[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3333-3338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
turn to a motion to proceed to the education flexibility bill, S. 280, 
and there be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Wellstone tonight 
with 3 hours 30 minutes under his control tomorrow and 30 minutes under 
the control of Senator Jeffords, or his designee, and following the 
conclusion or yielding back of that time, the Senate proceed to a vote 
on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object. I am just inquiring of 
the leader--since this is the legislation, I would like to, as the 
ranking member, make a brief opening statement, as we proceed to this 
motion, for 10 minutes. I ask for 10 minutes tonight.
  Mr. LOTT. That probably would even be helpful if the Senator could do 
that tonight.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. And then if it is agreeable----
  Mr. LOTT. Do I need to modify, then, my unanimous consent request to 
that effect? I don't believe I would. I will take care to make sure we 
get that 10 minutes designated in the balance of our request.

[[Page 3334]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. At the start.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senate proceeded to consider the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the motion to proceed 
to S. 280.
  Who yields time?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I need to just clarify a couple points 
before we begin this time. I further ask unanimous consent that before 
we proceed to the time designated for Senator Wellstone that Senator 
Kennedy have 10 minutes to make an opening statement as the manager of 
the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. LOTT. Therefore, in light of this consent, there will be no 
further votes this evening. The Senate will debate the motion to 
proceed to the education flexibility bill this evening.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle in working out this agreement. I know the Senator 
from Minnesota wishes to have some extended time to talk on this 
matter, but we have worked it out in a way he will have his time to 
talk, we will get the vote, and we can go on to debate the substance of 
this very important, broadly bipartisan supported bill.
  I thank Senator Daschle for his cooperation in helping make this 
arrangement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 10 minutes and the Senator from Minnesota will be recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I welcome the opportunity 
that the Senate of the United States now in this early part of March 
will be considering various education policy questions because I 
believe, like other Members of this body, that the issues of education 
are of central concern to families all over America. I firmly believe 
that what families all over America are looking for is some form of 
partnership between the local community, the State, and the Federal 
Government, working in harmony to try to enhance the academic 
achievement and accomplishment for the young people in this country.
  I think all of us are very much aware that enhancing education 
achievement is a complex issue, and therefore we have a variety of 
different kinds of ideas about how best that can be achieved. I think 
all of us understand that the Federal role has been a limited role. It 
has been a limited role in identifying where, as a matter of national 
policy, we want to give focus and attention to children in this 
country. Historically, that has been the focus and attention in terms 
of the neediest, the disadvantaged children in this country.
  There have been other areas. For example, those that have some 
special needs. We have also been helpful in providing help and 
assistance to schools in terms of nutrition programs, breakfast and 
lunch programs. There has been a program in terms of the bilingual, 
help and assistance in Goals 2000 under President Clinton to try and 
help and assist local communities to move ahead in terms of education 
reform, and a number of other very important areas.
  Tomorrow we will begin the debate on education policy. The issue that 
is going to be before the Senate will be whether we are going to 
provide additional kinds of flexibility to the States and the school 
districts in their use of a number of the Federal programs that reach 
out into the communities.
  In 1994, we had reauthorization of the title 1 program. I joined in 
the initiative with Senator Hatfield. It was his initiative in 
providing a test program where we permitted a number of States to 
effectively waive the regulations on the title I programs with the 
assurance that the objective of the title I programs would be 
maintained and that the resources could be targeted to needy children. 
We have seen over a period of time a number of States take advantage of 
this flexibility.
  There have been other school districts which have had the opportunity 
to make application--some of them have, but not many. What is before 
the Senate now is the consideration to effectively permit greater 
flexibility in the States and local communities for the using of title 
I funds. Ninety percent of the waivers that have been considered to 
date have been on the title I programs. There are other programs that 
can be waivers, but those have been the title I programs.
  By and large, it is for reasons that have been best established 
within the local community. There have been waivers granted when they 
have not been able to reach a 50-percent standard of poor and needy 
children. It might be 48 or 45 or in some instances 40-percent poverty 
children. Without that waiver, there would not be the kinds of 
additional resources that would be available to that school to help and 
assist the needy children.
  Now we are embarked on a more extensive kind of a consideration of a 
waiver program. What I think we understand is if we are going to get 
into providing additional waivers, we need to have important 
accountability about how these resources that are going to be expended 
are going to be used to help and assist the academic achievement of the 
targeted group, which are the neediest children. Tomorrow we will have 
an opportunity to go over that particular issue with Senator Frist and 
others after we have an opportunity to move toward the bill.
  Mr. President, I think, quite frankly, I would have agreed that there 
is a certain logic in considering the waiver provisions when we 
reauthorize the total bill. I don't have an objection to the 
consideration of this legislation. It may be a valuable tool in terms 
of a local community if we are going to be assured that these scarce 
resources that we have available that today are targeted on the 
neediest children, are going to go to the neediest children; that we 
are going to ensure that parents are going to be involved in any 
decisions; that it is going to affect those children, and that we are 
going to maintain our content and performance standards which are out 
there now so we can have some opportunity to be assured that those 
children are actually benefiting from any alteration or change from 
what has been the Federal policy; and that there will be ultimately the 
judgment of the Secretary of Education that if the measure is going to 
violate the fundamental principle of the intent of the legislation, 
then the power still retains within the Secretary of Education not to 
permit such a waiver to move ahead. That is basically the initial issue 
that we will be debating.
  We will also, I think, have an important opportunity to debate the 
President's proposal for smaller class size. That is something which is 
very, very important. We made a downpayment with Republicans and 
Democrats alike at the end of the last session to ensure additional 
schoolteachers in local school districts, and now the school districts 
themselves are going to wonder whether that was really a one-time only 
or whether it will be as the President intended to be--a commitment 
over a period of some 6 years. The afterschool programs which have been 
such a success, which the President and Secretary Riley have talked 
about--there will be initiatives, hopefully, in those areas. There are 
excellent programs by Senator Bingaman in terms of school dropouts that 
has been accepted in the past by this body; I hope we will be able to 
give attention to that area.
  There will be a limited but important group of amendments which we 
think can be enormously helpful and valuable to our local communities 
in terms of being that kind of constructive partner in enhancing the 
education for the children of this country.
  So that is where we are going, and I welcome the chance to have that 
debate over the period of these next several days. There are many 
things that are important in this session, but this will be one of the 
most important.
  Finally, let me say I want to pay tribute to my friend and associate 
from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, who

[[Page 3335]]

has very strong views in terms of making sure these resources are going 
to actually be targeted to the neediest children in this country. He 
has been an effective and forceful fighter for those children. I know 
he will speak for himself, but he really questions whether any of these 
kinds of waivers can still give the kinds of assurances, as we have 
them in the current legislation, that will target those funds to the 
children. It is a powerful case that he makes--one that should be 
listened to by our colleagues--and it is a very persuasive case that he 
makes. We have come to a different conclusion, but I have enormous 
respect and friendship for him.
  I must say that our colleagues should listen to him carefully on the 
points he is making, because I think he speaks for the neediest 
children in this country, as he has so often. It is a position that is 
a respectable position and I think a very defensible position, and I 
think it underlies the kind of central concerns many of us have if we 
fail to have the kind of accountability that hopefully will be included 
in the legislation. So I thank him for all of his work and for his 
consistency in protecting the title I children. I hope that all of our 
colleagues will pay close attention to what I know will be a very 
important statement.
  I yield whatever time I have back, Mr. President.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 30 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank Senator 
Kennedy for his very gracious remarks. There is nobody in the Senate 
that I have more respect for, and I much appreciate what he had to say. 
I hope that we will, in fact, be in partnership on some critical 
amendments. In fact, I know we will be in partnership on some critical 
amendments that the Senate will be voting on.
  Mr. President, I am debating this motion to proceed, and I am going 
to use a half hour tonight to kind of spell out or give an outline of 
where I am going to be heading, and then I will use 3\1/2\ hours 
tomorrow.
  Mr. President, this is what I want to say on the floor of the Senate, 
and I hope that it is important. We have a piece of legislation that is 
on the floor of the Senate and I wonder why. This bill is called the 
Ed-Flex legislation, the Ed-Flex bill. But we never had a hearing in 
the U.S. Senate--not one hearing in one committee, the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee, on this bill. We never had an opportunity to 
listen to different people who are down in the trenches working with 
children. We never had an opportunity to carefully evaluate the pluses 
and minuses. Yet, my Republican colleagues bring this bill to the 
floor.
  Secondly, it is absolutely true--and Senator Kennedy did an excellent 
job of summarizing this--that there are a number of States that have 
moved forward. I voted for the legislation--and Senator Kennedy was a 
coauthor of it--to give the States flexibility. I thought the agreement 
was that we would then be able to see what States have done and then 
reach a final judgment as to whether or not we wanted to pass such a 
sweeping piece of legislation. I will talk about why I think it is 
sweeping, not in the positive but in the negative. As the General 
Accounting Office pointed out, we don't have any evaluation of what 
these different States have done with this flexibility. Have they used 
this Ed-Flex bill to dramatically improve the opportunities for poor 
children in their States or not? We don't know. Yet, this bill is now 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, I am opposed to this piece of legislation. It passed 
18-1 in committee, but I am opposed to this piece of legislation. I 
hope other colleagues will join me as this debate goes forward, for 
several reasons. First and foremost, I believe this legislation--just 
taking this bill for what it is--is a retreat from a commitment that we 
made as a nation in 1965 to poor children in America. We made this 
commitment and had title I as a provision in the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act because we knew, unfortunately, that for all 
too many poor children and their families--you know, they are not the 
ones with the clout--they were not receiving the educational assistance 
and support that they deserved; thus, the title I program. It is now 
about $8 billion a year. I want to talk about the funding level of this 
program a little later on.
  What this legislation does is it essentially turns the clock back 30 
or 35 years. This legislation now says that we no longer, as a nation, 
as a Federal Government, will continue with this commitment. We will 
give money to States and they will decide what they want to do.
  I am all for flexibility. I just wonder, where is the accountability? 
At the very minimum, in such a piece of legislation shouldn't there be 
clear language that points out that the basic core provisions of title 
I, which provide the protection for poor children in America, are 
fenced off and no State will be exempt from those provisions? That is 
to say that these children, low-income children, will have highly 
qualified teachers who will be working with them, that these low-income 
children will be held to high standards, that these low-income children 
will have an opportunity to meet those standards, and that the poorest 
communities with the highest percentage of low-income children will 
have first priority on the title I funding that is spent. All of that, 
with the legislation that is before us, can be waived. No longer will 
we have any of these standards.
  So you have two issues. No. 1, you have the lack of accountability on 
the very core provisions of title I that are so important in making 
sure that this is a program that works for poor children. No. 2, you 
have a problem just in terms of dilution of funding.
  One of the amendments I will have on the floor will say that this 
title I funding that goes to different States--that those schools with 
75 percent low-income students, or more, will have first priority in 
that funding. The funding has to first go to those schools. Right now, 
with this legislation, we have moved away from that. In 1994, when we 
went through this, we had an amendment that said that schools with over 
75 percent low-income students had first priority for this funding. Now 
we abandon that in this legislation. So, first of all, let me be 
crystal clear about why I object to this. I object to this piece of 
legislation because it represents an abandonment of a national 
commitment to poor children in America, and, frankly, I am disappointed 
in my colleagues. I am disappointed in my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, but I am especially disappointed in my Democratic 
colleagues. Where is our sense of justice? Whatever happened to our 
fight for poor children? How could we have let this legislation just 
move forward and come right to the floor in its present form? Where is 
our voice? I don't understand it.
  I am sorry if I sound--well, I am worried about sounding self-
righteous; I don't want to, but I certainly feel strongly about this. I 
think the silence of the Democrats is deafening on this question.
  Now, second of all, Mr. President, I am going to take time tonight--I 
won't take much time tonight, but I will have a lot of time tomorrow--
to raise another question about this legislation. No wonder people in 
our country become cynical about politics because this Ed-Flex bill--
see, I understand the politics of it. It is hard to vote against it. It 
is called Ed-Flex, which is a great title.
  Then we say get the money to the States, get the Federal Government 
out, it is politically--yes. I see how it works. But do you want to 
know something? I don't want to let anybody --any Republican or any 
Democrat--pass this legislation off as some great step forward in 
expanding opportunities for children. It is not a great step forward 
for children. It is a great leap backwards. It is a great leap 
backwards because it is an abandonment of our commitment to poor 
children. It is an abandonment of our standard which should be met by 
title I programs for poor children. I will tell you something else; it 
is a great leap backwards, or a great leap sideways, because it doesn't

[[Page 3336]]

represent what we should be doing for children in this country. 
Tomorrow I will have an opportunity to outline some of the directions 
that I am going to go in. But let me just raise a few questions.
  When I am home, what most people in communities tell me that are down 
in the trenches working with children, and what most of the State 
legislators tell me who are education legislators, is, ``Paul, the 
Federal Government is a real player in a number of different areas.'' 
Title I is one, and another is early childhood development. Here is how 
you can help us out pre-K. We have a White House conference on the 
development of the brain. We have all this literature that has come 
out. I have read a lot of it about the development of the brain. The 
fact is irrefutable and irreducible--that if we don't get it right for 
children by age 3, many of them will never be prepared for school. They 
will come to kindergarten way behind and then they will fall further 
behind and further behind and then they will wind up in prison.
  But we don't have a piece of legislation out here on early childhood 
development. And, frankly, the President's budget is pathetic, much 
less the Republicans' proposing even less. I mean, in the President's 
budget, I think maybe at best 20 percent of those low-income families 
that would be eligible for assistance are going to be able to receive 
any. And what about middle-income? I cannot believe that we are 
continuing to play symbolic politics with children's lives.
  If we were serious about a piece of legislation on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate that would really do something positive for children, then 
we would be about the business of making sure that working families can 
afford the very best child care for their children. And we don't do 
that. Instead, we get Ed-Flex, which won't do one additional positive 
thing that will help expand educational opportunities for children in 
this country, especially among poor children of this country.
  Mr. President, let me talk about another area that I think is really 
important.
  Children's Defense Fund study this past year: Every day in America 
three young people under age 25 die from HIV infection, 6 children 
commit suicide; 13 children are homicide victims; 14 children are 
killed by firearms; 81 babies die; 280 children arrested for violent 
crime; 434 babies are born to mothers who have late or have no prenatal 
care; 781 babies are born at low-birth weights; 1,403 babies are born 
to teen mothers; 1,087 babies are born without health insurance; 2,430 
babies are born into poverty; 2,756 children drop out of high school 
every schoolday; 3,346 babies are born to unmarried mothers; 5,753 
children are arrested; 8,470 children are reported abused or neglected; 
11.3 million children are without health insurance; and, 14.5 million 
children live in poverty.
  Do we have a piece of legislation out here on the floor that deals 
with the fact that one out of every four children under the age of 3 in 
America are growing up poor? Do we have a piece of legislation that 
deals with the reality that one out of every two children of color 
under the age of 3 in America are growing up poor?
  I was talking to about 350 principals in Minneapolis-St. Paul about 2 
weeks ago. And they said to me, ``There is another issue, Paul.'' It is 
not just that so many kids come to school way behind. Ed-Flex does 
nothing for those children. It is also that a lot of children come to 
school emotionally scarred. These children have seen violence in their 
homes. They have seen violence in their neighborhood. And they need a 
whole lot of additional support.
  Is there a piece of legislation out on the floor that calls for the 
Federal Government to get resources to local communities, then let them 
be flexible, let them design the programs that can provide the support 
for these children? No. Not at all. Instead we get Ed-Flex.
  Mr. President, we have a program in this country called Head Start. 
It does just what the title says it does. It is an attempt to give a 
head start to children who come from impoverished backgrounds. I am 
amazed at the men and women that are Head Start teachers. I am amazed 
at the men and women that are child care workers. Their work is so 
undervalued. They barely make above minimum wage. Do we have a piece of 
legislation out here on the floor that provides more funding for Head 
Start? No. Mr. President, instead, we have a budget from the President 
that essentially says that we will get the funding to one-half of the 
eligible Head Start families and children at best. It is an 
embarrassment. It is an embarrassment. We have a program, a Head Start 
program, to provide a head start for children from impoverished 
backgrounds. We know it makes a real difference, and we don't even 
provide the funding for half of the children that could benefit. I 
don't think that is pre-teen. I think that is just 4 and 5-year-olds, 
much less early Head Start.
  Does Ed-Flex do anything about providing the support for children for 
the Head Start program? No. Does it speak to early childhood 
development? No. Does it speak to afterschool care? No. My colleagues 
will have amendments on the floor. And good for them. We will be 
supporting them and speaking for them about smaller class sizes, about 
rebuilding crumbling schools, about involving parents, about giving 
children hope. All of that is important. Does this piece of legislation 
deal with any of that? No.
  Mr. President, I am going to present some jarring statistics that 
translate into personal terms tomorrow about the whole lack of equity 
financing in education. I will draw from my friend, Jonathan Kovol, who 
wrote ``Savage Inequality.'' It is incredible that some children in our 
country--probably not the children of Senators and Representatives--go 
to schools without adequate lab facilities, without enough textbooks, 
without proper heat, delapidated buildings. And they don't have the 
financing. They don't have the financing for computers. They don't have 
the financing so students can be technologically literate. They don't 
have the financing for the best teachers. There are huge disparities.
  Does this piece of legislation called Ed-Flex do anything to deal 
with the fact that we have such dramatic inequalities in access to good 
education for children in America? Does this piece of legislation, Ed-
Flex, say that since our economy is doing so well, surely today we can 
provide a good educational opportunity for every child? No. It doesn't 
do any of that. What it does is it turns the clock back.
  I can't believe so many of my colleagues have caved in to this. How 
could we have let a bill come to the floor pretending to be a great 
initiative to improve the education of our children when it doesn't, 
and, in addition, turns the clock back and takes the accountability and 
takes some of the core requirements of title I, and no longer makes 
that the law of the land, no longer says that we have a national 
commitment, and essentially says to the States do what you want without 
any accountability? What do you think is going to happen to these 
children? Some States may be better. I hope it will be in Minnesota. I 
will tell you what. I will make some of my colleagues angry in other 
States. It will be worse. It will be worse.
  That is why we have title I. That is why we have the IDEA program. We 
know that unless you have a real commitment to children--IDEA is not 
covered in this bill. But unless you have a real commitment to children 
with disabilities, or low-income children, they are not going to get 
the assistance or the support.
  Let me now turn to the third argument I want to make tonight, and I 
will develop this in much more detail tomorrow.
  Here is the other thing that is so disingenuous about this Ed-Flex 
legislation. We ought to have some direction--and I will try to have an 
amendment that talks about this--for funding. We are spending $8 
billion a year, and that is about a third, according to the 
Congressional Research Service, of what we need to be spending if we 
are, in fact, going to reach all the children who are eligible for this 
help and all the schools that are eligible. And you know what. When I 
met with the teachers, when I met with the principals,

[[Page 3337]]

when I met with the educators in my State of Minnesota, they could not 
identify one provision in title I right now that needs to be changed in 
order for them to have the flexibility to do their best for children. 
And when we get into the debate, I am going to ask my colleagues to 
list what exactly the provisions are that create the problem, that 
create the impediment for the reform to do our best by these children. 
So far I haven't heard of any. I haven't heard of one statute. I 
haven't seen any of my colleagues identify one statute.
  I will tell you what the men and women who are involved in education 
and who care about children tell me about title I. ``Senator, we don't 
have enough funding.'' That is what this is all about. We don't provide 
enough funding, and then it becomes a vicious zero sum game. So, for 
example, if you are a school with over 50 percent low-income children, 
you get some help for those children, but if you are under 50 percent, 
even though you have a lot of children, you don't get any funding at 
all. That is because we have such a limited amount of funding, and when 
we divide it up in our school districts, we allocate it to the schools 
with the highest percentage of poor children, but then many other 
schools with many poor children don't get any funding at all.
  Let me give some examples. St. Paul. There are about 60 K-12 public 
schools in the St. Paul School District in Minnesota. There are 20 
schools in St. Paul with at least 50 percent free and reduced lunch 
that receive no title I funds at all. One-third of St. Paul schools 
have significant poverty and receive no title I funds to help eliminate 
the achievement or learning gap.
  There it is right there. Where is the discussion of the funding? We 
are making Ed-Flex out to be some great thing for our school districts 
and our local communities and we are not providing the resources that 
are needed.
  Example. Five senior high schools receive no title I funding. 
Humboldt Senior High has 68 percent of its students on free and reduced 
lunch, no title I. A school with a 68 percent low-income population 
doesn't receive any title I funding because after we allocate it, there 
is so little that it goes to schools with an even higher percentage of 
low-income students. There is nothing left.
  Let's get honest and let's get real and let's talk about funding if 
we want to make a difference.
  Several middle schools receive no title I funding. Battle Creek 
Middle School has 77 percent free and reduced lunch but receives no 
title I funds. Frost Lake Elementary School, 68 percent free and 
reduced but no title I. Eastern Heights Elementary School, 64 percent 
free and reduced but no title I. Mississippi Magnet Elementary School, 
67 percent of the students are low income, no title I.
  The St. Paul School District in Minnesota, if it had another $8 
million, could reduce class size, it could increase parental 
involvement, it could have good community outreach, and it could hire 
additional staff to work with the students who have the greatest need. 
But we don't have the funding. And we have a bill out here called Ed-
Flex that pretends to be some great, some significant commitment to 
children and to education in our country. Can't we do better than that?
  Let me talk about Minneapolis, and this is just a draft of what 
Minneapolis is expecting on present course. Here is what Minneapolis is 
going to get with Ed-Flex but no additional funding. This is basically 
what is going to happen. Of the 87 K-12 schools in Minneapolis, 31 
schools will receive no title I funds, 14 schools which have at least a 
50 percent low-income student population will receive no title I. That 
is unbelievable. Schools that have over 50 percent low-income student 
population do not receive any funding because there is not enough 
funding. I don't hear any discussion in this Ed-Flex bill about funding 
or pointing us in the direction of additional funding.
  Let me give some examples. Burroughs Elementary School, 43 percent 
free and reduced, will receive no title I funding. Anthony Elementary 
School, 42 percent low-income, no title I funding. They would use the 
money for afterschool tutoring to improve math and science, to improve 
technology, to increase staffing and to improve parental involvement. 
Marcy Open Elementary School, 44 percent low-income, no title I 
funding. The school is in danger of losing 10 educational assistants 
because the funding level doesn't keep up with the kids and what needs 
to be done. Kenny Elementary School, 39 percent low-income, no title I 
funding. This school would use the additional resources, if they had 
them, for additional tutors in small group instruction, to buy certain 
computer-assisted instruction, make the ``Read Naturally'' Program 
available to more students, and focus on the students who are English 
language learners. No funding. Dowling Urban Environmental Learning 
Center, 45 percent free and reduced lunch, no title I, and they would 
use this to help prevent students from becoming special ed students, do 
early intervention to help students succeed.
  Well, Mr. President, I don't know how much time I have remaining 
tonight. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Six minutes. Well, let me just kind of read from--I 
will give plenty of examples tomorrow of great success, but I have just 
a few comments from constituents of mine. Vicki Turner says:

       The title I program of the Minneapolis public schools 
     provided not only help for my two children, but the parental 
     involvement program was crucial in helping me develop as an 
     individual parent and now as a teacher for the program.

  Gretchen Carlson Collins, title I director, Hopkins School District, 
said:

       There is no better program in education than title I of the 
     ESEA. We know it works.

  John and Helen Matson say:

       How can anyone question the need for a strong ESEA. Ed-Flex 
     waivers are an invitation to undermine the quality of public 
     school systems.

  High school senior Tammie Jeanelle Joby was in title I in third 
grade.

       Title I has helped make me the hard-working student that I 
     am. My future plan after high school is to attend St. 
     Scholastica. I may specialize in special education or 
     kindergarten.

  And the list goes on.
  Mr. President, tomorrow I will develop each of these arguments. 
Tonight, let me just kind of signal to my colleagues that I am debating 
this motion to proceed, and I will have amendments and I will fight 
very hard on this piece of legislation because this is a rush to 
recklessness. Unfortunately, the recklessness has to do with the lives 
of children in America, specifically poor children in America. And I 
find it hard to believe that we have a piece of legislation which will 
have such a critical and crucial impact on the lack of quality of lives 
of children in our country that we brought this piece of legislation to 
the floor of the Senate without even a hearing, and we brought this 
piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate without even seeing how 
different Ed-Flex States, which are part of the demonstration projects, 
are doing right now.
  Mr. President, I am not going to let my colleagues, Republicans or 
Democrats, pretend that this piece of legislation represents some major 
step forward for education for children in America. It does not. I 
think at least some of my colleagues--Senator Kennedy spoke about 
this--are going to have some amendments that I think really will make a 
difference.
  Second, I am going to make it as clear as I can tomorrow, and as 
crystal clear as I can with amendments and with debate--and I am ready 
for the debate--that in no way, shape or form is it acceptable for the 
U.S. Senate to support a piece of legislation which essentially turns 
its back on or abandons our national commitment to poor children in 
America to make sure that the standards are met, that there are good 
teachers, that the money goes to the neediest schools and the neediest 
children, that there are high standards, that the schools are required 
to meet those standards, that we have some evidence of progress being 
made. The core requirements of title I must remain intact.
  This piece of legislation on the floor right now does not require 
this to be

[[Page 3338]]

the case. This piece of legislation essentially removes those core 
requirements and leaves up to the States what they want to do. This 
piece of legislation essentially wipes away the requirement that the 
money should go to the neediest schools first and allows States to do 
what they want to do. That is not acceptable. That is an abandonment of 
our commitment to low-income children in America. I look forward to 
this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________