[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 81 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6061-S6078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
       Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No. 
     358), to remove the 21st century community learning center 
     program from the list of programs covered by performance 
     agreements.
       Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing 
     school resource officers who operate in and around elementary 
     and secondary schools.
       Leahy (for Hatch) amendment No. 424 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls 
     Clubs of America.
       Helms amendment No. 574 (to amendment No. 358), to prohibit 
     the use of Federal funds by any State or local educational 
     agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of 
     America in providing equal access to school premises or 
     facilities.
       Helms amendment No. 648 (to amendment No. 574), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Dorgan amendment No. 640 (to amendment No. 358), expressing 
     the sense of the Senate that there should be established a 
     joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to 
     investigate the rapidly increasing energy prices across the 
     country and to determine what is causing the increases.
       Hutchinson modified amendment No. 555 (to amendment No. 
     358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
     Department of Education program to promote access of Armed 
     Forces recruiters to student directory information.
       Feinstein modified amendment No. 369 (to amendment No. 
     358), to specify the purposes for which funds provided under 
     subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used.
       Reed amendment No. 431 (to amendment No. 358), to provide 
     for greater parental involvement.
       Dodd/Biden further modified amendment No. 459 (to amendment 
     No. 358), to provide for the comparability of educational 
     services available to elementary and secondary students 
     within States.
       Clinton modified amendment No. 516 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health 
     and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school 
     buildings on children and to establish the Healthy and High 
     Performance Schools Program.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand the proponent of the 
amendment, Senator Gregg, will be here momentarily. I back up what our 
leaders have stated. We are interested in the completion of this 
legislation. We have been making progress in the disposition of 
amendments, but we have a

[[Page S6062]]

number of our colleagues who have said they are not ready to call up 
their amendments. That might have been a reasonable comment a week ago 
or 4 weeks ago or 5 weeks ago, but it certainly is not now. We are 
going to move ahead. Regrettably, there are ways we can ultimately 
dispose of these amendments if we are put in that position.
  What is completely unacceptable and completely unfair to our 
colleagues is the failure to bring these amendments up and to indicate 
to the floor managers a willingness to work through these amendments.
  We are glad to have the votes when the votes are due. We are glad to 
debate amendments, discuss them, and accept them when we can. We are 
glad to cooperate in every way. We have received the strong direction 
from our leader saying we want disposition. This bill has been before 
the Senate for 8 weeks. Members have had an opportunity to study it, to 
read about it, to think about it, and work with their staffs. There is 
no further reason for delay. We will make every effort to dispose of 
the amendments in a timely way. We are prepared to work long and hard 
on these measures. We intend to accept the leader's challenge and 
complete the work this week.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be charged to the 
proponent of the amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time that has 
been running against the amendment be charged equally against both 
sides. I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum and request the 
time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  There being no objection, that will be the order.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The absence of a quorum having been 
suggested, the clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 536

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, is recognized to offer amendment No. 536, on 
which there will be 4 hours for debate.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask that the clerk report my amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and 
     Mr. Hutchinson, proposes an amendment numbered 536.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment printed in the Record of May 9, 2001, 
under ``Amendments Submitted''.)
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment has popularly been referred 
to as the choice amendment or the portability amendment. It is an 
amendment which is crucial to the issue of how we are going to approach 
education as we proceed as a nation. It is crucial for a lot of 
different reasons, but primarily it deals with a group of people in our 
country who have been left behind in our educational system. It doesn't 
deal with the wealthy. It doesn't deal with those of moderate income. 
It really deals with low-income people, most of them in urban schools, 
who find the school systems their children are put into are failing and 
that their children are being left behind.
  The American dream, which is the essence of what makes our country 
such a vibrant nation, is tied to the ability to be an educated 
individual. You cannot participate in the American dream unless you are 
well educated, unless you can compete and participate in our society, 
and that requires a quality education.
  So when you go through a school which does not teach, which is filled 
with violence or filled with drugs, when you know every day a child who 
goes to that school is falling further and further behind his or her 
peers in other schools because that school is not able to teach that 
child, then that child cannot participate in the American dream--you 
are denying that child the opportunity to participate in the American 
dream.
  There are many attempts in this bill to correct the problem. There 
are many initiatives in this bill to try to make failing schools work 
better. Regrettably, they are not going to all work. There will 
continue to be schools that fail.

  Today, in our system of education, literally thousands of schools 
across this country are defined as failing schools, and that means that 
thousands, tens of thousands, potentially millions of children, 
unfortunately, are in schools that are not educating them adequately.
  So one option that should be given to the parents of those children 
is to allow them, after their children have been in a failing school 
for a period of time and the school has not improved even though 
attempts have been made to improve it--to allow those children, and the 
parents of those children, to have other options, to go to schools 
where they will be able to learn, where they will be able to succeed, 
and where they will, therefore, be able to take advantage of the 
American dream.
  This bill, hopefully, will include an expansion of what is known as 
public school choice. But there are a lot of communities in this 
country, regrettably, that have no public schools that are not failing 
to which kids can move. Therefore, the option of going to some other 
type of school, a private school, should be available to them.
  In our society, if you have a fairly decent income, you can leave the 
public school system and go to a private school. A lot of people who 
have the income to accomplish it choose that option. The former 
President of the United States, for example, chose that option. But if 
you are a single mother, especially a single mother in an urban area, 
trying to raise your children on a low income, you do not have that 
option; you are stuck in that failing school. Your children are 
sentenced to that school even though the school is unable to accomplish 
what it is supposed to do, which is to teach your children.
  This amendment is not going to fully address the issue. I wish it 
would, but it is not. This amendment is going to set up a demonstration 
program, and a very limited demonstration program, the purpose of which 
is to see if private school choice using Federal dollars can alleviate 
the problem to some degree, can allow some children today, who are not 
in schools that are teaching them, to go to schools that will teach 
them; to allow some children to have a chance at the American dream who 
do not have it today. Private school choice is used in a lot of public 
systems.

  Remember, when you are talking private school choice, it sounds as if 
you are saying the public schools are left out of the process. In the 
public system, they use private school choices. Today, in the public 
system, the elected officials are responsible. They make the decision 
that children in the school system should have a choice between a 
public and private system. It is used in a lot of different 
communities. It is used in Milwaukee. It is used in Cleveland. It is 
used in Florida. It is used to some degree in Arizona.
  The difficulty, of course, behind this is that these States and these 
communities have come to the conclusion that they will improve their 
public school system by allowing some of the children in their public 
school systems to have the option of going to a private school if the 
public school isn't working well.
  This demonstration program is an attempt to follow the leadership 
that has been shown already by a lot of other public school districts 
across this country who have chosen to put in place a private school 
option as part of their public school education system, as I

[[Page S6063]]

said, in a very limited proposal. In fact, I intend to modify it to 
make it even more limited as we go down the road. But, essentially, 
under the present structure, it will only be voluntary, and it will 
only apply to families who make less than $32,000 a year. This is not 
going to be a high-income option. It will only apply to families who 
make less than $32,000 a year and whose children are in school systems 
where the school has failed for 3 years. That means by definition that 
child, if he or she is in the third grade, is already probably 3 years 
behind their peers in the school system that is working correctly.
  It will also be limited as to the number of groups that can 
participate to three States in ten school districts.
  It is a very small demonstration program. It will be limited to $50 
million, funds which come from outside the title I program.
  It cannot be argued that the dollars to fund this demonstration 
program are in any way undermining the dollars available to the public 
school system. This will be a new pool of money available to fund the 
child who moves on to a private system because the school system isn't 
working correctly.
  It will also have as a component that special consideration must be 
given for applications of students coming from the highest number of 
low-income families. It will really focus on those families who need it 
the most, who, in my opinion, happen to be in primary instances single 
moms trying to raise their kids mostly in inner-city schools.
  Since the purpose of this amendment is a demonstration grant and a 
small one at that, it will have an extremely aggressive evaluation 
procedure so that we can find out whether or not private school choice 
under a public school system works.
  Parents in our urban schools have been waiting for this type of 
reform for a long time. There has been a lot of rhetoric about it. 
About every 2 years, the superintendent of the District of Columbia 
school system changes. While the system of the superintendent changes, 
the school systems regrettably don't. We continue to see failure.
  Today we have 9,000 schools across this country which are identified 
as failures--9,000 schools. Some have been identified as failures for 4 
years, for 6 years, and for 8 years.

  It is not unheard of, for example, for an entire public school 
district to be identified as failing. That is the case, for example, in 
Kansas City. Clearly the parents there have no option. They cannot go 
from one public school to another public school because all of the 
public schools in the districts have failed.
  As a result of this failure, we have seen especially a debilitating 
impact on minority kids. We know, for example, that today two out of 
every three African-American students and Hispanic students in fourth 
grade can barely read. Seventy percent of the children in high-poverty 
schools score below even the most basic levels of reading, and half the 
students from urban school districts fail to graduate on time if they 
graduate at all.
  We need to give the parents of these children an additional option.
  There is, I believe, great interest in this. You don't have to 
believe me. You don't have to take this as just a vague statement 
because there have been exercises in this area that have shown this, 
especially from low-income families.
  The Children's Scholarship Fund, which was founded by Ted Forstmann 
and John Walton, created a private foundation to provide scholarships 
to low-income children who wanted the opportunity to go out of the 
public school system into a private school system. They received 1.25 
million applications from poor families across the country. 
Unfortunately, they could only give out 40,000 scholarships. But in New 
York City, 29 percent of the poor families of school-age children 
applied. In the District of Columbia, 33 percent of families of poor 
children applied. In Baltimore, 44 percent of poor families with 
school-aged children applied.
  Joseph Califano, in commenting on this, said:

       These parents sent a powerful message. They want out of 
     schools that cannot protect their children's safety, let 
     alone teach them. This tidal wave of applications from 
     parents desperate to give their children an opportunity to 
     receive a quality education must serve as a wake-up call . . 
     . By quarantining poor--

  That is probably the best way to describe it because that is what we 
do in our society--

     mostly minority children in schools affluent families would 
     never tolerate, we do not preserve the institution of public 
     education. We dishonor its guiding ideals.

  Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King, in commenting on this, 
said:

     . . . some children receive a better education than others 
     due to their parents' abilities to pay for benefits that are 
     often missing in public schools. This inequity is a violation 
     of the civil right of the parents and children who are so 
     afflicted by lack of income and by the mismanagement endemic 
     to so many of the country's public school systems.

  Some would say if you take this option, you are going to undermine 
the public system because you are going to take kids out of the public 
system and put them into a private system. Of course, we really do not 
know what will happen because we have never tried it at the Federal 
level. But we do have examples of what has happened in public school 
systems in other communities that have tried to put in their State and 
local dollars.
  We know, for example, that in places such as Charlotte and Milwaukee 
the public school systems have been perceived, at least by the local 
community, as improving significantly as a result of a private school 
choice.
  A study, in fact, which was done by Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby, 
found the Milwaukee private school choice program pushed the city's 
public elementary schools to improve.
  Quoting from the leadership in the Milwaukee public school system, 
Kenneth Johnson, vice president of the Milwaukee public school board of 
directors and an AFL-CIO member, said:

       Private school choice is one of the best things that ever 
     happened to my city's public schools. . . . When choice came 
     about, the Milwaukee Public School System had to rethink 
     education. It's now a matter of seeing parents as customers.

  Milwaukee public school superintendent Spence Korte said:

       Between choice and the general decline of live births, 
     we're all feeling the pinch to make sure that people 
     understand what our programs offer and, certainly that we're 
     competitive.

  In other words, the school systems are improving as a result of 
choice.
  John Gardiner, an at-large member of the Milwaukee public school 
board of directors and a member of the NAACP and the ACLU, stated the 
following about the effects of choice on public schools in Milwaukee:

       My involvement in the MPS--as a member of the school board, 
     as a parent and as an active and concerned citizen--has 
     persuaded me that MPS's internal reforms require the 
     sustained challenge and competition of the Milwaukee Parental 
     Choice Program. The program puts effective pressure on MPS to 
     expand, accelerate and improve reforms long deliberated and 
     too-long postponed.

  The simple fact is, we have seen in Milwaukee, which has tried public 
school/private school choice options aggressively, a significant 
improvement in the school system and a significant improvement in the 
quality of the education of the students, which is the basic goal.
  In Florida the same situation can be cited. Florida has a statewide 
choice program where they rate the schools; and if you are in a school 
that is rated D or F, you have the opportunity to choose a private 
school option.
  The Urban League of Miami found that the Florida voucher plan 
instilled in public schools a sense of urgency and zeal for reform not 
seen in the past, when a school's failure was rewarded only with more 
money that reinforced failure.
  It is fairly obvious, I believe, first through just looking at the 
situation and in reviewing it, and from intuition, that if you create 
competition you usually improve a product.
  The reason somebody chooses McDonald's over Burger King is because 
they think the product is better at one or the other. Regrettably, our 
public school systems have not ever had the competition necessary to 
improve the product.
  The purpose of choice, of course, is not to undermine the public 
school system; it is just the opposite. It is to create an incentive 
for reform in the public school system which improves those systems. 
That is exactly what has been seen to happen in those areas of our 
country where choice has been given a reasonable opportunity to be 
tested, specifically in Milwaukee and Florida.

[[Page S6064]]

  What about student achievement, which, of course, is the bottom line? 
The goal is to take these kids who have been locked in a failing 
school, who are reading at two or three grade levels behind their 
peers, who are not graduating, who, therefore, cannot participate in 
the American dream, and give them an opportunity.
  Every major evaluation of school choice effectiveness has found 
significant academic gains for the students participating in those 
programs. Test scores in Milwaukee, Dayton, and Charlotte have all been 
reviewed by scholars from Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Georgetown, and 
the University of Texas. In all those communities it has been 
determined that the kids who have been able to participate in the 
private school option have had their test scores go up. These, in all 
instances, have been kids from low-income families, urban poor in most 
instances, who before they had this option were left out of the 
American dream.
  We have spent $120 billion in the last 35 years on title I, directed 
at trying to help low-income kids. The result of those expenditures has 
been that low-income kids are reading two grade levels below their 
peers and are graduating from high school at half the rate of their 
peers. There has been absolutely no academic improvement in those kids 
over this 35-year period. In the last 10 years, when we spent the most 
amount of money, the academic improvement also has not increased at 
all.
  There has been $120 billion spent to try to help kids who have come 
from low-income families, and we have left them behind. It is a 
disgrace. We have locked these children in schools where they cannot 
learn because there is violence, because there are drugs, and because 
the school system simply will not respond to the needs of those 
children.

  What I am suggesting in this amendment is a small step--a two-tenths 
of 1 percent step compared to what we spend in the rest of title I in 
this bill--to be applied to a demonstration--$50 million--to see if we 
can determine whether or not the option of giving children a private 
school choice is going to improve their academic achievement. It is 
hardly a big expense in the context of what we have done, but if you 
look at it in the context of what the results have been in communities 
such as Milwaukee and Dayton and Charlotte and the State of Florida, 
the returns may be overwhelming.
  This could be the best investment we make in this entire bill in 
terms of giving kids an opportunity to learn and participate in the 
American dream.
  Are parents satisfied with this option? If you look at the States and 
the communities that have used this approach, parents are 
extraordinarily satisfied.
  In Charlotte, nearly twice as many choice parents gave their 
children's school an A rating as did those parents whose kids went to 
public schools.
  In Milwaukee, 72 percent of the parents with kids going to private 
schools gave their kids' school an A rating as compared to 16 percent 
for the public schools.
  So the impact is significant. The parents see it and, most 
importantly, the children see it in their better chance to participate 
in America.
  One of those images that stands out from when I was a kid watching 
TV--and I do not even remember the Governor's full name; I guess it was 
Faubus, from Arkansas--I remember the National Guard going up to the 
school. I must have been in the first grade or so or maybe I was in the 
third grade. The National Guard went up to the school door, and this 
elected official, who was the Governor of the State, was standing in 
the school door saying he was not going to let this child, who seemed 
to be a little bit older than me, about the age of my brother--I think 
it was a girl--in the school. I could not understand it. Of course, we 
learned this was wrong. And we changed our Nation because of it.
  Today what we have are people standing in that school door not 
letting kids out, locking them in those schools which are not teaching 
them. And why? Why are they doing that? Because the bureaucracy and the 
labor unions fear the option of giving parents a choice. It is that 
simple.
  This is not about education. This is about the power of political 
groups to influence the process. When you have lost generation after 
generation of kids to schools that are failing, when you have 9,000 
schools in this country that are designated as failing, and those 
schools have failed for 4 and 5 and 6 and 8 years, and you know that 
every child who goes through that school is not going to have a chance 
to participate in the American dream, Miss King is right, a civil right 
is being denied--absolutely being denied to those children--simply 
because they do not have the wherewithal to get out of that school and 
get a decent education.
  In this bill we attempt to improve those schools that have failed. We 
make a huge commitment in that area. But we know we are not going to be 
successful everywhere. We know that. We know that in some urban areas 
the schools simply are not going to cut it, and the kids who go to 
those schools are going to be left behind.
  We have an obligation, I believe, to at least find out whether or not 
there isn't a better way, to first give that child an option to get a 
decent education and, second, to put real pressure on that public 
school system to improve.
  We have seen it work in Milwaukee. We have seen it work in Charlotte. 
We have seen it work in Florida. And for a small amount of $50 million, 
we can see whether it can work here with the Federal Government, 
targeted solely on the child who comes from a low-income family and who 
is stuck in a school that has failed for 3 consistent years.
  I can't see how this amendment can be opposed, other than on the 
grounds that it affronts the power politics of Washington, DC, which 
are structured around bureaucracies and labor unions that will at all 
costs defend their turf, even if that cost involves a child's 
education.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas such time as he 
may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, for his leadership on this issue. He has outlined 
not only what this amendment is but what it would do and why it is so 
important.
  It would enable 10 interested cities, 3 interested States, to provide 
low-income parents with the option to send their children to the public 
or private school of their choice. The Secretary of Education would 
award grant money to these interested cities and States based on their 
application.
  Under the amendment, special consideration would be given to 
applications which sought to serve the highest number of children from 
low-income families and that provided parents with a diverse range of 
schools from which to choose. No money would be taken away from public 
schools for this program. Whether it is title I or IDEA, there would be 
a hold harmless. Nobody would be reduced. A pool of money of $50 
million would be established in fiscal year 2002 to be used for this 
new program.
  Only children who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, 
children from families at 185 percent of poverty or below, and who 
attend a school that has been identified as failing for 3 successive 
years would be eligible to receive educational certificates for tuition 
under this amendment.
  There is also a strong evaluation component to this program. It 
requires the Secretary of Education to contract with an independent 
evaluating entity to conduct an ongoing evaluation of the program. For 
all the doubters out there, we would at least be able to provide the 
data, to provide the evidence one way or another on whether choice 
really benefits students and parents and, in fact, improves public 
schools.
  The Center on Education Policy, an independent advocate for public 
schools, states in their report entitled ``School Vouchers: What We 
Know and Don't Know and How We Could Learn More,'' evaluation 
requirements are important to any public policy on school choice.
  This little pittance of $50 million for the entire Nation could 
provide us the kind of database we need, the kind of evidence, the kind 
of analysis to allow public policymakers of the future to know. Senator 
Gregg and I may have the confidence--we may believe the

[[Page S6065]]

evidence is there--but this demonstration program will provide the kind 
of evidence needed to convince policymakers, both at the State and 
Federal level, of the value of a choice program.
  The idea of school choice is not at all new. It has been around for 
years. We currently have three high-profile school choice programs in 
Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Florida. There are a number of others around 
the country. They offer a money-back guarantee to parents of children 
in failing schools.
  Taxpayers deserve to get results from funding that goes to public 
schools. After 35 years and $120 billion in Federal funding, it is time 
we hold schools accountable for enabling our children to reach high 
standards.
  In my own thinking, as I have cosponsored this amendment and thought 
about the issue of what is the legitimate role of the Federal 
Government, do we have a role, I believe it must be very limited. I do 
believe, however, that a demonstration program that targets only low-
income students--and that has been the basis upon which the Federal 
Government has involved itself in a domain that has been historically 
left to State and local entities; we have said the Federal Government 
has a responsibility for disadvantaged students in trying to narrow the 
learning gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students--fits the 
proper Federal role. This amendment targets directly those who are 
disadvantaged. Only low-income students from low-income families would 
be able to access these education certificates.

  In my own mind, I have outlined five reasons I believe this amendment 
should be passed. No. 1, it is totally voluntary and permissive. We are 
talking about 10 cities in 3 States. No one would be forced. There 
would be no compulsion. I know some of my colleagues from Western 
States do not support the idea of choice. They don't see that as 
advantageous in their particular situation. I understand that. I ask 
them--not for what it might do for their rural States in which there 
are few choices and in which schools are widely diverse and separated 
by many miles--to think, as they vote on the amendment, not about their 
States, because it will not affect them, but about those children 
trapped in failing schools in the inner cities of our country, to think 
about inner-city Philadelphia or inner-city Washington, DC, or Atlanta 
or Houston where the Secretary of Education understands the value of 
this kind of a program and has endorsed this very concept.
  No one would be forced to be involved. There is no compulsion. There 
would be an independent entity to evaluate and determine whether or not 
this was a worthwhile approach.
  A report prepared by the National Research Council and commissioned 
by the Clinton administration recommends that Government conduct ``a 
large and ambitious research experiment to determine whether school 
choice programs improve student performance.'' That was the 
recommendation of a study commissioned by the Clinton administration, 
issued in 1999, that said this is exactly the kind of large-scale 
experiment--if you can call $50 million nationwide large scale--to give 
us the answers to the questions posed concerning the value of a choice 
program.
  I believe choice opponents, those who oppose the idea of allowing 
parents this kind of choice, should support this amendment. If in fact 
they are right, this will give them the data to put the stake, finally, 
in the idea of choice programs.
  It is totally voluntary. It is entirely permissive. I hope my 
colleagues who have reservations about choice will support this 
amendment, realizing that no school district and no State would be 
required to participate. It is entirely permissive. Only those who are 
interested, only those who, on their own volition, decide they want to 
experiment, they want to try, they want to be a part of this 
demonstration program, will even be affected.
  No. 2, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because in fact 
it does target and benefit those for whom we have our greatest 
concern--low-income families. It would only be failing schools, those 
who have failed year after year after year. The certificates would only 
be for children who are eligible for free and reduced lunch.
  We have a form of choice in this country right now. The choice, 
though, is limited to your ability to move to a new neighborhood. I am 
told that in Dallas, TX, there are about 158 local schools. Affluent 
families are limited in their choice of what elementary school to go to 
only by their ability to buy a home in that particular neighborhood.
  Those who have the means to relocate--and it happens here in the 
Washington, DC, area. When people think about buying a home or a 
townhouse, they will investigate the neighborhood, the schools, the 
crime rate, and they will check out where the best schools are, which 
schools have the best teachers, which schools produce the best academic 
product. They will make their determination of where they want to 
locate, buy their townhouse, or build their home based upon the quality 
of the schools. They have their choice.
  But those who have no choice are those who are trapped by a limited 
income and limited resources and cannot make the decision that their 
more affluent neighbors can make to move to a better neighborhood. 
Those low-income families are trapped. They have no choice.
  My friends, we have a choice program in this country. The choice is 
whether we want to extend those choices to those today who are left 
out, who don't have the resources. This amendment targets only those 
who are in the title I category, those who are low income.
  In August of 2000, Dr. Jay Greene issued a report entitled ``The 
Effective School Choice and Evaluation of the Charlotte Children 
Scholarship Fund.'' He released the results of that study on the 
Charlotte scholarship program. Among the study's findings, he found 
that school choice improved scores, pleased parents, provided a safer 
environment, reduced racial conflict, operated with less money, and 
offered smaller class sizes and helped low-income parents.
  In early 2000, John Witt, a professor of the University of Wisconsin, 
Milwaukee, the official evaluator of the Milwaukee school choice 
program, released the results of that latest study. His prior reports, 
which often had been critical of the Milwaukee choice program and 
basically concluded they didn't work, most recently changed his 
conclusions and said the market approach to education and analysis of 
America's voucher program said that ``choice is a useful tool to aid 
low-income families.''
  That is the reason I ask my colleagues to join in supporting this 
amendment because it is targeting only the most disadvantaged. The 
argument so often raised against vouchers is this is only going to 
benefit higher income people making the choice to go to private schools 
and this is going to make it easier for them to flee the public schools 
for the private schools. You cannot make that case under this 
amendment. It targets and it is limited only to failing schools and 
low-income families.
  Low-income academic improvement has been undisputed in the choice 
programs in this country. In August of 2000, Harvard University 
professor Paul Peterson and his colleagues released the results of a 
study of a privately funded voucher program in New York, in Dayton, OH, 
and in the District of Columbia. They found that African-American 
children who used vouchers to attend private schools made significant 
academic improvements. Black students in their second year at a private 
school had improved their test scores by 6.3 percentile points--a 
striking advance at a time when schools around the country were showing 
an inability to close the achievement gap between white and African-
American students.
  If we are really concerned, as we insist we are, in increasing title 
I funding because of our concern about disadvantaged students, everyone 
who says that should support this amendment because it can only benefit 
those who are least advantaged today.
  Another piece of evidence is that test scores of low-income children 
are consistently improving when they are placed in schools with middle-
income children. For example, a congressionally mandated 4-year study 
of about 27,000 title I students found that poor students who attended 
middle-class schools performed significantly better than those who 
attended schools where

[[Page S6066]]

at least half the children were eligible for subsidized lunch. The 
contrast was even greater with schools in which more than 75 percent of 
students lived in low-income households. I think that is very 
compelling; that this kind of a demonstration program, this kind of a 
choice opportunity is going to be particularly beneficial academically 
for low-income, disadvantaged students who now would be able to be 
shoulder to shoulder in a school that had higher income students--what 
we call middle and upper middle class students. The evidence is that 
when put in that classroom context, academic scores go up. I ask my 
colleagues to support this amendment because, in fact, it targets and 
benefits the most needy--low-income students.
  Thirdly, it takes absolutely nothing from the public schools. No 
State will lose money. Not a State in this country would see their 
portion of Federal funding reduced because of this amendment. There 
would be no title I reductions; there would be no IDEA impact. All of 
the kinds of traditional arguments we hear against choice programs are 
taken off the table by this amendment. No school would lose money; no 
public school would be hurt. It would merely provide an opportunity--a 
small opportunity indeed--for $50 million statewide, 3 States, 10 
cities--but it would begin to give us the evidence we need, and it 
would give hope to a few who would be able to participate in this 
demonstration program.
  It answers the main concern that opponents have raised, and that is 
that it is taking money away from public schools. It will not do that. 
I think that is evidenced by the fact the Washington Post endorsed the 
Gregg amendment. Everybody--all my colleagues--has on their desk a copy 
of that endorsement. Their concern has been that these kinds of choice 
programs are going to take money away from the public schools or they 
are going to only benefit higher income people. This amendment 
addresses both of those concerns. That is why the Washington Post has 
endorsed this amendment, because it targets the low income and will 
have no negative impact on public schools.
  Fourthly, I ask Senators to support this amendment because this whole 
concept is, in fact, immensely popular. It is supported by the vast 
majority of the American people--this kind of idea to give parents more 
choices and more opportunities.
  For example, a congressionally mandated 4-year study of about 27,000 
title I students--I made reference to that, but they showed great 
academic improvement. The popularity of this program is becoming 
increasingly beyond dispute.
  In March 2001, the National Education Association released their 
findings from a recent survey in which a clear majority of the American 
people supported the President's proposal to allow parents of children 
in chronically failing schools to use public dollars to send their 
children to a public, private, or charter school of choice. In fact, 63 
percent favored giving them tuition vouchers worth $1,500 a year, as 
the President originally proposed.
  Frankly, I wish we had done what the President campaigned on and what 
he proposed doing, in taking part of that title I money, the Federal 
dollars, for low-income children, and in chronically failing schools 
that failed in 3 successive years, giving them the opportunity to take 
that money and use it in private schools, with tutors. That has been 
watered down, diluted, and basically removed. All that remains is 
supplemental services, not a voucher at all. I wish we had done that. 
The American people supported that. But we didn't and we are where we 
are. This is our opportunity to at least give it a try. It is supported 
and is very popular.
  Senator Gregg cited the statistics during his opening comments that 
last year the Children's Scholarship Foundation, a private scholarship 
fund, offered 40,000 scholarships nationwide and had one and a quarter 
million applicants. Maybe that is the best evidence. Maybe that is the 
best evidence of the popularity of this approach. Those one and a 
quarter million applications were in spite of the fact that applicants 
had to match the scholarship with $1,000 of their own money. Low-
income, poor families were willing to put up $1,000 in order to be able 
to participate, to have the choice that wealthier, higher income people 
have every day.

  This is a popular concept. It is something we as a Senate, we as a 
Congress, should give a trial opportunity--or fail. We should not 
buckle under to the teachers unions and those who are wedded to the 
status quo. If we are concerned about leaving no child behind, this is 
an amendment that ought to get overwhelming support in the Senate.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it fosters 
competition and innovation. I believe competition between private 
schools and public schools benefits all children in this country.
  I have often used the analogy of our higher education in this 
country. We have, indisputably, the best higher educational system in 
the world. Travel the world; we find leaders in most of the countries 
of this world who have received part of their higher education in the 
United States. Foreign students flock to this country to receive the 
best in higher education. How did we achieve that? We created a system 
of Pell grants. One can take that Pell grant and go anywhere, any 
accredited institution: public, private, parochial or otherwise. That 
competition has enhanced the quality and the academic standing of all 
of our institutions of higher learning. It has fostered innovation and 
made our colleges and universities world class by all standards.
  Then we look at elementary, look at high school, and see between 4th 
grade and 12th grade this steep decline in our competitiveness with 
other nations. The difference is, in higher education, there is choice; 
in elementary and secondary, there is no choice unless you are wealthy 
enough to take advantage, unless you have the resources. Then you have 
choice.
  Why should we not give low-income parents the same opportunity, the 
same choices, the same chance to give their children the opportunity to 
live the American dream that their more affluent neighbors have? That 
is the heart, that is the crux of the Gregg amendment.
  I believe, as we have seen in Milwaukee, public schools will improve 
and academic achievement for all students will improve. It is one of 
the interesting things about the Jay Greene study on the Florida A+ 
program. It was not just the students who were beneficiaries but the 
public school institutions that are the winners. He found when a public 
school failed for the second time and they began to have the threat 
that some of their students might depart and receive opportunity 
scholarships to go elsewhere hanging over them, suddenly those test 
scores began to increase. In fact, they increased twice as much as 
those test score achievements in other schools. So the schools of all 
stripes are the winners under a program such as this. That competition 
is healthy.
  America today has, whether we admit it or not, a nationwide school 
choice system. It is a school choice system that is rationed, rationed 
educational opportunity, through the housing market--where you can 
afford to live. If you can afford to move out into the suburbs, if you 
can afford to go and pick your neighborhood where the good schools are, 
you have your choice.
  We have a very class conscious choice system in this country. The 
Gregg amendment says shouldn't those who stand to gain the most, those 
who are the most disadvantaged, those who are in the lowest income 
homes, have some choices, too? They have been locked out of those 
choices. They have been trapped in failing schools. They don't have the 
opportunity to move away from their neighborhood. When given the 
chance, through private scholarships, limited as any are, the private 
scholarship students have taken those opportunities because they know 
what is at stake is the children's future.

  That is why I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment--not just 
to write it off as a choice program that may or may not benefit your 
particular State, or to write it off and say, I have always said I 
oppose choice so I will vote against this without even examining what 
it does or who it targets, or to say, I don't want to take the heat I 
might receive from the National Education Association or other groups 
that are wedded to this system we have had for 35 years. If we believe 
our commitment and our responsibility as Federal

[[Page S6067]]

public policymakers is to help low-income, help disadvantaged kids, 
then look at this amendment.
  I remind my colleagues again, it takes nothing away from the public 
schools. It does not diminish by one dime the resources they have. It 
targets only the low income.
  Let's give it a chance. Look at the data: $50 million, 3 States, 10 
cities. Let's give the most needy in our society the same choice the 
most affluent already have.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for his excellent statement and yield 
to the Senator from Tennessee 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be brief. I rise in support of the 
Gregg amendment. The amendment is locally initiated, limited in scope, 
and voluntary. It is a pilot program. It takes nothing away from other 
educational funds. It involves a rigorous evaluation to monitor whether 
the pilot program is successful.
  The power of this amendment is in how it addresses the underlying 
premise of leaving no child behind, the premise that no child should be 
locked in a failing school, a school that fails year after year after 
year. It gives parents the right to do what is best for their own 
children, giving them opportunities, giving them alternatives if their 
children are locked in a failing school.
  Imagine a married couple making $30,000 a year. Their fourth grade 
daughter attends a school which fails to meet national standards. This 
school is failing to adequately education their daughter. The parents 
know their daughter's future depends on the education she receives from 
the school she attends.
  The daughter graduates to the fifth grade, and again, things do not 
seem quite right. At the end of the year, by national standards, they 
find, once again, this school their daughter is attending has failed 
and has not improved. Again, they know their daughter's future depends 
on the quality of the education she receives in reading, math, and 
science. She goes on to the sixth grade.
  At the end of the sixth grade, she is not progressing. In fact, she 
may be one of the 30 or 40 percent of the students who are proficient 
at only a very basic educational level. These parents have sent their 
daughter to a school which has failed to adequately education her for 3 
years. As things now stand, these parents have no choice to improve 
their daughter's education. She is trapped in a school that is failing.
  They only make $30,000. They watch, as some of their neighbors who 
earn a middle class or higher income leave the school district. Their 
neighbors have a choice because of their personal income. By moving, 
they say: we will not allow our children to continue in this failing 
school year after year after year because it destroys the opportunity 
for our children to experience the American dream we talked about this 
morning. But the parents of this daughter don't have that option. They 
can't afford to move. They only make $25,000 or $30,000. They have no 
choice. They are trapped. They are trapped.

  This is the focus of the amendment at hand. For the first time, low 
income families--those who earn less than $32,000 a year--will have the 
opportunity to choose. They will be able to remove their children from 
a school which has failed for one, two, three years and place them in 
another educational facility so their children have the opportunity to 
realize that American dream.
  This is why I believe so strongly in this pilot program proposed in 
the amendment put forth by the Senator from New Hampshire. This 
amendment gives parents a right to do what is best for their child. We 
have too many failing schools today. Nine thousand schools in our 
country have been identified as failing, and many of those schools have 
failed for 4 years and 6 years and 8 years. These are the sorts of 
school districts we hope to give this voluntary opportunity, this 
choice, this option for parents to do what is best for their child.
  There is broad support on this issue, as the Senator from Arkansas 
has pointed out. Parents, especially low-income parents, broadly 
support school choice. The Children's Scholarship Fund is a nonprofit 
private foundation which provides K-12 scholarships for low-income 
families. When they put out their call for applications, over 1.25 
million applications from around the country came from poor families. 
Right here in the District of Columbia, 33 percent of the families 
eligible for those scholarships applied.
  A recent poll conducted for the National Education Association found 
that 63 percent of Americans support choice for children who attend 
failing schools. Support for choice is highest within the African-
American community.
  This amendment is good for public schools. Again, as pointed out, 
competition is a factor that we know produces quality products and 
services in America today. In order to improve our public schools, 
competition must enter the educational equation. This is one step in 
the right direction.
  Second, this amendment is locally initiated. The application must be 
made at the local level. Washington must not force choice on a local 
community. This amendment simply opens the door for those who wish to 
participate in this pilot project. It empowers State and local 
education authorities to initiate this program.
  Lastly, it is limited in scope. To qualify, families must meet two 
criteria: Families must earn less than $32,000 a year and must attend a 
school which has been failing for 3 years.
  For these reasons, I urge support for and ultimately passage of this 
very important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Tennessee.
  I yield to the Senator from Alabama 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire 
for his leadership and dedication on this issue. He cares about 
children deeply. He cares about public education. He wants to see it 
more successful. This is not some sort of plan to weaken public 
education.
  As I have listened to him discuss his vision for making sure children 
are not trapped in schools that are utterly failing and having their 
futures damaged, I have become convinced, as much as I believe in 
public education, that this is a project we ought to try. We ought to 
allow this opportunity for alternative ways, particularly in programs 
for low-income children in failing schools, and let's see how it works.
  I think it is appropriate for the Federal Government to utilize money 
under these circumstances to help analyze, through very effective 
examination of these programs, whether or not they are working. If it 
is clearly a benefit, maybe we ought to do more. If it is not a 
benefit, maybe that will be the end of it.
  I certainly think allowing 3 States that voluntarily choose to 
participate in this program, 10 cities that voluntarily choose to 
participate--not who are made to participate; it is their option if 
they would like to participate in this program--let's try it, but let's 
monitor it, let's watch it, let's see how it goes. I think we may find 
progress will be made.
  We do know one thing for sure. There are nearly 9,000 schools in 
America that have been identified as failing, many of those for a 
number of years, some 4, 6, 8 years failing consistently. I think it is 
inconceivable--really immoral--not to take some steps to deal with that 
circumstance.
  These children are falling behind in those schools. Those children 
have to be falling behind. They are not receiving the quality of 
education other children are receiving in succeeding schools. It is 
difficult for them. They come, many of them, from not an ideal home 
life, and then they are sent to a school system that is failing. No 
wonder they tend to have great difficulty.
  What can we do for them? I was a U.S. attorney for a long time. A lot 
of people haven't thought about this very clearly, but the law requires 
them to go to that school. They do not have any choice whatsoever. If 
they live a few blocks over this way, they may be in a school that is 
quite successful, but because they are in this school district, they 
must, by law--all over America, that is the pattern--they must go to 
that school. They are ordered to go to that school. Many times they are 
being ordered year after year, week after

[[Page S6068]]

week, day after day, to go to a school that is not functioning and is 
not succeeding.
  There is something wrong about that. I know people, as the Senator 
from Arkansas said, who check out the school district, and they have 
the money to decide where they want to live, and they move to a 
district where they are comfortable. People know the schools that are 
working and the ones that are not. I think we can do better.
  This is a voluntary program for only 3 States if 3 States apply, 10 
cities if 10 cities apply, to let them try these programs under a 
strict evaluation process. I believe it can be helpful for America.
  The moneys that will support this will not in any way come from 
existing programs. It will provide new money but not a whole lot of 
money to make this occur. It requires families be poorer families, not 
people who have the money themselves to perhaps take advantage of 
choice. No title I money will be spent. Rather, an additional $50 
million will be made available to the handful of cities and States that 
choose to participate in this program. It provides additional resources 
to carry out this demonstration project that I believe will work.

  The evaluation that will occur is going to be healthy. It is going to 
examine and measure student achievement in the alternative situation. 
It is going to measure parental involvement in education with parental 
involvement increased. It is going to evaluate the satisfaction of 
parents and all involved in the program. And it will evaluate the 
overall impact on the performance of the public school system. In other 
words, if it is damaging the public school system, we will find that 
out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will just wrap up and say the Secretary of Education, 
Dr. Paige, tried it in Houston, a huge school system--I ask for 1 
minute to wrap up--favors this idea.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We have no objection.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator 1 minute.
  Mr. SESSIONS. He said in Houston it made them better. In the first 
year or two, they lost some students and people complained. He said: I 
supported it. If people could get a better education somewhere else, it 
was all right with me. I cared about those children. But--he said--do 
you know what happened? We improved our school system so much in 
Houston that as years went by they were coming from private schools to 
the public schools; the public schools grew at the expense of private 
schools because we got better. He said there is no way a private school 
can succeed and beat a public school in the long term, if it is run 
right.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will yield myself 30 minutes. I would 
like to be reminded when I use 25.
  H.L. Mencken said at one time that for every complex problem, there 
is a simple easy answer, and it is wrong. That is what we have here, a 
simple, easy answer to all the problems we are facing in our troubled 
schools across this country, and it is basically and fundamentally 
wrong; it does not work.
  I will take the time to illustrate the flawed nature of this 
amendment, and those Members with further interest are welcome to 
contact our office, and we will provide a more detailed account of the 
state of education in each of the cities that host voucher programs. 
These programs have not worked. Vouchers do not work. Furthermore, this 
is not really a debate about true ``choice'' because, under this 
amendment, parents would not exercise a choice. Schools would exercise 
a choice.
  It is not a parent, it is not a 30-year-old mother with a single 
child who makes a decision to go to a private school. That is malarkey. 
That does not exist. Under this amendment, the decision is made by the 
school.
  I have listened to speeches time and time again state that 
approximately $130 billion has been expended on title I, but we haven't 
seen increased academic achievement among the nation's students in 
need. Meanwhile, America spends nearly $400 billion annually on 
elementary and secondary education. Those skeptical of increasing 
funding for education cite $130 billion over 20 years or 30 years. The 
real reason we have poor schools and low student achievement is that we 
have not yet stepped up to the plate. Federal dollars provide only 7 
cents of every dollar spent on education in this country. The remainder 
of the responsibility rests with States and local communities. It is 
the responsibility of States and local communities to provide local 
schools with the help that they need to succeed. We are trying to 
address this issue at the federal level, but cannot do it alone. I 
think we have a good bill that can make a difference if it is 
adequately funded.
  With all respect to my colleagues, they have spoken about about 
leaving no children behind, yet they leave two-thirds of the children 
behind with the funding currently provided for Title I. In the past, we 
have shed crocodile tears all over the Senate floor about leaving 
children behind. They are already being left behind, and that is wrong. 
As the allocations of current funds demonstrate, and under the current 
budget proposed by the President, 3.7 million children will be provided 
funding. Under the Dodd-Collins amendment, we have proposed funding for 
5.7 million children, building up to full funding. That amendment has 
now been accepted to this bill.
  Along with an oratory on leaving no child behind, let's also ensure 
that we truly do not leave children behind. Let's commit to securing 
the funds so that no children are left behind. And with that, we really 
need to dismiss this voucher argument. If we really are interested in 
no child being left behind, then let's make sure that we aren't going 
to leave them behind.
  My friends and colleagues again provide the same talking points on 
failing schools. They are good talking points. But they are only good. 
They are not terribly good. We currently have approximately 10,000 
schools. It would cost $1.8 billion to turn these schools into high-
performing schools. But are those funds in the budget? Are those funds 
requested by the President? No. If we are serious about turning those 
schools around, we know how to do it. It takes reforms and it takes 
investment. We are on the road to success with the reforms, but we have 
not yet seen the investment.
  Supporters of this amendment also claim that the $50 million to fund 
this program will not come from Title I. If not from Title I, then from 
where? This investment in vouchers has been portrayed as an investment 
that would not siphon funds in the federal budget away from education. 
Where in the world is this magic $50 million coming from? I don't know 
where it is. It is out here. They keep referring to it. I think we 
ought to take that magical pot with a never-ending fountain, invest it, 
and try to do something that is going to make a difference; that is, 
address the problems of failing schools. That is what we ought to be 
doing. But that is not the proposal here. This $50 million is, of 
course, money that could otherwise be spent in terms of helping and 
assisting schools. Under this amendment, schools in need of assistance 
would lose.
  First of all, all of us understand the importance of the public 
school system and what a difference it has made in the hopes and dreams 
of families all over this country. I went to private school. I have a 
grandchild going to a public school, and nieces and nephews who go to 
public schools. Most of them are going to private schools. But I was 
able to go to a public school with good teachers. I was able to go to a 
school that had a curriculum that was a good curriculum. I was able to 
benefit from those.

  We are trying to say let's try to do what we know works, and do that 
for children all over this country. We know what works in education. 
But vouchers don't. I will come to that. We know what works.
  We have invested in what works--not completely the way I would like. 
But it isn't completely the way that I know my friend, Senator Gregg, 
would like, or that President Bush would like. It is a compromise. But 
it is one that we can defend, if it is funded and invested in, because 
we are going to make sure that we are going to get better trained 
teachers and have opportunities to have smaller class sizes. And there 
are going to be evaluations on that.

[[Page S6069]]

  I don't know how many times I have listened to my friends and 
colleagues over here talk about why this is different. You know why 
this is different. It is because in the old days, we just provided the 
resources but we didn't have the accountability. In the old days, we 
provided funds to States to use to build swimming pools and purchase 
football uniforms. States did not target funds to the neediest children 
with block grants.
  We will continue to provide funding for our neediest children, but we 
are going to have accountability. That is the President's proposal, and 
that is our proposal. He wants annual assessments in the third grade 
and the eighth grade. Those assessments will help States measure 
progress. If schools don't measure up with annual yearly progress, 
States will take action. They will provide the resources to reform 
schools, and reconstitute them if necessary.
  Hello. Not with the schools to which Mr. Gregg wants to permit these 
children to go. No, no. There is no guarantee in this amendment with 
that plea about that matter. I want to talk to that matter. If that 
matter happens to be limited English speaking, forget about going to 
these schools. Do you understand that? Forget about it. They do not 
have to take your child. And they don't, more often than not. If your 
child has a disability, forget about going because they do not have to 
take your child. IDEA doesn't apply to this. There is reference in here 
that IDEA applies. But it doesn't apply to private schools. If they are 
disabled, forget about going. If they have a disability, forget about 
bringing your child in. If you are a homeless or migrant student, you 
will not be guaranteed services. You have no guarantee. Forget about 
going to that school.
  Do you get the picture?
  It is very interesting. According to a 1998 survey conducted in 
conjunction with a Department of Education study on public school 
students and private schools, private schools indicated that, if they 
were required to accept public school students--look at this: Randomly 
assigned. What about saying there are a lot of children in that school, 
and all of them want to go to a particular school. Let's take randomly 
assigned students who go to a public school and later to a private 
school. Entrants decline by one-half. And 68 percent of private schools 
indicated that they would be unwilling to accept students with learning 
disabilities. 68 percent would be unwilling to accept students with 
limited English proficiency.
  Under this condition, the percentage of schools that would definitely 
be willing to participate declines from 77 to 36 percent.

  Hello. This great experiment in democracy of making sure that every 
child is going to have this choice and not have the needy schools that 
are failing on that, basically it is going to be a decision for private 
schools to make a judgment with regard to who they want, and make a 
conscious selection.
  The idea that this is going to open doors for parents whose children 
are in failing schools as a way out raises a false hope, and it is one 
that should be rejected.
  We are strongly committed to trying to do something about it. I know 
the Senator from New Hampshire is strongly committed. We know what has 
to be done. We are going to ensure that, with real accountability, 
schools will take steps to make sure they make annual, yearly progress, 
even based upon the existing tests in the old 1994 act which States 
already have in place. Schools will constantly have to make progress.
  There is going to be a range of supplementary services available to 
children. They are going to have additional options to go to public 
schools if they need to. There will be afterschool programs available 
to them. There will be summer programs available to them.
  As we accepted last night, there will be funding for creative summer 
programs which we have seen work in Boston last year. In those 
programs, they tied employment to reading. And children in that 
program, after 6 weeks of employment, increased their reading scores by 
1.7 years. That is real progress taking place. We are strongly 
committed to that. But we want to provide that for all the children.
  That is our commitment--high achievement for all children. Of course 
all of these parents who are faced with the prospect that their 
children will not make progress in the schools, if someone offers them 
a phony lifeline and says this is going to answer your problem, 
everybody is going to vote for that particular kind of opportunity. But 
that isn't being true to the complete picture.
  We are trying to say we know what works. We are going to invest in 
these programs. We are going to move all of these children along 
together because we are one nation with one history and one destiny. We 
are all going to move along together.
  That is what this commitment ought to be--not just to try to find 
some way that perhaps that one child or two children can move on. Good 
for them. But we want everyone to move along together. That is what our 
commitment is.
  Private schools are not required to have assessments in their 
programs in the manner that the President has talked about. They are 
able to be selective about who will attend their schools. We are 
considering a proposal to divert scarce resources away from the 
nation's public school systems, where 90 percent of America's children 
receive an education.
  If we find that the children going to the private schools today would 
like to go to the public schools, do you know what percent could 
go? Four percent. Of all of them, 4 percent could go to private 
schools. So what are we saying out there? Are we going to have an 
experiment that is going to be out there, and only 4 percent can go? 
This makes no sense.

  Now let's get back to the facts about whether there are any 
meaningful, positive results from these experiments, in the first 
place, where they have been tried.
  The first 5 years of the Milwaukee voucher program showed no 
achievement differences between voucher students and comparable 
students. That is from the University of Wisconsin at Madison report, 
their 5-year report. It is the Witte study.
  Followup studies found that voucher students made no gains in reading 
and only small gains in math. In fact, low-income students in Milwaukee 
public schools that reduced class size outperformed voucher students in 
reading and did as well as voucher students in math. That is the 
Princeton study.
  Cecilia Rouse, 1998, a State-sponsored independent evaluation of the 
first year of Cleveland's voucher program, conducted by researchers in 
Indiana--not up at Harvard, not at Yale, not at Princeton; in Indiana--
found no significant achievement difference in all subjects between 
voucher students and comparable public school students. In the second 
year there were no achievement differences, except a slight advantage 
for voucher students in languages.
  The recent Jay Greene study on the effects of vouchers in Florida is 
also in serious question. Many researchers found that the Florida 
vouchers did not enhance reform in public schools, other factors did. 
Some researchers did suggest that the threat of vouchers for students 
failing public schools caused math and writing gains among Florida's 
lowest performing public schools to increase. But Greene's research 
overestimates the effect of being designated a failing school and 
offers no evidence that the higher estimate test score gains by failing 
schools should be attributed to the threat of vouchers.
  What else? We could go down the list. I have the studies for 
virtually all of the voucher programs here. We can take some time and 
go through this. Later perhaps, in the afternoon, we will have an 
opportunity to go through them. I will include in the Record the 
analysis of the cities that have been mentioned in this debate, and 
others, in a very limited way, and ask they be printed in the Record so 
as to demonstrate that.
  On the contrary, where have we seen the most progress made? Have we 
seen the most progress made in any State which has had vouchers? No. 
The most progress that has been made is in the State of North Carolina. 
In the State of North Carolina, public school reforms have been similar 
to those in Florida and have been initiated without vouchers, and 
student achievements have risen. The results are further reason to 
doubt the effectiveness of vouchers in public school reform.

[[Page S6070]]

  The achievements in North Carolina have been notable. Every review, 
every evaluation, every examination, and every study finds 
unequivocally that North Carolina has made this significant and 
dramatic progress.
  Here are the Rand studies. The Rand studies show that the gains in 
Texas and/or North Carolina, in both reading and math, were much higher 
than the average State gains and close to that of the State with the 
highest gains. If we were to average the gains across the States, North 
Carolina and Texas show the highest average gain among all the States. 
Do they have vouchers? No.
  Here are the two States that are doing, what? In the bill we are 
investing in well-trained teachers, professional development, smaller 
class sizes, safer schools, afterschool programs, working with schools 
that are in trouble, as North Carolina does, in terms of closing down 
effectively the schools and putting them under new leadership, and 
bringing around new curriculum with new evaluations to benefit the 
children, having summer school programs--all of those that are out 
there--and having early reading programs, which is one of the areas 
Governor Hunt was so concerned with and is shown to be so important and 
successful, and a program included in this legislation providing for 
early reading programs.

  I wish we could expand that. It is $75 million. That ought to be 
expanded for a nation when we know what is happening. Why are we 
talking, on the one hand, vouchers, for which there is virtually no 
evidence--we can stand around here all day and talk about the different 
tests, but the fact is, when you take the review of States that have 
made meaningful progress in terms of advancing academic achievement, 
they are not relying on vouchers, they are relying on the kinds of 
things we have in this legislation.
  I find this proposal enormously troublesome for other reasons as 
well. If you look at the ``eligible entity'':

       The term ``eligible entity'' means a public agency, 
     institution, or organization, such as a State--

  This does not say it is going to go through the local superintendent 
of schools--

     a State or local educational agency, a county or municipal 
     agency, a consortium of public agencies, or a consortium of 
     public agencies and private nonprofit organizations, that can 
     demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary. . . .

  I do not quite understand this, in any event, because I wonder if in 
Boston the superintendent and the mayor say, ``We don't want it,'' and 
then they are able to go out and the Secretary gets some other public 
agency. It appears to me they would be eligible to develop a voucher 
system in a community. I would have thought at least they would want 
the superintendent of schools to say that, to give them the authority 
and the responsibility.
  I think we ought to get back to the fundamentals. We know what works. 
And we know what works is investing and taking advantage of the kinds 
of things that have happened in this country over the period of these 
recent years, and building on those. We know what a difference that can 
make in terms of the children of this country and having well-trained 
teachers in the classroom, having the smaller class sizes, having a 
well-thought-out curriculum, having evaluations of the progress 
children are making with well-thought-out examinations and tests--not 
tests that are just a mechanical rote of knowledge, but also a thinking 
process for these children--helping and assisting with supplementary 
services, summer programs, afterschool programs, doing all of that.
  There are schools that are not going to measure up. We are taking the 
kinds of items that are included in this bill, in terms of over a 
period of years, and putting the emphasis and stress on math and 
reading. They have the high priorities in the bill. This is what works. 
If we adopted this amendment, we would be drawing down scarce resources 
that would otherwise be used--make no mistake about it--to benefit all 
of the children. If we took those resources out and used them on a 
program that is largely discriminatory--because it does not give the 
guarantee of choice to the child or to the parent. It still makes the 
choice in the school's interest, not the child's interest. It does not 
provide for how that child is going to be evaluated. It completely is 
exempt from all the kinds of evaluation this President has talked 
about. How can you have that?

  He talks about having evaluations and making sure children are going 
to learn and insists they have the annual test. And on the other hand 
he says, if you go to a private school, you don't have to do any of 
that.
  What is happening here? What possible sense does that make? And he 
leaves it up to the school to make the judgment and decision, and 
without giving the protection to many of the children whether they are 
disabled children, limited-English children, other children with any 
kind of special needs. I think that is a failure.
  Let us take the resources we have available and invest them in our 
children, invest in their future, invest in what we know can work, 
invest in this new partnership we will have with the Federal 
Government, the States, and local communities; the new partnership we 
are going to have involving parents, teachers, and the local 
communities. I think that is what we ought to be about.
  Finally, I think on the whole issue on the vouchers, obviously, there 
are constitutional issues. I know in the remaining time that I have--I 
will not take the time to go through it, but there are serious 
constitutional issues as well.
  But I strongly oppose this amendment just on the basis of the policy 
questions. These programs have not demonstrated effectiveness. The 
public, by and large, has rejected these issues time and again, across 
this country, and more than 80 percent in the District of Columbia. I 
know there is a potential voucher amendment for the District of 
Columbia.
  This has been rejected across the country. When people know we are 
going to be serious about making a difference in investing in children 
and in the kinds of educational programs that are positive and will 
result in academic achievement and accomplishment, when we do that, the 
American people understand the importance of that type of investment. 
That is what this bill is about to do.
  Its great failure to date is the fact that we have not received the 
kinds of assurances from the administration that they are going to make 
sure the benefits of this legislation are going to reach all of the 
children.
  Mr. President, I see my colleague and friend from Michigan is here. I 
yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Massachusetts who has been such a stalwart in advocating for our 
children throughout the process as it relates to this education bill. 
There has been give and take and working together in a bipartisan basis 
to formulate a bill that will focus on increasing accountability, goals 
for our children, but also resources. Many of us have been saying over 
and over again how the resources have to be coupled with the 
accountability so that every child has the opportunity to learn and we 
truly leave no child behind.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment related to private school 
vouchers and speak on behalf of the people of Michigan who voted in the 
election last November resoundingly against a similar proposal that was 
on the ballot in Michigan. There was a lot of thoughtful discussion on 
both sides. The public resoundingly said no and focused on what I 
believe to be a very wise course, which is to focus on making sure that 
every child in every school has the opportunity to learn and that we 
strengthen our public schools.
  I have great respect for friends and colleagues who choose to send 
their children to private schools. We also know that even if 10 percent 
of the children in our public schools went to private schools through 
vouchers, we would still be faced with needing 5,000 new schools in the 
next number of years and doubling the number of schools in the 10 
largest school systems in America, at a cost of $40 billion. Those 
costs don't go away. The needs don't go away. If a few children leave, 
you still have the majority there who need to have technology in the 
classroom, who need to have smaller class sizes so they can learn.
  What we have found is that the voucher system pulls resources away

[[Page S6071]]

but, in fact, does not improve education for all children.

  I remember when we were debating a few years ago--maybe 3 years ago--
the D.C. schools. We had, literally, roofs falling in. One fall, as 
school was getting ready to start, there was a proposal that, as the 
roof was falling in, we ought to have vouchers for 2,000 children out 
of 78,000 children in the Washington, DC, schools--that 2,000 ought to 
be able to have vouchers. There was a big debate about the 2,000 
children and not a debate about the 78,000 children who still would be 
in schools that had broken roofs, schools that would have wastepaper 
baskets in the corner catching the water. The resources that were being 
debated to be pulled out for vouchers would not allow fixing of the 
roofs. It didn't make any sense.
  In the end, we were fortunate that proposal did not pass at that 
time.
  What we know is that over 90 percent of our children attend schools 
potentially facing budget cuts, potentially facing challenges relating 
to resources. We also know that we want every school to increase 
accountability. We want to make sure that if a public school is not 
working, the school system has the capacity to shut it down, to change 
personnel, to do the things necessary to increase accountability.
  I believe strongly that needs to be done within the context of our 
public schools so that every child has the opportunity for people to be 
fighting for the best quality possible for them and not just diverting 
a few children away from that system while the rest are in schools that 
are not up to standards.
  This is an incredibly important issue that we need to send a strong 
message, through a ``no'' vote on the amendment, that we support 
strengthening our public school system for every child. We have schools 
now doing wonderful work. We have schools now that are in trouble. We 
need to make sure that through what we are doing federally, we are 
recognizing and applauding and saluting our quality public schools and 
that we are providing the resources and the accountability which our 
children deserve and our families deserve, to make sure that no matter 
what door you walk through in what public school, in which neighborhood 
in the United States of America, you know that your child is going to 
receive the very best quality education.
  That is what this fight is all about. I believe this amendment takes 
us in the wrong direction. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will vote no and we will get back to the business of strengthening our 
public schools through this important legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for 1 minute, on North Carolina, a recent 
Rand Corporation report found that between 1990 and 1996, students 
showed the highest average annual gain in the National Assessment of 
Education Progress, the NAEP, reading and math tests. Those are 
national tests. SAT scores have risen 10 years in a row. The scores 
have improved more than any other State--a 40-point gain between 1990 
and 2000, 10 points higher than the three other States with big gains.
  Most recently, the States average SAT moved up as well between 1999 
and the year 2000. This is a State that is doing it right. We tried to 
benefit from their experience.
  The Senator from North Carolina, who is now presiding, was a 
particular help to our committee in sharing the experiences of North 
Carolina and ensuring that many of those very important aspects that 
have been successful in North Carolina would be available to benefit 
local communities in this legislation. That is the kind of thing we 
ought to be investing in so that all children will benefit.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am here today because I strongly 
believe that Senator Gregg's voucher amendment moves this country and 
our public schools in the wrong direction.
  All of us stand for equal opportunity for all children. This 
amendment might open doors to a few children, but it would shut them 
for many others. In the Senate, we are fighting to improve our public 
schools with resources. This amendment uses public funds to send a few 
students to private schools rather than investing in schools that serve 
all of our children.
  We need to think about the consequences of this voucher amendment. In 
the bill before us, we are insisting on accountability for the use of 
Federal funds. This voucher program would funnel taxpayer dollars into 
schools that are not accountable to the public at all.
  Beyond lack of accountability, let's remember that private schools 
don't even have to meet the same academic standards required for all 
public schools. Not all private schools are created equal. There are a 
lot of good ones, but there are some with lower quality and lower 
standards, and our tax dollars would go to them as well with no 
accountability.
  Private schools are important. I am not here to speak against private 
schools. I am here to speak against an amendment that would damage 
public schools.
  Mr. President, I want to talk about the four simple reasons I oppose 
this amendment. Vouchers undermine our public schools; vouchers leave 
children behind; vouchers mean less accountability; and vouchers are a 
distraction from the hard but essential work of ensuring that all 
public schools are good schools.
  Our public schools are the cornerstone of our democracy, our 
communities, and our economy. They are entrusted with giving more than 
90 percent of our children the education they need to be productive 
citizens. Vouchers would weaken public schools by diverting already 
scarce funds needed for smaller classes, afterschool programs, better 
facilities, and teacher training, to pay for private school tuition for 
a few select children--which really leads to the second reason I cannot 
support any voucher scheme.
  Private schools may reject students for almost any reason, including 
disability, limited English proficiency, behavioral challenges, or 
academic deficiencies. Despite the rhetoric of this amendment, vouchers 
do not offer true choice for students. While parents may remove 
children from public schools, no voucher system guarantees admission to 
the school of their choice. Private schools will still choose which 
students they will admit.
  While vouchers drain money from public schools to help a few 
students, other students are left at a public school with fewer 
resources. That will not help our kids succeed. In fact, it will 
probably lower the quality of education for the most challenged 
students, effectively leaving them behind.
  Proponents of the underlying bill, including the author of this 
amendment, have said that accountability provisions are the key to not 
leaving students behind.
  Well, Mr. President, my third objection is that this amendment would 
make these accountability provisions meaningless for thousands of 
students. This bill requires that the results of new reading and math 
testing in grades 3-8 be used to judge the quality of all public 
schools, and it sanctions schools that fail to make adequate yearly 
progress. But those accountability provisions and testing do not apply 
to private schools that benefit from vouchers.
  If this accountability is truly essential to ensuring a good 
education, should it not apply to all schools that receive Federal 
funds?
  Under this voucher plan, participating private schools do not have to 
give the same tests. They do not have to make adequate yearly progress. 
And they cannot be sanctioned. Public schools must comply with all 
Federal, State, and local civil rights, and health and safety 
requirements.
  This voucher proposal doesn't even require participating private 
schools to protect the civil rights of school employees, or to maintain 
the separation of church and state.
  Mr. President, I cannot support spending taxpayer dollars on schools 
with no public accountability.
  Finally, vouchers drain away the resources and attention that should 
be focused on turning around low-performing schools. Vouchers offer an 
excuse to those who are unwilling to make the necessary investment or 
to roll up their sleeves and get involved in the hard work of leading a 
struggling public school into success.
  Turning around low-performing schools is not magic. Hard-working 
people all across the country are doing it every single day.

[[Page S6072]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator just made a comment that I think is 
particularly pertinent to this discussion on the question of 
accountability. Here in the legislation that we have before us--as we 
have debated over the past 7 or 8 weeks, much of that debate has been 
on accountability. But could the Senator indicate what her position is 
with regard to accountability for the schools where the children might 
be able to gain entry if they take these vouchers--what kind of 
accountability will be in place there? Are those schools included in 
this same kind of rigorous accountability, or will we be investing 
money in schools and not really know their impact on our children's 
future?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is very clear that as we have listened 
to this debate in the Senate, Senators on both sides of the aisle 
believe that the key to the success of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act is accountability, and a part of that is testing. The 
voucher system would mean that students could take public taxpayer 
dollars to a private school that has no testing requirements similar to 
the public schools, has no accountability, requires no accountability, 
and thus we are just sending taxpayer dollars to private schools that 
don't live by the same rules.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield further, part of the very, I 
think, strong presentation that the President has made is that he wants 
to ensure that tests are not used in a punitive way, but as instruments 
to gauge student progress and inform instruction. I think the Senator 
was there when we listened to Secretary Paige--he emphasized the 
importance of finding out what children don't know so there can be 
assistance provided to children to help them succeed. I have some 
enormously interesting examples. In our own State, where the teachers 
find out the class doesn't know much about fractions, they deal with 
that by teaching other aspects of mathematics over the course of the 
year. They are making up for lost progress in the past, and ensuring 
that children move along and keep up with the current material. There 
is a reason for accountability. If students are not able to make 
progress, they receive supplementary services--the afterschool 
programs, the summer programs, or the tutorials--to provide them with 
the extra help they need.
  Now what is going to happen in voucher schools? Will those programs 
be available? How are we going to know whether these children are 
making progress?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator raises a key point. We won't know how they 
are progressing. As the Senator from Massachusetts knows, I was a 
school board member before I was a Senator. I can tell you of numerous 
school board meetings where we had citizens from our community sitting 
in big audiences before us saying: You are spending my taxpayer dollars 
and I want you to--fill in the blank. If we send our Federal taxpayer 
dollars to private schools, our citizens in our communities will not 
have the opportunity to go before a board that governs a private school 
to demand that their taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
  Mr. KENNEDY. One of the most important aspects of accountability 
provided for in this bill is giving information to parents so that they 
will be able to follow the development of their children. We have a 
school in Massachusetts where part of the portfolio for school success 
is a measure of parental involvement. Very interesting. That sounds 
like something that is way out, but, by George, that school was able to 
get their parents involved.

  An essential element in this bill is the proposal to make sure that 
parents understand what is happening in their schools, and to be able 
to provide a comparison of their schools performance to other schools 
in the neighborhood. In this respect, and with school report cards, 
parents will be able to be effective, articulate spokespersons for 
their children's education. Will that be available under a voucher 
program?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts knows that it would not. 
If our taxpayer dollars went to a private school in the form of a 
voucher, there would be no parental involvement, no community 
involvement, no taxpayer involvement on how their dollars were being 
spent.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for that. Is the Senator also aware 
that opportunities for children who are limited English proficient, or 
for children who may have a learning disability, or for migrant 
children or homeless children--those opportunities will not be driven 
by parents. The choice of how to serve those children, if they are 
served, will be made by the school under a voucher program. So does the 
Senator agree with me that the idea of somehow providing millions of 
American parents the opportunity for their children to be moved into a 
different situation with this proposal is really a distortion? Critical 
decisions will be made by schools that may not be inclined to reach out 
to children who have some special situation, special needs.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts raises a very good point. 
I know many parents today with young children who are 2 and 3 years old 
are now trying to get their kids into private school. They are starting 
the application process already. It is very difficult to get into some 
of our best private schools. Imagine parents out there who are 
listening to rhetoric about a voucher program as some kind of magic 
bullet that their child will use to get into a private school, and that 
is not correct. In fact, private schools can say they will not take 
children with disabilities or with limited English proficiency or with 
the difficulties that they have experienced in the past.
  So it is an empty promise to many parents who are thinking it is some 
kind of panacea--a voucher system that all of a sudden they will 
receive as taxpayers. The good private schools are hard to get into. We 
all know not all private schools are created equal. There are good ones 
and there are some not so good. This money would apply to all of them. 
I think we would lose for a lot of taxpayers in this country and our 
public school systems will lose even more.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, we have listened during the presentation of 
those who supported this amendment, that this was not really going to 
take money away from public school children.

  We would like to find out where this magical pot of money is. They 
are saying we want to give assurance to all those who are voting with 
us and against us that this money will not be taken away. If we don't 
use this money, it still won't be available to children. I am somewhat 
mystified--I don't believe it. I don't think anybody in this body 
believes it.
  Does the Senator agree these are scarce resources? We have reviewed 
the fact we are still only reaching a third of the children under the 
President's program. Under the President's program, there is no 
increase other than the cost-of-living increase for children over the 
period of the next 8 years.
  Resources are scarce. I wonder if the Senator from Washington buys 
the argument that this is not going to be money that would otherwise be 
used for professional development, or training teachers, or mentoring 
programs, or afterschool programs, or moving teachers into smaller 
class sizes. The Senator has been our national leader on that issue. 
Doesn't the Senator agree we could use that $50 million more 
effectively in terms of benefitting children rather than for a voucher 
program?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the Senator from Massachusetts knows 
well, we only fund one-third of the students who are eligible for title 
I today. It seems to me we should be investing the money in making sure 
title I students have access to additional help. If we reduce class 
size, if we provide teacher training, if we invest in public schools in 
a way we have promised for many years to do, vouchers would not be an 
argument on the floor. Our children everywhere would be getting the 
good education they should and we would not select just a few kids to 
go on to a few schools to succeed. We would go back to the principle we 
all espouse in the Senate, to leave no child behind.
  As a country that cares about all of our children, we are making sure 
we invest in all of our children.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my friend and colleague.
  As a school board member and a teacher of elementary school, Senator 
Murray brings a special insight into

[[Page S6073]]

the education policy issues. I think we do well to heed her warnings 
and concerns.
  Whatever time the Senator needs to conclude her remarks, I yield.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I urge all 
colleagues to think about the principles of this bill and the 
underlying concept: We want to make sure every child in this country 
succeeds. That is not what this amendment will do. It is what we need 
to do in terms of investing in our communities, our schools, in the 
right way, so all children can succeed.
  There is no magic bullet. The vouchers amendment is certainly not 
one. I hope we are not tempted by the false promise of vouchers as that 
magic bullet.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I take a moment or two to refer those 
interested in this debate to this report called ``Uncommon Wisdom, 
Effective Reform Strategies,'' from Mass Insight Education, an 
education-reform organization based in Boston, Massachusetts. 
Massachusetts is well on its way in terms of educational reform. We 
have been making progress in recent years.
  This report illustrates a number of schools making very important and 
significant progress academically with their students. They include 
elementary, middle, and high schools. They illustrate the different 
techniques used in each of the schools. All the reforms vary somewhat, 
but all have been implemented within the framework that this bill 
supports: high standards; good professional development; data generated 
by meaningful, high-quality assessments; and extra support for the 
students in need of academic assistance.
  This independent organization is highly regarded. They have reviewed 
various schools in our State, and have shared their findings so that 
other schools can make progress. Again, they identify four critical 
priorities: the development of the curriculum, the teaching, the 
assessment, and the intervention. Together, these reforms directly 
shape every student's educational experience in school. These four 
common elements have produced important and significant progress in 
each of the 22 Massachusetts schools included in this report.
  In the Thompson School in Arlington, 30 percent of students receive 
free or reduced lunches, 15 percent have special needs, and 25 percent 
are students of color. It is a mixed blue-collar, working-class, 
middle/low-income high school that has been able to make extraordinary 
progress with their programs. There are countless other examples of 
schools, such as the Thompson school, that have reformed to produce 
results.

  The bottom line is that the elements included in this report are 
elements we have included in this legislation. If we provide funding 
for these reforms, we will see these results in not only every school 
in Massachusetts but every school in the country. That is what we want 
to do.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is here and I yield 10 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Gregg-Hutchinson 
amendment which authorizes a voucher program for private schools for 7 
years, encompassing 10 cities and 3 States. I don't believe this is an 
appropriate educational policy we should be pursuing. Our first and 
foremost commitment should be to strengthen and improve reform of 
public education.
  Frankly, as we go forward with the constrained resources, that 
primary challenge will be difficult to achieve. Dissipating funds for 
vouchers for private schools to me is not the appropriate response to a 
crisis in public education in the United States. For over 30 years, the 
Federal Government has made a commitment to help the students of 
America throughout the public education system. Particularly, we have 
committed to ensuring that low-income students are given a chance to 
succeed. We have created reforms over the last several years to help 
improve the learning environment and ensure a vigorous public 
education. Back in 1994 we streamlined reform of the title I program 
and other Federal programs. The thrust, the purpose, the constant theme 
is how we can help, working with the States and localities, to improve 
public education to ensure that every family in America has an 
opportunity to send their children to excellent, free, public schools.

  This amendment takes us off that track, off that purpose. It would 
not improve public education in the United States. It would not respond 
to the need for safe schools, quality teachers, smaller classes, 
buildings that are well repaired and well maintained, or greater 
parental involvement. It would not ensure that all students reach high 
academic standards. It diverts scarce Federal resources from the public 
schools, our first and foremost priority. And it does so at a time when 
the massive tax cut that has just been passed weakens our ability to 
respond to the overwhelming needs of public education throughout this 
country.
  As a result, I do not believe we should engage in this policy 
endeavor. In a world of finite resources, we have to be careful and 
conscious of our obligations to public education and our foremost 
responsibility, to ensure that public education is well served.
  There are proponents of this legislation who say this amendment is 
really about giving families a choice. I do not believe this really is 
an issue of choice. Realistically, this amendment will never reach all 
the children in all the failing schools. So we know, even if this 
amendment is adopted and accepted, there will be children left behind 
in failing schools. That is not a choice for parents.
  It seems to me, then, that we have to go back to our initial purpose, 
which is to try to improve every school in this country so no parent 
has to keep their children in a public school that is not performing. 
We need to give parents real choice, and we do not deal with the issue 
of choice by dissipating resources, by inviting some children to go to 
private schools and leaving others behind. We do it by confronting our 
responsibilities to reform each and every public school in this 
country.
  There are other issues that complicate this approach to choice. 
First, giving a voucher to a family for their child does not ensure 
that child can go to the school the family chooses. Frankly, the nature 
of private education is they exclude students. They exclude students 
because they are not smart enough. They exclude students because they 
just do not fit in with their approach to education. They exclude 
students because, frankly, they are difficult or have discipline 
problems. Public education cannot do that. Public education has to be 
inclusive. Public education has to reach out and embrace every child--
those who are difficult and those who are honor students.
  So this approach to reform fails on one other principal ground. We 
are not giving every family the full range of choice because private 
schools will exclude again and again and again. That is the nature of 
being a private enterprise. That, in some respects, some might argue, 
is one of their strengths. They can ensure all the children are part of 
their patent, that they fit in. That is not a luxury, frankly, that 
public education has. We have to recognize that. So this argument of 
choice is not something I think really carries the day.

  Also, there are other issues. If we do embark on a voucher program 
such as this, it will invariably raise issues of the rights of parents 
to demand entry to these private schools. It will raise issues of 
whether or not it is conscionable to exclude these children, who now 
have public funds, from these schools. So there may be many in the 
private education community who would like to see this development, but 
they might, when it becomes, or if it becomes, a reality, think 
otherwise.
  There are many things we have to do to ensure the education of the 
young people in America is excellent. We have to raise standards. We 
have to improve the professional development of teachers in public 
education. We have to enhance the ability of our schools to embrace and 
bring parents into the school system. We have to ensure that the 
buildings, the very buildings that children occupy, are places where 
they feel comfortable in terms of security and safety, in terms of just 
the feeling of being in a place that is esteemed enough to have the 
floors clean, the ceilings fixed, all the facilities working. There are 
too many schools in America that fail that test.
  There are too many schools that do not have the appropriate programs 
to

[[Page S6074]]

involve parents. There are too many schools that are not conscious of 
doing their best--too many public schools in this country. That is 
where our attention must lie. That is where our focus must lie. That is 
the purpose for which we come here--to ensure every public school in 
this country offers the families of America excellent, free, public 
education.
  To embark on this approach of vouchers for private education is a 
mistake. It dissipates our resources. It also does not truly give the 
families of America choice.
  There are today, within the public system, more and more 
opportunities for parents to choose among different schools within that 
public school system. There is the recognition that public systems 
simply cannot stand pat any longer, they have to improve the quality of 
education, they have to reach out to teachers and parents and the 
community at large to restore trust, to rebuild not just the physical 
structure of the school, but also the educational scope and commitment 
to excellence of all schools. That is their job.
  We can help, not by providing vouchers for private education, but by 
funding and authorizing programs that will require, and insist, that 
every public school in this country meets the standards of excellence. 
I hope we will do this.
  I hope we will reject this amendment and get on with the business of 
the education bill before us and make a real commitment to public 
education.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor, but on behalf of Senator 
Kennedy, at this time I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I say to the Senator from Rhode Island 
and Senator Kennedy, thank you for your magnificent leadership on this 
issue of education.
  We all know life is complex and we all face problems every day in our 
lives. Our society has problems, not the least of which is that 
sometimes our kids go astray; they make the wrong turn and struggle and 
sometimes wind up in difficult situations. Whether it is turning to 
juvenile delinquency--and we all know that happens to some of our 
kids--whether it is not being able to handle the stresses of broken 
families, we know we have problems in our society.
  We also certainly know that there is no silver bullet. We wish there 
were one thing we could do that would be kind of a magic wand to fix 
all the problems we face, the problems our families face, the problems 
we face as individuals.
  Let's say someone came up to me and said: You only have one answer. 
What would be the most important thing we could do to stop problems in 
our society, be it crime, be it drugs, be it alcohol use, be it sexual 
abuse? Talk about the issues; we all know they are here. What would be 
the one thing, if you had to choose only one and that was it--you 
couldn't pick five, or four, or three, or two--I would say it would be 
a quality education for every single child starting from the earliest 
times.
  Why do I say that? It is because we know now that 90 percent of our 
brain capacity is set by age 3. So we know if we think all this starts 
later in life, we are wrong. If we can reach those children, 
particularly those children who may not have the support of a family 
structure, we can make a difference.
  Will it solve the problem? No. But I can say to you that it will 
solve most of the problems.
  I speak as someone who is an expert on public schools. Why? Because 
that is where I went. From kindergarten through college, I went to 
public schools. I am a first-generation American on my mother's side. 
My mother never graduated from high school. Here I am in the Senate.
  For those people who may not like my politics, they say: God, look at 
what the public schools did to us. But for the people who think I fight 
hard and do things, that I can go toe to toe with most people in this 
institution who went to the fanciest schools, they say: Hey, look. Look 
at what our public schools can do.
  That is why I strongly oppose the Gregg amendment. I think any effort 
in this Chamber to pull money away from our public schools before we 
know whether they are qualified, before we know that we are giving 
every child what he or she deserves to have, anything that pulls that 
money away from the public school system is absolutely wrong on its 
face. Well intentioned and the rest, it doesn't work.
  We know we can provide what our kids need if we put the resources 
behind the rhetoric. Senator Schumer and I will have an amendment later 
today which will say to our colleagues, if you believe in this, vote 
for the Schumer-Boxer amendment, which is going to say let's make sure 
there are appropriations to fund education to match the authorization 
in this bill. We are going to have a chance to vote on that. But I have 
to say this. The amendment of Senator Gregg provides for voucher 
demonstration programs in 10 cities and 3 States. Our teachers are 
telling us not to pull resources out. Our voters have told us in 
California: Don't pull resources out of the public schools and put them 
in the private schools. In California, people have voted. They had a 
couple of voucher initiatives. The last one, Proposition 38, they 
defeated by 70.7 percent of the vote. Let me repeat that. Californians 
voted 70 percent against a voucher experiment. I have to tell you that 
we don't vote 70 percent for anything.
  People always ask: How do you manage to represent a State such as 
California with 34 million people? I basically am honest in my answer. 
I say: I do my best. But on any given day, 30 percent of the people 
love me and 30 percent of the people hate me, and a third of the people 
have no idea who I am because there are 34 million people in that 
State. But 70 percent of them voted against vouchers.
  It pulled everyone together--Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents--because it is a very simple point. If you believe in the 
rhetoric of ``leave no child behind''--and our President uses it; I 
believe it--and, if it is real, then you don't leave them behind by 
pulling money out of the public schools and putting in these voucher 
initiatives which have a lot of problems.
  We have a lot of laws on the books that I think are important. We 
know in the public schools you can't discriminate against any child for 
any reason. Every child who walks through that door is precious and 
important and equal to every other child, regardless if they have a 
disability, regardless of their gender, and regardless of their 
national origin.
  The fact is, in this amendment we are going to have exceptions. 
Private schools can say they don't want any more girls; they just want 
to have boys; they can just say no, or vice versa. They can say they 
don't want any more boys and just take girls. There can be 
discrimination because that is the essence, frankly, of a private 
school. If they want to do that, fine. But just do not take the money. 
You do what you want but don't take taxpayer money. Don't pull it away 
from the public schools.

  I admire a lot of private schools. I have a lot of them in my State. 
They give scholarships to needy children. They get a tax break, if they 
are a profit-making school, for doing that. I support that tax break. 
Scholarships for needy kids are the way to go, if private schools want 
to make sure their student body is diverse and interesting and helps 
kids. But to pull hard-earned taxpayer dollars away and put them into 
the private schools isn't the way to go. We know that just a few kids 
will benefit. Even the question of how much they will benefit has been 
looked at.
  Let's say you are lucky enough to have enough money so a $2,000 
voucher can help you pay for the rest of the tuition. Sometimes the 
tuition is $8,000, $10,000, or $12,000. There is no reliable research 
that shows voucher programs actually improve the education of our 
children or that voucher students outperform their public school peers. 
In fact, the policy analysis of a California education group reported 
that Proposition 38, the voucher initiative in our State, would cost 
more and affect fewer students in proven education reform.
  What do I mean by that? It has been proven that smaller class size 
really helps student performance. Again, it is kind of a no-brainer 
thing. If a teacher can pay attention to fewer kids, she or he is going 
to do a better job. It costs much less to put that reform in place

[[Page S6075]]

than to have a voucher initiative in our State.
  Now we are reducing class size. We are seeing results. We are seeing 
great results. That is the track on which we should stay. Someday when 
we have quality education for every public school child--where 95 
percent of our kids go, by the way--I am willing to look at other ways 
to help other kids in private schools. I may always be biased against 
it because I believe in public schools. I think it makes our country 
different from every other country. It gives every kid a chance at the 
American dream. But I will look at it once I know every child has a 
quality education. We know they don't have quality education in every 
school district in this country. The purpose of this underlying bill is 
to make sure we give every child a quality education.
  Let's talk about Michigan. Michigan had a vote on vouchers. They 
voted it down 68-31. What are we doing here? We are reinventing a 
voucher plan that has already been voted down in California by more 
than 70 percent of the vote and by 69 percent of the vote in Michigan. 
Once again, voters are expressing their concern that we are pulling 
money away from public schools.
  Let me say that one independent Princeton researcher found that when 
students in Milwaukee's public schools program were given extra 
resources to reduce class size, they actually outperformed those kids 
who were on the voucher.
  Let me reiterate. There is an independent study that showed that kids 
in Wisconsin, who had the advantage of smaller class size, outperformed 
other students who had vouchers in reading, and they did as well as 
those students in math.
  The drain on the public school system in Milwaukee is evident. 
According to the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the voucher 
initiative took $22 million away from the public schools.
  Why would we do that? We know vouchers don't guarantee equal access. 
In Milwaukee, 40 percent of the kids who sought to participate in the 
voucher program could not find schools that would take them. They could 
be particularly harmful to a student who is not the ``cream of the 
crop.'' Suppose the student is disabled, has limited English, or 
suppose they are homeless. A private school is going to look twice, 
scratch its head, and say: Maybe not.
  That goes against the American dream, which is, again, an equal 
chance for every child, regardless of their circumstance.
  I think this amendment is an important amendment. I hope it will be 
defeated because the underlying bill is really about reform--reform of 
our public schools. By pulling funds away, we hurt that reform effort.

  I had a successful amendment that I offered to this bill, cosponsored 
by my Republican colleague, John Ensign. It was about after school. We 
want to make sure kids after school do not get into trouble. We know, 
if we look at the charts, what happens. The FBI charts show, for sure, 
that is when kids get in trouble.
  This was a bipartisan amendment. It passed with a very healthy 
majority. But I do not want to see us now turn around and take money 
away from that effort for after school and away from the effort of 
smaller class size and all the other things we are trying to do in this 
bill. I do not want to see that happen.
  I see my colleague from New York is in the Chamber. She has worked so 
hard on this bill and has dedicated her life to kids. I am very excited 
she is going to be partaking of this debate this morning.
  To sum up my argument, it is this: Our public schools are what make 
our country different from most other countries because they give us 
all a shot at the American dream. Are the public schools perfect? No, 
they are not. Do we have to hold them accountable? Yes, we do. Do we 
need to make improvements? Yes, we do. Do we need to invest in the 
children in those schools? Yes, we do. Do we need to demand results? 
Yes, we do.
  But if we pull those dollars away from the public schools and we put 
them into the private schools, where 5 percent of the children go, we 
are making a huge mistake. My voters in California have shown that on 
several occasions. Voters in Michigan have shown that. They want to see 
us fix up our public schools first, make them work first. Then maybe we 
will have the luxury to look outside the system.
  We should demand the most from our kids, the most from our teachers, 
the most from our principals, the most from our school districts, the 
most from our Governors. But when we expect that, we should provide the 
resources, we should not pull them away from the public schools.
  Thank you very much, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. CLINTON. I yield myself 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I commend and thank my good friend, 
the Senator from California, for her usual eloquence and energy in 
putting forth a very commonsense proposal, which is that we ought to do 
everything in our power to make sure our public schools work before 
turning our backs on them. I especially note her telling all of us that 
voters in California and Michigan, who have been given the chance to 
vote on vouchers in their own States, have not only rejected that 
proposal but have done so overwhelmingly.
  I join my friend from California, and so many others, in opposing the 
Gregg amendment which would provide $50 million for a voucher 
demonstration program. I think it is fair to ask: Why would I and 
others oppose a mere experiment?
  What I would like to do is just reflect back for a minute on an 
experience I had which really crystallized my opposition for me.
  A few years ago I was in Northern Ireland, in Belfast, where I was 
privileged to meet with a number of people who were crossing sectarian 
lines to try to come together to find a way to peacefully coexist after 
decades and decades of troubles between Protestant and Catholic 
citizens. I was so struck, after a daylong conference--where we spoke 
about how to set up a governing assembly, how to provide economic 
opportunity, how we could get more people involved in the participation 
required for a democracy to work--when several people said: But the 
real problem we face is in our schools.
  I said: What do you mean?
  A number of them went on to tell me that from the very earliest of 
ages children from the two religious traditions grew up in very 
separate environments. There are literally barriers between Catholic 
and Protestant neighborhoods, and then they go to schools that are run 
by the respective churches into which they are born.
  Person after person said to me: We will never live and work in peace 
if we don't go to school together. We won't have a chance to get to 
know one another. Can't you help us have a public school system like 
you have in America?
  That made such an impression on me because I have been fortunate to 
travel all over the world. I have been in many countries on every 
continent except Antarctica. In every country I go to, I meet very 
smart people. I meet athletic stars, Olympic gold medal winners. I meet 
scientists, very successful business leaders, and great artists. Yet 
there is something very different about every other society than ours 
because no other society has committed itself to the proposition that 
all people have the opportunity to live up to their God-given potential 
and that we will provide universal public education, to offer that to 
each young boy and girl.
  We are not perfect. We know that. We know we have schools that fail 
at this responsibility. Yet the goal we have set and the results we 
have seen, from a commitment to public education for so many years now, 
have been realized in the success of this country, in the uniqueness of 
our mobility, and in the opportunities we make available.
  There are some children who, frankly, start out pretty far behind the 
starting line. They do not have the family background. They do not have 
the environmental enrichment. They do not have families who will help 
them succeed in school. They are often trapped in generational poverty. 
When you have poor people, you often have poor services.

[[Page S6076]]

  It is a challenge to those of us who believe in public education to 
come up with reasons to oppose something that sounds so good. You can 
read the supporters' comments. They say: In some of our large cities, 
children are trapped in failing schools. They should be set free. And 
we should, therefore, give them money to go to a private or parochial 
school. And it sounds so good. But it has a number of serious flaws 
that I hope will lead a majority in this Chamber to vote against it.
  Let's take, first, the fact that the experiments that have been run--
because we have already run experiments on vouchers--have demonstrated 
absolutely no evidence that vouchers help to improve student 
achievement.
  Secondly, we know vouchers do not help the students who need the help 
the most.
  Thirdly, vouchers do nothing to help improve public schools. In fact, 
research shows clearly that vouchers only further segregate and 
stratify our public schools.
  That does not stop the proponents. I often have remarked since I have 
been in Washington that Washington operates in an evidence-free zone. 
You can put out the evidence, and if it runs counter to the ideology, 
then the evidence does not count.
  But clearly there is no evidence. In fact, a 1998 study of the 
Milwaukee public school choice program, done by Cecilia Rouse of 
Princeton University, found that students in public schools with 
smaller class size and additional State funding experienced 
significantly faster reading scoring gains than students who attended 
private schools through the program.
  In Cleveland, a study of the voucher program found no significant 
difference between the achievement of voucher students and their public 
school counterparts in reading, mathematics, social studies--the full 
battery of tests--after controlling for background characteristics, 
including prior achievement.
  So I do not think we need another experiment to tell us vouchers do 
not work. We already have clear evidence of that fact.
  But there are those who argue that increasing competition among 
public schools, through vouchers, will help improve student achievement 
in failing schools. But we know that, too, is a false promise.

  We know what does work--strong accountability, coupled with the extra 
attention that students who need it require, and the kinds of 
intervention we have heard about--everything from preschool to parental 
involvement to afterschool and summer school.
  Scholars from the Economic Policy Institute, Duke University, and the 
Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas, as well as Stanford 
University, have found that States with strong accountability systems 
which do not include vouchers were successful in improving student 
achievement in the lowest performing public schools. Researchers call 
it the scarlet-letter effect, which shows that if a school is termed 
``failing,'' the school is often motivated to improve. That is what we 
should be focusing on now, and that is what we are focusing on in this 
education debate.
  I also worry that trying to provide sufficient funds to afford a 
student a choice that is meaningful will siphon much needed funds out 
of our public school system. A $1,500 voucher, for example, is just not 
sufficient in most large cities I am aware of, and we, therefore, know 
that families have to add a substantial contribution themselves. In 
Milwaukee, for example, as many as 46 percent of students dropped out 
of the voucher program in the first year, and 28 percent dropped out in 
the fifth year because the $3,600 voucher was not sufficient to cover 
costs such as registration fees, books, uniforms, and transportation.
  We also have to worry that if you implement vouchers, then very often 
the motivated students and their parents will take advantage of them 
and we will see the kind of exodus from the public schools that will 
only make it more difficult to change their futures.
  How can we justify taking $50 million away from proven practices of 
improving student achievement? We need to do more to lower class sizes. 
Yet we were unsuccessful in continuing a proven program to do just that 
by helping to fund teachers in the classroom. Our friends on the other 
side said: That is not something the Federal Government should be 
doing; so even though we know it works, we won't vote for it.
  We were unsuccessful in having construction and modernization and 
repair funding available where we know that so many schools, 
particularly the very schools we are talking about, are literally 
falling down around the heads of students and teachers. We were told: 
Well, modernizing our schools is not a Federal responsibility.
  We need to recruit and retain teachers, and we know we are not going 
to do that if we don't provide competitive salaries and bonuses and 
other financial rewards. And we have a long way to go before we have 
the teaching core, the quality teaching core we need in our country. 
Instead of investing in proven measures to raise student achievement, 
we are being asked to divert and siphon off these dollars.
  I started by saying that my concern is not only based on the fact 
there isn't any evidence this works, that it siphons money out of the 
public schools, that, in effect, it opens the door to giving up on what 
we know makes a difference in our children's lives, but that also 
public schools, for me, are the distinguishing characteristic that sets 
us apart from many other societies. They are the bedrock of our 
democracy. I don't think we would be giving up on any of our 
fundamental freedoms so easily. I don't think we would be turning our 
back on our Constitution or our Bill of Rights. Yet without a strong 
public school system, we could, in effect, be doing just that.

  At a time when we are trying to hold students and teachers to higher 
standards, diverting scarce resources to fund an experiment that we 
already know has weak results and could very well undermine the future 
of public education, which takes care of 95 percent of our students and 
works well in most parts of our country, is a very tragic step in the 
wrong direction.
  I heard the end of the remarks of my colleague from California. I 
know she is a very strong supporter of public education, as I am. And 
like her, I went to public schools from kindergarten through high 
school. I believe in public schools. I was struck by what she said. If 
we were already doing what we know works, if we had lowered class 
sizes, if we had imposed the discipline, if we had recruited and paid 
teachers in the hard-to-teach schools what they should be paid, if we 
had modernized our schools so we didn't have chunks of plaster falling 
on teachers' heads, as recently happened in a school in my State, then 
if we still didn't have results, maybe even we very strong public 
school advocates would be willing to say: Well, we need to try 
something. But we are nowhere near there.
  We have turned our backs on the children who need us the most. We 
have basically left them in the most poorly funded schools with the 
least qualified teachers, often not even encountering a certified 
teacher without adequate resources, without being held accountable, and 
we say: Well, what do you know; it is failure.
  This is similar to so many of the other proposals that would 
undermine public education. It is aimed not at solving the problem but 
at coming up with a short-term, ideologically driven answer to a 
complicated set of issues. It is tragic that when we know what works, 
we are unwilling to step up and fund the resources that will give every 
child in America, no matter who that child's parents might be, the same 
chance I was given.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I believe the understanding I had with 
Senator Kennedy was that Senator Kennedy and the proponents of his 
position would have until 12:15, and then from 12:15--it was a casual 
understanding--we would go back to our side. I understand there are 
Members on his side who wish to speak, and we have a Member on our 
side.
  It is my intention at this time to yield the 15 minutes we had 
reserved on our side to Senator Ensign from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. May I ask a question of the minority side?

[[Page S6077]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, I yield for a question.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, it is my understanding, then, that there 
is a prior agreement that a full 15 minutes will be used by the 
minority side, and then it will come back over here?
  Mr. GREGG. There was no formal agreement, but there was an 
understanding that people presenting Senator Kennedy's position on this 
amendment would go from 12 to 12:15, and we would go from 12:15 to 
12:30, and then we will be in the break for the meetings of the 
caucuses. Then we would be coming back. I understand the Senator from 
Massachusetts wanted to go into morning business; is that correct?
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, that is correct. I ask the following, if 
it is possible. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada be 
permitted to proceed. Does he intend to use the full 15 minutes? Might 
the Senator from Nevada use less?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, 10, 15 minutes, somewhere in there.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Nevada be permitted to proceed, the Senator from Minnesota then be 
permitted to speak for 5 minutes, and then I be permitted to speak as 
in morning business, at which point the Senate would recess for the 
caucuses.
  Mr. GREGG. I have no problem with that. The time of the Senator from 
Minnesota will come off of the time of the Senator from Massachusetts. 
Both the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Minnesota will 
come off of the time of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask that we change that. I am not going 
to speak on the bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 5 minutes of the Senator from 
Minnesota come off Senator Kennedy's time, and that the time that I use 
be time as in morning business until we recess for the caucuses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. I have no objection. I will amend it to include that the 
time used up in this discussion be applied equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Nevada 15 
minutes, or such time as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, many colleagues will come to the floor 
today and state that federally funded vouchers will ruin our public 
schools. I say flatly that this is wrong.
  This program does not take money away from any school. This amendment 
creates a demonstration program and authorizes new funding to pay for 
it. But, even if the Gregg amendment did not provide new funding, 
vouchers would not take money away from public schools. It a student 
uses a voucher to go to a private school, a public school no longer has 
to pay the cost of educating that student. And, in most cases, a 
voucher is given for less money than the average per pupil expenditure 
in the school district, thus saving the school money.
  Under the Gregg amendment, the voucher program is voluntary. It 
permits 10 cities and 3 states to apply for grants to operate a low-
income public/private choice program for students attending failing 
schools.
  This amendment ensures that children in our Nation's poorest 
neighborhoods, who attend our Nation's most struggling schools, have 
the opportunity to get out and attend a better, higher-performing 
school. These vouchers allow parents to choose the best academic 
setting for their child.
  In my opinion, the reason all of my colleagues should support this 
amendment is because it is going to help children succeed in school. 
None of us wants a child to be stuck in a school that has been 
identified as failing for 3 years. Rather, we want our children to be 
in an environment where they can not only learn but excel in what they 
are learning. Vouchers have made this achievement possible for many 
students who otherwise would not have succeeded.
  School choice, be it private or public, has been proven to drive 
reform in our Nation's schools. Why? Because competition breeds reform. 
How can a school be expected to rise above mediocrity if it is not 
challenged? In my opinion a lack of competition breeds mediocrity.
  If you look around us today, I will bet you that everyone here has 
sought out the best schools for our children. Many of us are fortunate, 
and can afford a move to a better school district, or can send our 
children to private schools. I bet that most lobbyists, including those 
for the National Education Association, in Washington, DC, send their 
children to private schools. However, many in our country are not as 
fortunate. How can we idly sit by and abandon children in failing 
schools?
  This amendment will help those who cannot afford to send their 
children to private schools and cannot afford to move to a better 
school district.
  A study by Harvard researchers found that students who stayed in a 
voucher program for 3 or 4 years registered reading scores 3 to 5 
percentile points higher and math scores 5 to 11 percentile points 
higher than a public school control group.
  A study on the Milwaukee choice program found that scholarship 
recipients experience a 1.5 to 2.3 percentile point gain over their 
peers in math for each year spent in a private school.
  Studies of private school choice programs in both Washington, DC, and 
Dayton, OH, found that black students who switched from public to 
private schools experienced an overall test score gain of 3.3 
percentile points the first year, and 6.3 percentile points the second 
year over the control group.
  If this trend continues, the researchers contend that the achievement 
gap in reading and math between white and minority students would be 
eliminated.
  Isn't this what everyone here wants: to have all students excel? Do 
we not want our nation's students to prove that they can do as well or 
better than their counterparts worldwide?
  Test results released last year on the National Assessment for 
Educational Progress, and the International Math and Science Survey, 
showed that children who attend private and parochial schools scored 
higher than their counterparts in public school.
  Students in private and parochial schools did better. It is as simple 
as that. Why then would we not allow low-income students who attend 
chronically failing schools a chance to attend schools that have proven 
time and again that they can and do increase student achievement?
  Parents strongly support public school choice; and yes, even 
vouchers. A recent poll done by the National Education Association 
(NEA) found that 63 percent of parents polled favored legislation that 
would provide parents with tuition vouchers of $1,500 a year to send 
their children to any public, private, or charter school. I ask my 
colleagues, what parent would not want to be given a chance to send 
their child to a better, higher performing school?
  I have had conversations with public school superintendents, 
principals, and teachers who support vouchers. Yes, they support them. 
But, they are afraid of stating their support publicly because of the 
teacher unions.
  In fact, public school teachers send their own children to private 
schools at a higher rate than the general population. In Cleveland 39.7 
percent of the public-school teachers living in the city sent at least 
one child to a private school. The average rate for nonteacher families 
was 25.2 percent. Here in Washington, DC, 28.2 percent of public school 
teachers send their children to private schools versus 19.7 percent of 
the general population. And finally, in Boston, 44.6 percent of public 
teachers send their children to private schools, versus 28.9 percent of 
all parents.
  It is not surprising that private organizations have initiated 
private school voucher programs and have had an unbelievable response. 
For example, the Children's Scholarship Fund offered 40,000 vouchers to 
similar students in cities across the United States. They received 1.25 
million applicants. In Baltimore alone 67 percent of the eligible 
student pool applied for one of these vouchers.
  One of the reasons for this response is simple: parents are seeing 
the results that private schools have on test results and want their 
child to receive that same education.

[[Page S6078]]

  However, the results from introducing vouchers in areas where public 
schools are failing our students are not only academic. Yes, test 
results have increased, but so have high school completion rates, 
college attendance rates, and parental satisfaction. In addition, 
students in private schools are better disciplined and feel safer in 
their school.
  The Federal Government already provides a type of voucher to low- to 
middle-income students with the Pell grant program. Pell grants are 
given to students to attend any college or university that they want; 
be it public, private, or parochial. The Federal Government has 
supported this, and as a result the American higher education system is 
the envy of the world.
  How is a Pell grant any different than a voucher for elementary or 
secondary school?
  I am not here today to attack our public schools. In most places, 
including my own state, our public schools are doing an outstanding 
job. But, in some places they are not. Some schools are simply failing 
to educate the children who attend them.
  Vouchers not only help students leave these failing schools, but also 
help to foster change in the schools they are leaving. Principals, 
teachers and superintendents do not want to have failing schools. They 
want their school to produce smart and productive children.
  In fact, with the introduction of the A+ program in Florida, failing 
schools did improve. Schools given a D or F improved by implementing 
longer school days, providing additional teacher training and 
professional development opportunities, and creating special programs 
to improve math and reading skills for at-risk students.
  This is what I want to see happening nationwide. I want to see our 
public schools improve; to prove to us that they can teach our students 
just as well, if not better, than private schools.
  I believe that this legislation provides the assistance that many 
public schools need to foster these changes and improvements. But I 
also believe that this amendment is a necessary part of this 
legislation. This amendment ensures that students in school districts 
that are struggling to improve student achievement will be given a 
chance to attend a school that does improve achievement.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment, and support 
children in failing schools receive a better education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, because there are other Senators 
desiring to speak on this, I can do this in less than 5 minutes. An 
awful lot has been said.
  I was listening to my colleague from Nevada, and I thought I might 
say at the beginning, in terms of my background, all of our children 
went to public schools. My wife Sheila worked at the library of the 
high school. I think this reminds me of a debate I was involved in with 
Senator Hatch from Utah when I first came to the Senate, a sharp 
debate, but done with some friendliness and a twinkle in our eye.
  I said to Senator Hatch, if Democrats and Republicans in the Senate 
could say to me as a Senator from Minnesota, we have lived up to our 
commitment to leaving no child behind--I have heard so much about 
leaving no child behind: We have fully funded prekindergarten education 
so every child in America comes to kindergarten ready to learn--that is 
where the Federal Government could be a real player; we have fully 
funded the title I program for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. 
We have lived up to our commitment to fund the IDEA program for 
children with special needs; We have voted for smaller class size and 
voted to get more teachers, good teachers into teaching, to join many 
good teachers who are teaching; we have voted for there to be an 
investment of money to rebuild crumbling schools because crumbling 
schools tell the children we don't give a damn; we have voted for 
resources for support services so there are counselors and teacher 
assistance and to help kids in reading; We have done it all, and none 
of it has worked; We have made our commitment to public education, and 
it has not worked; at that point in time, I might be the first person 
to embrace vouchers. But we have not done any of that. It is for that 
reason alone that I vigorously oppose this amendment introduced by the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  Second, in my understanding in this proposal--by the way, the 
exclusive private schools cost a lot--I don't know how it is that low-
income children are going to be able to afford this, even with the help 
they get here. This is fantasy land to believe that is the case.
  There is not a requirement to accept children, for example, who have 
special needs. If that is the case, and I believe it is, I oppose this 
amendment for that reason alone. I do not support public money that is 
not linked to making sure that every child will be able to benefit, 
including children with special needs. I have made my case.
  One other point. This bill is called BEST. This piece of legislation 
in its present form so far, beyond testing every child at every grade 
from grade 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and telling every school district in every 
State they have to do it, I see no guarantee anywhere in this 
legislation that provides any resources to make sure every child will 
have the same opportunity to learn. I don't see it in this legislation. 
I don't see it. It didn't happen last week with the trigger amendment 
on title 1. I am not aware of any agreement with the administration. 
This is putting the cart ahead of the horse, talking about vouchers, 
without making the commitment to public education.
  The tragedy is we have plenty of issues in our States, huge 
disparities of resources between children in more affluent districts 
and districts less affluent, States that could do better with 
surpluses, and Minnesota is an example. I cannot believe we are not 
making more of an investment in education in our own State. But at the 
Federal level, Senators, we have not even come close to matching the 
words we speak with the action we are taking. We have not lived up to 
our commitment to leaving no child behind, which I have said a million 
times, cannot be accomplished on a tin-cup education budget. That is 
all we have.

  Until we make the commitment to invest in the skills and intellect 
and character of all children in our country--and it starts with 
education, which is the foundation of opportunity--I could never 
support this voucher proposal. I hope it is defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Massachusetts is recognized.

                          ____________________