[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 9, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3646-S3661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT--Continued
Vote on Amendment No. 3126
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to vote in relation to
amendment No. 3126. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3126. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth), and the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Thompson) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Hagel
Roth
Thompson
The amendment (No. 3126) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3127
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe we have an agreement on the
time on our side. Am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and a half hours on the Lieberman
amendment equally divided.
Mr. KENNEDY. I think we had an understanding with our colleagues that
the distinguished Senator from Arkansas was going to be recognized to
speak at this time for up to 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. I also would like to thank
all of my colleagues who have worked so diligently on these issues, and
particularly Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh who I have been working
alongside on the proposal that is before us right now. I also would
like to compliment Senator Kennedy's staff for all the work they have
put in, as well as the wonderful bipartisan spirit that has been shown
by Senators Gregg, Collins, Gorton, and Hutchinson in trying to bring
about this issue of great importance on behalf of our Nation and on
behalf of our children.
I am proud to join my colleagues on the floor today to talk about a
bold, new education plan that we hope will provide a way out of the
current stalemate over reauthorizing ESEA. I must admit that I am
disappointed because so far we have turned one of the most important
issues we will debate this year into yet another partisan standoff.
I can't tell you how frustrated I am that we face the real
possibility that our children will be forced once again to the back of
the bus while partisan politics drive the legislative process off a
cliff.
I would like to focus on a comment that was made by one of my
colleagues earlier in this debate. Senator Landrieu mentioned that we
had one chance at reaching each of these individual children in our
Nation who are the greatest blessings in this world.
Each year we fall behind in making the revolutionary changes to move
our educational system to where it needs to be in order to provide our
children with the source of education they need in order to meet the
challenges of the coming century. Each year that we fail to do that--if
that happens this year--is one year in a child's life that we cannot
replace; one year in a child's life that cannot be reproduced or given
back to them in terms of what they need to know to be competitive.
If I have learned one thing since my first campaign for Congress in
1992, it
[[Page S3647]]
is that when voters send you to Washington to represent them they mean
business. They expect leadership and they want results, and rightly so
because they deserve it.
As parents, we certainly all understand one of the things that we
will fight the hardest for, and that is benefits for our children.
The American people want us to get serious about educating our
children in new and innovative ways that will allow them to learn and
meet the challenges of the future.
I firmly believe we have a responsibility to pass a reauthorization
bill this year that will improve public education for all children.
That means working together until we reach an agreement a majority on
both sides can support. Waiting to see what happens in the next
election should not be an option.
Last week, I supported one alternative to S. 2 offered by Senator
Daschle. It didn't contain everything I wanted, but after I and other
Members expressed some initial concerns, we reached an agreement that
reflected my key priorities on accountability, public school choice and
teacher quality. Every Senator on this side of the aisle supported that
proposal, but we didn't get one Republican vote.
At the same time, I don't know any Member on our side who is prepared
to support the underlying bill that the President has indicated he will
veto unless substantial changes are made. So it is clear that both
sides have to give some ground in this debate if we have any chance of
crafting a compromise proposal that the President will sign into law.
The Three R's amendment we proposed today helps bridge the gap on
both sides of the debate over the role of the federal government in
public education. Our bill synthesizes the best ideas of both parties,
I believe, into a whole new approach to national education policy.
It contains three crucial elements to improve public education--tough
accountability standards to ensure students are learning core academic
subjects, a significant increase in federal resources to help schools
meet new performance goals, and more flexibility at the local level to
allow school districts to meet their most pressing needs.
Essentially, under our proposal, the federal government would
concentrate less on rules and requirements and focus instead, on what I
know every Member of this body can and will support--higher academic
achievement for every student.
In addition to being smart national policy, the Three R's proposal
would dramatically improve education in my home state of Arkansas.
As I noted earlier, the RRR bill significantly increases the Federal
investment in our public schools and carefully targets those additional
dollars where they are needed the most. We, as a moderate group, find
ourselves in an unusual position of trying to change the law to
actually enforce the original intent of that law--title I funds
actually being targeted to the schools and to the students who need
those resources the most. There is no doubt that we can only be as
strong as our weakest link. That is why it is essential that in those
poor school districts we make sure title I dollars actually get to
where they were intended to go.
Statistics consistently demonstrate that, on average, children who
attend low-income schools lag behind students from more affluent
neighborhoods.
This is certainly true in Arkansas where the most recent test results
indicate that students in the economically prosperous northwest region
of the state outperform students in the impoverished Delta. These
results also indicate that the disparity in student achievement between
minority and non-minority students in Arkansas continues. It proves
that in the past several decades we have not been eliminating the gap
and disparity between haves and have nots.
I believe strongly that every child deserves a high-quality education
and that the federal government has a right to expect more from our
nation's schools. But we also have a responsibility to give public
schools the resources they need to be successful.
The ``Three R's'' acronym can also apply to our efforts to improve
teacher quality. In fact, this plan can best be summed up by Four R's:
recruiting, retention, resources, and above all, respecting our
teachers.
The difficulty schools experience today in recruiting and retaining
quality teachers is one of the most enormous obstacles facing our
education system.
In my State of Arkansas, somewhere around 30 percent or more of our
teachers are under the age of 40. We are going to hit a brick wall
eventually as our teachers begin to retire with no more younger
teachers in our school systems.
If we do not provide the funds in order to make sure that teacher
improvement and quality and retention are there, we will not have the
teachers. We cannot expect students to be successful if they don't work
with quality teachers. We can't expect quality teachers to stay in the
profession if they don't get adequate training, resources, or respect.
In our bill, we include a 100-percent increase in funding for
professional development for teachers. I think that is absolutely
essential in supporting our educators for them to be able to provide
for our students. That is why I believe we in Congress must do our best
to help schools meet the challenges we are setting forth today.
Most experts agree teacher quality is as important as any other
factor in raising student achievement. The amendment we are debating
would consolidate several teacher training initiatives into a single
formula grant program for improving the quality of public school
teachers, principals, and administrators. This proposal would increase
professional development funding by more than 100 percent, to $1.6
billion annually, and target that funding to the neediest school
districts. In my home State of Arkansas, this will mean an additional
$12 million for teacher quality initiatives. In my book, that is
putting your money where your mouth is.
In addition, the RRR would give State and school districts more
flexibility to design effective teacher recruitment and professional
development initiatives to meet their specific needs. No two school
districts are alike, and there is no one size fits all for the school
districts of this country.
One overreaching goal we propose today is to require all teachers be
fully qualified by 2005. Even the best teachers cannot teach what they
don't know or haven't learned themselves. To be successful, we must
work harder to reduce out-of-field teaching and require educators to
pass rigorous, State-developed content assessments in the subject they
teach, not a Federal test but those that are designed by the State.
I have the highest respect for the teachers, principals, and
superintendents who dedicate their talent and skills every day to
prepare our children for tomorrow. I think they have some of the
hardest and most important jobs in the world. Our Nation's future, in
large part, depends on the work they do. We should be reinforcing them.
Our teacher quality proposal is an example of how, by combining the
concept of increased funding, targeting flexibility, and
accountability, we can join with States and local educators to give our
children a high-quality education.
There is much more to say today about this approach of the amendment
of Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh that Members such as myself have
sponsored. I know there are others who want to speak.
Before I close, I truly think this is the question we must ask
ourselves: What, honestly, is the best thing for our children in this
country? I say to my colleagues, if you want accountability from local
schools, our proposal has it. If you want more targeted, effective
national investment, take a look at the amendment that was produced by
Senator Lieberman. Do we want more qualified, better trained teachers,
investing in their professional development, with flexibility at the
local level? Do you want higher minority student retention rates, which
should be the objective of all Members? We have those answers in this
amendment and in our bill.
We have one chance at producing something on behalf of our most
treasured blessing in all this world, our children. Please, colleagues,
let's don't lose that chance. Let's not disappoint our children in this
country and, more importantly, the future of this country. Let's put
party politics aside. I think
[[Page S3648]]
the RRR in the Lieberman-Bayh proposal is the right approach to improve
student achievement in every classroom.
I thank my colleagues for their involvement in this amendment and
certainly in this debate. More importantly, I encourage all Members to
remember what it is we are here to do and who, more importantly, we are
here to do it on behalf of, our children.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself a moment.
I commend my friend from Arkansas. The Senator from Arkansas has a
varied and wide agenda of public policy issues. I think all Members in
the Senate know the issue of teacher quality and recruitment and also
how to get quality teachers in rural areas and underserved areas. That
has been an area of great specialization. Those who had the alternative
have benefited from her knowledge, including Senator Lieberman, as well
from her energy in these particular needs and by the very sound
judgment of her positive suggestions. I thank the Senator. She has
placed the important aspect of education on her agenda and we have
benefited from her interaction and her recommendations.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Bunning.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the principal author of the
amendment be recognized for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
I thank my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, not
only for a superb statement on behalf of this amendment but for the
work the Senator has done as we developed the proposal, for the
practical experience and common sense she brought, specifically for her
genuine advocacy for children, particularly rural poor children.
I thank the Senator for that and for her excellent statement.
I ask that Senator Feinstein of California be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this brings to double figures the
cosponsors. We now have 10 cosponsors. We are proud to have the Senator
from California with us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we have been debating the future of the
Federal role in education. Specifically, we are looking at who will
take the lead role in educating our children. Will it be the Federal
bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or will it be the teachers and parents
who are closer to the children and understand their needs better?
Last week, President Clinton went on an education tour that I think
can answer those questions. His tour took him to four cities:
Davenport, IA; St. Paul, MN; Columbus, OH; and Owensboro, in my home
State of Kentucky.
That is, we think the President visited Owensboro. I am one
Kentuckian who is not sure the President ever made it there. The
President's web site has something of a travelogue on his trip, the
supposed trip the President made, that says President Clinton's school
reform tour started in Owensboro, KY. Look closer and one will notice
something is wrong. Apparently, Owensboro is not in Kentucky anymore.
In fact, it looks like Kentucky isn't Kentucky anymore; it has moved to
Tennessee. I find this terribly interesting.
We Kentuckians have nothing against Tennessee except, of course, when
the Wildcats are playing the Volunteers. We like Owensboro in Kentucky,
right where it is.
While he was in Owensboro, if that is where he really was, the
President spoke about his Federal programs that require States to spend
Federal money on Washington's priorities. The President thinks this is
a good approach. When I look at the President's map that approach
troubles me, and it is not just because the White House cannot tell
Kentucky from Tennessee. If you will notice, western Kentucky is no
longer there; it has been annexed by Illinois: No more Paducah, no more
Mayfield, no more Murray.
I have some good news for my friends down there, and I have some good
friends down there who have sent me word that they want to stay in
Kentucky. I wonder if they know this administration sold them off to
Illinois. The truth is, some of us do not know where President Clinton
was for sure. We know we have newspaper stories and video clips which
report that he was seen in Owensboro plain as day.
But, on the other hand, we have the Federal Government, the source of
all wisdom, which the President would have us entrust with the
education of our children, telling us the President and the entire city
of Owensboro, KY, is actually in Tennessee.
I trust the teachers and the parents in Owensboro, KY, with the
education of their children. They know what is what.
When presented with a choice between handing over control of their
children's education to the Federal bureaucracy in Washington, DC, or
letting those decisions be made by someone who personally knows the
names of those children, I trust they will make the right choice.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BUNNING. I will, after I have finished.
This administration says they care for the children in Owensboro, KY,
but they do not even know their names. Parents and teachers know their
names and the needs of their children and students. I trust them. As
the Senate continues this debate on this education bill, I urge my
colleagues to support education policies that truly return power to the
people and away from the Federal bureaucracy.
Of course, it is very obvious there is one new Federal program
needed, a program that is desperately needed--a geography class for
this White House--because, quite literally, this administration cannot
quite find Owensboro, KY, on the map.
Now I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will take 2
minutes. I thank the Senator for yielding.
I had the pleasure of talking with the President of the United States
on Wednesday evening after he came back from his trip. He told me about
the school in Owensboro. I want to just give the assurance to the
Senate that he told me it is one of the schools with the highest number
of children receiving nutrition programs, which defines the
disadvantaged children. They have a superb literacy program. They had
small class size. They had a great emphasis on teacher training. It
moved from one of the lower level schools, in terms of academic
achievement, up to one of the top ones in Kentucky.
Is that correct?
Mr. BUNNING. That is very accurate. It is also accurate, there are
very many other schools, not only in Owensboro but down along the
border at Williamsburg and throughout many counties in Kentucky that
have improved their educational facilities.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on my time, I welcome that fact. I think
it is worthwhile to take note about what has been happening in
Owensboro and to try to share that kind of success story, which the
President of the United States was extremely impressed with and quite
willing to talk about. I have the notes back in my office about the
percentage of progress that was made.
What he was talking about was well trained teachers, smaller class
size, and support programs for children who are in need. Those are
concepts we have tried to have in this program. I know we have some
differences on that, but I wanted any reference to the President's trip
to Owensboro also to relate the quality and very strong improvement in
the education he witnessed down there. I think it is worthwhile taking
note. We all ought to know what works and be encouraged by it.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. BUNNING. I would like to conclude by saying a former colleague of
the Senator from Massachusetts is a little struck also, Senator Wendell
Ford, because Owensboro happens to be his hometown. It is definitely in
Kentucky.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if there are no supporters of the bill,
I would like to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
[[Page S3649]]
Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. I understood we would go back and forth.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I think I represent those in opposition. If the Senator
is in support of the amendment, then I believe he is right.
Mr. REED. I would like to speak about the amendment, not necessarily
in support but speak about the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield 5 minutes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I want to object. I thought we might be going back and
forth on this. If the Senator is on a particular schedule, I will ask
the Senator from Rhode Island to withhold, but he indicated to me a
preference.
Mr. FRIST. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes on the other side's time
and be happy to follow that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, then, the Senator from
Rhode Island is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, and
Senator Jeffords.
I commend Senator Lieberman and his colleagues for presenting a very
thoughtful and principled alternative to discuss today. There are
elements in this legislation which I support enthusiastically, and then
there are other elements I do not accept and have great questions
about. But the proposal of Senator Lieberman along with colleagues
underscores some critical points.
First of all, they underscore that the approach of S. 2--simply
transferring money with very limited and ambiguous accountability
provisions of the State--is not the way to reform accountability. Also,
they recognized there is a legitimate State and local partnership that
could be maintained and should be maintained, particularly in the
context of title I.
They are also advocating a greater investment in education. That is
something I know I agree with and I know many, if not all, of my
colleagues on the Democratic side passionately agree with. Also, they
advocate greater targeting of these funds into those low-income schools
that need more assistance and, in fact, represent probably the best
example why unconstrained State and local policy sometimes leads to bad
outcomes.
If you look at the funding and the performance of schools in urban
areas and low-income rural areas, you will see the combination of the
property tax and local policies will lead to results, to outcomes we do
not want. We at the Federal level have the opportunity and the
resources to help a bit, at least, to change that outcome. Also, it
recognizes the importance of class size reduction and school choice.
All of these are very important.
In addition, it recognizes very strongly the notion and the need for
accountability. Senator Bingaman has offered an amendment. He worked on
this measure, not just in this Congress but in the preceding
reauthorization. I joined him in that work as a Member of the other
body. This provision is an important one. It is not part of the
Lieberman proposal. I think it is something we should emphasize.
I do, though, disagree with the approach they are taking to
consolidate certain programs because one of the issues with
consolidation is that you tend to lose both the focal point and also we
typically design specific targeted programs to do those things which
States are unwilling to do or are not doing at the same level of
resources which are necessary to accomplish a national purpose.
We can see examples throughout our policies. School libraries, I use,
inevitably, to point out the fact that back in 1965 we did have direct
Federal resources going to help collections of school libraries. In
1981 we rolled them into a consolidated block grant approach, and,
frankly, if you spoke to school librarians, they would point out the
status of their collections, which are very poor, with out-of-date
books, and they would also say how difficult it is to get any real
resources from the localities or States. Frankly, that is the type of
acquisition they can always put off until next year and next year, and
before you know it, it is 5 and 10 years and these books are out of
date.
I believe, too, the proposal the Senator from Connecticut and his
colleagues are advancing does not recognize some of the other
challenges facing our schools. The fact is, we do need to help the
States and localities, apparently, to fix crumbling schools. One of the
things I hear repeatedly from the other side is the wisdom of State and
local Governors about public education. If that is the case, why are
there so many decrepit school buildings throughout our country? Why are
there so many children going to schools to which we would be, frankly,
embarrassed to send children? It is not because people are either
ignorant or evil at these local levels. It is because when you have a
limited tax base, when you have many other priorities, when most of the
local budgets are consumed by personnel costs, it is awfully difficult
without some outside help--i.e., Federal help--to do certain things.
One of them, apparently, is to ensure that school buildings are
maintained at a level where we would not be embarrassed to send
children.
There are schools in Rhode Island that are over 100 years old. They
are crumbling. They need help. Every time I go into these communities,
I do not have local school committee people and mayors saying: Go away;
take your terrible, terrible Federal rules and regulations away from
us. I have them imploring me: Can you help us get some resources from
the Federal Government to fix up our schools? That is the reality, not
the rhetoric and mumbo jumbo about big education bureaucrats and
everything else. There is potential in the Lieberman amendment.
Unfortunately, this aspect of putting all these programs together
defeats the purpose.
I have two other quick points.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I request 1 more minute.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 1 minute.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and the
Senator from Tennessee for their graciousness.
I commend them particularly for bringing up the issue of increased
resources and targeting. One of the ironies is, we who have been doing
this over the last few years fought through the last reauthorization.
Targeting of resources of title I programs is intensely divisive
politically. Particularly Members of the other body do not want to see
their allocation in title I funds decreased, even if they represent
fairly affluent communities. It is one thing to talk about targeting,
but it is something else to have the political will to engage in that.
I tried it in 1994, along with others. We made moderate success. I
would be happy to join the battle of targeting again, but I would be
remiss if I did not point out the real challenges of getting a bill
such as this through both Houses of the Congress.
Again, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his graciousness, and I
yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Tennessee 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lieberman
amendment, although let me say right up front that there are several
principles that are underscored in the amendment in which I believe
wholeheartedly and that are reflected in the underlying bill to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The whole idea
of being able to collapse programs into a manageable number and the
emphasis on student achievement are two concepts which are very
important as we look forward to how best to educate the current and
future generations of children in areas in which we are failing.
I remain very concerned, though, with the specifics of the Lieberman
amendment in terms of the formula, the impact it has on a number of
districts in Tennessee. The focus on teachers, which I believe is
appropriate, in terms of it being critical that we develop an
opportunity for every child to be in a classroom with an excellent
quality teacher is an important one, although maintaining this whole
approach of 100,000 teachers and dictating that from above is something
I simply cannot support.
[[Page S3650]]
We just voted on an amendment which I believe directs us in a much
better, more optimistic, potentially more beneficial direction, and
that is empowering teachers, attracting teachers, and recruiting
teachers through the alternative certification process in that
amendment. Careers to Classrooms is what it is called.
We have not had the opportunity to adequately explain the importance
of this now-accepted amendment, but it is important to understand and
for us to spend a few minutes on it because it does underscore the
importance of having high-quality teachers, attracting teachers,
keeping them in that position because of the demographics and the shift
we are going to see in teachers and retiring teachers.
This careers-to-classrooms approach complements what is in the
underlying bill, that part of the bill that applies to teachers and is
called the Teacher Empowerment Act. I have worked carefully and closely
with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas in crafting this careers-
to-classroom aspect of the bill.
As we look forward, it is important to understand the importance of
that high-quality person, not just a person at the head of the
classroom, but that high-quality teacher.
This aspect of the bill expands the national activities section of
the underlying bill to allow additional funds for States that want,
that wish, that choose to attract new people into the teaching
profession through what is called an alternative certification process.
We have all heard about the impending teacher shortage. It is
something that has been discussed on the floor. It is something that
Americans today do understand. The Department of Education estimates we
will need about 2.2 million new teachers over the next decade. That 2.2
million is necessary for two reasons: No. 1, because of enrollment
increases and, No. 2, to offset the large number of teachers, the so-
called baby boomer teachers, who will be retiring over the next several
years.
It is interesting to note that the severe shortages tend to be in
areas that are either the most urban or the most rural. Even more
interesting is if you look at the alternative certification processes
that have been in effect, for example, in New Jersey, where there has
been such a program for 15 years, it is in those most urban areas and
those most rural areas that the alternative certification process has
had the most beneficial and the most powerful impact. The underlying
focus in the bill, made stronger by this amendment, is that it is not
only numbers of teachers but, indeed, it is the quality of those
teachers we have in the classrooms.
This amendment, and now the bill, directs resources to strengthen and
improve teacher quality. There is a professor at the University of
Tennessee whose name is William Sanders. He pioneered this concept of a
value-added system of measuring the effectiveness of a teacher. His
research clearly demonstrates that it is teacher quality more than any
other variable that can be isolated, including class size, including
demographics, that affects student achievement. He says the following:
When kids have ineffective teachers, they never recover.
At the University of Rochester, Eric Hanushek has said, and I begin
the quotation:
The difference between a good and a bad teacher can be a
full level of achievement in a single year.
The research of the importance of the quality of the teacher goes on
and on. Again, as the statistics have shown, we have 12th grade
students in the United States ranking near the bottom of international
comparisons in math and science; where today most companies that are
looking for future employees dismiss the value of a high school
diploma; where we know that high school graduates are twice as likely
to be unemployed as college graduates.
The statistics go on and on. No longer can we afford as a society to
have this increasingly illiterate population continue.
It comes back to having a good quality teacher in the classroom, and
today too many teachers in America lack proper preparation in the
subjects they teach. Tennessee, my State, actually does a pretty good
job overall, I believe, because they say a teacher has to have at least
a major or a minor in the subject they are going to teach. Therefore,
when we have these gradings of States on how well they do, we always
get an A in this category of having a major or a minor.
Even in Tennessee, 64 percent of teachers teaching physical science
do not have a minor in the subject. Among history teachers, nearly 50
percent did not major or minor in history. Other States do much worse.
Mr. President, 56 percent of those teaching physics and chemistry, 53
percent of those teaching history, 33 percent of those teaching math do
not have a major or minor in the field they teach. We know this content
is critically important to the quality of that teacher.
In closing, let me again say what this amendment does. It seeks to
position a State, if they so wish, to have as good an opportunity as
possible to recruit teachers. It actually helps States to recruit
students and professionals into the teaching profession if they have
not been in the teaching profession--both top-quality students who have
majored in academic subjects as well as midcareer professionals who
have special expertise in core subject areas. We want teachers teaching
math to have majored or have an understanding of the content of math.
We want teachers teaching science who have majored in and truly love
science. It makes for a better teacher.
What this amendment does is help draw students and professionals into
teaching, attracting a new group, a new pool of people into the field
of teaching, different kinds of people, all through this alternative
certification process.
We all know it is hard today, among our graduates, to attract the
very best into teaching, given the barriers that are there, given the
traditional certification process. Through this amendment Senator
Hutchison and I have drafted, we provide resources to States that wish
to offer these alternative certification programs to help them
establish such new programs to recruit students, professionals, and
others, into the teaching profession.
I am very excited that this amendment has strengthened the underlying
bill. These alternative certification stipends will help provide a
seamless transition for students and professionals who make that
change, that movement from school or careers, and embark upon a new
career in teaching.
Shortly, this afternoon, Senator Hutchison will come down and
elaborate on this particular program. Again, I am very proud to be a
part of helping this new generation of teachers and future teachers
address the problems we all know exist in our education system today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if we go into a quorum call, is the time
equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent to equally
divide it. Is the Senator requesting unanimous consent?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and
ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes under the time
allotted to the manager of the bill on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to be opposing the amendment
offered by my colleague, Senator Lieberman. He, I know, has thought a
great deal about education issues. I admire his commitment to
education. But we come at this from slightly different perspectives.
I want to speak not so much about the amendment that is before us but
a bit more about the underlying issue that brings us to this
intersection of the debate on this bill.
We know that in this country the education system needs some repair
[[Page S3651]]
and adjustment. I happen to think many schools in this country perform
very well. As I have said before on the floor of this Senate, I go into
a lot of classrooms, as do many of my colleagues. I challenge anyone to
go into these classrooms and come out of that classroom and say: Gee,
that was not a good teacher. I have deep respect and high regard for
most of the teachers I have had the opportunity to watch in the
classrooms in this country.
But there is almost a boast here in the Senate by some that we do not
want to have any national aspirations or goals for our education
system. I do not know why people do that. Our elementary and secondary
education system is run by local school boards and the State
legislatures. That is as it should be.
No one is proposing that we transfer control of school systems to the
federal government. But we are saying that, as a country, as taxpayers,
as parents, as a nation, we ought to have some basic goals of what we
expect to get out of these schools. Yet there are people who almost
brag that we have no aspirations at all as a country with respect to
our education system.
I would like to aspire to certain goals of achievement by our schools
and by our kids across this country, so I am going to later offer an
amendment, part of which is embodied in the Bingaman amendment, dealing
with accountability, saying that every parent, every taxpayer ought to
get a report card on their local school. We get report cards on
students, but we ought to get a report card on how our schools are
doing. It is one thing to tell the parents the child is failing. We
certainly ought to know that as parents. But what if the school is
failing? Let's have a report card on schools, so parents, taxpayers,
and people in every State around this country can understand how their
school is doing compared to other schools, compared to other States.
The issue of block granting, with all due respect, I think is ``block
headed.'' Block granting is a way of deciding: Let's spend the money,
but let's not choose. We know there are needs, for example, for school
modernization.
I heard a speaker the other day at an issues retreat I attended who
made an appropriate point that I know has been made here before. Not
many years ago, we had a debate in the Senate about prisons and jails.
Some of the same folks who stand up in this Chamber and say, we cannot
commit any Federal money to improve America's schools, were saying, we
want to commit Federal money to help State and local governments
improve their jails.
Why is it the Federal Government's responsibility to help improve
jails and prisons for local government, but when it comes to improving
schools, we say that is not our responsibility? I do not understand
that. Jails and prisons take priority over schools? I do not think so.
It seems to me there is a contradiction here.
All of us have been to school districts all over this country. We
have seen young children walk into classrooms we know are in desperate
need of remodeling and repair. Some of them are 40, 50, 60, 80 years
old. I was in one the other day that was 90 years old. The school is in
desperate disrepair, and the school district has no money with which to
repair it. What are we going to do about that?
Are we going to say those kids don't matter? Are we going to say that
we are going to commit Federal dollars to education, but we don't want
to know where those dollars are going? Are we going to say we don't
want to direct funding to deal with the issues we know are important,
such as school renovation and repair or decreasing class size by adding
more teachers? Are we going to say we don't want to reach some sort of
national goals because we are worried someone will mistake that for
Federal control of local schools?
Hear it from me. I do not think we ought to try to have Federal
control of local schools. The school boards and State legislatures do
just fine, thank you; but there are areas where we can help, and school
modernization is one of them. We were perfectly willing to jump in and
renovate prisons and jails for State and local governments, but now it
comes to schools and we say, no, that is not our job. It is our job.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. DORGAN. Schools are certainly more important than prisons and
jails when it comes to the subject of renovation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. We are awaiting
Senators either on that side or on this side. I will withhold when they
arrive. I yield myself 5 minutes.
I have heard the Senator from North Dakota speak to this issue about
the General Accounting Office report that estimates we have about $110
billion worth of modernization or rehabilitation of schools. Is the
Senator familiar with that report?
Mr. DORGAN. I sure am. The GAO reported about the disrepair of
schools, on Indian reservations, in inner cities, all across the
country. You go to poor school districts that don't have a large tax
base, and you find that we are sending kids into classrooms in poor
shape. We can do better than that. The GAO documents that very
carefully in study after study. We must, as a nation, begin to make
investments in our schools.
Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator not agree with me that we tell
children every single day that education is important, a high priority,
the future of our country depends upon it, your future is essential to
the meaning of this country and what this country is going to be
throughout the world? What kind of message does the Senator think a
child gets who goes to a school that has windows open in the
wintertime, an insufficient heating system, or a dilapidated electrical
system so they can't plug in computers? What kind of subtle message
does the Senator think that sends to the child where, on the one hand,
we say it is important to get a good education, but on the other hand
the child goes to a crumbling school, whether it is in the urban or
rural areas, or Indian reservations?
Mr. DORGAN. The message is pretty clear. We talk about education, but
then if the schools are in disrepair and adults do not seem to care
about it, students feel that education and they themselves do not
matter. I toured a school about a week ago with 150 kids. It had two
bathrooms and one water fountain. It was in terrible disrepair.
The teacher said, ``Children, is there anything you would like to ask
Senator Dorgan?'' One of the little kids who was in about the third
grade raised his hand and said, ``Yes. How many bathrooms does the
White House have?'' Do you know why he asked that? I think it was
because that is an issue in their school. They have long lines to wait
to go to the bathroom--150 kids and two bathrooms. Why is that the
case? Because these kids are sent to an old school. The school district
has no tax base. When we send them through the classroom door, we
cannot, as Americans, be proud of that school. We must do better than
that.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his comments. I agree with them
100 percent. We will have an opportunity to consider this in amendment
form. Senator Harkin intends to address this issue in an amendment
later in this debate--hopefully soon, if we can move along on some of
our votes.
Again, as the good Senator has mentioned, what we are trying to do is
target scarce resources on problems that we know exist, and with scarce
resources we can make a difference that is going to enhance academic
achievement. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending
Lieberman amendment. Senator Lieberman is a friend of mine, and I know
he has spent a lot of time with many colleagues trying to put together
a substitute that could have bipartisan agreement. I think the
Senator's amendment does make some good attempts, but there are
concerns that will also force me to vote against his amendment.
I think the amendment is overly prescriptive. The reason I feel so
strongly about this is that the amendment we just passed--Senator
Lott's amendment--which included my and Senator Frist's careers-to-
classroom provision--the whole purpose of that is to give more
flexibility. I think what we are doing is drawing the bright red line
[[Page S3652]]
between the philosophy of what the Democrats are hoping to do and what
the Republicans are hoping to do. The Republicans are trying to
withdraw a lot of the redtape that we hear complained about by teachers
everywhere we go in our States. When I go to a town hall meeting, in an
urban or rural area, they complain about the redtape and the
regulations that keep them from being able to do the job they want to
do, which is to teach children in the classroom.
I think Senator Lieberman's amendment fails to provide the
flexibility and the accountability for our States and public schools,
which really is the hallmark of the bill that is before us today. I am
concerned about the revised formula for title I. I am concerned because
title I will take millions of dollars from many of the rural and other
schools in Texas and across America.
While I certainly understand the goal of providing money for low-
income schools, I don't think it should come at the expense of our
Nation's rural schools. They also have a great need, and oftentimes
they lack the resources to give the quality education they need and
want for their children.
I am also concerned about the provision in the Lieberman substitute
that effectively requires certification for teachers' aides and other
paraprofessionals. I think this is something best left to the States
and the local districts. In fact, to go back to the amendment we just
passed, Senator Frist and I have been working, along with Senator
Graham from Florida, on a different concept that goes away from the
overcertification issue and says we want professionals in the
classroom, and we want to encourage school districts to put
professionals in the classroom, even if they didn't major in education
in college.
Now, I have to take a step back and say that I am very proud that my
alma mater, the University of Texas, is actually beginning to do some
testing on education degrees to see if we can focus more on the area of
expertise that is going to be taught in the classroom and less on the
``how to make lesson plans'' part of the education degree. So far the
tests have been very positive of the students who have gone more in the
area of expertise for which they are going to be the teachers and less
into the ``how to be a teacher''--not that you do away with that
because it is important; but you lessen the focus on that and go more
for the actual expertise that is going to be transferred to the
children in the classroom. That is the exact concept of the careers-to-
classroom amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Frist and myself.
It is very similar to what Senator Bob Graham and I had worked on as
well. Basically, it says to the midlevel professional who may be
looking for a career change or who may be retiring because they have
done well in their field, we want you to come into the classroom and
give the benefit of our knowledge and expertise to children who are in
schools that have teacher shortages or are in rural areas.
Here is an example. A friend of mine majored in French in college and
taught French in private schools. She moved to a small school district
in Greenville, TX. They wanted to offer French in Greenville High
School. She wanted to teach it, but she didn't have a teacher
certification. So she was not able to be put into the classroom in
Greenville High School, and the students in that high school were
deprived of that option because she was not certified.
Now, what she did--because she wanted to do this so much--she
commuted 30 miles to the nearest teacher college and she eventually got
her certification; but it took her several years because she was also
raising children. During that period, those children who wanted to take
French could not have that option at Greenville High School.
I think that is wrong. I don't want her to have to jump through that
many hoops in order to give a great opportunity to that school district
that they otherwise would not have. So our careers-to-classroom
provision takes rural schools and schools that have teacher shortages
and matches them with people who have professional expertise--
especially in the fields of math, science, and languages. We can
enhance education to a greater degree if we have qualified teachers.
We give encouragement. We give authorization for funding for school
districts that will give alternative certification, which is expedited
certification to these teachers who want to go into the classroom and
help enrich the experience that our children will have all over our
country.
We hear a lot on the Senate floor about the need to hire more
teachers and reduce class size. There is a growing problem in America.
It has been estimated by the National Council on Education Statistics
that the United States will need an additional 2 million teachers in
public schools over the next decade. During the 1970s and 1980s, the
American school age population grew at a relatively slow rate. But
increased immigration and the new baby boomers have turned these
numbers around. In 1997, a record 52.2 million students entered our
Nation's public schools. Between 1998 and 2008, the population of
secondary schools is going to increase an additional 11 percent. This
is most pressing in our inner cities and rural communities.
We are trying to address these concerns by giving more flexibility
and taking away some of these disincentives to get good professionals
into the classrooms. I think our amendment, which has been agreed to by
the Senate, is a better concept than the Lieberman approach, or Senator
Kennedy's approach, which I think have the effect of putting more
restrictions and more redtape in the system.
I think we have tried the other way. While I believe Senator Kennedy
and Senator Lieberman are very sincere in wanting better public
education, I think we diverge on how we get there. I think we have
tried the ``everything emanates from Washington'' approach to get
Federal funding. I think now we ought to try something new. Let's try
giving States flexibility by putting the money into the classroom where
it does the most good rather than building up the Federal bureaucracy
that has the effect of retarding the ability to be creative. Let's have
the capability to put more teachers in to fill the teacher shortage
with qualified teachers as well.
I want to end by saying that I believe in public education. I am a
total product of public education. I know that is what makes America
different from other countries in the world because we don't say to
certain people: you will get a good education but other people in
society will not have the same opportunity.
We have said in America that we want every child to reach his or her
full potential with a public education. We want every child to have a
choice. Many children choose private education. I support that, too.
But it is our responsibility to have public education for children who
cannot afford a private education or who do not want that kind of
experience to be able to succeed and be the best with that public
education.
The underlying bill and the Lott-Gregg-Hutchison-Frist amendment
gives the tools to our country to create the public education system of
excellence that is required to keep America a meritocracy and not an
aristocracy.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume from the amendment. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and
colleague from Texas for her thoughtful statement. I would like to
respond to it.
It is interesting in this debate how common the usage of terms is on
both sides. You have to really get down into the details.
The Senator from Texas talked about her support of flexibility for
school systems at the local level. That is a centerpiece of the
amendment that is now before the Senate, which is to consolidate a
whole series of current Federal categorical grant education programs
and give the local school systems some flexibility in the use of that
money. But I think the difference between our proposal, the proposal
before the Senate now, and the underlying bill is the difference
between flexibility with purpose and essentially a blank check.
In our proposal, we have taken a series of categorical grant programs
and put them together into four broad titles. We call them performance-
based
[[Page S3653]]
partnership grants--not block grants. As I understand block grants,
they are basically pooling money and sending it back to the States and
localities to be spent for education as they would wish.
As others have pointed out before, and Senator Kennedy particularly,
at the outset of the ESEA program, the Federal Government essentially
gave block grants to the communities and States. It was found that the
money was being spent for what most in Congress at that time did not
think were priority educational goals. They were not being spent for
the focused purpose of the ESEA, which was to help disadvantaged
children. Block grants don't target the disadvantaged children, and
they don't have enough accountability for results that are ongoing.
There is no guidance from the Federal Government. I think this is a
broad category of how the money should be spent. This is the difference
between the underlying bill and the amendment before us now.
Yes, we believe that Washington doesn't have all the answers. Yes, we
think that some of the current categorical grant programs are too
focused with too much micromanagement. So we fold them together. But we
feel very strongly that if we in Congress and the Federal Government
are authorizing and appropriating literally billions of dollars to be
spent by the States and localities on education, it is not just our
right but our responsibility to set overall standards, categories, and
goals for how that money should be spent.
When we say we create performance-based partnership grants, that is
what we mean. They are partnerships between the Federal, State, and
local governments to achieve national educational goals.
I will get to that in a minute.
They are performance-based because there is an annual measurement of
how students are doing. That is what this is all about. Is adequate
yearly progress being made on these various proposals? If not, we ought
to rush in with some extra help. If it continues to not be made, then
we ought to impose some sanctions.
We have taken these four titles and asked that the localities spend
in areas that we think enjoy broad support in the Nation as priority
educational areas.
First and foremost, I think we granted title I for disadvantaged
children. But of the other four, first and foremost, here is more money
than the Federal Government has ever sent to the States and localities
before for the purpose of improving teacher quality.
Second, here again, it is more money than the Federal Government has
ever sent back before for the purpose of improving programs in limited-
English proficiency, commonly known as bilingual education. It is a
critical need. Too many children for whom English is not the first
language are not getting the education they should get.
Third, public school choice--a great concept that is being adopted at
the local level; again, a new funding stream to create new charter
schools and to create new experiments in public school choice. Let
parents and children have some choice within the public school setting
by creating competition and forces that will improve the overall
quality of education.
Finally, a broad category of what might be called public school
innovation, including afterschool programs, summer school programs.
Whatever the localities may decide is an innovative idea, we want them
to be able to test.
There is a big difference between sending a blank check from
Washington back to the States and localities, saying here is a
substantially increased check but we are asking that localities spend
it in one of these four priority areas and we are going to hold
localities accountable every year for the results of that spending.
Ultimately, that is what matters. It is interesting and not
unimportant to talk about performance-based partnership grants, but
ultimately it is important to consolidate categorical grants. What is
most important is, What is the result? Are our children being better
educated? If not, we in Washington will set up a system that does not
accept failure, that does not allow the Federal Government to sit back
and accept failure, but pushes into the debate and the action to
encourage success for our children.
The second broad point of response is on the question of teacher
quality. As we all know, we have a rising need for new teachers--2
million over the next decade. We also want to make sure those teachers
are the most able. There are a lot of ways to do this. In my State of
Connecticut, the legislature adopted a program a decade or more ago
that has worked. It begins with the State of Connecticut setting
standards for paying teachers more money. It is true we get what we pay
for. There are a certain number of people who have devoted themselves
to teaching, regardless of salary, because they had a sense of mission.
It is what gave them satisfaction. In an increasingly competitive
economy, one of the ways we make it easier to attract the best people
to teach is by paying more money.
The second is to create opportunities in midcareer for people to come
into teaching. I point out to my friend from Texas, title II of our
proposal on teacher quality specifically urges the States to open up
alternative paths for people. In our proposal, title II encourages the
localities to do exactly what Senator Hutchison advocates, which is to
create alternative paths to teacher certification for people in
midcareers so we can get the best people to better educate our
children.
We think this is a balanced proposal. We ask our colleagues to
consider it and hopefully support it as we come close to the time for
voting.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Washington 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor in the
presence of my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, the primary
sponsor of this proposal. For well over a year, the Senator has shared
his thoughtful ideas with me and with other Members on this side of the
aisle.
While this is certainly not my proposal--it is not Straight A's by
any stretch of the imagination--it does represent, in the view of this
Senator, a genuine and thoughtful approach to the proposition that we
haven't been doing everything right for the last 10, 20, 30, 35 years
and that there is a newer and better way to provide education services
to our children directed at seeing they get a better education and
their achievement improves.
The proposal the Senator from Connecticut has before the Senate is a
thoughtful and imaginative approach to our innovation in education.
There have been a number of comments during the course of the day and
earlier that the Senator from Connecticut and some of his friends and
allies have been working with this Senator and others to see if we
could marry most or many of the propositions contained in the current
amendment--relating to Straight A's, to the Teacher Empowerment Act,
and to portability --in a way that would reach across the aisle not
with a half a dozen Members on each side of the aisle supporting the
proposition but perhaps with a majority of the Members of the Senate.
While I can't say I am a supporter of the proposition exactly as it
appears before the Senate, it does offer very real possibilities not
only for a constructive debate on education policy but for a
constructive resolution to the better education that every Member in
this body, whatever his or her philosophy, seeks. I hope there may this
afternoon even be a symbol of the fact we are beginning to work
together.
I must say, there are clear differences even in negotiations over a
middle ground. It is certainly possible they will not be surmountable.
This Senator, however, hopes they will be. I think the Senator from
Connecticut does. At the same time, there may be Members who do not
desire a partnership that has involved matters other than this from
time to time in a way that has upset certain Members of this body.
I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his thoughtful and sincere
efforts and express the hope publicly that they may lead to something
which will unite, rather than divide, members of both parties.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague
from the State of Washington for his gracious words and for the
discussions we have been having for almost 2 years about this
particular reauthorization,
[[Page S3654]]
in which I have learned a lot. I appreciate his openmindedness.
These discussions continue more broadly now. As he said, there are
gaps remaining, but it has been a very good faith and worthwhile
process. I look forward to continuing it with him and others in the
days ahead toward the aim, which we hope is not going to elude us, of
having a bipartisan reauthorization of ESEA.
I am grateful that the Senator from Virginia has come to the floor to
speak on behalf of the amendment that is before the Senate. Senator
Robb is a cosponsor. He has been very active in our discussions of this
proposal and, as always, he brings to these discussions the clear-
headed vision based on experience-- in this case, not only his
experience as the Senator but valuable experience as the Governor of
Virginia.
I yield whatever time Senator Robb needs to discuss this proposal.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, so Members will know what is happening here,
the minority and majority have agreed there will be a vote at 4:50, and
on our side, the Senator from Virginia would have 20 minutes, Senator
Edwards would have 10 minutes, Senator Kennedy 5 minutes, and the
majority would have 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, we may not have any more important debate
this session than the one we are having now on the reauthorization of
the major piece of federal legislation affecting K-12 education, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I was pleased to support the
Democratic alternative last Thursday because it contained many of my
highest priorities for education. It continues our commitment to class
size reduction, an initiative that will give our children more
individualized attention with a qualified teacher. It provides
substantially more money for professional development for teachers and
administrators, so we can help build our teachers up, rather than tear
them down. It contains more money for schools to make urgently needed
safety-related repairs to their facilities, so our children are not in
schools with leaky roofs or fire code violations. It contains increased
investments in equipping our schools with modern technology, so our
children can learn the language of the new economy--the information
technology language. It contains increased funding for school safety
initiatives, because we can't have good schools, unless we have safe
schools. I am pleased that the New Democrats were able to work with our
Democratic Caucus to significantly enhance and strengthen the
accountability measures contained in the Democratic alternative.
Although the amendment was defeated, I believe it contained a better
approach, frankly, to the reauthorization of ESEA than that which has
been offered by our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the
aisle.
The Senate new Democrats under the leadership of the distinguished
Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and the Senator from
Indiana, Senator Bayh, and others, as has already been stated, have
been working for many months on a proposal to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act in a way that will truly help
our Nation's students and improve our Nation's schools. We have offered
this proposal as an alternative to the way we think about the Federal
role in K-12 education. The goal of this alternative approach is the
principle reason why we should have an Elementary and Secondary
Education Act at all: to improve student academic performance and
readiness. Two critical factors on the federal level in achieving this
goal are investment and real accountability.
In 1994, Congress took a monumental step toward encouraging
standards-based reform across the states--a movement which really began
in 1989 when President Bush convened a summit in Charlottesville, VA
with our Nation's Governors to explore ways to improve our public
education system. When we considered the Goals 2000 legislation in
1994, we reiterated the principle of that summit: that education is
primarily a State and local responsibility, but it is also a national
priority. We recognized that if the Federal Government is to be a
meaningful partner in education reform, we must give greater
flexibility to States in the use of their funds in order to foster
innovation and to help States design their own standards-based reform
plans.
During the floor consideration of Goals 2000, I voiced my support for
Goals 2000 funding and said:
[w]ith this new funding States can, if they choose, work to
establish tough academic standards, create a system of
assessments to put real accountability into our schools, and
expand efforts to better train teachers and give them the
tools they need to teach our kids.
As a result a result of Goals 2000, 48 States have now developed
standards and many are in the process of aligning their curricula and
assessments to those standards. But we need to help even more than we
are now, because only about half of the States this year will meet
their student performance goals. And what is more troubling is that
there continues to be a startling achievement gap between low-income
students and more affluent students.
Now that the vast majority of our States have standards in place, we
need to help them meet those standards. Our Three R's amendment
emphasizes the need to reinvest in our schools, to reinvent the way
that we partner with States and localities, and to recognize that we,
as a Nation, have a responsibility to ensure that our children are
receiving the very best education that all levels of government can
collectively provide. For the first time, this amendment attempts to
hold States accountable not for filling out the right forms or for
writing good grant proposals, but for actual increases in student
achievement.
The Three R's approach ensures that States are held accountable for
yearly improvement in student academic performance. States will set
their own yearly targets for improvement. Our hope is that these
performance goals will help all children become proficient in reading,
mathematics, and science. States will be required to take dramatic
corrective action in the event that school districts in their States
chronically fail to make the grade. Failing schools can be shut down.
They can be reconstituted with new administrations. They can be turned
into charter schools. There are a variety of options available, but the
point is simple: failing schools are failing our children, and our
children deserve more. States that meet or exceed their performance
targets will be rewarded with even more flexibility in the use of their
funds.
But a demand for more accountability must be accompanied by increased
investment--increased investment in our students, increased investment
in our teachers, increased investment in our administrators, and
increased investment in our schools themselves. This amendment calls
for an unprecedented $35 billion increase in elementary and secondary
education funding over the next 5 years. Currently, the Federal
Government only spends $14.4 billion per year on K-12 education. To put
that in some perspective, last year we spent $230 billion to pay
interest on the national debt. The fact that we pay 15 times more money
on debt that is akin to bad credit card debt, when we could be building
schools, or training teachers, or hiring school safety officers, is
shameful.
Our amendment would increase our current spending by $7.2 billion
next year alone. Instead of pumping this money into more programs, our
amendment distributes most of the new Federal funds to States based
upon a formula, rather than to those States and localities who can
afford to hire savvy grant writers. The distribution of funds is
targeted to where the funds are needed most--to our neediest schools
and students, that are so often left behind. The Three R's approach
increases teacher quality funding to $1.6 billion, which is a $1
billion increase from our current spending. It substantially increases
aid for economically disadvantaged students by 50 percent--from $8
billion to $12 billion. We continue our commitment to reducing class
size by providing a guaranteed stream of funding for this important
initiative which has so far provided States with enough funding to hire
over 29,000 new teachers. And we get serious about helping Limited
English Proficient students not only master English, but achieve high
levels in core subjects as well. Our funding for LEP students is
increased
[[Page S3655]]
from $380 million to $1 billion. Finally, we provide $2.7 billion to
expand after-school and summer-school opportunities, to enhance school
safety, to improve the technological capabilities of our students,
teachers, and schools, and to fund innovative school improvement
initiatives designed at the local level.
We need to invest in our teachers so they are the best in the world.
We need to invest in our schools so they are safe and modern. We need
to invest in our students so they will develop the skills they need to
succeed. The Federal Government can provide these resources and we
believe that it should. At the same time that we do this, we need to
ensure that the Federal role in K-12 education is one that actually
promotes improvement in academic achievement.
That is accountability with real meaning.
This amendment is also meant to provide a starting point for a
bipartisan effort. Our education debate has a tendency to devolve into
partisan battles with the extremes on both sides drawing hard and fast
lines that either abandon public schools by promoting vouchers or
continue the status quo by funding myriad small programs--programs
which, however well intentioned, often dilute the effectiveness of the
limited Federal dollars we have to spend on education. We have to get
beyond these differences to better serve our children.
There is more to the education debate than just these priorities.
Last month, the Senate new Democrats held a hearing about the RRR
approach. The panelists were former Reagan Education Secretary William
Bennett; former Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to President Clinton,
William Galston; Seattle Superintendent Joseph Olchefske; Amy Wilkins,
principal partner of the Education Trust, an organization dedicated to
the education of disadvantaged children; and Robert Schwartz, president
of Achieve, Incorporated, an organization formed by the Nation's
Governors and corporate leaders to improve public education.
Despite the philosophical diversity among the panelists in many
areas, all of the panelists agreed that focus on increased investment
in exchange for real accountability was necessary and prudent.
Perhaps William Bennett summed it up best by saying:
The Three R's has the potential to bring about a new era
for the Federal Government and education, an era that
actively emphasizes results over process and favors success
over failure.
I believe our RRR amendment combines the principles upon which so
many of us can and do agree. It is perhaps more aptly described as the
``III''--investment, innovation, and improvement. This really should be
the model for the Federal role in elementary and secondary education in
our country. I hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will
seriously consider this approach.
I yield the floor and reserve any time remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Carolina has 10 minutes.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I want to speak to three subjects today: first, to the
subject of education in general; second, to some of the things we have
done in North Carolina in the area of education of which we are very
proud, particularly in our public schools; and, third, to talk
specifically about the Lieberman-Bayh amendment.
First, the single test we should apply in determining what to do with
our public school system is what is in the best interest of the kids--
not what is in the best interest of either political party, not what is
in the best interest for either candidate for the President of the
United States, but what is in the best interest in improving the lives
and education of our young people.
Anywhere one goes in North Carolina, if one were to ask folks what is
the most important thing we do as a Government, they would tell you
over and over: Educate our young people. If one were then to tell them
the reality, which is that we spend less than 1 percent of the Federal
budget on over 50 million school children in the United States, they
would be absolutely flabbergasted. The single issue that the American
people believe is the most important thing their Government does takes
less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. They believe more needs to
be done.
I believe strongly that our school systems should be run at the local
level, that people at the State and local level know much better than
people in Washington how our school systems should be run. That does
not mean, however, there are not things we can do as the Federal
Government to partner with State and local government officials in
educating young people. That is what we need to be doing.
There is nothing in our Constitution that says we cannot devote more
than 1 percent of the Federal budget to public education. We have to be
willing to devote the resources to make education the priority it is
for the American people, to put the resources into it, to put the
effort into it, and to help State and local officials do the job they
so desperately want to do.
I will say a word about some of the things we have done in North
Carolina. We believe North Carolina is, in fact, the education State.
For example, we started a program in early childhood development called
Smart Start. The basic idea of Smart Start, which now exists in every
county in North Carolina, was to get all kids into an early childhood
development program and to get them on the right track so they later
could be kept on the right track. Smart Start got them at a time when
it had the most influence over them, which is before they reach the age
of 6 or 7 and begin elementary school.
Smart Start has worked. It has had a dramatic effect in our State of
North Carolina. Smart Start, most importantly, is an example of what
happens when we are willing to think outside the box. We have to be
willing to constantly examine whether what we are doing is working,
whether there are new, innovative, more creative ways to educate our
young people. Again, the test ought to always be the same: What is in
the best interest of the kids? What is going to be most effective in
giving our kids the best education we can possibly give them?
Smart Start is a perfect example of that. It is new. It was
innovative when it came into play. It has worked. We have to be willing
to continue to think about programs such as Smart Start.
The way we dealt with failing schools in North Carolina is another
example. We went across the State and identified those schools that
were failing; that is, they were not doing the job that needed to be
done. Talk about accountability, this is accountability in its purest
form. If a school was failing, we essentially replaced the
administration of that school. In other words, we put people in charge
of running the school for the purpose of turning it around.
The results have been absolutely phenomenal. Almost
without exception, those schools have been turned around, the kids'
grades have improved, and their performance has improved. Again, this
is another example of being willing to think outside the box, to think
creatively and innovatively.
Recently, I was in North Carolina meeting with some folks who were
working on the cutting edge of public education. They showed an example
of a computer program that can be used by kids in the early grades of
elementary school.
They can take kids, particularly disadvantaged kids, and put them in
front of a computer in an environment where they feel safe, where they
do not have to perform in front of the other children so they do not
feel as if they are a failure from the very beginning. It gets them
engaged. The single most important thing with young kids is to get them
engaged, to make them believe they have some control over their own
destiny; that they can, in fact, compete; that they can effectively
compete against all the kids; and, more important, it gives them self-
esteem. It makes them feel as if they can actually do something about
their lives.
This computer program had a phenomenal effect on the performance of
disadvantaged kids. Once again, the test remains the same: What is in
the best interest of the children? Are we willing to constantly
challenge our approaches, how they can be better molded to fit the
needs of the children? The computer program I just described does that;
Smart Start does that; that is
[[Page S3656]]
what our mechanism for dealing with disadvantaged and failing schools
did in North Carolina.
That brings me to the Lieberman amendment, which is just another
example on the national level of being willing to address issues
creatively, innovatively, and to think outside the box, to think about
what is in the best interest of the kids and what is the most effective
way of addressing the needs of kids.
I will freely admit there are some provisions in the Lieberman
amendment which caused me some concern when I first saw them, but it
does many positive, creative things. First and foremost for me is the
willingness to invest in title I, to provide more resources and more
funding and to target those funds to the kids who most need the help.
If my colleagues do what I have done over the course of the last 2\1/
2\, 3 years and go to schools across my State of North Carolina, the
one thing that becomes immediately apparent is our kids do not compete
on a level playing field. That was the original idea behind title I:
trying to create a level playing field so no matter where a kid went to
school, no matter where they were enrolled in school, whether it was in
the country in rural North Carolina or Charlotte, Raleigh, or
Greensboro, they had an equal opportunity to achieve and equal
opportunity to learn.
I have to give tremendous credit to Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh,
and all the moderate Democrats who worked so hard on this amendment.
What they have done is identified the kids who most need the help--the
place where the achievement gap exists--and gone about thinking
creatively how we can make these kids achieve, how we can give them the
best possible chance to be able to perform because we have to be
willing to do something.
We have consistently underfunded title I in the past. There has been
a lot of rhetoric about our willingness and interest in helping
disadvantaged kids. Now we get a chance to step up to the plate. That
is exactly what Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh have done. They have
said: We are willing to put our money where our mouth is. We are
willing to put the resources in place that need to be there to help
these kids, these disadvantaged kids, to give them a chance to compete.
That is all they ask for. That is what the computer program is about.
That is what reducing class size is about. We have to give these
children, who have not been achieving, who have not been responding to
the traditional ways of educating young people, a chance to compete. We
have to be willing to think outside the box. We have to be willing to
say to ourselves that maybe we have been wrong in the past, maybe there
are new and better ways to do this.
That is exactly what the Lieberman amendment is aimed at doing. That
is the reason the Lieberman amendment is supported by the moderate
Democrats. The Lieberman amendment is just another in a long line of
examples--except in this case it is at the national level--of new and
creative ways of addressing the needs of our young people.
As we go forward with this debate, and as we go forward with
addressing the needs in educating our young people, we have to be
willing to do what has been done in my home State of North Carolina,
what has worked so well--programs such as Smart Start, programs dealing
with failing schools, these computer programs that have been so
effective, and now, in this case, on a national level, the Lieberman
amendment.
We have to be willing to question ourselves. We have to be willing to
put the money in place that is needed to educate our young people,
which is more than 1 percent of the national budget, and that,
ultimately, we are committed to making the first decade of this century
the education decade, and that we are committed to making our schools
the envy of the world. We have the best economy, the best roads, the
best technology in the world; it is high time we be able to say to the
world, our schools are the envy of the world.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Arkansas 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my
distinguished colleague from North Carolina. I applaud his willingness
to look at new and innovative approaches. I think his embrace of the
Lieberman amendment is reflective of that desire for change.
I note, as I listened to the Senator's comments, he spoke of the
North Carolina experience and some of the things they have done in
North Carolina--some of the innovative, creative, and constructive
programs in North Carolina.
I applaud the State of North Carolina. And I think that makes our
case for Straight A's. I think the idea of giving those kinds of States
which are doing good and innovative things more flexibility in carrying
out those programs is exactly the direction we ought to be moving.
I believe the Lieberman proposal moves us in that direction, that it
is a constructive effort, that it has been a positive effort, that
there has been, on the part of the moderate Democrats who have spoken
on behalf of the Lieberman amendment, a recognition of the need for
change. There has been a candid recognition of the failure of the top-
down, one-size-fits-all approach that we have taken for 35 years to the
Federal role in education.
I must say that I still have a number of concerns and reservations,
and have opposition to some of the provisions in the Lieberman
proposal. I still think there is too much regulatory effort from
Washington. I think there is a failure to embrace the kind of bold
steps we need that are in the underlying Educational Opportunities Act
and that it would be a shame for us, while recognizing the need for
change, recognizing the need for adequate funding, to only take a half
step or a baby step in the direction of reform. That is why I believe
the underlying bill is far preferable.
I am pleased, however, that there have been ongoing discussions among
those who believe that we need change on both sides of the aisle, that
we need to provide greater flexibility, that we need to consolidate
programs, that we need to streamline programs, and that there has been
an effort to accomplish that. But I am very concerned that we still
centralize too much power in the name of accountability. We still give
too much authority to the Department of Education.
Members have been talking about the importance of accountability all
week and last week. If we are to have accountability for Federal
education funds, we must first ensure that accountability is occurring
not only at the local level but at the Federal level as well.
So when I heard Senator Lieberman earlier say these are billions of
American taxpayers' dollars that we are sending back to the States and
to the schools; therefore, we have a right and a responsibility to
require specifics on how that money is spent, that sounds very good,
but I say that we should require the same kind of accountability from
the Department of Education which oversees these programs that it
administers.
For the second year in a row, the U.S. Department of Education has
been unable to address its financial management problems. Those
management problems are very serious. In its past two audits, the
Department was unable to account for parts of its $32 billion program
budget and the $175 billion owed in student loans. They were unable to
account for parts of that budget. Before we entrust the Department with
administering more funds and creating more new programs, we must ensure
that they are properly accounting for the funding they already have.
The Lieberman amendment, though a step in the right direction, still
leaves more power in the hands of the Federal Department of Education
and provides a modicum of improvement for State flexibility that, in my
opinion, is not enough.
The House Education Committee has been holding hearings on the
financial problems at the Department of Education and has found
instances of duplicate payments to grant winners and an $800 million
college loan to a single student. That is rather amazing.
In its 1998 audit, the Department blamed its problems on a faulty new
[[Page S3657]]
accounting system that cost $5.1 million, in addition to the cost of
manpower to try to fix the system. A new accounting system will be the
third new accounting system in 5 years.
The most recent 1999 audit showed the following: The Department's
financial stewardship remains in the bottom quartile of all major
Federal agencies. If you stack them all up, you find the Department of
Education down toward the bottom in the job they are doing in fiscal
responsibility. The Department sent duplicate payments to 52 schools in
1999, at a cost of more than $6.5 million. And perhaps most
significant, none of the material weaknesses cited in the 1998 audit
were corrected when the Department was reaudited in 1999.
So they have failed to take the kind of corrective measures that
might reestablish confidence and faith in the Department of Education.
These problems make the Department vulnerable to fraud, waste, and
abuse. I have submitted an amendment to this bill that would require an
investigative study by the GAO into the financial records of the
Department of Education.
No one is suggesting we should eliminate the Department. No one is
suggesting that having a voice for education at the Cabinet table is
not critically important. But it is equally important that we require
high standards of fiscal responsibility for the Department that
oversees billions of dollars in taxpayer money. We entrust them with
funding. We expect local schools to handle their funds properly. We
should have the same kind of demand on the Department of Education.
In addition, I have an amendment to provide increased flexibility
among Federal formula grant programs for States and local school
districts. It is identical to language included in legislation in the
House to reauthorize ESEA.
One of my concerns about the Lieberman amendment, although I do
believe it is a step in the right direction and will provide expanded
flexibility, is that it does not provide the kind of flexibility the
States and local school districts are crying out for.
This amendment would give States and local school districts the
authority to transfer funds among selected ESEA programs to address
local needs as they see fit. Covered programs would include
professional development for teachers, education technology, safe and
drug-free schools, title VI innovative education block grants, and the
Emergency Immigrant Education Program.
In addition, States may transfer funds into, but not away from, title
I funding for disadvantaged students. So they would have the ability to
take funds from these other programs and move them into title I for the
benefit of disadvantaged students, but not the other way around.
It would not be only money flowing into the title I but would provide
greater flexibility for the local school district to move money between
programs--transferability. States may transfer all of the program funds
for which they have authority, except for the administrative funds.
Local school districts may transfer up to 35 percent of the funds they
receive without obtaining State permission, and all other funds under
these programs, if their State approves.
So this would provide for all of those States that are not fortunate
enough to be included in the Straight A's Program, which the Presiding
Officer has authored and expended so much energy and resources in
promoting, but we still know that we have only 15 States in the
underlying bill that are going to be able to participate in that
program. So for those States not fortunate to be in the Straight A's
Program, this would give them the ability to have some increased
flexibility in devoting funds to arising needs in their schools. Local
school boards know that needs often change from year to year. This
gives them the authority to flexibly use their Federal funds to address
those changing needs. As we all know, these local school boards are
elected by the people just as we are in the Senate. I trust them to
know the specific needs of their schools from year to year.
I believe that the debate for now more than a week has been very
illuminating to the American people. The course of the debate has moved
us a long way toward reaching, if not consensus, at least a strong
majority of this body recognizes what we sought to do in the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in producing the Educational
Opportunities Act, which is supported by the American people and what
we need to do--greater flexibility, greater local control, more child
centered in our effort, high-performance expectations, a determination
to see the achievement gap close between advantaged and disadvantaged
students. And while initially we heard many on the other side simply
defend the status quo in very plain terms, saying that we had to stick
with the tried, true, and tested programs that have ``worked so well''
during the past 35 years, though with the expenditure of $120 billion,
we cannot show that the achievement gap is closed.
I believe the debate has moved a long way, and I look forward to
seeing the opportunity to pass the Educational Opportunities Act,
including the Straight A's provision.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I have
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
Lieberman amendment. I want to be sure that all my colleagues
understand that what the amendment would do is wipe out everything in
S. 2--the bill we have been debating for the past week. The amendment
would put in the provisions of S. 2254, a bill which was introduced
about two weeks after the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions completed its work on S. 2.
I believe that my colleagues should also understand that, if the
Lieberman amendment is adopted, all amendments which were approved over
the past week will be discarded along with S. 2. Moreover, no further
amendments would be in order. I know that many members have prepared
amendments which they wish to see considered. Should a substitute
amendment be adopted, this will simply not be possible.
There may very well be ideas in the Lieberman amendment which are
worth considering, but using it as the basis to scrap 18 months worth
of hearings and other committee deliberations and to rewrite the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act on the floor of the United
States Senate is hardly the way to pursue those ideas.
A major function of the committee system in Congress is to assure
that a bipartisan group of members have the opportunity to devote extra
time and study to particular issues.
There may be disagreements among committee members and Members who do
not serve on the committee may disagree with some of the conclusions
reached by those who present a bill for the consideration of the full
Senate. Nevertheless, there is a clear understanding of the issues at
hand--so that a rational debate of differences can be held.
The danger in dismissing the work of a committee entirely in order to
adopt something which may appear more appealing is that serious
problems may well go unnoticed. I believe there are numerous aspects of
the substitute amendment which illustrate this point.
For example, the amendment makes significant changes to the title I
formula. Proposals to alter the formula by which title I funds are
distributed are among the most difficult to analyze.
Changes which at first glance appear to represent sound policy often
have unintended consequences that do not become evident until actual
runs are performed.
Senator Lieberman has proposed a significant change to the way that
title I funds are to be distributed within states. Currently, the vast
majority of funds are distributed through the Basic Grant Program 85%,
and the Concentration Grant Program, 15%.
No funds have been made available for either the Targeted Grant
Program or the Education Finance Incentive Grant Program. Importantly,
the amount received by each state is determined by totaling amount that
each eligible school district within the state is eligible to receive.
If the Lieberman amendment were adopted, the most dramatic changes
would be experienced at the school district level. Under current law,
the states distribute 85% the money to local educational agencies,
LEAs, in
[[Page S3658]]
accordance with the Basic grant formula and 15% of the money through
the Concentration Grant formula. This structure is retained under the
committee bill. Importantly, the amount of funding to each state is
based upon the amount that eligible school districts within the state
are entitled to receive.
Under the Lieberman proposal, money would be received by the state on
the basis of one formula and then distributed to LEAs on the basis of a
modified version of the Targeted Grant Program. This establishes a new
precedent and raises basic questions of fairness. For the first time,
the amount that a state receives will be based upon the eligibility of
school districts which shall not be given the funds. Let me state this
again. States will receive money on the basis of the eligibility of
certain school districts. These school districts will not, however,
receive the money. The money that the state received on the basis of
their eligibility will be diverted to other school districts within the
state.
It may be argued by some that this improves targeting by sending
money to high-poverty school districts. An examination of the actual
numbers reveals that the proposal would establish deep inequalities
among school districts across the Nation. It turns out that not all
poverty is treated equally. In fact, it depends upon which state you
happen to be fortunate enough to reside in and even which school
district governs your school.
Let me provide some examples. These examples were selected simply by
going through the LEA lists in alphabetical order to select districts
with comparable poverty rates.
In Alabama the Thomasville City School District has a poverty rate of
30.3% and would lose 21.6% of its title I funding. In California, Burnt
Ranch with a poverty rate of 30.5% would only lose 16% of its funding.
New London School District in Connecticut with a poverty rate of 30.6%
would receive an increase of 11.9% while Bridgeport with a poverty rate
of 35.5% would be cut by .5%. The disparity in the dollar amounts of
the reductions is even greater.
My point is this. Many school districts which currently receive
funding under the Basic and Concentration Grant Programs would receive
steady annual cuts in their title I funds under this proposal. These
would not be potential cuts--these would be real cuts. Cuts that would
have to be made up by raising property taxes or cutting services.
The Congressional Research Service has done runs for each LEA in each
state. These runs reflect annual projected increases or decreases for
each of the next three years. There is nothing magic about three years.
Districts which are gaining funds would presumably continue to gain
them and districts which are losing funds would presumably continue to
lose them until an equilibrium is established in the out years.
Our goal during this reauthorization should be to strengthen
educational opportunities for all students. This proposal pits poor
children in one school against poor children in another and should be
soundly rejected.
Proponents of the Lieberman substitute have spoken to the need to
increase accountability. I do not believe there is any disagreement at
all in this body that recipients of federal education funds must be
held accountable. As I noted in my opening remarks when we began floor
consideration of this bill, through a bipartisanship effort in 1994, we
in the Congress decided that title I should carry out its mission of
improving learning by assisting state and local efforts in the
development of standards and assessments.
Congress completely rewrote Title I in 1994 and made the program more
rigorous--requiring States to develop both content and student
performance standards and assessments.
Congress gave the states seven years to complete this difficult task.
We are mid-stream in this process.
In the name of accountability, the Lieberman substitute rewrites many
of the standards, assessment, and school improvement provisions that
were included in the 1994 law. I fear that rewriting these sections
will not lead States down the path toward greater accountability, but
rather will create detours for the states and school districts that
have already spent several years going in the right direction.
Developing and implementing standards-based reform and assessments is
not a simple task. It requires sustained and consistent effort. Loading
up States and school districts with new regulations, new reporting
requirements, and more mandates is a distraction at best and a step
backward at worst.
Finally, I believe it is important to point out that most of the
individual programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act outside of title I are repealed by the Lieberman
substitute. A notable exception is that the amendment does authorize
the President's class-size reduction program as a separate activity.
Apparently, some merit is seen for that separate program which is not
seen for programs such as the Reading Excellence Act, Gifted and
Talented Education, Reading is Fundamental, or Character Education--to
name just a few of the programs which are repeal by the substitute
amendment.
It is my understanding that the funds from the various programs which
are repealed are to be used within four general categories: school
improvement, innovative reform, safe learning environments, and
technology.
For example, the substitute amendment would repeal title IV of ESEA ,
the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities program. title IV funds
would be pooled with the other funds allocated to repealed programs,
and 15% of the funds in the pool are to be used for safe learning
environments. The substitute amendment completely tosses overboard the
Title IV reforms in S. 2 which were developed by a bipartisan group of
members--spearheaded by Senators DeWine, Dodd, and Murray. These
reforms were designed to assure that drug-free schools funds are used
for proven, effective programs--rather than being used in some of the
frivolous ways we have seen in the past. The Lieberman amendment sets
back the clock on these important revisions to the bill.
As I indicated at the outset, it is important that we take great care
in crafting changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The
programs in this Act represent virtually all the support provided by
the Federal Government in support of elementary and secondary schools.
Although the federal share is small relative to the contributions made
by States and localities, it is a substantial investment--approaching
$15 billion a year.
I believe that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions has taken its responsibilities seriously in developing S. 2
over the past 18 months. We held 25 hearings on all aspects of the Act
and have spent considerable time discussing the issues it includes--
with much of this work being done on a bipartisan basis. I am pleased
to have heard so much today about bipartisan cooperation with respect
elementary and secondary education. Although the final vote out of
committee was on a party-line basis, the fact of the matter is that
much of the bill was developed through bipartisan discussions.
I have spoken many times on this floor on behalf of bipartisan
efforts to help our nation's school children, and I remain willing to
engage in such efforts. I am not, however, willing to turn my back on
the work the committee has put into S. 2 in order to embrace a proposal
which reduces title I funding for many school districts throughout the
country, imposes additional reporting burdens on States and localities,
and repeals many programs which have been of value to our nation's
schools and students.
I want to say again that I strongly oppose the Lieberman amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the
Lieberman amendment, which is based on our bill ``The Public Education
Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act of 2000''--better
known as ``Three R's.'' I believe that this bill represents a
realistic, effective approach to improving public education--where 90%
of students are educated.
For the past 35 years, when the time has come for the Senate to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it has done so
with bipartisan support. However, over the past week, most of what
we've seen on the Senate floor has been partisan wrangling--from both
sides of the aisle--over how to reform education. I think
[[Page S3659]]
that's tragic. Our nation's children deserve a serious debate and real
reform--not partisan bickering and election-year gamesmanship.
Mr. President, addressing problems in education is going to take more
than cosmetic reform. It will require some tough decisions and a
willingness to work together. We need to let go of the tired partisan
fighting over more spending versus block grants, and take a middle
ground approach that will truly help our States, school districts--and
most importantly, our students.
During the past several weeks, I am pleased to have been part of a
bipartisan group of Senators who have put partisan politics aside and
are seeking to find such a middle ground. Our group has been working to
meld the best parts of all of our plans--in the hope that we can
actually get a bill passed this year. In a short period of time, we
have made tremendous progress and found more agreement between our two
parties than the past week's floor debate has shown. I am hopeful that
we will soon reach agreement on a bipartisan compromise, but even if we
do not, we have laid the groundwork for the future. At some point, the
entire Senate will have to put politics aside and deal with education
reform. Our plan can serve as the foundation for that compromise--and I
look forward to working with our group to make that happen.
Mr. President, I believe the Federal government must continue to be a
partner with States, school districts, and educators to improve public
education. But it is time to take a fresh look at the structure of
Federal education programs--building upon past successes and putting an
end to our past failures.
The amendment before us now--our ``Three R's'' bill--does just that.
Three R's makes raising student achievement for all students--and
closing the achievement gap between low-income and more affluent
students--our top priorities. To accomplish this, our bill centers
around three principles.
First, we believe that we must provide more funding for education--
and that Federal dollars must be targeted to disadvantaged students.
Federal funds make up only 7% of all money spent on education, so it is
essential that we target those funds on the students who need them the
most.
Second, we believe that States and local school districts are in the
best position to know what their educational needs are. Three R's gives
them more flexibility to determine how they will use Federal dollars to
best meet those needs.
Finally--and I believe this is the lynchpin of our approach--we
believe that in exchange for this increased flexibility, there must
also be accountability for results. These principles are a pyramid,
with accountability being the base that supports the federal
government's grant of flexibility and funds.
For too long, we have seen a steady stream of Federal dollars flow to
States and school districts--regardless of how well they educated their
students. This has to stop. We need to reward schools that do a good
job. We need to provide assistance and support to schools that are
struggling to do a better job. And we must stop subsidizing failure.
Our highest priority must be educating children--not perpetuating
broken systems.
Mr. President, the ``Three R's bill takes a fresh look at public
education. I believe it represents a real middle ground, building upon
all the progress we've made and tackling the problems we still face.
This bill--by using the concepts of increased funding, targeting,
flexibility--and most importantly, accountability--demonstrates how we
can work with our State and local partners to make sure every child
receives the highest quality education--and a chance to live a
successful, productive life. I urge my colleagues to support the
Lieberman-Bayh amendment.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the quality of education in this country is
of enormous concern to the American people, and is a defining issue in
Congress this year. I believe that few priorities are more important
than the future of our Nation's youth. When Americans lack education
and skills, demands on Government support rise, and the long-term
financial costs to the Nation are enormous. Our primary goal during
this debate is to find the best way to bring every one of our students
up to a high level of academic performance, in order that they may be
successful, contributing members of the national and global economy.
As a former Governor of Nevada, I believe that education is first a
State and local responsibility. Creative and innovative education
programs have been initiated by many governors at the state level, and
the local school districts who interact with students and families in
their communities on a daily basis are better positioned than federal
bureaucrats to identify their schools' specific needs, and to target
the appropriate resources to meet these needs.
The primary purpose of the New Democrat amendment to the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, introduced by Senators Lieberman and Bayh
and of which I am a cosponsor, is to deliver better educational results
by helping states and local school districts raise academic achievement
for all children. The amendment recognizes that the Federal Government
has an important role to play in working with states and localities on
education. It also calls on the Federal Government to work with states
to strengthen the standards by which states and local districts are
held accountable for increased student achievement, and at the same
time, to give states the flexibility to choose the programs that work
best for their districts and schools.
The Federal Government has assumed the specific responsibility of
ensuring that all students, especially those students who face
significant disadvantages, receive a quality education, thereby
preparing them to function as successful adults and to lead fulfilling
lives. The Lieberman/Bayh amendment fulfills this responsibility by
setting clear national goals. These goals are to increase targeting to
schools with highest poverty concentrations; to consolidate
professional development and teacher training initiatives to improve
teacher, principal and administrator quality; to help immigrant
students become proficient in English and achieve high levels of
learning in all subjects; and to stimulate ``High
Performance Initiatives'' by giving states money to choose what
programs work best for raising the academic achievement of their
students. States can use this ``High Performance Initiatives'' money to
focus on priorities they deem necessary to the education of their
students; priorities such as innovative school improvement strategies,
expanding after-school and summer school opportunities, improving
school safety and discipline, and developing technological literacy.
These are all important goals.
More specifically, the Lieberman/Bayh amendment operates under the
philosophy that getting money to those students who need it the most is
crucial, and it strengthens our national commitment to targeting aid to
disadvantaged students and schools. Under title I, the New Democrat
alternative's formula sends 75 percent of new money to states and local
districts with the highest concentrations of poverty. The amendment
also distributes teacher quality money based on poverty and student
population, and distributes money to help immigrant students become
proficient in English and achieve high levels of learning by targeting
aid to states with high concentrations of student with limited English
proficiency.
Within the parameters of the Lieberman/Bayh amendment, states and
localities get flexibility to choose what programs and strategies work
best to raise their students' achievement. The amendment strengthens
the decisionmaking authority of state and local officials by
eliminating some of the strings that come attached to federal dollars.
Under this new approach, states develop their own academic standards,
their own assessments for measuring annual progress in student
achievement, and their own goals for improving school performance.
States also choose which initiatives and programs are of priority, and
which will work best to raise academic achievement.
At the same time that states have this new flexibility, national
interests and federal goals are protected and advanced, both fiscally
and educationally. The new Democrat alternative does this by holding
states accountable
[[Page S3660]]
for meeting the standards they set. Money is not enough to raise
student achievement. Along with the added money and flexibility in the
amendment, states and districts are given the responsibility of setting
performance goals for their students, and of demonstrating clear
progress towards these goals.
Not all currently funded educational programs produce the great
results we are looking for. The Lieberman/Bayh amendment sets
measurable standards so that states and local districts can evaluate
the programs they are using, and see what is and what is not raising
their students' academic achievement. The states have the flexibility
to choose the programs that work best for their student populations,
but the Federal Government, under the Lieberman/Bayh amendment, holds
them accountable for raising student achievement.
Under the new Democrat alternative, there are real consequences for
chronic failure. For the first time ever, states that fail to meet the
performance objectives under any title would be penalized. After 3
years of failure, a state's administrative funding would be cut by 50
percent, and after 4 years of failure, programming funds to the state
under the ``High Performance Initiatives'' title would be cut by 30
percent. The Lieberman/Bayh amendment also requires states to impose
sanctions on local school districts that fail to meet annual
performance goals, and rewards states who exceed their goals by
receiving even greater flexibility in using their program funding to
meet their own specific priorities. In this way, Federal funding is
directly linked to the performance of schools in meeting the goals the
schools themselves have set.
In summary, the new Democrat alternative was written with the
underlying philosophy that state and local officials are better
positioned than Federal bureaucrats to identify their specific needs,
and to target the appropriate resources to meet these needs. At the
same time, the amendment sets clear national goals and holds states
responsible for producing progress toward these goals. The current
system is far less fiscally responsible than the Lieberman/Bayh
approach because it does nothing to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
getting a real return on their investment. In the Lieberman/Bayh
amendment, the Federal Government maintains control and plays a role in
setting national priorities in education. It also strengthens our
national commitment to target aid to disadvantaged students and
schools, and holds states accountable for producing results in exchange
for the flexibility. In conclusion, I would like to express my support
for the new Democrat alternative amendment, introduced by Senators
Lieberman and Bayh, because I believe it will significantly and
positively reform the current education system, while successfully
raising the academic achievement of all students.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Lieberman amendment
to ESEA. I am very supportive of the efforts of the Senator from
Connecticut and my other colleagues who have worked so diligently on
this amendment. This amendment is based upon a theory that I am very
supportive of: increased flexibility in exchange for increased
accountability. This means that States and school districts should have
more flexibility in using Federal funds, but they must meet certain
achievement measures, and most important, those achievement gains must
hold true for children of all races, all ethnicities, and regardless of
gender. Therefore, I am sorry that I am not rising in support of this
amendment, because it includes many components of education reform that
I firmly believe are necessary to improving the public education system
for all students.
The Lieberman amendment would target the title I formula even more to
the most highly disadvantaged students. This amendment would also
dramatically increase our investment in the title I program. The
Federal Government's number one priority should and must be to ensure
that economically disadvantaged students are provided with
supplementary educational resources, and I commend my colleagues for
increasing this critical investment in this program.
The Lieberman amendment would also increase the accountability of
Federal dollars, a component of education reform that I know is
critical to improving the public education system. The Federal
Government has an obligation to ensure that we are getting the most
from our investment in public education, by holding our teachers, our
schools, and our students accountable to the highest standards. This
amendment would make a great step toward increasing the Federal
Government's investment in accountability. Accountability is the third
side of an education triangle that also includes standards and
assessments. Now that many states have adopted high standards and tests
to measure students' progress toward those benchmarks, they have turned
their attention to making sure that performance matters. Achieving real
accountability in our schools is a large part of what this amendment is
all about and I believe increased accountability is critically
important for the state of public education in this country. Again I
commend my colleagues for focusing their amendment on this important
element of public school reform.
The Lieberman approach focuses on public school choice, another
element of public education reform that I support and know to be
critical to improving educational attainment for all children. Public
school choice is becoming more and more a part of the American
educational system. In 1993, only 11% of students attended schools
chosen by their parents. In 1999, 15% of students attended schools
chosen by their parents. While still serving a relatively small
percentage of students, charter schools and magnet schools are becoming
an increasingly common tool to improve the education of our nation's
children. In 1994, there were only 100 charter schools in this country.
Today, there are 1,700. Currently there are over 5,200 magnet schools
serving approximately 1.5 million students. Magnet schools foster
diversity and promote academic excellence in math, science, performing
arts and marketable vocational skills.
Parents deserve more choice in their children's public schools.
Increasing parental choice will allow healthy competition between
public schools. Choice, of course, necessarily implies that one thing
is being chosen over another. As a result, choice means competition
which is a force that often hastens change and improvement in any
organization or system. All schools, district and charter, are forced
by competition to examine why parents, students, or prospective
teachers might be choose to go to other schools. Even teachers' unions
and school board associations are signing on to the concept of publicly
funded schools that operate outside most state and district
regulations. In early 1996, the National Education Association promised
$1.5 million to help its affiliates start charter schools in five
States and to study their progress. I am pleased that my esteemed
colleagues have made public school choice a primary component of this
amendment.
This amendment also deals with an issue we have frequently discussed
during this ESEA debate: the consolidation of many Federal programs.
Let me say that I am not opposed to consolidating some Federal
programs. I do believe that there are important programs that are not
overly burdensome on states and schools and that have proven
successful, and I believe that the success of these programs is due in
part on the competitive grant process and Federal guidelines of the
programs. I know the Federal Government does not have all the answers
and that we cannot always anticipate the needs of states and local
school districts throughout this country, and though I have some
specific concerns about the level of consolidation in the Lieberman
amendment, I support the streamlining of Federal programs and providing
flexibility to states and school districts.
Despite my support for so many things in this amendment, I am
ultimately unable to support the Lieberman approach. The Federal
Government is the only entity that ensures funding is provided to the
most disadvantaged populations in this country, like migrant children,
homeless and runaway youth, and immigrant children. I am greatly
concerned about the loss of Federal support for these vulnerable youth.
Therefore, I cannot support the Lieberman approach despite my
commitment to so many of its
[[Page S3661]]
provisions. The Federal Government's involvement in education has
always been to ensure that vulnerable populations are provided the
additional funds that are necessary to their educational success. And I
have heard from those people in Massachusetts who work with homeless
young people and with troubled youth. And they have told me how
incredibly important this Federal money is to these children. These
children have so much going against their ability to succeed, I believe
we must maintain our commitment to those children.
I am encouraged by the work my colleagues have done on this
amendment. I am supportive of their new approach to public education
reform and their attempt to draft legislation that would attract the
support of both Republicans and Democrats. I am frustrated and saddened
by the very partisan nature of this year's ESEA debate, and commend my
colleagues for their fresh approach to ESEA reauthorization and their
attempts to attract support from both sides of the aisle.
I regret that I cannot support this amendment, but I look forward to
working with many my colleagues to address the concerns that I and
other Senators have. I hope we can resolve these concerns and that we
can bring this divided Senate together on the issue of public
education. I look greatly forward to working with my colleagues in the
future and deeply appreciate their hard work and new perspective on
this critically important issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 5 minutes before the
vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator Lieberman and his
cosponsors for the focus and attention they have given to really the
central priority for all families in this country in the area of
education. The restlessness those Senators and others have with regard
to making sure we are going to try to reach every needy child in this
country is something we all should embrace and support.
I am not sure at this hour of the day, so to speak, in terms of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, if it is possible to bring
about the kind of change and focus that is desirable. But there are
broad areas of support and agreement for that concept in terms of
enhanced resources and enhanced accountability.
I certainly look forward to working with him in the future on this
whole area of education.
I think the ideas that have been out there in terms of Safe and Drug-
Free Schools, which has been basically a bipartisan effort in giving
national focus and attention to that, and a sense of urgency, are still
important to preserve. Senator DeWine and Senator Dodd worked out an
effort in that area in our committee. I think it is important to
preserve it. The progress we have made in technology I think is worth
preserving. The afterschool programs are really the most heavily
subscribed programs. They also have bipartisan support and are a matter
of national urgency. I don't think they have gotten the kind of
attention they should have in the Lieberman amendment.
Finally, there are several programs that are working very well in
terms of being included in the consolidation program. One of them I
have particular interest in is ``Ready to Learn.'' There is $11 million
on ``Ready to Learn.'' It is done through the Public Broadcasting
System. It reaches 94 percent of the country, 87 million homes, 37
million children, and received 57 Emmys. If you ask any public
broadcaster in the 130 stations nationwide what the best children's
program is, they will mention this one. I don't want to see that lost
and sent back to any State thinking that could be recomposed.
The Star Schools Program works through nonprofits, again, led by
strong bipartisan support, to try to reach out to schools that may not
have a math and science teacher and up-to-date educational programs,
and has been done through a number of States. It has been very
effective through nonprofits. That is another program. It is a small
program, but it has enormous educational values.
With reluctance, because I have great friendship and affection for my
friend from Connecticut, I will not vote in support of it. But I want
to certainly guarantee to him and to all of those who have been
uniformly strong sponsors in our committee that I want to work closely
with our colleagues on the other side to try to give greater focus and
attention to the problems of the neediest students in the country.
I yield the remainder of my time.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded.
Do the Senators wish the vote to begin early?
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed
with the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3127. The yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth),
the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson), and the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 13, nays 84, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]
YEAS--13
Bayh
Breaux
Bryan
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Moynihan
Robb
NAYS--84
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Hagel
Roth
Thompson
The amendment (No. 3127) was rejected.
Mr. KENNEDY. 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.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
____________________