[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4056-S4061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are in morning business now, but I do 
want to take this opportunity to comment on a vote that we at least 
plan to have about an hour from now. That vote is a technical type of 
vote, but it is a very important vote because it determines whether or 
not we allow this body the opportunity to address straight up, head on, 
with debate, what I regard as the most important issue before us today, 
if we look both short term and long term: Education, kindergarten 
through the 12th grade. That is an issue about which all of us in this 
body feel very strongly.
  We have contributed to the debate in many positive ways in the past, 
and it is an issue that has been addressed in the appropriate 
committee, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which 
wrote a bill called the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, 
which is in my hands. It passed out of that committee and is ready to 
come to the floor. People have had the opportunity to read it. It has 
been sitting on people's desks. We actually addressed it about a month 
ago.
  I feel so strongly about this issue. It is amazing to me that, 
although Republicans believe very strongly we need to bring this to the 
floor, there are people on the other side of the aisle who object to 
bringing it to the floor. We as a nation have failed to do what has 
been so well articulated by the President of the United States, 
President Bush, in that we have an obligation to leave no child behind. 
We as a nation have failed to accomplish that objective.

  It was in 1965 that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
ESEA--we will be talking a lot about ESEA, and that is what that is--
was passed as part of the War On Poverty, written by President Johnson. 
Over the last 35 years that program has been reauthorized seven 
different times, each with very good intent, each with a lot of 
discussion. From what started as a real focus on allowing better access 
to education, over 35 years with approximately 60 different programs 
and now approximately 14 different titles of this bill, this underlying 
law has emerged.
  We have to start to consider this bill today. I urge my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle to allow it to come to the floor.
  The sad thing is, we are failing. We have failed in the past, despite 
a whole litany of good intentions that resulted in programs, about 230 
different programs and entities which we tried to put out there to 
address specific problems in the past--in spite of all that, we failed. 
So now we have this opportunity, a wonderful opportunity, where, again, 
in a bipartisan way, many of us in this body and in the House of 
Representatives, under the leadership of President Bush, have come 
together. We have that opportunity to change.
  When we use the word ``reform,'' it scares some people because reform 
means such dramatic change, but we have to admit that it is time to 
change, to reinvent, to reconceptualize what K-12 Federal education 
programs are all about.
  What is the role of the Federal Government? Why are we even 
discussing it in this body? I think there are two reasons. No. 1, as I 
said, over the last 35 years we have invested a large amount of money, 
a lot of resources, and we are failing. All of us know that by every 
global comparison, standard testing assessment, we are failing our 
children, whether it is in the 8th grade, or the 9th, 10th, 11th, or 
12th grade.
  The 12th grade is a pretty good year to look at because it is a year 
we know is important. We have gone through kindergarten and 4th and 8th 
and 10th and 12th grade, so this is kind of the final product of K-12. 
In truth, you can assess students at the 10th grade or 8th grade or 4th 
grade, and at each of those levels we are failing our children. But if 
you look at the 12th grade, you can say that is the final product, that 
is what America is all about, and that is what the future of America is 
all about. For those 12th graders, where access in this country is, I 
would say, superb, we are failing in those global comparisons in 
mathematics, in science, in ability to write, in ability to 
communicate.
  Those basic skills that we know and that everyone--liberals, 
conservatives, Democrats and Republicans--recognizes you have to be 
equipped with if you are going to live a fulfilling life are 
increasingly competitive, not just in local towns, communities, States, 
or regions in this Nation but across this great world in which we live, 
such as in mathematics. It depends on the particular study. If you look 
at our 12th graders versus other nations, we rank 18th--not 1st, 10th, 
or 15th, but right around 18th, or somewhere between 15th and 20th in 
the world. That is how many nations are better than us.
  In my own field of science, it is even worse. We are around 19th or 
in some States 20th compared to other nations in the world. We know how 
important science is in terms of understanding nature and in 
understanding technology, which is revolutionizing our lives. And we 
are sending our young people out into the world less well prepared than 
18 other countries in the world, none of which have the creativity or 
the ingenuity or the resources that we have in the United States of 
America.
  That is why an hour from now I am very hopeful that this body allows 
and

[[Page S4057]]

that the Democrats allow this bill to come forward. Let's work it out 
and talk about these very important issues. The Republicans want the 
bill considered on the floor; the Democrats have refused, and thus we 
will have this technical vote an hour from now.
  I mentioned yesterday in some of the conversations the principles I 
am very hopeful we will bring forward and debate, the principles which 
are outlined in a lot of detail, because this is a product of extensive 
bipartisan discussion. This came out of committee in a bipartisan way 
with a bipartisan vote. Those guiding principles which I mentioned, at 
least in my mind, are important.
  No. 1, instead of straightjacketing out of Washington, DC because of 
good intentions and what goes on at the State level where there is a 
lot of reform, we are playing catch-up ball. There is a tremendous 
amount of reform going on in States all across the country, in 
communities, in counties, in districts and in the local schools. We 
have to play catchup.
  What we have done historically is invent a new program and say this 
is a silver bullet, take the program and put a little bit of money in 
it and hope that little bit of money and our good intentions will solve 
the problem. It hasn't over time.
  Instead of inventing a new program with a whole series of 
regulations, it is time for us to provide flexibility and freedom and 
strip away the unnecessary regulations at the local level to capture 
the innovation and creativity but at the same time have strong 
accountability.
  Senator Lieberman has again and again said we have to have strong 
accountability if we are going to provide this freedom, if we are going 
to allow this flexibility. I agree. It is time to have that freedom and 
flexibility to innovate but there needs to be strong accountability.
  Accountability is sort of a strange word. What does it really mean? 
What it means is taking an individual student--it might be a classroom 
or it might be a school--and assessing whether or not that student is 
learning. That is all accountability is--to ensure that we provide 
freedom from regulations, which improves the return in school 
performance, in education, in the ability to learn, in being prepared 
for the world that we know students will soon be facing, matching 
freedom with results. You have to be able to demonstrate the results.

  That leads to a correlate. We haven't done very well in this Nation 
in terms of research. One of the sad things we have done at the Federal 
level, which was not intended, was put this straightjacket on the 
system such that we have not allowed good research to determine what 
works and what doesn't work. So we need demonstrable results. That 
means we need to have some sort of measure and more assessment.
  If we do that, I am absolutely convinced that when you shed the light 
on what does and does not work, Americans today will make good choices. 
They will reward what works and they will not reward what doesn't work. 
That is the way America has thrived in the past.
  The problem with part of the research in education today is that we 
have not focused the spotlight on what works and what doesn't work. So 
we haven't been able to empower parents with that ability to express 
choice or to express approval.
  The first principle is tying the flexibility with strong 
accountability and strong, demonstrable results. The second principle 
is focusing on kids and children. The more you look at the history of 
the last 35 years the more you will see the focus at the Federal level 
has been on institutional systems and bureaucracies--doing that makes 
us feel good because we can invent a new program for a perceived 
problem or failure and again put some money in it. Then we can walk 
away and say we have done our best in addressing it. After 35 years, 
that hasn't worked.
  I spoke about math and science in the 12th grade. I could give you 
the same statistics for the 8th grade. For the last 30 years, using 
standardized tests that are well controlled, we have seen no 
improvement in math or reading, where other countries have improved 
over the last 30 or 35 years.
  I believe if we focus on the individual child--the disadvantaged 
child, the child who may not be from a wealthy family, the family that 
may live in a neighborhood that just doesn't have the resources, the 
family that is underserved in whatever criteria--if you focus on that 
child instead of an institution, instead of a bureaucracy, we will see 
more innovation and more creativity and understanding the very best of 
what America is all about. Freedom in exchange for results, I believe, 
will work best if we focus on the child.
  There will be amendments proposed on the floor as to ``portability.'' 
That means instead of whatever funds we have and we direct the taxpayer 
dollars to come out of Nashville, TN to Washington, DC, and for every 
Federal dollar that comes up on April 15 to the Federal Government, 
only about 35 cents is returned to the classroom itself. We need to 
examine how efficiently we are using those dollars today.
  What is the value of the education dollar we are investing today? I 
suggest that it is not nearly as good as it should be or could be.
  If we come together and are allowed to proceed today, we cannot 
merely conceptualize but we need to actually pass legislation. The 
goals have been articulated by the President of the United States. We 
have a responsibility to look at those goals and to develop a strategy, 
on which we have taken the first step in this underlying bill, and 
improve it over the next several days as we move forward.
  The third principle I mentioned yesterday was information. Keep that 
information current, employing again a way that we can empower parents. 
The information needs to be current. It doesn't matter what happened 5 
or 10 years ago. We need to know how well schools and teachers and 
students are doing so we can assess from a national perspective and 
also legally empower parents to make choices for their children. We 
need to have that information. We have failed miserably. We can invest 
better to enlarge educational research to determine what teaching 
methods actually work.
  Another point that I have mentioned again and again is that people 
will say if you have a school that is not doing well, are you talking 
about taking all of the Federal money out of the schools and putting it 
somewhere else where they might be wealthy or are doing well? No, we 
are not saying that.
  The President of the United States has been very clear. When the 
administration or we in committee say that we don't want to reward 
failure, we mean through better data, through better information, and 
through better assessment, again focusing on the child and identifying 
what works and what doesn't work. If something is not working, ask why, 
and try to fix it based on the best policy and the best tools that you 
have today. And, yes, invest more money, if necessary, if that is the 
reason, in order to try to fix it.
  But if that school fails one year, and you have a child in that 
school--remember that child's face--and that school fails a second 
year--remember that child's face; they are trapped in that school; and 
think about it being your child--if they are trapped in that school for 
a third year of failure, meaning in academic performance, achievement, 
and ability to learn, but also safety issues--a school that might be 
unsafe in spite of doing everything you can in terms of establishing 
safeguards and investing in that school--and if your child is trapped 
in that unsafe school a fourth year, and they have not learned over 
those 4 years--the school itself is failing though you put more 
resources into it--then there needs to be repercussions. That is the 
American way of doing things.
  Again, we need to focus on the child, doing what is best for the 
child, not what makes you feel good about a particular school. This 
happens after repetitive failure. That is a part of the policy with 
which we have worked in a bipartisan way on this bill.
  Again, I think this is just an example of why it is so important for 
us to be allowed today to proceed to this bill and have the sort of 
debate that we owe our children, that we owe our schools, that we owe 
our teachers, given the fact that they have been trapped in a system 
which is not working, as we compare ourselves to people in other 
countries.
  I think we do have a great opportunity in this reauthorization. In a 
reauthorization bill we go back and look

[[Page S4058]]

at legislation and plan ahead for, say, the next 4 years, but in this 
case it is 10 years for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  We have a wonderful opportunity, based on strong bipartisan support, 
based on the principles of the President of the United States in his 
discussion of education, initially on the campaign trail and also since 
becoming President. That encompasses having local control, empowering 
parents, investing more, yes, but investing it wisely where you have 
true value to meet those goals. That means accountability with 
assessments.
  We give States the freedom to innovate, to use Federal funding in a 
way that identifies the needs that might be peculiar to Alamo, TN, or 
Knoxville, TN, or a school district in the tri-city area of Tennessee. 
We would give them the flexibility to address problems in a way where 
they can have increased freedom, increased flexibility, but we 
inextricably link it to demonstrable results, to make sure that the 
child is achieving to the best of his or her ability. We have to give 
them the opportunity to learn.
  In that way, we are giving States, as well as local districts, the 
opportunity to maximize flexibility. At the same time, we minimize 
regulation because as well intended as the programs we design are, 
nobody knows the child in the classroom better than the teacher who is 
at the head of the class--nobody at that school. They are there day in 
and day out. And taken one step away, the same thing is true about the 
principal, who knows the strengths of the school, who knows whether it 
is the building itself that needs repair or that there needs to be an 
additional computer in this classroom or an afterschool program for 
that child. Those decisions need to be made locally.
  We need to have that minimization of regulation, as long as there is 
strong accountability and that insistence upon measurable results--not 
what makes you feel good and not what is just the trend of the time but 
measurable results. It does not mean we write the curriculum in 
Washington, DC. I think most people in this body would be absolutely 
opposed to having the curriculum written in Washington and then imposed 
on the States. The whole idea is to allow the people locally--in their 
communities, in their States--to develop the standards that best meet 
their particular area.

  We need a national comparison. That is why you will hear the 
discussion of the NAEP test, the sample test, which does allow an 
assessment and comparison of community to community or State to State.
  If you put all this together and you look at it, the trend that will 
emerge--again, if we are allowed to proceed to this bill today--the 
trend you will see is one that is critical, very important; that is, to 
have the U.S. Government or Washington, DC, no longer being the 
regulator but, rather, the investor in education, to invest in that 
individual child, to invest in that individual student, instead of 
regulating.
  Regulation simply has not worked. We will discuss the reasons it has 
not worked over the next several days. We need to maximize flexibility 
and minimize regulations, but we have to tie both of those to strong, 
demonstrable, measurable results as a condition of participation.
  The Federal role, again, is important. The opportunity we have as we 
address these issues over, hopefully, the next 2 weeks, will make that 
Federal role become clear. It is enormous. When I say that, a lot of my 
Republican colleagues or people back home might say: Good gosh, Senator 
Frist, what are you talking about? What are you talking about that this 
Federal role is enormous?
  Let me be clear. If you have a pie chart, the Federal dollars that 
are spent in communities throughout Tennessee or any State, in the 
aggregate, are only a little sliver, only about 7 percent. The figure 
varies. In some States it can go from 5 or 6 percent up to 9 percent, 
but on average it is 7 percent. That means most of the funding and 
fiscal responsibility is at the local level, just as I believe it 
should be. But our role is enormous because our discussion, what we 
produce in terms of regulation as an investor in education, instead of 
as a regulator, very much defines the tenor of the national 
discussion--the tone of the debate that goes on at the State level, at 
the community level, at the district level in individual schools and, 
indeed, I would argue, around the dinner table at night or the 
breakfast table in the morning.
  It is the tone of that debate that we are not, as a nation, 
adequately addressing on the issue of educating our young people, 
preparing them for tomorrow. That tone, that tenor, is set in 
Washington, DC.
  No. 2, I believe, again, the Federal role is important, is enormous, 
in that we do help set priorities. We are in a position to step back 
and look at the whole Nation and see, with the data that is available, 
what works and what does not work. We have an obligation to articulate 
that based on the very best information possible.
  When I go to a school in, say, rural Tennessee and talk about our 
failure as a nation, people say: Our school seems pretty good. We 
believe we are learning pretty well. How could we do better? We are 
working hard. We have what we think are good teachers.
  But when I come and say that is not what the data shows, that is not 
what the information shows, they will say: Why does it show that? And 
questions start being asked. That is the second aspect that I believe 
is important for the Federal role--that we have the opportunity, from 
the national perspective, to set certain priorities and redirect or 
reinvent or reconceptualize what has not worked in the past.

  Mr. President, again, we are in morning business now. We will have a 
vote, hopefully, later this morning.
  Just for clarification for my colleagues, what is happening is that a 
number of people right now are talking about the particular policies, 
talking about the level of funding that is most appropriate. All of 
those issues will be brought to the Chamber and discussed. But a lot of 
discussions have gone on over the weekend and through yesterday and 
through this morning.
  I am very hopeful we can come to some resolution over the next 30 or 
45 minutes so we can proceed to the bill. ESEA, the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, is 35 years old. I mentioned 7 
reauthorizations and now 60 programs. It has tremendous promise. The 
goal initially was to have more access, but really it was to address 
the academic achievement of the underserved, to make sure that that 
achievement gap would not get worse over time.
  Unfortunately, in spite of that being the goal, if we look at title 
I--which we will be talking about, which is about half of the overall 
bill and is aimed at disadvantaged children; and I think that has been 
a great monument in the bill because it shows the intent of where we 
have to work, where we have to focus, but also probably its greatest 
failure--the achievement gap over the last 35 years has gotten worse. 
The gap between the underserved and the served has gotten bigger and 
bigger and bigger over time.
  We need to address it. We need to address it head on. We have done 
that in the underlying bill which will probably be improved as we 
debate it in this Chamber. But we have to come together in a bipartisan 
way, under the leadership of the President of the United States, who 
has brought this problem to the forefront, I believe, of all the issues 
addressing our Nation.
  So we have a bill, a 35-year-old promise. It is now time to update 
that bill, to reauthorize that bill in a way where the investments, the 
programs, the intent, and the strategy are really, for the first time, 
I would argue, in harmony with this 35-year-old bill which shows, in 
terms of intent and purpose, tremendous promise. It is time to bring 
those together.

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been focusing for the last 2 weeks 
on education. Education is probably the

[[Page S4059]]

answer that is most often given in terms of priorities people think are 
important. Yet we seem to have a difficult time moving forward.
  I don't think there is much debate about the concept of helping 
education, giving young people the opportunity to have a better life. 
We get bogged down, unfortunately, in the details. I am anxious that we 
move forward--I hope we can--today and begin the debate.
  There are legitimate differences of view with respect to what to do, 
particularly concerning the role of the Federal Government. There are 
those who believe the Federal Government has great responsibilities and 
should, indeed, set the stage for how it is done and, whenever Federal 
money is made available, there ought to be requirements as to how each 
school should use the money.
  In the last administration if there was money for education, 
President Clinton said it had to be used for smaller classes or it had 
to be used for buildings. The fact is, the needs in different places 
are quite varied. We must also remember that the contribution from the 
Federal level is about 6 or 7 percent of the total expenditures for 
elementary and secondary education.
  What we are trying to do is assist in certain areas, helping local 
school boards and State education departments decide what is best for 
them. I am particularly sensitive to that in that I come from a State 
with low population density. We have lots of small schools, and the 
needs in those small schools are often quite different than they are in 
metropolitan areas. The idea of the Federal Government putting 
down regulations certainly doesn't work.

  I am persuaded that the education bill that will be before us has 
some excellent goals. That is what we ought to be doing--setting some 
goals we want to achieve and then moving towards the achievement of 
those goals by what we do in the interim.
  For example, as to increasing accountability for student performance, 
there was a great letter to the editor in my local paper last weekend 
from a former school board member who made the point that education has 
to be financed. Financing is an essential element to good education, 
but financing alone does not do it. Dollars are not all that is 
important. We have to have some accountability for student performance, 
for school performance, and for teacher performance. That is one of the 
key elements.
  We also have to do some serious examination on the local level as to 
what programs work best and to make sure the resources are available to 
go into the programs that work and that we move money to accomplish 
that.
  I do not think there is any question most people would agree we need 
to reduce the bureaucracy and increase flexibility. It happens that my 
wife is a special ed teacher in a public high school. I hear all the 
time about the amount of effort that has to go into the detail of 
regulations, the paperwork, as opposed to teaching, which is not 
peculiar in terms of funding by the Government. I realize if you are 
going to have accountability for the money, there has to be some 
reporting. But when you have professional people spending half their 
time with paperwork, that is not the direction we ought to be going.
  Then there is the amount of money, what we are going to be arguing 
about in this Chamber. Some of our friends on the other side of the 
aisle think if we just put in all the money that is available, it 
somehow will work out. I don't believe that is the case. We have to 
look at funding, but we have to look at some of the principles that are 
equally as important.
  The fact is, President Bush has recommended more spending for 
education than was recommended in the previous administration. Since a 
Republican-controlled Congress has been in existence since 1994, we 
have had more increases in the Federal contribution to spending than we 
have ever had before. We will hear shortly about how we ought to be 
spending all the money in the world. In my view, that is not the only 
element of successful education. Empowering parents to have some 
opportunities, to have more input into what they are doing is 
important. Again, a little experience in this area shows me that 
charter schools are a great idea so that parents have some flexibility 
and some choices as to what they do within the public school system, as 
to where their youngsters go to school, and how we can do some of those 
kinds of things.

  So I guess my real message is that it is time to get on with it. I 
know there are three, four, or five people, probably, in this 100-
Member body who are determined to hold things up until they get their 
way. It isn't going to be that way. It has to be done when there is a 
majority that agrees on what it is that should be done. I hope we can 
move on that.
  We have other things we need to do. We need to get back to the 
budget, get on with tax relief, get on with energy; these are some of 
the areas with which we have to deal. Hopefully, we will deal with them 
soon. I am anxious that we move forward with education. We have a great 
plan and all we need to do is implement it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about education. 
I appreciate my colleague from Wyoming talking about it. I saw Senator 
Frist earlier today discussing the President's education plan and 
certainly the congressional education plan. I think they are very 
close.
  What I think is so important is the emphasis that is being placed on 
quality public education. Thomas Jefferson said, from the very 
beginning of our Republic, that public education would be the 
foundation for democracy. That really set us apart from all the other 
countries in the world because at that time only the most elite were 
educated. It was only the children of dukes and duchesses around the 
world; it was only the elite who could afford private schools around 
the world. But that wasn't the foundation of America. The foundation 
for America was that every child would receive a quality public 
education so that child could reach his or her full potential and, of 
course, contribute to the great Nation that would become the United 
States of America.
  Mr. President, it has been proven time and time again that the 
creativity that comes from having every child in our country educated 
has put us in the forefront of technology, of space exploration, of 
medical research, of quality health care. It goes on and on and on.
  In the last 10 to 15 years in our country, we have lost the battle 
that every child would receive a quality public education. Today, this 
week, this year, Congress and the President are saying: No more. No 
more are we going to allow some children to waste away in schools that 
are not performing and lose that potential, that productive citizen for 
our country.

  We are going to reform public education. We are going to put more 
money into it. But there is a wonderful chart that the Secretary of 
Education, Rod Paige, has shown us that actually reflects that we have 
increased spending in public education, and the figure has gone up for 
the past 25 years. But, in fact, the test scores have straight-lined--
even gone a little bit down.
  Well, that doesn't work. Pouring more money into it without giving 
our parents and teachers and principals and school districts and our 
States the opportunity to get in and help each individual child with 
that child's learning needs doesn't work. It doesn't work to pour more 
money in if we don't give them the tools they need to do the job. That 
is why we are focused on accountability, on letting parents know what 
the test scores are.
  Yesterday, I visited Stonewall Jackson Elementary School in Dallas, 
TX. I saw the formula for an excellent school. This is a school that is 
just in a regular middle-class neighborhood that also includes children 
who are deaf and have learning disabilities--a very diverse student 
body. Those children have a spark and creativity for several reasons. 
They also have the highest test scores. But they have the creativity 
and the spark because they have a principal who welcomes parental 
involvement. They have a PTA that has teams. They have a men's group. 
It is like a men's group at church, and that men's group comes into the 
public school and helps plant gardens, paint things when the paint is 
peeling, and it is not on the list to fix right away. They are raising 
money to install security systems. They are raising money

[[Page S4060]]

to make sure the library is totally stocked. They are involved in their 
school, and they are welcome in the classrooms any time.
  So you have the leadership of a principal, you have parents who are 
involved, and they have made it fun to be involved, and they are 
improving the school. That creates a spark in the teachers. Senator 
Gramm and I walked into that elementary school, and it was all 
decorated as a Caribbean island. We asked, ``Why are we seeing trees 
and monkeys in this elementary school?'' It is because they adopt a 
country every year, and this year it is the Caribbean islands. Last 
year it was Spain. They adopt a country and they talk about that 
country and they learn about the language and the customs. They have 
learned something that gives them a new look at life.
  I am happy that we are focusing on public education. This is just the 
overview. The overview is, we are going to reform our public schools so 
that every child in America can reach his or her full potential with a 
public education. We are going to start talking about the specifics in 
the next 2 weeks in Congress.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be brief. I spoke yesterday about this issue. 
Let me, first of all, say that, again, before the spring recess, there 
was a unanimous consent to go forward with the bill, but I had not seen 
much of the language that was going to be added and changed in the 
bill. In order to be a good legislator for the people you represent, 
you need to know what is in a bill. As it turns out--and don't ask me 
why; I may be alone on that--we are about to proceed to the bill, but 
we haven't seen so many of the fundamental changes that are in the 
process of being made. How can you be a good legislator and represent 
people and represent children on such an important question--and there 
is no more important question--without yet knowing what is in the bill?
  On principle, I am opposed to proceeding on a bill that we don't even 
know much of the language. There are some very important policy 
questions, one of which, for example, is the Straight A's Program. To 
what extent are we block granting programs like afterschool programs? 
To what extent are they no longer part of the national priority, 
national goals? I don't know. I want to see the language. I haven't 
seen the language on that.
  Second point. We are about to do something very reckless.
  I find it stunning so many Republican colleagues, much less 
Democratic colleagues, will vote for this. We are about to now put into 
law a Federal mandate that every school and every school district all 
over the country, every year, from age 8 through age 13, will test 
every child. This will be a Federal mandate. But, at the same time, we 
are quite unwilling to pass a Federal mandate that there will be 
equality of opportunity for every child to have a good education and to 
do well and to succeed.
  My understanding was the Democrats were saying yes to accountability, 
if it is done the right way. And, by the way, if we are not careful, 
this is going to result in the worst kind of drill education where we 
will basically be saying to teachers--and we are trying to recruit the 
best and brightest--we will tell them what to teach, when to teach, and 
how to teach. Over and over again the focus will be on these tests.
  The question is, How do you do an assessment system the right way? I 
will have a number of amendments to make sure we ensure high quality 
assessments so we can do it the right way if we move to the bill. 
Again, I would like to see the final language on this bill.
  I heard from my colleagues on our side that the position was yes to 
accountability, but we also were going to make sure that we were not 
creating a huge unfunded mandate. The President calls for $300 million 
for the administration of these tests. The National Association of 
State Boards of Education, the people who are in the field, are saying 
it will cost us a minimum of $2.5 billion to do this, maybe as high as 
$7 billion if we go to multiple measures and do not rely on one 
standardized test, which we should never do.
  On top of that, we are talking about a proposal from the President 
that says $670 million more for title I; that is all he is calling for. 
We are funding title I at one-third the level we should be if we were 
to fully fund the program.
  I will have a trigger amendment that says we cannot mandate new tests 
of all these children--starting as young as age 8--until we fully fund 
the title I program. My understanding was we were going to get a 
commitment on investment of resources in the IDEA program. My colleague 
from Iowa has been such a leader in this area for children with special 
needs.
  I also think it is disgraceful to talk about these mandatory tests 
when we don't even fully fund Head Start. We fund Head Start at 50-
percent of what we need for 4-year-olds, even less for 3-year-olds and 
only 3 percent for Early Head Start, which serves children aged 0-2-
year-olds. We know how important early childhood education is to future 
learning, we know that most kids do not get it, but we will still test 
these children at 8 years of age and expect them to do as well as 
children who have had every advantage. We are setting up a lot of 
children and a lot of teachers and a lot of schools in Minnesota and 
throughout the country for humiliation. I thought we would have a deal. 
I thought Democrats would stand up for investment in resources that go 
with accountability. I thought Democrats would stand up for 
accountability being done the right way.
  The President of the United States calls this the BEST program, yet 
all he offers in terms of support for children and schools is a tin cup 
budget. And we are going forward on this bill? I don't think we should 
go forward on the bill until we see the changes that are being agreed 
to. I don't think we should go forward until we have an agreement on 
the policy. I don't think we should go forward until we have a mandate 
on commitment of resources.

  I will talk more about this. I believe colleagues are giving up our 
real leverage. I wish to fight harder for children in education. I will 
spell this out in great detail after the vote. I, maybe only speaking 
for one, will vote against proceeding to this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I compliment my dear friend and colleague 
from Minnesota. There is no one who fights harder for education with 
more courage, compassion and conviction than Senator Wellstone from 
Minnesota. He comes from a background of having been an educator and in 
education for most of his life before coming to the Senate.
  Senator Wellstone is right. We are about to embark upon a lot of 
rhetoric. We are going to talk about reforming education, saving 
education in America, but without the resources it will just be empty 
rhetoric, one more time.
  We have to review where we have been on this bill. The Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act expired 2 years ago. Why are we on it now 2 
years later? The other side wouldn't let us pass it last year. They 
blocked it. And now there is this rush to get it through.
  I am all in favor of passing the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. As I understand it, the bill here is the one passed by committee. 
I understand they are working on another bill. We have not seen it yet 
and they will drop it sometime after we vote for cloture.
  I make the point that Senator Wellstone so eloquently made. This is 
an authorization bill. We can say all these flowery things about saving 
education, having testing and all that sort of stuff, but if we don't 
have the resources to back it, we are fooling the American people one 
more time.
  Where are the resources for this bill? The National Association of 
State Boards of Education said the testing requirements in this bill 
could cost, as Senator Wellstone said, anywhere from $2 billion to $7 
billion over 4 years. Where are the resources to pay for that? Are we 
going to dump it on our property taxpayers one more time? Testing every 
year means raising property taxes to pay for it. That is basically what 
we are going to say, unless we have the resources.

  I have not seen this administration willing to come forward with an 
agreement to say, we will back X amount of

[[Page S4061]]

resources to fulfill these mandates we are about to put on the States, 
one more time.
  The other side is always talking about unfunded mandates. This is 
going to be another unfunded mandate. Do the testing. Then raise the 
property taxes to pay for it.
  I don't know about other states, but in my State of Iowa we are 
paying enough property taxes as it is.
  Do we have the resources? That is the next question. Right now, of 
every Federal dollar we spend in discretionary spending of hard-earned 
tax dollars, 2 cents goes for education. Two cents out of every dollar 
we spend goes for education.
  Again, do we have the resources? It depends on your priorities 
whether or not we have the resources. Here is the President's tax cut 
plan. For the wealthiest 1 percent--I am not talking about middle-class 
tax cuts; I am talking about for the wealthiest 1 percent--$697 billion 
in tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent; $21.3 billion for education.
  We have the resources. Don't kid yourself. It depends on what you 
want to do with them. If you want to give it in tax cuts to the 
wealthiest, you will support the Bush tax cut. If you want to do 
education, we will have some amendments on the floor when we consider 
this bill. The real battle will come on appropriations, on whether or 
not we will have the amount of money in the appropriations bill to pay 
for all this testing and everything else that we say we love so much.
  I remind Senators, a few weeks ago we passed an amendment, 53-47, to 
take $250 billion and put it in education over 10 years, compared with 
the President's request of $21.3 billion. What we voted on a few weeks 
ago by a vote of 53-47 will have the resources to pay for the testing. 
It will have the resources to fund the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. It will have the resources to fully fund title I 
programs and the resources to reach down also for things that are not 
in this bill, such as Head Start.
  Second, there are three items that no one is discussing that we will 
have to belly up to the bar on and vote:
  No. 1, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Are we 
willing to fully fund it or not?
  Second, school construction. Are we going to help prepare the leaky 
roofs and bring schools into the 21st century?
  Third, are we going to continue to reduce class sizes so our teachers 
can teach, so the kids can pass these tests that we are going to foist 
upon them?
  Senator Wellstone is right. We need a commitment on resources, not 
just the rhetoric. When this bill is considered, we will have 
amendments. But keep in mind the real test is going to come on whether 
or not the Appropriations Committee will be supported by this 
administration to come up with the money to fund the rhetoric that we 
will hear a lot in the next few days in the Senate.

                          ____________________