[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5978-5981]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               EDUCATION

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wish to speak in morning business on 
the issue of education, which the Senate will take up over the next few 
weeks. There has been a considerable amount of discussion on this issue 
within the Senate membership but even more discussion within the 
populace in general. The President ran for election on the issue of 
education and how he intended to address that issue. In fact, he 
considered this to be the primary issue before us as a nation--the fact 
that he wants an educational system which leaves no child behind.
  This is a goal that is laudable and which all of us should pursue. So 
the matter is now coming to the Senate. We have in the committee on 
which I serve--the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--
been able to produce a bill which came out of committee 20-0, a 
bipartisan bill, to try to move the issue of education along in a 
positive way--the Federal policy on education.
  There is still much to do and, therefore, as we in this body take up 
the debate on the education policy during this week, there will be a 
considerable discussion of points that were left out of the bill as it 
came out of committee. I think it is important to note, as we address 
the issue of education, that the Federal role in education is narrow. 
Most elementary and secondary education issues are addressed at the 
local level.
  Madam President, the Duke University basketball team is a group of 
young men who reflect the type of athletes, sportsmen, and good 
citizens to which citizens of this Nation should strive. I congratulate 
the leadership of Duke University for producing a basketball program 
that excels not only in athletic ability but as a role model for our 
youth and our Nation.
  It is very appropriate that before an education speech we should have 
the opportunity to meet these fine young men who set such a good 
example for kids across America.
  The majority of funds that are spent on education are controlled at 
the local level. Approximately 93 percent of the funding for elementary 
and secondary school education comes from the local school districts or 
the States.
  The Federal role in elementary and secondary school education is 
really quite narrow and is focused on two basic themes: One, making 
sure, for kids with special needs, special ed programs are funded; and 
two, making sure that children who come from low-income families have 
an equal opportunity to succeed as children who come from families who 
are better off.
  For the last 25 years, we have pursued both these goals: special 
education and the education of low-income children. Unfortunately, both 
of these Federal programs have fairly significant flaws.
  In the special education area, the Federal Government has failed to 
live up to the obligation of funding the full share of special 
education. Originally, the Federal Government said it would pick up 40 
percent of the cost of special education. Unfortunately, as of 4 years 
ago, the Federal Government was only picking up 6 percent of the cost.
  Due to a concerted effort by myself, quite honestly, and a number of 
others on our side of the aisle, the majority leader, chairman of the 
Appropriations subcommittee, Chairman Specter, and chairman of the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Chairman Jeffords, we 
took on the issue of funding special education. We have dramatically 
increased funding--2\1/2\ times. We are now up to funding, if we accept 
the President's budget, almost 20 percent of the needs of special 
education. In fact, President Bush has proposed the single largest 
increase in special education funding ever proposed by a President in 
the history of this country. At least we are trying to address that 
issue.
  The bill that will come to the floor later this week addresses the 
needs of kids from lower income families. In this area, regrettably, 
although the Federal Government has chosen to step on the ground in its 
responsibility, it has done a poor job of pursuing this responsibility.
  This program was begun 35 years ago. It is called title I. It helps 
kids with lower incomes get the same education as their peers. We have 
spent $120 billion on this program over its life. The vast majority of 
the spending has occurred since 1990. What have been the results? The 
results have been that the educational achievement of low-income kids 
has actually gone down or, at best, has remained stagnant. The average 
fourth grader today from a low-income family reads at two grade levels 
lower than his or her peers in that same classroom. The graduation 
rate, the dropout rate, and the level of academic ability of kids from 
low-income families in each grade level have been falling back. We have 
left a lot of children behind even though we spent $120 billion.
  We have proved unalterably that money cannot solve the problem. If it 
could solve the problem, it would have significantly improved or we 
could have at least seen a marginal improvement in academic 
achievement.
  The President of the United States, President Bush, came into office 
saying he would change this. He has put forward a series of proposals, 
the purpose of which is to fundamentally adjust the Federal role as we 
pursue the improvement of education of low-income kids. It has four 
basic themes:
  First, we will change the Federal role so we don't focus on the 
bureaucracy; we don't focus on the structure; we don't focus on the 
administration; rather, we focus on the child. That may seem logical. 
One may ask, aren't we already doing that? No, the money today does not 
flow to the child. The money flows to the school system and the 
bureaucracy. The President said let's look at the child and make our 
program child centered.
  The second thing stressed by this administration and by those on this 
side of the aisle is, let's give the local school districts, the 
parents, the teachers, and the principals, flexibility when they get 
Federal funds.
  Today and, unfortunately, for a number of years, the Federal 
Government, especially the Congress, has believed it knows best how to 
educate the child in Epping, NH, or Tuscaloosa, AL, or in Cheyenne, WY. 
Even though we have never met the children--at least I haven't met the 
ones in Cheyenne or Tuscaloosa--we know best how to educate them, so we 
have attached innumerable strings to the dollars we have sent out for 
the purpose of helping the low-income children get better educated. We 
have had program after program that has been categorical; it 
specifically says what the money should

[[Page 5979]]

be spent for, who gets it, when they get it, and where they get it.
  The amount of bureaucracy behind the Federal dollars is absolutely 
staggering. Some States spend almost two-thirds of their time complying 
with Federal regulations, which represents 7 percent of their actual 
spending. As a result, we have created a bureaucratic maze of 
disproportionate complexity. We have strings running out from the desks 
that intertwine, and we are pulling the strings as they attach to the 
people who try to teach the kids in the local school districts. The 
President has said: Let's cut the strings. We have said on this side: 
Let's cut those strings. Send the money back to the local school 
districts. Acknowledge the fact that parents, teachers, and principals 
have as much or more knowledge of how to educate the local child in 
their school system than we do. Let's give them credibility for being 
concerned about their kids--something this Congress over the years has 
not been willing to acknowledge. The money will come back in a flexible 
form. That is a proposal the President has suggested.
  The first proposal is that it be child centered. The second proposal 
is that the money be flexible.
  The third proposal is, in exchange for this new flexibility, in 
exchange for getting the money with very few strings attached, we are 
going to ask for one thing. We are going to ask that the children 
learn, that they have academic achievement levels which reach and 
exceed, hopefully, their peers, that low-income kids are not left 
behind in the academic world. That is what we will ask. Instead of 
controlling all the input and instead of controlling the way the money 
goes in and how it is spent, we will say, you can take the money, but 
in exchange for taking the money, you have to make sure the children 
learn; you have to make them academically capable of competing in the 
world so they have a prosperous life. Academic achievement is what we 
are going to request.
  The fourth item is an accountability system so we can be assured that 
there is academic achievement. We are no longer going to allow a system 
to take the low-income child, and especially the minority child, merge 
them with a peer group of children in the classroom, have the group 
achieve an average score that is acceptable, and say everybody in that 
classroom is learning. We know that by not doing it that way you end up 
with a lot of problems being masked by the majority. So we are going to 
require disaggregation. We are going to say for different ethnic 
groups, different racial groups, different income groups, explain 
whether or not those kids are learning, along with the whole group in 
the classroom.
  We are going to put in place a testing regime developed at the local 
level, designed at the local level, which simply says, OK, local school 
system, decide what a third grader should know, what a fifth grader 
should know, what a sixth grader should know. Once you decide what that 
third, fifth, or sixth grader should know in math or English, then make 
sure the kids actually know that. We are not going to tell them what 
they should know; we are not going to tell them what the standard 
should be. We are going to say, after you set the standards, we will 
expect all the kids in that classroom to achieve at the level that 
meets that standard.
  That is the system being proposed--four new proposals, four new 
concepts which merge together to, hopefully, create a system where no 
child will be left behind: One, that it is child centered; two, that 
there is flexibility; three, that there is academic achievement; and 
four, that there is accountability.
  As we move forward with the debate on this bill, there are going to 
be a lot of major issues as to how we accomplish those goals. The jury 
is still out. There are ways this bill could be amended on this floor 
which would make it hard for me to support, although it came out of the 
committee 20-0. But there is good intention, I believe. There is a 
desire to reach a bipartisan agreement and move it forward. That is 
reflected not only in the committee bill but in the fact that over the 
last month we have been negotiating, in a very conscientious effort, to 
reach agreement on some of the more difficult issues of policy and the 
most difficult issue of money.
  As we go forward in this debate, I hope we understand that we are not 
going to be able to change the educational system for everyone in this 
country. That is not our role. It is the local school district and the 
States that control local education, primarily. We do have an 
obligation to do a much better job for low-income kids. We have 
extended into this issue. We have spent $120 billion of American 
taxpayers' hard-earned income, and we have produced very weak results.
  It is time for a change. It is time to recognize that we need to take 
a different approach to help ensure that the low-income child is not 
left behind. So we have come up with some creative ideas, and we are 
going to try to pass them. We are going to try to pass them in a 
bipartisan way. Then we are going to hope they will be used in the 
system to produce a much better result for a large percentage of our 
students who, up until now, have been left behind.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from New Hampshire. Certainly no one in the Senate is more 
knowledgeable than he about the bill, about the funding, and about the 
opportunities we have to strengthen education in this country.
  This week, as was mentioned, we are going to take up, hopefully, 
commonsense reform. It means increasing accountability for student 
performance. It means supporting programs that work, reducing 
bureaucracy, increasing flexibility, and empowering parents. I think 
these are the goals we seek to attain. Certainly all of us have to 
establish goals, to establish where we want to be, and then, as the 
details come forth, see if indeed what we are proposing to do leads us 
towards the accomplishment of those goals. I think that is where we 
are.
  When we talk to people about the issues in Washington, certainly 
education is always at the top of the list. In general terms, I want to 
share a little bit of my view of what we ought to be talking about. It 
seems to me that America stands at the dawn of a new century, a shining 
moment of opportunity certainly for all of us, a moment of hope that 
our families can, more fully than in the past, achieve the American 
dream. We dream of peace and continued prosperity in a world where 
every nation looks to America for leadership. We are challenged to 
develop new technologies that will improve our lives and find medical 
breakthroughs to cure cancer and AIDS and Alzheimer's.
  If America is to fulfill its dreams in a new century, we cannot 
forget that tomorrow's leaders, tomorrow's Nobel prize winners, are 
sitting in the classroom today. We must ask ourselves, do we have a 
first-class public education system that teaches our children how to 
think and how to succeed in this century?
  Average is not good enough. That is why I am committed to helping 
parents, teachers, and local leaders build a foundation of excellence 
and opportunity for every child. That means making sure all children 
have the best teachers, can learn in safe schools, and they can learn 
right from wrong in addition to the ABCs.
  Fifty years ago, the principal obstacles to learning in schools were 
talking out of turn or chewing gum in class. Today--just turn on the 
news--it is violence; it is drug abuse; it is teenage pregnancy. Our 
test scores, as compared to those of children in other countries, are 
still too low. The achievement gap between poor and middle-income 
students is still too wide. Too many students do not read at their own 
grade level or meet minimum standards in math or science. Too many are 
unfairly promoted and fall further and further behind. Too many enter 
college unprepared and have to take remedial courses to improve their 
basic skills. That is wrong.

[[Page 5980]]

  It does not have to be that way. Republicans at every level--
Congress, governors, local officials--are committed to help children 
learn and to build better, safer schools for a new century.
  Education is first, last, and always, of course, about children. 
Success is defined by how much our children learn. We must make sure 
parents, teachers, and local leaders have the power to use Federal 
dollars as they are needed to meet our children's most important needs. 
Those closest to the classroom, of course, know better than bureaucrats 
in Washington what the students need, be it more teachers, math and 
reading tutors, better textbooks, or new classrooms and computers.
  I just returned from Wyoming and have been again reminded of the 
difference in the needs from Sundance, WY, to Pittsburgh, PA. We ought 
to have the flexibility to do what needs to be done in that community 
to make education the most effective. Who cares more about children's 
future, parents or bureaucrats? Our children's future should not be 
limited by what seems right in Washington, DC but what is wrong with 
the schools they attend.
  We are spending more money. Republicans are for spending more money 
on education than the President has requested. The issue, as pointed 
out by my friend from New Hampshire, is who sets the priorities. We are 
for more construction, putting more teachers in schools, putting more 
computers into schools, but we believe State and local administrators, 
working with parents, ought to decide on how to prioritize those issues 
based on their needs.
  The Senate will begin debate, probably tomorrow, on the Education 
Opportunities Act, a bill which returns more money, more power, and 
more flexibility to States and local officials so they can set the 
educational priorities that are right for their students.
  As you know, the vast majority of money for our schools comes from 
the State and local governments. The Federal Government provides only 
about 6 percent of all elementary and secondary education funds. Yet 
these Federal dollars require more paperwork and carry the most red 
tape.
  I hear about this often. My wife is a special education teacher in a 
public high school. Special ed teachers spend more time on forms than 
they really should have to, almost as much as they do dealing with 
kids. That is wrong. That ought to be changed.
  Washington has created a system that wastes about 35 cents out of 
every dollar in bureaucracy. That is money that never reaches the 
classroom. Recently in the newspapers we read about hundreds of 
millions of dollars that were unaccounted for, that didn't reach the 
classroom to help kids. Congress needs to work to make sure the Federal 
dollars actually get where they can be spent and where they can be 
effective, with the fewest possible strings attached.
  We need more innovators and fewer bureaucrats. Stop and think back to 
your own education. Each of us can remember at least one teacher who 
made a positive difference in our lives, a positive impact. Why should 
such great teachers be rare?
  Our children deserve the best teachers, teachers who are qualified, 
teachers who are experts in the subjects they teach. Local officials 
should be able to set high teacher standards and reward the best 
teachers with more pay.
  I want not only the best teachers but also the best schools. I am 
sure you do as well. To achieve that goal we must hold schools and 
school districts accountable. Unfortunately, reports show the schools 
in the District are not what we would like them to be. Madam President, 
75 percent of fourth graders can barely read. Only 5 percent of eighth 
graders do eighth grade work in math and science. Forty percent of all 
high school students drop out before they graduate. That is not good. 
That is not good at all.
  Just this year, the superintendent announced there were 70,762 
students in the District--the first time, apparently, they have known 
the total. We need to change that.
  No child should be trapped in an education system that is unworkable. 
Parents have the right to choose the best public school for their 
child. Students should have the opportunity for scholarships that allow 
them to escape failing schools. Schools that fail year after year and 
refuse to change must be overhauled from top to bottom. Administrators 
should be changed and new teachers should be hired. It is wrong to do 
anything less.
  We must, of course, do more to make sure our schools do not fail a 
different kind of test--providing for a safe learning environment. We 
should empower teachers and principals to remove dangerous students 
from the classroom. They cannot be allowed to keep other children from 
learning. Local officials must have the power to put troubled students 
in special classrooms where they can get the attention they need when 
they need it. None of us want any child to fall through the cracks.
  We must demand that our schools be safe and drug free. For those 
young people who refuse to change or endanger the lives of their 
classmates or teachers, we need to get tough. If they refuse to change, 
they must be punished. If they can only learn one lesson, it must be 
that society's laws mean something.
  It is a Federal crime to bring a gun to school. In 1998, more than 
6,000 students were expelled for bringing firearms to school, but the 
Clinton-Gore administration only prosecuted 8 students--8. What kind of 
signal does that send?
  We should not tolerate one more school shooting. When our society 
gets used to it, our society is finished. We all had an exposure to 
this just last week with the anniversary of Columbine, and it affected 
all our schools and affected the kids who were there.
  Certainly there is one more thing that ought to be mentioned--it is 
probably the most important factor in determining a child's success in 
school--and that is parents. We are the child's first and most 
important teachers. The most difficult truth is that the reason our 
schools are failing, sometimes, is because a lot of families are 
failing to do their part. Teachers are there to teach. They are not 
there to raise our children. We cannot expect them to be the best 
teachers they can be unless they have the support of mom and dad.
  Nothing is more important to us than education. It is hard to 
determine sometimes--and we will argue about it at great length--the 
role of the Federal Government vis-a-vis State and local. We will talk 
about where money ought to go and what ought to be required in terms of 
accountability. Indeed, we should. But to really know, we should pause 
for a while and ask: What do we want the outcome to be? What is it that 
we visualize for ourselves and our family and our community? What do we 
think education ought to be?
  We have a responsibility as parents particularly in terms of 
determining how that can be accomplished. The role I think for the 
Federal Government is to help provide some additional funding--be it a 
relatively small percentage. I think it is important we have some kind 
of testing that is common throughout the country as most of our kids 
move around when they graduate from college or high school. We need to 
ensure our schools in Casper, WY, are preparing students as well as 
they are in Denver or Los Angeles. That is part of today's world.
  I think we have a great opportunity now for better education, and one 
of which I hope we will certainly take full advantage. As I mentioned 
before, the Republican plan puts more money in education than the 
President asked for. But money alone does not provide a good education. 
I don't think you can have good education without it, but there are 
other requirements as well.
  You have to have some accountability and much more.
  I am delighted and excited about the opportunity to deal with this 
bill, S. 1. Why? Because it was considered to be the most important 
issue before the Congress. This was the issue that the President talked 
more about than any other and it is the issue that has more to do with 
the future of this country. The people run the Government. The people 
must be prepared to do that as

[[Page 5981]]

well as being successful in a free country and a free market.
  Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is good to be back in the Chamber. I 
don't think we are going to take all of the 4 hours, from what I 
understand, unless somebody wants to join us. I have two unanimous 
consent requests, both of which the Senator from North Dakota is aware, 
and then I will proceed with a few remarks. It won't be much. Then I 
will yield, unless he prompts me to give a 2-hour speech, and we will 
be out.

                          ____________________