[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 55 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3576-S3601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    UPDATE ON LINDA TRIPP FILE CASE

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I want to update my colleagues and the 
American people on the latest developments in the Linda Tripp file 
case. As my colleagues will recall, this is a matter concerning how 
information from the confidential personnel file of a Pentagon civil 
servant was leaked to the media in March of 1998, more than 2 years 
ago, by the Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon and a colleague in 
violation of the Privacy Act.
  As my questions at an Armed Services Committee hearing revealed for 
the first time on April 6, the Pentagon's Office of Inspector General 
essentially completed its investigation of this matter within 4 months 
of the incident. In July of 1998, it referred its report to the Justice 
Department, having found sufficient evidence that a crime had been 
committed.
  From July 1998 until March of 2000, the Justice Department sat on the 
report, taking no action, making us believe the IG report was not 
completed and not given to them--essentially engaging in a coverup, in 
its typical stonewalling, delaying tactics. Then finally, on March 28, 
2000, they quietly returned the report to the Pentagon, informing them 
it would not criminally prosecute anyone in the case.
  I reported all of this to the Senate in a floor statement I made on 
April 11. At that time, I pointed out that the offense in this case--
disseminating to the media information from a Government employee's 
confidential personnel file--was the same offense Chuck Colson pleaded 
guilty to during Watergate. It was the same offense for which Colson 
served in the Federal penitentiary.
  Since all of this was revealed last month, three principal defenses--
I would call them excuses--have emerged as to why Mr. Bacon should not 
be prosecuted. These have been put forth to the media by Mr. Bacon's 
lawyer and by the Justice Department in its decision to take a pass on 
prosecution. Let me state these three defenses and what they are:
  No. 1, defense by Kenneth Bacon is that Bacon only leaked a part of a 
confidential file, not the whole file;
  No. 2, that the Freedom of Information Act ``trumps'' the Privacy 
Act; and
  No. 3, that Bacon ``didn't intend to break the law.''
  Today, I want to report to the Senate that all of these arguments 
have been refuted and exposed as having no merit in this case. This 
leaves us facing the stark truth: The law was violated, and those who 
violated it should be prosecuted.
  In testimony on April 26 before the Senate Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Readiness, which is the Committee I chair, I asked 
Pentagon Deputy Inspector General Donald Mancuso about these issues. He 
confirmed these points:

[[Page S3577]]

  No. 1, that criminal violations of the Privacy Act are not contingent 
on whether a whole file or just a part of a file is compromised.
  Common sense would lead us to this conclusion anyway, but this was 
confirmed by the inspector general in our committee meeting.
  Either one constitutes a violation. There is no distinction between 
leaking part of a file or leaking the entire file.
  Secondly, that there was no formal written Freedom of Information Act 
request made prior to the Tripp file leak; that, in any event, the 
Freedom of Information Act does not trump the Privacy Act; and that, 
indeed, the Freedom of Information Act includes specific exemptions 
directly related to the Privacy Act.
  So we are saying two things really. We are saying, first of all, when 
they said they used the Freedom of Information Act request as an 
excuse, they were lying, because there was no request under the Freedom 
of Information Act. Secondly, if that had happened, there is specific 
exemptions within our law to the Freedom of Information Act, one of 
which is the Privacy Act.
  Finally, in its March 2000 decision not to prosecute, the Justice 
Department stated that Bacon and his colleague ``didn't intend to break 
the law when they released information from Linda Tripp's personnel 
file.''
  What this tells me is that the Justice Department knows the law was 
broken. It is all the more reason why their decision not to prosecute 
is so outrageous. The next time I am stopped by a policeman for 
speeding, I am going to tell him, ``I didn't intend to break the law.'' 
I suppose then everything will be all right.
  Recently, I received a letter from Mr. Bacon's lawyer taking 
exception to a couple of points I made it my previous remarks on the 
floor. I would like to respond to each of those points here:
  First, Bacon's lawyer claims that comparing Kenneth Bacon's offense 
to Chuck Colson's offense in Watergate is ``inaccurate'' and ``unfair'' 
because the two cases, he says, are not ``remotely comparable.''
  But he is wrong. They are directly comparable.
  He goes into a lengthy description of the charges against Colson 
which were dropped by the court. All of this is interesting, but it is 
irrelevant to the current case.
  Colson released information from Daniel Elsberg's confidential file, 
violating Elsberg's privacy.
  Bacon released information from Linda Tripp's confidential file, 
violating Tripp's privacy.
  What could be more ``comparable'' than this?
  Second, Mr. Bacon's lawyer notes that the court said Colson 
implemented ``a scheme to defame and destroy the public image of Daniel 
Elsberg, with the intent to influence, obstruct, and impede the conduct 
and outcome'' of pending investigations and prosecutions.
  Similarly, Bacon's action can easily be seen as part of ``a scheme to 
defame and destroy the public image of Linda Tripp, with the intent to 
influence, obstruct, and impede the conduct and outcome'' of pending 
investigations and possible prosecutions of the President and of Linda 
Tripp herself.
  Let's not forget that Linda Tripp has testified that she was told by 
a top White House aide that she would be ``destroyed'' if she came 
forward and exposed illegal activities she witnessed in the Clinton 
White House, including matters related to the Filegate scandal. Tripp's 
FBI file was one of over 900 FBI files improperly obtained by the 
Clinton White House. Tripp remains a material witness in continuing 
legal proceedings on the Filegate matter.
  In addition, let's not forget that Tripp has also been the target of 
a politically motivated prosecution in Maryland concerning the taping 
of Monica Lewinski's phone calls.
  All of this provides ample evidence of possible motivations ``to 
defame or destroy'' her ``public image.''
  Third, Mr. Bacon's lawyer claims that Bacon did not violate any law 
in releasing the information on Tripp.
  Again, he is simply wrong. Bacon clearly violated the Privacy Act, 
the law which was enacted in 1974 as a direct result of the Colson 
case. It isn't even a close call.
  The contention that the media inquiry constituted a FOIA request that 
somehow superseded the Privacy Act will simply not stand up to 
scrutiny.
  Finally, Mr. Bacon's lawyer makes a legitimate point with which I 
am prepared to agree; and that is, that Mr. Bacon is a dedicated public 
official who has served the Department of Defense with distinction for 
6 years.

  Similarly, Linda Tripp is a dedicated public official who has served 
in the Pentagon and the White House with distinction for many years.
  The problem is that there must be equal application of the law if the 
law is to have any meaning.
  Mr. Bacon simply cannot be permitted to escape responsibility for an 
act that so clearly violated the law--a law which is designed to 
protect the rights of all government employees.
  The news media, I think, has created a particular problem in this 
case. It is a travesty that the major news media have not covered this 
story and informed the American people about why this is important.
  What a contract with how the news media acted during the Watergate 
era. At that time, the news media led the charge to uncover wrongdoing 
by high government officials, explaining why adherence to the rule of 
law was so vital to the protection of liberty.
  In the aftermath of Chuck Colson's pleading guilty in June 1974, 
along with other Watergate figures, newspapers across the country 
expressed appropriate outrage. They covered the story. They commented 
on it forcefully. They didn't sweep it under the rug. They did not say 
they were bored. They did not argue that the country should ``move on'' 
to other things.
  They knew that lawbreaking by high officials was one of the most 
important things they could report to the American people, because, as 
they kept telling us, an informed public is essential to the protection 
of liberty in a democracy.
  Here are a few examples of editorials during the Watergate years. 
Where are the similar editorials today?
  On June 12, 1974, the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin was upset that 
another Watergate figure got off too lightly with a 30-day suspended 
sentence for his Watergate crime. They said.

       The circumstances (in this case) did not call for a tap on 
     the wrist. [The judge's] praise for (the defendant's) 
     integrity in this setting seems inappropriate. If [the 
     defendant] is to be so excused for failing to do his duty . . 
     . then how are others to be held accountable for placing 
     personal loyalty above their duty and the requirements of the 
     law?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Then, speaking of Chuck Colson, on June 4, 1974, the 
Dayton (Ohio) Daily News wrote:

       In this tawdry matter, Mr. Nixon's White House again has 
     been exposed--this time by an aide who was high in its 
     deliberations and was an intimate of the President's--as 
     acting against the political and judicial process of this 
     country as if they were enemies.

  Finally, in commenting on Chuck Colson, in the home state of the 
Presiding Officer, the Portland (Maine) Evening Express wrote on June 
30, 1974:

       Yet another close aide or high appointee of President Nixon 
     has been brought to justice . . . He had attempted to defame 
     Elsberg and destroy his credibility . . . Daily, it becomes 
     abundantly clearer that [the Nixon Administration is] the 
     most morally reprehensible administration in the history of 
     the nation.

  So who is at fault? Of course, Ken Bacon is at fault for violating 
the law. But I suppose it is human nature to cover up to save oneself. 
Who is really at fault is the press--the media--who are covering up 
this crime. No one can look at the way the press assailed Chuck Colson 
for his crime and now covers up the crime of Ken Bacon without asking, 
``Why? Why are they so defensive of Ken Bacon when they so aggressively 
went after Chuck Colson?'' Unequal application of the law is no worse 
then inequality in reporting. The consequences of both serve to 
diminish our liberty.
  Unfortunately, Ken Bacon, who should have been prosecuted, is now in 
the hands of Secretary of Defense William Cohen. Cohen is charged with 
reviewing the IG report and issuing any administrative discipline, 
short of criminal punishment. I urge him to act swiftly and in accord 
with the seriousness of this matter.

[[Page S3578]]

  Federal employees throughout government are watching this case. What 
will it say to them if someone who has so clearly violated the Privacy 
Act is not held accountable?
  It will say that no one's privacy can ultimately be protected, that 
the law is largely meaningless, and that ideal of public service in 
support of the Constitution and the laws is forever diminished.
  Madam President, I am not trying to single out Kenneth Bacon. I don't 
even know him. But I do know Chuck Colson, and he admits he was 
properly prosecuted, and Kenneth Bacon has committed the same crime and 
gets off free. This is wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3126

       (Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to teachers)

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], for Mr. Lott and 
     Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 3126.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of this 
amendment and, in particular, a core provision of it, which is teacher 
liability.
  As schools have become more violent, it is increasingly necessary for 
teachers to use reasonable means to maintain order and discipline in 
their classrooms. In order to provide a safe and positive learning 
environment, teachers and principals must not be afraid to remove 
disruptive students for fear of becoming the subject of frivolous 
lawsuits.
  I forget the exact timing of this, but sometime within the last 2 
years, the Senate and House passed the Volunteer Liability Protection 
Act. I want to use that as a backdrop in preparation for what the 
provisions of this amendment do.
  At a time when the Nation was calling on more and more people to step 
forward and be charitable and be volunteers, we had a huge summit. The 
President and all the former Presidents were there, as was Gen. Colin 
Powell. They outlined a call to the Nation to step forward and 
volunteer. Several days after that summit, I, along with several 
others, introduced this Volunteer Liability Protection Act.
  It was based on this premise that voluntarism in the country was 
declining, even though voluntarism is like a national monument in the 
United States, but it was declining. And when you looked into why--or 
among the reasons why--it was the fact that volunteers, such as sports 
figures, role models who were consistently asked to step forward and 
volunteer, and major figures in the community, people of substance, or 
a family who sold a business and, in effect, retired and had the time 
and the resources to step forward and help the local YMCA or a 
charitable group, were targeted for frivolous lawsuits. I will give an 
example of one and then I will get back to the teacher side of it.

  Picture a YMCA gym. This woman, in particular, who I talked about 
over and over throughout that debate, was a volunteer receptionist; she 
was answering the phone. She had nothing to do with the actual rigors 
of what was going on in the gym. Well, a young man broke either an arm 
or a leg in some activity in the gym. So you would have thought, well, 
if there were grounds for a lawsuit--and it wasn't just an accident and 
it involved no willful neglect--you would go after whoever was 
supervising the young man. I think that sounds reasonable to most 
Americans. But, no, the person who was sued was the woman answering the 
phone because they knew she had assets. Needless to say, people such as 
that didn't want to volunteer anymore. It is kind of hard to be a phone 
receptionist for the YMCA and put your whole family on the line, where 
you might be subject to a lawsuit and you might inadvertently lose it, 
and everything the family had worked for could be gone.
  So we introduced the Volunteer Liability Protection Act. After a 
rigorous debate, it passed here, it passed the House, and the President 
signed it. It has been welcomed throughout the entire country as a 
relief that allows Americans, whether athletes or people who have 
assets, or somebody else, to step forward and be a volunteer.
  It is directly analogous to the situation that we have in schools. 
Again, I say in order to provide a safe and positive learning 
environment, teachers and principals must not be afraid to remove a 
disruptive student for fear of being subject to a frivolous lawsuit. 
You can picture it. There is a scuffle going on in the hallway. A 
teacher has to make a decision. I remember that in the near disaster in 
Rockdale County, after Columbine, a young man entered the school. He 
had a weapon and he threatened several students with it, and he fired 
several shots. No one, gratefully, was either killed or permanently 
wounded. But the assistant principal appeared and moved directly to the 
student who had the firearm and pointed the firearm at him. 
Courageously--in my judgment, he had unbelievable courage--he walked 
up, calmed the student and took the weapon and held the student, who 
had become very emotional, until law enforcement officers could arrive.
  That is an exaggerated incident, but we all know that scuffles such 
as this occur between students, or a verbal attack might occur in a 
classroom. A teacher can't be sitting there computing whether or not 
she or her family is at risk if she does her job. As the Volunteer 
Protection Act, this legislation does not allow for any willful 
misconduct. If this teacher were involved in willful misconduct, 
aggravated conduct, she would be subject to a lawsuit. But what it 
would end is just picking her out and harassing her or him into a 
settlement.
  Listen to these statistics. The percentage of public school teachers 
in the United States who say they have been verbally abused is 51 
percent. Fifty-one percent of all of our teachers threatened with 
injury, which is perhaps an even more significant percentage, is down. 
But 16 percent have been threatened they would be harmed; physically 
attacked, just under 1 in 10. It is 7 percent.

  In 1992, 33 percent of 12th grade public school students felt 
disruptions by other students interfered with their learning. In other 
words, a third of the school population is talking about the disruption 
another student is conducting that interrupts the schoolday 
sufficiently to interfere with that student's learning.
  In my State of Georgia, in 1997, there were 38,000 violent incidents 
and 2,600 weapons violations.
  My colleague from Massachusetts cited a survey of teachers which 
found that 43 percent of high school teachers felt their personal 
safety was in jeopardy in a 2-year period. A seventh grade student at 
Lincoln Academy in New York was arrested on June 2, 1999, for setting a 
fire to his teacher's hair.
  Two Irving Middle School seventh graders in Lorain, OH, were charged 
in January of 1999 of plotting to kill their teacher with a 12-inch 
fillet knife. As 15 students placed bets on the girl's plot, another 
teacher found out and intervened--in moments. She overrode this 
situation before the stabbing occurred.
  In Columbus, GA, my home State, seven students were sent to summer 
community service after planning to poison a teacher's iced tea and 
trip her on the stairs because the students thought she was too strict.
  Recently, I met with a large number of school superintendents. They 
talked about the multitude of issues that are affecting them and their 
ability to do the job. But when you mention teacher liability, the 
threat to them of a lawsuit--whether it is the principal, the 
administrator, or teacher--is very high on their agenda; that we are 
creating an environment where prudent decisions might be missed. A 
circumstance where a teacher's intervention would be useful doesn't 
occur because the teacher is intimidated by the threat of being sued 
for having made that decision.
  Again, I reiterate that in the Volunteer Liability Protection Act, 
this language does not excuse any willful conduct or any aggravated 
conduct. The

[[Page S3579]]

person is still liable for that kind of behavior. It is the frivolous 
activity that would apply, just as in the Volunteer Liability 
Protection Act.
  I am going to describe for a minute or two the language of this 
section. The teacher liability protection provisions provide limited 
civil litigation immunity for teachers, principals, and other 
educational professionals who engage in reasonable--I repeat 
``reasonable''--actions to maintain order, discipline, and a positive 
educational environment in America's schools and classrooms. It 
protects teachers from lawsuits when using reasonable means to maintain 
order, control, or discipline in the school or classroom.
  What does ``reasonable'' mean? It does not include wanton and willful 
misconduct. It does not mean a criminal act. It does not mean the 
violation of State law. It does not mean the violation of Federal civil 
rights laws. And it does not mean inappropriate use of drugs or alcohol 
on the teacher's behalf. As I said a little earlier, it is modeled on 
the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 and various State laws that seek 
to provide teachers limited civil liability immunity, including my own 
State of Georgia.
  It is narrowly crafted to protect teachers from lawsuits when they 
are attempting to maintain order, control, or discipline in the school 
and classroom. It protects teachers from frivolous lawsuits.
  I always use the word ``teachers.'' But I think I should reiterate 
that it is teachers, principals, and administrators in the system. It 
is not only teachers, such as the person I just talked about who 
interceded to try to contain a student who brought loaded weapons to 
the school and threatened not only other students of being shot but his 
own life and the life of the assistant principal. All had been 
threatened. There is no telling what the outcome might have been 
without the courage of this administrator to intercede.
  It protects teachers from frivolous lawsuits when they remove a 
disruptive or belligerent and possibly dangerous child from the 
classroom. That ought to be expanded. It is not necessarily from the 
classroom but from an environment on the school property that is 
potentially dangerous; a fight in the cafeteria. What do you do? Do you 
just sit there and watch the fight because you are saying to yourself, 
if I go over there and interrupt, the parents of one, or two, or three 
of those children are going to sue us. In this case, that would be 
considered frivolous. It would be the person doing their job. On the 
other hand, if the teacher was involved with starting or aggravating a 
fight, it would be wanton behavior, and that teacher or that 
administrator would be liable because they did something wrong; 
something outside the parameter of their job.
  It would allow principals and administrators to take charge of 
circumstances in the school and the classroom. It would prevent the 
overactive trial lawyer community--and I believe by anybody's standard 
this is one of the great issues of our time with enormous utilization. 
We have become a society that is ready to sue--your neighbor or the guy 
who is packing your food at the grocery store. We are just suing 
everybody. Some of it is very appropriate, but a lot of it is not. It 
probably has to be dealt with in a lot more places than volunteers in 
the schoolroom.
  But it certainly needed to happen. It has to protect volunteers, and 
it certainly needs to happen on these school properties. It does not, I 
repeat, override any State law that provides teachers with greater 
immunity--as I said, some do, including Georgia--of liability 
protections.
  This is important: States can affirmatively opt out of Federal 
coverage by passing State legislation. They have their own view of it. 
If they want to expand it, they can. But they can opt out.
  The provision does not address the rights of individual States to 
prohibit or allow use of corporal punishment by teachers and 
administrators to discipline unruly and possibly dangerous students.
  Recently, parents brought a suit against a history teacher at a high 
school for damages the parents claim their son suffered when the 
teacher removed him from the classroom after the student refused to go 
to the vice principal's office.
  We have a classroom. We have an unruly student. In this case, the 
teacher steps forward and says, You need to go to the vice principal's 
office. The student refuses to do so. The teacher removes that student 
from the classroom--this is not an appropriate interaction going on in 
the classroom--and gets sued for doing that.
  That is an individual doing their job.
  Matt Grimes, a student, went to a teacher's tutorial class. The 
gentleman's name was Mr. Stringer. Mr. Stringer told him to go to the 
tutorial he was scheduled to attend. In other words, the student was in 
the wrong place and needed to be somewhere else. Matt said his teacher 
would not let him into that class because he was late. That teacher 
did, indeed, refuse Matt's admittance because of a late arrival. 
Something was said to the teacher that was disrespectful, and the 
teacher pointed or touched his chest with his index finger. In other 
words, he touched him and was sued. The teacher ended up being sued as 
a result of that incident.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a full article be 
printed into the Record from the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, May 4, 
1999, by Kay Hymowitz.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 4, 1999.]

              How the Courts Undermined School Discipline

                          (By Kay S. Hymowitz)

       In the wake of the Littleton school shootings, we've heard 
     a lot about educators' need to pay attention to the ``warning 
     signs'' of potentially violent youngsters. In this case such 
     signs were plain to see: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold 
     produced videos and wrote essays for their classes depicting 
     their murderous fantasies. But the legal culture produced by 
     a pair of Supreme Court rulings makes it difficult for 
     educators to do anything when confronted with such warning 
     signs--or indeed even to enforce the ordinary discipline that 
     our kids need in order to be molded into citizens.
       In Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), the 
     justices sided with students who had been threatened with 
     suspension for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam 
     War. Tinker protected young people who expressed opinions at 
     odds with the government and reduced the possibility that 
     educators could simply indoctrinate children with their own 
     beliefs. ``It can hardly be argued,'' wrote Justice Abe 
     Fortas, ``that either students or teachers shed their 
     constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate. . . . 
     Students in school as well as out of school are `persons' 
     under our Constitution.''
       Six years later, in Goss v. Lopez, the court granted 
     students the right to due process when threatened with a 
     suspension of more than 10 days. Careful to insist that 
     schools need only provide informal hearings, not elaborate 
     judicial procedures, the justices believed that they could 
     help guard against feared abuses of power without seriously 
     disrupting principals' authority.
       On first sight, these decisions seem balanced and sensible. 
     But their unintended consequence was to help create the world 
     Gerald Grant described in his 1988 book, ``The World We 
     Created at Hamilton High.'' ``Assemblies often degenerated 
     into catcalls and semiobscene behavior while teachers watched 
     silently,'' Mr. Grant writes. ``Trash littered the hallway 
     outside the cafeteria, but it was a rare teacher who 
     suggested a student pick up a milk carton he or she had 
     thrown on the floor.''
       Cheating was sidespread, but ``few adults seemed to care.'' 
     No wonder. Teachers who accused kids of cheating were 
     required to produce documentation and witnesses to counter 
     the ``other side of the story.'' One teacher who had failed a 
     boy for plagiarizing a paper had to defend herself repeatedly 
     before a supervisor after being harrassed by daily phone 
     calls from the student's parents and the lawyer they had 
     hired on their son's behalf. Another teacher was asked why 
     she didn't report several students who were making sexually 
     degrading remarks about her in the hallway. ``Well, it 
     wouldn't have done any good,'' she shrugged. ``I didn't have 
     any witnesses.'' The phrase ``You can't suspend me'' became 
     the taunt of many a disruptive student.
       Surely the justices who decided Tinker and Goss did not 
     anticipate this. Indeed, subsequent decisions have made clear 
     that students don't enjoy the same legal rights as adults. In 
     Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), the Supreme Court 
     ruled in favor of a principal who suspended a student for 
     making an obscene speech, and in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 
     (1988), it allowed principals to censor high-school 
     newspapers. And lower courts often decide in favor of school 
     administrators who take a strong stand against provocative 
     student speech and behavior.
       But the mere threat of a lawsuit is often enough to have a 
     chilling effect on teachers and administrators. Educators are 
     understandably wary of students backed by litigious parents, 
     not to mention numerous

[[Page S3580]]

     rights manuals with titles like ``Up Against the Law,'' ``A 
     High School Student's Bill of Rights'', and ``Ask Sybil 
     Liberty.'' These guidebooks enumerate for already-disaffected 
     kids all the impermissible things teachers are going to try 
     to make them do. You don't have to answer a school official 
     if he questions you; a teacher can't make you do anything 
     that violates your conscience; if you don't like the way the 
     school makes you dress, you can go to court; you can demand 
     to see your school records.
       In his dissent in Tinker, Justice Hugo Black, one of the 
     court's strongest defenders of the First Amendment, wrote 
     that the decision ``subject all the public schools in the 
     country to the whims and caprices of their loudest-mouthed, 
     but maybe not their brightest, students.'' Justice Black was 
     right. A few years ago a Colorado high school principal took 
     no action as one of his students strutted into school wearing 
     Ku Klux Klan insignia. That is, until a black student punched 
     the would-be Klansman. Only then, when the Klansman's 
     ``speech'' could be construed as an incitement to violence, 
     did the principal forbid it.
       In another case, a high-school senior in New York state 
     distributed articles urging students to urinate in hallways, 
     scrawl graffiti on the walls and riot when the police 
     arrived. In 1997 the school district suspended the boy, but 
     only after the case had dragged on for two years, including 
     an appeal to the state's highest court. Last year a 14-year-
     old eighth-grader in Half Moon Bay, Calif., wrote a pair of 
     English compositions, one about torching the school library 
     and beating up the principal and another, charmingly entitled 
     ``Goin' Postal,'' about pumping seven bullets into the 
     principal. When the boy was suspended for five days, his 
     parents sued the school district. The district and the 
     parents reached a settlement under which the suspension was 
     reduced to two days and the grounds were changed from 
     ``terroristic threats'' to ``habitual use of profanity in 
     school assignments.''
       Rights-empowered students are not merely a discipline 
     problem; they have also helped dumb down the curriculum. Mr 
     Grant found that as administrators and teachers became 
     fearful of restless, back-talking adolescents, they resorted 
     to keeping classes amiable and nonthreatening--in other 
     words, unchallenging. All but a handful of charismatic 
     teachers studiously avoided giving low grades, demanding 
     homework or administering rigorous tests. This same dynamic 
     is at work in the many schools today where students choose 
     their courses from a number of faddish, ``creative'' options. 
     After all, ``Music as Expression'' is much less likely to 
     make a kid testy than ``19th-Century American History.''
       Thus instead of enriching children's minds and challenging 
     their media-fed fantasies, adults stand by and condone the 
     worst forms of adolescent acting-out, sometimes with deadly 
     results. Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old Springfield, Ore., boy, 
     reported in science class on how to build a bomb and read in 
     literature class from his journal about his dreams of murder. 
     Last May the teenager allegedly shot and killed his parents, 
     then went to school, where he allegedly murdered two 
     classmates and injured two dozen more; he is now on trial. 
     The adults' response to his classroom rantings? ``He was a 
     typical 15-year-old,'' the Springfield superintendent of 
     schools said. Other school officials said classroom talk of 
     murder and violence is nothing unusual.
       The Supreme Court undoubtedly thought that Tinker and Goss 
     would free students from oppressive adult power. Yet today, 
     30 years later, resentful students must march through metal 
     detectors, get sniffed for guns by trained dogs, watch police 
     and security guards patrolling the hallways--and fear for 
     their lives.

  Mr. COVERDELL. It says:

       In the wake of the Littleton school shootings, we've heard 
     a lot about educators' need to pay attention to the ``warning 
     signs'' of potentially violent youngsters. In this case such 
     signs were plain to see. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold 
     produced videos and wrote essays for their classes depicting 
     murderous fantasies.

  I make a point about the legal culture. A pair of Supreme Court 
rulings makes it difficult for educators to do anything at all when 
confronted with such warning signs. The warning sign in the case of the 
teacher in Georgia was a pistol pointed right at him. That is a little 
late. But he made a decision and he executed the decision, saved the 
child, and was not harmed himself.
  It is difficult for educators to do anything when confronted with the 
warning signs or, indeed, to even enforce ordinary discipline that kids 
need in order to be molded into citizens.
  That goes back to the point I was making a bit ago. Unfortunately, 
this happens in a lot of walks of life. It happens with employers. It 
happens with store owners. People stop making prudent decisions or 
become so overly cautious about the legal costs, which are passed on to 
the consumer, that they start doing things that do not make sense for 
society.
  We pay a price when it occurs in the school, when a teacher sees a 
disorderly event or something that potentially is dangerous, wrong, or 
disruptive to the education in the school, and in that teacher's mind 
they decide not to do anything, not to act; they walk away because they 
are intimidated for fear of ultimate consequences. Maybe somebody else 
in the school system was involved in a frivolous lawsuit. We are 
producing an environment where persons in charge on school property are 
stopped from doing things we expect them to do.
  In Tinker v. Des Moines School District, the justices sided with 
students who had been threatened with suspension for wearing black 
armbands to protest the Vietnam war. The court believed it was a form 
of expression. Now we hear about all these articles, one after other, 
condemning the school for not doing anything because students showed up 
dressed in a threatening manner in the school. They condemned them for 
not doing anything. On the one hand, if you do anything, you get sued. 
It is a Catch-22 situation.
  This article says:

       On first sight, these decisions seem balanced and sensible. 
     But their unintended consequence was to help create the world 
     Gerald Grant described in his 1988 book, ``The World We 
     Created at Hamilton High.'' Assemblies often degenerated into 
     catcalls and semiobscene behavior while teachers watched 
     silently.

  Mr. Grant writes, ``Trash littered the hallway outside the cafeteria, 
but it was a rare teacher who suggested a student pick up a milk carton 
he or she had thrown on the floor.''

       Cheating was widespread, but ``few adults seemed to care.'' 
     Teachers who accused kids of cheating were required to 
     produce documentation and witnesses to counter the other side 
     of the story. One teacher who had failed a boy for 
     plagiarizing a paper had to defend herself repeatedly before 
     a supervisor after being harassed by daily phone calls from 
     the student's parents and the lawyer they had hired on their 
     son's behalf.

  This is different from the place I went to school. There was no 
``chill'' on those teachers. If something this egregious was going on, 
there was somebody who was going to do something about it. I know I am 
better off for it and so are all my classmates. This is not the kind of 
environment--we are talking reform in education--you want going on in 
schools.
  Gratefully, it doesn't go on in all schools. But there is a teacher 
or principal or administrator in every school who has had it register: 
I am at legal risk here, even if I'm just doing my job. Everybody knows 
they are at legal risk if they engage in some wanton behavior that is 
obstructive or damaging. They cannot tell a student to pick up trash 
off the floor or do something about cheating going on in a classroom 
without getting sued. The mere threat of a lawsuit is often enough to 
have a chilling effect on teachers and administrators. Educators are 
understandably weary of students backed by litigious parents, not to 
mention the numerous rights manuals with titles like ``Up Against The 
Law,'' ``A High School Student's Bill of Rights,'' and ``Ask Sybil 
Liberty''--that is S-y-b-i-l Liberty.

       These guidebooks enumerate for already disaffected kids, 
     all the impermissible things teachers are going to try to 
     make them do.

  That is actually published literature out there, that somebody who is 
disaffected for some reason or other can seize onto to protect 
themselves from the environment of a stable school.

       You do not have to answer a school official, if he 
     questions you.

  This is the advice from all these great documents I have just 
enumerated.

       A teacher can't make you do anything that violates your 
     conscience.

  You know, like the other fellow a little bit ago who was asked to go 
to the vice principal's office.

       If you don't like the way the school makes you dress you 
     can go to the court.
       You can demand to see your school records.

  In another case, a high school senior in New York State distributed 
articles urging students to urinate in the hallways, scrawl graffiti on 
the walls, and riot when the police arrived.
  In 1997 the school district suspended the boy but only after the 
legal case had dragged on for 2 years, including an appeal to the 
State's highest court.
  Rights-empowered students are not merely a discipline problem; they 
have also helped dumb down the curriculum. Mr. Grant found that as 
administrators and teachers became fearful of restless,

[[Page S3581]]

back-talking adolescents, they resorted to keeping classes amiable and 
unthreatening; in other words, unchallenging. All but a handful of 
charismatic teachers studiously avoided giving low grades, demanding 
homework, or administering tests.
  We all came down here last week. We preached. We had different views 
about what we ought to do.
  We know there is something badly wrong in K-12 today. We know it. 
Everybody knows it. The data is just beyond description--the number of 
students who cannot read, who do not have quality math skills.
  With this activity going on, it is going to be pretty hard, no matter 
what we do, to get things reversed. We want quality teachers. We want 
to recruit quality teachers. How many Senators have come down here 
talking about wanting a quality teacher? I think just about everybody. 
How are we going to get a quality teacher with this stuff going on 
where they work?
  Over the 5-year period, just 5 years, from 1993 to 1997, teachers 
were the victims of 1,771,000 nonfatal crimes at school, including 
1,114,000 thefts, and 657,000 violent crimes. On the average this would 
be about 350,000-plus crimes per year.
  Madam President, I made my point. I want to give the other side some 
time. For the moment, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have the Gregg-Lott amendment before 
us. The Senator has spoken about the liability provisions that have 
been included. There are four other provisions that are included in the 
amendment.
  At the appropriate time, I am going to urge the Senate to accept the 
Gregg amendment.
  It seems to me the case ought to be made within the States, since the 
States have the power to take action on the matter discussed here 
during the course of this afternoon. The liability provision the 
Senator has mentioned would say if the States have weaker provisions, 
then these standards would stand. If they have stronger standards in 
order to deal with the problems of protecting those who are involved in 
education, than those would stand.
  A number of States have taken it. It always seemed we were focused on 
what was going to happen in the classroom. If the States wanted to take 
that action, they should take it. A number of them have. The Senator 
has offered an amendment which includes these provisions. We are going 
to recommend they move ahead and they be accepted.
  There were other provisions that were included in the Gregg 
amendment. It makes some small adjustments to what they call the TOPS 
Program by requiring every local district to take advantage of what the 
TOPS Program would be. They change the requirements to say that every 
local district has to do it, instead of just failing ones. I think that 
is an improvement.
  It adds a part of our Democratic teacher quality accountability 
provision, so after 3 years, if the local district is not improving, 
the district cannot get the fourth and fifth year funds. We do that 
plus provide additional kinds of protections. Theirs is a modest 
change, but a useful one.
  As I said, it provides teacher liability, which is acceptable. Then, 
as I understand it--I read it--there is, in addition, a small pot of 
money for financial incentives for certifications of teachers. That is 
not objectionable. It is a very modest program. It might provide some 
value for teachers.
  But I want to come back to the underlying themes of where we are in 
this legislation. The amendment itself can be easily wiped out by the 
Governors of the States; the teacher quality program is blockgranted 
under Straight A's in S. 2.
  So in effect, if the Governor wanted to block grant the whole TOPS 
Program--their basis for recruitment, mentoring, and upgrading skills 
for teachers in classrooms, which is their teacher education program, 
they could do it. It disappears. The teacher quality program can be 
block granted in the 50-State block grant and the 15-State block grant.
  So we are effectively eliminating--or under the Republican program we 
are giving the Governor, at his own whim, the ability to eliminate all 
the teacher enhancement programs.
  We are not there. Democrats are not there. We believe in having a 
strong emphasis in our program, a $2 billion program, that recognizes 
high quality recruitment, mentoring, and professional development.
  Just on page 630, there is the treatment of the eligible programs, 
those which can be block granted. Here we have subparts 1, 2, and 3 of 
part (A) of title II, that is teacher empowerment. That is true on page 
656, which is the 15-State block grant.
  Why do we have this debate on a Monday afternoon? We say OK, we will 
accept it. If we are going to eventually pass S. 2, it will not be in 
effect in any event. So let's get on to other issues.
  This is what has bothered many of us during the course of this whole 
debate. There is this fundamental commitment of our Republican friends 
to block grant these programs and issue a blank check for these 
programs. But, on the other hand, they say that they are really serious 
about these programs.
  How can we accept the fact that they are serious about putting a 
well-qualified teacher in every classroom when they give an opportunity 
to the Governors to wipe out that entire program? We do not do that. We 
say it is essential, as part of the program to which we are committed, 
that you are going to have an effective program in recruiting and also 
in professional development.
  Let's take another look at page 632 under the block grant program. We 
call it the blank check--block grant program. On page 632 it says:

       (d) Uses of funds under agreement.--Funds made available to 
     a State under this part shall be used for educational 
     purposes . . .

  Educational purposes. Do my colleagues know what qualifies for 
educational purposes? State administrators and their offices. That 
qualifies for State educational purposes.
  We have heard a great deal of rhetoric about how they want to get the 
money where it ought to be, with needy students, and, under their own 
definitions, they say it can be used for any educational purpose. It 
can be used by local administrators for their needs, it can be used for 
sports facilities, it can be used for band uniforms, because States 
spend their educational money for those purposes.
  What the Republicans say is that they can use the money we are going 
to provide to them on whatever the States want to use it. The States 
use it for band uniforms. They use it for administrative funds. They 
use it for State departments of education. Not our program, but theirs 
does.
  On the one hand, we have an amendment to the TOPS Program that 
effectively can be wiped out by the Governors and the block grant, and 
then we look at how they define what are educational purposes under 
this legislation. They create a loophole for the Governors to drive a 
truck through. The Governors will make those decisions, not the local 
educators. It is not going to be the parents. It is not going to be the 
local school boards. It is the Governors.
  One asks: Why, Senator, is it the Governors? Because the Governors 
are the only ones who, at the end of 5 years, are held accountable. 
They are the ones held accountable. All they need is to have 
substantial compliance, and then they can reapply for 5 more years. If 
this goes on--and I do not believe it will because I do not think they 
are going to get the results under this program.
  I want to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to come back to why 
we feel so strongly about targeting these programs. I am going to speak 
about the importance of recruitment and professional development and 
the importance of mentoring.
  As I have said at other times during this debate, we are committed to 
having a well-qualified teacher in every classroom in this country by 
the time this legislation has expired.
  What is happening at the present time? This is the most recent report 
from 1999, using statistics from 1994. We see that about two-thirds of 
individuals who went into teaching had a regular or advanced license. 
``No license,'' ``substandard license,'' or ``probationary license'' 
are terms used by the States to describe those who have not met 
certification. They use them interchangeably for the most part. 
Basically, a third have not met the rigorous standards. We are setting 
rigorous standards to make sure we have good teachers.

[[Page S3582]]

  Let's see what is happening. This legislation was developed to meet 
the challenges of the neediest students in the country. We know 
approximately 25 percent of the teachers do not have competency in the 
subject matter or in training skills. Let's see where those teachers 
are going and what students they are teaching.
  Let's look at ``by income.'' Where are these unqualified teachers 
teaching? 4.4 percent are in low-income communities, and 17.6 percent 
are in communities with more than 50 percent poverty. As this chart 
shows, they are not teaching in the wealthy suburbs of this country. 
They are not teaching where there are middle-income and high-income 
families in this country. They are teaching basically the lower-income 
students in this country. This is the very group on which this program 
and the ESEA is supposed to focus. That is what this whole program is 
about. That is why in 1965 we had a national concern about the poorest 
of the poor children in our country, and we decided to focus attention 
on their needs.

  Now, when we are talking about one aspect of education, and that is 
the quality of our teachers, we are finding in excess of 17 percent are 
teaching low-income students. If we take this by race, this column 
shows in schools with 1 to 10 percent minority students, 3.2 percent of 
these unqualified teachers are teaching in those areas which have the 
wealthier schools. Again, 17 percent are teaching in schools with a 
higher percentage of minority students.
  This clearly indicates that if we are going to provide the funds, 
let's try to make some difference. When we give it to the Governors--
the Governors are the ones who are giving these numbers to us now. They 
are the ones responsible for this. They have 93 cents out of every 
dollar. We are saying that we want to have better qualified teachers.
  Let's look at this next chart. This is another way of looking at the 
teachers in this country. This is the better prepared and the poorly 
prepared. This is alternative certification program, B.A., and summer 
training. Designated in red, of those who enter training, 80 percent 
went into teaching, and about a third remained after 3 years.
  Seventy percent went into teaching with a 4-year program, B.A., and a 
major in a subject field or in education. They are better trained, 70 
percent; 53 percent remain after 3 years.
  The 5-year program: They get a B.A. and a major in a subject and 
master's in education. Of the 90 percent who went in after 3 years, 84 
percent stayed. What does this say? If we develop the teachers 
professionally in their competency and skills and additional 
certification, they will remain in teaching.
  And they will make a difference to the underserved in our 
communities. That is what these charts are all about. This is another 
feature, the mentoring.
  The three provisions are professional development, recruitment, and 
mentoring. When you have mentors for new teachers, they stay in the 
profession. This chart shows the percentage of teachers who leave the 
profession after the first 3 years without mentoring, which is 23 
percent; but with mentors, it is 7 percent. Teachers will stay in 
teaching when they have mentors. Those teachers who have better 
opportunities for continuing their education will remain in teaching.
  We know how to help retain teachers. We can ask ourselves: What does 
all this mean in terms of academic achievement? This is from the 
Teacher Quality and Student Achievement, of December 1999:

       Increasingly, the States that repeatedly lead the Nation in 
     mathematics and reading achievement have among the Nation's 
     most highly qualified teachers and have made the longstanding 
     investment in the quality of teaching. Top scoring States--
     Minnesota, North Dakota, and Iowa; recently joined by 
     Wisconsin, Maine, and Montana--all have rigorous standards 
     for teaching that include requiring the extensive study of 
     education plus a major in the field to be taught. Case 
     studies of States that undertook the most comprehensive 
     teaching policy initiatives during the 1980s, especially 
     Connecticut, North Carolina, and other States, such as 
     Arkansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia, that pursued 
     comprehensive reform initiatives in which teacher quality 
     figured prominently showed evidence of steep gains in student 
     performance.

  We are not doing this as an academic exercise. We are trying to say 
what works for children. What is happening now can make a difference in 
terms of children:

       There have been steep gains in student performance from the 
     early to mid-1990s for those States that have given a high 
     priority to recruitment, mentoring, and professional 
     development.

  Listen to this. The study continues:

       By contrast, States, such as Georgia and South Carolina, 
     where reform initiatives across a comparable period focused 
     on curriculum and testing, but where they invested less in 
     teacher learning, showed less success in raising student 
     achievement within this timeframe.

  Can we not learn, in terms of using scarce resources, what works and 
what does not work? This is only one aspect. This is one aspect of our 
effort here on the floor of the Senate.
  We know what works, based upon the kinds of reports and evaluations 
that have been done.
  Here is the study: ``What Matters Most: Teaching for America's 
Future, report of the National Commission on Teaching & America's 
Future. This was done by Republicans and Democrats alike. What do they 
point out in this area? They say:

       Some problems, however, are national in scope and require 
     special attention: There is no coordinated system for helping 
     colleges decide how many teachers in which fields should be 
     prepared or where they will be needed. Neither is there 
     regular support of the kind long provided in medicine to 
     recruit teachers for high-need fields and locations. Critical 
     areas like mathematics and science have long had shortages of 
     qualified teachers that were only temporarily solved by 
     federal recruitment incentives during the post-Sputnik years. 
     Currently, more than 40% of math teachers and 40% of science 
     teachers are not fully qualified for their assignments.

  Since the successful recruitment programs of the 1970s ended (Teacher 
Corps), only a few States have created support in the form of 
scholarships or loans to prepare teachers for high-need areas and 
fields. In addition, investing once again in the targeted recruitment 
and preparation of teachers for high-need fields and location is a 
national need.
  That is just with regard to the recruitment. They say it is a 
national need, a national responsibility.

  On the issue of mentoring:

       The weight of accumulated evidence clearly shows that 
     traditional sink-or-swim induction contributes to high 
     attrition and to lower levels of teacher effectiveness.

  That is just what the chart showed.
  Further:

       The kinds of supervised internships or residencies 
     regularly provided for new entrants in other professions--
     architects, psychologists, nurses, doctors, engineers--are 
     rare in teaching, but they have proven to be quite effective 
     where they do exist. Beginning teachers who receive mentoring 
     focus on student learning much sooner; they become more 
     effective as teachers because they are learning from guided 
     practice rather than trial-and-error; and they leave teaching 
     at much lower rates.

  Then it continues:

       Although some states have created programs for new teacher 
     induction, few have maintained the commitment required. With 
     a few exceptions, initiatives during the 1980s focused on 
     evaluation and failed to fund mentoring. Others provided 
     mentoring that reached only a few eligible teachers or 
     withered as funds evaporated. Again, the problem is not that 
     we don't know how to support beginning teachers; it is that 
     we have not yet developed the commitment to do so routinely.

  This isn't only Democrats who are saying this. This is the most 
comprehensive report on how to get high-quality teachers, mentoring 
programs, professional development, and what it means in terms of 
academic achievement. That is what we stand for.
  Further, on the issues of professional development, let me mention 
this:

       (Pg. 41) Most U.S. teachers have almost no regular time to 
     consult together or learn about new teaching strategies, 
     unlike their peers in many European and Asian countries.

  Remember all the debate we heard last week about: Look what is 
happening in these European countries. Look what is happening there. 
One of the things they are doing in many of the European countries, 
where teachers have substantial time to plan and study with one 
another--

       In Germany, Japan, and China, for example, teachers spend 
     between 15 and 20 hours per week working with colleagues on 
     developing curriculum, counseling students, and pursuing 
     their own learning. . . .
       The result is a rich environment for continuous learning 
     about teaching and the needs of students.
       Instead of these ongoing learning opportunities, U.S. 
     teachers get a few brief workshops offering packaged 
     prescriptions from

[[Page S3583]]

     outside consultants on ``in-service days'' that contribute 
     little to deepening their subject knowledge or teaching 
     skills.

  We challenge our Republican colleagues to point out in their bill 
where they are going to do these kinds of things and meet these kinds 
of challenges that have been outlined for our students. We ask them: 
Where is it? It is nonexistent. It just isn't there. I will show you 
why it isn't there.

  Let us compare the various provisions under our amendment to S. 2.
  This is where we say: Well, let's see where your program is. Let's 
take the issue of professional development and mentoring.
  The allocation of funds goes to States by formula based on 60 percent 
poverty and 40 percent population. At the State level, funds go to 
districts by formula based on 80 percent poverty and 20 percent 
population. Funds are targeted and focused on the neediest areas. We 
guarantee funds for these two purposes.
  In terms of recruitment, we provide that 30 percent of the State's 
allocation shall be used by the State agency to provide grants to 
recruitment partnerships under the sections that we have for 
recruitment activities. We guarantee funds in terms of the recruitment.
  Pass this bill, and it is $2 billion for high quality professional 
development, mentoring, and recruitment. We are guaranteeing the funds 
for these activities. We spell it out in the bill.
  They haven't done it yet in their bill. And they can't do it because 
it is just not there.
  When it comes to the professional development, under the basic 
Republican bill, they say it doesn't guarantee substantial funds for 
professional development. They say a portion of the funds can be used. 
This could be as little as one dollar. It is an allowable use for 
professional development. It is an allowable use in terms of mentoring. 
It is an allowable use in terms of recruitment. There is no guarantee 
of any funds for these two activities. Also, there are no assurances to 
parents that they are going to have qualified teachers in the 
classroom.
  On our side, we say if you are going to end up on the back end of 
this legislation with results, you have to invest in quality in the 
front end. You have to set criteria at the beginning of this 
legislation about what you are going to do in these particular areas.
  That is what we have done because that is what is overwhelmingly 
called for.
  Our amendment also guarantees that teachers are going to be prepared 
to teach children with disabilities along with other students with 
special needs. We have accountability not only at the State level in 
terms of teachers but also for every class at the local level.
  Our amendment says if you do not make progress in student achievement 
after 3 years, you cannot continue in terms of the funds.
  There is a dramatic contrast in the two different proposals on issues 
which are so incredibly important in terms of the children of this 
country.
  We have tried in other areas as well: Afterschool programs, 
construction programs, accountability programs, and parental 
involvement.
  Also, we have tried to find out the importance of those particular 
programs and what their impact has been on children to advance their 
academic achievement, accomplishment, enhance their sense of self-
confidence, and advance their interests in learning. These are all 
extremely important. We have tried to include those various programs in 
the legislation we have advanced. We believe this is a much more 
valuable way of proceeding than just giving a blank check to the 
Governors.
  How can we in good conscience vote for legislation that is going to 
send the money back to the States when the States are absolutely 
failing to do their job today?
  We hear: Well, we want something different. We want something that is 
new. We want something revolutionary. We want something that will sound 
like it is something completely different from the past.

  We are saying we have tried revenue sharing and block grants in the 
past. That is what we had from 1956 to 1969, and it didn't work. The 
studies and statistics demonstrate that it didn't work. But this is a 
very different approach. We didn't have the technology concepts and 
legislation 6 or 10 years ago. We have a new effort in the way we are 
going to use that technology, ways that will reduce the division in 
terms of the digital divide. Years ago, we didn't understand the 
importance of well-qualified teachers and the relationship between 
well-qualified teachers and the academic achievement of students. But, 
we have the statistics, the information, and the studies now, and we 
want to do something to make a difference.
  We didn't really have afterschool programs years ago, because quite 
frankly, children went home, and more often than not, one of their 
parents was home working with the child and helping and assisting the 
child with their homework. That is entirely different today. We didn't 
know the importance of trying to develop afterschool programs. When you 
look at the demand for those afterschool programs in communities across 
the country, we know the importance and significance of giving help and 
assistance to those children with afterschool programs, which means 
they are going to continue to make progress academically in these 
afterschool programs. That is enormously important.
  These are matters which are enormously important. They are tried and 
tested. They are different from where we were before. But there is 
compelling evidence that these kinds of efforts result in enhanced 
academic achievement and accomplishment.
  The alternative just baffles me. I have been listening and have been 
on the floor for just about the whole time through: Monday of last week 
and during the brief time on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. We 
continue to hear that we are having a lot of trouble with children in 
underserved and disadvantaged areas, and what we have tried in the past 
doesn't work. Therefore, we have to try something else. What is 
``something else''? What is ``something new''? Block grants. They call 
that something new? That is an old word for revenue sharing. That has 
been a discarded and discredited program. If the Governors want to do 
all these things, there is no reason they cannot do them.

  Debating merit pay. They said let's have merit pay. Well, the 
Governors can do that if they want to. If they don't want to, they 
don't. We are waiting to hear from any State that wants to develop the 
merit pay program for individual teachers rather than doing it on a 
schoolwide basis, which, as Governor Riley learned, is the way to go. 
Governors can go ahead and do it.
  As we spelled out last week, different Governors made statements that 
they were committed to trying to do something about underserved 
schools. They made those commitments over a long period of time. There 
are notable exceptions, and I mentioned those States earlier today. 
They are Republican and Democrat Governors.
  In the Governors' Association report of 1986, ``Time for Results,'' 
the task force was chaired by Governors Alexander, Riley, Clinton, and 
Keene. Intervene in low-performing schools and school districts and 
take over or close down academically bankrupt school districts--they 
urged the Governor to do that in 1986.
  By 1997, there were nine States that moved ahead. In 1998, the 
support for the State focused on schools reiterating a position first 
taken in 1988 by the National Governors Policy. They say States should 
have the responsibility for enforcing accountability, including 
establishing clear penalties in cases of sustained failure to improve 
student performance. By the year 2000, we will have 20 States providing 
assistance to low-performing schools.
  Some have not done it. Some Governors have not shaped up. Some have, 
and those Governors ought to be commended.
  If we go at this rate from 1986 to the year 2000, from 9 States to 
20, it will take 50 more years to get these programs active in the 
local community. Who wants to wait?
  If you were able to demonstrate you had 10 States out of 50 with 
Governors who had turned that around, you would have some legitimacy on 
the floor of the Senate in desiring to try it in the other 40. But we 
haven't seen it.
  Our Republican friends want to give them another chance to take all 
of this money and use it in the capitals of their States, use it for 
educational purposes which include bureaucracies, and

[[Page S3584]]

permit them to use it for a wide range of different activities outside 
of the needs of underserved children. It is absolutely wrong.
  I will discuss another offensive part of this legislation. That is 
the provision that eliminates our national commitment to help and 
assist the three categories of children which are the most vulnerable 
in our society: The homeless, migrant children, and immigrant children.
  The immigrant children come from families impacted by federal 
immigration law and will eventually be eligible to become American 
citizens. Nonetheless, they have some very special needs. By and large, 
the States have never paid any attention to them.
  We have the homeless children. As recently as 1987, the Center for 
Law and Education sent out a questionnaire regarding the State 
practices and policies for homeless students to the chief State 
officials in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The majority 
of the respondents had no statewide data on the number of homeless 
children in their jurisdictions or whether those children were able to 
obtain an education. The majority of States had no uniform plan for 
ensuring homeless students receive an education.
  I asked over the weekend, outside of Federal funds, what are the 
States doing for homeless children. We have been unable to get any 
indication from any State. Madam President, there were 625,000 homeless 
children in 1997 and 1998, and only 231,000 of those children were 
getting some additional help and assistance for educational services.
  I hope our friends on the other side will tell us the things States 
are doing for homeless kids at the present time. I think we will wait a 
long time. They have not done it in the past, and they are not doing it 
today. That is true with regard to the migrant children, 718,000 
children. They live in poverty, and only 40 percent have completed 
eighth grade. The instance of sickness among these children--not only 
physical, but also in terms of mental needs--is overwhelming.
  We are saying we will not continue that program as we know it. We are 
going to send the money targeted for that program back to the States. 
The reason we created the program is because States were not doing 
anything for those students.
  We have had 4 days of debate on this bill. I hope the other side will 
tell us--if not tonight, then tomorrow--what all the States are doing 
with regard to homeless children. We are not taking care of these 
children in the way we should, even with the funds being provided under 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We are still reaching 
perhaps half of those children who need help and assistance. Is any 
person going to tell us, Senator, when we send these funds back to the 
States, the Governor will look out after the homeless children, the 
migrant children, and the immigrant children? Can any person 
demonstrate any history where the States have been willing to do it?
  That is our challenge. We want to hear it. We have not been able to 
find that. To block grant all of these funds, send them back to the 
States, and say they will be able to deal with them, rather than at 
least have coordinated programs that help track the children as they 
move down from Florida, through Georgia, through the Carolinas, some 
all the way into New England and the west coast--they have worked with 
different communities knowing when the crops change--try to coordinate 
this.
  There has been a positive response from some of the States to work in 
a coordinated way. We have had some leadership from the Department of 
Education. Why are going to leave that out? That does not make sense.
  I hope when the time comes, there will be an acceptance of the Gregg 
amendment and then we will look forward to having a good discussion on 
some of the other matters as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have really enjoyed listening to my 
colleague from Massachusetts. He seems to think the only answer to 
education, public education in this country, happens to be the Federal 
Government. Of course, those of us who really have watched it and 
observed it over all these years realize that is not the answer.
  The Federal Government spent, over the last 30 years, I guess, $120 
billion. And in almost every category in title I, poor kids do a lot 
worse. We had over 700 Federal programs--over 700--300 of them just in 
the Department of Education alone. Yet we still have the same age old 
arguments that the Federal Government is the last answer to everything 
and really parents and families just don't know what to do for their 
kids.
  I know there is a legitimate feeling on the part of those on the left 
that that is true, but there is more than a legitimate feeling on the 
part of us on the right who know that that is not true and literally 
the Federal Government is not the last answer. My good friends talks 
about block grants just being another name for revenue sharing--no, 
block grants are a way of letting the State and local people take care 
of their educational processes and to find out how and then to use the 
money in the best interests of the State and local educational 
processes. It is a pretty pivotal, basic Federalist principle, it seems 
to me.
  I rise today to talk about the education bill pending before the 
Senate today. S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act, if enacted would 
make a number of improvements to education. This bill that is on the 
floor would really help education. S. 2 allows up to 15 states to shake 
off federal restrictions in exchange for increased accountability. It 
allows eligible parents to choose the provider of Title I services for 
their children.
  This bill also gives parents the right to move their children out of 
schools that are failing them.
  Why would we not want to do this? why would we not want to allow 
parents more control over the education of their children? I am 
sincerely baffled as to why this bill has attracted such opposition--I 
cannot believe that my colleagues are more interested in protecting 
bureaucracy instead of supporting teachers and students. Why should my 
colleagues be more concerned with filling out forms than in getting 
needed funds into classrooms?
  I commend the Chairman and the hard working members of the HELP 
Committee. This is one of the most difficult committees to chair and to 
work on. I should know. I think the committee has put together a 
common-sense piece of legislation that, while not as sweeping as some 
would prefer, moves us along in the right direction. I would like the 
opportunity to vote for this bill.
  I listened with interest to the comments of my fellow Utahn, Senator 
Bennett last week. I thought he made some excellent points, especially 
about the voluntary nature of some of more controversial elements of 
the bill. These really are very modest reforms, and this Congress and 
this President should move ahead with them.
  It may come as a shock to some here in the Emerald City, but the 
Federal Government did not invent the public schools. Education in our 
country is never going to get better if we do not stop spinning our 
wheels here in Washington and start supporting the innovative reforms 
being implemented at state and local levels.
  There is a role for the Federal Government, but it is a supportive 
one. And, many of those supportive programs are being reauthorized in 
this bill.
  Today, however, I would like to speak about my amendment to the Title 
I funding formula for economically and educationally disadvantaged 
authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--ESEA.
  Before I get into that, though, I would like to note the Federal 
Government pays about 7 percent of the cost of education. Yet it 
requires 50 percent of the paperwork. That is the equivalent of 267,500 
full-time teachers. We could go a long way towards solving some of the 
teacher problems in this country if we would get off the kick that the 
Federal Government is the last resort to everything. I think the 
Federal Government muddles in education where it should not. And many 
of the things it has done have not been fruitful or beneficial, even 
though I admit that the Federal Government can have a supportive role, 
if it is truly supportive and not destructive.

[[Page S3585]]

  My amendment would make the Education Finance Incentive Grant 
Program, EFIG, a permanent statutory factor in the allocation of 
resources in the Title I formula. The EFIG program is currently 
authorized as a separate part of the Title I formula, which has never 
been funded. I believe that including it as a permanent factor in the 
Title I formula has merit. The Education Finance Incentive Grant 
Program distributes resources to states based on two important factors: 
effort and equity.
  The effort factor measures a State's own fiscal commitment to 
education. The equity factor is determined by a state's commitment to 
equitably distributing resources among its school districts. Unlike 
demographic factors, both effort and equity can be controlled to a 
substantial degree by states as a matter of policy.
  The equity factor is a crucial element of the EFIG program. It 
measures the ``coefficient of variation'' of funding among a state's 
school district; i.e., the equity factor measures how well a state 
endeavors to even out education assistance between districts which have 
high property tax revenues and those which do not.
  Let me reiterate my support and appreciation for the hard work done 
by the HELP Committee on this bill, which I support. But, I wish the 
Committee had looked a little harder at the Title I formula. S. 2, as 
reported, does not change the fundamental problem of using State-per-
pupil-expenditure as a proxy for determining a state's financial 
commitment to education.
  What this expenditure proxy does is place a higher value on a child 
who lives in a rich State than it places on a child from a poor state, 
which cannot spend a large amount. If a State can afford to spend more 
money per-pupil, it gets more money from the Federal Government. If a 
State has less capacity and cannot spend as much per-pupil, it gets 
less money under Title I. This seems backwards to me.
  Second, use of per-pupil spending as the sole proxy for a State's 
commitment to education ignores other important factors--such as tax 
effort. Thus ``effort'' is also a component of the EFIG formula, which 
my amendment would finally incorporate into the Title I formula.
  In my home State of Utah, education consistently ranks as one of the 
highest priorities for Utahns. During this year's session of the Utah 
legislature, Utah reaffirmed its commitment to improving education, 
reducing class size, and increasing salaries for teachers.
  Utah takes its commitment to education funding very seriously. During 
the 1995-96 school year, education expenditures in Utah amounted to $92 
per $1000 of personal income. The national average was $62 per $1000. 
In other words, Utah's education expenditure relative to total personal 
income is 50 percent more than the national average. It is the third 
highest in the nation.
  In terms of education expenditures as a percent of total direct State 
and local government expenditures, Utah ranks 2nd in the Nation. Utah's 
expenditure for education was 41.5 percent of the total amount spent 
for government. The national average is 33.5 percent.
  No one can tell me that Utahns are not serious about funding 
education. And these efforts have garnered results. Utah's scores on 
ACT tests are equal to or better than the National average in English, 
math, reading and science. Utah ranks 1st in the nation in Advanced 
Placement tests taken and passed.
  Still, even with these efforts, Utah remains 1st in the Nation in 
terms of class size and last in per-pupil expenditure. This is due to 
Utah's unique demographic. Utah families are, on average, larger than 
any other state. Utah has the highest birth rate in the Nation.
  But I am realist. While I would like to completely eliminate per-
pupil expenditure from the Title I formula, I understand that this is 
not going to happen.
  However, I do believe it is appropriate and very sound policy to 
include in the Title I formula a small measure of diversity, that is, 
other ways of measuring a state's commitment to education--namely, 
effort and equity.
  Including the EFIG program as a permanent factor in the allocation of 
Title I makes sense from this perspective.
  Equity in education financing is receiving considerable attention 
both in the media and in the courts. States are being compelled by the 
courts to equalize resources. Most experts agree that the courts are 
tending towards equalization. To the extent reluctant states are having 
to equalize education funding to comply with court decisions, my 
amendment provides these States with some measure of relief because 
greater equity will increase their allocations under Title I. David 
Goodman in ``Mother Jones'' noted:

       Since 1971, when the California Supreme Court declared in 
     Serrano v. Priest that using property taxes to finance public 
     education was a violation of the state constitution's equal 
     protection clause, all but six states have been sued over 
     educational equity. To date, school financing systems in 19 
     states have been deemed unconstitutional, and the courts have 
     ordered these states to restructure their systems to improve 
     the quality of education for all.
       The implication is clear: School funding and student 
     performance are believed to be directly and inextricably 
     linked and wide variances in school funding are thought to 
     both promote and maintain inequality of educational 
     opportunity.

  Indeed, some States are increasingly compelled to demonstrate that 
not only are they equalizing resources, but are providing an equal 
quality of education to all students.
  I understand that these initiatives are causing some community 
concerns. I know that the distinguished Chairman of the HELP committee 
is all too aware of the controversies associated with the legal ruling 
in his home State of Vermont. However, the increasing reliance on 
resolving these issues through the courts and the fact that the courts 
are tending to favor equalization as a means of mitigating educational 
disparities lead me to conclude that legally requiring States to 
equalize resources among districts will continue to be a strategy 
employed by those concerned about education equity.
  I also conclude that it is an appropriate use of federal resources to 
provide incentives for states to implement equalization programs as 
well as to assist those implementing court-ordered policies.
  Resource equity has been identified as an effective strategy to 
accelerate education reform, which was the theme of the 2000 education 
conference sponsored by the Aspen Institute. Included in the 
rapporteur's summary was the following:

       In the effort to raise the achievement of all American 
     students, an extremely serious barrier is the huge 
     disparities in resources for education across districts and 
     states, It is not unusual for the per-student expenditure to 
     be three times greater in affluent districts than in poorer 
     districts of the same state. Although qualified, effective 
     teachers and principals are key to student achievement--even 
     more so for at-risk students--districts where salaries are 
     low continually lose teachers and principals to districts 
     that are able to pay more.
       . . . Equally important is crafting finance equalization 
     strategies, such as allowing federal funds to go only to 
     those states that demonstrate equitable and adequate state 
     education funding.

  A Rand report summarized that,

       A . . . promising strategy would offer federal incentives 
     to states to equalize spending among their own districts. A 
     crude form of incentive would make a state's eligibility for 
     Chapter 1 funds contingent on a certain degree of 
     interdistrict fiscal equality.

  The Rand report concludes, however, that

       Potentially the most effective incentive-based approach 
     would build rewards for intrastate equalization into a new 
     program of general-purpose federal education aid to the 
     states. The size of each state's general grant would depend 
     on one of more indicators of school finance equity.''

  This amendment that I will offer later in this debate is consistent 
with the Rand report recommendation.
  Let me make it clear that my amendment does not call for equalization 
among States. In essence, that is what Title I itself is supposed to 
do--assist States and local education agencies to fund low-income 
districts and schools. My amendment is not even mandatory on the 
states. Those states who wish to retain their current within-state 
distribution plans, assuming the court has not compelled them to change 
those plans, may do so.
  I am not asserting the equalization of resources among 
school districts is the answer to every education dilemma faced in our 
county. Indeed, like most

[[Page S3586]]

reform efforts, the data on its effectiveness are contradictory.

  Moreover, I have always been a firm believer that states and school 
districts must be able to adopt school policies--including school 
reforms--that work for them. Whether or not we happen to like a 
particular reform idea here at the national level should not matter. We 
should not be drawn into the ``reform du jour'' mentality. Just because 
something is the latest idea flowing from academia doesn't mean it will 
work for the Granite School District or any of the 41 local districts 
in my State or any other school district.
  Equalization is not a silver bullet, and I am not claiming that it 
is. It is a very small modification. But, when equalization is combined 
with other education reform efforts, such as in Texas, there is 
improvement in education. The following from the National Journal 
illuminates the success Texas has had when the equalization of 
resources became the catalyst for other systemic education reforms.

       Poor districts received substantially increased funds, but 
     no one in Texas got a lot of money for education, especially 
     compared with states such as New Jersey and Connecticut.
       . . . Texas officials say the additional funds were crucial 
     for low-income schools. ``If you went to poor communities 
     that are doing well, they will point to programs they've 
     implemented, issues they've addressed, that they would not 
     have been able to address without the funding that's become 
     available to them in recent years,'' said Joseph Johnson, 
     director of the Collaborative for School Improvement at the 
     Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas (Austin) . 
     . . The crucial difference, he maintains, is focus, 
     especially on the ``academic success of every student and 
     making sure resources in those schools are very clearly, 
     deliberately focused on instruction.'' The moral of this 
     story: Money matters--but only if schools make it work for 
     them.

  I believe that an equalization factor is consistent with the intent 
of this Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization to 
assist students at risk. I believe that the unequal distribution of 
resources among school districts disproportionately affects poor and 
minority students. A strong equalization factor will provide an 
incentive for States to address this.
  A report prepared by the Policy Information Center of the Educational 
Testing Service, titled The State of Inequality, concludes that:

       Thus, it can be established with national data that 
     educational resources are unevenly distributed. It is also 
     clear that, on average, students in poorer areas are likely 
     to have fewer educational resources than those in wealthy 
     areas. There are also wide variations in the effectiveness of 
     schooling, after differences in socioeconomic status are 
     considered.

  Further studies have also determined that high poverty and minority 
students have fewer opportunities to take ``critical gatekeeping'' 
courses in math and the hard sciences, thus preventing access to 
institutions of higher learning.
  A report prepared for the House Committee on Education and Labor, 
titled, Shortchanging Children: The Impact of Fiscal Inequity on the 
Education of Students At Risk found that, ``Inequitable systems of 
school finance inflict disproportionate harm on minority and 
economically disadvantaged students.''
  Additionally, as I have discussed, the EFIG program has been modified 
to include a poverty factor in the effort portion of this formula.
  This continues to be a pressing issue. I was particularly moved by a 
recent article I read in the Charleston, South Carolina, Post and 
Courier, that highlights once again, the glaring disparities between 
what poor children can except from schools and what rich children can 
expect from school.
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       [From the Charleston (SC) Post and Courier, Jan. 9, 2000]

         Lack of Resources Hampers Students in Poorer Districts

                             (By Sybil Fix)

       Every morning, as the sun rises above the fields, students 
     in Marion County School District 3 journey to Centenary to 
     attend Terrells Bay School.
       There, they could hope to find what other students in South 
     Carolina have--experienced teachers, a rich array of classes 
     and a chance for a good education. In their part of the 
     world, where 85 percent of the students are on free lunch and 
     few make it to college, that could change lives. But students 
     in Marion 3 will get something less. At Terrells Bay, 
     students learn physics, statistics, anatomy and biology via 
     interactive television because the district can't afford to 
     hire teachers for those subjects.
       They study Spanish via television, too, and that is their 
     only foreign language choice.
       They have no teacher for math above Algebra II. They have 
     no choir, no performing arts, no visual arts. They have no 
     debate team, no clubs of any kind. Boys can choose only 
     between basketball and football. The school has a successful 
     girls basketball program.
       They have a tiny library, with stained ceilings and half 
     empty shelves, and bathrooms barely fit for use.
       Principal Al Bradley gives thanks for a nucleus of good 
     teachers he says save the school.
       But his is a constant struggle to make do.
       ``The reality is that given the facilities and the money 
     and the programs, we cannot provide an education that is 
     equal in quality to what they get in Irmo or other schools,'' 
     said Bradley, 36, a soft-spoken man whose office looks like a 
     refurbished cubbyhole.
       Outside, stray dogs wander between humble houses and 
     rundown shacks surrounding the red brick, flat-roofed 
     building a stone's throw from the town off S.C. Highway 41. 
     Cows and mowed fields are steps away and continue for miles.
       Bradley's two sons attend Terrells Bay.
       ``There is no way they are getting an equal education 
     here,'' he says, shaking his head. ``It seems to make no 
     sense. How do you explain it?''
       In district after district across the state, educators face 
     the constraints of a school system that fixes haves and have-
     nots in a pattern of inequity.
       It is not only that less is spent on educating children 
     who, mostly poor and mostly black, live in poor school 
     districts. It is also that less is spent on addressing the 
     greater educational needs of children in concentrations of 
     poverty in districts with scant local revenues.
       Poor districts have less to spend on teachers, materials, 
     building maintenance and capital projects.
       Their academic programs lag behind; they have fewer and 
     less-experienced teachers; their schools are old and 
     decrepit; and most often, their performance is lower.
       While per pupil expenditure doesn't tell the whole story, 
     few seem to believe that the spending levels in South 
     Carolina's poorest school districts can ensure an adequate 
     education.
       ``My kids deserve the opportunity to consider Harvard, Yale 
     or Duke just like everyone else,'' said John Kirby, 
     superintendent of the Dillon 3 School District. ``But we are 
     like a poor country family. We have the good morals, we love 
     our children and we want the best for our children, but we 
     can only take them so far and they deserve so much more.''
       He shrugs.
       ``All of us here in South Carolina were invited to the 
     Kentucky Derby, but some of us were given thoroughbreds and 
     some of us were given mules. We might all get to the end . . 
     . but some of us might be cleaning up the track.''


                         Inequity in the making

       The inequities in South Carolina's school system were cast 
     with the birth of the state's free schools in the early 
     1800s.
       ``A lot of the difficulties from the beginning are ones 
     that occurred throughout the South and throughout the United 
     States,'' said Dr. Craig Kridell, curator of the Museum of 
     Education at the University of South Carolina and a professor 
     of history of education.
       Efforts were made to place a free school in each county, 
     but in rural areas the schools were too distant for many to 
     attend. Because they were labeled pauper schools, many 
     shunned them. And many of the families they targeted 
     preferred to keep their children at home to work.
       The state provided money for free schools, but local need 
     wasn't considered. There were great differences in competence 
     among teachers and among local school commissioners, Kridell 
     said.
       ``The History of South Carolina Schools,'' published in 
     part by the Department of Education, quotes governors and 
     superintendents throughout the 1800s remarking on the 
     scarcity of efforts made to educate the middle--and poorer--
     classes, particularly in rural areas.
       By the mid-1800s, when it became clear that funding schools 
     was too costly, the state shifted most of the burden to the 
     counties, through local property taxes.
       The state did guarantee a minimum amount of state funds per 
     pupil per district, but the funds often were withheld, 
     Kridell said, and local funds were not shared equally between 
     black and white schools.
       By 1900, education superintendent John McMahan reported to 
     the Legislature that ``each county supports its own schools 
     with practically no help from the state. Each district has as 
     poor schools as its people will tolerate, and in some 
     districts anything will be tolerated.''
       At that time, school attendance was not mandatory, and 
     nearly 75 percent of children never went beyond fifth grade.
       In the early 1950s, under Gov. James Byrnes and facing the 
     threat of integration, the state passed its first sales tax 
     to try to equalize conditions among school districts--
     generating $100 million to build 200 black schools and 70 
     white schools.
       The number of official school districts, some without 
     schools, went from more than

[[Page S3587]]

     1,700 to 109--now 86--and a new bus system offered 
     transportation to black students for the first time.
       But the quality of education was inconsistent, and teacher 
     quality was abysmal, Kridell said.
       Between 1940 and 1970, because of the sales tax and 
     increases in federal Title I funding for disadvantaged 
     children, school funds went from $178 million to more than 
     $300 million.
       But the gap between tax-poor and tax-rich districts 
     remained.


                           Efforts to change

       In 1977, under the leadership of Gov. James Edwards, South 
     Carolina passed the Education Finance Act, specifically to 
     address underfunding of schools in rural and black areas.
       The law guaranteed a base amount for a minimum education 
     per student, and required that the state allocate a certain 
     portion of funds based on children's needs and the districts' 
     ability to raise local revenues.
       The districts with the least property wealth and the 
     highest number of at-risk children were to receive more 
     money.
       And they do.
       The effort pumped $100 million into the school system over 
     the next five years. In 1983, an audit praised it for 
     bringing more equity to the system.
       But a 1989 audit concluded that the money allocated for the 
     minimum education per student wasn't enough. Entire 
     categories of funding--transportation and teacher benefits, 
     for example--were exempt from equity formulas.
       The poorest districts had 35 percent of the wealth of the 
     richer districts. To compensate fully for the difference, the 
     state would have had to give an average 39 percent increase 
     in funding to the poorer districts and a 33 percent decrease 
     in funding to the richer districts.
       Passage under the leadership of Gov. Dick Riley of the 
     Education Improvement Act in 1984 provided an additional $217 
     million to the schools, primarily aimed at increasing student 
     performance. The law called for stiffer graduation 
     requirements, teacher evaluations and salary increases, 
     grants for good schools and for gifted and talented students.
       But the quality-based act included no equity formula, and 
     through the years it gave much more money to the better-
     performing, wealthier districts, state data shows.
       ``While poorer districts receive more total state funds per 
     pupil than wealthier districts, state funding does not fully 
     compensate for wealth disparity,'' the audit concluded. 
     ``There is less assurance that students from poor districts 
     are receiving comparable educational programs to those in 
     wealthy districts.''


                              Funding now

       The local ability to raise taxes still drives education 
     funding, and it is the prime source of inequity.
       Operating expenditures per pupil vary from $8,062 to $4,769 
     across the state. The amount per district is mostly 
     determined by the local tax rate plus the state allocation.
       On average, the state pays about 52 percent of the cost per 
     district and the federal government about 8 percent. The 
     districts are expected to come up with the rest, said John 
     Cooley, the Department of Education's director of budget in 
     the Office of Governmental Affairs.
       The problem is that many districts can't raise the 
     remaining 40 percent, and the state doesn't make up the 
     difference.
       About 55 percent of all state school funding--or about $1.3 
     billion--is distributed according to some consideration of 
     equity, Cooley said.
       But here, as in most states, said Georgia State University 
     school finance expert Ross Rubenstein, there is no 
     consideration of simple poverty.
       Education improvement money, which accounts for about a 
     fourth of all state education funding, is distributed without 
     any consideration of a district's finances.
       In addition, revenue-hungry districts often have to compete 
     with wealthy districts to receive state grants for 
     necessities such as computers and software and computer 
     training for teachers. While priority sometimes is given to 
     poorer districts, wealthy districts often receive the same 
     amount.
       Funds raised locally, meanwhile, are vastly different.
       Districts with high assessed property values can collect 
     more money with low tax rates--and spend more money on 
     schools--than can school districts with low assessed property 
     values.
       The value of the mill--the unit of taxation--ranges from 
     less than $10,000 in Clarendon 3 and Marion 3 and 4 to $1 
     million in larger counties such as Greenville and Charleston. 
     Charleston has a legislatively imposed cap on the amount of 
     tax dollars that can be raised for schools.
       Over the years, development in the wealthier districts has 
     brought in higher tax revenue than equity funding formulas 
     have been able to compensate for, Cooley said.
       State data show that, over the past 10 years, the increase 
     in total revenue per student for the poorer districts is 
     barely comparable to and in some cases lower than the 
     increases in revenue per student for the richer districts.
       For example, Spartanburg 7 school district has seen a 
     $3,082 per pupil revenue increase since 1988, while the 
     districts in Dillon, Marion and Clarendon counties have seen 
     increases ranging from $2,000 to $2,500.
       While Lee County school district receives $3,469 more per 
     pupil from the state than the York 2 school district, York 2 
     still receives more in local taxes per pupil--$4,426. In 
     total per pupil revenue, York 2 comes out ahead by $1,291.
       What difference can $1,291 make per pupil?
       In Lee, that amounts to $4.5 million that the district 
     could spend on everything from music and art rooms to science 
     labs and lighting, said superintendent Bill Townes.
       ``Four and a half million would not address all of our 
     needs in this district, but it would go a long way,'' he 
     said.


                             Teacher saints

       In the evening, when the sun sets below the fields of 
     Orangeburg County, teachers at Elloree Elementary School wrap 
     up classroom activities and pack up their cars to take their 
     students home.
       Were it not for the teachers, the students couldn't stay at 
     school to play, to work on reading, to get extra attention.
       In countless poor schools around the state, from Memminger 
     Elementary School in downtown Charleston to Anderson Primary 
     School in Kingstree, teachers spend an inordinate amount of 
     their time and money to make up for what school systems don't 
     fund and what home lives don't offer.
       ``You have to put forth a lot of effort to provide 
     experiences that they would otherwise not get,'' said Debora 
     Brunson, principal of Elloree Elementary School, which sits 
     on a sun-beaten field at the northeasternmost corner of 
     Orangeburg County.
       Teachers in poorer districts have double duty, said Holly 
     Hill-Roberts High School Principal Patricia Lott.
       ``You are supposed to teach them what you are supposed to 
     teach them at that particular time of their lives, and make 
     up for what they are not bringing with them when they come to 
     you.''
       Schools in wealthy areas can rely on fees, fundraisers and 
     donations.
       In poor districts, stories abound of teachers who spend 
     their earnings to buy children materials, clothes, food.
       Yet teachers in those districts are paid much less than 
     those who teach less needy populations of students.
       ``You find schools with the greatest needs, children with 
     the greatest needs and staff with the greatest needs all 
     together,'' Brunson said. ``What does a poor school do?''
       Dillon 3 spends 69 percent of what is spent in Spartanburg 
     7 on instruction per student--$2,779 to $4,029.
       The beginning teacher there makes $21,925. Teachers in 
     Horry County make $10,000 a year more because local money 
     covers hiring bonuses, Kirby said.
       This year, for the first time, Kirby can offer an $1,000 
     incentive to teachers with perfect attendance. But the 
     average contracted salary for longtime teachers there remains 
     at $30,858, compared to $36,816 in Lexington 5. Marion 3 
     ranks last with $27,848.
       The Dillon 3 district has cut all teacher aides except for 
     special education and kindergarten. So teachers are even more 
     burdened.
       If, under those circumstances, teachers are actually good 
     at what they do, said University of New Hampshire sociology 
     professor Cynthia Duncan, ``they are missionaries. We should 
     not require people who teach in bad circumstances to be 
     saints.''
       Attracting experienced teachers to poor and poor-performing 
     rural areas is nearly impossible. Marion 3 and other such 
     districts become training grounds for young, inexperienced 
     teachers who commute long distances.
       Who wants to live there, asks Everett Dean, superintendent 
     of Marion 3, opening his palms to the countryside outside his 
     window.
       ``People with master's degrees from prestigious 
     universities have the luxury of going to teach at really good 
     schools, and the kids who most need them are least likely to 
     have high quality teachers,'' said urban education professor 
     Gloria Ladson-Billings of the University of Wisconsin.
       Ladson-Billings said children in poor schools are five 
     times as likely to have teachers who are not certified in 
     math and science--subjects that might help them break free 
     from lives of low expectations.
       Terrells Bay School, which has abysmal student performance, 
     is allowed to use uncertified teachers because it is 
     considered a critical needs school that can't attract 
     teachers.


                           Academic programs

       In Marion 3, students who want to take anatomy sit in a 
     small room cramped with old equipment and stare at a 
     television screen.
       There are simply not enough interested students to justify 
     offering certain courses, says Dean. Even if they had the 
     students, the district doesn't pay enough to attract teachers 
     for advanced courses.
       Students who most need interactive classroom work get 
     distance learning. And students who wouldn't otherwise be 
     exposed to foreign cultures are offered only Spanish while 
     students in Lexington and Spartanburg, in addition to French 
     and Spanish, can study Japanese.
       Dillon 3 has only two advanced placement courses. There is 
     no dance, no theater, no performing choir.
       ``We have great singers and talented students here,'' Kirby 
     said. ``But I can't provide an environment where they can use 
     their skills.''
       While his students perform at average level, ``I feel like 
     we are still handicapping

[[Page S3588]]

     them. The differences show up in the real world. They simply 
     don't have the same opportunities,'' Kirby said.
       At nearby Rains-Centenary Elementary School in Marion 3, 
     there is no performing arts program, no arts or music 
     program, said Principal Linda Bell.
       ``We don't have enough books. We are nowhere near where we 
     need to be,'' she said.
       Patty Schaffer, principal of North Charleston's Ron McNair 
     Elementary School, another school with a high ratio of 
     students living in poverty, points out inequities in the 
     availability of arts and music teachers.
       Her school has a music teacher and an arts teacher only two 
     days a week.
       ``It is a huge equity issue,'' she said. ``We know that 
     this population should have more exposure to art and music 
     and it shows on the tests, but we give more art and music to 
     children who have piano lessons at home. We need to look at 
     what children already have, and that should drive the horse 
     as to what we give them.''
       Because of the inequities in the system, those who have to 
     rely on schools for all their learning are at a huge 
     disadvantage, said University of Wisconsin literacy scholar 
     James Paul Gee.
       ``Upper middle class families give their children 
     tremendous social and cultural and educational capital 
     outside of school, and many families are able to buy more and 
     more outside of school,'' he said.


                            The social work

       In a small room at Latta Middle School, six profoundly 
     mentally disabled students amble around, one practicing 
     walking steps, another wandering in circles, another sitting 
     idly.
       Down the hallway, between the middle school and the high 
     school, there are four classes of learning disabled children.
       Kirby calls it a disproportionate number of special needs 
     children--nearly 15 percent of his school population.
       ``Our health problems are off the chart,'' Kirby said. 
     School districts with high concentrations of poverty and high 
     births to teens face the fallout of poor health services, 
     prenatal care and nutrition.
       While they receive some federal and state funding for 
     special education, often it's not enough.
       ``I have some students that cost me $20,000 a year to 
     educate,'' Kirby said.
       ``When you are in a poor small rural district, often you 
     are the richest agency,'' he said. ``They see us as the hub 
     for services and they bring their needs to us.''
       To care for them, the Latta school system has one social 
     worker per school and two shared mental health counselors. 
     Other schools have comparable numbers of people but fewer 
     students in need.
       Ron McNair has 13 mentally disabled students and a full 
     class of emotionally disabled ones. Because of low pay, the 
     school is unable to attract a teacher for them. So they are 
     taught by non-certified substitutes with no training.
       ``To put students who a regular teacher cannot handle in a 
     class with a non-certified teacher . . . it is a real 
     disservice to the child,'' Schaffer said.
       North Charleston Elementary School has a comparable number 
     of students in special programs, said Principal Bill Hayes.
       ``Most people have no idea of what we deal with these days. 
     We dispense enough medicine at lunchtime from this school to 
     run a drug store,'' Hayes said.


                               Buildings

       Dean takes a visitor around the Rains-Centenary Elementary 
     School, seeming almost ashamed.
       ``I could tell you some facilities horror stories,'' he 
     said.
       This year his district spent $494 in facilities per 
     student. But the buildings have not been renovated since 
     their construction in the 1930s and the 1950s. The need is 
     much greater than the spending.
       ``The fact that we are educating our students in an old 
     dilapidated building affects everyone, even the recruitment 
     of teachers,'' said Bradley. ``It's a negative feeling when 
     you walk into a restroom and the commodes are 40 years old.''
       For the first time in decades, South Carolina this year 
     begins distribution of $750 million in bonds for school 
     construction and renovation. The money is distributed among 
     districts based on need, on the number of students--with more 
     money going to children with greater educational needs--and 
     on past effort made to upkeep buildings. It also has an 
     equity component, and it appears that poorer districts will 
     receive more than wealthier ones.
       But it is unclear if that will make up for the inequities 
     in conditions.
       Marion 3 this year spent 71 percent of what was spent on 
     facilities per pupil in York 2. It spent $3 per pupil on 
     capital projects. Terrells Bay spent $70; Latta High, $24.
       By contrast, Clover High School in York spent $2,270 per 
     student on capital projects last year.
       Clover High has 17 empty classrooms for growth, a state-of-
     the art library, a new 2,500-seat gym, a new cafeteria with 
     heated outside areas, a security system with 64 cameras, a 
     $7.5 million auditorium, and a lab for every science teacher, 
     said Principal Wayne Flowers.
       To attract good teachers, in addition to considerably 
     higher salaries, Clover High offers an early childhood day-
     care program for employees.
       Clover High is in a district that receives high local tax 
     revenues--nearly $5,400 per student a year.
       Not so in Dillon 3, with local revenues at $1,037 per 
     pupil.
       Latta Middle and Latta High schools share the library, gym 
     and cafeteria. The library triples as a computer lab and a 
     tech prep construction site of sorts, and is cluttered with 
     piles of old books.
       The cafeteria is bare, the hallways dismal. The window 
     treatments are yellowing and warped.
       ``We have a lot of makeshift here,'' Kirby said, showing a 
     visitor an arts lab with tables from the old cafeteria.


                              Stepchildren

       When Dean gathers with other educators to talk about the 
     schools, he sometimes feels like an ugly stepchild.
       ``You are not sure that people understand that you can't 
     change some of the things that are not providing 
     opportunities for our children.
       ``Money alone does not solve the problem,'' Dean said, 
     ``but when you can't employ the best teachers because of your 
     location and your low salaries, yes, that is going to impact 
     the quality of the education you can offer.''
       Since 40 of the state's school districts filed suit seeking 
     equitable funding, the General Assembly has been trying to be 
     more sensitive to wealth differences, Cooley said.
       But South Carolina continues to contend with its history.
       ``It has not been real important that all children be 
     educated. While it is changing slowly,'' Dean said, ``we are 
     still dealing with the economics of a system of the past. 
     Particularly when it comes to race, we have not understood 
     that it benefits everyone to be better educated.''

  Mr. HATCH. The purpose of title I is to give educationally and 
economically disadvantaged students additional assistance: teachers, 
textbooks, and additional education resources. These resources were 
never intended to comprise the entirety of aid to an educationally or 
economically disadvantaged student.
  Unless there is an equity factor used in their distribution so that 
poorer districts within a state can be brought closer to even, those 
title I funds that are provided will merely be a thin coat of paint 
covering up the cracks. The layering of resources where resources are 
already inadequate will not meet the needs of disadvantaged children. 
Title I was meant to provide additional resources, not to compensate 
for an inadequate financial commitment to poorer LEAs on the part of 
States.
  By directing resources to states where this is not the case, we are 
being true to the underlying intent of title I.
  Indeed, as the following excerpts from the debate over the final 
conference report reveal, the addition of the effort and equity factor 
in the title I formula it was the reason why many Members of the Senate 
may have voted for the conference report. However, title I funds have 
yet to be distributed using this factor.
  I refer my colleagues to excerpts from the debate over the conference 
report to ESEA and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Appendix II

       Mr. Grassley . . .  I am also concerned, Mr. President, 
     with the chapter one formula that came out of the conference 
     committee. I supported the Senate language added by Senator 
     Hatch, which removed the restrictions on the equity bonus. 
     Under the change made by Senator Hatch's language, each State 
     received the full benefit of its equalization effort.
       Under the Hatch chapter one formula which passed the 
     Senate, 38 States would have received increased chapter one 
     allocations. Iowa would have received $2.5 million more than 
     the original formula in S. 1513.
       Unfortunately, according to the Congressional Research 
     Service, Iowa is among 31 States to lose funds from 1996 to 
     1999 under this conference passed formula. Iowa loses almost 
     $10 million in funds from 1996 to 1999. The big winners under 
     the formula changes are New York, California, Texas, and 
     Illinois.
       Mr. Harkin. Mr. President, as a member of the Labor and 
     Education Committee and also as chair of the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee that appropriates money for the 
     Department of Education, including title I, I would like to 
     correct the record. I have the greatest respect and 
     friendship for my colleague from Iowa. However, sitting here 
     listening to his remarks and comments, I certainly wish the 
     Senator, my colleague, had talked to me before he made those 
     comments. Maybe I would not have to stand up to correct them. 
     Because, frankly, what my colleague just said simply does not 
     comport with the facts.
       The chart that Senator Coats sent out this morning, and 
     used this morning, it is like that old saying: In the Bible 
     it says `There is no God.' It says that in the Bible.
       But the sentence before it says, `The fool hath said in his 
     heart, There is no God.'

[[Page S3589]]

       So, if you take things out of context you can prove the 
     Bible says `There is no God.' That is what Senator Coats did 
     this morning.
       Senator Coats sent this notice around to our offices this 
     morning, ``Urgent, Members Attention Only,'' and it says, 
     ``Senator Harkin: Reasons to Vote No on Elementary-Secondary 
     Act; Iowa Would Lose $9.95 a million.'' I assume that is 
     where my colleague got that figure.
       Senator Coats is only telling half the story. He is sort of 
     saying it says, in the Bible, ``There is no God,'' but he 
     does not tell you what the sentence before it says.
       I tried to get the floor this morning to correct it. We 
     were under a time agreement, the time ran out and I could not 
     get the floor. Fortunately, I was able to talk to Senators as 
     they came to the well to let them know that the figures that 
     Senator Coats was putting out were wrong.
       Let me correct that record now. Iowa does not lose $10 
     million. I happen to chair the Appropriations Committee that 
     funds the money. There is no way this would have gotten 
     through if my State was going to lose $10 million, I can tell 
     you that, Mr. President. No, what we did and what is not 
     being said here and what is not understood--and I say this to 
     my friend from Iowa, my colleague--there are two parts to 
     this formula on title I. There is the targeted grant formula. 
     That is what Senator Coats is using. If you only look at the 
     targeted grant money, yes, Iowa and a lot of other States 
     lose money. But what we added in conference was another 
     portion of the formula called effort and equity, something I 
     feel very strongly about. I debated it on the Senate floor. 
     So when we went to conference, in trying to strike a deal 
     with the House, they only wanted targeted grants, but I 
     insisted that we also have a second formula for effort and 
     equity, and that is what we did.
       So under the bill itself, there is money that goes for 
     targeted or for effort and equity. New moneys that we will 
     appropriate can be split by the Appropriations Committee. 
     Some can go to targeted, some can go to effort and equity. 
     The Appropriations Subcommittees will decide. First of all, 
     next year we have already appropriated the money for fiscal 
     year 1995. That is already done. For fiscal year 1996, there 
     is a hold-harmless clause. So no States are going to lose 
     money in 1996, not Iowa nor any other State can lose money in 
     1996. So, again, Senator Coats used this from fiscal year 
     1996 to 1999. You cannot use 1996 because there is a hold-
     harmless clause.
       Beginning in fiscal year 1996, the Appropriations 
     Committee, under the authorization of this bill, is allowed 
     to use whatever new moneys we appropriate, up to $200 million 
     in 1996, for effort and equity. Beyond that, such sums as are 
     necessary.
       Senator Coats used a figure from CRS of $400 million. I can 
     show you the record in conference. They were talking about 
     $400 million increases in title I. I said, I don't know what 
     you are talking about. The average over the last 5 years has 
     been $275,000, and under the budget caps and the ceilings we 
     have, there is no way over the next 5 or 6 years that we are 
     going to have a $400 million increase in title I. I would 
     like to see it. If you are asking me if we can get the money, 
     would I like to put $400 million in title I, absolutely; but 
     we are not going to have that kind of money.
       So in title I then, assuming we can get a $200 million 
     increase, the Appropriations Committee can put all of it into 
     effort and equity, 75 percent of it into effort and equity, 
     half of it into effort and equity--whatever we want to do.
       So what we did is we prepared a chart showing what would 
     happen to the States if just half of the money went into the 
     effort and equity or if all of it went into effort and 
     equity.
       Under either one of those scenarios, Iowa, instead of 
     losing money, makes money. In fact, I do not have the runs 
     for anything other than $400 million, but even under $400 
     million, Iowa would gain about $400,000 a year; and if we put 
     the whole thing into effort and equity, Iowa would gain about 
     $1.8 million a year.
       Mr. Grassley. Will the Senator yield?
       Mr. Harkin. I will be delighted to yield.
       Mr. Grassley. Will the Senator yield for a question?
       Mr. Harkin. I will be delighted to yield.
       Mr. Grassley. Prior to the question, if I can just say, 
     first of all, I compliment the Senator because I know when it 
     came out of committee the first time, that he got the formula 
     that was in the original bill introduced improved 
     dramatically. So our State would be helped and probably a lot 
     of other States would be helped. So I compliment him on that.
       I do not know anything about his activity in conference or 
     any other process, but I did notice his work in that area, 
     and he did improve it and I compliment him for it.
       My question is only this: Senator Coats and I are both 
     relying upon the work of the Congressional Research Service. 
     I have not found the Congressional Research Service to be 
     wrong very often, if at all, that I can recall. Has my 
     colleague from Iowa discussed this with the people in the 
     Congressional Research Service to see if they made a mistake 
     and how they made a mistake? Can you tell me how they made a 
     mistake?
       Mr. Harkin. I appreciate the question. I will try to 
     respond to it. The figures I am using come from the 
     Congressional Research Service. What I am saying is that 
     Senator Coats only took one column.
       Mr. Grassley. I think I have that chart here.
       Mr. Harkin. If you look at the chart, what he did was he 
     took the second column over, which just says $400 million 
     under targeted formula. Senator Coats used that column. He 
     did not take the other two columns. The other two columns add 
     effort and equity; the third column over showing what would 
     happen if we split it in half; the last column showing if we 
     put it all into effort and equity.
       I cannot in any way tell my colleague how much we will put 
     in. I can assure him it will be a minimum of 50 percent. I 
     suggest, knowing the members of the Appropriations Committee 
     and that 33 States will be helped by effort and equity, it 
     stands to reason that the bulk of the money will go into 
     effort and equity. So I would say we are probably close to 
     the column on the right-hand side, which shows Iowa getting 
     $54 million.
       Keep in mind, that is based on $400 million. There is no 
     way we are going to get $400 million, but it gives you an 
     idea of what happens under this thing.
       So what Senator Coats did is he simply took out of context 
     what CRS came up with. He took one column, and that is why I 
     tried to get the floor this morning to explain that is not 
     so. That is just not the way the Appropriations Subcommittee 
     is going to operate, and that is why we put the effort and 
     equity thing in there.
       In no way is Iowa going to have their moneys reduced under 
     this effort and equity formula. That is the point I tried to 
     make this morning and I tried to make it in the well to the 
     Senators. As I said about my Biblical example, about taking 
     something out of context, sure you can take one column, but 
     that is not what we are operating under.
       I hope that clears it up. Does my colleague have any 
     further questions on that?
       Mr. Grassley. I do not have any further questions, Mr. 
     President. I will say, I hope it clears it up because I would 
     like to think we are passing legislation that will be more 
     fair to more States than that original chart that I saw. But 
     I also suggest that I have been informed that Senator Coats 
     is going to come over and try to discuss what interests my 
     colleague from Iowa in some further depth, and I think I will 
     defer to his discussion of that.
       Mr. Harkin. I will be glad to. I talked about this with 
     Senator Coats in private. I will discuss it with him on the 
     floor and have him respond as to what CRS put in the other 
     columns because he just used one column, he did not use the 
     other two.
       Mr. Grassley. Mr. President, if my colleague wanted to make 
     the point that what we came back with from conference was not 
     quite as good for certain States, including my own, as was in 
     the bill passed by the Senate, he is absolutely right. But 
     the reality is that the House would not accept that. So we 
     had to work it out with the House, and I think we worked it 
     out in a reasonably fair manner, I must say.
       The original formula that came out of the Clinton 
     administration, what they had advocated, was devastating for 
     Iowa and for a number of other States.
       But we worked with Senator Pell, Senator Kennedy, Senator 
     Hatch, Senator Kassebaum and Senator Jeffords. We worked this 
     whole thing out in committee on a bipartisan basis to come up 
     with a better formula. We did that. We had votes on it. We 
     had debates. We even had a debate here on the Senate floor. 
     We had a vote. But in going to conference it was clear that 
     the House Members were not going to accept in totality what 
     we had done in the Senate. And thus we came up with this new 
     formula. And, quite frankly, I must say I think the new 
     formula is fair.
       I just want to say the Congressional Research Service, 
     again, will do any run that Senators ask for. If you ask for 
     a run on $500 million a year, they will do that. You can do a 
     run on $1 billion a year. They will do that. But just because 
     these tables are prepared does not mean that is actually what 
     is going to happen. As I said, they ran these tables based 
     upon a $400-million-a-year increase in title I. As the 
     chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds this 
     program, I can tell you right now, unless somebody comes 
     up with some magic money someplace, we are not going to 
     have that kind of money. We will be lucky to get the 
     average of the $275 million that we have gotten over the 
     last 5 years.
       So we tried to do two things with title I: target our 
     scarce resources to areas where they have a high 
     concentration of eligible children, but then also to be fair 
     to rural States such as Iowa where we may not have high 
     concentrations but we certainly do have needy children, 
     children in poverty, title I eligible children, but they may 
     be in small towns and communities scattered around the States 
     and thus the formula does address that.
       Mr. Harkin. I thank the Chairman, and I commend him again 
     for his work on this important legislation, and in particular 
     this provision. The problems of youth violence and drug abuse 
     are no longer contained within urban school districts, and 
     are rapidly spreading to suburban and rural communities. By 
     making a program available for statewide distribution, we can 
     better ensure that each student in a State will be reached by 
     a program, and that students throughout the State will 
     receive the same messages.
       I was extremely impressed by Jonathan Kozol's ``Savage 
     Inequalities,'' and I know the Senator from Utah has also 
     done considerable research on school equalization. Is it

[[Page S3590]]

     his view that the concept of equalizing resources among 
     school districts as public policy is supported by experts in 
     the field?
       Mr. Hatch. The Senator from Iowa is correct. The literature 
     in the education field is loaded with recent articles 
     suggesting that equalization is an important means of 
     addressing inequalities. In a statement I gave on July 28, 
     1994, I outlined the reasons, which are supported by the 
     literature in the education field, why I support equalization 
     as a sound policy.
       Mr. Harkin. Does the Senator from Utah therefore support 
     effort and equity as factors in determining the allocation of 
     title I money?
       Mr. Hatch. Yes, I do, provided that it is not mandatory. If 
     effort and equity were factors driving education dollars, 
     states would be encouraged to take steps toward equity on 
     their own. Education is primarily a state and local 
     responsibility to begin with. The equity factor included in 
     this authorization, unlike the State per pupil expenditure--
     which I believe is an extremely poor and terribly unfair 
     measure of effort--can benefit a State even if its needs are 
     great and its tax base is small. This is because an 
     equalization incentive is based not on how much a State has, 
     but on how it distributes what it has. I confess that in many 
     areas of public policy I do not favor such an approach. In 
     many areas, I believe this type of allocation destroys 
     incentives to work hard and to do more that contributes to 
     our economy overall.
       But, education is a legitimate function of State and local 
     governments. We do not need to be concerned with hindering 
     private sector incentives. Educational equalization--based on 
     a plan developed by the State itself--should be encouraged.
       Some of our colleagues have expressed concern regarding the 
     equity factor. Does the Senator from Iowa believe that the 
     equalization of resources within a State is inherently 
     consistent with the premise of the title I program?
       Mr. Harkin. I would respond to the Senator from Utah that 
     yes, I believe the equalization of resources is consistent 
     with the premise of the title I program which is to give 
     disadvantaged students additional help by directing 
     supplemental resources to them. If federal resources are not 
     supplementary, then States have absolutely no incentive to 
     deal effectively with education financing problems in their 
     own States. The Federal Government should not subsidize this 
     kind of inaction.
       Mr. Hatch. I agree with the distinguished Senator from 
     Iowa. Many States have recognized the need to more fairly 
     redistribute their resources. I am very proud that Utah has 
     been a leader in just about every aspect of education--
     achievement, graduation rates, school finance. Utahans long 
     ago developed a workable plan for school equalization. It is 
     working in our State.
       I believe the title I formula should reward real effort and 
     real progress toward serving every child in a State equally.
       I obviously would have preferred that the effort and equity 
     provisions that were included as an integral part of the 
     Senate-passed title I formula. However, it was the final 
     decision of this conference to include these factors in the 
     title I formula but to include them as a separate 
     authorization that is, based on the Senate-passed version of 
     the bill. This, I believe, is a step in the right direction.
       I hope that this will not be a hollow authorization, that 
     is, one with no money. While I do not want to put my 
     colleague from Iowa on the spot because I know he is as 
     committed to this idea as I am, I wonder if he would comment 
     on this last point? He is in a position of some influence on 
     that subcommittee.
       Mr. Harkin. The Senator from Utah is correct. I share his 
     commitment to education finance reform and I favor the 
     establishment of this effort and equity incentive in title I 
     of ESEA.
       The Senator from Utah mentioned that he was proud of the 
     efforts his State has made to equalize resources among 
     schools. The State of Iowa revamped its State aid formula to 
     equalize funding in the 1970's. I am equally proud of efforts 
     in my State to provide a quality education for all students.
       I will do what I can as chairman of the Labor, Health, and 
     Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee to support this 
     new authorization.
       Mr. Hatch. I thank my colleague from Iowa for his analysis 
     and support.

  Mr. HATCH. I am pleased to point out that 30 States, plus Puerto 
Rico, would increase their title I allocations under my amendment 
relative to their allocations under the formula in S. 2. A number of 
these beneficiaries are States with high poverty districts.
  Moreover, as my colleagues will note, my amendment holds states 
harmless for funds going out under the remaining title I part A 
formula. Additionally, my amendment allows school districts affected by 
census changes to retain 95 percent of their FY 98 funds.
  One of my priorities in crafting this amendment was to improve title 
I while preventing huge shifts in the allocation amounts. Of those 
States which would currently stand to lose under my amendment, only one 
state loses 7 percent of their allocation, 4 States lose an average of 
about 5 percent of their allocation, 7 States lose about 3 percent of 
their allocation and 8 States lose under 1.3 percent of their 
allocation.
  I reiterate that I have worked to adjust my proposal so that it not 
only captures the benefits of including effort and equity in the 
formula but also so that the minority of states who would currently 
lose under these factors would lose as little as possible.
  Again, I hasten to add that States can change their own circumstances 
under my amendment. If States wish to access more Federal title I 
money, they can take steps to increase their effort and their equity. 
My amendment provides a degree of control for States.
  States can, and many have already, adopted financing systems to 
equalize resources among districts. States have chosen a variety of 
equalization systems of their own design. A fair equalization factor 
will promote ``bottom up'' education reform that will help all kids 
make progress towards achieving the national goals.
  Real education reform must take place at the grassroots level. A 
series of edicts issued from Washington, D.C. is not going to improve 
education for Americans. State and local education agencies must take 
on this challenge. But, the Federal Government should help--and at 
least not plant obstacles in the way which cannot be overcome.
  The degree to which a State equalizes funding for education is a 
factor that a State can control. A State that equalizes is a state that 
will benefit under a this improved title I formula.
  Also, equalization is a factor that can be quantified. So much of 
what the Congress is asking the State and local education agencies to 
do requires a judgment based a series of qualitative analyses. An 
equalization factor does not rely on subjective determinations.
  An equalization factor does not rely on mandates or guidelines for 
how a State should achieve equalization. I, for one, would oppose a 
measure that specified how a state was to engage in equalization. On 
the contrary, I believe States are perfectly capable of figuring this 
out for themselves.
  S. 2 is a good bill. It was thoughtfully prepared, appropriately 
amended, and now after many days, is being thoroughly debated. I think 
my amendment improves this bill. I sincerely believe that this 
amendment will help needy schools make important improvements in 
education for all children. I urge the Senate to support my amendment. 
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Utah leaves the 
floor, I thank him for his discussion of his amendment. I was listening 
carefully to his discussion, and his focus on providing States 
incentives for moving toward equity and his focus on what Jonathan 
Kozol calls savage inequalities and the tremendous disparity of 
resources, depending on the wealth of the community in which a child 
lives, is right on the mark.
  I thank the Senator from Utah for his words.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I notice probably one of the wealthiest 
States in the Union, Connecticut, gets more money per pupil than any 
other State, and it does not even need the money. What about these 
States that do? I hate to call it a stupid formula because it is in an 
education bill, but it is really a dumb, stupid formula, and it ought 
to be changed. I thank my colleague for his kind remarks.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for the purpose of a question?
  Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Senator Kennedy wants to ask the Senator from Utah a 
question, and then I will regain the floor after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand it, the Senator from Utah said 48 
percent of the paperwork done by teachers and principals is mandated by 
the Federal Government.
  Mr. HATCH. That is correct. That is in the neighborhood. That is what 
I have been led to believe.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This was a 1990 study done by the Ohio General Assembly 
Legislative Office, Education Oversight of Public Schools reporting 
requirements. That study attributed only 20 percent of paperwork 
requirements to the

[[Page S3591]]

Federal Government. If the Senator will be good enough to put in the 
Record the authority for that, I am going to put in the Record the 
authority rebutting that, and we will let the Members look at it.
  Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to do that, and also it may be more than 
50 percent. All I can say is, all I get is complaints from the State 
and local people that they are being overrun with paperwork that seems 
silly and nonproductive.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think it is worthwhile to know the authority for these 
allegations. I think it is important. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Since part of the remarks by the Senator from Utah 
dealt with the equity question, I just want to add to the Record a 
quote from John Powell, who is director of the Institute on Race and 
Poverty in Minnesota:

       When low-income children are segregated into schools that 
     are predominantly poor, the students confront not only their 
     own individual poverty, but the effects of concentrated 
     poverty on the school system itself. This combination often 
     results in more drop-outs and teenage pregnancies, lack of 
     parental involvement, inability to pay for books, lack of 
     role models, and inability to afford college.

  It goes on to say:

       Teachers and staff in racially segregated and high poverty 
     schools are too often overwhelmed by student needs.

  Let me take my remarks in a couple of different directions.
  I want to first talk about a meeting I had with the National Alliance 
of Black School Educators who were here last week. I had a chance to 
drop by and not talk at them but talk with them.
  Since the Senator from Utah was talking about the whole question of 
equity, or lack of equity, let me, right away, say to colleagues that I 
really hope we go forward with this debate. Sometime later on in the 
debate, I am going to come out on the floor and talk about it and have 
some amendments speaking to this question. It is the question of the 
reliance on high-stakes testing--the single measurement of standardized 
tests to determine whether or not children go from third grade to 
fourth grade, from eighth grade to ninth grade, whether they graduate, 
what grouping they are in.
  I just want to point something out since Senator Hatch talked about 
this. We ought to make sure we meet the opportunity-to-learn standard 
if we are going to be implementing these tests. In other words, we had 
better make sure we do not hold children responsible for our failure to 
adequately invest in their achievement and in their future.
  If we just focus on tests and then flunk students who do not pass the 
tests, and we do not do what we should do both at the Federal level 
and, I say to my colleague from Arkansas, the State and school district 
level combined, to get the resources so that each one of these children 
has the same chance to pass these tests, and to succeed, then, frankly, 
I think reliance on these tests alone is punitive. So you need to do it 
both ways. Yes, you need to have standards, but you also need to make 
sure every child has the same opportunity to meet those standards.
  I will say one other thing about the tests. I will have an amendment 
that says these tests ought to meet professional standards. We want to 
make sure they are implemented in the right way. I will have an 
amendment that says we need to take into account especially learning 
disabilities, which I think is the law of the land. I think we ought to 
make that clear in this bill. We ought to speak to those students who 
have a limited proficiency in English as well.
  More than anything, I want to talk a little bit about this 
opportunity-to-learn standard that I do not think we are meeting. I 
think it is so key to the whole discussion. I think it is key to what 
John Powell has said. I think it is key to what other Senators have 
said as well. I think it is key, actually, to at least part of what the 
Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, was saying as well.
  We are out here debating this bill, and we should. In a moment I am 
about to, one more time, say where I think the Republican bill is 
deeply flawed and why I am so disappointed in it. But for a moment I 
would like to just talk about the budget implications.

  I do not know whether we are spending 1 percent of the Federal 
budget--someone can help me--or thereabouts on education altogether. 
Does that sound right? Is it 1 percent of the overall Federal budget on 
education? It is 2 percent.
  I argue that key to our national security is whether or not we are 
going to adequately invest in the skills and character of the children. 
I argue that key to our national security is not so many more bombs and 
missiles and more money spent on the Pentagon; the key to our national 
security is the security of local communities. I think that is what 
matters first and foremost.
  The key to security for local communities is good housing, reducing 
violence, and having decent health care. But I think most importantly, 
the key to our national security is the security of local communities. 
And the security of local communities means we have a commitment to 
education second to no other nation in the world so that every child--
every single child--is full of hope, and every child has dreams, and 
every child can do well.
  I tell you, I think 2 percent of the Federal budget spent on 
education is pathetic. I know the Senator from Vermont agrees because 
he has been one of the Senators who has been most vocal in saying we 
ought to get our priorities straight and we ought to be allocating more 
resources.
  We are going to debate how we allocate those resources to States and 
local school districts. That is the debate on this bill. I will speak 
just for a few minutes. I said to my colleague from Arkansas I would 
not take more than 20 minutes altogether, and I will not.
  But I think the larger question is, Why in the world are we not 
allocating more of our Federal budget to education? Why aren't we 
getting more of the resources back to the school districts, whether it 
be for the IDEA program, kids with special needs--boy, that would help 
our school districts--whether it be moving beyond just 30 percent 
funding for title I; whether it be a real investment in affordable 
child care, prekindergarten, so kids come to school ready to learn; 
whether it be some money we can leverage. Senator Harkin has that 
amendment that will enable school districts to have more funding to put 
into rebuilding crumbling schools, you name it.
  I am just amazed that with a booming economy and the country doing so 
well economically, we in the Congress, in the Senate, cannot invest 
more than 2 percent of our overall budget in our children's education. 
They are 100 percent of our future. I do not know how in the world any 
Senator believes, on a tin cup budget, we are going to be able to make 
the kind of investment we should be making. That is my first point.
  My second point is--Senator Kennedy spoke about this. My guess is we 
will get a different point of view from some other Senators in just a 
moment--I think the fundamental flaw of S. 2 is the abandonment of a 
commitment we made over 30 years ago as a nation that we would have 
some basic national standards, some basic protection, to make sure the 
poorest children in this country, the most vulnerable children in this 
country, would be well served or at least would be served. We do not 
serve them well, but at least to make sure that for the homeless 
children and the migrant children there would be programs that would 
speak to the needs and circumstances of their lives, that we would 
target title I money to the neediest and poorest and most vulnerable 
children.

  Do you know what. I sometimes think Senators are taking this too 
personally because it is not necessarily an attack on my State or an 
attack on the State of Arkansas or an attack on the State of Vermont; 
it is just a matter of philosophy.
  Over three decades ago, we made a commitment that the Federal 
Government, representing the national community, with certain core 
values, would make sure we provide some programs that really speak to 
the most vulnerable children, that we are not going to abandon those 
children.
  I said it last week; I will say it one more time. My colleagues keep 
talking about change, change, change. I do not think it is a great step 
forward. I think

[[Page S3592]]

it is a great leap backward. That is why many of us oppose it. That is 
why I think the President opposes it. That is why I think we have 
started out on the wrong foot.
  Going further than that--and this will be the last part of what I 
want to say; I will just divide it in two quick parts--one, I say to 
Senator Lott and others, I look forward to having a chance to bring 
amendments out here. I want to have some amendments that speak to the 
discriminatory effect of the standardized testing. I want to have some 
amendments that provide support for children who witness violence at 
home and, therefore, cannot do well in school.
  I want to have an amendment that provides for more counselors in our 
schools. In some ways, I cannot think of a more important amendment. 
Right now, we have a ratio of 1 counselor for every 1,000 students, or 
thereabouts, in the country.
  I want to have an amendment that speaks directly to the challenges of 
urban education. Some of my colleagues have put back language that 
deals with the special challenges of rural education, which I also 
think is a real challenge, but I also want to put a focus on urban 
education as well.
  As someone who was a teacher at the college level--but, boy, I will 
tell you, I came to respect teaching at the high school and middle 
school level; I think sometimes even more at the elementary level, and 
the pre-K level even more so, as well--I am interested in anything and 
everything that leads to better teacher quality, with the proviso that 
we understand there are many really fine teachers right now in the 
country.
  I said this last week, but I will say it again, too.
  I don't mind holding everybody accountable if we do it in the right 
way. But I also think that some of the people who bash public school 
teachers couldn't last an hour in the classrooms which they condemn. I 
think we have to be very careful in how we do it.
  The other thing I want to mention beyond my amendment is to say one 
more time to other Senators that I think there are some amendments we 
have introduced and we will be introducing that certainly speak to many 
of the meetings I have had with people in Minnesota.
  I have been ready for this bill to come to the floor for almost 2 
years.
  I think all together in our State of Minnesota--between myself and 
staff--we had meetings with close to 100 different school districts. It 
is incredible. We have been all over the State. People were genuinely 
excited about this bill. They know that most of the money for K through 
12 is at the State level. They know that. But people have been very 
interested in how we can provide more incentives for more teachers. 
They are very interested in the whole question of what we can do about 
the needs of physical infrastructure. They are very interested in 
trying to get more counselors in our schools. They are very interested 
in the sense of getting more young people interested in education. They 
are very interested in what we did do in prekindergarten. They think 
that would make a huge difference. They are very interested in 
afterschool programs. They are very interested in reducing class size.
  Frankly, the Republican bill on the floor speaks to very little of 
that--not directly. It assumes with sort of a blank check that it will 
all happen.
  I say to my colleagues in the majority that you have not invested 
nearly enough money in your budget, nor will it be in the 
appropriations bill. We have too many speeches given about the 
importance of children, but we are not matching the rhetoric with the 
resources.
  The second thing I say to my colleagues is in terms of how you 
allocate the money. I think it is not a big step forward. I think it is 
a great leap backward from the kind of commitment we have made to all 
of the children in the country, including the most vulnerable children 
and the poorest children in this country.
  Third, and finally, there should be some decisive priorities in this 
bill. I have tried to outline some of those priorities. I don't see it.
  We will move forward this week, next week, and I hope the next week 
as well. Maybe in 2 more weeks we will have amendments, votes, and see 
where we wind up.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Educational 
Opportunities Act, there are fundamental fault lines and differences 
between the Democrats and the Republicans on this very critical and 
very important issue for this country and for our children.
  I noticed when Senator Wellstone spoke that he said the Republicans 
just keep saying change, change, change. I plead guilty to that. We are 
saying change. That is one of the very clear lines in this debate 
between those who are defending the status quo--defending the old 
system, defending the old model, who are saying create more programs, 
who are saying pour more money into the old programs and the same 
models--and those of us who say, yes, let's fund education adequately. 
Yes, let's increase our appropriations for education. But let's make 
certain that we are using that money efficiently and effectively. If 
the old model isn't working, it is time that we try something new.
  That is the fundamental fault line in the debate that has gone on in 
the Senate for the last week and will continue for the next few days.
  I have to say that I believe there has been a lot of misinformation 
about the Educational Opportunities Act that has been put forth on the 
floor of the Senate. I understand that change is difficult and change 
is discomforting. There are those who are going to recoil at the 
thought that we might try something different. But there have been, in 
the arguments put forward by the other side, several themes that have 
recurred.
  They said title I has enhanced academic achievement. That has been 
one of the things they have argued consistently.
  They said the status quo somehow guarantees student achievement.
  They said parental control is something to be feared.
  They said the contents of the Educational Opportunities Act contain 
no accountability safeguards.
  I would like to, in their own words, go through those arguments and 
rebut them one by one in the few minutes that I have on the floor.
  First of all, Senator Kennedy made, I think, one of the clear 
statements last week when he said, ``We want to support tried and 
tested programs that have worked.''
  The question that I have raised over and over again is, How has title 
I worked? How has title I been so successful that we want to continue 
it as it has been, and as Senator Kennedy suggests we should continue 
it?
  After 35 years and $120 billion has been expended, we have seen no 
closing of the achievement gap.
  The original purpose of title I was that we would see those 
disadvantaged students improve, we would see their academic performance 
elevated, and we would see the gap between the advantaged and the 
disadvantaged closed. After 35 years, any objective assessment of what 
we have done would have to say we have failed.
  That is why it is so amazing to me to hear my colleagues and friends 
on the other side of the aisle stand and say: We want to support tried 
and tested programs that have worked.
  If they had worked, this debate wouldn't be going on. We would be 
delighted to be supporting the status quo. But the status quo has 
failed America's children.

  Instead of letting States have flexibility under

[[Page S3593]]

Straight A's, requiring improvements in student achievement, the 
Democrats would rather leave disadvantaged children the same programs 
they have had for the last 35 years.
  Senator Kennedy speaks movingly, and I know sincerely, about the 
homeless, the migrant children, and the immigrant children, saying that 
they are the ones who are going to be hurt most under the Educational 
Opportunities Act--the homeless, the migrants, and the immigrant 
children are the big losers.
  I would suggest just the opposite is the case; that they have been 
the big losers in a system that continues to fund a broken system, a 
broken program; that for the first time under Straight A's we will 
require test scores to be disaggregated and broken down on the basis of 
those who are disadvantaged and those who are advantaged based upon 
their backgrounds and economic backgrounds so that we will be able to 
see clearly whether or not the educational curriculum, the textbooks, 
and the programs being utilized in a local school district are working 
for the least advantaged and the most vulnerable in our society. These 
homeless children, migrants, and immigrant children, to whom all of our 
hearts go out, are the ones who have been left behind under the status 
quo.
  Of course, Senator Kennedy said, ``We want to support tried and 
tested programs that have worked,'' even though 35 years of these 
programs has demonstrated they have not worked.
  He said that block grants--he always likes to use that loaded term, 
``block grants''--have no accountability.
  And then he uses the term ``blank check.'' This is a ``blank check.''
  I suggest that trying to compare the Educational Opportunities Act 
with any of the old block grant experiments of the past is as if to 
compare apples and oranges. It is a total mismatch. It is an unfair 
comparison.
  These are exactly and precisely, word for word, the same arguments we 
heard against welfare reform. Welfare reform was block grants with no 
accountability. Welfare reform was a blank check to the Governors: You 
can't trust the Governors--the same rhetoric that we heard for the last 
week.
  If you compare block grants, the Educational Opportunities Act has 
more accountability than any of the existing title I programs or any of 
the existing Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs because we 
require the testing. We require the States to say what they are going 
to do and how they are going to do it and then demonstrate that they, 
in fact, have done it. That is what has been lacking under the existing 
program.
  As Senator Kennedy said, ``We are not prepared, with the scarce 
resources here, to try to turn that over to the Governors one more time 
and expect they are going to do the job. No.''
  I can't reach his volume level when he said, ``No.''
  But he said, ``We are going to insist that there will be incentives 
and disincentives for performance. That is what we do.''
  Throughout this debate we have heard, ``We don't trust the Governors. 
You can't trust the Governors.''
  I remind my distinguished colleagues that the same people who elected 
us to the Senate elected those Governors to serve the same people. They 
are every bit as accountable to their constituents as we are 
accountable to our constituents. Yet it has been a recurring theme: Do 
not trust the State; Do not trust the Governors; They won't have the 
most vulnerable in their States in their concerns and in the programs 
that they put forward.

  I reject that. Then he said, ``We are going to downsize.'' He said, 
``We are going to insist that there will be incentives and 
disincentives for performance.''
  Where in the Democratic proposal are there incentives and 
disincentives? Their proposals are for new teachers and for school 
construction and contain no requirements that student achievement must 
increase--none.
  If we want to talk about incentives for performance, and if we want 
to talk about disincentives, look at what the Republicans have proposed 
in our Straight A's plan and in our performance contracts and 
agreements because in that you find real requirements concerning 
student achievements and student elevation in academic performance.
  Then Senator Kennedy said, ``Under Straight A's, the State could 
demonstrate statewide overall progress based on progress being made by 
wealthier communities, while a lack of progress in disadvantaged 
communities remains statistically hidden.''
  The irony of that criticism of the Republican bill is that is what 
can happen under the current system where the performance of the 
disadvantaged is hidden by aggregating the scores and concealing those 
who are supposed to be targeted--those children we are supposed to be 
helping the most--concealing those in the overall scores.
  I think this is a very misleading charge against the Republican 
proposal.
  Straight A's requires each participating State and local school to 
report data by each major racial and ethnic group, gender, English 
proficiency, status, migrant status, and by economically disadvantaged 
student as compared to students who are not economically disadvantaged.
  That language in our bill prevents what Senator Kennedy expressed 
from ever taking place. In fact, we are going to know much more about 
whether we are really helping the disadvantaged under the Straight A's 
proposal.
  Then Senator Kennedy said this last week: ``We are still finding out 
that of the more than 50,000 teachers who were hired this past year, 
the majority of those serving in high-poverty areas are not fully 
qualified.''
  I will accept Senator Kennedy's statement as being accurate. But it 
raises in my mind this question: Why then are Democrats proposing their 
Class Size Reduction Program if in fact it has led to the hiring of 
unqualified teachers?
  The evidence is that as much as we would all like to see school class 
sizes reduced, and while that is a desirable goal, one of the 
unintended consequences in Class Size Reduction Programs around the 
Nation has been that it has resulted in unqualified teachers filling 
slots that have been opened up, and those who have been harmed the most 
are those who are in schools with a high percentage of disadvantaged 
students. That is the tragedy of it. That is acknowledged by Senator 
Kennedy's statement.

  He has repeatedly said only 7 percent of the funds come from the 
Federal Government. Then he suggests, because it is a relatively small 
portion of the local school districts' funding base and their budget, 
we cannot expect whatever we do up here will have too much of an impact 
upon local school policy.
  If, in fact, our influence over local schools and the States were 
proportionate to our funding about 7 percent, I would not be too 
concerned, either. The reality is, though, we provide only 7 percent of 
the funding; we provide a much higher level of the mandates under which 
the local schools are laboring. It has been estimated we provide 50 
percent of the paperwork that is required of the local schoolteachers 
for the 7 percent of funding.
  To diminish the importance of the debate because it is only 7 percent 
of the funding misses the point. The State of Florida takes six times 
as many personnel to implement a Federal education dollar as it takes 
to implement a State education dollar. I suspect that figure is typical 
across the Nation.
  Senator Murray made this statement regarding the Abraham teacher 
testing and merit pay amendment:

       It requires testing, and there is no money. That money will 
     have to come from somewhere in the districts. The districts 
     will not have the money, and likely they will require the 
     teachers themselves to pay for it. That has been the practice 
     in the past.

  First, the Abraham amendment only made teacher testing and merit pay 
an option. They are in no way required to implement it.
  Speaking of unfunded mandates on the districts, what about the class 
size reduction mandate? What happens at the end of that program? I have 
raised that concern. When the authorization for the Class Size 
Reduction Program ends, don't the schools then have to pick up the tab 
for a program that they did not start?
  Senator Dodd made this comment last week about the Abraham teacher 
testing merit pay amendment which added teacher testing and merit pay 
to the list of optional uses of funds. Senator Dodd said:

       What works best is a decision that ought to be left to the 
     local communities. For the Senate to go on record to decide 
     what will work best in the 50 States is in direct 
     contradiction to the arguments I hear being made in support 
     of the underlying bill, and that is: We do not know what we 
     are doing here; we ought to leave this up to the local 
     governments. Now we are going to decide, apparently, that 
     teachers ought to get a pay increase rather than leaving that 
     decision to the local level. It seems they have it backwards. 
     Those decisions are best left at the local level.

  It takes my breath away. Amazing. Since the Democrats' proposal for 
teachers mandates separate funding streams, they mandate separate 
funding streams for professional development, alternative 
certification, teacher

[[Page S3594]]

recruitment, and mentoring, separate funding for all of those, school 
districts must do each of these or they don't get any of their funding. 
Our proposal only adds teacher testing and merit pay to a list of 
allowable uses of funds. It is absolutely consistent with our belief in 
local control. It is an option. If we ought to leave this up to the 
local government, as Senator Dodd says, then why does the Democratic 
proposal provide repeated mandates on how to spend the money?

  Senator Kennedy also said in the debate last week in his continual 
theme that the Republican bill lacks accountability:

       We asked our good friends on the other side how their bill 
     is going to solve the issue of accountability. They cannot do 
     it. We have been challenging them since the beginning of the 
     debate. They cannot do it. We can.

  I remind my colleagues of the one single example I left before the 
Senate that I think is illustrative of the problem and the current 
system and lack of accountability in the current system: Holly Grove. 
Or think in your mind's eye of the pictures of treadmills, Nautilus 
equipment, StairMasters, and $239,000 in a Federal grant that could not 
be spent for computers, for textbooks, for renovating a falling down 
building, a dilapidated school building, could not be spent in those 
ways, but could be spent on expensive exercise equipment when what was 
needed was improving the school facility.
  Senator Kennedy would dare to say that the current system provides 
accountability. I suggest when we tell the Governors they have to sign 
a contract with the Federal Department of Education to state what they 
are going to do, how they are going to do it, how they will accomplish 
it, when they will achieve it, require testing the students, require 
breaking down the test scores and show how every subgroup is performing 
and whether, in fact, the gap is being closed, I suggest that is far 
greater accountability than the current system of categorical 
agreements that can be misused and used in inappropriate ways.
  Senator Kennedy said last week:

       I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle are going 
     to spare us a lot of discussion about local control and 
     parental involvement because it just isn't there, it just 
     isn't there.

  We are not going to spare you; we are going to continue to talk about 
local control. We will continue to talk about parental involvement. 
That is the key to education in the country and the key to making 
significant and meaningful education reforms.
  When Senator Kennedy says it just isn't there, first of all, there 
have been a number of speakers, and I will allude to their statements 
later, who acknowledged parental control is at the core of the 
Republican bill. Aside from that, I simply point out two things. The 
portability provisions provide the ultimate in parental control. If 
parents are unhappy with the services the school is providing their 
child with Federal money, they can use that Federal money to improve 
their child's education in the way they best see fit. That is very 
consistent with parental control.
  I also point out the provisional public school choice where a failing 
school that has been deemed failing, failing and failing, given years 
of opportunity to improve and they still don't improve, there is an 
exit, a way out. No disadvantaged child ought to be locked to a failing 
school and consigned forever throughout their educational experience to 
a school that is failing them. They shouldn't be required to do that. 
We show them a way out.
  I quote Senator Murray from last week:

       I am looking at language of the bill. It says . . . that a 
     parent directs that the services be provided through a 
     tutorial assistance provider. It is not directed by the 
     school but is directed by the parent. I think that is one of 
     the underlying flaws and concerns that we have . . . 
     frankly, the parent is in control.

  I wish I had another chart showing Senator Kennedy saying that the 
parental involvement is not there. Senator Murray said, ``. . . 
frankly, the parent is in control,'' under the Republican plan.
  Senator Murray is right. That is not bad. That is not something to 
fear, the fact that we increase parental involvement. Since when did 
parental control become a bad thing? It is part of the problem, that 
parents have too few choices when their child is forced to remain in a 
failing school.
  I have heard repeatedly, and I am paraphrasing, but this has been the 
message from the other side: We don't trust the Governors; we don't 
trust the local educators; we don't trust the parents. We just trust 
ourselves. We can make the decisions. We are the 100 Members of Senate, 
the super school board for America. Let us make the decisions; let us 
prescribe the formulas.
  That is what we have done for 35 years. If we want to stick with that 
formula, that failed formula, then the status quo is the way to go on 
and the Democratic counterproposal is the way to go. I think America 
says no. Our children deserve better, American families deserve better, 
and we can do better by American education under the Educational 
Opportunities Act.
  I commend Senator Reid last week with one last quote from the other 
side of the aisle. Senator Reid, the assistant minority leader, said:

       One of the things I have tried to do following the 
     direction of the minority leader, in consultation with the 
     majority leader, is to keep this debate on this education 
     bill on education. We have worked very hard to keep other 
     matters off this bill, Patient's Bill of Rights, prescription 
     drug and minimum wage.

  I commend Senator Reid. I think that is the right approach. I am 
pleased we went through the first week of this debate without having 
extraneous amendments, nongermane amendments. I hope that will continue 
to be the case as we go through this second week of the most important 
debate we will have in the Senate during this Congress.
  Rather than kill the pending education bill by offering irrelevant 
amendments, I ask my colleagues to complete the work we have been so 
successful debating for the past week. We have the chance to help 
millions of American students overcome illiteracy, to cite U.S. 
history, to master basic mathematical skills. Let's do our jobs and not 
fail these kids. Let's not put politics above American education and 
student achievement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending 
amendments be temporarily laid aside, and it be in order for Senator 
Collins to call up her amendment, re: Straight A's, which is filed, 
amendment No. 3104.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be up to 10 minutes for 
debate on the Collins amendment, to be equally divided in the usual 
form, and following the use or yielding back of time, the amendment be 
agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the 
Senate resume the pending question, all without any intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 3104

 (Purpose: To modify the list of eligible programs that may be subject 
                to a performance partnership agreement)

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3104, which is 
pending at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3104.

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

       On page 657, strike lines 6 through 8.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me express my very sincere 
appreciation to the chairman of the committee and the ranking minority 
member for their cooperation in accommodating my amendment this 
evening. I am very grateful for their efforts.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It simply removes the Perkins 
Act from the programs listed under the Straight A's proposal that is in 
this legislation.
  I am a strong supporter of the Straight A's approach, but the Perkins 
Act simply does not belong in Straight A's, and I believe it was 
probably included as an oversight. There are three

[[Page S3595]]

reasons why the Perkins Act should be separated from Straight A's.
  First of all, the Perkins Act, which funds vocational education, is 
simply not part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is 
not part of the programs that we are reauthorizing. In Maine, and in 
many other States, secondary vocational education is operated on a 
parallel, independent system. In Maine, there are even restrictions on 
the ability of an academic high school to offer vocational education. 
Moreover, the Perkins Act and the ESEA have very different specific 
objectives, and they are not easily merged together.
  The second reason is the Perkins Act authorizes programs at both the 
secondary and the postsecondary levels. Each State decides how to 
allocate its Perkins grant. In fact, 56 percent of Perkins funds go for 
postsecondary education, and in at least one State, all of the Perkins 
funds are used for postsecondary education.
  In my State, the funds are allocated equally to secondary and 
postsecondary education, with the requirement that vocational high 
schools and technical colleges allocate 30 percent of their funding to 
training programs operated by the Maine adult education system.
  The third reason is the Perkins Act was written to be part of the 
national workforce development efforts and is designed to coordinate it 
with provisions of the Workforce Investment Act, which the Senate 
successfully passed in 1998. If we pull out the Perkins Act funding, we 
will allow the intentions of Congress in redesigning the Workforce 
Investment Act to go forward.
  In short, the Perkins Act does not belong in this legislation. It 
makes sense for us to take out the Perkins Act from the list of 
programs under Straight A's. It is not part of the ESEA, and as it is 
used, at least 56 percent of the funds under the Perkins Act do not go 
to secondary schools but, rather, to postsecondary schools.
  I thank the chairman and ranking minority member for their 
cooperation in this effort and particularly for accommodating this 
amendment this evening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the good Senator from Maine and 
our chairman of the committee for urging the Senate to accept this 
amendment. I join with her in making that recommendation.
  In 1998, with the reauthorization of the Perkins Act, we made 
improvements in the coordination of vocational education, adult 
education and job training. We did this in a bipartisan way with 
Senator Jeffords and Senator DeWine. We took valuable lessons that we 
learned from the school-to-work program, emphasizing the importance of 
partnerships between education and business.
  Unfortunately, the school-to-work legislation is not being considered 
for reauthorization. I hope that my colleague will work with me to make 
sure this important program finds a way to exist in ESEA.
  What we have found is the importance of integrating academic skills 
with state of the art career and technical skills. Every child should 
graduate from high school with the academic credentials necessary to 
give him or her a wide variety of career choices within a given 
industry. Children should be able to choose to go on to post-secondary 
education or directly enter the workforce, with a competitive edge. So 
there have been, as she pointed out, very important and significant 
changes in these vocational and professional schools. I think we are at 
a place where they are offering great opportunities for young people in 
an economic climate of higher academic challenge and higher skill 
challenge. I think the value of her amendment is it is going to 
complete the process rather than undermine it, which I think was one of 
the principal dangers of having it as a block grant.
  I thank the Senator. We in Massachusetts, as in Maine, as in other 
States in New England, place a very high value on these training 
programs and academic programs. They have been a lifeline to many of 
our communities and to our economy over a very long period of time. 
Nothing is more dramatic of an example than the ability to channel our 
career and vocational education students directly into high skill, high 
wage jobs in industry. They are enormously important and they do good 
work and their work will be enhanced because of the Senator.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join in commending the Senator from 
Maine for this amendment. It certainly removes a serious problem I had 
in the bill. We have removed that from the bill, and it will be very 
helpful in making sure our vocational education programs can do the 
best possible for our young people. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank my two colleagues for their kind 
comments and for agreeing to accept this amendment. I think it is very 
important to the future of vocational education, which, as the Senator 
from Massachusetts points out, is so important to so many students and 
so many adults in this country, and particularly in our section of the 
country, in New England.
  With that, I yield the remainder of my time and I urge the adoption 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3104) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. 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 Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I think we are close to concluding this 
evening's presentation. I just told the Senator from Massachusetts I 
think Senator Gorton has a comment or two to make. He should be here 
shortly.
  There is some effort underway to have a vote on the Gregg amendment 
tomorrow between, say, noon and 2:15, if this is ultimately agreed to 
on both sides. The Lieberman amendment, it is hoped, could be voted on 
in the same timeframe, but we do not know that yet. There are some 
negotiations on the other side. This should clarify itself in the early 
evening here.
  I thought I would take just a moment, while we are waiting for 
Senator Gorton, to talk about the amendment for which we are next going 
to vote, and that is the Lott-Gregg amendment, the Teachers Bill of 
Rights, and of which the ranking member on the committee, Senator 
Kennedy of Massachusetts, has indicated there will be broad acceptance, 
even though it will be a rollcall vote.
  The amendment amends title II of S. 2 to ensure that States and local 
communities are able to use their portion of the $2 billion to hire 
highly qualified teachers to address the teacher quality shortage 
facing this country. It adds a strong accountability component. School 
districts must show they have increased student achievement with the 
percentage of classes in core academic subjects that are taught by 
highly qualified teachers. It authorizes a new, up to $350 million 
recruitment program. This language was inserted by Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison of Texas, Senator Frist of Tennessee, and Senator Crapo of 
Idaho. It encourages midcareer professionals and outstanding college 
graduates to take teaching positions in tiny public schools and rural 
schools.

  It includes the language I discussed at some length earlier this 
afternoon to protect teachers from frivolous lawsuits so they are not 
inhibited from doing the job they are supposed to do in school, that 
is, if they see a problem they avoid it or are silent about it because 
they are afraid they are going to be the subject, as I said, of a 
frivolous lawsuit.
  This is a brief overview of the Teachers' Bill of Rights, the Teacher 
Empowerment Act as it has been referred to in the past. It authorizes 
$2 billion a year for States and local districts to enable them to 
develop a rigorous, professional development program. Federal dollars 
can only be used on professional development programs that increase 
teacher knowledge and are directly related to the curriculum and

[[Page S3596]]

subject area in which the teacher provides instruction.
  It enables them to retain, recruit, train, and hire highly qualified 
teachers and to hire teachers to reduce class size, which has, of 
course, been a goal of the other side of the aisle, and the President. 
It enables them to assist innovative teacher reforms aimed at 
increasing teacher quality, including mentoring and master teachers. 
The Senator from Massachusetts talked about mentoring earlier today. 
Studies and teacher polls have found that hiring master teachers who 
mentor new teachers improves both teacher quality and the likelihood 
that new teachers will stay and thrive at the school.
  It enables them to provide merit pay and teacher testing and 
alternative certification programs. These are programs that provide 
opportunities for experienced professionals from other fields to enter 
teaching. It enables them to provide teacher opportunity payments, 
funds that go directly to teachers so they can choose their own 
professional development. Teachers could select to use their payment at 
a university that has a reputation for intensive professional 
development programs in math and science.
  It incorporates the language of Senator Gregg of New Hampshire 
dealing with teacher quality provisions that are included in this 
amendment, including addressing teacher shortages. Due to rising 
enrollments, many school districts are having difficulty filling 
hundreds of teacher slots, and of those teachers already in the 
classroom, many lack the skills and knowledge to be effective teachers. 
Earlier, Senator Kennedy had very interesting data that demonstrates 
this problem. The amendment clarifies that States and school districts 
are permitted to not only use the money to hire teachers to reduce 
class size but to also use the money to hire teachers to address the 
shortage of high-quality teachers. If a school district wishes to use 
these dollars to hire a teacher, they should have the freedom to hire 
teachers to reduce their class size or to address the shortage of high-
quality teachers.
  It includes compulsory language relating to class size, which 
exacerbates the shortage of high-quality teachers, in our view.
  Requiring smaller class sizes would only exacerbate the teacher 
shortage because it forces school districts to hire more teachers when 
they are already having enough trouble hiring teachers for the classes 
they already offer.
  During the next decade, enrollment growth and higher teacher 
attrition rates mean many districts will have the need for more 
teachers, obviously. Yet the real shortage in our country is not so 
much in the number of teachers as it is in getting qualified teachers 
to work in the classroom, especially in hard-to-serve areas, such as 
inner cities and rural schools.
  That reminds me, during the debate on the education savings account, 
which was a tool this Congress passed at least two or three times and 
is yet to get past the President--but during that debate, Senator Byrd 
of West Virginia came to the floor. He ultimately supported the 
education savings account. He said--and I am paraphrasing it; I hope I 
am correct; Senator Byrd is pretty much a stickler for being correct--
but he indicated he voted historically for all the funding measures 
over the last 30 years and he was not all that happy with what has 
happened and he was ready to try some new ideas.
  The telling thing about his commentary to the Senate that day, in my 
judgment, was to describe where he went to school. I do not believe 
anybody would argue Senator Byrd is among the most capable, 
intellectual in the Senate. When he took us back to his schoolroom, it 
was a remarkable story.
  He was educated in a one-room school for much of his early training. 
It had no heat and no air-conditioning. The plumbing was outside. It 
had a bucket of water which was the potable water--that was the 
drinking water--and a ladle. Yet that environment produced one of the 
most competent, intellectual Members of the Senate. It is something we 
should all remember. He obviously had a quality teacher. He was 
educated in those circumstances and went on to become one of our more 
famous Members of the Senate.
  I repeat that during the next decade enrollment growth and higher 
teacher attrition rates mean many districts will have the need for more 
teachers. Yet the real shortage in our country is not so much in the 
number of teachers as it is in getting qualified teachers to work in 
the classroom, especially in hard-to-serve areas, such as inner cities 
and rural schools.
  Many teachers lack the necessary skills and knowledge to be a high-
quality teacher. More than 25 percent of new teachers in our Nation's 
schools are poorly qualified to teach. Studies have shown the mastery 
of the subject is the most tangible measure of teacher quality. Many 
teachers lack either a major or minor in the subject in which they are 
teaching.
  One-third of all secondary school teachers, grades 7 through 12, who 
teach math have neither a major nor a minor in math or a related field; 
25 percent of all secondary school teachers who teach English lack a 
major or minor in English or a related field; more than half of all 
physical science teachers did not major or minor in any physical 
science; and more than half of all history teachers neither majored nor 
minored in history.
  The shortages are even more troubling in inner-city schools where 
students only have a 50-50 chance of being taught by a quality teacher. 
In high schools where more than 49 percent of the students qualify for 
free lunch, which are classified as high-poverty schools, 40 percent of 
all classes in those high-poverty schools are taught by underqualified 
math teachers. In more affluent schools, only 28 percent of the math 
classes are taught by unqualified math teachers.

  I do not think either number is very impressive--the fact that nearly 
one out of three math classes taught in our more affluent schools can 
only muster two-thirds of the teachers who have the qualifications to 
teach the subject and that rises to nearly half in inner-city schools.
  Nearly one-third of all English classes in high-poverty schools are 
taught by underqualified teachers.
  The sad fact is that this amendment actually worsens the shortage of 
high-quality teachers.
  I will move on to accountability. The second half of the Gregg 
provision in this amendment adds a strong accountability piece. The 
amendment stipulates that States are to monitor the progress of school 
districts in increasing both student achievement and the number of 
classes taught by high-quality teachers. If the school district fails 
to make progress after 3 years, the State is authorized to take control 
of the teacher dollars and use those funds on rigorous professional 
development, teacher reforms, such as merit pay, or other teacher 
initiatives to ensure student achievement increases and the number of 
high-quality teachers increases.
  We do not prescribe a Federal ratio as to how much school districts 
must spend on recruitment versus how much to spend on professional 
development. We let States and districts set their own priorities. We 
do not focus on input measures--how much money is spent on what. 
Rather, we focus on outcomes and outcomes alone--student achievement 
and teacher quality. This accountability amendment ensures States and 
school districts will be held accountable for increasing student 
achievement and the number of high-quality teachers.
  The recruitment provisions include in this amendment a section 
developed by Senators Hutchison of Texas, Frist of Tennessee, and Crapo 
of Idaho, which focuses on the need to recruit excellent teachers from 
other professions and from among our outstanding college graduates. 
Recruiting qualified people from other walks of life to enter the 
teaching profession will dramatically improve the quality of our 
teaching pool.
  I outlined earlier the significant number of teachers teaching 
outside their subject area in schools throughout our country. The 
recruitment provisions in this amendment address the serious problem of 
underqualified teachers by attracting qualified teachers to step in and 
meet the needs. This amendment gives teacher quality the attention we 
believe it deserves.
  I am pleased the other side of the aisle is amenable to the 
amendment.

[[Page S3597]]

  I yield the floor so the Senator from Massachusetts can make his 
closing remarks, and then I believe we are getting close to coming to 
an end.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we took a valuable and useful step a few 
moments ago when we preserved the vocational education legislation 
outside of the block grant, the basic Perkins program, which affects 
some 6 million children in the K-12 and some 3 million students in 
post-secondary programs.
  I intend to offer an amendment on teacher quality tomorrow. I have 
spoken on it this afternoon.
  Before this legislation is finished, there will be efforts made by 
members of our committee to also exclude the block granting of the 
Migrant Education Program and the homeless programs. I will take a 
moment to mention what the current situation is with regard to the 
Migrant Education Program.
  The Migrant Education Program provides financial assistance to State 
educational agencies to establish and improve programs of education for 
children of migratory farm workers that enable them to meet the same 
academic standards as other children. To help achieve this objective, 
program services help migrant children overcome the educational 
disruption and other problems that result from repeated moves. Program 
funds also promote coordination of needed services across the States. 
The most recent data reported by States indicate more than 750,000 
migrant children are eligible for services.
  The Federal Migrant Education Program is the only ongoing source of 
support for these highly mobile migrant children. The poverty and 
mobility, and often limited English proficiency, characteristics of the 
migrant student population combine to make demands for educational 
services go well beyond the services traditionally supported under 
State and local education budgets.
  No State currently provides ongoing funding for migrant programs to 
help these children. We are wiping out the Federal commitment. For 
example, the Migrant Education Program supports supplementary 
instruction in core academic subjects, beyond which title I typically 
provides, often provided outside the regular schoolday and in the 
summer designed to address the special educational needs of children 
who move and are out of school frequently.
  Without these funds, many highly mobile migrant children may attend 
school sporadically throughout the year or not attend school at all. 
Without the funds, the local education groups are unlikely to provide 
the normal range of services to children who attend their schools for 
brief periods of time, or go out to find and enroll migrant children 
outside of normal school enrollment procedures, or grapple with either 
the school interruption problems faced by migrant children or their 
needs for special summer programs.
  Without this program, States and the local educational authorities 
would have little incentive to identify and serve migrant children, who 
cross school districts and/or State boundaries.
  No single local educational agency, and, in many cases, no single 
State, is responsible for the education of a migrant child. No single 
local educational agency, and, in many cases, no single State, provides 
educational services to a migrant child during a single year.
  The Migrant Education Program encourages and supports collaborative 
efforts and interventions across State lines to accommodate the needs 
of migrant children.
  The Migrant Education Program provides support services that link 
migrant children and their families to community services. For example, 
during the regular school year, almost half of migrant students receive 
social work/outreach services, about 30 percent receive guidance and 
counseling, and almost a fourth receive health services under the 
Migrant Education Program.
  Effectively, the point is that certainly at the national level we are 
dropping the commitment to try to do something about all of these 
children.
  With regard to the homeless children, nationally there were 625,000 
school age children identified as homeless during the 1997-1998 school 
year. Without separate funding for this national program, it is 
unlikely that significant numbers of these children and their unique 
problems will be addressed. They have higher than average rates of poor 
health, anxiety, depression, withdrawal, delinquency, aggressive 
behavior, learning disabilities, and suicides. Those problems will not 
be addressed. Through participation in the existing program, the States 
are focusing on reducing the barriers homeless children face in 
enrolling in and attending school on a regular basis.
  Because of national leadership, almost all the States have revised 
their laws. Almost all the States revised their laws, regulations, and 
policies to improve the access to education for homeless students. 
Twenty-seven States changed their residency laws or regulations. 
Otherwise, the children would not be able to be eligible. Almost all 
State coordinators report either that all the students can enroll 
without school records--that previously stopped children from being 
able to participate in the schools--or that they have made special 
allowances to expedite their record transfers. Thirty-five States 
eliminated the barriers of immunization and guardianship requirements, 
otherwise some homeless children would be prohibited from participating 
in services.
  These are enormously vulnerable children. There is absolutely no 
reason or justification to eliminate these programs, block grant them, 
and send them to the States. The States have not responded to this 
population's unique needs.
  In the absence of the homeless program, I think States would not have 
the resources to employ a State coordinator for homeless children and 
youth, a position that is responsible for ensuring that homeless 
children and youth have access to a free, appropriate public education.
  Without the homeless program, the local educational authorities that 
rely on Federal funds to provide services to homeless children would 
have to find funds in their own operating budgets, which are already 
overextended, or stop providing supplemental services to these 
children, who are among the neediest.
  Last year, we provided $29 million for the education of homeless 
children. That is going to be eliminated. These funds most likely will 
not be made up by the States. These children are going to be ill 
served. It is basically and fundamentally wrong. I think we are going 
to be abdicating our responsibilities if we do not target some 
resources to what I think has been an effective program.
  We have had some hearings on this problem in the past. People have 
just been extraordinary in how committed and dedicated they have been 
and how they have stretched scarce resources to make a real difference 
in children's lives.
  We in this body rarely go a day when someone isn't talking about our 
future being our children and our responsibility to them. We ought to 
understand what we are doing to the most vulnerable children in our 
society, the poorest children, the homeless children, the migrant 
children, the immigrant children, and others in failing to guarantee 
their protection. I take strong exception. And I will offer an 
amendment, with others. Others have offered an amendment to restore 
those programs. I look forward to that. Hopefully, we will have an 
opportunity to address that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the subject before the Senate this 
afternoon, and until the vote is taken on it tomorrow, is the Lott-
Gregg amendment to the Teacher Empowerment Act section of this bill.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act itself is quite significant in a number 
of ways, primarily in focusing on increased teacher quality across the 
United States of America but, at the same time, allowing a maximum 
degree of flexibility in local choices with respect to how that teacher 
quality is, in fact, enhanced.
  It provides a significant amount of money for teacher training that 
can also be used for increasing the number of teachers, for increasing 
the competition of those teachers most prized by

[[Page S3598]]

our school districts across the country. For with the amendment that is 
added today--with the recruiting of people in midcareer from other 
professions, who will be quality teachers of particular subjects--it 
will provide a degree of protection against frivolous lawsuits when 
teachers or administrators or school authorities have taken actions 
that will protect the safety and security of students in classrooms and 
of the faculty and administration of the schools themselves. We 
literally have faced the situation in which actions taken in good 
faith, and for valid reasons, have subjected teachers and 
administrators to frivolous lawsuits brought by lawyers for highly 
disruptive and destructive students.
  It does seem to me that the specific amendment on which we are going 
to vote will be effective in providing that kind of protection, 
providing a modest program to recruit quality people in midcareers into 
teaching, and to assure that the $2 billion authorization for teacher 
quality can be used in a widely significant fashion for increasing the 
quality of teaching, not only the quantity, though that is there, but 
the quality of teaching in our public schools.
  The accountability, in this case, again, is going to be a student 
accountability. Are the results positive, from the perspective of 
student achievement in our schools? In that respect, of course, both 
the amendment that is before us at the present time and the portion of 
the bill to which the amendment applies are consistent with the overall 
philosophy of the bill, a philosophy that is perhaps summarized best by 
saying that after 35 years of procedural accountability--that is to 
say, proving that money was used for the precise purposes for which the 
authorization was directed, with a seeming total indifference to 
whether or not student achievement improved, a procedural 
accountability which was satisfied by filling out forms correctly and 
by having clean audits--now it is to be succeeded by a performance 
accountability, accountability that says, after all, that we aim our 
assistance to public education across the United States of America to 
see to it that our students themselves are better educated; that their 
test results in the multitude of achievement tests being developed 
across the United States show actual progress; that this is the 
accountability we wish; that this is the accountability that is found 
in Straight A's; that this is the kind of accountability that is found 
in the Teacher Enhancement Act in this bill; and that this is the goal 
of these amendments today.

  We have a curious debate on the other side, one speaking about the 
successes of title I, a title with which all the goodwill in the world 
has not reduced the disparity between its beneficiaries and other 
students in the extended period of time; a position that says the 
status quo is to be protected at all costs; and a position that says 
parental control and influence over public education is something to be 
feared.
  We on this side of the aisle have every hope that the rather dramatic 
change from procedural accountability to performance accountability 
will result in a true improvement in the quality of education being 
given to our schoolchildren as measured by their actual achievement. 
That is, in fact, our goal.
  Having said that, I should also say there are at least some signs 
during this second week of debate over the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act that we may be able to reach across the political divide 
and find a way to satisfy a substantial number of members of both 
parties in a way consistent with the precise goals I have outlined here 
with the proposition that we need to encourage innovation, that we need 
to encourage parental involvement, and that we need to provide a degree 
of trust and confidence in those men and women across the United States 
who have devoted their lives and their professional careers to the 
education of our children, together with those who volunteer for the 
slings and arrows of political campaigns and run for office as school 
board members--that perhaps all wisdom with respect to education policy 
does not preside in this body and in the Department of Education down 
the street; that perhaps those who know our children's names may very 
well know best what priorities should be funded in 17,000 different 
school districts with 17,000 different types of challenges across the 
United States.
  The amendment before us at the present time leads us in that 
direction. The Teachers Enhancement Act that is a part of this bill 
leads us in that direction. Straight A's leads us in that direction. I 
hope we will soon have a proposal involving some reason from both sides 
of the political aisle in this body that will lead us in that direction 
as well.
  At the present time, however, I commend to my colleagues the Lott-
Gregg amendment. I think it improves an already very first-rate bill--
the product of a tremendous amount of work on the part of the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, one of the best pieces of 
working proposals in this body and by one of its committees in an 
extended period of time.
  I have a far greater hope today than I did 2 or 3 weeks ago that this 
body may actually not only begin a debate on education but may conclude 
a debate on education with a successful vote, and at the very least 
send this thoughtful bill, slightly amended, to a conference committee, 
and one hopes from that conference committee to the President of the 
United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
his usual eloquence, as well as for his understanding and perception of 
the education problems in this country.
  I would like to speak about other areas I think are important. We 
must look closely at these two areas during consideration of this 
legislation.
  We are talking today about the need for improving the quality of 
teacher education and further improvements in the legislation before us 
for that purpose. I think we will find that we have reached agreement 
on that. One of the most critical parts of the equation in improving 
education is ensuring classrooms are led by quality teachers.
  I am a member of the Goals 2000 panel. Here we are already in 2000 
and we haven't reached these important education goals. I want to share 
with you some of the concerns about some of the areas in education 
where we need improvement, and what we intend to do through amendments 
to try to move us forward in these most critical education areas.
  We received notice in 1983. President Ronald Reagan called on the 
Secretary of Education to convene a panel to examine the quality of 
education in our Nation. It was very tersely stated in a phrase that 
says it all, if a foreign nation had imposed upon us the educational 
system that we had in the country especially our elementary and 
secondary education, it would be considered an act of war.
  Since 1983, we have seen measurable improvement across this Nation in 
reaching the goals that we set at that time. This bill provides us with 
an opportunity to reevaluate where we are. It is the year 2000 and we 
have not achieved many of our most important and pressing educational 
goals.
  Still, we have learned a great deal since that time about the area of 
huge need in this Nation involving preschool children--the 0 to 3, or 0 
to 5 age group, depending on what you want to talk about. These are 
problems that are created when the parents do not take a leadership 
role in educating the children. Often times, sadly, it is because they 
don't have a strong educational backgroud themselves. Some are 
illiterate and do not have the tools to help their children as they 
grow up to enter school ready to learn.
  The amendment that will be offered by Senator Stevens and myself, and 
others will, on a voluntary basis--I want to emphasize over and over 
again that it is a voluntary basis--to provide information for parents, 
information for child care providers, and information to schools to 
ensure that as a child grows, they all have the basic educational 
opportunities to learn to read and achieve academically. The successful 
passage of this amendment will make sure that we take care of those 
children who currently do not have that kind of assistance and 
educational support in a variety of ways. It is a critical issue that 
must be addressed.

[[Page S3599]]

  Some years ago, studies were done on the impact to the growth and 
development of a child's brain. A comparison was done between the brain 
of a child who received attention, support, nurturing and good care, 
and one who unfortunately, like too many, had little or no real 
nurturing as children. The brain of the well-developed child who had 
all the nurturing necessary was what we would like to see--a large 
healthy brain. For comparison, they showed you one of an old man in his 
eighties or nineties which was shriveled up and shrunk. The other 
picture was the brain of a child that was not nurtured and did not 
receive the care that a normal child should receive from a parent. That 
child's brain was just as shriveled up as the old man's. That is what 
can happen to a baby, a very young person that does not receive the 
care, attention and nurturing at home that it should.
  We will have an amendment which will assist us in understanding that, 
and which will make sure that throughout that period of time, in a 
voluntary way, the information will be available.
  I ask unanimous consent that the document explaining the Early 
Learning Opportunities Act amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Early Learning Opportunities Act Amendment


                                purpose

       The purpose of this amendment is to increase the 
     availability of voluntary programs, services, and activities 
     that support early childhood education and promote school 
     readiness of young children (age birth to 6) by helping 
     parents, caretakers, child care providers, and educators who 
     desire to incorporate appropriate developmental activities 
     into the daily lives of pre-school age children, and to 
     facilitate broader involvement of the community to develop a 
     cohesive network of early learning opportunities. The 
     Secretary of HHS is responsible for administering this 
     initiative in collaboration with the Secretary of Education.


                    coordination of federal programs

       The legislation requires and provides the authority to the 
     Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     and Education to develop effective mechanisms to resolve 
     conflicts between early learning programs and remove barriers 
     to the creation of a community-driven, unified system of 
     services, activities, and programs for young children and 
     their families.


                  preserving parental rights and roles

       While the legislation focuses on providing more 
     opportunities for parents to participate in activities 
     designed to promote early learning, it is essential that 
     participation be voluntary. The bill clearly states that 
     parents are not required to participate in any programs, 
     services or activities funded under this part and reinforces 
     that parents are their child's first and most effective 
     teacher.


                            federal funding

       $3.25 billion over three years for a discretionary grant 
     program to the states; $750,000,000 in the first year, 
     increasing to $1 billion in the second year and $1.5 billion 
     in year 3.


                            grants to states

       The federal share is 85% for the first two years of the 
     grant, decreasing to 80% in the second and third years, and 
     to 75% for the remainder of the initiative. There is a broad 
     definition of how states can meet the match requirements 
     including cash or in-kind facilities, equipment or services. 
     The funds are allocated to the states based equally on the 
     population of children aged 4 or under and the number of 
     children aged 4 or under who are living in poverty. There is 
     a small state minimum of .4% and a 1% set-aside for Indian 
     Tribes, Native Alaskans. Hawaii Natives, and the Outlying 
     areas. States are not permitted to use the funds to supplant 
     existing funding for child care, Head Start, and other early 
     learning programs.


                     limit on administrative costs

       Administrative costs are limited for both the Department of 
     Health and Human Services (3%) and the States (2% for state-
     level coordination of services, 2% for administrative costs, 
     and 3% for training/technical assistance/wage incentives).


                           state eligibility

       To receive a grant allotment, States must submit an 
     application, designate a lead entity, ensure that funds are 
     distributed on a competitive basis throughout the state, 
     ensure that a broad array/variety of early learning programs, 
     activities, and services receive funds and develop mechanisms 
     to ensure compliance with the requirement of the 
     initiative. States also are required to develop 
     performance goals based on an assessment of needs and 
     available resources and annually report the State's 
     progress towards meeting those goals.


                      awarding grant to localities

       States must award grants consistent with the performance 
     goals set by the State. To the maximum extent possible, 
     states will ensure that a broad variety of early learning 
     programs which provide a continuity of services across the 
     age spectrum will be funded. The state must fund programs 
     that help increase parenting skills, that provide direct 
     activities for young children, as well as improve the skills 
     of child care providers. Local Councils receiving funds will 
     work with local educational agencies to identify cognitive, 
     social, and developmental abilities which are expected to be 
     mastered prior to a child entering school. Programs, services 
     and activities funded under this initiative will represent 
     developmentally appropriate steps to mastery of those 
     abilities. Preference is given to grants which include 
     services to areas of greatest need (as defined by the state), 
     and to grants which increase local collaboration to maximize 
     the use of existing resources. There is no definition of 
     entities eligible to receive grants, in order to facilitate 
     the broadest possible participation among local community 
     resources.


                              use of funds

       Local Councils receiving funds from the State grant 
     allotment will distribute the funds to community resources 
     to:
       (1) Help parents, care givers, child care providers, and 
     educators increase their capacity to facilitate the 
     development of cognitive, language comprehension, expressive 
     language, social-emotion, and motor skills and promote 
     learning readiness in their young children;
       (2) Promote effective parenting
       (3) Enhance early childhood literacy
       (4) Develop linkages among early learning programs within a 
     community and between early learning programs and health care 
     services for young children
       (5) Increase access to early learning opportunities for 
     young children with special needs, by facilitating 
     coordination with other programs serving this population
       (6) Increase access to existing early learning programs by 
     expanding the days or times that the young children are 
     served, by expanding the number of children served, or 
     improving the affordability of the programs for low-income 
     children; and
       (7) Improve the quality of early learning programs through 
     professional development and training activities, increase 
     compensation, and recruitment and retention incentives, for 
     early learning providers.
       (8) Remove ancillary barriers to early learning, including 
     transportation difficulties and absence of programs during 
     non-traditional work times.


                             accountability

       The State is primarily responsible for monitoring the use 
     of funds by state grantees. If the State determines that the 
     grantee is not complying with the requirements of the grant, 
     the state must inform the grantee of the problems, provide 
     training and technical assistance to help them correct the 
     problems, and if that fails, terminate the grant.


                         availability of funds

       The State has 3 years to expand the funds received under 
     the State's allotment. Any unexpended funds will be used by 
     HHS to fund research-based early learning demonstration 
     projects.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in 
relation to the Gregg amendment occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9.
  In addition, it would be my hope that by late morning tomorrow the 
Senate would be in a position to conduct a second vote to be scheduled 
following the 2:15 vote which will be relative to the Lieberman 
amendment. However, while that consent is being worked out, I ask 
unanimous consent that the next two first-degree amendments in order to 
S. 2 be the following, limited to relevant second degrees following a 
vote in relationship to the amendment.
  The amendments are the Stevens-Jeffords amendment on early childhood 
investment, and the Kentucky amendment on teacher quality.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have just been discussing the 
amendment which we just got unanimous consent to consider.
  I would like to briefly discuss another amendment that I am hopeful 
that I will have an opportunity to offer this week. It addresses 
another significant educational problem we face in this nation.
  As I said, on the goals panel we studied what is happening with our 
young people. It is telling when one considers those young people who 
end up incarcerated.
  Eighty percent of the individuals incarcerated in jail in this 
country are school dropouts.
  Consider those students that don't drop out. Far too many of our 
students who stay in high school are not receiving the kind of 
education they need to prepare them to enter the workforce.
  Therefore, I will have an amendment that tackles these critically 
important

[[Page S3600]]

problems. We must do what we can to make sure that young people stay in 
school and we must do what we can to ensure that students receive a 
relevant education in high school. Students graduating from high school 
must be literate. At the same time, we have got to strive for 
improvement in our high schools so that our nation's young people will 
have the skills they need to graduate and get a job.
  Since 80 percent of people incarcerated in our institutions are 
school dropouts, it is essential we pay more attention to those young 
people as well. Those institutions must have the capacity to provide 
those completing their sentences with literacy skills and are job 
skills so that they can enter the workforce and not return to crime.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I once again come before the Senate to 
discuss an often-overlooked population in our schools, talented and 
gifted students. It's time that we recognized the nearly three million 
students who are talented and gifted and provide them with the 
assistance they need.
  For the past three years, I've been working to change the way people 
think about talented and gifted students. In order to do this, several 
destructive myths must be dispelled.
  Currently, many schools operate under the false assumption that these 
students are just ``extra-smart'' and can fend for themselves with a 
little help. One such example of this faulty thinking is giving a 
talented and gifted third grader a fifth grade math textbook.
  Students who display gifted qualities look at the world and think in 
a very different way from other pupils. Instead of thinking in a 
sequential or linear fashion like most students, they jump from one 
concept or idea to another. Specialized teaching and activities, 
designed for their thought process, will help these students excel.
  In addition, these students often have problems fitting in socially 
because they are `different' and suffer emotionally from peer rejection 
and stigmatization. Tragically, as a result, some talented and gifted 
students experience depression, eating disorders and high levels of 
anxiety. Some are also vulnerable to violence and antisocial behavior.
  Another myth is that gifted and talented programs only help middle 
and upper-class white students. Talented and gifted students cover the 
entire spectrum in terms of race, background, geographical region, and 
economic status. In other words, gifted students can be found in every 
classroom.
  Along with getting rid of false notions and stereotypes about gifted 
and talented students, we need to direct resources to these kids to 
ensure that they will have an educational program that fits their 
needs.
  I would like to thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership and for 
including provisions to help talented and gifted students in the 
Educational Opportunities Act, S. 2. The provisions found in S. 2 are 
based on a bill I introduced as the Gifted and Talented Education Act, 
S. 505.
  These provisions establish a program through which states can apply 
for grants in order to fashion their own talented and gifted programs. 
States can use the money for a number of activities such as teacher 
training, equipment, materials, and technology. Under this program, 
states have a great deal of leeway in determining how best to meet the 
needs of their students. It also ensures that 88 percent of these funds 
will go toward enhancing student learning, not administrative costs.
  These talented and gifted student provisions fill a gap in current 
education policy. There is no federal directive to serve this student 
population. The only federal program dealing directly with talented and 
gifted education is the Jacob Javits Program. However, that program is 
directed toward research, not the students themselves.
  Furthermore, there is a great deal of disparity between the programs 
available to meet the needs and quality teacher preparedness of 
talented and gifted students. While most states do have some kind of 
talented and gifted program, the programs are not uniform across school 
districts and grade levels.
  I think all of us, regardless of party affiliation, agree that all 
students should get the education they need. While all students have 
the potential to make great contributions to society, the reality, Mr. 
President, is that talented and gifted students have the greatest 
potential to be either the leaders of tomorrow or a burden to society. 
These students will either put their talents to good use or they will 
direct their energy and gifts toward destructive, wasteful activities. 
It's important that we help to direct these students in a positive way.
  As a fiscal conservative, I have always fought for the wise and 
efficient use of the public's money. Investing in our future leaders, 
artists, scientists, and law enforcement officials, among others, is 
the most sound investment we can make. Again, I applaud Senator 
Jeffords for including this important provision in the bill and I urge 
you to join us in making a commitment to our nation's talented and 
gifted students.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for those pertinent and eloquent 
remarks.
  I deeply appreciate the effort the Senator has gone to, making sure 
the talented and gifted program is improved to meet the goals for which 
it was intended. We have a tremendous opportunity now with modern 
technology to be able to link people up and broaden the availability of 
gifted and talented programs through the State and the country.
  If we fail to do that, we will not be maximizing the opportunities we 
have to give these young people who are the best hope--in many cases, 
for leadership in the future--to be able to reach the goals they 
choose.
  I thank the Senator for the excellent words and what he has given to 
this bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator has expressed a perception that is very 
important. It is because of that perception that the Senator was able 
to include this in the bill.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act Reauthorization bill. My amendment would 
increase the authorization for the Comprehensive School Reform Program 
from $200 million to $500 million. I believe that there are few areas 
of this bill that can have a more positive impact on education in 
American than the Comprehensive School Reform Program.
  Educators in this country are trying hard to improve the success of 
their schools. Teachers, administrators, and parents routinely organize 
and staff tutorial programs, remedial classes, after-school programs, 
and innumerable other initiatives designed to bolster school 
performance. But in most cases, achieving breakthrough results requires 
research-based reform that embraces innovation and instills discipline 
in both the children and the methods of the schools.
  School-wide reform programs effectively implemented through the hard 
work of administrators, teachers, and parents have transformed many 
struggling schools. Unfortunately, some schools--especially poorer 
Title I schools--lack the means to pay for these programs. The 
Comprehensive School Reform Program, CSRP, was established three years 
ago to help public elementary or secondary schools pay for the initial 
costs of implementing comprehensive strategies for educational reform. 
Under CSRP, grants to individual schools are to be at least $50,000 per 
year (renewable up to three years), in addition to all other federal 
aid for which they may be eligible.
  Schools that adopt comprehensive reform plans generally have searched 
the education landscape for effective methods. They have studied 
intensively the reform programs that have been developed by educators 
around the country. And they have chosen the program that they believe 
will produce the best results in their school.
  Most schools that adopt a comprehensive reform plan do so based on 
two premises: first, that significantly improving the performance of 
their school demands a complete reorientation of its resources, 
methods, and culture; and second, that the reform plan should be based 
on a body of sound research and should have a proven record of success.

[[Page S3601]]

  Many reform plans focus on reading, because it is the critical 
foundation for success in other subjects and in later grades. In most 
cases, the problems of a student who fails begin early. So must the 
solutions. We should start by ensuring that all students are able to 
read by the end of the third grade. Educators widely proclaim that this 
is a crucial goal. If students have not achieved this standard, they 
have a very hard time catching up in later grades. The inability to 
read well handicaps the rest of their studies, and their employment 
prospects later in life are greatly diminished. In Indiana, as many as 
a third of all students fall behind by the end of the third grade. 
Indiana's performance is not unusual--the entire country is failing to 
meet the challenge of educating all our children.
  Mr. President, my first elective office was as a member of the 
Indianapolis Board of School Commissioners in the mid-1960s. At that 
time, our school board struggled with basic questions of improvements 
in educational standards, desegregation of schools, and getting 
children proper nutrition and immunizations. Since that time, as a 
mayor and as a Senator, I have followed closely the development of 
education in America. In some areas we have done well. In other areas, 
our progress has been disappointing.

  But during that time, few developments have encouraged me as much as 
the advances in comprehensive school reform. There are many reform 
programs achieving positive results. But to illustrate the concept, I 
would like to describe one in particular. This is ``Success for All,'' 
which was developed by Dr. Robert Slavin at Johns Hopkins University in 
Baltimore. Success for All is a great idea that has proven its value in 
many schools across the country, including 13 in Indiana.
  Reading is serious business at a Success for All school. For 90 
minutes each day, students are grouped by their reading ability rather 
than their grade level. This allows students who excel at reading to 
progress at their own rate, while ensuring that students who fall 
behind will receive intensive attention to stimulate their progress. To 
set the tone and importance of the reading period, students proceed 
silently and purposefully through the hall to their reading group 
classroom.
  Once the period begins, there is a rapid-fire of sequential lessons. 
Each segment is short enough to maintain the interest and attention of 
even the most distracted student. The lessons are fun but rigorously 
structured. Teachers read a story. Then students are involved in 
reading the words to the story in unison, discussing the story with a 
partner, then answering questions to test comprehension. At the 
completion of a successful lesson segment, students choose one of many 
group cheers. This positive reinforcement both encourages children, and 
fosters group cooperation.
  During the reading period, every staff person in the school is 
involved in reading. The art teacher or gym teacher may be tutors, for 
example. Parents also agree to have their children read to them for 20 
minutes each night. If this doesn't happen, adults are available to 
work with the students during the morning school breakfast period.
  Because Success for All depends on the commitment of the entire 
faculty and because it requires such a fundamental change in the way a 
school operates, Dr. Slavin requires that at least 80 percent of the 
faculty must approve Success for All by secret ballot.
  The discipline and accountability of the program greatly reduce the 
possibility that students will fail. If a student falls behind, 
tutoring sessions are set up to get the student caught up. By teaching 
children to read in the early grades, our schools can avoid holding 
students back, promoting them with insufficient ability or transferring 
them out of the normal curriculum to special education courses. 
Referrals to special education in Success for All schools have been 
shown to decrease by approximately 50 percent. In schools where Success 
for All is taught, students learn to read by the third grade. By the 
fifth grade, students in these schools are testing a full grade level 
ahead of students in other schools.
  I would strongly encourage each of my colleagues to visit a Success 
for All school, if they have not already done so. I have had the 
pleasure of visiting Maplewood Elementary School in Wayne Township, 
Marion County, Washington Elementary in Gary, and Fairfield Elementary 
in Fort Wayne, which has had Success for All since 1995. In my 
judgment, anyone who sees Success for All in action will become a 
believer. I have contacted every school district in my state to suggest 
that they take a look at Success for All or another comprehensive 
school reform program based on rigorous research.
  Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today would allow more 
struggling schools to adopt comprehensive school reform programs. These 
programs are a comparative bargain for our schools and our children 
when one considers their success at preventing the enormous costs of 
retention, special education and illiteracy. But many schools need help 
paying for the start-up costs and the reading materials associated with 
comprehensive reform programs.
  Most of the more than 1,500 schools nationwide that use Success for 
All fund it with the Federal Title I program. Others have tapped 
private sources. But increasing funding for the Comprehensive School 
Reform Program is the most direct way to give more local schools the 
chance to embrace school-wide reform and transform the lives of their 
students. The program deserves more support because its positive impact 
on literacy and the ultimate success of students is so demonstrable.
  Each child must learn to read. The quality of life for that child 
depends upon that single achievement, as does the economic future of 
our country. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

                          ____________________