[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

     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. 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

     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

[[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

     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. 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

     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
     Wyden

                                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.

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

     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.

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

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, 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.

                          ____________________