[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6842-6858]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2) to extend programs and activities under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 3117

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Mack, myself, and Senator Coverdell, and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself, Mr. 
     Mack, and Mr. Coverdell, proposes amendment numbered 3117.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous-consent request 
regarding debate on this amendment. I think we will probably go back 
and forth, but on the Democratic side, after Senator Kennedy and 
Senator Murray speak, I ask unanimous consent I follow them in sequence 
as we alternate back and forth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, my assumption is that the unanimous-
consent agreement that was entered into and envisioned, we would 
alternate between sides if there are speakers on each side, but that it 
would govern the order in which the Democratic side speakers would 
address the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding. The Chair, 
under the unanimous-consent request, will alternate between sides. The 
speakers on the Democratic side are Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, 
and Senator Wellstone, in that order.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, title II of the bill before the Senate 
today includes a provision called the Teacher Employment Act--or TEA. 
This provision combines the current ESEA, title II, Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program and the class-size reduction program, 
for a total of $2 billion, which is then made available to states and 
local education agencies for teacher development programs.
  Our amendment would amend the TEA provision--and expand the scope of 
allowable uses of title II professional development funds to allow 
states and local education agencies to use these funds for the 
development and implementation of teacher testing, merit-based pay, and 
tenure reform programs.
  Mr. President, I believe that a qualified, highly trained, and highly 
motivated teacher is the key to a quality education for America's 
children. Most of our colleagues would agree.
  Teachers play a special and indispensable role in our children's 
education. Nothing can replace the positive and long-lasting impact a 
dedicated, knowledgeable teacher has on a child's learning process.
  The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that 
while class size reduction has the least impact on increasing student 
achievement and that teacher-education--teacher quality--has the most 
impact on student achievement.
  Our amendment is designed to improve the quality of our teachers. It 
puts into practice the common sense we all share--the sense that 
teachers

[[Page 6843]]

should be trained in the area they teach, that outstanding teachers 
should be rewarded, and that a teacher's promotion should be based not 
just on longevity but on performance.
  Let me explain why I believe this amendment is important. First, I 
believe that teachers should know the subject matter they teach. 
Unfortunately, this is not always the case in many classrooms around 
the country. According to the Department of Education, one-third of 
high school math teachers, nearly 25 percent of high school English 
teachers and 20 percent of science teachers, are teaching without a 
college major or minor in their subjects. Teacher testing allows school 
districts to better target those teachers in need of additional 
professional development. By pinpointing the strengths and weaknesses 
of teachers, schools will be able to place teachers in their area of 
specialty and help those teachers in need of additional professional 
development.
  A recent study, using student math scores on the Tennessee 
Comprehensive Assessment Program for two large Tennessee metropolitan 
area school systems, at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville ranked 
teachers based on five objective rankings of effectiveness. By the 
fifth grade, students who had studied under ``highly ineffective'' 
teachers averaged 54 to 60 points lower on achievement tests than 
students who had spent the 3 years with ``highly effective'' teachers.
  I believe that States and local districts should be allowed to use 
Federal funds for teacher testing programs to determine which teachers 
are effective, and for which teachers additional professional 
development would be of assistance.
  Second, I believe that outstanding teachers should be rewarded with 
merit-based pay increases. Teachers who motivate and inspire their 
students and put forth the extra effort to improve and expand their own 
skills should be rewarded. In the business world, employees who go the 
extra mile and exceed expectations are financially rewarded for their 
dedication and hard work. Are teachers, tasked with educating and 
shaping our children lives and futures, any less deserving of merit-
based pay rewards?
  Merit-based pay would reward teachers for exceptional teaching--
providing added incentive to excel at a demanding and challenging 
profession. A senior associate at the Educational Trust, an advocacy 
group for the poor, once referred to high-poverty schools as boot camps 
for teachers.
  Shouldn't there be the option of rewarding teachers who choose to 
take the more difficult path or who inspire less advantaged students to 
perform at a level well above that of their peers? I believe every one 
of us understands that teachers do, indeed, deserve these rewards. And, 
what is more, our kids deserve the improved educational experience such 
rewards will produce. Finally, I believe that teachers should be 
promoted to higher positions based on performance and subject 
expertise, not just on the longevity of their tenure.
  Tenure reform ensures teachers will be held accountable for their 
overall performance in the classroom. According to U.S. News and World 
Report, the presiding officer's own State of Kentucky's tenure 
reforms--which includes exhaustive performance evaluations of teachers 
and schools and accountability for poorly performing teachers and 
administrators--have dramatically improved many of that State's worst 
performing schools. All of these reforms can vastly improve the quality 
of instruction in the classroom, which will provide students with the 
educational tools necessary to succeed in this new demanding economy 
they confront. I believe we ought to permit the States and local 
districts to use federal funds to design, develop, and implement these 
reforms--should they decide to do so.
  Now let me now explain what this amendment does and does not do. It 
permits--and I stress word ``permits''--states and localities to use 
these funds for teacher testing, merit pay, or tenure reform programs. 
It does not mandate or require them to set up these programs--nor does 
it penalize them if they choose not to. It gives States and localities 
the freedom to decide precisely how these programs should be designed 
and how they should be administered. It does not require the States and 
local districts to do anything with the information gathered from 
testing or which tests to be used. Nor would they be required to base 
merit pay decisions on the outcome of the teacher tests. This amendment 
does not dictate that Federal funds must be used for tenure reform or 
establish criteria for such reform. Again, it only permits States and 
local districts to use funds for those purposes if they choose, based 
on how they choose.
  While it could be argued that teacher testing, tenure reform, and 
merit-pay programs are already permissible uses under the Teachers 
Empowerment Act provision, we believe that explicitly listing these 
programs would eliminate any uncertainty among the states and local 
districts, granting them the freedom to full develop and implement the 
programs which will best target their specific needs in teacher 
professional development. This amendment is based in the same 
principles as the legislation that passed the Senate last Congress with 
bipartisan support by a vote of 63-35.
  In conclusion, I would like to recognize a very simple fact. We in 
Washington too often focus on these issues from simply a national 
perspective. I think this debate we have had over the last few days 
clearly focuses on the important, critical role States and especially 
local school districts must play in the development of quality 
education in our Nation.
  This amendment is designed to give even more flexibility to the 
States and the local districts to use these Federal funds for programs 
that we believe can help to improve their quality. There are no 
mandates. This is simply a permissible use that we would be providing.
  In summary, we think this legislation can be improved by the 
amendment. We look forward to hearing discussion on it today. We 
believe it is important to reward quality teachers of this country for 
their commitment to ensure our children will be taught by the most 
qualified and knowledgeable individuals available.
  I will have more to say on this as we go forward. I know there are 
other Senators wishing to address the issue. I note the presence of 
Senators Mack, Wellstone, and Kennedy, so I yield the floor and I will 
speak again at a later point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, generally around here if there is someone 
who is proposing the amendment, they are recognized to make opening 
comments. I understand there is a cosponsor on that. I think they 
should be entitled to also make opening comments. We will be glad to 
hear from the other cosponsor of the amendment if he would like to 
speak first.
  Mr. MACK. I am glad to let my colleague go first.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just make a brief opening comment. 
I want to start off by mentioning where we are on the issue of teacher 
training and teacher enhancement that is being addressed by my good 
friend from Michigan. Under the Republican bill, there is $2 billion 
for teacher quality and class size--that is a total of $2 billion. 
Included in that, is $1.3 billion which is presently allocated for the 
class size reduction program that has been implemented for 2 years in a 
row. Therefore, the 29,000 teachers teaching today in grades 1, 2, and 
3, who are getting paid out of class size reduction program funds, will 
effectively be receiving pink slips because the Republicans are taking 
that program's money and putting it into the Republican bill.
  Second, part of that $2 billion is the $350 million that is currently 
being used in math and science professional development across the 
country. The $350 million program, named after President Eisenhower, 
helps local schools to develop the capability of math and science 
teachers. It has been a good program and is working effectively around 
the country.

[[Page 6844]]

  So, the Republicans want to wipe out the new teachers who have been 
hired for the first, second, and third grade; they want to end the 
Eisenhower math and science professional development program.
  On the other hand, our total proposal on the Democrat side is $3.75 
billion. We have $2 billion which is for professional development, 
mentoring and recruitment, and $1.75 billion for class size reduction. 
We had, as part of our debate yesterday, included our $3.75 billion in 
the democratic substitute. Last evening, I reviewed what we did in our 
particular proposal and the guarantees we provided for teacher quality 
and education. We made sure in our amendment that there was going to be 
a guarantee of funds for professional development. The other side only 
mentions ``a portion of funds for professional development''. It is 
ironic to hear my friends talk about the importance of professional 
development, when they barely target any funds in their existing bill 
for professional development. ``A portion can be spent.''
  Furthermore, their bill does not guarantee any funds for mentoring 
programs, which we all know are so important and effective for 
retaining teachers.
  We find the turnover of teachers serving in title I underserved areas 
averages 50 to 60 percent in 4 years as compared to those who have 
mentoring, which can make a great deal of difference to teachers. Their 
amendment does not address the issue of how to resolve the high 
turnover rate issue. It does not guarantee that teachers are going to 
get special skills to help students with disabilities or limited 
English proficiency. It does not give priority to developing math and 
science training programs.
  When all is said and done, our Republican friends have come up with 
nothing to ensure that a certain amount of these funds go for 
professional development, mentoring programs, recruitment programs--
activities we know are proven to improve teacher quality and retention.
  We were anticipating, maybe unreasonably so, that in the areas that 
are tried, tested, and true, such as enhanced teacher training in the 
classroom, that our friends were going to come up with something. 
Basically, what they came up with is merit pay and testing of teachers. 
We have listened carefully to what the Senator stated. We are, as I 
mentioned, somewhat interested in the fact that these are the two 
areas.
  In looking through the studies and reports of incentives for teachers 
to advance their capability of academic achievement and results, the 
cumulative studies are very compelling and are rather common sense.
  Obviously, the academic background of the teacher's expertise is 
enormously important. But, we still are finding out that of the more 
than 50,000 teachers who were hired this past year, the majority of 
those serving in high-poverty areas are not fully qualified. We need to 
do something about this. We find there is a higher turnover rate in 
high-poverty schools. We know that if the schools want to hold on to 
new teachers, mentoring by experienced teachers, is effective. Studies 
have shown this.
  Also, it is very evident that there ought to be continuing education 
and professional development for all teachers. As the information comes 
in and more studies are conducted, it is clear that professional 
development ought to take place not outside the school but in the 
classrooms and schools.
  These are the models which have had the greatest success in ensuring 
all of our teachers are of the highest quality. For those who are not 
going to measure up, after evaluations and professional development, 
they ought to be given their fair due in terms of a hearing, but then 
moved out of the educational system.
  That is what we believe, that is for what we stand, and that is 
included in our educational provisions. Those are the issues that we 
feel are important.
  I ask the Senator whether he knows of any States that have embarked 
on a merit pay program.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. My understanding is States have experimented with merit 
pay programs since the 1960s. I can recall in the late 1960s when I was 
an intern working in the education office of the Governor of Michigan, 
we were looking at various experimental programs, learning from models 
from places such as North Carolina and other States that were 
experimenting with those programs.
  It seems to me this is not a new proposal at all. It is one with 
which various States have experimented and employed in different ways 
for a long time. That was my first experience with it, I think in 1969, 
1970.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I asked the question because last night I tried to find 
out which States have merit pay programs, and I was unable to find any.
  Currently, there is nothing prohibiting States from implementing 
merit pay programs. If it is so successful, I would have thought we 
would have had several States already doing it and demonstrated that it 
has improved student achievement.
  I can give the Senator a number of places where it has been tried and 
dropped. In Fairfax County, VA, they developed a merit pay program in 
the last few years, but the program was dropped.
  I am all for incentives for teachers who move ahead in their academic 
achievements and accomplishments. We ought to provide incentives to 
encourage professional development and more advanced degrees. I am all 
for schools that are able to move ahead, and for giving flexibility to 
the States and the educational districts to provide financial 
incentives to do that. But in the areas where we are talking about 
rifleshot programs, which this amendment does, for particular 
individuals--I can, probably like the good Senator from Washington, 
Mrs. Murray, think of teachers who are teaching in some of the toughest 
schools in Boston, in Holyoke, MA, and in a number of other 
communities, who are showing up every day, working hard, facing 
extraordinary challenges where almost a third of all the children 
attending those schools are coming from homes where there is either 
physical abuse or substance abuse. They deserve combat pay.
  But that isn't what this is really about. This is about individuals 
and principals giving individual financial incentives. What we want to 
try to do is to make available--at least on our side--the kinds of 
financial resources available to local communities, for whole school 
reform.
  I know the other side believes that States should have block grants--
blank checks--but we want to support tried and tested programs that 
have worked.
  I have a very interesting study here that was just completed by the 
National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, the Consortium for 
Policy Research in Education. A review of 65 studies of science 
teaching concluded that teachers' effectiveness in teaching science 
depends on the amount and kind of teacher education, disciplinary 
training, and the professional development opportunities they 
experience later in their careers.
  That is what we should have, the continuing, ongoing availability and 
requirement that there is going to be a continuing upgrading of the 
skills of teachers. That is what they want.
  What we have seen to be a strong determinant of teacher effectiveness 
stems from the quality of the teacher's initial teaching education and 
certification, and, second, later, professional development. Studies 
done over the last few years have shown this to be true.
  In listening to our colleague speak, I was just trying to find out 
where his programs have been effective.
  I yield at this time and then will come back to the issue. There are 
others who want to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, let me make just a couple of comments before 
I give my prepared remarks.
  It is interesting how this debate is being engaged rather vigorously 
so quickly and so early this morning. I remind my colleagues that this 
is basically this same amendment that was adopted by the Senate 63-35 
in the last Congress.

[[Page 6845]]

  I imagine the reason for it is that all of my colleagues received a 
letter from the National Education Association, the teachers union, in 
opposition to this amendment. This letter from the National Education 
Association on behalf of its 2.5 million members strongly urges 
opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Abraham and myself. They 
are opposed to it because it authorizes ``federal funds for [the 
purpose of] testing of current teachers, tenure reform, and merit 
pay.''
  I find it interesting that the NEA previously came out in support of 
testing--NEA President Bob Chase has said the NEA:

       . . . wholeheartedly supports and endorses the 
     recommendations of the National Commission on Teaching and 
     America's Future's new report, ``Doing What Matters Most: 
     Investing in Quality Teaching.''

  The report recommends: Teachers should be licensed based on 
demonstrated performance, including tests of subject matter knowledge, 
teaching knowledge, and teaching skill.
  The report recommends: To encourage and reward teacher knowledge and 
skill, we should develop a career continuum for teaching linked to 
assessments and compensation systems that reward knowledge and skill.
  That sounds to me like a broad endorsement of the concept of testing 
teachers to understand where they are with respect to the knowledge 
they have in the courses they are going to be teaching. I think it 
clearly indicates the idea of moving away from pay being based on 
someone's seniority to one based on merit--pay should be based on the 
ability to teach, the ability to be able to show, in testing, that they 
have the knowledge in the areas in which they are teaching.
  So I make that comment to begin.
  Further, with respect to questions about merit pay, again, my 
colleague already referred to the fact there have been States 
experimenting with this idea since the late 1960s. But Denver, CO, has 
a merit pay system. Interestingly enough, the Secretary of Education, 
Secretary Riley, when he was Governor of South Carolina, endorsed merit 
pay.
  In Florida, we encourage teachers to participate in what I believe is 
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. If a teacher in 
the State of Florida successfully completes that process and becomes 
certified by this board, they are going to receive a bonus. I think 
that is merit pay.
  So this idea that I think the Senator from Massachusetts tried to 
imply, that this is something no one is pursuing and there is no value 
to it, I would say, is not accurate.
  Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator 
Abraham, to offer this critically important amendment. It focuses on 
the single most important, yet most overlooked, aspect of education--
the quality of America's teachers.
  Education is the engine of social and economic progress, and the 
ladder of opportunity. The rungs of that ladder must be supported by 
exceptional teachers. I have little doubt that the American spirit of 
ingenuity and innovation will continue to lead the world in providing 
new economic opportunities, expanding medical research and improving 
the quality of life for everyone. But there is a catch. For our 
children and grandchildren to achieve the high standards we expect of 
them, we must provide them with the tools they need to help them excel. 
The economic security of our children depends upon the quality of their 
education.
  Each time we debate education reform in America, there is a growing 
sentiment that continued viability of the American dream could slip 
away simply because our children are unprepared to face tomorrow's 
challenges. The academic performance of America's students in 
international exams can hardly be considered world class. In fact, the 
longer our students attend American schools, the further behind they 
fall in performance. Consider these statistics:
  While America's 4th graders score above the international average in 
math tests, they continue to trail students in countries like Austria, 
the Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and 
Singapore. By the 8th grade, American students barely meet the 
international average, and by the 12th grade, American students lag far 
behind their international peers.
  In science, U.S. students score above the international average in 
both 4th and 8th grades. But, in 4th grade, U.S. students are outranked 
by only one country--Korea. By the 8th grade, thirteen countries 
outrank U.S. students.
  Again, that is an indication that the longer they are in school, the 
further behind they fall with other countries in the world.
  In international physics tests, American 12th graders ranked 
sixteenth, and far behind countries like Russia, Slovenia, Latvia and 
the Czech Republic.
  In both math and science, the performance of U.S. 12th graders is 
among the lowest in the industrialized world. Of the 21 countries that 
participate, the United States placed 16th in science and 19th in math 
skills.
  Our students will be denied basic opportunities because they have not 
been adequately equipped to face a new, competitive, and global 
economy. We can and must do better.
  Without qualified teachers in America's classrooms, all other 
attempts at reform are meaningless. We have long focused on the need to 
hire more teachers--as many as two million over the next decade. Our 
focus shouldn't be on the number of teachers, but rather, on the 
quality of those teachers.
  As long as students are compelled to attend school, we should be 
compelled to staff those schools with the best and brightest teachers. 
Parents all over the state of Florida, and I imagine the same is true 
around the country, are concerned that the success--or failure--of 
their child's entire academic year will be determined by the quality 
and expertise of their child's teacher. Studies show that the most 
important factor in determining student success on standardized tests 
is the teacher's ability to present the material. As States are taking 
important steps to challenge their students with high-stakes tests for 
promotion and graduation, we must encourage states to step up to the 
plate and provide students with teachers who are better prepared than 
ever before.
  Further complicating the situation is the shortage of teachers 
nationwide, which has led many school districts to assign teachers to 
subjects for which they have no formal training. Four million American 
students are currently being taught English, Math, or History by 
teachers who have neither a college major or minor in the subject they 
are teaching. Four million kids!
  Mr. President, maybe I have a slightly different perspective in 
looking at these numbers today than I would have, say, 5 or 6 weeks 
ago. Priscilla and I were just blessed with our first granddaughter. We 
already have three grandsons, but this is our first granddaughter. 
While all of us in the family are engaged in the early days of raising 
that little baby and trying to get through the night, we are also 
concerned about the future for little Addison. Is she going to be among 
the one out of five students in America being taught English by a 
teacher who doesn't have a major or minor in English?
  Think about that for a moment. I think one out of four math students 
are being taught by teachers who do not have a minor or major in that 
subject. So when I think about little Addison's future, and I realize 
the competitive world in which we live today, and how much more 
competitive it is going to be in the future, I know she is not going to 
be able to compete and have the same opportunities we all have enjoyed 
if she doesn't have an education second to none. Frankly, that can only 
come about as a result of having high-quality teachers in the 
classroom--teachers who my son and his wife, Ann, can be comfortable in 
knowing have the knowledge and expertise to provide that education.
  Requiring secondary school teachers to earn a major or minor in their 
subjects might make sense if there were not a clearly superior policy 
that could be adopted instead, such as requiring teachers to pass a 
subject knowledge test for the subject areas they teach.
  Teacher testing is an important first step toward upgrading the 
quality of

[[Page 6846]]

instruction in the classroom. Testing provides a valuable opportunity 
for teachers to demonstrate knowledge of subjects for which they do not 
hold a major or minor degree. It will also enable principals to 
evaluate their staffing needs and to staff classrooms with the most 
qualified teachers. You simply can not teach what you don't know.
  Common sense also dictates that we should not focus solely on under-
performing teachers. We must also recognize that there are many great 
teachers who are successfully challenging their students on a daily 
basis. Teaching is one of the most important and challenging 
professions. While many excellent, enthusiastic, and well prepared 
teachers already work in America's schools, their work often goes 
unrecognized and unrewarded. Salaries for teachers lag far behind other 
professions for which a college degree is expected or required, and as 
a result, many exceptional teachers leave the profession and others who 
would be exceptional teachers never even consider teaching.
  We have created a system of clear incentives for our best teachers to 
leave the classroom. Instead, we should be enacting policies to keep 
the best and brightest teachers in the classroom. To do this, we need 
to evaluate and reward teachers with a compensation system that 
supports and encourages them to strengthen their skills and demonstrate 
high levels of performance. That, in turn, will enhance learning for 
all children.
  Today, schools compensate teachers based almost solely on seniority, 
not on their performance inside the classroom. It rewards 
underperforming teachers and penalizes exceptional ones by grouping 
them together in a single pay scale based primarily upon length of 
service. Merit-pay would differentiate between teachers who are hard-
working and inspiring, and those who fall short. It is true that good 
teachers cost money. But the fact is, bad teachers can cost more 
because they limit the education of a child and his or her ability to 
contribute to society.
  We hear quite often that merit pay won't work in public schools 
because it is too difficult to compare the accomplishments between 
teachers teaching smart, wealthy, well-disciplined, well-fed children 
versus those teaching poor, inattentive, hungry and unruly children. 
These conditions are no different than the differences faced by other 
professionals like doctors or lawyers who face both unwinnable cases or 
deadly diseases. Teachers should also be rewarded proportionately to 
their accomplishments in enhancing student learning, attitudes, and 
behavior.
  This is not to suggest that simply throwing more money at schools and 
teachers will rescue schools from mediocrity. Some suggest we try 
throwing more money at the problem, although I would point out that we 
have already tried that. The United States spends more money per pupil 
than any other industrialized nation, and as I mentioned earlier, our 
children are not achieving high levels of performance on international 
standardized exams. The reality is that no amount of money will save 
mismanaged, bureaucratic, red-tape ridden schools from failure. And no 
amount of money will rescue a student who is placed in a classroom led 
by an unprepared, unenthusiastic, and uninspiring teacher. This debate 
is less about money and more about giving teachers a greater stake in 
the education they provide. We can do this by offering them real 
incentives to do their best so that their dedication and expertise will 
be recognized and rewarded. This will benefit all students.
  Our amendment, known as the MERIT Act, will enable states to use 
their limited federal dollars on a number of initiatives to enhance 
teacher quality. First, this amendment provides funding for states to 
develop rigorous exams to periodically test elementary and secondary 
school teachers on their knowledge of the subjects they are teaching. 
Secondly, this amendment provides funding to states to establish 
compensation systems for teachers based upon merit and proven 
performance. Finally, this amendment provides states with resources to 
reform current tenure programs.
  This broad approach will enable states to staff their schools with 
the best and most qualified teachers, thereby enhancing learning for 
all students. In turn, teachers can be certain that all of their 
energy, dedication and expertise will be rewarded. And it will be done 
without placing new mandates on states or increasing the federal 
bureaucracy.
  Last Congress, the Senate passed a similar amendment with bipartisan 
support by a vote of 63-35 during debate on the Education Savings 
Account legislation. Unfortunately, the President vetoed that bill, 
despite his previous support for teacher testing.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues as we continue the fight 
to give dedicated professionals, who teach our children, a personal 
stake in the quality of the instruction they provide. I hope there will 
again be broad, bipartisan support for this amendment. I thank the 
chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I was going to ask a question of the 
Senator from Florida. I am not trying to speak. Will the Senator yield 
for that?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will yield for a quick question.
  Mr. COVERDELL. When the Senator from Florida brought this amendment 
to the floor, he was talking about an experience in Los Angeles at a 
school. In deference to the Senator from Washington, I want to keep it 
brief, but I wonder if he could allude to that briefly.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, that is a story I remember very well. To cut 
it short takes away, I think, the strength of its message. So maybe a 
little bit later on in the debate we can discuss it, but I would be 
glad to yield the time back to the Senator so she can continue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, on our side, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Wellstone be followed by Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senators from Michigan 
and Florida for addressing an issue I think all of us really need to 
address; that is, how do we recruit and retain good teachers in our 
classrooms today?
  I think all of us whose kids are in public schools want to know our 
child will go to school and get the best teacher in that school. The 
question before us is, How do we make that happen? How do we ensure 
every one of our kids gets a really good teacher?
  I have to say I am disappointed in the proposal our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle came up with on merit pay. We have heard a lot 
of slogans in this debate. So far, from the other side, we have heard 
about private school vouchers, block grants, and now we are getting 
merit pay and testing for teachers. They all sound really good.
  But I assure my colleagues, as someone who has been a teacher, 
someone who has been a school board member, someone who served in the 
State legislature, slogans don't teach kids; they don't keep good 
teachers in our classrooms; they don't improve test scores.
  We are right in looking at the question of how we assure that we have 
good teachers. I was on a school board. I have debated the issue of 
merit pay, which, by the way, school districts can now do and which 
State legislatures can now do.
  As a Senator, I ask you to give us an example of a current school 
district that has merit pay in place that is working. We have not heard 
of any. I will tell you why. Because when you get down to the question 
of what does merit pay really do and you start to look at it, you 
realize that merit pay doesn't accomplish what we really want in 
ensuring that all of our kids get a good education.
  Good current educational policy and curriculum standards are what we 
want to teach our kids today. It is not how to sit at a desk, listen to 
an adult,

[[Page 6847]]

do everything right all day long, and not move but, rather, how to work 
together in teams and how to work together with other students because 
that is what is required of them when they get into the workforce. Very 
few jobs today have a single person sitting at a desk doing the same 
task all day long.
  Merit rewards an individual teacher pitted against another teacher 
rather than encouraging teachers to work together in their building to 
improve the education of all of our children.
  That is what we are trying to teach our children. The best way to do 
that is by example--encouraging teachers in a building to work 
together. Certainly different teachers in every building have different 
skills. Certainly some of them do better with one child, or another 
child, or another curriculum piece.
  We must encourage everyone to work together rather than saying we are 
going to pick the best three or four of you and give you an extra 
incentive; we encourage a teacher to come and be the principal's pet, 
or to be there to work the longest, or to try to show that they are 
somehow better than the other teachers. You start getting teachers 
pitted against each other. That is not what we want in a good school 
building. We want all the teachers supporting each other.
  The best schools I have been in are ones where all of the first grade 
teachers get together after school, or support each other throughout 
the day, or share their curriculum. Who is going to share their 
curriculum, or share the good things that work in their classroom, if 
that means they may not be the teacher who gets the merit pay? That is 
why school boards and States have not enacted merit pay. It is simply 
another slogan we put out here.
  I think we really need to concentrate on what works. How can we 
ensure that we recruit the best and brightest? How can we ensure that 
people want to go into the teaching profession, that we keep the best 
and brightest, and help those who need additional skills to be the best 
and the brightest?
  Think back through your own education. I don't know how many Senators 
have gone to public schools all their lives. I have, my kids have, and 
I have been in them. I know. When I look back at my education, or my 
children's education, and I think about all the teachers I had--think 
about this: Which one would you pick to get merit pay? It is difficult 
to do because all of us have had really good teachers. Our kids have 
had good teachers, and all of us have had good teachers.
  I will tell you something. I remember well when my kids were in 
elementary school and my son had a teacher for whom I didn't 
particularly care. I was at a meeting with some friends. I complained 
about the teacher. And, surprisingly, another one of my friends said: 
You do not like that teacher? That is the best teacher my child has 
ever had. Why? Because that teacher didn't connect with my son but did 
connect with her son. Different kids learn different ways. Different 
kids connect with different adults. A teacher may do really well with 
one child and not well with another.
  Tell me, how are we going to pick which teacher gets the merit pay? 
By the parents who like the teacher the best? By the teacher who is the 
toughest, who may do well for some kids but not well for others? By the 
teacher who does the most testing in their classrooms? By the teacher 
who passes a test, maybe?
  I can tell you this. I have had teachers in my own life and in my 
kids' lives who were brilliant but who had no way of communicating with 
the kids they were teaching or how to teach what they held in their own 
head.
  I ask my colleagues, and I ask those who are listening, how would you 
pick which one of your very own teachers or which one of your kids' 
teachers should receive merit pay? Do you think you can do a fair job?
  That is what we are doing in this amendment we are debating today. 
Somebody is going to have to pick. Somebody is going to have to choose 
that curriculum. Instead of encouraging teachers to work together, 
whatever that criterion is which some principal decides is going to be 
how they choose a teacher to get merit pay is going to create 
disincentives in their own building and antagonism in their own 
building. I don't think that is what we need to be encouraging.
  I think we need to address the issue of getting the best and 
brightest teachers in our classrooms. We do not pay any teacher enough, 
I am here to tell you, particularly those teachers who are in our 
toughest schools, who have the kids with 99-percent-free and reduced 
lunches in their elementary schools. I have been in those schools--kids 
who come and hear 70 different languages in one school district, kids 
who come to school who have not even lived in a home, or in the same 
home for more than several weeks, kids who come to school whose parents 
may not have come home last night, who may not have eaten last night, 
who have seen tremendous difficulties in their own lives.
  We need to make sure those kids get a good teacher. But those are 
incredibly difficult challenges, and those are the incredibly difficult 
classrooms.
  If we are going to provide extra pay for a couple of teachers only, I 
say let's give it to those teachers who are teaching in the most 
difficult circumstances. We should be giving them combat pay for their 
difficult circumstances. Certainly, I will tell you that those teachers 
who are in those classrooms are not likely to be the ones who get merit 
pay if it is based on any kind of teacher testing, or testing of their 
students, because they have the toughest kids in their classrooms.
  Merit pay, if you do it on testing, rewards those teachers whose kids 
come to school ready to learn, whose parents are there helping them, 
and who come from the communities that have the resources in those 
schools.
  Let's be very careful about what we are promoting. Let's be sure that 
we tell kids in our high schools and colleges that we want them to 
teach; we need them to teach. We know we need the best and the 
brightest in our classrooms, we know we need teachers who are 
professionals, and we know we must reward them.
  I know that doesn't address the question my colleagues brought out 
about: What about those poor teachers? What about those teachers who 
aren't qualified?
  I can tell you what we are asking teachers to do today is 
tremendously different from what we asked teachers to do 10, 20, or 30 
years ago.
  If you got your teaching degree back in 1972 and you are teaching in 
a classroom today, I assure you that no one in your college taught you 
how to use a computer. No one taught you how to develop your curriculum 
to use technology. No one thought you would need the math skills our 
students need today. No one thought you would be teaching in a 
classroom with many different languages or cultures. No one thought you 
would have the discipline problems you have.
  Let's take those teachers who got their degree back in 1970, 1975, or 
1980 and give them the professional development to get the skills they 
need in today's classrooms.
  I have talked to teachers who feel extremely frustrated. They tell me 
if I were in a private business and the requirements had changed as 
dramatically as our public schools had in the last 30 years, they would 
have sent me to professional development.
  We lack the resources and haven't provided the resources in our 
public education system to give our teachers the professional 
development they need. Let's not condemn them for that now. Let's do 
what is right and help provide professional development for our 
teachers in a way that is constructive so we can keep people who want 
to be in the classroom but have not been able to keep up.
  I think we can revise some of the systems of tenure; many districts 
have done that. I think that is a good way to proceed.
  It is pretty darn frustrating to be a teacher today. They listen to 
the debate on the Senate floor and they hear about all the horrible 
teachers who cannot pass tests. These are people with college degrees 
who chose to be in

[[Page 6848]]

our classrooms with our young kids. These are people who we should be 
supporting. We should be supporting them with incentives to be in the 
teaching profession. We should support them with quality pay. When 
teachers work for $23,000 a year and are told they have to go back and 
pay for a test to stay in this profession, or pay to go back to school, 
how do they do that? I don't know how they do that. I don't know how a 
single mom with a couple of kids who is teaching and earning $23,000 or 
$25,000 a year would ever be able to continue to be in our classroom, 
even if she were in the best classroom, if we required her to go back 
to school to take tests.
  There is one problem with this underlying amendment I have not 
mentioned, and I don't think anybody has. There is no money here. It 
requires testing, and there is no money. That money will have to come 
from somewhere in the districts. The districts will not have the money, 
and likely they will require the teachers themselves to pay for it. 
That has been the practice in the past.
  I understand the motive behind the slogan. I understand the desire to 
tell the good teachers in our classrooms that we appreciate the work 
they are doing. However, I think we should reward all teachers with 
better salaries. I think we should provide better training for 
teachers, more professional development for our teachers, give them the 
skills they need. If we want to come back and say we have done 
everything for these teachers to give them the best skills and they 
still don't make the grade, then there is something to say about this 
underlying amendment. We haven't done that yet. We have left our 
teachers behind. As a result, we have left our students behind.
  In closing, there are tremendously good people in our schools today 
who are trying their best and working very hard. I think they deserve 
the most accolades we can give them. We should not be denigrating them.
  We do have some excellent ways of rewarding good teachers today. On 
my staff, I have a woman named Ann Ifekwunigwe, an Albert Einstein 
Distinguished Educator. She has been with me on my staff as a fellow 
for the last year and has done an outstanding job. She is actually an 
elementary schoolteacher from the Los Angeles Unified School District. 
She is a great example of what we are already doing. Ann worked very 
hard and received her national board teacher certificate in California. 
Once you have done that in California, teachers then get a 15-percent 
salary increase and a $10,000 bonus.
  There are ways under current law to encourage and help pave the way 
for teachers who want to get additional training which benefits all of 
our students. We should encourage those. I don't think we should be 
just using a slogan of merit pay, saying we will pick a couple of 
teachers out of our schools and tell them they are better than the rest 
of the teachers, without understanding the consequences of what may 
happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington has asked 
the wrong question. She is looking for examples as to where merit pay 
is being used successfully and she just cited California. I am not 
familiar with that program, but it is a certification that led to a 
bonus and merit pay.
  I remind the Senator of the remarks of the Senator from Florida. In 
Denver, CO, teachers earn additional bonuses if they show student 
improvement. Secretary Riley, of this administration, previously 
endorsed merit pay when he served as Governor of South Carolina. 
Florida law provides bonuses to teachers who are nationally certified 
by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, and can earn 
additional bonuses if they mentor another teacher in getting nationally 
certified as an additional bonus.
  The superintendent of education from the State of Arizona was 
recently in our Capitol and lauded the concept of merit pay for 
teachers who have outstanding capabilities, pointing out this concept 
is important in order to retain people who are getting better and 
better. You need to be able to reward that teacher and keep that 
teacher in the system; otherwise, the individual is likely to leave.
  Let me simply say I am quite taken with the argument given by the 
Senator from Washington which, in theory, runs against everything we do 
in this country--that there should be no reward for achievement; 
everybody has to be treated identically or they won't be able to work 
together.
  That message is taught from elementary to high school to college to 
professional sports, where everybody has to work as a team--but is 
everybody treated the same way? What corporation in America could 
function that way? You would pay the salesman who sold 2 vacuum 
cleaners the same salary as one who sold 10. The American way is one of 
honest, fair competition and reward. We do not have a system where 
everybody is dumbed down. Yet this is an argument that people won't be 
able to get along if one is more successful than the other. The way it 
has always worked in this country is that person was a role model that 
made everybody else try to reach that standard to be as successful, to 
do as well.
  Competition makes better products, better performers. The competition 
of ideas in our democracy makes ideas truer and more honest. 
Competition is healthy, not detrimental. The whole country is built on 
the back of it.
  I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Florida. I think he is 
probably somewhat stunned someone remembered something that was said 
months ago, but it was such a compelling story about the role of 
teachers in education, and he has been kind enough to stay.
  As part of my remarks, I ask the Senator if he might relate to those 
in the center of this debate that great story of what he found in a 
very special school when he went to Los Angeles.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator for the opportunity to do this. A 
number of years ago, my wife and I visited a school called the Marcus 
Garvey School in Los Angeles. I went there because I was trying to 
learn more about the different types of schools in America--what works, 
what does not work. While I am going to be talking about the Marcus 
Garvey School, I am not endorsing or embracing everything the school 
does. But the thing that stood out to me was the role of the teacher in 
this school. So this is what happened.
  I went to the Marcus Garvey School and met the administrator, the 
principal, the owner of the school--all one person, Anyim Palmer, who 
was in a room probably no bigger than 10 by 10, filled with furniture 
that was probably 35 or 40 years old. The phone was on a stack of 
papers. There was no secretary. When the phone rang, he answered it. 
The point I am making is there were not a lot of amenities. This is 
basic stuff. This is a building with rooms in it, an administrator, 
teachers, and students.
  He said: I want to take you down and show you what some of our 
students are doing. Unfortunately, the school is not filled today 
because of the time of the year it is.
  Priscilla and I went down to a room where there were three different 
groups of children being taught in the same room. The first group of 
students we saw were 2-year-old children. Again, I emphasize 2-year-
olds, not second graders; 2-year-old children. There were eight of them 
sitting at a little table. The teacher said to the children: Show the 
Senator and Mrs. Mack how you can say your ABCs. You can imagine the 
cute little voices of those children as they recited their ABCs. When 
they finished that, the teacher said: Now that you have done it in 
English, do it in Spanish. So then these little 2-year-old children 
went through their alphabet in Spanish. When they finished that, the 
teacher then said to them: Now do the alphabet in Swahili, and they did 
that as well--2 years old.
  We went across the room to where 3-year-old children were doing math 
problems. The teacher said to me: Give one of the students a math 
problem. As I would suspect most people would have done, I gave a 
problem such as 5 plus 8--you know, pretty straightforward. But, again, 
3 years old. She

[[Page 6849]]

said: No, no, no, give them a tough problem. So I said something like 
325 plus 182. And this 3-year-old child, standing at the board, put 
down little dots, wrote down a number, another series of dots, wrote 
down a number and got the right answer at 3-years-old.
  We went across the room where 4-year-old children were reading. We 
were told that these children were reading at the second, third, and 
fourth grade level. They were 4 years old.
  We went into another room in this facility where there were 5-year-
old children. A little boy was asked to stand up and recite for me, in 
the proper chronological order, every President of the United States. 
That little fellow stood up, looked me right in the eyes, and he 
rattled right through every President of the United States in the 
proper order. I must admit I knew he did that because they gave me a 
cheat sheet to look at. He was 5 years old.
  Every time we went to a different area and saw these students, these 
children at work, Priscilla and I would say to this person who was 
taking us around: How can this be? How can this possibly be? What makes 
this work? Every single time we asked the question, the answer was: It 
is the teacher. It is the teacher. It is the teacher.
  Anyim Palmer challenged what was then considered the best private 
school in Los Angeles County, their sixth grade against his third grade 
students. I think it was in math and English. You know who won--Anyim 
Palmer's third grade beat the sixth graders. How did he do it? What he 
said to me was: It was the teacher.
  What I found out later is Anyim Palmer was a public school teacher in 
California who became so frustrated and angry that the system was 
failing to teach children in his community that he quit the public 
schools and started his own school. Do you know what he did? He also 
trained his own teachers. He said: Forget everything you have learned. 
I am going to train you. I am going to teach you how to teach.
  Again, I thank the Senator for asking me to restate that story. It 
made a major impression on me. We can talk about all these other 
things, but we must focus on how to make sure that the teacher standing 
up in front of our children and grandchildren has the knowledge in the 
subject they are teaching--this is not fancy. We are not asking for 
special degrees. I am asking a very simple question. If a teacher is 
standing in front of my little granddaughter, Addison, a few years from 
now, I want my son and his wife to know the person who is teaching 
their little daughter has the knowledge in the subject they are 
teaching. That does not seem to be an unreasonable request to make.
  I thank the Senator for asking the question. I yield.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Florida. He has been at this 
some time. But let me just ask him, he is a principal coauthor of the 
measure. Is there anything about this measure that is a mandate?
  Mr. MACK. I say to the Senator he is exactly right, there is no 
mandate. As strongly as I feel about it, I would like to, but I do not 
think that is our role. I think we can make some serious mistakes by 
mandating certain things, to say to a particular school district or a 
particular State they have to do what I say. They might say, what if we 
put this kind of testing program into effect but our concern is we need 
more computers. We need more books. We need--whatever.
  This is not a mandate. It never has been a mandate. It never will be 
a mandate, at least as far as the Senator from Michigan and I are 
concerned. It is merely a statement of importance and it says to the 
schools if they want to, these dollars can be used for the purpose of 
developing the concepts for creating tests, developing some merit pay 
program, or in reforming tenure, all three of which we think can in 
fact go to the heart of the matter about what is necessary to improve 
the ability of the teacher.
  The inference was made earlier that somehow or another those of us 
who are talking about this are out to degrade the teachers in this 
country. That is absolutely a false challenge. Most of us can remember 
those teachers who made a difference in our lives, who challenged us, 
who demanded from us that we do better. Each of us responded in a 
little bit different way. But we understand the importance of having 
good, quality teachers, and there are a lot of them. That is why we put 
the merit pay in, to recognize that.
  Again, as to this notion that somehow or another if we were to put in 
place a merit pay system that, highlights teachers who are doing well, 
and encourages those who are not teaching our children to do better and 
somehow or another people would know and there would be divisions that 
would take place, let me tell you something. There is probably not a 
school in America where every teacher doesn't know who is carrying the 
load and who is not. You do not need a merit pay program for students 
and teachers alike to know who the good teachers are. You can just hear 
the kids talking about it: Boy, I hope I don't get in so-and-so's 
class.
  It doesn't take a merit program. Merit pay is not going to do that. 
Children and parents already know the good ones and those who are not 
carrying their load.
  What we are trying to do is the right thing.
  Mr. COVERDELL. My colleague would agree, would he not, that the merit 
pay might keep that good teacher in that system longer than otherwise? 
At some point, we know we are losing good teachers because outside 
interests are seeking that kind of talent.
  Mr. MACK. I certainly hope it would do that. I believe it would. As 
both of us have indicated, the State of Florida has developed a program 
that provides an incentive for teachers to get certification by a 
national board. If they receive that certification, they get a bonus.
  They also get a bonus if they encourage another teacher to do the 
same thing.
  What we are saying is, we are recognizing, not only through the 
dollars but through our interest, the importance of that individual 
teacher and the importance of the quality of that individual teacher. I 
believe it would encourage them to stay in the system longer. Most of 
the teachers love the children they are teaching. They want them to do 
better. We just need to give more encouragement to those teachers.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Florida and the Senator from 
Michigan. I see the Senator from Minnesota is prepared to speak. He has 
been very accommodating. I have a few other things to say, but I am 
going to yield so he can proceed with his remarks. A little later 
today, I will have another opportunity, I am sure, to speak again. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I reserve my 
right to the floor and yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                  Amendment No. 3118 to Amendment 3117

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk on behalf of myself and the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself 
     and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 3118 to 
     amendment No. 3117.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 1 of the amendment in line 4, strike all after 
     ``Reforming'' through the end of the amendment and insert the 
     following: ``and implementing merit schools programs for 
     rewarding all teachers in schools that improve student 
     achievement for all students, including the lowest achieving 
     students;
       ``(B) Providing incentives and subsidies for helping 
     teachers gain advanced degrees in the academic fields in 
     which the teachers teach;
       ``(C) Implementing rigorous peer review, evaluation, and 
     recertification programs for teachers; and

[[Page 6850]]

       ``(D) Providing incentives for highly qualified teachers to 
     teach in the neediest schools.''

  Mr. MACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. MACK. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota yielded 
without losing his right to the floor and is entitled to recognition.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I already recognized the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will first 
respond, to make this a debate format, to some of the points I heard 
raised. I also will speak to the second-degree amendment.
  One of the points that was made is that the focus on teacher merit is 
important because it leads to retention of teachers. I want to cite the 
National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, a report that came 
out in 1996 in which they spelled out the key elements for effective 
teacher retention: A, organize professional development around 
standards for teachers and students; B, provide a yearlong inservice 
internship; C, include mentoring and strong evaluation of teacher 
skills; and D, offer stable, high-quality professional development.
  The second-degree amendment is about implementing merit schools 
programs for rewarding all teachers in schools that improve student 
achievement for all students, including the lowest achieving students.
  Over and over, we have been here making sure those students who come 
from difficult circumstances and do not do as well are the students to 
whom we pay special attention.
  B, providing incentives and subsidies for helping teachers gain 
advanced degrees in academic fields in which the teachers teach;
  C, implementing rigorous peer review, evaluation, and recertification 
programs for teachers;
  And D, providing incentives for highly qualified teachers to teach in 
the neediest schools.
  In many ways, what is in the second-degree amendment mirrors what the 
National Commission on Teaching & America's Future tells us we need to 
do to have the very best teachers and retain those teachers as well.
  I speak on behalf of the second-degree amendment. I want to talk 
about where I strongly dissent from the amendment my colleagues from 
Michigan and Florida have laid out: the emphasis on reforming teacher 
tenure systems and the emphasis on establishing teacher compensation 
systems based on merit and proven performance. Then I will talk about 
testing teachers periodically in the academic subjects in which they 
teach. I will talk about each one.
  I am the first to admit that the tenure system does not always work 
the way we want it. I am the first to admit there are some teachers, 
unfortunately, in our schools who do not add to children but subtract. 
Sometimes they are tenured teachers, and that is when it gets tough. 
There is a reason for tenure, and the reason for tenure is to make sure 
teachers are free to express their ideas.
  Albeit, I taught at the college level, but I am a perfect example of 
someone who benefited from tenure. First, I had to fight to get it. 
That is a 20-hour speech. The point is, there is no doubt in my mind 
that tenure was what gave me the protection to freely express my ideas 
on campus.
  When we talk about education, we want students introduced to a 
variety of ideas, and we do not want teachers put in a position where 
they do not feel free to express their viewpoint, where they do not 
feel free to teach the way they believe they should teach, to teach 
students the way they think they should teach students because they 
worry about capricious, arbitrary decisions that might be made.
  I now will talk about compensation based upon merit and then talk 
about teachers being tested periodically, and to give the example of 
Denver, CO, I think, raises yet another question. That has to do with 
this path we are barreling down with all the emphasis on standardized 
tests.
  It is unbelievable. We have a trend in the country--and thank 
goodness people are now starting to look at it--where we are going to 
measure a student's academic performance on the basis of a single 
standardized test when all the people who have developed those tests 
tell us we should never use a single standardized test, and when we 
have not done what we should do to make sure every student has the same 
opportunity to do well on those tests. Let me do that parallel with 
teachers.
  Let me give an example. I can see how this could very well happen 
given this proposal. If, for example, how well teachers are doing is 
based on how well students are doing, which is, in turn, based upon 
standardized tests given to students at as young an age as 8, if one is 
teaching in a school in an inner city, if one is teaching in a school 
in rural America, if one is teaching in a school where these kids come 
to kindergarten way behind, where they come from poverty homes, where 
they come from pretty difficult circumstances, and they do not have the 
resources they need, it could be your students are not going to do as 
well. Do we then argue the teachers do not show merit?
  In addition, what kind of tests are we talking about using? The 
people who have done the professional work on having the very best 
teachers have said that in addition to having the decent salaries, in 
addition to putting an end to the bashing of public school teachers, in 
addition to making sure teachers have the resources with which to work, 
in addition to making sure we invest in the infrastructure of the 
schools, that we have the technology programs, that we have a 
manageable class size, in addition to all that, we want to have good 
peer evaluation, we want to have mentors, we want to have good programs 
during the summer, such as the Eisenhower program which has been 
eliminated in this block grant program which enables teachers of math 
and science to come together to compare notes and become revitalized 
and renewed. We want to do all of that. None of that is in this 
proposal. None of it is in the Republican bill, S. 2.
  I say to my colleagues, not only does this amendment out here on the 
floor reflecting S. 2 do precious little to, No. 1, attract the very 
best into teaching, and, No. 2, to retain the very best in teaching--by 
the way, we have some of the very best teachers right now in public 
schools.
  You know what, colleagues. Here is my challenge. I will tell you one 
of the ways we can retain good teachers is to stop bashing public 
school teachers. Some of the harshest critics of public school teachers 
on the floor of the Senate could not last 1 hour, I say to Senator 
Schumer, in the classrooms they condemn.
  When I go into schools and talk to the students--and I am in a school 
every 2 weeks--I ask them: What do you think makes for good education? 
The first thing they say is: Good teachers. That is the first thing, 
even before, I say to Senator Murray, lower class size.
  Then I ask: What makes for good teachers? And then we get into this 
discussion about what makes for good teachers.
  By the way, I never hear students say the really good teachers are 
the teachers who engage in drill teaching, worksheet learning.
  They hate it. They say the good teachers are the teachers who fire 
their imaginations, get them to connect themselves personally to the 
material they are talking about--none of which is ever reflected in 
these standardized tests.
  Then, later on in the discussion--let's say there is an assembly of 
600 students--I ask: How many of you are interested in going into 
public school teaching? I will tell you, I am lucky if it is 5 
percent--maybe it is 10 percent--who say they are. This occurs at the 
very same time we are talking about over the next 10 years needing 2 
million more people to go into education to become teachers, at the 
very same time we all say we care so much about education.

[[Page 6851]]

  Then I ask the students: Why not? I want to tell you, colleagues, 
when these young people talk about whether or not they are going to go 
into public school teaching, and why they do not want to go into public 
school teaching, I guarantee you, they never say the reason they are 
not going to go into public school teaching to become public school 
teachers is because they are not going to have these merit tests.
  They do not say: If there were merit tests, and we would have 
standardized tests to determine how we are doing to see if we are 
qualified to teach, then we would be really interested in becoming 
public school teachers.
  They say two things discourage them from becoming public school 
teachers. No. 1 is that salaries are too low. By the way, a lot of 
women say--they are very honest about it--there was a time when maybe 
they would have had to go into teaching. They don't have to any longer 
in terms of opportunities for them.
  The second thing they say--I think this needs to be said to some of 
our colleagues--is that they would be disrespected. I say to Senator 
Murray, who has probably had this discussion in Washington State, they 
have put more of an emphasis on being disrespected than the salary. 
They say there is just very little respect.
  Then I say to them: Wait a minute. You are the students. Are you 
disrespecting your teachers?
  They say: Well, you know, on our part, we do not give the teachers 
the respect they deserve. But it is a problem in the community as well.
  So I say to my colleagues on the other side, rather than bringing 
amendments to the floor of the Senate that do not speak to what it is 
we should do to attract the very best teachers into public school 
education, what we should do--some of which is in the second-degree 
amendment that we now present--is put an emphasis on rewarding schools 
for doing well with the students and providing subsidies to help 
teachers gain advanced degrees in academic fields--who could argue with 
that?--and implementing good peer review. That really matters.
  I say to Senator Murray, we were both teachers. Senator Murray, I 
think, would agree to having good evaluation and also providing 
incentives for highly qualified teachers to teach in the neediest 
schools. I thank my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator Murray, for 
having that provision in the amendment. That makes a great deal of 
sense.
  The Abraham amendment which basically talks about maybe trying to 
figure out ways of ``reforming'' tenure systems, which I think means 
getting rid of tenure--let's be clear about what we are talking--and 
then talks about the teacher compensation systems based upon merit and 
proven performance, and then right away goes to periodic testing of 
teachers, is ridiculous. What kind of test are you going to use?
  Now we are going to have standardized tests of students all over the 
country. Now we are going to have a single, standardized test for 
teachers all over the country. It is all going to become educational 
deadening. It is all going to discourage really talented people from 
wanting to teach. It is going to lead to drill education. It is going 
to focus attention away from what we all should be doing to make sure 
kids do well in school. It does not represent a step forward.
  So I say to colleagues, I come here as someone who views education as 
the most important issue--that has been my adult life, education--to 
speak strongly in support of our second-degree amendment and to speak 
strongly in opposition to the Abraham-Mack amendment.
  One final time I have to say this. I want to issue a warning. Albeit, 
the language is ``may,'' but there is Federal money involved here. I 
want to, one more time, say that we are, in the name of ``reform,'' 
talking about standardized testing everywhere.
  I tell you, we should just listen to the students. I ask every 
Senator--Democrat and Republican alike--over the next 6 months, to try 
to spend a good deal of time in the schools in your States. Maybe many 
of you do. I am not implying the Senator from Michigan does not.
  I find very little interest in standardized tests as representing a 
real indication of reform. I find the interest is in the discussion of 
smaller class size, the discussion of how to get really good teachers, 
the discussion of really good child care, prekindergarten, and the 
discussion of the decaying physical infrastructure of schools. I find a 
lot of the discussion, frankly, about what happens to kids when they go 
home and what happens to kids before they go to school. I find a lot of 
the discussion, in the best schools, about how teachers feel free to 
teach. They team teach. I heard Senator Murray talk about that. It is 
really very exciting. I would say that is the direction in which we 
should go, not in this other direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
speak because I believe the right participation by the U.S. Government 
in the educational process of our children is fundamental to our 
success as a nation in the next century. It is important for us to 
understand that we have a limited role in this area.
  Mr. President, 93 percent of all the funding for education--93 
percent; that is basically $13 out of $14 spent in education--comes 
from State and local governments. Frankly, I think that is a positive, 
not a negative. I think when people invest their own resources, when 
they invest the resources they have control over, they are likely to do 
so very effectively.
  But it is appropriate, and as a matter of fact beneficial, when the 
Federal Government decides to be of assistance in the area of 
education. When we are involved, I think there ought to be some 
principles that we should follow in order to make sure we maximize the 
positive impact we can have in terms of the achievement standing of 
children. I use a term such as ``achievement standing'' or the 
``capacity to achieve'' because I think that is what we are interested 
in, in education.
  The question is, What do we want out of education? I think we want 
children whose capacity to do things, whose capacity to learn, and the 
things that they have learned, have been enhanced substantially.
  It is nice to have school buildings. It is nice to have teachers. It 
is nice to have education programs. But ultimately, the purpose for 
which we develop resources and to which we devote the resources, is to 
elevate the capacity of children to learn.
  How do we improve what happens to children?
  I have had some opportunity to be aggressive and active in this area 
at the State and local level in government. Having spent 8 years as the 
Governor of my State, and visiting many of Missouri's 550 or so school 
districts, I know it is the focal point of the community in almost 
every setting. It is the objective of that community to elevate the 
standing of students, asking how do we help students do more?
  Different communities have found different ways of inspiring 
students, preparing students, building students, and elevating what 
happens in the classroom. I think that is what we should be involved 
in.
  During my time as Governor of the State of Missouri, the State board 
of education was so convinced about getting parents and teachers 
involved in the education of children, because it motivates children to 
be achievers, that we had a slogan that said: ``Success in school is 
homemade.''
  Talking about localizing what we do in education, if you take it all 
the way to the home, you have localized it about as much as possible.
  As a matter of fact, during my time as the president, or chairman--I 
forget the designation I carried--for the Education Commission of the 
States, it was an emphasis we agreed upon nationally that energizing 
parents and energizing the local community was the way in which we get 
the most return for our school dollars, as study after study has shown. 
And the anecdotal evidence is incredibly strong that cultures that 
involve parents and local

[[Page 6852]]

officials in making decisions for what can and will work are the 
cultures where education succeeds.
  So the ingredients of public school success include the very 
important point of getting students motivated as a result of the active 
participation of their families.
  The House Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations answered this question about what are the 
ingredients of educational success in a report released in July of 
1998. The report was called ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and 
What's Wasted in Education Today.'' The subcommittee found that 
successful schools and school systems were not the product of Federal 
funding and directives but instead were characterized by--here are the 
ingredients--parental involvement in the education of their children; 
two, local control; three, emphasis on basic academics; four, dollars 
spent in the classroom, not on distant bureaucracy and ineffective 
programs.
  I believe these are the ingredients that are necessary for all of us 
to understand if we are going to talk about elevating the performance 
of students, which is why we speak about this issue today, because 
there are noble objectives and there are programs that may sound novel 
and noble, but if they don't elevate the status of students, we will 
have failed miserably.
  I am concerned that too often the Federal program which finds its 
first consumption of resources in the administration of the program and 
the bureaucracy at the Federal level very frequently then goes to the 
State bureaucracy at the State level, but it doesn't get all the way to 
the student.
  But there is more to my concern that the proposal just doesn't get 
all the way to the student. Frequently, when it gets all the way to the 
student, it directs an activity or a devotion of the resource which is 
not called for in the circumstance of the student.
  So there are two principles that are operative here: First, that we 
get the resource all the way to the student so that the resource is 
spent in the classroom and not in the bureaucracy. The second principle 
is, let the resource be spent, once it is at the level of the student, 
on things that make a difference in terms of performance and student 
achievement in the classroom.
  It would be appropriate, I think, to have some sense of satisfaction 
of getting a resource all the way to the classroom and not having the 
shrinkage of the bureaucracy that takes the resource away. But if the 
resource gets to the classroom and the expenditure can only be for 
things that aren't needed or directly pertinent to student achievement, 
we will have lost the battle anyhow.
  Yesterday, I had the opportunity of addressing this body, and I had 
the unhappy task of detailing the fact that for tens of thousands of 
individuals at the State level in our educational effort their entire 
existence is consumed with filling out Federal forms; that we are 
serving the bureaucracy with paperwork perhaps more effectively than we 
are serving the students with education.
  If the active participation by parents, community leaders, teachers, 
and boards of education at the local level is what really energizes 
schools to elevate the level of student achievement, maybe we should 
not have so much direction from the Federal level about how much and 
where the money should be spent.
  I think that is pretty clear as a part of this bill which has been 
offered by our side; that we want to get the resources to individuals 
in the classroom, and not only deliver the resources to the classroom 
but to make sure that the best use for those resources can be 
determined by those who know the names of the students and the needs of 
the school rather than some hypothetical best use being developed a 
thousand miles away by bureaucrats who know, in theory, that generally 
the country needs X or Y but do not have very much awareness of 
specific needs in specific classrooms, in specific districts, in 
particular towns, counties, or communities all across America.
  So this principle is, one, to get resources to the classroom and, 
two, to let the people who know the names of the students and the needs 
of the schools make the decisions. That is of fundamental importance.
  When you gather at the Federal level the character of the programs 
and say we will make all the decisions about what is done, and we may 
want to get the resources to you but we will tell you what you have to 
do, that is the equivalent of hanging a sign on the schoolhouse door: 
``Parents need not apply.'' It is the equivalent of saying to them, as 
much as we think you are an important part of education, you won't get 
to help make a decision about the way the resources are devoted, about 
the kind of program that is conducted, because, as a matter of fact, we 
will make those decisions for you in some remote bureaucracy.
  I think the key to what we want to do is to empower those individuals 
at the local level by, first, sharing the resources with them as 
efficiently as possible, not shrinking it by running it through 
bureaucracy after bureaucracy and, second, empowering them by saying, 
once you have the resources, you have the right and opportunity to 
spend it in ways you know will benefit the students in a specific 
setting.
  We have watched as we have lived with the sort of status quo in 
education, with the Federal Government trying to impose its ideas on 
the country, and we aren't showing the desired results. When you are 
not getting the right results, if you keep doing the same things, you 
are asking for difficulty. The industrialist puts it this way: Your 
system is perfectly designed to give you what you are getting.
  If we like what we are getting in education, we should just keep 
doing what we are doing. But if we think we can do better --as a matter 
of fact, if we think we must do better for the next generation of 
Americans, if we recognize that the world is exploding in a 
technological, developmental sense, and that for people to be at the 
top of the list, they are going to have to be able to deal with 
technology and they will have to have high levels of achievement and 
capacity in terms of education, I think we are going to have to confess 
that we must do better. And in order to do better, we have to change 
what we are doing.
  It is virtually impossible to do better if we just do the same thing 
over and over. I think State and local governments need the kind of 
flexibility that we provide, and I think when we try to restrict that 
flexibility, when we try to restrain the capacity of the people who 
know best what their own children need, who witness what will motivate, 
on occasion, success in those students, we tell them they can't use 
that judgment, awareness, and knowledge, they can't use their proximity 
to the problem as a basis for developing a solution, as a matter of 
fact, we are hindering the process.
  I stand to speak in favor of this measure which will not only move 
resources to the local and State level but will provide the authority 
and flexibility so those resources can be devoted to students in 
classrooms in ways that are known by the individuals who know--teachers 
and students--and to the needs of the institution to improve 
performance. I believe that is the key.
  For us to persist in doing what we have done with the status quo, to 
persist with a system that finds more and more people disenchanted 
because they find their hands tied, and they want to do one thing they 
believe will help their students but the government says, no, they have 
to do something else, which isn't that helpful, or, even in order to do 
something else, they have to file a stack of papers that will take 
people out of the classroom, moves people away from education.
  For the Federal Government, according to a study in Florida, to 
administer Federal dollars, it is about six times as expensive as it is 
to administer a State dollar. That is six times the paperwork volume 
that is basically involved.
  We ought to begin to wonder whether those individuals who actually 
have the stake in the circumstances, their child in the school, why we 
should distrust them and impose this sort of not only rigid set of 
requirements but this rigid audit trail which requires six

[[Page 6853]]

times as much administration as a State or local dollar does to deliver 
educational capacity to children. That is something we ought to be 
leery of. We ought to say, wait a second. Why would we want to spend 
all of that money in administration and second-guessing those who know 
best about their own children, their own future, and who have a stake 
in this issue, which is the important stake, and that is the 
achievement of the students?
  I think we ought to ask ourselves what happens in education when 
there is more nonteachers in the education system than there is 
teachers in the education system? When the administration of education 
and the tens of thousands of full-time equivalents across the country 
mandated by the Federal Government consume the resources instead of the 
resources getting to the classroom, we ought to ask ourselves: Is this 
the way for us to really be achievers?
  We know when people have the right opportunity to succeed and the 
right resources, they can get the job done--my colleagues and I have 
talked about it over and over again--when they have the right 
opportunity in terms of resources and the right authority in terms of 
flexibility.
  I think those are the two keys we have offered to the American people 
by this measure on our side as a way of allowing them to use the money 
they have paid in taxes to elevate the capacity of the students who 
will chart the course of America in the next century.
  We want for our children high levels of achievement. The children are 
the focus. The classroom is the focus. It is the place where it happens 
to those on whom we focus--the children. The ingredients of success are 
not great bureaucracies. They are great teachers, great classrooms, and 
great students. And it involves parents. When we tell parents the 
bureaucracy will make the decisions, we shunt them aside. We tell them 
they need not apply. That is a dangerous strategy and damaging to our 
students.
  Our Federal programs haven't worked, and just doing more of it won't 
improve our performance.
  My grandfather's admonition was, ``I sawed this board off more times, 
and it is still too short.'' If you keep sawing it will still be too 
short. You have to change your conduct.
  We should change the focus at the local level; States and local 
governments need the ability as it relates to teachers. As Senator 
Abraham said, we are not going to mandate that the States and local 
communities deal with teachers in any specific way. We want to 
authorize them to be able--with the resources they earned and paid in 
taxes--to devote those resources in such a way that they believe it 
will result in elevated performance for the students.
  That is the long and the short of what we ought to be doing. The 
status quo is unacceptable. America will not survive on a continuing 
basis in the long term with our students being last on the list of 
those among industrialized nations. It doesn't matter if we are first 
on the list of expenditures. It doesn't matter if we have more 
resources devoted to the process that is eventually sucked into the 
bureaucracy or devoted to things that do not pay off. What matters is 
that students achieve. We cannot long endure as the leader of the free 
world if our students are the last on the list. Being the leader and 
being last doesn't fit.
  It is time for us to focus our energies, resources, and authority to 
make good decisions for the elevation of student capacity. That will 
make a difference at the local level. That is why this measure is such 
an important measure.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in order to try to inform the membership, 
we are attempting to establish a time situation so Members will know. 
We wanted to have a very brief comment on this second degree to the 
underlying amendment, and then to move ahead with an announcement which 
will be agreed to by leaders that would spell out how we would proceed 
from that time. That is in the process of being worked out, as I 
understand it. But we are reasonably hopeful that in a very short 
period of time we will either have a vote on this, or perhaps we could 
set it aside and start considering other amendments. We are prepared to 
do it. I will see what the mood is after I address the Senate for just 
a few minutes at this time.
  Mr. President, I will speak briefly about the second-degree amendment 
that Senator Murray and I have offered. I think there has been a good 
debate and discussion about the importance of well-trained teachers, 
continuing and ongoing professional development, and also incentives 
for teachers who want to try to have a continued academic degree and 
who go through various certification processes.
  Our amendment, as Senator Wellstone pointed out, seeks to do the 
merit program on a whole school level that rewards all teachers in the 
schools; improve achievement for all students, including the lowest 
achieving students; provide incentives and subsidies for helping 
teachers with advanced degrees; and implements a rigorous peer review 
evaluation recertification that takes in many considerations during the 
course of a year. It is a very rigorous program where teachers are 
evaluated by master teachers, where there is a video sample of their 
work evaluated. We believe that is consistent with other provisions of 
the Democratic alternative.
  We are saying to the parents of this country that we are including in 
our educational program, recommendations that work--that have been 
tried and tested.
  We differ with our Republican friends who say let's have a blank 
check and send it to the State capitals. Let's have block grants and 
let the Governors make the decisions and judgments about what they are 
going to do.
  We differ with that. That is why we offered this second-degree 
amendment.
  You could say: What is your evidence in terms of these particulars 
schoolwide? I want to correct the Record of my good friend from Georgia 
who said Secretary Riley tried merit pay in North Carolina. It is true. 
He did try it. It is also true he also decided that it failed after the 
State spent $100 million. They changed their program to the merit 
schools program, which is working, which is exactly what we are doing 
today. You now have probably the most successful school district in the 
country, which is in North Carolina, which is using just the kind of 
program that we are talking about. We are seeing the development of the 
same kind of program in the State of Kentucky.
  In North Carolina, the State focuses on whole school achievement and 
overall student achievement for reward. The State doesn't believe that 
individual activities can be isolated to determine what produced the 
improvements in student achievement--it's a whole school effort. 
Therefore, the focus is rewarding the whole school. Rewards are given 
to the school, and all teachers and the principal benefit.
  If any State wants to use their 93 cents out of any dollar for the 
objectives that the Senator from Michigan points out, they are free to 
do so. We don't prohibit it. If they want to do it, they can do it. We 
are saying with our 7 cents of the money that is going out in the local 
community, we are going to support tried and tested programs that have 
been successful.
  I asked earlier in the day what States permit individual merit pay, 
and we still do not have an answer. What we know on our side, for 
example, is supported by a CRS Report dated June 3, 1999, 
``Performance-Based Pay for Teachers.'' It states that many individual 
merit-pay plans were adopted as a means to increase teacher 
accountability and improve classroom performance. But, these plans not 
only failed to improve student achievement, but also destroyed 
teachers' collaboration with each other and teachers' trust in the 
administrators.
  Instead, the more recent shift toward group-based, whole school 
incentive pay plans, allows teachers to focus on fostering overall 
student learning. These plans encourage teachers to work together 
within a school in a noncompetitive environment.

[[Page 6854]]

  We support States that have merit pay with regard to whole school 
programs, merit pay for enhanced academic accomplishment, merit pay for 
evaluations and the recertifications. All of those are very worthy and 
are permitted and encouraged in our amendment.
  We listened earlier about an excellent school in New Haven, CA, one 
of the poorer districts in California. Classroom teachers, while still 
working with children, have opportunities to have their knowledge and 
skills rewarded both financially and by returning something to the 
profession.
  In New Haven, classroom teachers carry out internship programs, 
develop curriculum, design technological supports, and create student 
standards, assessments, and indicators of student learning.
  Using a combination of release time, afterschool workshops, and 
extensive summer institutes, the district involved more than 100 
teachers--nearly two-fifths of K through 4-- on the language arts and 
math standards committee during 1996-1997 year.
  During the summer of 1997, nearly 500 teachers, approximately 65 
percent of the certified teachers, participated in district-sponsored 
staff development activities. The district had 24 different workshops 
in technology alone, offering a wide variety of different areas, 
including math and science instruction, bilingual programs, and many 
others.
  The district pays the teachers for the courses leading to the 
additional certification in the hard-to-staff areas, such as special 
education, math, science, and bilingual. If the district does not pay 
the teachers for their time directly, the work counts toward increments 
on their salary scale.
  The district provides free courses that reap ongoing financial 
benefits for teachers.
  The district is bringing the salary incentives for those who have 
successfully passed the National Board for Professional Training 
Standards. The NBPTS for teachers was instituted in 1987. Achieving the 
national board certification involves completing a year-long portfolio 
that illustrates teacher practices through the lesson plan, with 
samples of student work over time and analyses of teaching.
  They found that this school district--one of the poorest and neediest 
in all of California, the New Haven Unified School District, in a low-
wealth district--now has an excellent reputation in education. Twenty 
years ago, it was one of the poorest in education, as well as 
financially. Today, they have closed their doors to out-of-district 
transfers and moved up into one of the highest achieving schools in 
California.
  This is how it was done with regard to the teachers. There are other 
elements necessary in terms of classrooms.
  Finally, I mention in Charlotte, NC, Mecklenburg, they ran an annual 
achievement goals-bonus cycle. This is how they consider their school 
district. Based on the degree to which the schools attained a set of 
goals, including improvement in academic performance, advanced course 
enrollment, dropout rates, and student attendance, there were two 
levels of bonus awards--100 percent and 75 percent. Schools that earned 
75 to 100 percent of the possible goal points were designated 
exemplary, and bonuses of $1,000 and $400 were awarded to teachers and 
classified staff. Schools earning 60 to 74 percent of the possible goal 
points were designated as outstanding, and the bonus amounts were $700 
and $300 for teachers and staff, respectively.
  We are for it. But we ought to do it in ways that work. That is what 
our amendment does. That is why it deserves to be accepted by this 
body.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to commend my friend from Michigan 
for his amendment. I endorse the amendment. I think it is only common 
sense that we deal with this issue. I will make some comments about the 
underlying bill and what I have heard in this debate and try to put it 
in some kind of context.
  First let me outline what credentials I have to comment on this. 
About a dozen years ago, I was approached by the chair of the Utah 
State School Board and asked to chair the Strategic Planning Commission 
that was being followed by that school board to create a strategic plan 
for Utah schools.
  Frankly, that was the experience that got me back into public life. I 
was very comfortably ensconced as CEO of a profitable company and 
thinking that would be my career for the rest of my life. Getting 
involved in educational issues, becoming chairman of that planning 
commission, and laying out a strategic vision for Utah schools got me 
immersed in the whole education issue.
  What I discovered 12 years ago--a depressing thing, by the way, and 
nothing has changed in the intervening 12 years--was that the school 
system was focusing on the wrong issue. Indeed, we named our report ``A 
shift in focus'' because we said that was what was going to be 
necessary to solve the educational problem in this country.
  All of the focus of the professional educators and people involved in 
education was on the system: How can we tweak, fine-tune, fund, change, 
somehow manipulate the system?
  As we got into it, we said no, the shift should be from focusing on 
the system and how it works, to focusing on the student and what he 
needs.
  I offered this analogy going back again to my business roots. In the 
automobile world, at one time General Motors focused entirely on the 
way they made automobiles. They said: These are the automobiles we 
make. Now, sales department, you go out and sell the automobiles to the 
public.
  Toyota came along, a very small company, and said: We are going to 
ask the drivers what they want in a car, and we are going to focus on 
drivers rather than cars. As a result, Toyota came up with an entirely 
different kind of car from those General Motors was producing. The 
focus was on the driver and not the car. The focus was on the customer 
and not the company. The company that focused on the customer and on 
the driver did exceedingly well. Toyota grew from a tiny company to the 
second largest in the world making automobiles and became, for a time, 
more profitable than General Motors, until General Motors discovered 
they had to shift their focus.
  Instead of saying, this is what we produce, you go buy it; like 
Toyota, they started asking the question: What do you want? We will go 
make it. Saturn, a General Motors venture, came out entirely of that 
activity.
  That is the analogy I used when I wrote that strategic plan for Utah 
schools: Instead of focusing on the school system and how it works, 
focus on the students and what they need. We were asked to come up with 
a mission statement for education as we did that commission. The 
mission statement we came up with terrified the superintendent of 
schools in the State of Utah. He said: You can't say that because if 
you say that, we will get sued.
  We went ahead and said it anyway. What we said was: The mission of 
public education is to empower students to function effectively in 
society. That is what we are here for, to empower students to function 
effectively in society.
  No, no, no, say the professionals; the mission of education is to 
construct a system that does the following things.
  We do not measure the system. We measure the ability of the students 
to function in society. If they cannot function effectively in society, 
they are not getting a decent education. That was a radical notion 12 
years ago. As I say, 12 years have passed and very little has changed.
  Those are my credentials. That is the background I had coming in and 
listening to this debate. As I listen to this debate, I have some very, 
for me, interesting reactions.
  First, from our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, we have 
had an eloquent, continuing, and unrelenting defense of the status quo. 
Any suggestion that we try to do anything different is met with a 
stonewall of criticism and fear that somehow something will change. 
There is an unrelenting defense of the status quo that has been the 
underlying theme of this entire debate, as far as my friends on the 
other side of the aisle are concerned.

[[Page 6855]]

  Interestingly enough, an overwhelming defense of the status quo is 
not what the American people want to hear. So if we go out on the 
campaign trail for just a moment, we find the Vice President saying we 
need revolutionary changes in education. There is an article that ran 
in this morning's Washington Post, which I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed at the end of my remarks, written by George Will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BENNETT. He is talking about the Vice President's recent talk on 
education, and he quotes the Vice President as saying:

       Today, I am proposing a new national commitment to bring 
     revolutionary improvements to our schools--built on three 
     basis principles. First, I am proposing a major national 
     investment to bring revolutionary improvements to our 
     schools. Second, I am proposing a national revolution--

  And so on. According to Mr. Will, the Vice President used 
``revolution,'' ``revolutionary,'' or ``revolutionize'' 8 times in his 
speech and ``invest,'' a word we know means spending, 14 times.
  As Mr. Will concludes in his article:

       The basic Gore position is that the public schools are 
     splendid, and at the same time desperately in need of 
     revolutionary investments.

  I find a disconnect between the Vice President's rhetoric out on the 
campaign trail and what we are hearing on the floor today because any 
attempt on the part of the Republicans to produce something that is 
different is attacked. Anything we say let's experiment with is 
attacked. The overwhelming defense of the status quo is underlying 
everything our friends on the other side of the aisle are saying.
  From the prospect of the position I had as chairman of that strategic 
planning commission, I want to look at this fearsome, frightening, 
Republican proposal that would go into such new ground as to somehow 
threaten the status quo. It is the most timid, it is the most small, 
tiny, incremental kind of revolution I have ever seen.
  The bill the Republicans are putting forward is, to put a number on 
it, something like 98-percent status quo. It funds the programs we have 
now, and it funds them generously. It supports the programs we have 
now, and it supports them solidly. But it says, putting the smallest 
toe at the very edge of the smallest possible body of water: Couldn't 
we just try a couple of things? Couldn't we give 10 States the chance, 
if they want to--no mandates, no requirements--just 10 States the 
chance, if they might want to, to try something out? In another area, 
couldn't we just try 15 States? Boy, that is bold and revolutionary and 
going to upset the whole world--15 States, if they decide they want to, 
might be able to try a few things a little differently.
  These are the threatening kinds of Republican proposals that are 
coming along that are causing our friends to be so excited about 
anything that might in any way upset the status quo. If a State finds 
the Republican proposal is so revolutionary and threatening that it 
will destroy the State's ability to deliver education to its children, 
the State does not have to accept it. There is no mandate in this bill 
at all that says any State has to do any of the things we are giving 
them the opportunity to do. This is just the first tiny step. From my 
position as chairman of that strategic planning commission, I would 
look at the Republican proposal and say: This is timid. This is not 
nearly what is needed.
  But I come here and discover it is denounced as somehow so 
threatening that it is going to bring down the entire educational 
edifice of the United States. But I repeat, at the same time, there is 
that kind of attack on Republican willingness to innovate and to even 
allow States to try a few things. At the same time that kind of attack 
is going on, the Vice President is going up and down the country 
demanding revolutionary improvement with major investments. I would 
like to know what those revolutionary improvements are. I would like to 
know, in the context of this bill, what changes in the status quo in 
revolutionary fashion the Vice President has in mind. If you get to the 
details, the only revolution he is calling for is spending more money 
on programs that already exist.
  Let's take a look for just a minute at some past history. I want to 
read an excerpt from the Washington Post, talking about schools in the 
District of Columbia. It says:

       Alarmed by the crises confronting Washington youth, a group 
     of community leaders is urging sweeping changes in D.C. 
     public schools.

  That does not sound like the status quo is so wonderful.
  And another:

       A new consumer guide to the nation's public school system 
     ranks only two urban school systems lower than the D.C. 
     schools.

  Again, the status quo is not so wonderful. The interesting thing 
about these quotes from the Washington Post is that they appeared there 
in 1988, 12 years ago. For 12 years, Republicans have been trying to 
bring about some changes in the D.C. public schools. I have stood on 
this floor and debated this issue in the context of the D.C. 
appropriations bill. Every time we try to try something different in 
D.C., we are told no, we cannot upset the status quo.
  Here is another quote from the Washington Post:

       The malaise that infects the District of Columbia public 
     schools runs deep. . . . There are problems in every phase of 
     the educational process. There are school system employees 
     who display no interest in the advancement of students, while 
     excellent teachers and administrators are smothered by 
     confusing and contradictory directives. . . . Instruction is 
     inconsistent. At many schools, the audit said, test results 
     have not been shared with parents and teachers. . . . The 
     teacher appraisal process has been a joke. In the 1988-1989 
     school year, not one teacher received a conditional or 
     unsatisfactory rating. On average, 22 percent of the teachers 
     received no evaluation at all. While some excellent teaching 
     was observed, the audit said, the predominant classroom 
     activity involved students copying exercises and directions 
     from books while teachers graded papers at their desks.

  This appeared in the Washington Post in 1992, some 4 years after the 
first articles appeared in the Washington Post.
  What revolutionary changes are we talking about? Every time the 
Republicans come to the floor and ask for an incremental change, we are 
told, no, you are undermining the confidence in public schools.
  For over a dozen years now, in at least the Nation's school district 
where we have some degree of influence, the public school system has 
failed the children of the public schools.
  As I listen to this debate and relive my experiences from memory as 
being chairman of the Strategic Planning Commission for the Utah State 
board of education, I realize how timid public policymakers really are, 
how anxious they are to talk about revolutionary improvements when they 
are running for office, and how anxious they are to stifle any attempt 
to bring to pass any sort of revolution when they have the opportunity 
to make a policy decision.
  We must recognize, as I said before, this bill as what it is. The 
underlying bill is not a revolutionary bold attack on the status quo. I 
wish it were. There are many things that can and should be done. This 
is just the most timid kind of probing into possibilities, and yet even 
that is too much, even that is too fearful for those defenders of the 
status quo.
  I go back to my original analogy. When it was first suggested to 
General Motors that they might produce some smaller cars, that they 
might try to go after the market that Toyota was beginning to discover, 
there was a mantra that ran through General Motors and Ford and the big 
three generally, and it was: Small cars mean small profits. It was 
repeated over and over.
  By repeating that mantra to themselves, these auto executives 
convinced themselves that the status quo was just fine, and they 
watched the Japanese come into this country and take market share away 
from them to a degree that, to some extent, threatened their existence.
  It was only after the marketplace told them they should be focusing 
on the driver and what the driver wanted

[[Page 6856]]

rather than on their own systems and what they were comfortable 
producing that they finally began to compete in the world marketplace 
for automobiles and began to produce the kinds of cars Americans wanted 
to drive.
  Now American manufacturers are competitive, and we drive American 
cars with the understanding that they are well built, they have good 
fuel economy, and they give us the value for the money, an 
understanding that, frankly, 15 or 20 years ago, Americans did not 
have.
  Why can't we have that same understanding with respect to education 
instead of being so overwhelmingly concerned with the system and how do 
we tweak the system and how do we defend the system and this is the way 
we teach and, by George, the students have to sit there and take it.
  Why can't we say: What do the students need to function effectively 
in society? Why can't we assess the student needs, the student 
challenges in the future, and the student responsibilities and then 
say, OK, if that is what the student needs, we will provide it? If the 
student needs skill in the English language, to a degree that he or she 
does not have it now, we better figure out a way to get it to them.
  The main problem with our school system is this: Our school system is 
built on the industrial model. Indeed, it was created as we went 
through the Industrial Revolution. Stop and think about it for a 
moment.
  Our schools are factories. That is, the model on which they are built 
is the factory model, with the student as product and the teacher as 
worker. Indeed, we organize the workers into unions, which is just the 
same thing that happens in a factory.
  Here is the product. The product is wheeled into the English room 
where the English worker pours English into the product for 45 minutes. 
The factory whistle blows, and the product is wheeled into the math 
room, where the math worker pours math into the product for 45 minutes. 
The factory whistle blows, and the product is wheeled into the social 
sciences room where the social science worker pours social science into 
the product for 45 minutes, and so on.
  It is organized along the industrial model, student as product, 
teacher as worker.
  After the product has gone through enough class time exposures, we 
stamp a certificate on it, which we call a diploma, and send the 
product out into the world saying: You are now educated, and the 
certificate we have put upon you proves it. We spend more attention to 
seat time than we do to the ability of the student to perform.
  If I may digress for a moment and give you an example of how 
pervasive this whole mentality is from my own State, I want to talk 
about one of the members of our commission. We had a professor in 
educational psychology at Brigham Young University who was a member of 
the Strategic Planning Commission, which I chaired. I will not give you 
all of this history, except to tell you he made a commitment early in 
his life that he would return some day to the tiny rural community in 
Utah where he grew up and give something back to that community. It was 
an emotional kind of commitment made as a teenager when the people in 
that community raised enough money to send him to the University of 
Utah to get a college education, something he never could have afforded 
on his own.
  As I say, he is a professor, graduated Ph.D. from Stanford, one of 
the Nation's leading authorities on small school problems. The position 
of superintendent of the school district in which his old hometown was 
located became vacant. He said to his wife: I am going to apply for 
that position.
  She said: Come on, that's so far below what you do and what you are 
qualified for professionally.
  He said: No, I made a commitment years ago that I would someday 
return to my hometown and give back to that community, and here is a 
way I can do it. I can go there, be the superintendent of schools, try 
a whole bunch of innovative things, and make a major difference. I can 
fulfill that age-old commitment I made as a teenager to go back to my 
community.
  He applied for the position. He was told that he was not qualified 
for the position because there were certain gaps in his academic record 
that were required for that particular assignment. All right, he said, 
I will fill those gaps.
  He went around to his colleagues in the School of Education at 
Brigham Young University and said: Give me the test. I have to have 
this particular class on my transcript. Even though I am a Ph.D. from 
Stanford, I have to have this particular class. Give me the test. I 
will take the test and demonstrate proficiency.
  They said: No, no, no, no, no, no. You have to take the class. We 
can't give you an examination to find out whether you are proficient. 
You have to take the class.
  He said: Some of these classes I teach.
  They said: It doesn't matter. You have to sit in the classroom for 
the prescribed number of hours or we will not certify you as being 
educated.
  He did not become the superintendent of schools in that particular 
rural district. This demonstrates the commitment that runs through the 
entire educational community, to seat time as the ultimate measure of 
educational ability.
  What we are saying in this bill is, let's take a tiny, incremental, 
very tentative step towards looking at the needs of the student instead 
of focusing on the structure of the system, toward saying if somebody 
teaches a class, let's just assume that he knows what is in that 
curriculum and does not have to sit through it in order to acquire the 
requirements of the system.
  Let's move from the industrial model paradigm that has the student as 
product and teacher as worker to a system with the student as worker--
student, you are responsible for your own education--and teacher as 
coach. Teacher, help the worker understand where to go to get this 
information, to look for that skill, and so on.
  In the process that means, ultimately, we will have a system that 
funds the student rather than the system. We will have a funding system 
where the money follows the student wherever the student, as worker, 
decides he or she needs to go, with the teacher, as coach, saying: You 
may have made a wrong decision. Look at the options. Look what you 
could do over there. Let me help you. Let me coach you. Let me support 
you. But understand, the ultimate responsibility for your education is 
yours, not mine.
  That kind of a paradigm shift in thinking throughout the entire 
educational system would be truly a revolutionary improvement rather 
than the kind of changes or improvements that the Vice President has in 
mind when he uses those phrases.
  I thank the Chair and the other Members of the Senate for your 
indulgence. As I have gone on this trip down memory lane of my own 
involvement with schools, I close with this one last anecdote.
  When we were laying out, for an employee of the Utah board of 
education, some of the things we wanted to do and wanted to see happen 
in Utah's schools, he looked at me with great horror and said: We can't 
do that overnight. He said: Understand, we are trying to make these 
sorts of improvements. We are trying to make this a better situation 
for kids. But we can't do it overnight. You are too impatient. You come 
out of the business world where you can make a decision and then have 
it implemented. We can't do that. He said: But give us credit for 
moving. We will move in this direction, but we won't get there for 15 
years.
  I said to him: Now, wait a minute. Fifteen years?
  Think of that in terms of the life of the student. That means the 
students who are entering this system as kindergartners, this year, 
will not see any improvement in their entire career because they will 
graduate before 15 years as seniors from high school.
  If you think it is salutary that we can get changes moving slowly, 
and they will be effective in 15 years, you are just saying that a 
kindergartner entering school today is doomed to

[[Page 6857]]

stay in the status quo his or her entire career through elementary and 
secondary education.
  As the quotes I have read indicate, I was right. Students who entered 
as kindergartners, at least in the District of Columbia, are now 
graduating as seniors with no improvements, no changes. That is tragic.
  To condemn a youngster as a kindergartner to no changes, no 
improvements, no experimentation at all, just to defend the status quo, 
and say, we are moving towards these changes, and they will come 15 or 
20 years from now, is not something with which I want to be associated.
  The Republican bill is not threatening. The Republican bill is not 
revolutionary. The Republican bill is the tiniest kind of incremental 
opportunity for States to experiment. We ought to pass it.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                         A Lesson Plan for Gore

                            (George F. Will)

       If Al Gore keeps talking incessantly about education, 
     someday he may slip and say something interesting. But he 
     avoided that pitfall--anything novel would offend his leash-
     holders, the teachers' unions--in his Dallas speech last 
     Friday, unless you find interesting this unintended lesson, 
     drawn from his speech, about how schools are failing to teach 
     future speech-writers how to write:
       ``Today, I am proposing a new national commitment to bring 
     revolutionary improvements to our schools--built on three 
     basic principles. First, I am proposing a major national 
     investment to bring revolutionary improvements to our 
     schools. Second, I am proposing a national revolution 
     in . . . ''
       By November the salient issue may be not education but: Can 
     Americans bear a president who talks to them as though they 
     are dim fourth-graders? Whoever writes Gore's stuff knows his 
     style, the bludgeoning repetition of cant, as in his almost 
     comic incantations about Republicans' ``risky tax schemes.'' 
     In Dallas, Gore used ``revolution,'' ``revolutionary'' or 
     ``revolutionize'' eight times and ``invest'' (a weasel word 
     to avoid ``spending'') or some permutation of it 14 times. 
     And--it is as reflexive as a sneeze--he used ``tax scheme'' 
     three times, ``risky tax cut'' once and threw in another 
     ``scheme,'' referring to vouchers, for good measure.
       Gore's grating style in Dallas suited his banal substance, 
     which was Lyndon Johnson redux. The crux of Gore's plan is 
     more spending of the kinds that are pleasing to teachers' 
     unions. Such as: ``My education plan invests in smaller 
     schools and smaller classes--because we know that is one of 
     the most effective ways to improve student performance.''
       Actually, we know no such thing. Pupil-teacher ratios have 
     been shrinking for a century. In 1955 pupil-teacher ratios in 
     public elementary and secondary schools were 30.2-to-one and 
     20.9-to-one respectively. In 1998 they were 18.9-to-one and 
     14.7-to-one. We now know it is possible to have, 
     simultaneously, declining pupil-teacher ratios and declining 
     scores on tests measuring schools' cognitive results. If 
     making classes smaller is such an effective route to 
     educational improvement, why, after 45 years of declining 
     pupil-teacher ratios, are schools so unsatisfactory they need 
     to be ``revolutionized'' by Gore's ``investments''?
       Gore's Dallas speech proves the need for remedial classes 
     not only in prose composition but in elementary arithmetic, 
     too. He says that George W. Bush's ``tax scheme, if enacted, 
     would guarantee big cuts in spending for public schools.'' 
     Well.
       Bush's proposed tax cut over 10 years would involve just 5 
     percent of projected federal revenues. And federal money 
     amounts to just 7 percent of all spending on public 
     elementary and secondary education. Tonight's homework 
     assignment, boys and girls, is to calculate how trimming 5 
     percent of federal revenues could necessitate ``big cuts'' in 
     education, 93 percent of which is paid for with nonfederal 
     funds.
       Gore's vow that every new teacher hired under his program 
     would be ``fully qualified'' probably is an encoded promise 
     that all new teachers would be herded through the often 
     petty, irrelevant and ideologically poisoning education 
     schools that issue credentials to teachers. Education schools 
     feed their graduates into, and feed off, the teachers' 
     unions. Those unions sometimes push for state legislation 
     that keeps the education schools in business by requiring 
     teachers to pass through them.
       ``There are,'' says Gore, ``too many school districts in 
     America where less than half the students graduate, and where 
     those who do graduate aren't ready for college or good 
     jobs.'' Washington has lots of public schools that fit that 
     description, which is why none of Gore's children attended 
     one.
       Most failing schools serve (if that is the word) poor and 
     minority children, whose parents increasingly favor 
     meaningful school choice programs--programs that give parents 
     resources to choose between public and private schools, 
     thereby making the public school system compete. Gore is 
     vehemently opposed to that. The ``dramatic expansion of 
     public school choice'' he promises would enable students to 
     choose only among public schools, thereby keeping students 
     from low-income families confined to the public education 
     plantation.
       What would be ``revolutionary'' would be a Gore education 
     proposal that seriously offended the teachers' unions. But he 
     is utterly orthodox in his belief that public schools are 
     splendid--and desperately in need of revolutionizing 
     investments.
       ``Fundamental decisions about education have to be made at 
     the local level,'' said Gore at the beginning of last week's 
     litany of proposals for using federal money, and the threat 
     of withdrawing it, to turn the federal government into the 
     nation's school board. To the classes Gore needs in remedial 
     composition and arithmetic, add one on elementary logic.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Nevada is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, to alert the membership of what we are 
trying to do, we have been in touch, of course, with the majority. We 
would like to finish the pending amendments the Abraham and Kennedy 
amendments, in the near future. Then what is anticipated by the 
leadership, as I understand it, is to go to the Murray amendment.
  Senator Murray has graciously agreed to the time agreement of an hour 
and a half, evenly divided. Then we would go to the Lieberman 
amendment. I have spoken to Senator Lieberman. He agrees to 2 hours on 
his side, and the majority could take whatever time they believe 
appropriate on that amendment. Then we would go to the Gregg amendment.
  The only thing we are waiting on is a copy of the Gregg amendment. We 
have not seen that. As soon as that is done, with the concurrence of 
the majority--which we have kept advised during the entire morning--we 
would be able to enter into an agreement. It is up to the majority 
leader, of course, as to when the votes would take place.
  I see the majority leader on the floor. What we would like to do, 
prior to an agreement--we have had Senators waiting here most of the 
morning. They would like to speak. Senator Dorgan would like a half 
hour; the two Senators from New York would use 10 minutes of Senator 
Dorgan's time to speak about the death of Cardinal O'Connor. Senator 
Feingold wants 12 minutes to speak on some matter. I really don't know 
what that is.
  I did not know the majority leader was on the floor. I was just 
trying to alert everyone as to what we are trying to do.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I did not hear 
all of what he said. I was back in the Cloakroom preparing to come to 
the floor.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator would yield, what we would like to do when 
we finish this, which should be momentarily--either having a vote now 
or setting it aside--is to go to the other amendments after Abraham, 
Kennedy. Senator Murray, who has the next amendment in order on our 
side, will agree to an hour and a half on her class size amendment. 
Following that would be Senator Lieberman. There has been agreement his 
would be the next amendment. He has agreed to 2 hours on his side on 
that. He indicated he did not know if the majority would need that much 
time. But whatever the majority wants, that would be the case.
  Then it is my understanding we would go to the Gregg amendment, with 
no time agreement as far as we are concerned. We have not seen the 
Gregg amendment. We have been waiting for some time now. It is on its 
way. But the route sometimes is circuitous to get here. I did indicate, 
I think we have some Members who have been wanting to speak all 
morning.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if Senator Reid would yield, I understand 
that you are waiting to see the Gregg amendment. Of course, we would 
like to see the Lieberman alternative also.
  Do we have that?
  Mr. REID. Yes. It is my understanding that Senator Lieberman has been 
in touch with members of the majority for the last several days.
  Mr. LOTT. But I do not know that we have seen the language. That is 
what I

[[Page 6858]]

have to make sure of, just like you need to see----
  Mr. REID. I think you have. But if you haven't, that is certainly 
available.
  Mr. LOTT. Of course, as far as the timing, we have Senators that are 
very interested in speaking on the pending matter, in addition to the 
ones you have mentioned.
  I must confess, I was a little surprised that there was a second-
degree amendment offered to Abraham-Mack. I thought when we entered 
that earlier agreement we would have the four that were agreed to. 
While there was language in there that said that, I guess, relevant 
second degrees would be in order--or perfecting amendments--I had the 
impression we were kind of not going to do that.
  So the fact that there is now an amendment to the Abraham-Mack 
amendment I think puts a different spin on things. Our people need to 
be able to review that and speak on the second-degree amendment.
  In addition, I see Senator Abraham, who is the sponsor of the 
underlying amendment. Basically, what I am saying is, I think it is 
going to take more time than we had earlier thought that it might take. 
And then we would want to look at, are we going to have a second-degree 
amendment or second-degree amendments on the Murray amendment? That 
would certainly change the mix once again.
  We need to make sure we have enough time on both sides for people to 
speak on Lieberman and Gregg once we have seen those. Everybody is 
working in good faith, and it is a little complicated. We could have 
objections on either side about what might be offered as second-degree 
amendments. We have some people on both sides who are now saying they 
want to offer noneducation, nonrelevant amendments, and we have been 
trying to stay on the education issue. It has been a very healthy 
debate, and everybody has stayed in close touch. We would like to 
continue that.
  I have to work with some people on our side who want to offer some 
amendments sort of out of line. I think people not even on the 
committee who want to offer amendments at this point would be pushing 
the envelope. We ought to at least give the chairman and ranking member 
and people with education amendments a chance to make their pitch.
  So rather than take up a lot of time, I would like to talk with the 
Senator from Nevada about the amendments and the time that might be 
needed. We will try to get something worked out and come to the floor 
soon to get something agreed to. In the meantime, continue with the 
debate and we won't be losing time--valuable time, as a matter of fact.
  Mr. REID. If the leader will yield, the purpose of this was to try to 
move a number of amendments along. From what the leader has said, it is 
going to be very difficult today to go beyond the Murray amendment. We 
will certainly try to cooperate, but it may be difficult.
  Mr. LOTT. It may be difficult, but we can see what might be able to 
be done.
  Mr. REID. The one thing I would like to do is make sure that the--we 
have had Senators over here waiting literally all morning to speak for 
a short period of time. I know Senator Abraham wants to speak on his 
amendment and that of Senator Kennedy. I would like to propound a 
unanimous consent agreement that Senator Dorgan be recognized for a 
half hour, that 10 minutes of that time be allotted to Senators Schumer 
and Moynihan to speak about the death of the New York Cardinal, and 
that Senator Feingold be allowed to speak for 12 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the majority leader if he would yield 
for a question.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am relatively new to the Senate. The House rule used to 
say committee members could offer only germane amendments. Do I 
understand the majority leader is suggesting that as a standard in the 
Senate?
  Mr. LOTT. No, I didn't suggest that. I am saying that members of the 
committee have education amendments and would like to have them 
offered. We have some members on both sides of the aisle now who are 
saying, ``I want my amendment to be next,'' and I am not inclined to be 
impressed with that suggestion. We need to go forward with the way we 
have been trying to proceed and get our work done. But, no; the way it 
works around here is, if you can horn your way into a debate that is 
underway, then that is the way it is.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, how about my request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, just to 
facilitate the flow here, let me make sure we have some sort of a 
sharing of time, alternating back and forth. The Senator's proposal was 
30 minutes for Senator Durbin, 10 minutes for Senators Schumer and 
Moynihan, and 12 minutes for Senator Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator repeat the unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. REID. What I proposed is that Senator Dorgan be recognized for 30 
minutes, with 10 minutes of his time being allotted to the Senators 
from New York, and that 12 minutes be allotted to Senator Feingold. 
They have been here literally all morning.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the block of time for those speakers, an equal amount of time 
be allocated to Senator Abraham and to myself, or my designee. I know 
the Senators from New York are going to talk about the Cardinal's 
death.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to speak after Senator 
Abraham.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I amend my request that Senator Abraham be 
recognized first, and then Senator Sessions, and any remaining time 
will be used by myself or my designee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Reserving the right to object, although I would like to 
speak on the amendment, as well as the second degree, because of a 
ceremony taking place in the Capitol rotunda now, of which I am to be a 
part, I may not be in a position to immediately follow the final 
speaker. I suggest that perhaps we might slightly modify the Senator's 
proposed unanimous consent agreement to allow for the fact that I may 
be unable to be here right at that time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we will make it simple. I ask unanimous 
consent that when this block of time is completed, as outlined by 
Senator Reid, there be an equal amount of time on this side for me or 
my designee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield to the two Senators from New York 
to use their 10 minutes of time now to speak about the death of 
Cardinal O'Connor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, is 
recognized.

                          ____________________