[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10966-S10969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         EDUCATION TEST SCORES

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was just pointing out that we have this 
extraordinary report. I have it in my hand. It is the October 24, 2000 
Rand Commission report: What do test scores in Texas tell us? It is an 
excellent report. I will have excerpts of it printed in the Record. But 
I hope those who are interested in this issue, trying to make up your 
minds over the period of these last 10 days, will have a good 
opportunity to examine that report.
  Let me just mention a few of the highlights of the report. First of 
all, the study was released, as I mentioned, on October 24. It raises 
serious questions about the validity of gains in Texas math and reading 
stores. The study compares the results of the Texas Assessment of 
Academic Skills, the test taken by Texas students, with the results 
achieved by those same students on the National Assessment of Education 
Progress tests. There were large discrepancies between the results of 
the Texas TAAS test and the national NAEP test. The student gains on 
the TAAS, the Texas test, are far greater than what has been found with 
the same group of students on the NAEP or other standardized national 
tests.
  Do we understand what we are saying? Significant improvement on the

[[Page S10967]]

test just given to Texas students; but for the Texas students who took 
both the Texas and national test, we found a very dramatic disparity. 
In Texas, many teachers say they are spending especially--these are the 
conclusions of the Rand report--large amounts of class time on TAAS 
test preparation activities. Teachers in low-performing schools 
reported greater frequency of test preparation than did teachers in 
higher-performing schools. While this preparation may improve the TAAS 
scores, it may not help students develop necessary reading and math 
skills. Also, this could lead to a superficial appearance that the gap 
between minority and majority students is narrowing when no change has 
actually occurred.
  The exclusion of students with disabilities increased in Texas while 
decreasing in the Nation. Texas also showed an increase over time in 
the percentage of students dropping out of school and being held back. 
These factors produce a gain in average test scores that overestimates 
actual improvement in student performance.
  We understand now what is happening. Regarding those individuals with 
disabilities, students we have worked long and hard to make sure they 
are going to be a part of the student body and have the opportunities 
for educational advancement, if you can exclude some of them from test 
taking, as in Texas, plus most likely some of the poorer performing 
students have dropped out and won't be able to take any of those 
assessment tests, this is going to have an artificial inflator on test 
scores.
  That is the Rand Corporation that is making that conclusion.
  Also, Rand researchers hypothesize that a small but significant 
percentage of students may have topped out on the TAAS. In other words, 
some students may have scored as high as the TAAS would allow them to. 
If that happened, it would artificially narrow the gap on TAAS between 
white students and students of color because white students tend to 
earn higher scores than minority students. Thus, the reduced gap on the 
TAAS relative to NAEP may be a result of TAAS being too easy for some 
students.
  As with other tests, there have been documented cases of cheating on 
the Texas TAAS test.
  The NAEP is a national test, which students from around the country 
can take so States and communities--and parents, most importantly--are 
able to evaluate the differences between how their children are doing 
in school compared with how those in other parts of the State and other 
parts of the country are doing. According to the NAEP, Texas fourth 
graders were slightly more proficient in reading in 1998 than in 1994. 
However, the country as a whole also improved to the same degree. Thus, 
there was nothing remarkable about the reading score gains in Texas. 
Small improvements in Texas eighth grade math scores were also 
consistent with those observed nationally.
  There is nothing remarkable about the NAEP scores in Texas, and 
students of color did not gain more than whites. Score increases in 
Texas are identical to those nationwide when using the NAEP data. 
However, the gains on TAAS were several times larger than they were on 
NAEP.
  That is what we are hearing the good Governor talking about. That is 
what he is talking about. This puts it all in the light that that is 
not a true reflection of what is happening among the young people. The 
gains on TAAS were greater for students of color than they were for 
whites. The large discrepancy between the TAAS and the NAEP results 
raises concern about the validity of the TAAS scores and validity of 
claims regarding student achievement.
  According to the NAEP results, the gap between white students and 
students of color in Texas is very large and also increasing slightly.
  In 1998, the average fourth grade reading score for black students 
was at the 38th percentile compared to the average white student at the 
67th percentile. This gap was slightly larger than the gap between 
these groups in 1994. In other words, the black-white reading gap 
increased during this 4-year period. The gap between the blacks and 
whites had actually increased during this period.
  In fourth grade math, the white-Hispanic NAEP gap grew in Texas but 
not nationally, and the white-black gap remained constant in Texas but 
actually shrank nationally. In short, the gap sizes between the whites 
and minorities on the NAEP were improving nationally but getting worse 
in Texas.
  That is not a satisfactory prescription for improving education. It 
suggests the Texas system is more an education mirage than an education 
miracle. I think it is important for parents--as they are looking now, 
trying to get beyond the cliches, beyond the slogans, beyond the set 
statements, beyond the give and take, even in those debates--to look at 
the record, and the record is very clear. That is that we have not seen 
the kind of advancement that has taken place in many other States that 
are doing a number of things that have been recommended, as we were 
going to have a chance to hear about in the debate on the ESEA.
  We find out the States that made the greatest advancement are States 
that had smaller class sizes, where they had continuing enhancement and 
proficiency for teacher education, mentoring with teachers, afterschool 
programs, accountability. They had a number of those programs and even 
benefited from early education help and assistance as well.
  What we wanted to try to do is to have a debate on those particular 
matters that have made a difference in States around the country, where 
we had seen advancements in education. But we have been denied that 
opportunity. What basically the leadership, the Republican leadership, 
has denied us is the opportunity to have that debate, denied us the 
opportunity to raise these issues. What the American people are being 
asked is, let's just look back on what has happened in Texas.
  When we examine Texas, not out of partisanship, but using the 
objective standards for the SATs--they do not benefit a Democrat or 
Republican; they are focused on children--and if we take the Rand study 
which has been available and can be reviewed by anyone--we are finding 
out that this has been a mirage in terms of education.
  I want to spend a few moments going into another area which I think 
the American people ought to give some focus and attention to in these 
final few days, and that is on the critical issue of the credibility 
gap in health care. Few, if any, issues are of greater concern to 
American families than quality, affordable health care. Americans want 
an end to the HMO abuses. They want good health insurance coverage, 
they want a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens under 
Medicare, and they want to preserve and strengthen Medicare so it will 
be there for today's and tomorrow's senior citizens. And they want 
these priorities not only for themselves and their loved ones but for 
every American, because they know that good health care should be a 
basic right for all.
  The choice in this election year is clear. It is not just a choice 
between different programs. It is a choice based on who can be trusted 
to do the right thing for the American people. Al Gore's record is 
clear. He has been deeply involved in health care throughout his 
career. The current administration has made significant progress in 
improving health care in a variety of ways--from expanding health 
insurance to protecting Medicare. He has consistently stood for 
patients and against powerful special interests.
  Al Gore lays out a constructive and solid program that is consistent 
with his solid record. He is for expanding insurance coverage to all 
Americans, starting with children and their parents. He is for a strong 
Patients' Bill of Rights. I daresay, when Al Gore is elected President, 
a Patients' Bill of Rights will be the first major piece of legislation 
that passes this Congress. I am absolutely convinced that will be the 
case, Mr. President.
  He has a sensible plan for adding prescription drug coverage to 
Medicare. He will fight to preserve Medicare without unacceptable 
changes designed to undermine Medicare and force senior citizens into 
HMOs and private insurance plans.
  George W. Bush's approach is very different. His proposals are deeply 
flawed. But even worse than the specifics of his proposals is his 
failure to come clean with the American people about his record in 
Texas or about his own proposals.

[[Page S10968]]

  On health care, George W. Bush does not just have a credibility gap. 
He has a credibility chasm. He has consistently stood with the powerful 
against the people. He refuses to take on the drug companies, the 
insurance companies, or the HMOs. His budget plan puts tax cuts for the 
wealthy ahead of every other priority, and leaves no room for needed 
investments in American families. His health care values are not the 
values of the American people.
  On the issue of the Patients' Bill of Rights, George Bush said in the 
third debate that he did support a Patients' Bill of Rights. He said he 
wanted all people covered. He said he was in favor of a patient's right 
to sue, as provided under the Texas law. And he said he brought 
Republicans and Democrats together in the State of Texas to pass a 
Patients' Bill of Rights. That is what he said. But the reality is very 
different, as was pointed out in the New York Times after the debate on 
October 18. ``Texas record: Taking credit for patients' rights where it 
is not necessarily due.''
  That is the understatement of the year. The reality is George W. Bush 
vetoed the first Patients' Bill of Rights passed in Texas. He fought to 
make the second bill as narrow and limited as possible. He was so 
opposed to the provision allowing patients to sue their HMOs that he 
refused to sign the final bill, allowing it to become law without his 
signature.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Briefly for a question, and then I would like to make a 
presentation, and then I will be glad to yield.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am very concerned about what I see 
as attacks on my State of Texas on the Senate floor. I certainly think 
it is legitimate to have a Presidential campaign out in the light of 
day where people can see it. I just ask the question: Is the Patients' 
Bill of Rights the Senator is referring to the law today in Texas?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, it is law.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Does the Senator think it would be law in Texas today 
if the Governor had not allowed it to become law?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think another Governor would have gotten the bill 
faster. If the Senator----
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The question is, Is it law today?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to reclaim my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts reclaims his 
time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask if the Senator will give me some time to rebut 
what I consider to be an attack on my State.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield to the Senator after I spell out 
exactly what happened in Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, then I ask unanimous consent that I 
have some time before we go to the foreign ops bill. I ask unanimous 
consent that I get up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will lay out the facts--and if I can 
have the attention of the Senator from Texas now--I will lay these 
facts out, and if the Senator from Texas finds a problem with these 
facts, then I will be glad to yield for that purpose to listen to what 
the facts are.
  These are what the facts are: George Bush said in the third debate 
that he did support a national Patients' Bill of Rights.
  He said he wanted all people covered.
  He said that he was in favor of a patient's right to sue as provided 
under Texas law.
  He said he brought Republicans and Democrats together in the State of 
Texas to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is what he said.
  The reality is different. The Governor vetoed the first Patients' 
Bill of Rights passed in Texas. He fought to make the second bill as 
narrow and limited as possible. He was so opposed to the provision 
allowing patients to sue their HMOs that he refused to sign the final 
bill and allowed it to become law without his signature. That is not 
the record of a person who is candid about where he stands and what he 
has done. Those are the facts.
  It is not a record that recommends him for national office for any 
citizen concerned about a strong, effective Patients' Bill of Rights. 
It is the record of a candidate who stands with powerful insurance 
companies and HMOs, not with American families. He was forced 
effectively to take a Patients' Bill of Rights. So when the Senator 
says, isn't it law today? yes, but it was required because of what 
happened in the legislature, not the leadership that was provided by 
the Governor on that issue.
  On health insurance, the record is equally clear--and equally bleak. 
Governor Bush claims he wants insurance for all Americans. He blames 
Vice President Gore for the growth in the number of the uninsured. But 
Governor Bush's record in Texas is one of the worst in the country. 
Texas has the second highest proportion of uninsured Americans in the 
country. It has the second highest proportion of uninsured children in 
the country. Yet Governor Bush has not only done nothing to address 
this problem, he has actually fought against the solutions.
  In Texas, he placed a higher priority on large new tax breaks for the 
oil industry, instead of good health care for children and their 
families. When Congress passed the Children's Health Insurance Program 
in 1997, we put affordable health insurance for children within the 
reach of every moderate and low-income working family. But George 
Bush's Texas was one of the last in the country to fully implement the 
law.

  Do we understand that? Texas was one of the last States in the 
country to fully implement the law. Despite the serious health problems 
faced by children in Texas, Governor Bush actually fought to keep 
eligibility as narrow as possible.
  This is what happened in 1994: The Governor takes office; Texas ranks 
49th. The year 2000: Bush runs for President; Texas ranks 49th.
  These are the facts. People might not like those facts. People might 
not want to talk about those facts, but these are the facts. If you 
have different facts, let's have them.
  Texas: One of the last States to implement CHIP. October 1997, CHIP 
funds were available. November 1999, Texas implements the full CHIP 
program. We had a program where the funds were there. We did not have 
to appropriate the additional funds. Still it took 2 years. Children 
cannot wait 2 years when they are sick. They cannot wait when they have 
a sore throat, or cannot see the blackboard, or cannot see the teacher. 
They need help and assistance, and the fact it took 2 years, I think, 
is inexcusable.
  Bush places a low priority on children. Bush fights to restrict CHIP 
eligibility to children below 150 percent of poverty. Most of the other 
States, a great majority of the other States, went to 200 percent of 
poverty. Maybe the Senator from Texas has an explanation for that.
  Texas has been one of the only States that has been cited, not by the 
Senator from Massachusetts and not by Democrats, but by a Federal judge 
for failure to enroll children in Medicaid. That is the record, Mr. 
President. You might not want to hear about it, but that is the record.

  Now, perhaps the most ominous revelation about the Governor's 
attitude towards this issue came in the third debate when he said:

       It's one thing about insurance, that's a Washington term.

  Insurance a Washington term? Governor Bush should try telling that to 
hard-working families across the country who don't take their children 
to the doctor when they have a sore throat or a fever because they 
can't afford the medical bill. He should try telling that to the young 
family whose hopes for the future are wrecked when a breadwinner dies 
or is disabled because an illness was not diagnosed and treated in 
time. He should try telling that to the elderly couple whose hopes for 
a dignified retirement are swept away in a tidal wave of medical debt.
  Insurance is far more than a Washington term. It is a Main Street 
term in every community in America, and its lack of availability is a 
crisis for millions of families across the country.
  Prescription drug coverage under Medicare is another major aspect of 
the health care challenge facing America. Few issues are more important 
to

[[Page S10969]]

senior citizens and their families. They deserve a prescription drug 
benefit under Medicare. And we should try to provide it in a way that 
strengthens the promise of Medicare, not in a way that breaks that 
promise and breaks faith with the elderly.
  The differences between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush on this 
issue are fundamental. Governor Bush stands with the big drug 
companies. The Vice President stands with the senior citizens. Governor 
Bush has sought at every turn to blur the differences between their two 
plans in a way that is so misleading as to make a mockery of his own 
attacks on the Vice President's credibility.
  Vice President Gore has clearly pointed out the many flaws in 
Governor Bush's prescription drug plan for senior citizens. But 
Governor Bush has no response on the merits. Instead, he hides behind 
phrases like ``fuzzy numbers'' and ``scare tactics.''
  But the numbers are not fuzzy, and senior citizens should be 
concerned. Let's look at the facts.
  Prescription drug coverage under the Bush plan is not immediate and 
most senior citizens would be left out.
  As the Vice President has pointed out, for the first 4 years, the 
Bush plan would cover low-income seniors only. Al Gore cited the 
example of a senior citizen named George McKinney. He said:

       George McKinney is 70 years old, has high blood pressure. 
     His wife has heart trouble. They have an income of $25,000 a 
     year. They cannot pay for their prescription drugs. And so 
     they're some of the ones that go to Canada regularly in order 
     to get their prescription drugs.

  Governor Bush responded:

       Under my plan, the man gets immediate help with 
     prescription drugs. It's called immediate helping hand. 
     Instead of squabbling and finger-pointing, he gets immediate 
     help.

  He kept accusing Vice President Gore of using ``fuzzy math'' and 
``scare tactics.''
  But Governor Bush's own announcement of his Medicare plan proves Al 
Gore's point. This is what Governor Bush said:

       For four years, during the transition to better Medicare 
     coverage, we will provide $12 billion a year in direct aid to 
     low income seniors . . . Every senior with an income less 
     than $11,300-$15,200 for a couple--will have the entire cost 
     of their prescription drugs covered. For seniors with incomes 
     less than $14,600-$19,700 for couples--there will be a 
     partial subsidy.

  George McKinney has an income of $25,000. He would clearly be 
ineligible for help under Governor Bush's plan. If Governor Bush thinks 
that is fuzzy math, then education reform is even more urgent than any 
of us realized.
  In the third debate, Governor Bush finally admitted that the first 
phase of his program is only for ``poor seniors.''

  George McKinney is not alone. The vast majority of senior citizens 
would not qualify for Governor Bush's prescription drug plan, and many 
of those who did qualify would not participate.
  Even this limited program for low-income seniors would not be 
immediate, because every State in the country would have to pass new 
laws and put the program in place, a process that would take years in 
many States.
  George Bush's prescription for middle-income seniors is clear--take 
an aspirin and call your HMO in 4 years.
  Governor Bush's prescription drug plan would also require senior 
citizens to go to an HMO or an insurance company to obtain their 
coverage. In the first debate, Vice President Gore pointed out that 
most senior citizens ``would not get one penny for four to five years, 
and then they would be forced to go into an HMO or an insurance company 
and ask them for coverage. But there would be no limit on the premiums 
or deductibles or any of the terms or conditions.
  Again, Governor Bush did not respond to the Vice President's specific 
points. Instead, he claimed that the Vice President was trying to 
``scare'' voters.
  The facts are clear. George W. Bush's policy paper states that:

       Each health insurer, including HCFA-sponsored plans that 
     wish to participate . . . will have to offer an ``expanded'' 
     benefit package, including out-patient prescription drugs. . 
     . . This will give seniors the opportunity to select the plan 
     that best fits their health needs.

  In other words, to get prescription drug coverage under the Bush 
plan, you have to get it through a private insurance plan. How high 
will the copayments be? How high will the premiums be? How high will 
the deductible be? Governor Bush has no answer. Those important points 
are all left up to the private insurance companies.
  Governor Bush says senior citizens will have the opportunity to 
select the plan that best meets their health needs. But what they will 
really have is the opportunity to select whatever plan private insurers 
choose to offer. If it costs too much, senior citizens are out of luck. 
If it does not cover the drugs their doctors prescribe, they are out of 
luck. The Bush plan is an insurance industry's dream, and a senior 
citizen's nightmare.
  On prescription drugs, and every other aspect of Medicare, the choice 
between the two Presidential candidates is very clear, and it is clear 
on every other aspect of health care. The Bush record in Texas is one 
of indifference and ineptitude--of putting powerful interests ahead of 
ordinary families.
  The Bush record in the campaign is one of distortion. The Bush 
proposals are at best inadequate and at worst harmful. Tax cuts for the 
wealthy are not as important as health care for children and 
prescription drugs for seniors. The American people understand that, 
but evidently Governor Bush does not.
  Al Gore has a career-long record of fighting for good health care for 
families, for children, and for senior citizens. The current 
administration has a solid record of bipartisan accomplishment, ranging 
from protecting the solvency of Medicare to improving health insurance 
coverage through the enactment of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill and the 
Child Health Insurance Program. Al Gore's program responds to the real 
needs of the American people with real resources and a detailed action 
plan.
  I am hopeful that every American will examine the records of the two 
candidates carefully. On health care, there should be no question as to 
which candidate stands with the powerful special interests and which 
candidate stands with the American people. The choice is clear. 
Governor Bush stands with the powerful, and Al Gore stands with the 
people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Texas.

                          ____________________