation's
future depends on it.
I want to thank the leaders, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle, for
their courtesy and I want to congratulate my friend and colleague, the
chairman of the committee, on his work, too.
I want to thank Danica Petroshius, my education advisor, for her able
assistance on this legislation and tireless work, along with Jane
Oates, Dana Fiordaliso, Connie Garner, and Mark Taylor, along with my
committee staff director Michael Myers.
I also thank Greg Williamson of Senator Murray's staff, Suzanne Day
of Senator Dodd's staff, Elyse Wasch of Senator Reed's staff, Bev
Schroeder of Senator Harkin's staff, Roger Wolfson of Senator
Wellstone's staff, and Lindsay Rosenberg of Senator Wyden's staff.
And I also thank Sherry Kaiman, Jenny Smulson, and Susan Hattan of
Senator Jeffords' staff, and Meredith Medley of Senator Frist's staff.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, across our Nation, courageous teachers and
school administrators, parents and Governors, are working to find
creative ways to ensure that our children receive a world class
education. The United States Senate is prepared to promote and support
these efforts. Nothing is more important to the future of our Nation
that the education of our children.
The ideas we propose today are confident reform, rooted in tested
principles, parents, teachers and principals, the ones who know our
children best, should have the greatest influence on their classrooms.
The needs of America's schools differ from community to community, and
we help them most when we empower them to make wise choices for the
children in their care. Our money, manpower and energy should be
primarily devoted to teaching children, not to filing paperwork and
fueling bureaucracies.
These commonsense proposals have broad appeal. They have received
strong bipartisan support. Every Democratic Governor in the country
supports this bill. Last year, the President promised he would expand
the program we are considering today to all fifty States. The bill
passed out of committee by a vote of 17-1 last July, and Secretary
Riley strongly supported its enactment at that time. There is no reason
why the Senate should not quickly pass the bill sponsored by Senators
Frist and Wyden.
So the question before the Senate is really quite simple. It is not
whether we will pass the Ed-Flex bill, for in the end the overwhelming
majority of the Senate will support it. Rather, the question is whether
the Senate will keep faith with the American people, by working
together in a bipartisan fashion, to help America's school children.
Republicans stand ready to do just that. The evidence of our commitment
is the fact that we offer a bipartisan bill as one of the very first we
bring to the Senate floor.
Republicans and Democrats have honest disagreements on many education
initiatives. Democrats believe that new Federal categorical grant
programs that distribute money to States and counties based on complex
formulas are the best way to hire more teachers. Republicans believe
that Federal dollars should be sent directly to the classroom so that
parents, teachers, and principals can address the unique educational
needs of their particular students, whether it be to hire more
teachers, to provide special tutors, to buy new books or to teach
computer skills. These differing philosophies will be debated, and
ought to be debated, fully by the Senate. We will have ample
opportunity throughout this Congress to do just that.
However, there is simply no need to have divisive debates on a
bipartisan bill. So I urge my colleagues from across the aisle to
choose constructive progress over political posturing for the sake of
improving America's schools.
Ed-Flex works for America's children. It proposes a simple exchange.
States will hold schools accountable for their performance in return
for granting each school the freedom to determine how best to achieve
those results. This is not an untested premise. Currently, twelve
States have this authority. The results have been promising.
In Texas, Ed-Flex schools outperformed those without waivers by
several percentage points on student achievement scores. An elementary
school in Maryland now provides individual tutors for its students who
lag behind in reading. The same school has dramatically reduced class
size in math and reading, providing one teacher for every twelve
students.
The bill before us today simply expands the right to become an Ed-
Flex State to all fifty States. It is strongly supported by our
Nation's Governors, both Democrats and Republicans. Last month, the
National Governors Association stated, ``The expansion of the Ed-Flex
program is a high priority for Governors. . . . We strongly support
this legislation as well as your decision to move forward at this
time.'' The Nation's Democratic Governors joined together unanimously
saying, ``S. 280 is commonsense legislation that we believe deserves
immediate consideration. We hope, therefore, that you will join in
supporting its prompt enactment.''
Governors across America are united. There is simply no reason why
the Senate should not be as well. I urge my good friends and colleagues
on the other side of aisle to listen to their Governors. Join us in
supporting the prompt enactment of a simple bill that will provide
meaningful reform to schools throughout our Nation. Let's not squander
an opportunity to work together to demonstrate our common commitment to
America's schoolchildren.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to consideration of the House companion measure, Calendar
No. 37, H.R. 800, and, further, after the

[[Page S2569]]

enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 280, as amended, be
inserted in lieu thereof. I further ask unanimous consent the bill be
read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the
bill, as amended. Finally, I ask consent that immediately following
that vote, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference
with the House, and S. 280 be placed back on the Calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, as amended,
pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. Murray) is
absent because of a death in the family.
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 48 Leg.]

YEAS--98

NAYS--1

Wellstone

NOT VOTING--1

Murray

The bill (H.R. 800), as amended, was passed, as follows:

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives
(H.R. 800) entitled ``An Act to provide for education
flexibility partnerships.'', do pass with the following
amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Education Flexibility
Partnership Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) States differ substantially in demographics, in school
governance, and in school finance and funding. The
administrative and funding mechanisms that help schools in 1
State improve may not prove successful in other States.
(2) Although the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 and other Federal education statutes afford flexibility
to State and local educational agencies in implementing
Federal programs, certain requirements of Federal education
statutes or regulations may impede local efforts to reform
and improve education.
(3) By granting waivers of certain statutory and regulatory
requirements, the Federal Government can remove impediments
for local educational agencies in implementing educational
reforms and raising the achievement levels of all children.
(4) State educational agencies are closer to local school
systems, implement statewide educational reforms with both
Federal and State funds, and are responsible for maintaining
accountability for local activities consistent with State
standards and assessment systems. Therefore, State
educational agencies are often in the best position to align
waivers of Federal and State requirements with State and
local initiatives.
(5) The Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act
allows State educational agencies the flexibility to waive
certain Federal requirements, along with related State
requirements, but allows only 12 States to qualify for such
waivers.
(6) Expansion of waiver authority will allow for the waiver
of statutory and regulatory requirements that impede
implementation of State and local educational improvement
plans, or that unnecessarily burden program administration,
while maintaining the intent and purposes of affected
programs, and maintaining such fundamental requirements as
those relating to civil rights, educational equity, and
accountability.
(7) To achieve the State goals for the education of
children in the State, the focus must be on results in
raising the achievement of all students, not process.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Local educational agency; state educational agency.--
The terms ``local educational agency'' and ``State
educational agency'' have the meanings given such terms in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965.
(2) Outlying area.--The term ``outlying area'' means Guam,
American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of
Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the
Federated States of Micronesia.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and each outlying area.

SEC. 4. EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP.

(a) Education Flexibility Program.--
(1) Program authorized.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out an education
flexibility program under which the Secretary authorizes a
State educational agency that serves an eligible State to
waive statutory or regulatory requirements applicable to 1 or
more programs or Acts described in subsection (b), other than
requirements described in subsection (c), for any local
educational agency or school within the State.
(B) Designation.--Each eligible State participating in the
program described in subparagraph (A) shall be known as an
``Ed-Flex Partnership State''.
(2) Eligible state.--For the purpose of this subsection the
term ``eligible State'' means a State that--
(A)(i) has--
(I) developed and implemented the challenging State content
standards, challenging State student performance standards,
and aligned assessments described in section 1111(b) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, including the
requirements of that section relating to disaggregation of
data, and for which local educational agencies in the State
are producing the individual school performance profiles
required by section 1116(a) of such Act; or
(II) made substantial progress, as determined by the
Secretary, toward developing and implementing the standards
and assessments, and toward having local educational agencies
in the State produce the profiles, described in subclause
(I); and
(ii) holds local educational agencies and schools
accountable for meeting educational goals and for engaging in
the technical assistance and corrective actions consistent
with section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, for the local educational agencies and schools
that do not make adequate yearly progress as described in
section 1111(b) of that Act; and
(B) waives State statutory or regulatory requirements
relating to education while holding local educational
agencies or schools within the State that are affected by
such waivers accountable for the performance of the students
who are affected by such waivers.
(3) State application.--
(A) In general.--Each State educational agency desiring to
participate in the education flexibility program under this
section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may reasonably require. Each such application shall
demonstrate that the eligible State has adopted an
educational flexibility plan for the State that includes--
(i) a description of the process the State educational
agency will use to evaluate applications from local
educational agencies or schools requesting waivers of--

(I) Federal statutory or regulatory requirements as
described in paragraph (1)(A); and
(II) State statutory or regulatory requirements relating to
education;

(ii) a detailed description of the State statutory and
regulatory requirements relating to education that the State
educational agency will waive;
(iii) a description of how the educational flexibility plan
is consistent with and will assist in implementing the State
comprehensive reform plan or, if a State does not have a
comprehensive reform plan, a description of how the
educational flexibility plan is coordinated with activities
described in section 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965;
(iv) a description of how the State educational agency will
meet the requirements of paragraph (8); and
(v) a description of how the State educational agency will
evaluate, (consistent with the requirements of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), the
performance of students in the schools and local educational
agencies affected by the waivers.
(B) Approval and considerations.--The Secretary may approve
an application described in subparagraph (A) only if the
Secretary determines that such application demonstrates
substantial promise of assisting the State educational agency
and affected local educational agencies and schools within
the State in carrying out comprehensive educational reform,
after considering--
(i) the eligibility of the State as described in paragraph
(2);
(ii) the comprehensiveness and quality of the educational
flexibility plan described in subparagraph (A);
(iii) the ability of such plan to ensure accountability for
the activities and goals described in such plan;

[[Page S2570]]

(iv) the significance of the State statutory or regulatory
requirements relating to education that will be waived; and
(v) the quality of the State educational agency's process
for approving applications for waivers of Federal statutory
or regulatory requirements as described in paragraph (1)(A)
and for monitoring and evaluating the results of such
waivers.
(4) Local application.--
(A) In general.--Each local educational agency or school
requesting a waiver of a Federal statutory or regulatory
requirement as described in paragraph (1)(A) and any relevant
State statutory or regulatory requirement from a State
educational agency shall submit an application to the State
educational agency at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the State educational agency
may reasonably require. Each such application shall--
(i) indicate each Federal program affected and the
statutory or regulatory requirement that will be waived;
(ii) describe the purposes and overall expected results of
waiving each such requirement;
(iii) describe for each school year specific, measurable,
and educational goals for each local educational agency or
school affected by the proposed waiver;
(iv) explain why the waiver will assist the local
educational agency or school in reaching such goals; and
(v) in the case of an application from a local educational
agency, describe how the local educational agency will meet
the requirements of paragraph (8).
(B) Evaluation of applications.--A State educational agency
shall evaluate an application submitted under subparagraph
(A) in accordance with the State's educational flexibility
plan described in paragraph (3)(A).
(C) Approval.--A State educational agency shall not approve
an application for a waiver under this paragraph unless--
(i) the local educational agency or school requesting such
waiver has developed a local reform plan that is applicable
to such agency or school, respectively; and
(ii) the waiver of Federal statutory or regulatory
requirements as described in paragraph (1)(A) will assist the
local educational agency or school in reaching its
educational goals, particularly goals with respect to school
and student performance.
(5) Monitoring and performance review.--
(A) Monitoring.--Each State educational agency
participating in the program under this section shall
annually monitor the activities of local educational agencies
and schools receiving waivers under this section and shall
submit an annual report regarding such monitoring to the
Secretary.
(B) Performance review.--The State educational agency shall
annually review the performance of any local educational
agency or school granted a waiver of Federal statutory or
regulatory requirements as described in paragraph (1)(A) in
accordance with the evaluation requirement described in
paragraph (3)(A)(v), and shall terminate any waiver granted
to the local educational agency or school if the State
educational agency determines, after notice and opportunity
for hearing, that the local educational agency or school's
performance with respect to meeting the accountability
requirement described in paragraph (2)(B) and the goals
described in paragraph (4)(A)(iii) has been inadequate to
justify continuation of such waiver.
(6) Duration of federal waivers.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall not approve the
application of a State educational agency under paragraph (3)
for a period exceeding 5 years, except that the Secretary may
extend such period if the Secretary determines that such
agency's authority to grant waivers has been effective in
enabling such State or affected local educational agencies or
schools to carry out their local reform plans and to continue
to meet the accountability requirement described in
subsection (a)(2)(B), and has improved student performance.
(B) Performance review.--The Secretary shall periodically
review the performance of any State educational agency
granting waivers of Federal statutory or regulatory
requirements as described in paragraph (1)(A) and shall
terminate such agency's authority to grant such waivers if
the Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity for
hearing, that such agency's performance has been inadequate
to justify continuation of such authority.
(7) Authority to issue waivers.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary is authorized to carry out
the education flexibility program under this subsection for
each of the fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
(8) Public notice and comment.--Each State educational
agency granted waiver authority under this section and each
local educational agency receiving a waiver under this
section shall provide the public adequate and efficient
notice of the proposed waiver authority or waiver, consisting
of a description of the agency's application for the proposed
waiver authority or waiver in a widely read or distributed
medium, shall provide the opportunity for parents, educators,
and all other interested members of the community to comment
regarding the proposed waiver authority or waiver, 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.
(b) Included Programs.--The statutory or regulatory
requirements referred to in subsection (a)(1)(A) are any such
requirements under the following programs or Acts:
(1) Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (other than subsections (a) and (c) of section 1116
of such Act).
(2) Part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
(3) Subpart 2 of part A of title III of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (other than section 3136 of
such Act).
(4) Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965.
(5) Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965.
(6) Part C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965.
(7) The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education
Act of 1998.
(c) Waivers Not Authorized.--The Secretary and the State
educational agency may not waive any statutory or regulatory
requirement of the programs or Acts authorized to be waived
under subsection (a)(1)(A)--
(1) relating to--
(A) maintenance of effort;
(B) comparability of services;
(C) the equitable participation of students and
professional staff in private schools;
(D) parental participation and involvement;
(E) the distribution of funds to States or to local
educational agencies;
(F) serving eligible school attendance areas in rank order
under section 1113(a)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965;
(G) use of Federal funds to supplement, not supplant, non-
Federal funds; and
(H) applicable civil rights requirements; and
(2) unless the underlying purposes of the statutory
requirements of each program or Act for which a waiver is
granted continue to be met to the satisfaction of the
Secretary.
(d) Continuing Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--Each State educational agency that is
granted waiver authority under the provisions of law
described in paragraph (2) shall be eligible to continue the
waiver authority under the terms and conditions of the
provisions of law as the provisions of law are in effect on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Provisions of law.--The provisions of law referred to
in paragraph (1) are as follows:
(A) Section 311(e) of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
(B) The proviso referring to such section 311(e) under the
heading ``EDUCATION REFORM'' in the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-
229).
(e) Accountability.--In deciding whether to extend a
request for a State educational agency's authority to issue
waivers under this section, the Secretary shall review the
progress of the State education agency, local educational
agency, or school affected by such waiver or authority to
determine if such agency or school has made progress toward
achieving the desired results and goals described in the
application submitted pursuant to clauses (ii) and (iii) of
subsection (a)(4)(A), respectively.
(f) Publication.--A notice of the Secretary's decision to
authorize State educational agencies to issue waivers under
this section, including a description of the rationale the
Secretary used to approve applications under subsection
(a)(3)(B), shall be published in the Federal Register and the
Secretary shall provide for the dissemination of such notice
to State educational agencies, interested parties, including
educators, parents, students, advocacy and civil rights
organizations, other interested parties, and the public.

SEC. 5. PROGRESS REPORTS.

The Secretary, not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act and biennially thereafter, shall submit
to Congress a report that describes--
(1) the Federal statutory and regulatory requirements for
which waiver authority is granted to State educational
agencies under this Act;
(2) the State statutory and regulatory requirements that
are waived by State educational agencies under this Act;
(3) the effect of the waivers upon implementation of State
and local educational reforms; and
(4) the performance of students affected by the waivers.

SEC. 6. FLEXIBILITY TO DESIGN CLASS SIZE REDUCTION PROGRAMS.

(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 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.''.

SEC. 7. FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP DROPOUT PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

(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 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

[[Page S2571]]

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. 8. 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 $150,000,000 to carry out such part.

SEC. 9. FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS.

(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 afterschool 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. 10. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 11. FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS TO REDUCE SOCIAL
PROMOTION AND ESTABLISH SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY
PROCEDURES.

(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. 12. 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.

SEC. 13. FURTHER AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, as an Oregonian, I am especially proud this evening
that a program that began in my home State--we were the first to get an
Ed-Flex waiver--on the basis of this vote in the U.S. Senate, this
program that began in my State is going to be expanded across the
country.
I would like to spend just a couple of minutes of the Senate's time
this evening, and first begin by thanking my colleagues who put so much
effort into this.
Senator Frist is here this evening. He and I have been living and
breathing this legislation for well over a year.
I think it is worth noting that this began in the Senate Budget
Committee. Senator Domenici worked on a bipartisan basis with a number
of us. And this legislation began with hearings in the Senate Budget
Committee.
I thank the Senator from Tennessee for the opportunity to work with
him.
I also see Senator Jeffords here. He was especially gracious to me
this afternoon. He pointed out that from time to time it felt a little
lonely on their side. But I want to assure him that I think that this
is truly bipartisan.
Senator Daschle every step of the way was enormously supportive in
this legislation. I thank Senator Kennedy. He had to leave this
evening. But he worked very closely with us, especially on the
accountability provision.
Now, shortly after dealing with the impeachment matter, the Senate
can show that we have dealt with the premier domestic issue of our
day--the premier domestic issue of our day--education, in a bipartisan
fashion. It is always possible in the Senate and just about anywhere
else to find something on which to disagree. The Senate ultimately
resisted that proposition, and we went forward with something we could
agree on, which is the principle that you ought to squeeze every dollar
of value out of the Federal budget for education in order to help the
kids, to help them raise their scholastic performance, to deal with the
issues that were debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
I think my only regret is that to some extent in the last hours of
this discussion it became a debate about whether you are for more
resources for education or whether you are for more efficiently
allocating the dollars that are currently obligated. I think that is a
false choice.
I happen to believe that we are going to need some additional
resources for the key education areas. We want our young people to get
a good quality education so they will be ready for the high-skill,
high-wage jobs of tomorrow.
But the single best way to go to the taxpayers when additional
resources are needed is to show the taxpayers that you are efficiently
spending the dollars that are currently obligated.
That is why Ed-Flex is so important. All across the country we saw
that without Ed-Flex what you have is sort of a ``one-size-fits-all''
approach to education. Folks inside the beltway will say, ``Well, what
works in Coos Bay, OR, is what we ought to do in the Bronx, and what
works in the Bronx ought to be done in the State of the majority
leader, the State of Mississippi.'' That doesn't make sense.

We ought to hold school districts accountable. But we also ought to
give them the freedom to be innovative and creative and make those
dollars stretch so that we can serve more poor schoolchildren.
The fact of the matter is that there is a school very close to the
U.S. Capitol that has cut class size in half with Ed-Flex using
existing dollars. They didn't spend $1 more, not one, and they cut
class size in half.
In my home State of Oregon, in one rural district, the poor kids
weren't able to get advanced computing, because their school district
didn't have the technology and they didn't have the instructors. There
was a community college close by with Ed-Flex. Without any additional
expenses to the taxpayers, those kids could go to the community college
and get the skills they needed. Again, we see a concrete example of how
with just a little bit of flexibility we can better serve the poor kids
of this country.
We were on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I guess, for the better part
of 2 weeks dealing with Ed-Flex, and not one single example of abuse
was ever shown on the floor of the Senate--not one. But there were
plenty of examples of how this program worked. I just cited one close
by the Capitol that cut class size in half. In Texas, the scores went
up with better use of technology. From one end of the country to the
other, we see how this program has worked.
I know that my colleagues wish to speak tonight on this issue. But I
just wanted to take a minute or two to talk about why I think this is a
particularly good day for the U.S. Senate. There is no issue more
important than this.
I see the majority leader is here. I want to express my thanks to
him, and to Tom Daschle.
The fact is that this important legislation could have blown up 15 or
20 times in the last few days. And Tom Daschle and Trent Lott said that
this was too important to let that happen.
Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords hung in there as well, with
Senator Frist, who constantly came to the floor and just appealed to
let this bipartisan idea, which every Governor in the country wants, to
go forward. We were able to get it done.

[[Page S2572]]

I suspect the conference on this legislation will not be for the
fainthearted. There are certainly differences of opinion on a number of
the issues.
But this is a very good day for the U.S. Senate, and a good day for
American families, because we have shown that we could tackle important
issues.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to say thank you to the Senator
from Oregon, because without him we would have had a much more
difficult time. It was bipartisan from the start, and it ended up very
bipartisan. We ended up, I think, with a 98 to 1 vote.
Also, Mr. Frist, I am going to use 30 seconds, and then allow those
who wish to speak longer to do so.
I want to express my particular gratitude to all the members of the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, who have worked
especially hard on this legislation. I very much value the time,
effort, and commitment they have brought to this task.
I would also like to acknowledge the two sponsors of the Ed-Flex
bill, Senators Frist and Wyden. It is in large part due to their
dedication and commitment that we were able to pass this bill with such
overwhelming bipartisan support.
Finally, I would like to extend my sincerest thanks to the many staff
people who contributed to the passage of this important Ed-Flex
legislation:
Sherry Kaiman, Mark Powden, Jenny Smulson, Heidi Scheuermann and
Susan Hattan of my staff;
Townsend Lange and Denzel McGuire with Senator Gregg;
Lori Meyer, Meredith Medley, and Gus Puryear with Senator Frist;
Paul Palagyi with Senator DeWine; Chad Calvert with Senator Enzi:
Holly Kuzmich with Senator Hutchinson; Julian Hayes with Senator
Collins; Cherie Harder with Senator Brownback; Jim Brown with Senator
Hagel; and Jim Hirni with Senator Sessions.
I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary assistance offered by
Mark Sigurski with Senate Legislative Counsel, and Wayne Riddle with
the Congressional Research Service.
Mr. President, I also thank all of the staff here who have worked so
many hours to expeditiously pass this legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I, too, will be very brief.
I believe that today has been almost a momentous day, and a very
important day to set the stage, I believe, for the way, the manner, and
the spirit in which I hope to see a lot of legislation be addressed
over the coming months in the remainder of this Congress.
We started off with a bill that originated out of really a town
meeting format where we have had people come and testify on the task
force, and listen very carefully. People came forward, and said, ``We
have a program that works.''
To be honest with you, 2 years ago I didn't know what Ed-Flex was.
But somebody came forward, and said in a community, as my colleague has
just pointed out, that this program works.
We fulfilled exactly what the Federal mandate was, and what the
Federal intention was. We took the appropriate funding--the Federal
dollars that came down. But what the Federal Government allowed us to
do through a waiver was to participate through Ed-Flex to accomplish
that stated goal of fulfilling the intent of Congress, but in a way
that we knew was best for us based on our local circumstances.
Not everybody needs a computer, not everybody needs tutoring, not
everybody needs kindergarten, not everybody needs an extra teacher, but
that varies from community to community, and the beauty of that is we
took that idea, we discussed it, we developed legislation, we passed it
through the committee last year, but we ran out of time last year. It
was brought to the floor. It was one of the first major bills brought
to this body, and after 7 days of intense debate, a lot of negotiation,
we passed the bill here 10 minutes ago.
It is a momentous day also because the House passed a very similar
bill, almost an identical bill, about 6 hours ago. And that means,
because in a bipartisan way, in a bicameral way, meaning both the House
and Senate, in a Federal, State and local way, meaning we worked very
closely with the Governors, together we were able to pass legislation
which, once it is signed by the President, can inure to the benefit of
millions of children within 6 months or 8 months--millions of children.
And that is nice. That is what people expect Government to do; produce
in a spirit, in an environment where you can work together to
accomplish the goals that we all care about.
A lot of people should be thanked, and again most of those names will
be made a part of the Record, but I do want to recognize the coauthor
and cosponsor of this particular bill, Senator Wyden, who just had the
floor.
Again, this is a bipartisan bill. Both of us knew what our goals
were. We worked very hard on both sides. I appreciate his support, his
collegiality as we addressed these issues.
As is so often the case, what we have accomplished in large part is
as a result of the work of many staff members, and I do want to take
this opportunity to thank the staff who were most immediately involved
over the last year and a half. My own staff of Meredith Medley, Lori
Meyer and Gus Puryear have literally been here with other staff members
until early hours of the morning each night.

Again, most everybody has been recognized already, but I am going to
take the liberty of going ahead and verbally mentioning them. Lindsay
Rosenberg of Senator Wyden's staff has been somebody whom my staff has
enjoyed and I personally have enjoyed working with in this process as
we have gone through it.
Senator Jeffords, the chairman, who has literally been in the Chamber
every day for the last 7 days, does have the patience of Job going
through this, looking at every bill and every word that comes forward
with a response. And I just want to express my appreciation because he
ushered this thing through in a very direct way and really put in both
the time and the effort. He is the leader on our side in education. We
cited again and again the number of bills passed last year under his
leadership as chairman of the former Labor, Health and Education
Committee. Currently, he is examining all public education, K through
12, through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I have the
privilege of working on that committee with him and his wonderful staff
who have been at his side. Mark Powden, Susan Hattan and Sherry Kaiman
really all deserve our gratitude for their tremendous work over the
last several days.
I am not going to list all the staff, but Senator Gregg, again, from
whom we have heard so much about special education; Senator Lott, who
needs to be thanked because it would have been very easy after 3 or 4
days, when it looked as if gridlock--it was gridlock, but he, with the
Democratic leader, agreed to keep this bill in the Chamber so we could
address those issues, and that is what the American people expect. We
addressed it with very good, very strong debate, sometimes too strong
maybe, but we were able to work it out. And that bipartisanship in
coming together, again, is what the American people expect. I thank the
majority leader for allowing us to bring this to a resolution, to
completion, to a product that we know will benefit, as I said, millions
of children in the short term as well as the longer term.
I have to just briefly mention the Governors because it has been a
fantastic relationship for me over the last month in that at least
every day we, a Federal body, the Congress, the Senate, were in touch
with all of our Governors, Democrat and Republican. I have talked to as
many Democrat Governors as I have Republican, and America doesn't see
that sort of interaction, but I think it is important for people to
hear because so many problems, whether they be welfare, health care, or
education, demand that constant dialog and discussion about what we do
here at the Federal level, at the State level, as well as the local
level.
Senator Voinovich, who is new to this body but a former Governor,
spearheaded much of that. Governors Carper of Delaware, Ridge of
Pennsylvania, Leavitt of Utah, O'Bannon of Indiana, and House Members
Castle and Roemer

[[Page S2573]]

all played a major role and were significant participants in what we
have accomplished today.
With that, I think I will stop. I am very excited about this
particular bill. It accomplishes much in a way that I think will really
set that track for the next several months as we consider other
legislation. We do have a fresh start for education. It is a first
step. It does not address all the problems, all the challenges in
education, but it is a major first step.

I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
(The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 595
are located in today's record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Pennsylvania may wish
to make a statement in a moment also, but if I could just do a couple
of things here.
First, before the Senators leave the Chamber, the Senator from
Tennessee and the Senator from Oregon, I want to again thank them for
their effort. It was bipartisan because the Senator from Oregon, Mr
Wyden, made it so, stayed in there, worked with us, but I particularly
wish to thank the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, the doctor, who
gave us an education. He took us to school. He used apples and
information and examples. He acted like a good teacher should. I
congratulate him for that. He even showed us how you could use a
scalpel to cut the redtape, and that is what this Ed-Flex bill will do.
So to the two Senators, I thank them for their leadership, for their
work, for their persistence because they both have been heckling me
about this bill for a year, and I am glad it is done. I congratulate
them for their effort.

____________________