[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6862-6886]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as I understand it, our leader, or his 
designee, has balancing time to that which is used on the other side. I 
believe Senator Sessions' name was even evoked, that he would utilize 
some portion of that. How much time does the leader have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has 32 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield from the leader's time to the 
Senator from Alabama 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am excited and pleased about the 
direction this Senate is attempting to go in reforming Federal 
involvement and participation in education today.
  I have been traveling my State since January. I have been in 15 
different schools. I have been impressed with what the teachers and 
principals are trying to do. There are a lot of good things happening 
in a lot of schools all over America. But I hear more and more 
frustration from those people who are dealing with our children in our 
classrooms, who know our children's names, who are answerable to our 
people in our communities to run education. They are very frustrated 
that what we are doing in Washington complicates their lives, makes 
them more difficult, and frustrates their ability to actually teach 
children.
  I know some of my friends on the other side of the aisle so 
frequently use the word ``accountability.'' They say ``we need 
accountability--accountability.'' I have been listening to that. Not 
too long ago it finally dawned on me--I have been in this body for just 
over 3 years, on the Education Committee just over 1 year--what they 
define as accountability. They define accountability as a Federal 
program that mandates precisely how the money is spent.
  That is not accountability. Accountability is, when money is coming 
from the Federal Government, the State government, the city government, 
and the county government: Is learning occurring? Are children 
learning? We need to determine in America if children are learning. In 
some schools they are and in other schools they are not, or there is so 
little learning as to be, in effect, a waste of our money. To pour more 
money, even with targeted rules from the Federal Government, into a 
school system in Alabama, Texas, Pennsylvania, or New York is not the 
way to improve learning. That is not accountability.
  We need to ask ourselves, after 35 years of this basic Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act--and it is a primary Federal act; there are 
some 700 programs for education. ESEA is the biggest. We have been 
growing it for 35 years. It is now up to 1,000 pages of rules and 
regulations and paperwork that fall on our teachers and principals.
  I have been talking intensely to those people. They do not believe it 
is necessary. They believe many of the things we are doing complicate 
their lives, make it more difficult for them to teach, and frustrate 
them. In fact, we are, as many people know, losing a lot of good 
teachers. Discipline problems, paperwork problems, lack of appreciation 
for the work they are doing, no difference between a great teacher who 
works at night, does his homework, meets with students after school, 
prepares carefully written tests--there is no difference in what they 
get paid from a teacher who has no interest in their work, just comes 
to class, presides over it, does not do a lesson plan, gives weak or 
almost insignificant tests, and does not worry about whether the 
children are learning or not.
  I was in Selma, AL, last Friday, visiting the Selma City School 
System. Selma has 45,000 people. They created a sixth grade school. 
They call it the Discovery School. The teachers and principals got 
together and developed a

[[Page 6863]]

program on how to improve learning for the city of Selma. All the sixth 
grades were there. Every student has to be involved in an artistic 
endeavor. I saw their ballet performance. I saw their tap dance 
performance. They have music, art, and other forms of artistic 
endeavor. They believe, as national statistics show, that music and art 
can enhance learning in other courses. That is their decision, and they 
have teachers who are committed to it and excited about it. They were 
very proud of the performance of those kids.
  I went into a class called sports math. Sports is big in Alabama and 
in a lot of States. Kids are interested in sports. When one talks about 
batting average, that includes people's weight, height--all these 
factors. This is a good way to take children's natural interest in an 
event such as sports and convert that to a learning process of math. It 
is an extra class they can do.
  I met a teacher who had gone to Russia with our NASA program. She 
taught a special class on space, and they were excited about that.
  They had some great teachers there. I met the mother of Doc Robinson. 
Doc Robinson--of course, sports fans might know him--is the senior 
graduating guard from Auburn University, one of the top teams in the 
country this year. He will probably go in the first, second, or third 
round of the NBA draft. His mother teaches in Selma. She is a wonderful 
lady and excited about education in that school.
  What is it that makes us think we can develop some plan for teaching 
sixth graders in Selma, AL, better than those people? That is a 
question we need to ask ourselves. What is it that makes us think we 
can mandate more effectively than they can? They care about their 
children. They are their own children. Doc Robinson graduated from that 
Selma school system, just as other children did.
  That is an important factor for us to consider. I know there has been 
a lot of thought about how we are going to handle other issues people 
think are important. One of the issues that has been talked about a lot 
is class size. They say class size is the most important thing. Numbers 
do not show that to be the most important thing. They do not show that. 
There is a lot of debate about that. Maybe it is extremely important 
under certain circumstances. It may not be so important in other 
circumstances.
  Maybe the Selma school system would rather create this new Discovery 
School and work on funding it for the next 2 or 3 years, get it 
straightened out, and then add a new teacher to reduce class size the 
third year down the road. I am not prepared to say what it is.
  Why do we not think we ought to trust the people who elected us to 
run the school system? They elected the school system. There is a lot 
that has been said about this.
  There has been a study by Michigan Professor Linda Lim who did 
comparative studies of U.S. and Asian schools and found that class 
sizes of 50--and we are down around 20 or fewer now--50 plus in places 
such as Taiwan have not kept those schools from performing better than 
ours. The basics of Professor Lim's findings are that nothing--not 
spending per student, not class size, not computer access--makes the 
critical difference in the end. Rather, motivation is what matters. We 
need parental involvement, plus teachers who want to teach and are 
skilled and children who are prepared to learn. They must all work 
together to achieve results.
  We talk a lot in our State about improving textbooks. I think we 
ought to improve textbooks. I am very concerned about the quality of 
our textbooks. A year or so ago, Senator Robert Byrd delivered one of 
the most impressive speeches I ever heard on education. He called the 
modern textbooks ``touchy-feely twaddle.''
  Regardless, what difference does it make if we have a $500 textbook 
for every child in the classroom and those students will not read it? 
That is what I ask students when I talk with them. Alabama has a tough 
graduation exam. If a student does not meet this exam, they will not 
get their diploma. It is considered to be the toughest exam in America. 
The children are worried about it. A substantial number may not pass.
  When I talked with these students, they expressed their concerns to 
me, to which I enjoyed listening. I asked them: Do you come to school 
in the morning, and do you get a good night's rest? Do you pay 
attention in class? Do you do the homework your teacher assigns? Do you 
read your lesson at night? Oh, you don't? Do you know students who do 
not do that? And they all agreed that they do. I said: Why do you think 
you should get a diploma from high school if you do not at least put in 
your part?
  What we are finding, and what a lot of experts believe, is that a 
teacher who can motivate a child is more important than whether he is 
teaching 18 people or 25 people. That is a key factor.
  There is a study by the University of Rochester economist Eric 
Hanushek. He studied 277 separate published studies on the effect of 
teacher-pupil ratios and class-size averages on student achievement.
  We ought to get a pretty good result from this. They published this 
all over America. He found this: That only 15 percent of those studies 
suggested there is a statistically significant improvement in 
achievement as a result of smaller classes; 72 percent of the studies 
found no effect at all. That is surprising to me. I would not have 
thought that. But that is what he found. And he found that 13 percent 
found reducing class size had a negative impact on achieving. That was 
reported in the Education Week, a journal of professional educators.
  The Department of Education, under President Clinton, reports that 
although American students lag behind other students in international 
testing, American classrooms have an average size of 23 students. That 
is very few students compared with the averages of 49 in South Korea, 
44 in Taiwan, and 36 in Japan.
  I am not saying we ought to increase our class sizes. I think having 
a small class size is fine. But for this Congress to mandate to 
professional educators, Governors, State superintendents, county 
superintendents, and principals all over America that we are going to 
give you money only for reducing class size is not wise. I am telling 
you, America, that is not a good thing for us to require, to mandate. 
In a particular community, that may not be the most important thing. 
There are some real numbers that question that policy.
  Washington, DC, this city of which we are a part, has an average 
class size below the national average. Yet it ranks near the bottom in 
academic achievement. Furthermore, we should not forget that class size 
in American schools dropped from 30 in 1961 to 23 in 1998 without any 
improvement in standardized test scores.
  So I would suggest maybe having superior teachers and motivating 
schools are the things we need to be looking for. That is not going to 
come from some Senator in Washington or the President of the United 
States but from actual teachers in classrooms who know our children's 
names, who care about them as human beings.
  Indeed, in 1988, the U.S. Department of Education concluded that 
reducing class size would be expensive and probably ``a waste of money 
and effort.'' I do not know if it is a waste of effort. I just say 
this. It may not be the most important part of our budget dollar.
  We are trying to do that in Alabama. We are working hard to reduce 
class sizes. We are actually getting down within this national goal 
range already. But it does come at great cost.
  What if you have 18 classrooms in a school, and they are averaging 25 
students per classroom, and you want to bring it down to 20 students 
per class or 18 students per class? How many more classrooms do you 
have to build? How many more teachers do you have to hire? How much 
more air-conditioning and structure and upkeep is required? I am just 
saying, we do not know enough to mandate that. That is all.
  I know the polling numbers look good. You go out and ask the American

[[Page 6864]]

people: What would you like to do about schools? You give them a bunch 
of choices, one being: Reduce class size. They say: Yes, I would like 
to reduce class size.
  Before I looked at these numbers, I would have thought there would be 
a much greater correlation between smaller class size and learning in a 
classroom than there apparently is shown by all the statistical data.
  I am just saying, we do not need to be reacting to polling data. We 
do not need to run a poll and ask what is the No. 1 idea somebody might 
have to improve education, and then do only that, after looking at the 
numbers and finding out that might not be the best approach.
  Of course, teacher quality is something about which Senator Mack and 
others have been talking. How can we nurture that? I taught 1 year in a 
sixth grade class in the public schools of Alabama. My wife taught a 
number of years. Our kids have gone through schools in the State and 
had a good experience. My two daughters graduated from a major public 
high school in the city of Mobile. We have been to the PTA meetings at 
Murphy High School. We named our dog Murphy. We loved our high school 
and participated in it. My daughters were editors of The Annual. They 
also attended other schools in the city. We were involved in that.
  We want to see the quality of education improve, but it is not always 
what somebody might say in response to a polling question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 15 minutes has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, with regard to the quality of teachers, 
that is where we need to focus. Senator Mack has offered this amendment 
as a breakthrough to try to have some merit pay. I am telling you, I 
have taught. My wife has taught. We have been active in schools. 
Everybody who knows anything about education, who has had children in 
school, knows that some teachers give so much more and are so much more 
valuable than others who have maybe lost their enthusiasm or just do 
not have the capability. That is quite clear.
  To say to those exceptional teachers, who are being sought by high-
tech computer companies and chemical firms, that we cannot pay them any 
more money, that they have to receive the exact same pay as somebody 
who does not perform as well, is not good policy, not if we care about 
learning.
  But if we care about bureaucracy, if we care about the educational 
establishment in Washington--if we care about that --if that is who is 
jerking our chain, then we do not give more pay to people who do 
better, then we do not give more pay to people who give their heart and 
soul to it, as I know they do.
  I have been a member of a supper club in the city of Mobile for a 
long time, over 25 years. Three of those people are full-time career 
teachers. I know how hard they work. I know how concerned they are for 
their children. Some teachers are just not that way.
  So why is that proposal so threatening? It would not be mandated. It 
would allow a certain amount of this money to be used for special merit 
pay. What is wrong with allowing a school system to do that? I think 
that is an important matter. I am delighted that amendment has been 
offered. It will be adopted and become law. We need to do that.
  According to a Fordham Foundation study called ``Better Teachers: 
Better Schools,'' we know that if students have teachers who have 
college degrees and have been specifically certified to teach math, 
those students score significantly higher on standardized tests than if 
the teacher did not have those credentials.
  Why shouldn't we pay more? Do you know what we do for the military? 
We are finding we need pilots, so we give them special bonuses to 
reenlist. We find we need special skills in certain computer areas, so 
we are allowing the military to pay more money for that.
  How are we going to keep math teachers who are in such demand in the 
private sector today, if they are exceptionally well trained and 
capable? How can we deny them any additional pay when we need them so 
desperately in the schools?
  I think we ought to look at that and improve on that.
  The Fordham study also points out that approaches focusing on inputs, 
courses taken, time requirements met, time spent, and activities 
engaged in, rather than on outputs, student achievement, how they are 
learning, and what their scores are on tests, are counterproductive.
  Do you see what that is saying? That is saying we should not put our 
money just on going through the motions of education. We should not 
invest our money in that. What we need to do is identify the kind of 
education in which learning occurs, where students are improving in 
their knowledge and support that--output, not input, issues.
  So if our bill were to pass and become Federal law, we would begin to 
focus on the outputs of academic achievement by poor students because 
ESEA is primarily focused on the poor, low-income schools and low-
income students instead of focusing on inputs.
  The Teacher Empowerment Act--and Senator Gregg will speak about 
that-- is so important in that regard. I will mention one more point, 
and I see the Senator from Oklahoma is prepared to speak.
  Let me mention this. I have been in, as I said, 15 schools, and I am 
familiar with public schools in this country. I will tell you, one of 
the most significant problems we face is the ability of teachers to 
discipline children. They have been denied that by lawyers--Federal 
rules and regulations--and it is disrupting the classrooms and making 
it difficult to teach.
  I have a stack of probably 40 letters here, some of which would break 
your heart, from teachers who tell me stories. I intend to read some of 
them before the debate is over, perhaps a lot of them. I want people to 
hear what is happening in schools in America today. You may say it is 
the teacher's fault. What we will find out is that a lot of the reasons 
they can't maintain discipline in school is because of Federal law, 
what we do here under the Disability Act. We were supposed to fund 40 
percent of the cost of that when the law was mandated; we were supposed 
to pay 40 percent. The truth is that the Federal Government now is 
paying 11 percent of the cost. Yet it is a full mandate on our schools 
in America.
  Schools have met the challenge. They are doing what we tell them to 
do, at a great cost. We had the superintendent of a school system in 
Vermont testify at an education hearing that 20 percent of his school 
system costs--20 percent at least--was focused on disability students. 
We have gone beyond what we meant by that.
  Originally, our goal was to make sure that children who were deaf, 
blind, or in a wheelchair would be allowed to participate fully, 
mainstreaming them in the classrooms in America. I certainly support 
that.
  What has happened now is under the Federal regulation, children 
declared disabled are not allowed to be disciplined, and the children 
are learning this; they know it. It is really a problem, which these 
letters will show.
  Unfortunately, it has now been twisted beyond its original intent. 
Teachers and principals are faced with regulations and laws that must 
be utilized before a disruptive or even violent child may be removed 
from a classroom--even for a short period. We should not continue these 
kinds of rules and regulations that keep schools from dealing with 
disruptive, aggressive, violent, gun-toting students.
  I have continually received complaints about the problem in every 
school I go to. They say it is the No. 1 problem with the Federal 
Government. My friend, David Whetstone, in Baldwin County--and I have 
known Dave for a long time from when I was a former U.S. Attorney and 
State attorney general. He came to Washington personally to talk to me 
about this story. We discussed a case which received national attention 
in both Time Magazine and on ``60 Minutes,'' in which a student was 
described as the ``meanest kid in Alabama.''

[[Page 6865]]

  My friend, Dave Whetstone, told me of the circumstances in which this 
violent, disruptive young man was kept in the classroom under these 
Federal laws. I want to tell you what happened to this young man and 
see if you don't understand why teachers and principals are concerned 
about what we do here.
  The school had to assign an aide to this young man because he was 
declared emotionally conflicting. That is a disability, apparently. He 
had to stay with him all day long throughout the school day. The aide 
would get on the schoolbus with him in the morning, sit with him in 
class all day, and go home on the schoolbus at the end of the day 
because of his disruptive behavior. The aide had to be paid by the 
school board, of course, and the taxpayers of the community. Can you 
imagine what it was like being a teacher in that situation? The student 
used curse words in class on a regular basis and to the principal on a 
regular basis and was continuously disruptive. But our Federal law 
said, basically, he had to stay in the classroom.
  Eventually, the young man was going home one afternoon on the 
schoolbus and reportedly attacked the bus driver. When the aide tried 
to restrain him, he attacked the aide.
  My friend, the prosecutor, brought a creative legal action against 
the student to try to stop it. He was shocked to find out that was a 
law in the public schools of America. He found that there were at least 
six other students in that one school system with the same type 
problems.
  I have received letters from experienced educators all over the State 
of Alabama expressing their concern about this Federal regulation.
  Let me mention a few other experiences. None of these come from the 
same school. This is a quote from a letter:

       We have a student who is classified emotionally conflicted, 
     learning disabled, and who has Attention Deficit Disorder. 
     While this student has been enrolled, students, teachers and 
     staff have been verbally threatened with physical harm. Fits 
     of anger, fighting, and outbursts of verbal abuse have been 
     commonplace. Parents and students have expressed concern over 
     the safety of their children due to the behavior of the young 
     man. Teachers have also become extremely apprehensive toward 
     the presence of the student due to his explosive behavior. 
     His misbehavior has escalated to the point that the 
     instructional process of the entire school has been 
     jeopardized.

  Another one:

       I have taught for 25 years. I plan to continue teaching, 
     but the problems with discipline are getting out of hand. We 
     are not allowed to discipline certain students. Any student 
     labeled as ``special needs'' must be accommodated, not 
     disciplined. A student recently brought a gun to my school. 
     He made threats to students and teachers, which he claimed 
     were jokes. I was one of the teachers.

  The teacher was threatened with a gun.

       This student has been disruptive and belligerent since I 
     first encountered him in the ninth grade. Now he is a senior. 
     After bringing a gun to school, he was given another ``second 
     chance.'' He should have been expelled. What was his 
     handicap? He has had problems with mathematics. While this 
     may be an extreme situation, it is not isolated. Teachers are 
     told to handle discipline in the classroom. The Government 
     has taken most of the teachers' rights away, our hands are 
     tied.

  Talk to teachers. Many special education teachers have told me that 
the discipline proceedings are going to drive them out of the 
profession. I believe it will be a tragedy if we lose proven, dedicated 
teachers because of shortcomings of a Federal law that is not 
fulfilling its purpose.
  That is not the purpose of the Disabilities Act--to keep violent, 
disruptive kids in the classroom when they are disrupting the teacher's 
ability to teach and learning isn't occurring. This is not restricted 
to any State; it is all over the country. That is why in the past, 
Senators Ashcroft, Frist, Gorton, and others have worked hard to end 
this problem. We must continue to do so.
  Mr. President, I know others would like to speak at this time. There 
is so much that we need to talk about. I would like to, and will, share 
in a few minutes, perhaps, a letter from a young teacher in an 
elementary school class who talks about the day she walked out of that 
classroom, walked through the parking lot, got in her car, never to 
return--because of this kind of stuff. It is happening. We need to put 
an end to it, and we can do it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me address something 
that the Senator from Alabama was talking about. He gave so many good, 
concrete examples of the discipline problem we have in our public 
school system. It is a very real thing. I appreciate him bringing this 
up and the fact that we know why we are having this, with all the 
mandates and requirements.
  I want to tell you a story. You talk about the discipline problems. I 
want to give a concrete example of how one ended up in doing a great 
disservice to the children of Oklahoma and other places.
  I have kind of a unique situation at home. I have a wife and two 
daughters, all three of whom teach or have taught. My wife taught back 
in the fifties, when we were first married. As our four children were 
growing up, I remember so well the youngest one--I call her the runt of 
my litter--Katie, always wanted to be a schoolteacher just like her 
mom, and her mom's discipline was accelerated math.
  So Katie was in school. She got her degree and got her master's in 
math education. She is really an accomplished teacher, because she 
loves the kids. She was active in Young Life because she liked to be 
around troubled kids and help them with their problems. When someone is 
a dedicated person like that, that means they are a much better 
educator.
  To make a very long story short, little Katie had wanted to teach the 
same thing her mother did. When she finally got all of her degrees, she 
came to the school where her mother taught and where Katie and her 
brothers and sisters all went to school. After she got the job, it 
wasn't only that she got a job in the same school as her mother, but 
she taught the same course in the same school in the same classroom 
that her mother had taught in 30 years before. She was rejoicing. It 
had just been a few years before that that she had gone through that 
school.
  She taught there for 4 years, and she came to me one day literally in 
tears. She said, ``Daddy, I feel like a traitor because I have to leave 
to go to another school district.'' I said, ``Why? This is where your 
mother taught. This is where you went to school. Our whole family went 
to school there. It is a tradition.'' She said, ``I teach math, and the 
kids are so disruptive and not listening. There is no discipline. When 
you send them to the principal's office, the principal says, `Our hands 
are tied. We can't do anything about it.' '' So it continues. 
Consequently, these kids are not getting an education.
  This is in the fourth week of the beginning of the school term. She 
said, ``I told the kids, `If you do not get the basics right now at the 
beginning of the school term, you are going to fail the class.' They 
all shrugged their shoulders in unison, and said, `We don't care.' '' 
And the parents didn't care. There is no way that the school was going 
to discipline those children.
  Katie quit. She went to a private school. She is now involved in 
teaching and is an accomplished teacher. The public school system lost. 
I am a prejudiced daddy. I admit that. But they lost one who is 
considered by the parents and fellow teachers and certainly students as 
one of the best math teachers that taught, including my wife, in that 
school. It is all for one reason: There is no discipline.
  That is what local emphasis is all about. I think we can untie the 
hands of the local school districts and let them do it. On the bill we 
are considering today, I would like to go further with vouchers in 
getting into more choice. But this is certainly a good personal first 
step.
  I would like to mention one other thing before the Senator from 
Alabama leaves the room because I want to make one comment about a 
program that works and one that we are going to try to change and get 
fully implemented. That is called impact aid.

[[Page 6866]]

  I know the Senator from Alabama is interested in this because Alabama 
would qualify for $12 million of impact aid. Last year they got $2.4 
million. They are at 20 percent of where they should be.
  Impact aid is a Federal program that really works. By and large, it 
is not something that is giving something to somebody. It says to go 
the Federal Government, you have come in here with your military 
installations, with your Indian reservations, or any other Federal type 
of program, and because of that those lands on which you are working 
are off the tax rolls. So there is no property tax coming in. Yet while 
you are doing that you have brought in with you a large number of 
children. Those children have to be educated in our educational system. 
Yet there is no funding there to offset the cost of not being able to 
collect revenues from those lands that are on various installations. 
This as one of the rare programs we can talk about that is not just 
something good for students, but it is an obligation that we have to 
these students. Oklahoma, I might add, is in a very similar situation.
  What we are proposing in a letter that we encourage people to sign, 
and which the Senator from Alabama has already signed, is that we need 
to phase in full funding for impact aid. Over a 4-year period of time, 
we start with 6 percent. Then we move on up until we have 100 percent.
  This is a program that I think of as a moral responsibility to keep 
our word with local school districts because when we don't do that the 
amount of money they have to spend to educate that child is taken away 
from other programs such as computers and teacher-pupil ratios. This is 
something I think is an obligation and something that we should strive 
for. Hopefully, we can get the language in here.
  I don't care if it ends up being an entitlement, as much as I hate to 
say that. This is a responsibility that we have.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as the Senator knows and as I 
understand, the Government said it desires to fully fund this. It is 
not meeting the commitment that it made. Is that correct?
  Mr. INHOFE. That is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In terms of the overall education budget, it is small 
in cost. But for those schools impacted, it is a very big deal for 
them.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership. I think this is an important 
issue.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is a big deal, because in my State of Oklahoma there 
our five major military installations. I hear from people all the time 
in Lawton, OK, and Fort Sill. Of course, we have a very large number of 
children who are being educated in the public school system, but there 
is no money coming from the tax base. This is a Government 
installation.
  The local districts sometimes have ideas that are better than those 
ideas emanating from Washington. I will share one personal experience. 
I can remember many years ago when I was in the State legislature; I 
made it a practice to always come back to Tulsa from where we met when 
the kids had some kind of a function, a school play or something. I 
remember coming in one time and seeing my oldest son, Jimmy. At that 
time he was in the fourth grade. He was beaming. He said, ``Dad, guess 
what?'' He said, ``You know I am in the fourth grade.'' I said, ``Yes. 
I know that, son.'' He said, ``Guess what. In reading I am in the fifth 
grade.'' I said, ``How in the world did that work?'' He said, ``It is a 
brand new, something that has never been tried before. But they are 
taking me at the level where I am because I am better than the rest of 
the fourth graders. So I am in the fifth grade.''
  I thought back to when I was in grade school. I went to a little 
country schoolhouse where they had a wood-burning stove in the middle 
of the room. There were eight rows of seats and eight grades. I was in 
the first row because I was in the first grade. My brother was in the 
second row because he was in the second grade. My sister was in the 
eighth row because she was in the eighth grade. We had one school 
teacher. I think back now and wonder if he was really the giant that I 
remember.
  When you needed discipline, as the Senator from Alabama was talking 
about--at that time they had a great big board. If you messed up, you 
were disciplined the right way. Anyway, when they would teach the 
classes, they would line you up. I would go with the first graders. In 
spelling, for example, when you missed a spelling word, you had to go 
up there and get a swat on the rear with this great big paddle. I have 
to tell you that I was a very good speller. I was in the third row. 
That taught me a lesson.
  So I thought about that program that Jimmy talked about. This 
probably happened 30 years before then. It was a brandnew and 
innovative program. Programs that emanate from the Federal Government 
are not always the right ones.
  We need to unshackle the hands of the teachers, the parents, and the 
local school districts to give them greater flexibility and greater 
opportunity to do a better job of teaching our children.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, from our side we have had a good 
discussion of the Abraham amendment. We had a brief discussion, but I 
think a good exchange, on the second-degree amendment with regard to 
the best way to provide incentives that will have a direct result in 
enhancing academic achievement and accomplishment for students. We are 
under the strong impression, based upon the best experience and the 
record to date, that is the best way to go.
  Of course, as we all know, the 93 cents out of every dollar spent 
locally is within the domain of the State. If the Governors want to go 
ahead with a program outlined by the Senator from Michigan, they will 
still be able to do it. While the legislation represents a small 
percentage of the dollars that will be expended, at least on our side, 
we feel very strongly we want included in the legislation, programs 
that are tried, true, and tested and have had a sound record of 
performance. That is expressed by our second-degree amendment.
  We are prepared to move toward the consideration of the Murray 
amendment that dealt with the class size. I think it is appropriate 
following this discussion on teachers. As I mentioned earlier today, of 
the $2 billion from S. 2, the Republican teacher proposal, $1.3 billion 
of that comes from the class size program which they effectively 
eliminated. Mr. President, $300 million is from the Eisenhower math and 
science program which is in existence now, which I think is a pretty 
good program. They are ending that program. They are only adding some 
$300 million to do all of the things they talked about in terms of 
enhancement of academic achievement for teachers and teacher support. 
This is in contrast to the amount we are proposing on the Democrat 
side, $3.75 billion, that we have outlined in the debate and discussion 
yesterday.
  We hoped we would be able to go ahead with the Murray class 
amendment. We are prepared after that to move to the Lieberman 
proposal. There aren't any real surprises in the Lieberman proposal. 
Senator Lieberman and others have outlined that in considerable detail. 
The language has been passed over to the other side. We wanted to go on 
giving the Senate the option to be able to consider the alternatives in 
S. 2 just on the teacher programs, both the recruitment and mentoring, 
and the academic enhancement and achievement for teachers. We wanted 
also to have a good debate on the proposal of Senator Harkin on 
modernization of our schools. We wanted to debate the afterschool 
programs. We wanted to debate the excellent proposal of Senator 
Mikulski on the digital divide. We wanted

[[Page 6867]]

to debate our strong accountability proposal of Senator Bingaman.
  There are no real mysteries about where we are. I imagine we will get 
an opportunity to talk about safety and security in schools. There is 
very little surprise about the programs and our amendments.
  We understand we want to go back and forth, but we are quite prepared 
to move ahead. We have been virtually free of any quorum calls since 
this legislation was laid down. That is rare. On Monday, we had seven 
speakers from our side, seven speakers from the other side. We went 
until almost quarter to 7, starting debate at 1 o'clock, and free from 
any quorum calls. That was true Tuesday evening and yesterday as well 
and has been true up until now. We are getting close to 2 o'clock. We 
are not in tomorrow. On this side we are prepared to get into debates 
and discussions on these items. They are at the heart of education 
reform. They have been demonstrably effective in helping and assisting 
the schoolchildren of this country.
  I listened to my colleagues before 1 o'clock talking about all of the 
challenges we are facing educating children in underserved areas--all 
of which is true. What I didn't hear is how they believe they felt 
their bill would solve it. That is the question. Everyone can come to 
the floor and talk about the challenges we are facing with children in 
underserved areas. We all understand that. But when I hear time after 
time, speech after speech, we have a problem out there and we have to 
do something about it, I think it is beginning to sound empty.
  Generally speaking, we identify a problem and we try to identify the 
solution to the problem. That is not being done here. The reason it is 
not being done is because the Republican proposal is basically a blank 
check, a block grant to the Governors.
  When we find out we don't have well-qualified teachers, what is the 
answer? Blank check to the Governor. We have trouble and difficulty in 
overcrowded classrooms and we have dilapidated schools. What is the 
answer? Blank check to the Governor. We have new technologies that are 
coming down the pipe, and we want to make sure we will have a balance, 
that we are not going to get into a digital divide using technologies 
that will separate the haves and the have-nots in our schools. What is 
their answer? Give it to the Governor.
  We have tried that before and we have not gotten very satisfactory 
answers. We have not gotten satisfactory answers in the time from 1965 
from 1970 when we had block grants. We found how the money was diverted 
for football uniforms and band uniforms and swimming pools, for a wide 
range of different kinds of activities that were distant and remote and 
unrelated to children who had very important needs.
  We had the other side, with all due respect, that took the position, 
as we started off in the 1990s, that the best answer in solving these 
problems is to close down the Department of Education. That was their 
position: We do not want any Federal participation. We do not want any 
partnership. Close it down. That was their position in the early 1990s. 
That, and the rescission of funding that had been appropriated and 
signed into law by the President of the United States during that time.
  I, for one, as I have said a number of times on the floor, I think 
most parents would agree, that at every single meeting the President of 
the United States has with his Cabinet, there is going to be someone 
there who is going to say to the President: What about education for 
the children of this country? When they are going to be meeting at the 
Cabinet table and deciding priorities in the expenditure of our $1.8 
trillion, you want someone there who says: What about education, Mr. 
President?
  The Republicans do not want that voice in the room because they do 
not want any Federal participation on that. That has been their 
historic position.
  Now we have the time to have this debate. As others reminded us, we 
do not do it every year. We do it every 5 or every 6 years. We are 
having this debate now, just after the turn of the century. What is 
their answer? Instead of no more Department of Education, instead of 
cutting back even more in terms of the education budget, they say let's 
give it all to the States. Let's give it all to the States and let them 
make a judgment about it, virtually free from much accountability. All 
States have to do to get the money is to have an application and 
general outline of what the State intends to do to enhance educational 
quality. Then there is a long list of things that can be included in 
that effort. But also included are the words ``for any educational 
purpose.'' Who decides that? The Governor decides that.
  This is their ``Uses of Funds Under the Agreement.''--Funds that may 
be available to a State under this part shall be used for educational 
purposes.
  Every Governor can just make a decision that this is for educational 
purposes and then they are not accountable until after 5 years. Then 
there has to be a finding by the Secretary of Education that they have 
not made substantial progress in the area of education.
  So their position is: Blank check, block grant, give it to the 
States, let the Governors do whatever they do. That in spite of the 
extraordinary record of the efforts of serious Governors, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, in the period of the 1980s and the 1990s, who said 
what we have a responsibility for is for the underserved schools in our 
States. There were eloquent calls for action by the Governors 
themselves. The National Governors' Conference, time in and time out, 
we found were asking for it, going back to 1986.
  Governors Alexander and Clinton and Keene and Riley, urging they give 
greater focus and attention to underperforming schools and districts, 
and that States take over the academically bankrupt districts. Those 
were speeches being made in 1986. I am glad to hear they are being made 
by our Republican friends now.
  Then, in 1987, 9 States had authority to take over, annex 
educationally deficient schools--only 9 out of 50. The call went out 
again in 1990, and again in 1998. The National Governors' Association 
policy: Support the State focus on schools, reiterating the position 
first taken in 1988 in the National Governors' policy:
  The States should have the responsibility for enforcing 
accountability and including clear penalties in cases of sustained 
failure to improve student performance.
  Now we find there are 20 States that provide assistance to low-
performing schools; 18 States apply some type of schoolwide sanction 
out of those 20. Now we have 20 States. It will take another 50 years, 
if we were going to get all the States to do what 20 States are doing 
now. But that is not good enough. Our Republican friends say give the 
money to the States, in spite of the facts. You have the record about 
what the deficiency has been at the gubernatorial level.
  There are some notable exceptions, Republicans and Democrats alike. 
We are glad to recognize it. We pointed some of those out during the 
debate. But that has been the record. They have not measured up, done 
the job; they have not taken that responsibility.
  We are not prepared, with the scarce resources here, to try to turn 
that over to the Governors one more time and expect they are going to 
do the job. No. We are going to insist that there will be incentives 
and disincentives for performance. That is what we do.
  As I mentioned, whether you are talking about dedicating resources to 
turning around schools--in our particular program we have the resources 
to be able to do that. We make sure we are going to allocate scarce 
funds that each year are going to be set aside that can be utilized and 
will be effective in turning around failing schools. The schools are 
going to have to show annual gains for student performance.
  We are to the point where we are going to insist there will be a 
report card that is given to every parent in this country about how 
their child's school is doing, every year. I think parents would like 
to know how their

[[Page 6868]]

child's school is doing. We are guaranteeing that.
  We asked our good friends on the other side how their bill is going 
to solve the issue of accountability. They cannot do it. We have been 
challenging them since the beginning of the debate. They cannot do it. 
We can. We are glad to go through these various provisions we have 
outlined about the assurance of real accountability of failing schools. 
If they fail, there are real consequences. After a period of time they 
are closed down. There is a whole new leadership for those schools if 
they are going to be reopened. Otherwise there is support for the 
children to go to other schools.
  We also have a strong commitment to try to reach out to those 
children who are so often left out and left behind. We are talking 
about the homeless children. We have over a million homeless children 
in this country. We have over 700,000 children who are migrant 
children, who travel through this Nation at the various harvest times. 
There is a similar number of immigrant children who eventually are 
going to be American citizens. It is in our interest that they get 
educated. It is in our interest that they get educated, not cast aside.
  Now, what does this Republican bill do? What it does is eliminate all 
those kinds of protections which have been out there now, guaranteeing 
those needy students are going to have their interests addressed. It 
sends the money back to the States, which prior to 1987 had not given 
those populations their attention.
  I see the majority leader on the floor. If he wishes to address the 
Senate, I will be glad to withhold.
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to wait until the Senator completes his 
remarks. I was going to try to bring the Chamber up to date on our hope 
of how to proceed. Senator Daschle is here.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will withhold.
  Mr. LOTT. We are not ready to do that at this moment because we have 
to be sure everybody accedes, and so I will be glad to withhold.
  Mr. KENNEDY. At any time the majority leader wants to propound the 
consent request, I will be glad to yield.
  I wanted to read the 1987 report. In March of 1987, the Center for 
Law and Education sent a questionnaire regarding State practices and 
policies for homeless students to the chief State offices in the 50 
States and the District of Columbia, and received 23 responses. The 
majority of the respondents, however, had no statewide data, so out of 
the 50, you got 23, and out of the 23, the majority had no statewide 
data on the number of homeless children within their jurisdiction, or 
whether these children were able to obtain an education.
  The majority of States had no uniform plan for ensuring homeless 
students received an education--the poorest of the poor. Can those who 
want to give this money directly to the States tell us about programs 
that had been developed by the States prior to 1987? I have searched. I 
have looked. I cannot find them. Why? Because they were not a priority 
because they did not vote. Children do not vote, and the parents did 
not vote. We know the reasons, and that has been true with migrant and 
immigrant students as well.
  As for the homeless children, we made marginal increases in the 
enhancement of those programs annually during the appropriations 
process, but we maintain our commitment. I wish we could be out here in 
a bipartisan way trying to find ways to strengthen these programs, to 
help those kids, to find out how we can be more effective. But oh, no, 
do my colleagues know what we are going to do? We are going to take 
those three programs, which is millions of dollars, and instead of 
continuing to target the homeless and neediest children, we are going 
to send that money to the Governors, to the State capitals to let them 
decide whether they want to be bothered by this.
  The record is very clear: They have not historically, and there is 
little indication that they will today. If one looks over what is being 
allocated at the State level versus what the Federal Government is 
doing with programs in these areas, one will find they are begrudging 
support for these programs. There are certain exceptions, and we are 
always glad for that.
  We enable students in failing schools to transfer to higher-quality 
schools. We say you cannot use more than 10 percent of the title I 
money for transportation. We let the local communities make the 
judgment of what they will do. Under the Republican bill, there is 
absolutely no cap. They can use the whole title I program for 
transportation.
  On accountability, we find there continues to be a deficiency.
  I will take a couple of minutes to go through the merit pay issue 
again and our particular proposal. Since we knew this was coming up, we 
tried to find out what different States have done and what has been 
successful.
  We were reminded by the Senator from Georgia about a merit pay 
program that Secretary Riley instituted. It cost the State of South 
Carolina $100 million, and it was abandoned. I am sure my friend from 
Georgia does not realize it was abandoned. Probably those last words or 
last couple of sentences were missing in his presentation. They have 
switched to more of a school-based program.
  In looking over the use of merit pay incentives for teachers across 
the country, one of the most successful has been in Dallas, TX. In 
1991-1992, they implemented one of the most sophisticated 
accountability systems in the Nation. The centerpiece of it was that 
all staff in schools which increased student achievement received 
monetary awards. A 1996 study found when the scores were evaluated 
against the comparable school districts, the Dallas program had a very 
positive impact on test results. That is our amendment--schoolwide, 
with regard to that aspect.
  In North Carolina, a State in which great progress has been made in 
education--I do not know why, but when we find out that some things 
work, as in the State of North Carolina, we do not try to share that 
with other parts of the country. We have tried to do that in this 
legislation.
  North Carolina, in 1997, implemented its incentive program for whole 
school merit programs, and the legislature recently budgeted $75 
million for the awards. More schools met their performance goals than 
expected. The second year required $125 million rather than scale back 
the level of the award. The legislature increased the budget to 
increase this successful program. It is working. We have no problem 
with our friend from Michigan on this type of merit pay program, but 
let's get it correct.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. First, I commend Senator Kennedy for his comments. The 
alternative of rewarding schools as opposed to individual teachers is a 
very sound way of approaching this--the team environment, the team 
effort.
  I find it somewhat ironic that the authors of S. 2 want to have the 
Federal Government stop dictating to the States and communities how the 
7 cents on the dollar the Federal government provides for education is 
going to be used, yet in this amendment they have offered, they ask 
that this body to decide what certification or merit pay will be 
provided for teachers across the country. What works best is a decision 
that ought to be left to the States or the local communities. For the 
Senate to go on record to decide what will work best in the 50 States 
is in direct contradiction to the arguments I hear being made in 
support of the underlying bill, and that is: We do not know what we are 
doing here; we ought to leave this up to the local governments. Now we 
are going to decide, apparently, that teachers ought to get a pay 
increase rather than leaving that decision to the local level. It seems 
they have it backwards. Those decisions are best left at the local 
level.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts has accurately pointed out, in 
State after State where it has been tried--it is not as if it has not 
been tried--it has not worked very well.
  Instead of disregarding what is occurring at the local level, why not 
give them the chance in this area to decide

[[Page 6869]]

what works best instead of trying to micromanage the pay or 
compensation of teachers based on some test that, as the Senator from 
Massachusetts said, would pit one against the other.
  As he pointed out, there was an effort in Fairfax County, VA, to try 
this scheme. Maybe the Senator from Massachusetts can tell me again 
what was the experience in Fairfax, VA. They tried merit pay as a way 
to improve student performance, and what were the results of that 
experiment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. They dropped that after a 
very short period of time because it was so ineffective in the outcomes 
for the students.
  Mr. DODD. When they dealt with teacher merit pay for the whole school 
in New Haven--I gather it was New Haven, California, not New Haven, 
Connecticut----
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.
  Mr. DODD. What was the experience there? Did the entire school 
benefit?
  Mr. KENNEDY. There was a dramatic outcome in one of the poorest 
communities in California where they had schoolwide summer programs and 
they took all of the teachers--500 teachers--and gave bonuses to the 
whole school as the academic achievement went up. They also supported 
teachers if they wanted to obtain professional development or work 
towards advanced degrees. Finally, they gave encouragement for 
recertification, which is a very rigorous program of examination by 
senior teachers and review of the skills and talents of these teachers. 
But most of all, they gave support for the classes and the schools that 
were increasing academic achievement. It went from one of the poorest 
schools, in terms of academic achievement, to one of the best in 
California in a period of 7 years.
  Mr. DODD. Lastly, I ask my colleague, does he know of any example, in 
his tenure in the Senate, where we have ever required merit pay for 
physicians, attorneys, architects, or any other profession you can 
think of? Has the Senate of the United States ever gone on record and 
said that as a condition of receiving Federal support, such as for 
health care plans or for legal issues, that we, as a matter of Federal 
policy, would require, in those professions, that they be required to 
be certified midcareer?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Quickly, my answer would be no. Secondly, I think that--
perhaps the Senator would agree with me--if we are going to give some 
extra pay, perhaps those teachers who are working in these combat 
conditions in underserved areas, whether they are rural or urban areas, 
might seem to be ones who could be deserving of it. That could be a 
decision that is made by the State.
  But what I want to mention to the Senator, is that the States can do 
what the Senator from Michigan is proposing today, out of their 93 
cents.
  Mr. DODD. Correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have challenged the proponents of this to give us one 
State that is doing an effective merit pay for individual teachers 
program. We have not heard one. It would be nice if they said, oh, we 
have 15 States doing it and these are the results of it in academic 
achievement. They cannot give us one example.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague would yield, we have a number of former 
Governors here, some of whom support this amendment. I wonder if when 
they were Governors they supported this.
  I see the majority leader on the floor. The minority leader and I 
certainly yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for allowing us to 
proceed with what I think is a fair agreement on how to proceed for the 
remainder of the afternoon.
  We have had good debate this week on both sides of the aisle. There 
is a difference of opinion. When we get our unanimous consent 
agreement, or when we get it propounded and hopefully get an agreement, 
I do want to comment on some of the things I have heard over the past 
hour during debate and on the pending Abraham-Mack amendment.
  But I think, first, it is important we get an understanding and 
agreement on how to proceed. Basically, the consent we would like to 
propound would be that the pending second-degree amendment be laid 
aside, and that Senator Murray be recognized to offer her amendment 
relative to class size, with no second-degree amendments in order, that 
we would ask consent for the votes to occur at 5 p.m. on the pending 
amendments, and the time between now and that hour be equally divided, 
and the votes would occur on or in relation to the amendments in the 
order they would be offered or have been offered. That sequence, of 
course, is the Kennedy second-degree amendment, the Abraham-Mack 
amendment, as amended, if amended, and then the Murray amendment.
  Then we would ask consent that the next amendments in the sequence be 
basically in the following order: Lieberman, as an alternative; Gregg, 
with regard to Teachers' Bill of Rights; and McCain, regarding sports 
gambling.
  We will see if we can get an agreement on that. If we cannot, then we 
will modify it in a way we hope we can get an agreement.
  That is basically how we would like to proceed this afternoon. I 
think it is a fair way to proceed. We will be able to have another 2\1/
2\ hours, hopefully, of good debate. Then we can have some votes.
  Then we will have things lined up for debate on Monday. I hope that 
we can get in several hours of debate on the amendments that would be 
pending at that point--the Lieberman amendment, the Gregg Teachers' 
Bill of Rights, and other education-related issues about which Senators 
may want to talk. Then we would move toward votes on Tuesday and/or 
Wednesday and Thursday, if necessary. That is basically the outline of 
how we would like to proceed.
  As soon as I hear further from Senator Daschle, we will propound that 
UC.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, then, that the pending 
second-degree amendment be laid aside and that Senator Murray be 
recognized to offer her amendment relative to class size, and no 
second-degree amendments be in order. I further ask consent that votes 
occur at 5 p.m., with the time between now and then to be equally 
divided, and that the votes occur on or in relation to the amendments 
in the order in which they were offered, with no second-degree 
amendments in order.
  The voting sequence is as follows: Kennedy, second-degree amendment; 
Abraham amendment, as amended, if amended; and then the Murray 
amendment.
  I further ask consent that following these votes, the next amendments 
in the sequence be the following, in the following order, with no 
second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote on or in relation to 
the amendments. They are as follows: The Lieberman amendment, which is 
an alternative; the Gregg amendment, dealing with Teachers' Bill of 
Rights; and the McCain sports-related gambling issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I have discussed this 
matter. I understand he will be here momentarily. But I indicated to 
him that there might be an objection. We have now heard an objection. 
Therefore, I modify my consent to reflect the next two amendments be 
limited to the Lieberman and Gregg amendments as outlined above.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from 
Missouri to withhold his objection, and in order for one other Senator 
to arrive, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page 6870]]


  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to say again, if I didn't say 
it sufficiently a moment ago, that I appreciate Senator McCain's 
cooperation in agreeing for us to proceed even without an amendment he 
had hoped to get in the next sequence. But there was objection to that. 
He has agreed for us to proceed without an objection.
  The same thing is true with Senator Ashcroft. He has had a chance to 
review the situation. And our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
have had an opportunity to look at the substance of the amendment. 
There are a number of Senators who have amendments they want to have 
considered. We hope as we go forward they will be in the lineup at some 
point.
  For now, we are just trying to get the rest of the afternoon agreed 
to and debate amendments that we will also be debating on Monday. Then 
we will take it from there.
  Mr. President, let me propound the unanimous consent request again 
and see if we can get it cleared at this point.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending second-degree amendment be 
laid aside, that Senator Murray be recognized to offer her amendment 
relative to class size, and that no second-degree amendments be in 
order.
  I further ask unanimous consent that votes occur at 5 p.m. with the 
time between now and then to be equally divided, and the votes occur on 
or in relation to the amendments in the order in which they were 
offered, with no second-degree amendments in order.
  The voting sequence is as follows:
  Kennedy second-degree amendment;
  Abraham amendment, as amended, if amended;
  Then the Murray amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following those votes the next 
amendments in the sequence be the following, in the following order, 
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to a vote on or in 
relation to the amendments and the second-degree amendments must be 
relevant to the first degree they propose to amend. They are as 
follows:
  Lieberman, which is an alternative;
  Gregg, Teachers' Bill of Rights.
  I believe that would be the request.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall 
not, provided it is all right with the distinguished Senator from 
Washington State, would the leader be willing to amend that so I would 
be allowed to proceed for 5 minutes just prior to the distinguished 
Senator from Washington State on an entirely unrelated matter not 
requiring a vote or an amendment?
  Mr. LOTT. I am not sure exactly when that would come.
  Mr. President, we always try to accommodate Senators on both sides. 
But let me just say I would like to amend the request beyond what we 
have already asked to the effect that I be recognized to speak for 5 
minutes to be followed by 5 minutes by Senator Leahy. I had been 
waiting to try to respond to some of the things that had been said on 
the debate before we reached this point. If I could just get 5 minutes 
followed by Senator Leahy, then we would go on with the regular order, 
if that is all right with Senator Daschle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will not ask for time. As the majority 
leader has indicated, this does not in any way reflect what we have 
attempted to do beyond this agreement. We have some amendments on 
either side. Senator Dodd has a very important afterschool amendment 
that will come shortly after this lineup.
  We also have Senator Bingaman, dealing with accountability; Senator 
Harkin on construction; Senator Mikulski on digital divide; and Senator 
Dodd's amendment will likely come up after this agreement. I know there 
are Senators on the other side who will be in the mix as well. No one 
should think this limits their ability to be heard and to offer their 
amendments.
  I appreciate very much the cooperation of everybody.
  I will not object.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to say 
I objected to the McCain amendment not because of the content of his 
amendment, per se. He wants to bring up the NCAA college amendment at 
some subsequent time. That is his privilege. That is part of the Senate 
business.
  One of the things I have tried to do, following the direction of the 
minority leader in consultation with the majority leader, is to keep 
this debate on this education bill on education. We worked very hard on 
our side to keep other matters off this bill--Patients' Bill of Rights, 
prescription drugs, minimum wage, and all kinds of other things. I 
don't want Senator McCain or anyone supporting Senator McCain's 
amendment to think I am doing this simply because it deals with the 
NCAA. It is because we are trying to move this education bill along. At 
some subsequent time on this bill or at some other time, if he offers 
that, I will be prepared to do whatever is necessary to put my views 
forward. But I just want the Record to reflect that it is not because 
of the content of this amendment. It is just an attempt to move 
education matters along with this bill.
  I withdraw any objection I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Daschle, Senator 
Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator 
McCain for their cooperation.
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield for a second? I want to make sure the 
Record reflects that I withdraw my objection as to this unanimous 
consent and not the other ones propounded regarding Senator McCain.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, along the lines of what Senator Reid just 
said, both sides have been working to try to keep our amendments and 
our debate on the underlying bill, the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. This is a very important bill. Of course, its title is 
Educational Opportunities Act.
  There is a lot that needs to be said. There is a lot that needs to be 
done to make sure our education and elementary and secondary schools 
are improved, that it is quality education, that it is safe and drug 
free.
  We don't have to be out looking for amendments involving China, 
agriculture, or higher education, guns, prescription drugs, tax cuts, 
or anything of that nature, all of which may be or may not be 
meritorious. We have plenty to do and plenty we need to think about to 
improve, hopefully, elementary and secondary education.
  I agree to an extent with what Senator Reid was saying. I appreciate 
his cooperation and that of Senator McCain, who agreed to go along with 
this request.
  Let me respond in the broader sense to some of the things that have 
been said on this bill this afternoon. I have listened to the 
discussion by Senators. I think it is very important to note once and 
for all that this is education opportunity--not for 1965, not for 1985 
or 1987, because I have heard that date used in some of the debate 
earlier, and not even for 1995. This is about education in the new 
millennium. This is about how we improve the quality of education and 
how we improve the learning of our children for the remainder of this 
century.
  We know there are many indicators that show our children's education 
is not safe, that it is not drug free, that it is not improving in many 
areas. In fact, many test scores are static or declining.
  We have to do something different. We are not debating 1956, we are 
not debating what happened in 1985, and we certainly are not debating 
what happened in the early 1990s.
  It has been alleged that all Republicans want to do is eliminate the 
Department of Education. Let me just make the Record clear why there 
are many of my colleagues who do not agree with me on this.
  I am the son of a schoolteacher. I worked for a university, and I am 
not for, nor have I ever been for, eliminating that Department. I stood 
in the

[[Page 6871]]

House of Representatives and voted for its creation. The majority 
leader and the Republican leader in the Senate certainly do not have 
that position. Let's not talk about the past. It is prolog. There have 
been good efforts. Some of them helped. Some of them didn't work.
  It is time we think a little differently. Education is in this box 
because there are certain groups in this country that say this is the 
way it is going to be, this is the way it has been, failed or 
succeeded, and it is going to stay.
  I don't agree with that. We have to start using some innovative 
concepts. We have to have more flexibility. We must have more 
accountability. We must have results. It has to be child centered, as 
we have been saying.
  Some people say we must have mandates from Washington, DC; We know 
best in Washington, DC, in the Senate and the bureaucrats at the 
Department of Education, many well-intentioned and good people.
  I don't accept that. I have faith in the parents at the local level. 
I have faith in the teachers and the administrators, yes, in the State 
governments. So it happens that more Governors right now are Republican 
than Democrat, but in the past the reverse has been true and test 
scores were not any better then. We have to try to find some solutions.
  By the way, many of the good solutions in America for creating jobs, 
improving education, charter schools, improving health care, are 
happening in the States because we have given them a little more 
flexibility from the Washington level. My own State of Mississippi, 
poor though it is, just voted 2 weeks ago, and the Governor signed into 
law, a 5-year teacher pay increase to bring Mississippi up to the 
southeastern average. That is monumental legislation. It is a big 
financial commitment from a small, poor State. But they are doing the 
job. They are trying to make some progress with teacher pay raises. I 
know certainly they deserve it.
  It is time for a change in education. We have to do better. Our 
scores as parents and leaders are not what they should be for improving 
education. If you want the status quo, go ahead and vote for title I, 
title II, all the programs as they are. Leave them as they are. I don't 
believe they are working the way they can; we don't give enough 
discretion as to how best to use them at the local level. If our 
districts and States are using them for pools, Heaven forbid, we should 
make sure that does not happen.
  We have thoughtful ideas and I think this Abraham-Mack amendment is a 
good amendment. First of all, this amendment is optional. Shouldn't we 
encourage good teachers? Shouldn't we have merit pay for the really 
good teachers? Shouldn't we encourage them? The alternative is, if the 
overall school does good and improves, give all teachers a pay raise. 
That means that the worst of the worst get the pay raise along with 
everybody else, in spite of the job that he or she has done. That is 
not the solution.
  It is not a mandate. Again, it is a choice for the States and the 
local education agencies to pursue quality teaching, a very important 
component in learning. It is optional.
  Let me reframe the debate a little bit. I think there is fundamental 
disagreement. However, I think the American people agree with the 
approach we are taking, an approach of more flexibility, more choice at 
the State and local levels, accountability, encouraging quality 
teachers so that they won't leave teaching as my mother did after 19 
years. She didn't get rewarded when she did a good job or spent extra 
time. She couldn't make a decent wage in that job.
  I believe we have a good package. I commend the work. Let's continue 
to have debate on the amendments. I certainly hope the Kennedy 
amendment is defeated and the Abraham-Mack amendment is passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Who yields time? The Senator 
from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, for my clarification, I understand my 
amendment is in order and the time between now and 5 o'clock is equally 
divided, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 3122

           (Purpose: To provide for class reduction programs)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3122.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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.'')
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, classrooms across America are less 
crowded today than they were a year ago, because this Congress made a 
commitment to hiring new teachers to reduce classroom overcrowding.
  The progress has been overwhelming. Today, 1.7 million students are 
in less crowded classrooms--where they can learn the basics in a 
disciplined environment.
  That is the type of progress we should continue. Unfortunately, this 
Republican bill abandons our commitment to helping students learn in 
less crowded classrooms.
  At a time when we should be ensuring that every student can benefit 
from an uncrowded classroom, this Republican bill makes no guarantee 
that smaller classes will become a reality.
  That is why I am on the floor today--to make sure that no student is 
stuck in an overcrowded classroom in grades 1-3.
  I am offering an amendment which would authorize the class size 
reduction program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  As a former teacher, I can tell you, it really makes a difference if 
you have 18 kids in a classroom instead of 35--parents know it, 
teachers know it, and students know it. By working together over the 
past 2 years, we have been able to bring real results to students.
  With the first year of class size reduction funding, we have been 
able to hire 29,000 teachers across the country. Approximately 1.7 
million students across the country are learning in classrooms that are 
less crowded than they were the year before. The average class size has 
been reduced by more than five students in the grades where these funds 
have been concentrated.
  Forty-two percent of the teachers hired are teaching first grade. In 
these schools, the average class size fell from approximately 23 to 17 
students, 23 percent of the teachers are in 2nd grade, and 24 percent 
are in third grade. In both of these grades, the average class size, 
where these funds were used, dropped from 23 to 18 students. In 
addition, districts are using approximately 8 percent of this money to 
support professional development so we can have teachers of the highest 
quality.
  Let me take a moment to share a list of some of the benefits of class 
size reduction. Class size reduction produces better student 
achievement, something every Senator has been out here to say they 
support. It brings about fewer discipline problems. When there are 
fewer kids in your classroom you can maintain discipline; there is more 
individual attention, better parent-teacher communication--an essential 
to a child's education--and dramatic results for poor and minority 
students.
  Those are some of the ways smaller classes help students reach their 
potential. Those are the results we should be giving all students in 
the early grades. But today, there are still too many students in 
overcrowded classrooms.
  Today, the average classroom in grades 1-3 has 22 students in it, 
students who are fighting for the time and attention of just one 
teacher, students who might not get their questions answered because 
their classmates are creating disruptions, students who aren't learning 
the basics.
  Those students would be helped dramatically if we gave them a less 
crowded classroom with a fully-qualified, caring teacher.

[[Page 6872]]

  Go out into your local school districts and talk to any teachers, and 
I believe they will tell you classes are overcrowded. It is not easy 
for local school districts to hire teachers on their own.
  Believe me--I served on a local school board. This is one area where 
the Federal partnership really makes a dramatic difference for 
students.
  I understand, as a former school board member, the pressure the 
school boards and others involved with the budget face in allocating 
scarce resources.
  The pressure on how to spend these funds are immense, and in most 
district budgets, there is not money to reduce class size.
  The Federal funds for the purpose of reducing class size are 
incredibly important for supplementing district budget to address the 
class size.
  Let me share an example of how one of the districts in my State is 
using these funds. The Tacoma School District in Washington State 
received a class size reduction grant of a little over $1 million, and 
the district started a program called ``Great Start.'' That's one of 
the best things about this program. School districts can use this money 
to meet the unique challenges their students face. We know that not 
every school district is the same. We know that some schools need more 
help hiring teachers, and others need more help training teachers. That 
is why this program that we created 2 years ago is flexible.
  So the educators in Tacoma decided they would focus the money on 
first grade. And, they decided that--in addition to reducing over-
crowded classrooms--they were going to make sure that those new 
teachers had the best strategies for helping students. They set clear 
goals. For example, they set the goal that every student be able to 
read and write by the spring of their first grade year. They hired an 
additional 20 fully-qualified new teachers. And the difference has been 
dramatic.
  Today, as a result of this program, those classrooms have an average 
of just 16 students. Those students are now better able to learn the 
basics with fewer discipline problems.
  I am proud to say I have visited schools in Tacoma. I have seen the 
great strides those dedicated educators are making. But do not take my 
word for it. Listen to what one of the teachers wrote to me.
  I received this letter from Rachel Lovejoy, a first grade teacher at 
Whittier Elementary School in Tacoma.
  She writes:

       I knew first graders could make great gains, and this year 
     they are.

  Rachel is the type of teacher who goes out and visits every child's 
home in August before the school year begins. She meets their family 
and learns about that student's unique needs and challenges.
  As Rachel told me:

       With 16 families, I can fit the visits into my room 
     preparation with greater ease. What a great start to building 
     that family atmosphere in my class.

  Rachel tells me that because she has fewer students in each class she 
is better able to keep track of how each student is progressing.
  Rachel also says there are fewer discipline problems in her classroom 
today:

       It is much easier to build a familial, caring community in 
     the classroom with fewer children.

  Rachel knows what makes a difference in the classroom, and she has a 
message for all of us about reducing class size:

       The research is there. Accept no excuses. Gives us lower 
     class size and training, and let us do what we do best . . . 
     teach.

  That is what we should be doing and that is what the amendment I am 
offering today does. It shows teachers like Rachel that we will stand 
with them and help them create effective classrooms.
  I was fortunate to receive a letter from Lori Wegner--the parent of 
one of the students in Rachel Lovejoy's classroom. She writes:

       With 16 children, Rachel is able to interact with each 
     child on an individual basis throughout each day. Rachel is 
     able to go above and beyond the basic requirements for 
     testing the students' achievements and focus on each child's 
     development in a way that is appropriate to the individual 
     child.

  Lori closes her letter to me by saying:

       Please give our teachers the opportunity to facilitate the 
     development of each individual student to their fullest 
     potential during these critical years of learning.

  Not only do the parents and teachers in my community tell me it 
works, but national research proves smaller class size helps students 
learn the basics in a disciplined environment.
  A study conducted in Tennessee in 1989, known as the STAR Study, 
compared the performance of students in grades K-3 in small and 
regular-sized classes. This important study found that students in 
small classes--those with 13 to 17 students--significantly outperformed 
other students in math and reading. The STAR study found that students 
benefitted from smaller classes at all grade levels and across all 
geographic areas.
  The study found that students in small classes have better high 
school graduation rates, higher grade point averages, and they are more 
inclined to pursue higher education.
  I repeat, students who are in smaller class sizes in first, second, 
and third grade have higher graduation rates, higher grade point 
averages, and are more inclined to go on to higher education. Isn't 
that what all of us want?
  According to research conducted by Princeton University economist, 
Dr. Alan Kruger, students who attended small classes were more likely 
to take ACT or SAT college entrance exams, and that was particularly 
true for African American students.
  According to Dr. Kruger:

       Attendance in small classes appears to have cut the black-
     white gap in the probability of taking a college-entrance 
     exam by more than half.

  Three other researchers at two different institutions of higher 
education found that STAR students who attended small classes in grades 
K-3 were between 6 and 13 months ahead of their regular class peers in 
math, reading, and science in each of grades 4, 6, and 8.
  In yet another part of the country, a different class-size reduction 
study reached similar conclusions. The Wisconsin SAGE Study--Student 
Achievement Guarantee in Education--findings from 1996 thru 1999 
consistently proved that smaller classes result in significantly 
greater student achievement.
  Class-size reduction programs in the SAGE study resulted in increased 
attention to individual students. This produced three main benefits:
  No. 1, fewer discipline problems and more instruction,
  No. 2, more knowledge of students, and No. 3, more teacher enthusiasm 
for teaching.
  The Wisconsin study also found that in smaller classes, teachers were 
able to identify the learning problems of individual students more 
quickly.
  As one teacher participant in the SAGE class-size reduction study 
said:

       If a child is having problems, you can see it right away. 
     You can take care of it then. It works a lot better for the 
     children.

  Parents of children in smaller classes notice the difference as well. 
The mother of a child who moved from a class of 23 students to a class 
of 15 students discovered that--she wrote this to me:

       The smaller class makes it possible for the teacher to get 
     to know the kids a lot faster, so they can assess their 
     strengths and weaknesses right away and start working from 
     those points right away.

  Discipline problems were also greatly reduced in smaller classes. One 
teacher said:

       In a class of thirty students, you're always redirecting, 
     redirecting--spending most of your time redirecting and 
     disciplining kids where you're not getting as much 
     instructional time in.

  Those are not my words, they are hers.
  By contrast, another teacher said:

       Having 15 [students], I'm so close to them. Generally, I 
     don't have to say a thing; I just look at them and they shape 
     up and get back to work . . . So I don't spend a lot of time 
     with discipline anymore.

  The empirical support for smaller class size is compelling. Smaller 
classes in SAGE schools produced high levels of classroom efficiency; a 
positive

[[Page 6873]]

classroom atmosphere; expansive learning opportunities; and enthusiasm 
and achievement among both students and teachers. The SAGE study 
concluded that the main effect of smaller class size was greater 
student success in school.
  Today we have the opportunity to authorize the class-size reduction 
program in this bill and ensure we do not abandon our school districts 
in their efforts to reduce class size, which have been so successful.
  It is our opportunity to make a commitment to improving America's 
public schools.
  I am offering this class-size reduction amendment to give Members of 
the Senate the opportunity to show parents, teachers and students that 
we understand that it's important to reduce the class size.
  My class size amendment will continue the progress we have made over 
the past 2 years in dedicating funding to class-size reduction. It will 
bring us to a total of more than 43,000 fully qualified teachers 
nationwide.
  Here are the specifics of my amendment:
  This amendment would use $1.75 billion to reduce class size, 
particularly in the early grades, grades 1 through 3, using fully 
qualified teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and 
special needs children.
  It targets the money where it is needed within states.
  Within States, 99 percent of the funds will be disbursed directly to 
local school districts on a formula which is 80 percent need-based, and 
20 percent enrollment-based.
  Small school districts that alone may not generate enough Federal 
funding to pay for a starting teacher's salary may combine funds with 
other dollars to pay the salary of a full or part-time teacher or use 
the funds on professional development related to class size.
  This amendment ensures local decision-making.
  Each school district board makes all decisions about hiring and 
training new teachers. They decide what their needs are. They decide 
how many teachers they want to hire. They decide which classrooms to 
focus their efforts on. They decide what goals they want those students 
to reach. It is local decision making.
  This amendment promotes teacher quality.
  Up to 25 percent of the funds may be used to test new teachers, or to 
provide professional development to new and current teachers of regular 
and special needs children.
  The program ensures that all teachers are fully qualified.
  School districts hire State certified teachers so students learn from 
fully trained professionals.
  This amendment is flexible.
  Any school district that has already reduced class size in the early 
grades to 18 or fewer children may use funds to further reduce class 
sizes in the early grades; reduce class size in kindergarten or other 
grades; or carry out activities to improve teacher quality, including 
professional development.
  The flexibility for these funds is seen throughout my State.
  In Washington, the North Thurston school district is using all of 
their funds to hire teachers to reduce class size. At the same time, 
the Pomeroy school district, which is a rural district in eastern 
Washington, was able to use 100% of their funds to improve teacher 
quality through professional development. The Seattle school district 
even used a portion of their funding to recruit new teachers.
  The Class-Size Program is simple and efficient. School districts fill 
out a one-page form, which is available on-line. Here is a copy of the 
one-page form from my State.
  This is a copy. We hear from the other side about bureaucracy and 
paperwork. This is an example of how targeted Federal funding for a 
program really works. This is a one-page form. School districts fill it 
out, and they get the money. It is at their request. They do not have 
to ask for the money, but if they do, they fill out a one-page form and 
the money is available to them.
  Teachers have told me, by the way, they have never seen money move so 
quickly from Congress to the classroom as they have seen with these 
class-size reduction funds.
  Linda McGeachy in the Vancouver school district, recently commented, 
``The language if very clear, applying was very easy, and there funds 
really work to support classroom teachers.''
  Finally, this amendment ensures accountability. In Addition, the 
language clarifies that the funds are supplementary, and cannot replace 
current spending on teachers or teacher salaries. Accountability is 
assured by requiring school districts to send a ``report card'' in 
understandable language to their local community--including information 
about how achievement has improved as a result of reducing class size.
  Before I close, I just want to make one final point. This class size 
program was a great idea when we passed it 2 years ago, and I was 
especially pleased that we had the support of so many of my colleagues 
from the other side of the aisle.
  In fact, I have a press release from the Republican Policy Committee 
which was put out on October 20, 1998. It listed class size as one of 
the accomplishments the Republican Party had at that time. It says, 
``Teacher quality initiative cleared by the President,'' and it lists 
class-size reduction funding as one of the major accomplishments during 
the 105th Congress. So this was a bipartisan proposal.
  Throughout the last 2 years, we have worked together to make sure the 
language works for everyone involved.
  We have seen the results come in. Mr. President, 1.7 million students 
have benefited from this policy. That really is why I find it so 
surprising that in this underlying Republican bill we back away from 
that commitment that 2 years ago we were touting as the way to go and 
as an accomplishment for both sides.
  I am offering this amendment today to give both the Democrats and the 
Republicans an opportunity to show that they care about the students in 
America's classrooms and to keep that commitment we made 2 years ago.
  Parents, teachers, and students across America want students to be in 
classes that are not crowded. Working together over the past 2 years, 
we have been able to help 1.7 million students learn the basics with 
fewer discipline problems. The results are in. Smaller classes are 
making a positive difference. The research proves it. Parents, 
teachers, and students have seen the results. We should be committed to 
continuing that effort and not abandoning it in the underlying bill.
  That is why I am offering this amendment today, to make sure we 
continue the progress in reducing class size. Our children deserve the 
best. America deserves the best. This amendment gives it to them. I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think my colleague from Ohio is going 
to go next.
  I am only going to take 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I 
follow the Senator from Ohio.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield the time to the Senator from 
Minnesota after the Senator from Ohio speaks.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Senator from Ohio, how long does he intend 
to speak? However long is fine with me.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I am sorry, I can't hear the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague how long he may be speaking on the 
floor. It is fine with me however much time he uses.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I think I will probably be finished in 10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am not sure what happened in that last 
colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Simply, the Senator from Washington said she 
would yield to the Senator from Minnesota after the comments by the 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. However, that time would be from the minority's time? I 
believe we are allocated time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

[[Page 6874]]


  Mr. JEFFORDS. Half the time to one side, half the time to the other 
side; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in the last couple of days I have had 
an opportunity to preside over the Senate. I feel compelled to make 
some overall comments about what I have heard and the difference 
between the Republican approach and the Democratic approach on this 
education reauthorization bill.
  First of all, I think it is important everyone understand that the 
Federal Government only provides about 7 percent of the money for 
education in the United States of America. Sometimes when I listen to 
my colleagues, I think they think they are members of the ``School 
Board of America'' and do not understand that the overwhelming majority 
of contributions for education come from State and local government.
  I have also listened to Senators depicting the Republican approach as 
a ``revolution'' that will change the way the Federal Government is 
going to be dealing with our schools. In fact, it was depicted by one 
Member of the Senate as giving ``a blank check to the States to conduct 
business as usual.''
  I want to let you know that the States are not conducting ``business 
as usual.'' As the former chairman of the National Governors' 
Association, I worked with my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to 
reform education in this country. I think it would be wonderful if the 
Members of the Senate would really become familiar with what is going 
on throughout this country as State and local government change the way 
they deliver education and recognize the improvements that have been 
made.
  The Republican approach that has been titled as ``revolutionary'' is 
the Straight A's Program. So that everyone understands, it basically 
says: Straight A's, of which I am a cosponsor, builds on Ed-Flex and 
allows up to 15 States to enter into a 5-year agreement with the 
Secretary of Education where the State can consolidate their formula 
grant programs, including title I, and use them for the educational 
priorities set by the State. In return for this flexibility, States 
will be held accountable for academic results. States that reduce the 
achievement gap will receive additional funds.
  In effect, this is a waiver, given by the Department of Education, to 
15 States that want it, for 5 years, to use education money differently 
from what is provided in the current categorical programs.
  Now, another issue is title I portability. It applies to 10 States 
plus 20 school districts. The States and districts will apply if their 
education communities desire it. No district will be required by the 
Federal Government to have this portability. In other words, these are 
voluntary programs where States would come to the Department of 
Education and say: We would like to use this money differently from how 
it is now allocated under the categorical titles.
  This is not what I would refer to as ``revolutionary.'' This sounds 
to me like the waiver program we had many years ago where the States 
could go to the Department of Health and Human Services and say: We 
want a waiver to do welfare a little differently in our State.
  What I am hearing on the floor of the Senate is ``block grants are 
awful.'' I will tell you something. As a former mayor, I fought for the 
CDBG Program, Community Development Block Grant Program, which is one 
of the most successful block grants in the United States of America.
  I hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say some 
of the same things I heard when I was Governor and I was down here with 
six or seven other Governors to reform the welfare system. I heard 
``it's going to be a race to the bottom. The Governors do not care. The 
local government doesn't care. We in Washington, we in the Senate, care 
more about the people than the Governors and the local government 
officials.''
  I would like to remind this body that on October 4, 1998, the 
President of the United States said:

       This great new experiment that we launched 2 years ago has 
     already shown remarkable signs of success. Two years ago, we 
     said welfare reform would spark a race to independence, not a 
     race to the bottom. And this prediction is coming true.

  Many Members of this Senate said it would be a race to the bottom, 
that this was not the right thing to do.
  Again, on December 4, 1999, the President said:

       Seven years ago, I asked the American people to join me in 
     ending welfare as we know it. In 1996, with bipartisan 
     support, we passed a landmark welfare reform bill. Today, I 
     am pleased to announce we have cut the rolls by more than 
     half. Fewer Americans are on welfare today than at any other 
     time since 1969. We are moving more than a million people a 
     year from the welfare rolls to payrolls, 1.3 million in 1998.

  He goes on to say what a great program it is.
  How did it come about? It came about because we gave the people 
closest to the problem the opportunity to use money in a different way. 
We ended the entitlement, and we had a block grant for the States and 
said: You use the money the best way you can to make a difference in 
the lives of our welfare recipients.
  That is fundamentally what we are asking for in our approach to 
education reform. We want to try something different.
  We have had Title I for years and in the title I schools, we are not 
getting the job done. That is one of the reasons we passed Ed-Flex 
early this year. We want to build on that, give the schools the 
flexibility to use those dollars in the way they can make the most 
difference for our boys and girls.
  I have heard: ``Build new schools, hire more teachers.'' We are 
building more schools. We are providing more teachers on the local 
level. I heard about ``a digital divide.'' In almost every State in the 
Union, the States have put fiber optics out to the schools, and put 
computers in the schools that the States have paid for. In my State, we 
have wired classrooms for voice, video, and data.
  Parents ought to know how their child's school is doing. Most States 
have report cards now, so people can compare their kids' performance in 
their school versus another school down the block.
  Let's take the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. We 
are talking about rewarding teachers. I am a former member of the 
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. In our State, people 
who apply and receive their certificate from the National Board of 
Professional Teaching Standards receive another $3,000 a year from the 
State of Ohio to recognize their extra professional competence. In the 
State of North Carolina, Governor Jim Hunt gives them $5,000.
  We've talked about all kinds of new things Members of this Senate 
would like to see happening at the local level. I am saying most of it 
is happening on the local level. We talk about building new schools. 
Let me say that once you get started with building new schools, it is a 
never ending process.
  The American public ought to understand that the backdrop of what we 
are doing here is shown on this chart. We are paying 13 percent of each 
federal dollar on interest; we are paying 16 percent on national 
defense; nondiscretionary is 18 percent; mandatory spending is 53 
percent.
  We have some real problems in this country. We have to take care of 
Social Security and Medicare. We have a problem with readiness in our 
Defense Department. And we have people saying: Let's get into new 
programs. Let's get into areas that are not the responsibility of the 
Federal Government. I am saying that the States have more of a capacity 
to deal with it. I went through the numbers. The National Governors' 
Association says there isn't one State in debt like we are--not one. 
Most of them have surpluses. If you talk about capacity to get the job 
done, they have more capacity to get it done than we have.
  It is hard for me to believe that when you are in debt this much, 
when you

[[Page 6875]]

are paying out 13 cents in interest on every dollar, you are saying we 
are going to get involved in some programs that fundamentally are the 
State's responsibility, and where the States have more capacity to deal 
with the problems. So what I am saying today is that we must change our 
approach to education. All we are saying is give the States an 
opportunity to apply for a waiver, to use the money differently than 
what is in the categorical programs. They can use it for teachers. In 
my State, we have reduced class size in urban districts down to 15 
students per class, and we have done a lot of the things in the states 
that we are talking about here. Let's just fund IDEA and make the money 
available so States can do that on their own.
  We need to understand we have a role to play in education, but 
fundamentally it is a State and local responsibility. Our job is to 
become a better partner to the State and local governments, give them 
the flexibility to get the job done and then hold them accountable. 
That is what this is all about. I think that should be the debate. I 
hope that maybe by the time we get through with this bill, we can come 
together on a bipartisan basis and do something so we walk out of here 
and say to the American people that we have done something this year in 
education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will try to respond to the comments 
of my colleague from Ohio because I like it better when we go back and 
forth. He is a Senator I certainly respect.
  I have two points. I want to get back to Senator Murray's point. On 
the whole general question of the Federal role, let me say to my 
colleague from Ohio that it is absolutely true that much of K through 
12 is at the State level, no question about it. But going back to the 
history of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--and I have said 
this three or four times--there is a reason why we have certain streams 
of money and targeting of programs, especially toward the most 
vulnerable children, because whereas the Senator from Ohio--and I have 
no doubt about the Senator's commitment to children, but the fact is, 
in too many parts of the country the verdict was very harsh at the 
State and local level. We decided, look, as a national community--and 
we reflected that--we are going to make sure we make a commitment to 
the poorest and most vulnerable children. I don't want to see us 
abandon that commitment. That is what this debate is about.
  On welfare, with all due respect to the President--and my colleagues 
quoted the President--we have reduced the rolls by half. Anybody can do 
that. You just tell people they are off. The question is whether or not 
we met the goal of the bill, which was to move families from welfare to 
economic self-sufficiency. Guess what. Just about every single study I 
know of--and maybe you know of another one--has pointed out that in the 
vast majority of cases these mothers barely make above minimum wage, 
and many families have no health care coverage.
  Families U.S.A. pointed out that we have 675,000 citizens who don't 
receive any health care coverage any longer because of the welfare 
reform bill. We had a study from Harvard-Berkeley that in all too many 
cases--they looked at a million children --because of this welfare 
bill, children were getting dangerous to inadequate, at best, child 
care. These are small children. Guess what. We have not made sure that 
there is good child care. We haven't made sure these families have 
health care coverage, and the States are sitting on $7 billion. Some 
States are supplanting that and using it to replace existing State 
programs and using that money for tax cuts. So we have some reasons to 
be concerned about how poor children will fare without some kind of 
Federal Government national commitment to them. That is my first point.
  My second point has to do with this amendment. I thank Senator Murray 
from Washington for introducing this amendment. She pointed it out--and 
I will say it again--that across the country this year--and we did this 
in a bipartisan way--1.7 million first through third graders now attend 
classes with an average of 18 students because we were able to provide 
funding for 29,000 new teachers; 519 of them are in my State of 
Minnesota.
  Now, the President's request for 2001 will bring Minnesota over $23 
million more. I will say this again. I can give many examples. I will 
forget all the statistics. My daughter, Marcia, is a Spanish teacher. 
Hey, I am a Jewish father, so I think she is the greatest teacher in 
the country; and she is a darn good teacher from what I hear. She told 
me what it was like when she had 40 students. She teaches at the high 
school level.
  Every time I am in a school, which is every 2 weeks in Minnesota, I 
talk to the students about education. They always talk about good 
teachers and about respecting teachers. They think teachers are 
disrespected. We talked about that this morning. They also talk about 
smaller class sizes. I tell you, it makes all the sense in the world. 
Talk to people in our States. They know it. With a smaller class size, 
they know that a teacher can give students the individual attention 
they need.
  When you ask students: Who are the teachers you like, they say: They 
are not just the teachers who teach us the formal material; they are 
the teachers who get to know us; they are the teachers who relate to 
us; they are the teachers who we can come and talk to; they are the 
teachers who can give us special help; they are the teachers who can 
give us special attention; they are the teachers who know something 
about what we hope for in our lives.
  Do you want to know something? There are a lot of young people who 
cry out for that kind of teacher and cry out for that kind of 
education. Do you want to know something else? One of the best ways we 
can get there is through smaller class sizes.
  Yes, we have said through this amendment, as Democrats who represent 
people in our States, but I think it should be a bipartisan amendment. 
We believe it should be a decisive priority for the Senate to say that 
we are going to make a commitment--most of the funding is at the State 
level, but with the money we have and what we do to support school 
districts and to support principals and parents and teachers and 
students, let's make the best use of the money, and that is exactly 
what this amendment does.
  I think this is a great amendment. I think it should receive 99 to 
100 votes. Before it is all over, for all I know, it will.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to 
the debate over the days and the hours of this week. It has been 
particularly interesting to me to listen to my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who have, in glowing terms, defended the status quo 
and have spoken in very rosy descriptions of the status of American 
education.
  I will not recite once again all the very gloomy statistics and the 
very real statistics and the very undeniable reality of where we stand 
in American education and how we compare internationally with our 
competing young people around the world.
  I believe one statement from the Vice President of the United States, 
Al Gore. His plans for education basically say enough about the status 
of American education. Vice President Gore, in unveiling his education 
plans, said:

       I am proposing a major national investment to bring 
     revolutionary improvements to our schools. I am proposing a 
     national revolution in education.

  Now, the question I ask is, If you have to propose a ``revolution'' 
in education, does that not imply that there is a problem? If the 
status quo is as good as the Democratic side has said during the debate 
this week, then why is it necessary to say we are going to have a 
revolution in education?
  The reality is that it is not good. The picture is not good, and that 
``a nation

[[Page 6876]]

in crisis,'' as it was called a few years ago, is still the truth when 
you look at American education, and a defense of the status quo is not 
satisfactory. The American people deserve more and deserve better.
  Now, what we have from time to time are fads in education. We have 
the fad of the day or the fad of the year. That is what we are facing 
right now with the whole idea of class size reduction. Let me clarify. 
I think class size reduction is a wonderful thing. I think if teachers 
have fewer papers to grade and smaller classes, they have a lot of 
advantages. My sister is a fourth grade teacher. I know she would love 
fewer students at times in that classroom. But I want to challenge the 
basic premise of what the Senator from Washington laid out before us in 
this amendment. I don't question her sentiment, her goals, her 
objectives, or her sincerity. But I think the research that is out 
there is far less conclusive than what we have been led to believe.
  Class-size reduction is not the magic elixir that its proponents 
would like us to believe. The fact is pupil-teacher ratios have been 
shrinking for half a century in this country.
  In 1955, pupil-teacher ratios in public elementary and secondary 
schools were: Elementary, 30.2; secondary, 20.9 to 1 respectively.
  In 1998, they were 18.9 in elementary, and 14.6 in secondary.
  That is a dramatic drop in the size of classes in this country.
  Yet the fact is test scores went down for many years, and have 
leveled over to some extent. But they have leveled off at an absolutely 
unacceptable level.
  Eric Hanushek of the University of Rochester has been one of the 
outstanding scholars in looking at the effects of class-size reduction. 
He concluded--and I think we should conclude that:

       A wave of enthusiasm for reducing class size is sweeping 
     across the country. This move appears misguided. Existing 
     evidence indicates that achievement for the typical student 
     will be unaffected by instituting the types of class size 
     reductions that have been recently proposed or undertaken. 
     The most noticeable feature of policies to reduce overall 
     class sizes will be a dramatic increase in the costs of 
     schooling, an increase unaccompanied by achievement gains.

  That is the sad reality.
  Between 1950 and 1995, pupil-teacher ratios fell by a dramatic 35 
percent.
  We are trying to cure a problem with this amendment. That is being 
cured already in the States.
  We have seen a dramatic 35-percent decrease. While we don't have all 
of the information for the last 50 years that we would like to have on 
student achievement, we have enough to conclude that the performance 
has been at best stagnant.
  According to the National Assessment of Education Progress, our 17-
year-olds are performing roughly the same in 1996 as they did in 1970. 
While we have seen this dramatic drop in class size, we continue to see 
a stagnant student performance.
  The article ``The Elixir of Class Size'' concludes:

       There's no credible evidence that across-the-board 
     reductions in class size boost pupil achievement. On this 
     central point, the conventional wisdom is simply wrong.

  Look at the Asian nations today that trounce us on international 
assessments. Those Asian countries have, on average, vastly larger 
classes with many times 40 and 50 youngsters per teacher. Yet in every 
evaluation, they are leading us on international comparisons of scores.
  If lowering class size were the elixir that its proponents claim, we 
would be seeing a dramatic increase. We would be seeing an improvement 
in these academic scores.
  If this were health care, and if this were a new tonic being brought 
before the Food and Drug Administration, I assure you additional 
experiments would be warranted; additional experiments would be 
required. But no scientist would say that efficacy has been proven. It 
simply has not.
  There is a simple reason why smaller classes rarely learn more than 
big classes. Their teachers don't really do anything much different. 
The same lessons, textbooks, and instructional methods are typically 
employed, whether the class size is in the teens or whether the class 
size is 25. It is just that the teacher has fewer papers to grade and 
fewer parents with whom to confer, but getting any real achievement 
bounce from class shrinking hinges on teachers who know their stuff and 
use proven methods of instruction.
  Of course, knowledgeable and highly effective teachers would also 
fare well with classes of 30 or 35. Jaime Escalante, renowned worldwide 
as the ``best teacher in America,'' packs his classroom every year with 
30-plus ``disadvantaged'' teenagers and consistently produces scholars 
who pass the tough advanced placement calculus exam. But such teaching 
is not the norm in U.S. schools, and adding more teachers to the rolls 
won't cause it to be.
  Much of the current enthusiasm for reduction in class size is 
supported by references to the experimental program in the State of 
Tennessee that Senator Murray made reference to in her comments. The 
common reference to this program, Project STAR, is an assertion that 
the positive results there justify a variety of overall reductions in 
class size.
  By the way, this report is cited so frequently because there are so 
few studies on the academic impacts of smaller classes.
  The study is conceptually simple, even if some questions about its 
actual implementation remain. Students in the STAR experiment were 
randomly assigned to small classes of 13 to 17 students, or large 
classes of 21 to 25 students with or without aides. They were kept in 
these small or large classes from kindergarten through third grade. 
Their achievement was measured at the end of each year.
  If smaller classes were valuable in each grade, the achievement gap 
would widen. But that was not the fact in the STAR study. In fact, the 
gap remains essentially unchanged through the sixth grade.
  While there may be some evidence that in kindergarten the smaller 
class sizes improved academic performance, as you go through grades 2, 
3, 4, 5, or 6, the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged 
students did not narrow. It remained the same.
  Apart from all of that, I think we should be concerned about the 
Murray amendment because of the unintended consequences. I know what 
Senator Murray wants to accomplish. She wants to see improved 
schooling. She wants to see improved academic performance. She believes 
smaller classes will inevitably result in that, and that her amendment 
will achieve that.
  So often is the case as we pass amendments for legislation in the 
Senate that they end up being consequences that we never imagined.
  I want to share with you four of them which I believe will occur if 
the Murray amendment is adopted.
  Teachers will leave the worst schools in the State to fill the newly 
created affluent slots.
  That is what happened in many States where they have implemented 
these kind of programs.
  There will be the unintended consequence of exacerbating the problem 
of less-qualified teachers being hired.
  In California, Governor Wilson shrank California's primary classes. 
What happened was the veteran teachers fled the inner-city schools in 
droves lured by the higher paid, cushier working conditions of suburban 
systems that suddenly had openings. This exodus forced city schools to 
hire less qualified teachers, threatening the one ingredient that 
researchers agree is the most important to good education-- teacher 
quality. In fact, in California they sacrificed teacher quality in 
hiring more teachers, and the schools that were hurt the most were 
those with disadvantaged students.
  The West Education Policy Brief is the regional education lab for 
Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. This is what they said about 
class-size reduction. This is funded by the U.S. Department of 
Education.

       A fundamental condition for the success of the Class Size 
     Reduction is good teaching. Class size reduction can 
     exacerbate teaching shortages and lead to the hiring of 
     unqualified teachers. In California, for example,

[[Page 6877]]

     since the implementation of the state's class size reduction 
     program, the percentage of teachers without full credentials 
     has jumped from 1% to over 12%, while the proportion of 
     teachers with three or fewer years of experience rose by 9% 
     and the proportion of teachers who had the least education, a 
     bachelor's or no degree, increased by nearly 6% statewide.

  Those are unintended consequence.
  A second unintended consequence is driving us, if we adopt such an 
amendment, toward nationalizing education.
  I didn't want to interrupt Senator Murray when she was making her 
presentation. But what I wanted to ask is, What does she anticipate 
happening when this authorization expires?
  I am not sure whether it is 5 years or 7 years. Originally it was a 
7-year proposal. At some point the authorization ended. Does the 
Senator anticipate the Federal Government will reauthorize and make 
this a permanent entitlement that the Federal Government will be 
funding teachers at the local level? Or does Senator Murray anticipate 
that the States, the local governments, and the local school districts 
will be required to pick up the tab for the teachers hired during this 
7-year authorization? It is one or the other. We will continue to fund 
them or they have to pick up the tab.
  We had an experiment in the COPS Program, which has done a lot of 
good, by the way. When we funded the 100,000 policemen on the street, 
we funded it from Washington, DC. The State police and local law 
enforcement were calling me saying the money had run out on the COPS 
Program, the Government had to fund it again. We can't pay for the 
policemen we hired under the COPS Program.
  My friends, that is exactly what will happen on the Federal teaching 
program. When the authorization ends, when the spending ends, somebody 
has to pick up the tab or we will exacerbate the condition we have now 
in the schools. I think this is an unintended consequence and a very 
serious consequence.
  I have a serious problem with the idea of handing this over to the 
U.S. Department of Education. I see Senator Kennedy on the floor. I am 
not among those who want to eliminate the Department of Education. I 
believe we are going to talk about accountability, making certain the 
Department of Education is accountable.
  The most recent 1999 audit of the Department of Education showed the 
following: The Department's financial stewardship remains in the bottom 
quarter of all major Federal agencies. The Department sent duplicate 
payments to 52 schools in 1999 at a cost of more than $6.5 million. 
None of the material weaknesses cited in the 1998 audit had been 
corrected in the 1999 audit. Yet we want to turn over to the Department 
of Education the hiring of thousands of teachers? That ought to be done 
and funded at the local level.
  A 1,150-student district in East Helena, MT, hired 2 teachers with 
the $33,000 Federal grant. The educators make about $16,000. The 
superintendent said: We have tremendous fear about whether this is 
going to be funded on an annual basis. But we have learned if you don't 
take advantage of whatever is available at the time, somebody else gets 
those dollars.
  That is the attitude we are promoting. I don't blame that 
superintendent for wondering what will happen. Will the Federal 
Government pick this up as an entitlement or will they have to pick up 
the tab? What will be the long-term and the unintended consequences of 
such a program?
  Bringing 100,000 teachers onto direct Federal support creates another 
permanent program of virtual entitlement. We are going to create a 
permanent entitlement if we go down this route.
  The third unintended consequence in passing this amendment is moving 
education away from flexibility toward rigidity. I know Senator Murray 
insisted this preserves flexibility at the local level and local 
decisionmaking. We heard a lot of anecdotes in Senator Murray's 
presentation, and I will relate an anecdote heard this week.
  An anonymous principal--I don't want to get her in trouble with the 
Department of Education or title I police, but she encouraged me to 
share this--is working on her Ph.D. She is very bright. She made a 
grant application with the Department of Education. Her title I 
supervisor suggested it be changed, and the title I supervisor wrote 
the application to apply for the classroom reduction program. And, as 
Senator Murray suggested, it was quickly approved. So much for local 
flexibility.
  The title I supervisor said: You must take this teacher you have 
hired and move that teacher from one class to another class to another 
class to another class--90 minutes in each classroom with about 24 
students in each classroom. The teacher who was hired would go into the 
classroom for 90 minutes. They would divide the class of 24 into 2 
classes of 12. The new hire was supposed to keep separate grade books, 
separate grade reports. Every 90 minutes, they moved on to the next 
class.
  The principal said to the title I supervisor: That is not what I 
need. We have 24 students, which is not a problem for us. Our teachers 
would prefer to do remediation: Rather than postponing remediation 
until summer school, have that teacher they hired do the remediation at 
the point of time the problem developed. The title I supervisor said: 
You can't do that. We will audit you. You will be turned in and lose 
your funding and lose that teacher.
  That is not flexibility. That is the typical kind of prescriptive 
rigidity you expect from any kind of Federal education program. That is 
the unintended consequence. We move exactly away from what we intend to 
do with this legislation, which is to provide greater flexibility.
  The fourth unintended consequence is to increase the inequality 
between rich and poor school districts. I will return to the example of 
California. A one-size-fits-all allotment per student, from the WestEd 
Policy Brief of January 2000 and a rigid 20:1 ratio cap on class size 
led to uneven implementation. Early evaluation findings support the 
concern that the very students who stand to benefit from class size 
reduction, poor and minority students, are least likely to have the 
opportunity to do so.
  Schools serving high concentrations of low-income, minority English 
language students learned more slowly due to lack of facilities. They 
get the teacher and there is no place to put the teacher. Teachers are 
going into poor school districts with poor facilities. They have the 
classroom reduction personnel. They hire the teacher and they have no 
place for the teacher. The schools that need the help the most are 
those least likely to benefit. That is the WestEd Policy Brief 
conclusion funded by the U.S. Department of Education.
  Let me reiterate. It will increase the number of less qualified 
teachers in the classroom. It will drive us toward a national control 
of education by creating a permanent entity. It will move education 
away from flexibility, which ought to be exactly the direction we are 
moving. It will increase the inequities between the wealthy and the 
poor school district.
  Our bill allows true classroom reduction by providing flexibility and 
allowing funds to flow between programs. In so doing, the school can do 
what is most needed, whether it is classroom reduction, buying 
computers, hiring tutors, finishing that building if they need to, or 
whatever that local need is. If there is an elixir, that is a far 
better elixir than the illusionary classroom reduction magic potion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the example that was given was 
entertaining to listen to, but this amendment we are offering is 
incredibly flexible. It appears the example he is using is reflective 
of local ineptness, not Federal inflexibility in this amendment.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Murray's amendment 
and commend her.
  I begin by talking about this issue of status quo that has been 
bandied about. Let me suggest what the status quo is in America. The 
status quo is that Governors and mayors and school

[[Page 6878]]

committees fundamentally decide educational policy in this country. In 
fact, the Senator from Arkansas gave a good example of how a Governor 
really screwed it up. He decided he wanted smaller class size, but he 
didn't understand or recognize that you also had control for the 
quality of the teachers, so the result is in poor districts there are 
lots of unqualified teachers.
  Is that an example of a Federal program run amok? No, it is an 
example of a Governor who got it wrong. What is the Republican 
proposal? Let's give Governors, including Governor Wilson, carte 
blanche to do what they will with educational policy. I can't think of 
any example that more closely undercuts this Straight A approach to 
education than the example of what was done in California.
  It is much different than what Senator Murray is advocating. One of 
the reasons why there were problems in California, I suspect, is they 
did not have the extra resources necessary to ensure both smaller class 
size and teacher quality. That is why this program is adding Federal 
dollars to State resources and local resources, so we control both size 
of the class and the quality of teachers.
  I also think it is interesting to note when talking about the 
collapse and decline of American education, people point to 
international experiences. Frankly, most international systems are 
nationally based educational programs. Japan is one which has strong 
national standards which do not give money away to the head of the 
prefecture or the head of the province. They have national curricula. 
They have national teacher certification. So if you are going to have a 
comparison between why we are failing vis-a-vis other nations, 
recognize the approach the Republicans are proposing is diametrically 
opposed to what is done in most of the leading industrialized nations 
of the world. They are not talking about national anything. They are 
talking about vesting in every little State, every little community, 
the authority.
  Sometimes, frankly, I guess this has been a useful debate. The 
Senator from Arkansas recognizes that Governors really mess it up 
sometimes. So I do not think we have to take that approach.
  I think we can rely, not only on statistics and studies--and the 
Tennessee example has not been refuted--but just common sense. Ask any 
teacher. Ask any parent. Would you prefer to teach 30 children or 18? I 
suspect anyone in the Senate with children of school age, when asked 
whether they would prefer to have their child in a class of 30 or a 
class of 18, would say, unhesitatingly, 18. That is common sense.
  That is what we are about here and that is what this amendment is 
doing. For the last 2 years we have actually embarked on this program. 
We are providing assistance and it is flexible, not in the abstract but 
in the particular. The Providence, RI, Superintendent of Schools wanted 
to engage in this approach, using extra resources to augment her 
teaching staff and reduce class size. She received from the Department 
of Education a waiver which allowed these resources to fund literacy 
coaches to co-teach in elementary schools 50 percent of the time and to 
deliver school-based professional development for the balance of the 
time. It was a flexible approach meeting local needs under the context 
of the existing legislation. So these theoretical concerns about a lack 
of flexibility are disproved when you actually look at what systems are 
doing and what they can do.
  All of this goes to the real, fundamental issue. Are we going to 
continue our commitment to lower class size supported both by common 
sense and by the statistical reviews done already, particularly in 
Tennessee, or are we going to embark on a carte blanche check to 
Governors?
  We have a good example in the previous discussion about a Governor 
who really got it badly wrong. It illustrates the status quo. The 
status quo is that Governors and local communities control the quality 
of teachers. They control fundamental policies. They get it wrong 
sometimes. Yet the whole Republican approach is give them more 
resources, give them a list of things they can do, as the menu in a 
Chinese restaurant, and then that is it.
  There is also before us now an amendment by Senators Abraham and Mack 
which would add to this list and diffuse even further our focus on 
disadvantaged children; programs and policies we know, based upon 
listening to teachers and parents and looking at research, could work 
to improve performance of schools. They want to add to the list merit 
pay and tenure reform and others, which I presume is their approach to 
professional development. But that is not going to directly improve the 
quality of teaching in the United States.
  We know from research, from listening to witnesses at our hearings, 
that professional development today, in the States, is generally 
recognized by teachers as inadequate. They feel unprepared to deal with 
these issues. Is that a Federal problem? No. That is because of State 
policies, local policies. But we can help. In fact, if you look at most 
professional development across the United States, it is ad hoc, one-
shot lectures or seminars or sessions. In fact, in 1998, participation 
in professional development programs in the United States typically 
lasted from only 1 to 8 hours during the course of a school year. That 
is absolutely insufficient.
  We know from research and analysis that good professional development 
has to be in the school, embedded in the program. It has to be content 
based. It has to give teachers facility and mastery of the topic and 
the ability to relate with their children. That is not done with 1 to 8 
hours. It is done constantly, persistently throughout the school year. 
That is what is done by an amendment that Senator Kennedy and myself 
will be offering later. It provides support for that type of 
professional development which we know works, which will deepen 
teachers' knowledge of content, which will allow teachers to work 
collaboratively.
  That is another failing in our system of professional development. 
Teachers come in in the morning; they rush from class to class. They 
might see the other teachers in the lunchroom for 20 minutes. They rush 
from class to class, go back in, and then they have to go home and take 
care of their families just as the rest of us. We need more 
collaboration. That is not in this bill, not even a hint of it.
  We have to also provide the kind of opportunities for mentoring and 
review and coaching which we know work--not just rhetorically but 
actually give resources to the States if they want to do it, and to 
local communities if they want to do it. That is the approach I think 
will work. That is the approach that was a large part of the 
legislation I submitted, the Professional Development Reform Act.
  I hope we can go ahead and not only support Senator Murray's well-
thought-out, well-crafted proposal to reduce class size, but also to 
reject the Mack-Abraham approach and support, later in our debate, 
after deliberation, Senator Kennedy's approach and my approach, which 
is for professional development that has been proven by practitioners 
to work to the benefit of children. I hope we can do that.
  I think we have seen, perhaps inadvertently, what could go wrong. 
Talk about unintended consequences. I add, these are probably 
predictable consequences. There will be Governors who did what Governor 
Wilson did because of political pressures and other pressures: Embark 
on a program--maybe it is class size or maybe something else--that 
results in poor policy, poor results, and poor education for children.
  Why do we assume, as the Republicans do, that it is all right to put 
those forces in train, in motion, by giving them money without 
accountability? I suspect what we have to do, and what we should do, is 
concentrate on those areas where we know we make a difference--
particularly supporting disadvantaged children--and also supporting 
those efforts that have a basis in research and a basis in common 
sense: Lowering class size, improving the quality of professional 
development in teaching in America so you do not have the situation 
that they had in California. Smaller class size, perhaps, but poor 
teaching.

[[Page 6879]]

  If we support the Democratic approach, we would help have both, 
smaller class size and better teachers, which I believe will result in 
better education.
  I commend Senator Murray for her efforts. I hope in the course of 
this debate we can support the approach for professional development 
that Senator Kennedy and I are promoting and in such a way make a real 
contribution to educational policy in the United States.
  I yield back to Senator Murray such time as I have not consumed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington has brought 
forward her amendment on class size on a number of occasions, and it 
has been well debated already. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
have expressed their view on it. But I do think there are still some 
points that need to be made.
  Of course, the fundamental problem is one of philosophy. The 
essential theme of the proposal is that Washington knows best. It is a 
top-down proposal, a straitjacket to the local school districts and to 
the States. It is a demand. If you, the States, want to have education 
dollars coming to you from Washington, then you, the States, must do 
exactly as we tell you here in Washington. Flexibility or ideas which 
you may want to pursue at the State level are stifled.
  This, of course, is different than the philosophy which we have 
proposed in our bill. Our bill, relative to teachers, says: Yes, if the 
local community feels it needs more teachers to reduce class size, it 
can hire teachers with the money to do that. But if the local community 
feels it needs to educate its teachers to do a better job, it can use 
the money to do that also. Or if it feels it has some teachers who are 
uniquely capable and need to be kept in the school system because there 
is a private sector demand for them that maybe will attract them out of 
the school system as a result of higher compensation in the private 
sector, then they can use the money to pay bonuses to assist keeping 
the teachers in the school system.
  It is an attempt to say to that local school district: Here is the 
money you can have available to you from the Federal Government to 
assist you with making classrooms work better relative to the teachers' 
involvement in the classroom. You make the decision--you, the local 
school district--as to whether you need a smaller student-teacher 
ratio, whether you need better teachers, better trained teachers, or 
whether you need to keep your best teachers in your school system. We 
in Washington do not know the answer to that question. That is the 
opposite view.
  I note, however, the problem we confront as a society is not 
necessarily that our classroom ratios are fundamentally out of skew. As 
some of my fellow colleagues have said, maybe it polls well to say, 
``Class size, class size, class size, that's what improves education.'' 
But study after study has shown us that is not necessarily the case. 
Class size is not necessarily the driver of a quality education. In 
fact, if you look at it in historical perspective--people who look back 
on the old days as education working better in this country say in the 
1960s or 1950s, you will see the class size ratio was really rather 
dramatically worse than it is today. In 1960, the class size ratio was 
26 to 1 average in the nation. Today, for most States it is around 18 
to 1.
  Or if you look at our fellow competitors in the international 
community such as Japan or Germany or China or Singapore, where their 
students are performing much better than our students in the area of 
math and science, those class size ratios are in the 50-to-1 regime.
  It is not necessarily the number of students in the classroom 
relative to the number of teachers. In fact, the study by the gentleman 
from Rochester which has been recited a number of times, Mr. Eric 
Hanushek, an economist at the University of Rochester, who looked at 
almost 300 different studies of the effect of class size on the 
academic achievement of students concluded it really was not class size 
that affected the students' achievement. It was--and this should not 
come as too big a surprise--it was the quality of the teacher.
  If one looks around the country today, one will notice, especially in 
our low-income school districts, that teaching quality is in question 
because many of the teachers are teaching out of their discipline. For 
example, we know that in the area of math, almost a third of our 
secondary teachers did not major in math and yet they are teaching 
math. They did not even minor in math.
  In the area of English, almost a fourth of our teachers did not major 
or minor in English, reading education, literature, speech, or 
journalism.
  The same statistics hold true for science and languages, in many 
instances. The fact is that our teachers have not been trained in the 
subjects which they are teaching. If a local school district knows 
that, then they are going to try to improve the teacher's ability to 
teach that subject. They do not think there has to be more teachers in 
the classroom; they think the teacher in the classroom has to know the 
subject better in the discipline they are teaching.
  Our bill gives that option to the local school district. It says they 
can improve the teacher's ability in that area of activity the teacher 
is teaching. That makes much more sense.
  We also know that a poor teacher teaching in a class does tremendous 
damage to students. In fact, arguably, a poor teacher in a class can do 
more damage to students than a good teacher in a class does good. Bill 
Saunders, who headed the Tennessee study, determined that 3 years of 
high-quality teaching versus 3 years of poor-quality teaching can mean 
the difference between a student being enrolled in remedial classes 
versus a student making it in honor classes.
  We know from a Dallas study that a low-quality teacher actually 
stunts the academic performance of the students in that classroom.
  So it is the quality of the teacher we should be stressing, as well 
as the ratio of teacher to student. The only thing that is stressed in 
the President's proposal, as brought forward by the Senator from 
Washington, is teacher-student ratio. There is no emphasis on quality 
at the level that gives the schools the flexibility they need to 
address quality.
  In fact, the whole program is a little skewed because, even relative 
to school districts, the program is designed not to reflect class size; 
it is designed more to reflect the level of income of the school system 
as to whether or not they qualify for the funds. There is a problem 
there.
  We also know in our high schools, where 40 percent of the students 
qualify for free lunches, that 40 percent of the classes are taught by 
unqualified math teachers. That is even a higher statistic than we see 
here.
  It means essentially that when one is in a low-income school 
district--and this chart shows that--they have even a higher likelihood 
of getting an unqualified teacher or at least a teacher who is not 
experienced or has not been trained in the area they are teaching.
  The green bar reflects school districts where more than 49 percent of 
the kids receive free lunches, and in those school districts 40 percent 
of the teachers do not have math as their primary area of 
qualification. Yet they are teaching math. Thirty-one percent of the 
teachers in English fall into that category; 20 percent of the science 
teachers fall into that category.
  We know from looking at what has been happening in the educational 
community, therefore, if we are concerned about low-income kids, we 
should not be so focused on class size as we should be on getting 
somebody teaching the math who actually understands math.
  Today, unfortunately, that is not the case. In the low-income high 
schools across this country, many of the teachers simply do not have 
the math background they need.

[[Page 6880]]

  What are we suggesting in our bill? Rather than saying to that high 
school, you must put the money into hiring a new teacher, we are 
suggesting the teachers they have maybe are not trained well enough in 
math, and if that is their decision, they can send them out to get 
better training or bring in people to help them get better training in 
that area.
  We also know putting in place a compulsory class size ratio can 
create significant negative, unintended consequences because that is 
exactly what happened in California. When California went down this 
route, they ended up getting a large number of unqualified teachers and 
teacher assistants teaching students. This was especially true in the 
rural and low-income school districts in California.
  As a result, we saw in California that they may have gotten better 
ratios, but they got poorer teachers. The only advantage to a poor 
teacher teaching a smaller class size is that fewer kids are subjected 
to that teacher. That is the only advantage of a reduced class size if 
a school has a poor teacher. It makes much more sense to follow the 
proposal we put forward, which is to give flexibility to the States as 
they address this issue.
  Another point that needs to be made is that almost 42 States today 
meet the ratios which the President is requesting, an 18-to-1 ratio. 
Forty-two States already have that ratio as an average across their 
school districts. Of course, the President's proposal, as brought 
forward by the Senator from Washington, will not allow an average to 
get out from underneath the requirements in their bill. Every school 
district must have an 18-to-1 ratio before they can get out from 
underneath using the money for the purposes of hiring a teacher to 
reduce the class size ratio.
  Even though the State, as a whole, may have reached 18 to 1, it does 
not matter. The fact is that most States in this country have reached 
the 18-to-1 ratio and, therefore, they probably have other things they 
would rather do with this money to assist the teachers they already 
have in place. Those other things include giving the teachers more 
opportunity to be better at the job they are doing, which should be our 
goal.
  In addition to allowing teachers to be better at the job they are 
doing, our bill allows the school districts to do other things with 
this money. This chart reflects that. Under current law, which this 
amendment is essentially an attempt to expand, we have $1.6 billion 
committed to basically two purposes: professional development for math 
and science teachers. That is the Eisenhower grant which is not 
actually involved in this amendment. Class size is this amendment.
  Under our bill, we take the Eisenhower grant and class size and we 
end up with $2 billion. We allow it to be used for a variety of areas 
where local school systems are in need of improving their educational 
and professional development for science, for math, for history, for 
English, and for reading; technology training for teachers; teacher 
mentoring, which is something that has worked very well, getting a 
high-quality teacher into a community of teachers and having that 
teacher pass on his or her knowledge; alternative certification, 
teacher recruitment, which is also critical in our society today, 
getting quality teachers into the profession; teacher retention, as I 
mentioned is important because of competition today; hiring special 
education teachers; or class size reduction.
  If the local school district comes to the conclusion that it needs 
more teachers to reduce the ratio of teachers to students, then there 
is absolutely no limitation in our bill on them. They can do exactly 
that.
  They can take all the money they receive under the TEA Act, Teacher 
Empowerment Act--which the amendment of the Senator from Washington 
would basically replace--they can take all the money, and they can use 
it for the purpose of reducing the student-teacher ratio.
  If they decide, as many school districts will--because you saw the 
statistics. It is not necessarily ratio relationships which develop 
quality teaching; it is more likely to be a quality teacher who 
delivers quality teaching. So many school districts are going to choose 
to make their teachers better. We are going to give them that 
opportunity, that flexibility to do that.
  Regrettably, the amendment of the Senator from Washington, which is 
essentially a restatement of the President's proposal, does not do 
that. I ask, How can there be resistance to a proposal which says, 
essentially: All right, school districts, if you want to reduce class 
size, you can use the money to do that. That is your choice. But, if, 
on the other hand, you have some other concerns that you, the 
principal, that you, the parent, that you, the teacher, that you, the 
community, believe is important to make that school work better 
relative to the teachers' ability to deliver a better education to the 
kids, then, in certain limited areas, you can pursue those 
opportunities. You can train teachers. You can make them better. You 
can keep teachers who are of high quality.
  How can you resist an idea which gives those options to the State? 
The only way you can resist that idea is if you do not have any 
confidence in the local schools and the people who are running those 
local schools.
  We have heard it again and again from the other side of the aisle 
that they do not trust the Governors--the Senator from Rhode Island 
essentially said that--that they do not trust the local school 
districts, that they do not trust the local teaching community, and 
that they do not trust the parents in those communities. Why? Because, 
according to the other side of the aisle, those folks failed with 93 
percent of the money, and we in Washington had better tell them how to 
use the 7 percent we send them and manage the life of the local school 
district for them because they certainly cannot do it themselves, 
because there is some bureaucrat down here in downtown Washington, 
sitting in a building on the third floor in a room you cannot find, and 
I cannot find, who knows a heck of a lot better how to run Johnny 
Jones' educational opportunities up in New Hampshire than his parents 
in Epping, NH, his teacher, his principal, the school board in Epping, 
NH, or the Governor of New Hampshire.
  It is an attitude of complete arrogance, an attitude that says, we 
know so much more about education in Washington than the people who 
have dedicated their lives to this issue and more than the Governors, 
who, by the way, have the primary responsibility for education. They 
are not going to turn to the African trade bill tomorrow. They are 
going to be turning to education tomorrow. They work on it every day, 
not just one week out of every year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for an additional minute.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for his generosity.
  They say they know so much more than the Governors, the boards of 
education, the principals, the superintendents, the teachers, and, most 
importantly, the parents. They say they can run the school systems from 
here in Washington.
  As I have said before, it is as if the folks on that side of the 
aisle want a string. They want to run a string out to every school 
system in America, every classroom in America, from the desks on the 
other side of the aisle. They want to have hundreds of thousands of 
strings running out, and they are going to pull the strings and tell 
America how to run their classrooms.
  It is an attitude which I cannot accept. It is an attitude which we 
have tried to avoid in this bill, by giving flexibility--subject to 
achievement, subject to accountability--to the local school districts.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back my time to the 
Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic side has 22 minutes; the 
Republican side has 14 minutes.

[[Page 6881]]


  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank Senator Murray for yielding me this time on the 
debate of this most important issue, of whether or not our kids are 
going to learn in a better environment by reducing class size, or 
whether we are going to go into some opposite direction.
  I must say this debate on class size sort of reminds me of the movie 
``Ground Hog Day.'' We keep having this debate over and over and over 
again, even though we know what the reality is.
  We have already had 2 years of funding, and 1 year of the money has 
gone out. All you have to do is go out and ask the teachers. Just go 
out to your schools, where they have used the money for class size 
reduction, and simply ask them: Do you like it? Is it working? That is 
all you have to do. It is very simple. If you do that, you will find 
that teachers and principals and superintendents like this. They want 
our assistance to reduce class sizes.
  What we did is we set a goal of no more than 18 students in grades 1 
through 3. We have already provided funding for the first 2 years. Are 
we going to stop now and turn the clock back? That is what the 
Republicans want to do.
  I must say that I listened to the remarks made by the Senator from 
Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, when he was talking about this issue. Quite 
frankly, the more I listened to him, the more I came to realize his 
argument is not against what we are doing, his argument is against 
local control because, obviously, it was either the principal or the 
superintendent who made the decision to float a teacher from class to 
class to class at 90-minute periods of time. That is certainly not in 
our legislation. They have the flexibility to do that.
  I have visited many schools in my State and have talked about 
reducing class sizes. The teachers, parents, and students are thrilled 
with the results they are seeing after just 1 year. But instead of my 
talking about it, let me read what some of my constituents had to say.
  I visited Starry Elementary School in Marion, IA. I spoke with Reggie 
Long, a first grade teacher for 30 years. She told me she appreciated 
the smaller classes. She said:

       It's nice because I can give individual attention to the 
     kids. We just give them so much academically now. If you 
     don't give them individual help, they can't succeed and we 
     can't succeed as teachers.

  The superintendent of this school district said:

       The key to effective teaching is getting to know the 
     students and parents.

  William Jacobson said that it is easier when teachers have fewer 
students in their classes.
  Last year, Angie Borgmeyer, a teacher in Indianola had 27 students in 
her second grade class. This year she has 21. She said 27 was too many. 
She said:

       It's very difficult with that many students. When you're 
     trying to teach them to read and give them basic arithmetic, 
     you need to be able to do it in a small group and give them 
     individual attention.

  So this program is simple. It is eminently flexible. It is very 
popular. It is time to stop playing politics with it. We heard about 
there being problems with applying for it, and the burdensome 
paperwork.
  I have here in my hand an application from the Des Moines Independent 
Community School District, for an application they sent in for class 
size reduction. It has 1 page, 2 pages, a signature page and a letter. 
That is burdensome? For that they got $854,693.56 to reduce class 
sizes.
  In closing, I will share some comments from students. I thought this 
was illustrative. I visited the McKinley Elementary School in Des 
Moines and Mrs. Kloppenborg's second grade class. These kids already 
know what is going on. I thought I would bring these. I will leave them 
on my desk. These are pretty pictures. Last year there were 34 students 
in each second grade classroom. This year, they have about 23. So this 
is what the second grade kids were saying about how they felt about 
their new class size. I am going to read just some of the letters they 
wrote. They drew these wonderful pictures.
  This one by Alicia says:

       I can spend more time with the teacher.

  Leydy says:

       I can learn more about reading in a small group.

  Daniel says:

       We learn more and get better grades.

  He has a great picture. There is a kid in a desk saying, ``Hi, 
Senator Harkin.'' I guess that is me saying hi because I have a necktie 
on. There is a kid in front of the teacher's desk and he is kneeling--
it looks like with a report card. If I could, I would tell him it 
didn't work for me in the old days, and it is not going to work for him 
today, either.
  Here is another one, but there is no name on this. It says:

       I can make friends.

  Another one says:

       We have more space to do things like reading.

  It is a nice picture of the bookshelves with all the books on there.
  This one by Jessica says:

       I can learn more because the teacher can help me.

  This next one says:

       I can learn more because I get more help.

  He drew a picture of his hand on here.
  If you look at all these, every kid they draw is smiling. Every kid 
is smiling. So, you see, these kids--and I visited this class--they 
know it. They can sense it. They feel it. They have more space and more 
time with the teacher. They get more individual help, and the kids love 
it.
  When I was there, a few parents came over to the school. What they 
said to me was amazing. ``The difference between my child this year and 
last year is incredible,'' they said. ``They are getting more work done 
and learning better and they are happier; they come home happier.''
  So, for the life of me, I can't understand what the argument is on 
the other side against our involvement in sending money out, no strings 
attached, with a lot of flexibility for teacher training. We have 
districts in Iowa that got the waiver because they already had class 
size reduction; they had reduced classes down to about 20, close to 18. 
They applied and got a waiver for teacher training. That is precisely 
what the Murray amendment does.
  So it seems to me all of the arguments on the other side just boils 
down to politics. For some reason--perhaps because this was started 
under a Democratic administration, or perhaps because the amendments 
were offered by a Democrat--they are opposed to it. That should not be 
the way it is around here. It should be judged on the merits. We know 
from experience in the field that the merits justify this amendment to 
reduce class size and make sure our kids get the attention and 
education they need.
  I commend Senator Murray, especially, for her long and stalwart 
support in class size reduction. I must say, Mr. President, around here 
a lot of times we defer to those who are experts. A lot of times when 
we have medical issue that come up, we defer to Bill Frist because he 
is a doctor. I say to my friends, let's defer to a teacher. Senator 
Patty Murray is a teacher. She was a teacher before she came here. 
Quite frankly, I think she knows a lot about what we need in public 
education. So I commend Senator Murray for her leadership on this 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on the Murray amendment for the 
proponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes remain under the control of the 
Senator from Washington.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes remain under the control of 
the majority.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, here we go again. Fourteen pages of the 
statute

[[Page 6882]]

set out precise and detailed requirements to be imposed on 17,000 
school districts around the country, the bottom line of which is that 
we know what they need better than any of them do. Fourteen pages of 
statute that, if the precedent has any value, will turn into 114 pages 
of regulations from the U.S. Department of Education, all under the 
mantra of smaller class sizes.
  Well, in spite of conflicting views on the precise impact of smaller 
class sizes in various parts of the country, one may even start by 
admitting that in many cases this is a good idea. But this amendment 
says not only is it a good idea, it is the only idea; it is the only 
way to spend a very considerable amount of money in every single school 
district around the country, no matter what its own priorities. No 
matter what its own parents, teachers, superintendents, and elected 
school board members think, we are telling you right here--100 of us in 
this national school board--this is what you need.
  Will it naturally put any more money into the schools? I doubt it. It 
is a large authorization, but we have already passed the budget 
resolution, and we pretty much know how much money there is going to be 
available for education. So, essentially, if it is passed and if it is 
appropriated for, it will come out of other educational priorities.
  Let's just take one. Thirty years ago, and again 3 or 4 years ago, we 
passed 150 pages of a law for special education. Most of the Members 
who are voting today were Members of the Senate then. We promised we 
would pay 40 percent of those costs. Due primarily to efforts on this 
side of the aisle, we have gone from 8 percent to 11 percent. In 
another 30 or 40 years, we might get to the promise that we made with 
respect to education for the disabled. But that was a priority of 3 
years ago. What we need now are another bunch of new programs which 
have one thing, one feature alone, in common. They say school board 
members, superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents all across 
the United States are not the best judges of what they need to provide 
a better education for our children.
  The Senator from Arkansas, who is on the floor, has pointed it out, 
and the Senator from New Hampshire has pointed out that the bill before 
us, which will end up supplying as much money as the other bills will, 
certainly allows any school district with a primary goal of more 
teachers to use much more money for hiring new teachers. It differs in 
the fact that it doesn't mandate that as the No. 1 priority for every 
school district. Maybe most will want to hire new teachers, and some 
will want to keep their best teachers in place by paying them more 
money. Some may want to use the money for physical infrastructure. Some 
may want to use it for specialized teachers and specialized courses 
that are not allowed under this amendment. Some may want to train their 
teachers better. Some may wish for more computers. But the most 
difficult virtue to practice in this body is the practice of letting 
go, saying we don't know it all; we can't set the absolute priorities 
for every school district in the United States.
  Let's stick with what we have on the table at the present time. Let's 
stick with the bill that dramatically says the present system of more 
and more statutes and more and more requirements has not been a 
striking success over the last 35 years. Let's try, at least in a few 
places in this country, to let our schools' own people, our 
professional educators, those who care most, those who know our 
children, make the decisions that will affect their lives and their 
education.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
being offered by the Senator from Washington. A recent study by the 
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee confirms what common sense should 
have been telling us all along--our children learn better when they are 
taught in smaller classes.
  With enrollment at the nation's schools continuing to increase, and 
many of those currently in the teaching profession nearing retirement 
age, the fact of the matter is simple--we need more teachers. Under 
Senator Murray's leadership, we in the Senate began the class size 
reduction initiative a little over two years ago with the goal of 
hiring 100,000 teachers over a seven-year period and reducing class 
sizes in the early grades to a nationwide average of 18 students. Yet 
here we are today, faced with a bill which abandons this goal.
  In 1998, my home state of Delaware recognized the need for more 
teachers and smaller class sizes. In July of that year, our governor, 
Tom Carper, signed legislation requiring all school districts in the 
state of Delaware to cap class sizes in kindergarten through third 
grades at no more than 22 students. That same legislation included a 
provision which increased state funding to help pay for one teacher for 
every 18 students. And with the help of the federal funding provided 
under the class size reduction initiative, Delaware was able to hire 
over 100 new teachers in 1999.
  These teachers are in the classroom today. That means roughly 1,800 
children are likely to get far more out of the hours they spend in 
school, and that they will move into the higher grades far better 
prepared. For these children in Delaware, and all the other children 
who are in smaller classrooms because of this initiative, this is 
literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get started on the right 
path. Yet this bill, without the Murray amendment, makes no promise of 
small classrooms.
  We can fund all the education programs we want, but without enough 
quality teachers in every classroom to teach our children the basic 
skills necessary to succeed, these programs means nothing. We need to 
continue to promote smaller classrooms in grade school by continuing to 
help schools hire up to 100,000 additional qualified teachers to reduce 
class sizes.
  The more individual contact our children have with their teachers, 
the more they are able to learn, and the better they perform on tests. 
Those are the facts. At a time when we are just beginning to make 
progress, now is not the time to abandon our children's future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be good enough to yield 
8 minutes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would be happy to yield 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7 minutes of that 8 minutes at the 
present time.
  Mr. President, just to review very quickly, there has been some 
suggestion about the fact that in so many different underserved 
communities teachers are unqualified. We recognize that. That is why we 
have a very vigorous program in terms of recruitment and training and 
enhanced professional development. Everyone ought to know that in the 
Murray amendment there are requirements to carry out effective 
approaches to reduce that through the use of fully qualified teachers 
who are certified or licensed within the States. The comments about the 
Murray amendment earlier about qualifications and being unqualified 
just are not relevant to this debate and discussion.
  I will not take the time to review the obvious, but studies have been 
done. The Tennessee study of some 7,000 children in 80 different 
schools says it all. It was done recently. In grade 4, students who 
attended small classes K through 3 were 6 to 9 months ahead of the 
regular class students in math, reading, and science. By grade 8 these 
advantages grew to over 1 year.
  In Wisconsin, a similar study called the Sage Study had similar kinds 
of results. Their report had the analysis that suggests the teachers in 
Sage classrooms have greater knowledge of each of their students, spend 
less time managing their classes, and have more time for individualized 
instruction, utilizing a primary teacher incentive approach. It is 
unquestioned. It is unchallenged.
  We have been waiting to hear from the other side a challenge of the 
basic

[[Page 6883]]

and fundamental results of the smaller class size with good teachers. 
That is out there.
  We are strongly committed. Senator Murray, who has been fighting this 
fight for the past year, is committed to make sure we are going to have 
that availability to school districts across the country.
  That is No. 1.
  No. 2, I can understand the anguish that our Republican friends are 
having about teacher quality, and also about the expenditures. Under 
the Republican bill, there is $2 billion. They effectively wipe out the 
current class size. That is 30,000 teachers they take out of K through 
6th grades. They take them out. Those are lost. They get pink slips in 
a program that is supposedly providing quality teachers. These are 
quality teachers. They get the pink slips because they are using $1.3 
billion of the President's program. They wipe out the $350 million in 
current Eisenhower math and science. They only have $300 million new 
money.
  I can understand their frustration as compared to our program which 
is $3.75 billion.
  Finally, I would like to remind our Republican friends that when this 
amendment was first passed here, we had Bill Goodling on this the first 
time we had the negotiations. Senator Murray was there during the early 
parts of the negotiation and was our leader.
  This is what Bill Goodling, who is the chairman of the House 
committee, said the first time we had the smaller class size.

       This is a real victory for the Republican Congress, but 
     more importantly, it is a huge win for local educators and 
     parents who are fed up with Washington's mandate, red tape, 
     and regulation.

  Goodling said:

       We agree with the President's desire to help classroom 
     teachers, but our proposal does not include a big, new, 
     Federal education program. Rather, our proposal will drive 
     dollars directly to the classroom and give local educators 
     options to spend Federal funds to help disadvantaged 
     children.

  Interesting.
  Here is the Republican Policy Committee, a dictionary of major 
accomplishments during the 105th Congress. Here is the Republican 
Policy Committee. They list 14.
  Number 9: Teacher quality, initiative--cleared, cleared for the 
President.

       The omnibus FY99 funding bill provides $1.2 billion in 
     additional education funds--funds controlled 100-percent at 
     the local level--to school districts to recruit, hire, train 
     and test teachers. This provision is a major step toward 
     returning to local school officials the ability to make 
     educational decisions for our children.

  Here they are taking credit for the same proposal, the Murray 
proposal. Three years ago it was the Republican proposal. They are the 
ones issuing the press releases. They are the ones taking credit for 
it. All Senator Murray is doing is continuing that program. It is the 
same program. The President is putting up the money. It is the same 
program. It was good enough at that time for Mr. Goodling, and it was 
good enough for the Republican leadership to take credit.
  Here is what former Speaker Newt Gingrich said about it at that time. 
He called it ``a victory for the American people. There will be more 
teachers, and that is good for all Americans.''
  Here is what Dick Armey said.

       Well, I think, quite frankly, I'm very proud of what we did 
     and the timeliness of it. We were very pleased to receive the 
     President's request for more teachers, especially since he 
     offered to provide a way to pay for them. And when the 
     President's people were willing to work with us so that we 
     could let the state and local communities take this money, 
     make these decisions, manage the money, spend the money on 
     teachers as they saw the need, whether it be for special 
     education or for regular teaching, with a freedom of choice 
     and management and control at the local level, we thought 
     this was good for America and food for the schoolchildren.

  The same program today, the same program that we are going to be 
voting on, the same one, endorsed by Armey and endorsed by Gingrich and 
Goodling.
  What is it with our Republican friends that they were so enthusiastic 
for this program 3 years ago, taking credit for it, putting it on the 
list of major achievements of the Congress? Now we hear out here: No, 
no; we can't; Oh, Lord, we cannot have this new program. We can't have 
it. It has all kinds of problems. Oh, Lord. It has problems. It has 
problems.
  Come on. We have been making an attempt in this area. You ought not 
be out taking credit for it if that is what you are interested in. And 
I am sure Senator Murray would be glad to offer you cosponsorship on 
this program and go with you up to the gallery when we have the 
celebration. I will go with Senator Hutchinson, with Senator Gorton, 
and the rest of our friends.
  This is something that is basic and fundamental and successful. We 
have heard more speeches around here about the problems that we are 
facing at the local level. This program is tried and tested with good 
results and excellent outcomes for children. Teachers themselves 
embrace it. It was endorsed by Republicans 3 years ago. It is the same 
program. It was good enough for them then; it ought to be good enough 
for them now because mostly all of it is good for the children of this 
country.
  We hope this amendment will be successful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank Senator Jeffords.
  I say to Senator Kennedy that I never shared the enthusiasm that some 
did. But, fortunately, there is a better way for class size reduction. 
It is in this underlying bill.
  Earlier in my remarks, I made a reference to an example in Arkansas 
in which a class size reduction grant was given. The title I supervisor 
said to the principal that against her wishes the hired teacher would 
have to be rotated among classes for 90 minutes in each class, even 
though the principal thought that was not the best use. She wanted to 
use that person for a point of time for remediation to help these who 
needed remediation in their school work.
  After I spoke, Senator Murray and Senator Harkin both said that it 
sounded to them as if my beef was with local control. I simply want to 
clarify that my beef is not with local control. My beef is title I 
police. My beef is with a rigid, inflexible Federal program that 
overrules what is best for the children so as to comply with the 
prescriptions of the Federal U.S. Department of Education. That is why 
we have a better way.
  I want to clarify for Senator Murray and Senator Harkin. It was not 
the principal's decision, not the superintendent's decision, not the 
classroom teacher's decision. It was the decision of the title I 
supervisor in what she said was compliance with the Class Size 
Reduction Program. My beef is not with local control. My beef is with 
the program that has that kind of rigidity built into it.
  I thank the chairman for yielding me 2 minutes of the remaining time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 15 seconds to Senator Harkin.
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to respond to the Senator from Arkansas. This 
amendment has nothing to do with title I, but this amendment has to do 
with class size reduction.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I will speak about my amendment and the 
second-degree amendment to it which I did not address earlier.
  The amendment Senator Mack and I have offered today essentially 
allows title II funds to be used for three purposes not specified in 
the underlying bill: First, for teacher testing programs, to ensure 
that teachers teaching our kids have the skills and knowledge about the 
subject matter they are teaching; second, for merit pay programs that 
could identify and reward teachers who perform exceptionally; third, 
tenure reform programs that shift the focus on teacher advancement and 
promotion to a broader subject of categories beyond mere longevity.
  We believe these will make a difference in terms of improving the 
quality of teaching. As I speak to parents

[[Page 6884]]

in my State, there is no question they want teachers conversant with 
the subject matter they are teaching their kids. They want to reward 
and acknowledge exceptional teachers and make sure the process employed 
with respect to the schools and their communities is based on ability 
and merit.
  We were criticized during the debate on only one of these, the merit 
pay proposal. That was the extent of the criticism leveled at this 
amendment earlier today. There then was a second-degree amendment 
offered. Interestingly, the second-degree amendment wiped away the two 
areas that were not subjected to any criticism--the teacher testing and 
the tenure reform proposals--in their entirety. It then replaced our 
merit proposal with a different one, one that rewards all teachers in 
schools that showed an increase in achievement by students.
  Interestingly, I find it odd that the two areas that were not 
criticized earlier were eliminated from the secondary amendment, and I 
question the approach taken in the second amendment with respect to 
merit pay programs.
  Our approach is a permissive approach we are offering as an option 
for the possible use of title II funds. No school will be mandated to 
do this. No school will be forced to do it. Under no circumstance will 
the Federal Government outline, identify, design, or in any way dictate 
the types of programs that would be used.
  In the second-degree amendment, however, only one type of program of 
merit pay is proposed, and it has an odd component to it. It says all 
teachers in any school that shows certain types of improvement, to be a 
presumably later identified, would benefit from enhanced salaries or 
bonuses.
  That means the worst teacher, in a school that showed overall 
achievement, would receive some sort of merit award. Meanwhile, the 
very best teacher who might be producing tremendous increases in 
achievement among his or her students in another school would not 
qualify. I see an inconsistency. I also question why the two sections 
of our amendment that were not criticized or even commented on earlier 
today have been entirely eliminated by the second-degree amendment.
  The choice is simple. Our approach permits districts and State 
education agencies to use title II funds for programs they would design 
with respect to teacher testing, merit pay, and tenure reform. I 
believe that is a wise course to follow if our goal is to increase the 
quality of the teaching of our children in America today. I sincerely 
hope our colleagues will choose to follow that course by rejecting the 
second-degree amendment and supporting the Abraham-Mack proposal.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our amendment focuses funds on what 
works. If the States want to use their 93 cents out of the dollar for 
purposes that Senator Abraham has mentioned, they can do it. We are 
focused on what works: School-based merit programs for improving the 
achievement of all students in a school, incentives and subsidies for 
helping teachers earn advanced degrees, implementing and funding 
vigorous peer review evaluation and recertification programs for 
teachers, and providing incentives to help the most fully qualified 
teachers to teach in the lowest achieving schools.
  These are the programs that are tried, tested, and that work. That is 
the second degree to the proposal of the Senator from Michigan. I hope 
it will be accepted.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in response, I don't know how anyone can 
say that a program proven to work is one that rewards the worst teacher 
in a school that may, in fact, be producing a decrease in the 
achievement level of their students. I don't think that could possibly 
be argued to be an effective way to use Federal dollars. Yet that is 
what would happen under the proposed second-degree amendment.
  Our amendment, on the other hand, opens the way for school districts 
and State education agencies to use these funds in the most effective 
way they deem possible to improve the quality of teaching. I look 
forward to the vote on this.
  I thank Senator Kennedy for his debate today.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself the remaining time.
  I back up the statements of the Senator from Michigan. What we are 
dealing with on the first vote is whether or not to make more flexible 
the options with respect to the schools. The Abraham-Mack amendment 
does that. The second-degree is a strike of that and puts one option in 
and does not add but detracts from what we would have without that 
amendment.
  The Murray amendment, again, restricts the availability of the class 
size money to one option--class size. In my State and many other 
States, that is not the problem. The problem is the quality of the 
teaching. We would rather spend that money to enhance the qualities of 
the teachers we have rather than to have it available for things we 
don't need.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the second degree, a ``yes'' vote on the 
Abraham amendment, and a ``no'' vote on the Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. We are about to have three very important votes. One 
will be on the class size amendment. First, the Senator from Arkansas 
mentioned in his remarks the WestEd Policy Briefing and spoke 
eloquently about the challenges, but he failed to talk about the 
tremendous benefits that were also in the report, including achievement 
gains and greater individual attention. The list goes on.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the entire study printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Policy Brief


                     great hopes, great challenges

       Numerous states have enacted or are considering measures to 
     reduce class size. Additionally, as part of a seven-year 
     program to ensure an average class size of 18 for grades one 
     through three, the federal government has committed more than 
     $2.5 billion to a national class size reduction (CSR) 
     initiative. These efforts stem from research findings on 
     CSR's achievement benefits, as well as from its enormous 
     popularity with parents, administrators, and teachers.
       However, not all efforts have proven equally successful. In 
     designing CSR programs, careful assessment of specific state 
     circumstances should help states adopting or modifying CSR 
     efforts avoid the unintended consequences that some programs 
     have experienced and ensure greatest benefit from what is 
     usually a considerable financial investment.

                                Benefits

       Research in the primary grades shows that as class size 
     shrinks, opportunities grow. Successful implementation of CSR 
     has led to numerous benefits, which appear to last into the 
     high school years, including:
       Achievement gains, especially for poor and minority 
     students.
       Greater individual attention and teacher knowledge of each 
     student's progress.
       Improved identification of special needs, allowing earlier 
     intervention and less need later for remediation.
       Fewer classroom discipline disruptions.
       Faster and more in-depth coverage of content; more student-
     centered classroom strategies, such as special-interest 
     learning centers; more enrichment activities.
       Greater teacher-parent contact and parent satisfaction.
       Reduced classroom stress and greater enjoyment of teaching.

                               Challenges

       Challenges for policy design arise in three major areas:

                  Teaching supply and teacher quality

       A fundamental condition for the success of CSR is good 
     teaching. CSR can exacerbate teaching shortages and lead to 
     the hiring of underqualified teachers. In California, for 
     example, since the implementation of the state's CSR program, 
     the percentage of teachers without full credentials has 
     jumped from 1% to over 12%, while the proportion of teachers 
     with three or fewer years of experience rose by 9% and the 
     proportion of teachers who had the least education, a 
     bachelor's or no degree, increased by nearly 6% statewide.

                               Facilities

       Inadequate facilities can impede schools' ability to 
     implement CSR and/or compromise CSR's benefits. Whole schools 
     or programs may also suffer if, for example, libraries, music 
     rooms, special education

[[Page 6885]]

     rooms, or computer rooms are converted into classrooms, as 
     has happened in some places. Many space-strapped schools have 
     combined two ``smaller'' classes into one large one with two 
     teachers. Wisconsin reports positive results from such team 
     teaching; in Nevada, however, concern exists that team 
     teaching has compromised CSR's success.

                                 Equity

       CSR policies can inadvertently worsen inequities. In 
     California, for example, a one-size-fits-all allotment per 
     student and a rigid 20:1 cap on class size led to uneven 
     implementation. Early evaluation findings support the concern 
     that the very students who stand to benefit most from CSR--
     poor and minority students--are least likely to have full 
     opportunity to do so. Schools serving high concentrations of 
     low-income, minority, and English language learner (ELL) 
     students implemented more slowly due to lack of facilities. 
     These same schools have the hardest time attracting prepared, 
     experienced teachers and, thus, suffered a far greater 
     decline in teacher qualifications than other schools. 
     Finally, for many of these schools, the cost of creating 
     smaller classes exceeded their CSR revenues, and to make up 
     the deficit they diverted resources from other activities.

                            Recommendations

       Crafting a successful CSR program is no simple matter. As 
     knowledge from state and local experience continues to 
     evolve, lessons are emerging that suggest important design 
     elements for policymakers to consider, including:

                               Targeting

       Since research shows that children in the primary grades 
     and, especially, poor and minority children benefit most from 
     smaller classes, it makes sense to direct CSR monies toward 
     these children. Such targeting can also offset some of the 
     difficulties inner-city and poor, rural schools face in 
     attracting well qualified teachers and finding sufficient 
     classroom space.

                            Teacher support

       Schools will need to hire a number of new and, possibly 
     inexperienced teachers to enact CSR policies. If the teachers 
     are unprepared, resources for support, such as mentorship and 
     training programs, will need to be considered. Research, 
     experience, and a policy climate of higher expectations also 
     suggest that novices and veterans alike will need support to 
     learn new teaching strategies that capitalize on the 
     opportunities smaller classes present.

                            Facility support

       CSR initiatives require adequate facilities. If facility 
     issues are not attended to at all levels, expensive 
     investments in smaller classes are likely to be compromised.

                              Flexibility

       CSR policies that allow flexibility in the use of funds 
     help keep the focus on improving learning, teaching, and 
     student achievement. In exchange for accountability, 
     policymakers may consider options that allow schools and 
     districts latitude to tailor decisions to the needs of their 
     own circumstances and students--for example, allowing a 
     class-size average rather than mandating a cap or encouraging 
     creative scheduling.

                           Program evaluation

       CSR programs should build in evaluation and research 
     components, particularly focused on unanswered questions, 
     such as the outcomes of creative approaches to CSR.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we came together several years ago in a 
bipartisan manner, both sides of the Senate, Republican and Democrat, 
and said we have made a great accomplishment, we have targeted Federal 
funds to a program that we know will work, reducing class size. Studies 
show it, from the Educational Testing Service in 1997 to the Star study 
in 1989, to the Wisconsin State study, to the New York study which I 
will read to you very quickly. A teacher said:

       Now that I have seen the difference a small class makes, I 
     don't want to go back to being a policeman.

  I think that says it for all of us. We know in first, second, and 
third grades, if we reduce the class sizes, our kids will learn the 
basics--math, reading, and science--that they will go on to college, 
there will be fewer discipline problems, and we will have accomplished 
something great.
  Senator Harkin has been out in his State, as many of us have, in the 
classrooms that are a direct recipient of our class size money. I 
challenge my colleagues to do the same because when you do, you can 
then walk away and say: I did something realistic and I can see it in 
the faces of these kids.
  We have the opportunity now to continue that program, and I urge this 
amendment's adoption.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Kennedy substitute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Murray 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Is there objection?
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on all 
three amendments.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 3118

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is on agreeing 
to the Kennedy second-degree amendment, No. 3118. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) and 
the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 91 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Breaux
     Kohl
     Roth
  The amendment (No. 3118) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes 
in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3117

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3117. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) and 
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) and 
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) would vote ``no.''

[[Page 6886]]

  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 92 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Breaux
     Bunning
     Kohl
     Roth
  The amendment (No. 3117) was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3122

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing to amendment No. 
3122. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) and 
the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), would vote ``no.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) is 
necessarily absent.--
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 93 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Bunning
     Kohl
     Roth
  The amendment (No. 3122) was rejected.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I hope we can continue to work in a 
bipartisan way and agree to an orderly process. We have had good debate 
and good amendments. I hope we can continue to do that.
  I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the next sequence of 
amendments in order to S. 2, the offering of the amendment by Senator 
Lieberman be temporarily postponed and that I be recognized to offer 
the Lott-Gregg amendment on Monday beginning at 3 p.m. I further ask 
consent that the Lott-Gregg amendment be temporarily laid aside when 
the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday in order for Senator Lieberman to 
offer his amendment. I finally ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate conducts the votes with respect to the two first-degree 
amendments, the votes occur in the original order as outlined in the 
consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to 
object, we will be voting on Tuesday. On our side--and the leader can 
correct me--there are probably seven substantive amendments. As the 
leader knows, having talked with all of us, we are willing to enter 
into time agreements on this so we can move the process forward. We 
want to try to do that in the early part of the week.
  I know the leader has other matters for consideration by the Senate. 
Tonight we cannot make that request, but I hope both Senator Daschle 
and the majority leader can, at least in the first part of the week, 
see if we can enter into a time sequence.
  We had good discussions and debate today. I believe with the debate 
we had on the substitute, plus on S. 2, we have covered the ground 
pretty well. There are some areas we perhaps need to give additional 
focus. There was no time indicated by the majority leader for 
disposition of those two amendments. I am trying to find out the 
intention of the leader so we can at least tell our people when they 
can expect some followup.
  Mr. LOTT. If Senator Kennedy will yield under his reservation so I 
may respond, Senator Daschle and I have been talking about this and 
other issues. We do not have votes scheduled on Monday because we have 
some Senators who have commitments they cannot change. That is the 
reason we rearranged the order. Plus, we do have some Senators who want 
to attend the services for Cardinal O'Connor in New York City on 
Monday.
  Next week, we need to take up and consider, if possible, the Africa 
free trade and CBI enhancement conference report, which the House 
passed today by an overwhelming vote. We have to figure that into the 
mix during the day Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
  Having said that, I believe we do have some additional amendments to 
which we can agree. I hope Monday during the day--I assume the managers 
will be here--Monday afternoon we can work on those amendments, and 
Monday morning, if we work toward having the vote or votes, if 
necessary, by noon on Tuesday, then we will have the next tranche of 
amendments worked out.
  Let me say on Senator Daschle's behalf and mine, it is not easy 
because there are a lot of Senators on both sides who are anxious to 
participate, so we have to come up with some order. I got into that a 
little bit today with a couple of my colleagues on this side, and I 
know the Senator from Massachusetts was doing it on his side. We need 
to work with those Senators and get the next two, four--whatever we can 
get--agreed to and look forward to doing some of those Tuesday 
afternoon, and then we may have to look at moving Tuesday afternoon, 
perhaps, to the Africa-CBI conference report. We are going to make a 
good-faith effort on both sides, I am sure, to get the next tranche of 
amendments and look to have a vote Tuesday morning if at all possible, 
and I think it will be.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________