[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3893-3900]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we will vote again on whether to 
end this debate on education--prematurely, I believe--or do our part to 
help communities meet critical educational needs. After a very limited 
2-day debate on education last week, the majority leader filed cloture 
to end debate on the bill. The next day he filed the same cloture 
motion to force a second vote on whether to end the debate. The first 
cloture motion was defeated yesterday; the second cloture motion will 
be defeated today. I believe we should stop playing procedural games 
and vote on amendments that are critical to communities across the 
Nation.
  Republican intentions are clear. They do not want a debate on 
education. They do not want a vote on the critical educational issues 
facing the Nation's communities: reducing class size, recruiting more 
teachers, expanding afterschool programs, bringing technology into the 
classroom, reducing dropout rates, modernizing school

[[Page 3894]]

buildings. And there is a shared responsibility in all of these areas 
between the local communities, the States, and the Federal government 
as well. Parents and communities have a central concern about ensuring 
that their children are going to be adequately trained as they move 
towards the new century.
  We have an opportunity to do something about it, and we have, as we 
have demonstrated over the course of this debate, compelling evidence 
that each of these particular programs can really make a difference in 
children's achievement and growth, scholastically, in their local 
communities. No bill on the Senate calendar right now concerns more 
important issues than education.
  These issues are important and timely. We start off this session with 
a very thin calendar. We have the time and we have the ability, as we 
have said on a number of different occasions. Under the leadership of 
Senator Daschle on this side of the aisle, we are prepared to agree to 
a small number of amendments with strict time limits that could ensure 
a speedy conclusion to those amendments, even, probably, during the day 
today. We can all work together to reach a bipartisan consensus on 
education now, because the Nation's schools and children cannot.
  Some Republicans insist that they won't agree now to any amendments 
which affect the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but that 
position is untenable. The pending Ed-Flex bill directly affects the 
largest ESEA program, title I. It also affects a number of the other 
programs included in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--the 
Education Technology, the Eisenhower Professional Development, and the 
Safe and Drug Free Schools programs. Yet we are now considering Ed-Flex 
long before it is ready for action.
  We should also be able to consider other vital education issues, too. 
Ed-Flex is a good idea, because it gives States more flexibility in 
implementing Federal programs. It makes them accountable for how well 
Federal aid is used to improve the schools. It goes back to the 
initiative of our good friend from the State of Oregon, Senator 
Hatfield. I joined him in offering the initial Ed-Flex in 1994. I 
offered it as an amendment to Goals 2000, to permit another group of 
States to do so. I know this program. I support this program.
  We have strong support for the Ed-Flex concept on this side of the 
aisle as well as the other side of the aisle. We want to make sure, 
when we provide scarce resources, that the local communities, when they 
get the scarce resources, are able to show how the changes in the 
education programs will enhance student achievement. That is what we 
are interested in. Families are interested, local communities are, 
States are; we should be as well. We are trying to give the assurance 
to families across the country that accountability would be a part of 
Ed-Flex.
  Ed-Flex, as I mentioned, is a good idea, but flexibility and 
accountability mean little if we do not give communities the support 
they need to implement school reform strategies that work. If you take 
the time to read the General Accounting Office review of Ed-Flex, what 
springs out at you is what the GAO report stated was the greatest 
desire for the local communities. What they asked for was additional 
funding for education programs. That makes sense. Second, they wanted 
to know if there were other opportunities to enhance academic 
achievement. Third, they were looking for help and assistance in how to 
run their schools more efficiently and effectively.
  Those are pretty reasonable ideas and ones that I think all of us can 
understand. That is what they were looking for, and we are attempting 
to try to assist with these other ideas that different Members have 
talked about over the period of the past few days to try to help the 
local communities.
  Last year, with broad bipartisan support, the Congress made a 
substantial investment in improving the Nation's public schools. We 
increased funding for IDEA by $500 million. We increased funding for 
afterschool programs by $160 million. We increased funding for title I 
by $300 million. And we made a $1.2 billion investment in reducing 
class size in the early grades. Those were done with bipartisan 
support, including the commitment to reduce class size, the amendment 
that Senator Murray has championed in the Senate not only this year but 
last year as well.
  Much more remains to be done. Good ideas to improve education deserve 
our strong support. We need to do more to help communities hire 
additional teachers and reduce class size. We need to support State 
efforts to raise academic standards and support communities and 
teachers who are helping children meet those standards. We need to 
modernize school buildings and repair crumbling facilities. We had the 
GAO report which estimated it will cost $120 billion just to bring 
classrooms across this country up to standards. Many communities in 
urban and in rural areas just cannot afford to take on that particular 
challenge themselves. We have ideas about how we can assist local 
communities, not with a handout, but to help them ease the kinds of 
financial pressures on that local community in order to bring their 
school buildings and classrooms up to speed.
  That is a very important concept, partly because without doing so it 
is more difficult for the children to learn. We find even in the city 
of Boston that when the temperature goes down to 15 to 20 degrees, 15 
schools close down because their heating systems are not adequate. 
Automatically, 15 schools close down. There is an effort being made in 
the local community--the greatest increase in a school budget in terms 
of education, I think, of any major urban area in the country--but 
still it is taking time.
  We can help in this area. It is not only important in terms of the 
physical facility, it is important in the message we send to the 
children. Every parent, when they see their child go off in the 
morning, is talking to that child about paying attention during the 
course of the day, working hard, doing his or her homework, getting 
extra help and assistance if it is needed. Every parent is to instill 
in them the value and the importance of education. But if the child 
walks into a classroom and it is dilapidated and not functioning or 
does not have an electronic system to hook up the various new kinds of 
technology, we are sending a very powerful, very simple message to 
those children. The parents may be talking about the value and 
importance of education, but we, as a society, are not prepared to put 
the resources into it to ensure that those children will go to a first-
rate school. That is the message, and that is powerful.
  That is happening every single day in communities all across this 
country--certainly in many of the older communities and in many of the 
poorer rural communities across this country--where we do not have the 
kind of facilities that all of us would hope we might have for the 
children of this country. It is a very important message, and we are 
attempting to do something about it. We are not going to answer the 
whole problem, but we are going to offer a helping hand for local 
communities. Trying to provide some help and assistance in terms of 
school construction makes a good deal of sense.
  Much more remains to be done. Good ideas to improve education deserve 
our strong support. We need to do more to help communities hire 
additional teachers, reduce class size, support State efforts to raise 
academic standards, and support communities and teachers who are 
helping children to meet those standards.
  We talk about content standards. An increasing number of States have 
adopted content or performance standards. That is very important, so 
that parents will know what their children are learning and how they 
are doing. We need to end social promotion, but, when we do that, we 
are going to make sure there will be the kinds of support facilities 
out there for children who have not been able to keep up, to keep them 
from falling further behind.
  We have different examples of where that is taking place--in Chicago, 
where

[[Page 3895]]

children who are falling behind are getting extra assistance during the 
schoolday, or even after school, or over the course of the weekend, or 
during vacations, or during the summer--maintaining high standards for 
children, but also trying to get assistance for those children who need 
it. It makes sense. That is what we are trying to bring attention to.
  We need to modernize the buildings, as I mentioned. We need to expand 
the afterschool programs--for the 7 or 8 million children between the 
ages of 8 or 9 and 14 who go home in the afternoon to empty houses, who 
may spend their time watching television, if the parents are fortunate, 
or otherwise involved in antisocial behavior, if they are not--to try 
to develop programs that are going to work with the schools or with 
nonprofits.
  We have different ways of approaching this, modest amounts of 
resources in the President's budget to try to do so. We can encourage 
those children to be involved in afterschool programs, to enhance their 
academic ability and achievement and perhaps give those children a 
chance to spend some quality time with their parents. Rather than the 
parents coming home, finding the child has been watching television, 
and saying, ``Go up to your room to do your homework,'' parents can 
provide the kind of climate and atmosphere which is going to be 
profamily.
  This is a profamily issue, Mr. President. We have seen the amount of 
success that it has. Last year, when we had $40 million in afterschool 
programs, we had $500 million in applications. That is from the local 
communities. What we are doing now is trying to build that up to cover 
more than a million children, and that will send a ripple all across 
this country to develop after school programs. We do not intend to do 
all that is required in terms of after school, but we can demonstrate, 
by the success of these programs, how they have impacted children and 
families to build the kind of local support for the enhanced programs.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, I say to the Senator.
  I am so pleased he is talking about afterschool programs. I am so 
disappointed at this point we cannot offer our amendment which would, 
in fact, accommodate, as the Senator pointed out, more than a million 
children in afterschool quality programs.
  I ask the Senator if he was aware of the relationship to the crime 
issue, juvenile crime, that we have been told by the FBI that the 
highest incidents of crime occur at 3 o'clock. And we have tremendous 
support for this afterschool amendment from the police athletic leagues 
all across this country and the police officers because when you have 
quality afterschool programs, it not only improves the education of 
children--and they do much better as they have done in afterschool 
programs throughout California--but also the police athletic leagues 
tell me they see a 75-percent reduction in crimes. So I ask the Senator 
if he could comment on the impact these afterschool programs have on 
reducing juvenile crime.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. Perhaps the Senator 
wants to put in the Record the excellent letter that has been sent to 
all of us from some 450 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and 
leaders of police organizations in strong support of your amendment for 
the after school program. It reviews what has been happening in local 
communities to demonstrate their reasons for their strong support. Just 
as the Senator has mentioned, it has had an important and significant 
positive impact on reducing juvenile crime.
  I can tell you in Boston, MA, we went 2\1/2\ years without a youth 
homicide--virtually unheard of for any major city of this country. And 
if you talk to Paul Evans, who is our police chief up there, the first 
thing he will talk to you about are the after school programs. He will 
talk about other programs in terms of trying to penetrate gangs, and he 
will talk about working with teachers and social service offices in 
terms of identifying the real trouble makers, and a variety of 
different other efforts, but he will lead off his list with the after 
school programs. It is just as the Senator has stated. This has an 
important, positive impact in reducing juvenile crime.
  We are talking about preventing antisocial behavior, whether it is in 
terms of crime, or more dangerous kinds of activity, namely juvenile 
violence. This is very important.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my colleague for speaking out on these issues 
today. And, yes, I ask unanimous consent the letter Senator Kennedy 
mentioned be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   Fight Crime

                                                Invest in Kids

                                    Washington, DC, March 4, 1999.
     Re: Anti-Crime Amendment to Educational Flexibility 
         Partnership Act.
       Dear Senator: As an organization of 450 police chiefs, 
     sheriffs, prosecutors, leaders of police organizations, and 
     crime victims, we urge that you co-sponsor and support 
     Senator Boxer's After School Education and Anti-Crime 
     Amendment, which would boost authorization funding levels for 
     the 21st Century Community Learning Centers after-school 
     programs, as you consider the Education Flexibility 
     Partnership Act of 1999 (S. 280).
       FBI data show that in the hour after the school bell rings, 
     juvenile crime suddenly triples. The peak hours for violent 
     juvenile crime are from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., and more than 
     half of all such crime occurs between 3:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. 
     These are also the peak hours for unmarried teens to engage 
     in sexual activity, and being unsupervised in the afternoon 
     doubles the risk that teen will drink alcohol, smoke 
     cigarettes, or use drugs.
       Quality after-school, weekend and summer programs for 
     children and youth can cut crime dramatically--by offering 
     school-age kids a safe haven from negative influences, and 
     providing constructive activities that teach them not only 
     the skills they need to succeed, but also values like 
     responsibility, hard work, and respect and concern for 
     others. For example: high school freshmen boys randomly 
     selected from welfare households to participate in the 
     Quantum Opportunities after-school program were only one 
     sixth as likely to be convicted of a crime during their high 
     school years as boys in the control group. Together, the boys 
     and girls who participated in the program were 50% more 
     likely to graduate from high school on time, and two-and-a 
     half times more likely to attend post-secondary schooling. 
     The program produced three dollars in benefits for every 
     dollar spent.
       When a Canadian public housing project intensively 
     recruited youngsters to participate in an after-school skills 
     development program, juvenile arrests among its teen 
     residents declined by 75%, while they were going up 67% among 
     the residents of a nearby comparison housing project. The 
     program saved the government more than twice its cost.
       When the Baltimore Police Department opened an after-school 
     program in one high-crime neighborhood, kids' risk of 
     becoming crime victims was cut nearly in half.
       That's why, in addition to our 450 law enforcement members, 
     law enforcement organizations nationwide have called on 
     public officials to provide for America's children and teens 
     after-school programs that offer recreation, academic support 
     and community service experience. Among the organizations 
     which have passed such resolutions are the National Sheriffs 
     Association; the Major Cities [Chiefs] organization (composed 
     of the police chiefs from North America's 52 largest cities); 
     the Police Executive Research Forum (made up of police 
     chiefs, sheriffs, and other law enforcement officials who 
     together serve over 100 million Americans); the National 
     District Attorneys Association; and such state law 
     enforcement groups as the California District Attorneys 
     Association; and such state law enforcement groups as the 
     California District Attorneys Association, the Illinois 
     Association of Chiefs of Police and the Illinois States 
     Attorneys Association; the Texas Police Chiefs Association, 
     the Arizona Sheriffs and Prosecutors Association, the Maine 
     Chiefs and Maine Sheriffs Associations, and the Rhode Island 
     Police Chief's Association.
       Despite clear evidence that quality after-school programs 
     have a dramatic crime prevention impact and actually save 
     taxpayer dollars, we are serving only a small portion of the 
     children and youth who need these programs. More than 7 
     million children under twelve years old and millions more 
     between twelve and eighteen years old, now spend their after-
     school hours unsupervised and vulnerable to the negative 
     influences of gangs, drugs, and crime.
       Senator Boxer's After-school Education and Anti-Crime 
     Amendment would be a step forward in meeting our nation's 
     need for more after-school programs. We therefore urge the 
     Senate to adopt this amendment.

[[Page 3896]]

       If we can be of further assistance as you consider S. 280, 
     and other crime-prevention issues, please feel free to call 
     on us.
           Sincerely,
                                                Sanford A. Newman,
                                                        President.

  Mrs. BOXER. I do want to thank the police athletic leagues for 
getting involved in this. I want to ask my friend this question, 
because he is our leader on education. He was the former chair of the 
Education Committee, now the ranking member.
  I seem confused in trying to understand the majority leader's 
decision here not to allow these amendments to be offered. And I read 
somewhere that he said he looked forward to this debate when we began 
and he said, let's have those amendments, and we will vote them up or 
down. Can my friend explain to me why on Earth, when we have a 
situation here where the No. 1 issue in America today is our children 
and their education, the majority leader will not allow us to have an 
up-or-down vote on 100,000 teachers, on expanding afterschool programs, 
on the myriad of issues that we all know we need to address, the No. 1 
issue today? Does my friend understand this change of heart? And can he 
explain to me what the rationale is for filibustering our amendments, 
for not allowing us to be heard by placing a gag rule on the Senate? 
Does he have an explanation?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I say to the Senator, let me respond in this way. I had 
placed in the Record the statement by our majority leader at the 
National Governors' Conference just at the end of February where he 
said:

       Now when we bring the education issues to the floor . . . 
     there will be some amendments and some disagreements, but--
     and the leadership meeting that we had yesterday afternoon, I 
     said, ``That's great. Let's go to the Senate floor, let's 
     take days, let's take a week, let's take two weeks if it's 
     necessary. Let's talk about education.''

  Here we had effectively, on Friday afternoon of last week, debate, 
but because of parliamentary means the opportunity for amending the 
legislation was closed out. Yesterday--yesterday --as the Senator might 
have heard, we could not call off quorum calls in order to amend the 
bill or to bring up an amendment. We were effectively told that unless 
it was cleared it with the majority, they were not going to permit 
amendments to be offered. Fortunately, we were at least able to find a 
way to try and get a vote on the Murray amendment, which we will vote 
on tomorrow.
  Then we were, of course, absolutely mystified as to why the 
leadership included in the Ed-Flex this very complex bank reform 
legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with education--
absolutely nothing. They added that and refused to permit an orderly 
process of consideration of amendments on which, as the Senator from 
California and others have pointed out, we would be willing to enter 
into a reasonable time limit.
  The Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, has an amendment that 
has been passed with strong Republican support in the past. He 
indicated he would be willing to have one-half hour of debate, 15 
minutes to a side. Other Senators have been willing to do so as well. 
Senator Murray was willing to do so, so we could move this process 
along, not that we should not have at least a fair opportunity to 
permit some of our colleagues to be able to express their own views, 
both for and against. But the Senator is quite right. We are 
effectively being told that even though the legislation is technically 
before the Senate, that we are closed out from having the opportunity 
to offer amendments and have the Senate dispose of those amendments, 
and that is obviously troublesome.
  It works, as the Senator knows, in a strange way. We have had a 
deadlock for these past days, but there is nothing that is going to 
preclude Senator Murray from offering her amendment on some other piece 
of legislation. That is what, evidently, some of our people here must 
understand--that you just cannot do it at this place in the Senate 
calendar. You might be able to squeeze it out in the last few days of a 
session, but you cannot do it at this time.
  We are going to see these amendments at one time or other, and I 
imagine earlier rather than later. So it has always seemed to me to 
make the most sense to do it in a responsible way, and that is in 
debating this with an underlying amendment on education rather than 
trying to work the process to have an amendment on a different item.
  Mrs. BOXER. If my friend would continue to yield to me, I came over 
here not to seek time on my own, I say to my friend, but really to 
engage him in a conversation, because I think the American people are 
completely confused. I know I am confused. I see an Ed-Flex bill coming 
over here. It is a good bill. The Senator supports it. I support it. 
But as we have said before, it is a thin bill. It does not go to the 
heart and soul of what we need to be doing--more teachers in the 
classroom, afterschool care for our children, dropout prevention.
  I will tell you why I am confused. I read that our majority leader, 
Senator Lott, was with our Presiding Officer in his State. They had an 
excellent townhall meeting on education, and they talked about 
education a lot. They talked about it a lot. They talked about how it 
was a priority for the Republican Party. Well, talk is cheap.
  I would like to know, what are we going to do? And we have an 
opportunity here, because there is an education bill on the floor, to 
let the majority of the Senate work its will; allow us to vote up or 
down. The Senator is completely correct. On afterschool, I offered a 1-
hour timeframe and an up-or-down vote after that--1 hour. That is all. 
We are not trying to tie up the Senate. And further, my friend reminded 
me, which I had forgotten, there is a banking amendment on this bill.
  I am confused here, I say to my friend, and continue to be confused, 
that we have this bill on the floor that deals with education. The 
majority leader says he doesn't want it amended by any education 
amendments but he allows an amendment to go through that deals with the 
banking system. Members can only come to one conclusion, and that is 
that the Republicans like to talk about education but when it comes 
down to doing something to help our children, they are missing in 
action, regardless of town hall meetings.
  I am glad that the Senator from Massachusetts, the ranking member on 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, has taken this 
time to explain what is going on to the American people, because you 
can't fool them.
  I think what is interesting, as my friend has pointed out, we are not 
going to go away. Senator Murray, who isn't with us this morning 
because she had a tragic death in her family, Senator Murray is not 
going to go away. She and the Senator from Massachusetts were on their 
feet Friday, they were on their feet yesterday, they tried in vain to 
get a vote on the 100,000 teachers. She is not going to go away. The 
Senator from Massachusetts isn't going to go away. This Senator isn't 
going to go away. Why not have an agreement to bring up these issues 
and vote on them?
  There is only one thing I can say, and that is that the majority 
leader does not support these amendments, he does not support 100,000 
teachers in school, he does not support afterschool, he does not 
support dropout prevention. Otherwise, I can't imagine why he would use 
the heavyhanded tactics.
  I yield back to my friend to continue to enlighten us on where we 
stand and how he sees the rest of the year going when we start off with 
such a gag rule on such an important measure.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, if I might just raise some conclusions that 
have been reached by this independent evaluation of title I that is 
directly relevant to the issue which the Senator wanted to address. 
This is the final report of ``National Assessment'' of title I. It just 
came out last week. In the summary, it points out: ``Recent research on 
effective schools has found that using extended time learning in 
reading and mathematics''--this is the afterschool model; not all 
afterschool models, but many of the afterschool

[[Page 3897]]

models. More so, now, I think, as a result of this excellent report.
  And it talks about the recent study of schools in Maryland:

       Researchers found that the most successful schools were 
     seeing constant academic gains as a result of the extended 
     day programs.

  This is just what the Senator is talking about. This is the 
``National Assessment.''
  I mentioned before, there is $500 million in requests. We have an 
important increase in the President's budget paid for. The Senator is 
just trying to get the authorization so the communities will know this 
program is alive and well and going to be continued over the period of 
time. That could be done in a very short order.
  If there are those here opposed to it, why not express your views and 
then vote in opposition to it? Effectively, the good Senator is being 
denied at least any opportunity to be able to advance that--advance it, 
let the Senate finally vote on it--being denied that in spite of the 
fact that in this excellent review about what has been successful and 
what has not been, this is right on point to the Senator's initiative, 
and that, I think, is one of the reasons we are very frustrated.
  We take a Banking Committee bill. Here we are on education. The 
timing was set by the majority leader and the majority. They are the 
ones who set the agenda. They are the ones who called up this bill.
  Now we find out they are effectively foreclosing or have foreclosed. 
We are still hopeful that the Senator would be able to offer the 
amendment.
  While the Senator is here, I just mention the kind of support we have 
on the class size amendment. We will have an opportunity to vote on 
that cloture tomorrow. Various groups have supported that, including 
the National Parent Teacher Association, the National School Boards 
Association, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American 
Association of School Administrators, the Council of Great City 
Schools, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the 
National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
  That is interesting, special education; we heard a great deal about 
the importance of special education. Here is the association that is 
the primary spokesman for special education, and they are talking about 
the importance of this, and for very good reason. We have to fund 
both--that is our position--the IDEA and also this program for having 
smaller class sizes and having a well-trained teacher in every 
classroom. When we have the teacher quality, the well-trained teacher, 
they can identify early in their development the children who are going 
to have the special needs. If they are spending time with them in 
reading, they can find out whether that child needs the other kind of 
attention. Then you can locate and identify these needs much earlier, 
and we also can find out if they can provide that help and assistance 
to them, for example, in literacy. It may very well reduce or eliminate 
the need for special education.
  There is support from this association in terms of school 
construction. They find out that the children with disabilities will 
benefit from buildings with appropriate physical access to buildings, 
buildings that are well equipped to handle modern technologies which so 
many with disabilities need to get a good education. And they find out 
that the afterschool programs, including Children With Disabilities, 
Stay Off the Street, Out of Trouble, help them get the academic help 
they need and desire.
  That is what we are saying. Help all the children. We are also 
helping those with special needs. We are committed to trying to get 
additional funding in the area of special needs.
  I remind our colleagues that under the constitutions of the States, 
the States have the responsibility for educating every child. We set as 
a goal that we would pick up 40 percent. I am strongly committed toward 
doing so. We will have an opportunity before too long to offer 
amendments to move us in that direction. We hope we will get as much 
support on that issue when we offer those amendments as we have had in 
terms of an opposition to trying to do the kind of things that the 
Senator from California has identified.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I think it is an important point the Senator makes, that 
when you have smaller class sizes you can give special attention to the 
children who need it. The Senator makes a very interesting point. 
Perhaps some of these children who now need to be pulled out of those 
classes because they are so large would be able to be served in smaller 
classrooms.
  I had a very interesting conversation with a woman who sat next to me 
on an airplane back to California on Friday who works for the Pentagon. 
She was so excited about the fact that the military has just decided to 
undertake a project to lower classroom sizes.
  I ask my friend if he had heard about that. Their goal now in the 
early grades is to have 1 teacher for every 18 children. Now, this is 
the military, the U.S. military. These are schools that are run by the 
military.
  I say to my friend, if our children whose parents are in the military 
can benefit from smaller class sizes--because the military is so smart, 
they understand it works--why should we deny our children in the public 
schools the same opportunity for smaller class sizes?
  Does my friend see in this an irony that the majority leader and the 
Republicans who join us in being very strong supporters of strong 
defense, in giving the military what they need so there can be a 
quality of life for their kids, that they would undertake such a 
program? Yet, we would be gagged. Maybe my friend is right; maybe we 
will be able to go to the amendment. If we don't go to the amendment, 
doesn't the Senator see an irony here that the Pentagon will have 18 
kids--15 to 18 --in a classroom, supported by the Congress, and yet we 
see this opposition for the other children who happen to not be in 
military families?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator makes a good point. Not that that is always 
the best practice, but certainly in this case it is. Secondly, for 
example, child care programs in the military versus non-military 
programs, are quantitatively better because, very interestingly, the 
amendment that we adopted for child care for the military was actually 
the one that came out of our Labor and Human Resources Committee and 
had protections and guarantees in terms of quality and training for the 
personnel who are going to work with those children.
  When we had it on the floor of the Senate, it was effectively 
undermined, in terms of those protections, in an attempt to get it 
passed.
  Now they will go on out and ask, ``Why are the military ones 
better?'' It is very plain and simple. You can look at the history of 
the support of those programs here. At the time they called the roll, 
94 to 6 we were prepared to give protections, because it was an add-on 
for the protection of the military--94 to 6. I remember it very 
clearly, because I offered the amendment.
  When Senator Dodd, who is a real leader in these children's programs, 
battled to develop programs for needy working families on this, it was 
significantly undermined.
  The military understands smaller class sizes, as they do child care, 
and they are moving in that direction because they are able to do so.
  A final point I will mention to the Senator on the importance of 
this, because we heard a great deal yesterday about how can we do this 
and not give attention to IDEA, is included in the Record--I will check 
the Record and, if not, will include it here--an excellent study that 
was done by ``School Business Affairs'' on education. In this review, 
the study shows the benefits of reduced class size. I will read this:

       Research has shown that some elements of schooling are 
     changed positively by using reasonably sized classes in 
     grades K-3.
       Table 1 suggests some potentially cost-saving items that 
     can be factored into plans to adjust [to smaller] class 
     sizes.

  It talks about reduced retention in grade, improved student behavior, 
reduced remediation so more students

[[Page 3898]]

are on a grade level and special services may be more clearly targeted 
to needy students, and, finally, earlier identification of barriers to 
learning that may be remedied immediately, offering later savings in 
special education costs.
  I hope, and maybe it is hoping for too much, that we can avoid 
pitting children against children, but rather to try to move along 
together. The central issue that we are focused on is smaller class 
size. We have additional amendments. The Senator from California has 
one to deal with afterschool programs. Senator Harkin has one with 
regard to school construction. Senators Reid and Bingaman have one with 
regard to dropouts. Senator Dodd also has afterschool programs. There 
are others--Senator Feinstein and Senator Dorgan have amendments, and 
my colleague Senator Kerry has one as well.
  We are, nonetheless, prepared to reduce the number of amendments we 
offer and enter into a reasonable time limit so that we can at least 
make some important progress. I think most families who are watching 
this would say, ``Why aren't they doing business? Why are we watching 
Senators talk about this. They have, effectively, uncontroverted 
documentation of support for the initiatives they are talking about. 
Why aren't they going ahead?''
  And our response is that we can't go ahead because these barriers 
have been placed in our way.
  That is fundamentally wrong. As the good Senator has pointed out, we 
are not going to let these barriers stand in our way.
  I thank the Senator from California for all of her help.
  Mr. President, I am told that we will have a number of our colleagues 
coming over to address these issues. We have the next 15 minutes, and 
then we will come back to address these issues later in the day, 
starting at 2:15.
  I wanted to point out in our opening comments and statements this 
morning the importance, again, of reduction of class size.
  Let me mention some of the rather interesting results of reduction of 
class size. The documented research--what parents and teachers have 
always known intuitively--shows that the smaller classes enhance 
student achievement.
  The most effective overall presentation that was made on this was the 
excellent presentation by Senator Murray who has been a schoolteacher 
herself, has taught in these classes and can speak eloquently and 
knowledgeably about what it is like to be in a classroom with 30 
children versus a classroom of 17 or 18 children. She has been on a 
school board for a number of years, dealing with educational policy, 
and she has the vantage point of bringing both of these experiences to 
this issue.
  I have observed Senator Murray now for some 6\1/2\ years. I do not 
think any of us have seen a more impassioned, knowledgeable, informed 
person speak on the subject of class size as Senator Murray. I know she 
will continue to fight for this, and I am absolutely convinced that we 
will eventually accept the Murray proposal and, by doing so, give the 
information to the local school districts that the commitments that we 
made last year for increasing the number of teachers is going to be 
continued for the next 6 years.
  The President has put the funding for that program into his budget. 
All we need now is the authorization, and the reason we need the 
authorization now, as Senator Murray points out, is because school 
boards need to know whether they can count on the continued financial 
support for next year and the year following and on into the future to 
go out and hire new teachers. The local school boards are wondering 
whether they ought to take the chance of moving ahead or if it is just 
going to be a 1-year experience.
  That is a very reasonable issue, and school boards all across the 
country are in contact with us asking for clear guidance. For those who 
come to the floor and say, ``We want to rely on local controls, we want 
to help and assist those in the local communities,'' this is the way to 
do it.
  Let's send a very clear message to those at the local school level 
that this is a program that is going to continue for the next 6 years. 
You can be sure that we are behind it. That is what the Murray 
amendment does, and that is why it is so timely and so important that 
we put that on the Ed-Flex legislation.
  Mr. President, let's just look at some of the examples of the studies 
on smaller classrooms. Let's take this Project STAR that studied 7,000 
students in 80 schools in Tennessee. Students in small classes 
performed better than students in large classes in each grade from 
kindergarten through third grade. Followup studies showed that the 
gains lasted through at least eighth grade, and the gains were larger 
for minority students.
  In Wisconsin, the Student Guarantee in Education Program is helping 
to reduce class size in grades K through 3 in low-income communities. 
The study found students in the smaller classes have significantly 
greater improvements in reading, math, and language tests than students 
in larger classes.
  In Flint, MI, efforts over the last 3 years to reduce class size in 
grades K through 3 produced a 44-percent increase in reading scores and 
an 18-percent increase in math scores. Mr. President, this is what is 
happening out there in school districts. I don't know how much more 
information we need. School district after school district that has 
moved towards smaller class size is finding these extraordinary 
results. We are being denied now the opportunity to say, ``Look, we 
notice these results. We hear what you are saying. It does make an 
important difference. We have the resources at this time to move ahead 
in a national effort to try to get the smaller classrooms.'' That is 
what this debate is about, and we are denied the opportunity to do so.
  Listen to this. As I mentioned, in Flint, MI, over the last 3 years 
the smaller class in K through 3 produced a 44-percent increase in 
reading scores, and an 18-percent increase in the math scores.
  Before we get into the expanded reading program we passed at the end 
of the last year--not that that in and of itself is going to solve all 
of the problems--what we have done in the last 3 years is encouraged 
the universities which have Work-Study Programs to ensure that many of 
the young people who are attending our colleges all across the country 
are going to move towards working and tutoring students as part of 
their Work-Study.
  I am proud that Massachusetts has better than half of its colleges 
doing so.
  I urge our colleagues in this body to meet with the presidents of 
universities in their states and encourage the presidents of the 
universities to get their universities and their schools involved in 
that reading program. Massachusetts and California are the two top 
States. Sixty percent of our colleges are doing it. We are committed to 
trying to get it up to 100 percent. There is no reason that kind of 
assistance cannot go to these students with the Work-Study Programs so 
that reading can be held to a higher standard.
  But getting back to the subject, that is the importance of grades K 
through 3, we have extraordinary academic achievements in reading, 
which is the key to all knowledge, and math, and they are due in large 
part to a reduction in class size.
  I have other examples, and I will make sure there is time remaining 
to speak to the Senate about those. But I can tell you that we have 
instance after instance after instance where the smaller class size has 
resulted in dramatic and significant and important academic achievement 
and academic progress for students. And it is a national tragedy that 
we are not embarked on a program to help local communities and States 
to embark on such a program. Some can do it locally, and they are doing 
it. We commend them. The States are doing it. But we ought to have a 
partnership to do what we know can make a significant improvement in 
children's academic performance and success, and we are being closed 
out of the opportunity to do that here today. We have $11 billion out 
there which can make a direct difference, and we are being denied the

[[Page 3899]]

opportunity to do so. That is fundamentally wrong.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois what time he might consume.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes forty-five seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business and to support the 
efforts by Senators Kennedy, Murray, and so many others to finally 
bring to this Senate floor a vote on education.
  We have been in session for almost 2 months now. A great deal of that 
time was spent on the impeachment trial with the promise that when it 
ended, we would come together and consider issues important to this 
country. And I think all of us took heart in that promise by the 
leadership. Yet, when this debate comes to the floor on the first 
education bill of the 106th Congress in the U.S. Senate, we are finding 
efforts by the Republican leadership to limit the debate. When Senator 
Kennedy comes to the floor with Senator Patty Murray of the State of 
Washington and asks only for the opportunity for the Senate to vote on 
several key educational issues, I am sorry to say the Republican 
leadership has used every procedural device to stop the Senate from 
voting on education.
  What does that say about the 106th Congress and what we hope to 
achieve? I hope Republican Senators feel, as those do on this side of 
the aisle, that reducing classroom size gives kids a better chance. My 
wife and I have taken three kids to school--taken them as they started 
in kindergarten through the grades. Can you believe for a moment we 
would have felt encouraged if we walked in and they said, ``You have a 
choice here. There is one classroom with 30 kids and one teacher, 
another with 18 kids and one teacher. We are going to put your child in 
the larger classroom with 30 kids. That is OK, isn't it?'' You would 
say, ``Wait a minute. My son or my daughter has a better chance with 
more personal attention.''
  That is what is behind the proposal for 100,000 new teachers--to 
reduce classroom size so that more personal attention can be given to 
each student. There may be some Republicans and maybe even some 
Democrats who would disagree with that premise and argue that larger 
classrooms are better for kids. Let them vote that way. Let them cast 
that vote that way. But to stop us procedurally from even coming to 
this vote on President Clinton's initiative for 100,000 more teachers 
does a disservice to the kids and families across America and doesn't 
speak well of the agenda for the 106th Congress.
  Another item being considered, and one I hope we vote on, is the 
question of making sure we have enough classrooms and that we are going 
to, in fact, have smaller class sizes. As I travel around my home State 
of Illinois, superintendents, teachers, and parents said, ``Great. 
Smaller classrooms make a lot of sense. We think our kids have a better 
chance.'' But we are going to need more classrooms, obviously.
  So one of the proposals that is before us which Senator Kennedy is 
pushing for is to have help for the school districts across America to 
build more buildings. Unfortunately, that, too, has been stopped.
  Imagine, if you will, that the Republican leadership does not want us 
to vote on whether or not to help school districts build more 
classrooms, modernize classrooms, make certain they have the technology 
necessary for the 21st century, even to make certain there are safer 
classrooms for our kids. What possible item on the agenda is more 
important than education? Yet, as the 106th Congress begins, we got off 
to a slow start because of the impeachment, and now we have come to a 
grinding halt on education. If we cannot achieve a bipartisan consensus 
on the basics of education, it doesn't speak well for the prospects of 
this Congress. I hope Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, and many others 
prevail. They are going to try to ask the Senate to come together on a 
bipartisan basis and really put their votes where their campaign 
rhetoric has been--commitment to education.
  That is what it is all about. Let me speak for a moment to another 
issue which has been brought up, and it is a very valid issue.
  Many Republicans argue today and in the last week's debate that we 
should put more Federal money into school districts to help them pay 
for disabled children. I have been to these schools. I have many times 
seen one teacher per student. I know it is very expensive education. I 
know some kids are sent off by school districts to better opportunities 
in other States. And that, too, can be very expensive. So the 
Republican majority has suggested we should put more money into special 
education from the Federal level. I hope it is clear that most 
Democrats agree with the Republicans on that; and that, if we are going 
to focus the surplus on education, this is a valid investment. But make 
no mistake; we have faced this vote before.
  Take a look here. On April 23rd of last year when we offered an 
amendment to the Coverdell bill on the so-called parent and student 
savings accounts, an amendment which said take the money and put it 
into special education, only four Republicans joined us in that vote. 
They said, no; it is more important that we have vouchers for private 
schools than we take care of disabled children in public schools. So, 
by a vote of 50 to 4, the Republicans said no; don't put the money in 
special education. Now they argue today that it is the most important 
priority, the highest priority above all.
  I sincerely hope we can return to this debate on the floor in an 
honest and bipartisan fashion.
  I don't know why Senator Kennedy stands here alone on the issue of 
classroom size. I don't know why Senator Murray stands here alone on 
the issue of increasing the number of classrooms and the safety of our 
school buildings.
  This truly is bipartisan. So many of us who go to the campaign stump 
and speak about education now have a chance to put our votes where our 
promises have been.
  I sincerely hope that the Republican leadership will think twice 
about this--that we have an opportunity here to get the 106th Congress 
off to a positive start. The 105th Congress was a do-nothing Congress. 
It achieved little or nothing, and the American people in the last 
election in 1998 made it clear that they rejected that approach. Now we 
have a chance to do something on education on a bipartisan basis if the 
Republican majority will stop throwing these procedural roadblocks in 
our path.
  At this point, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of time in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 30 seconds 
remaining--under the control of the Senator from Massachusetts. Then 
the next hour is under the control of the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the remaining time to my colleague from 
Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes 
as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FRIST. Object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am wondering if there would be an 
opportunity, after the completion of this period, for an additional 10 
minutes in morning business by unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This period will end at 12:30, which is the 
time for recess.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could I suggest something to the Senator, if the 
Presiding Officer will yield. We generally close down at 12:30. The 
Senator from Tennessee has an hour, and if it fits into the Senator's 
schedule, I would ask that we do not recess; we postpone the recess 
from 12:30 to 12:45 to permit the Senator to speak.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

[[Page 3900]]


  Mr. KENNEDY. If that is agreeable to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will need someone to fill in for 
him.
  The Senator from Wyoming objects.
  Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Tennessee now has 1 hour.

                          ____________________