[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6682-6692]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume postcloture consideration of the motion to 
proceed to S. 1.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to have the opportunity to 
discuss the education bill for 10 minutes, please.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming is so 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we come to the floor again today to 
consider education. I think, unfortunately, we are still talking about 
the postcloture motion and have not yet had the opportunity actually to 
move to the bill. We are hopeful there will be some decisions made in 
the next hour, hour and a half, so that we can come to the bill.
  Clearly, there will be differences of our views with respect to this 
legislation. That is not a new idea. But we need to get on with it. We 
need to come to this Chamber and begin to make our arguments and, where 
there are differences of opinion, have amendments and move forward with 
them.
  I think most people agree that one of the major issues before us is 
education. Certainly there are different views as to what the role of 
the Federal Government is with regard to elementary and secondary 
education. There are different views as to how much involvement the 
Federal Government ought to have with respect to financing elementary 
and secondary education.
  I think most of us believe that is a primary function of the State 
and local governments, and has been traditionally over time, and I 
believe for good reason. No. 1, we want the control largely to remain 
there; indeed, it should remain there.
  With respect to money, even though, obviously, it is very important, 
money is not the only salvation for education. There needs to be policy 
changes. There needs to be more accountability, measurement of 
progress. Money alone--and we talked about this when I was in the 
Wyoming legislature--we know that money alone is not the only 
salvation, that there need to also be these other principles. But 
without money, of course, those things cannot be accomplished.
  Since 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress as the majority, 
there has been a 50-percent increase in funding for education. We will 
hear about how the Republicans are reluctant to fund education 
properly. The fact is, this Republican Congress has funded it at a much 
higher rate than was done previously by the Democrats or, indeed, even 
suggested under the Clinton administration. It still is an issue, but 
the idea that Republicans have not been generous with money is just 
simply not factual.
  There are other issues, however, that are really key to what we want 
to do with S. 1. First, it is symbolic that it is S. 1. That indicates 
that as we came into this Congress, education was our highest priority. 
So there we are.
  There are a number of things that are very important. One is 
accountability. Title I of this bill indicates that when schools fail 
to adequately have progress, they will receive technical assistance 
from the Federal Government. In order to make sure there is progress, 
of course, there has to be some testing.
  Clearly, there are different views about testing: Whether it ought to 
be mandated, whether it ought to be done only by the State's decision. 
I happen to believe the States ought to be the ones to decide how it is 
done. But there needs to be testing if you are going to have Federal 
funding. If you are going to have the kind of mobility we have

[[Page 6683]]

where young people are going to school in Utah and end up working in 
New York, there needs to be some measure of whether or not those 
educational opportunities are going to be similar so that you can deal 
with the mobility we all have.
  So under this title, there would be technical assistance available 
for schools where the progress was not up to the average and certainly 
not making advancement. If the school failed to have adequate progress 
in the second year, it would be placed in another category of 
corrective action. Students in that school then would begin to be able 
to transfer to other public schools.
  This is one of the things where you measure performance and then give 
some kind of relief when, in fact, performance is not being exhibited. 
This does not, at the present time, include the private school options. 
Some argue, of course, that there ought to be vouchers for private 
schools. Again, there is a very legitimate difference of view as to 
that issue. I am sure it will be discussed at some point during the 
consideration of this bill.
  Accountability: Schools in a corrective action category that fail to 
make progress over 3 years would be required to do something 
different--to change staff, to close the school, to do something that 
would show that progress needs to be made.
  We mentioned public school choice. That is there. We happen to have 
some experience in my hometown of Casper, WY, where they have started a 
number of charter schools. Casper, by the way, is not a big city--about 
50,000 people. It is our second largest city in Wyoming. They have 
charter schools so there are some choices within the public school 
system so that parents can participate. In this bill there are 
opportunities for assistance in transportation for students of that 
kind and also some opportunities for low production schools for people 
to be able to use some of the Federal money for that.
  The key to education, most everyone would agree, is teachers, quality 
teachers. We have excellent teachers generally, and teachers try very 
hard to do their things. I admire teachers very much, particularly 
since my wife is one in a public high school. On the other hand, we are 
going to find a time soon when there will be lots of teachers retiring 
and running into that, whatever profession it is, whether it is nurses 
or teachers. We are going to need a great number of new teachers, and 
there needs to be incentives for teachers to be trained. There needs to 
be some opportunities for teachers to have continuing education 
certainly and to do some things, to do some things particularly in 
specifics. If they are teaching math, if they are teaching science, 
there ought to be people who have really good backgrounds in that.
  The technology, of course, is one of the things for which we will be 
searching--opportunities to do that.
  Here we are, talking about accountability. We are talking about 
improving teaching opportunities, improving the skills of teachers so 
they can be, indeed, more effective in the teaching they do.
  One of the areas, of course, is going to be flexibility. This is 
always a controversial thing with Federal money. With Federal money, do 
there have to be regulations that go with it to use it this way or the 
highway? No, it doesn't need to be that way. It can be much more 
flexible. I suppose in many things, but in education there is such a 
difference between the needs in small towns of Wyoming or Utah as 
opposed to downtown New York or Philadelphia. In many of the schools, 
that is one of the controversies we have had over time. With Federal 
money, according to the last administration, you had to use it for 
smaller class size. That is the only thing you can use it for, or you 
use it for construction of school buildings, and that is all you can 
use it for. Both of those, of course, are very important issues, but in 
different school districts those things are quite different.
  I can take you to some schools in Wyoming where class size is not the 
issue. I went to a one-room school in Wapiti, WY. Class size wasn't the 
problem. Other things--technology, for example, access to the Internet, 
doing the kinds of technological things that may be in a particular 
school--are much more important. So this idea is to have some 
flexibility and to allow local school districts and the States to have, 
of course, the decisionmaking, along with the accountability. We can't 
just expect to send taxpayers' money out from the Federal level and 
say: Do whatever you want; we don't care what happens to it. That is 
not the point. The point is, use it for what you want with some 
accountability.
  Other provisions: Of course, there are going to be reading 
initiatives. Most of us do believe that the ability to read, and read 
early, is certainly the first prerequisite to becoming successful in 
education. Bilingual education, of course, is one of the real keys to 
many of the students who have difficulty in meeting standards, and so 
is literacy in English. So there are going to be a number of these 
things.
  School safety: Obviously, we have had lots of bad experiences in the 
last several years in terms of school safety. The Columbine incident 
sort of remolded our ideas about what we do there in terms of drug 
prevention and in terms of other kinds of safety. That will also be 
dealt with in this bill. So there are just really lots of things that 
are very helpful and things on which we need to move forward.
  I am afraid we are going to find ourselves, before this week is over, 
dealing with the budget. I believe there is going to be some agreement 
there. So we continue to put off this very important issue, and we need 
to move forward with it.
  I mentioned the expenditures. I wish I had some of those charts here. 
It is really interesting, as you look at a chart on expenditures versus 
reading scores that we have now, that expenditures go up fairly 
dramatically, up to about an $8,500 per pupil expenditure in this 
country. But 12th grade reading, 8th grade reading, 4th grade reading 
stay very constant and, indeed, edge down a little bit in the 4th grade 
category.
  So again, as we said, money is not the only element. Indeed, it may 
not be the most important element in terms of turning around where we 
are with respect to making improvements in our educational direction.
  So these are the things we have talked about; these are the things 
that are before us. I don't find it particularly new that we have 
different views on how to do this. That is what this Senate is all 
about--to bring together different views, to bring together different 
representations of the needs of our individual constituencies, and yet 
to blend them in with the overall need for the national values of 
education and what our role is in causing those things to be even 
better.
  This morning we will be talking in fairly general terms about the 
generalities that are in this bill, which has received a great deal of 
attention and effort. It is a good one. It is generally supported, of 
course, by the administration, by the President who, by the way, had 
education as his No. 1 issue in his campaign. I have been very proud of 
the President, as a matter of fact, as someone who went out and talked 
about issues, put priorities on issues in his campaign, laid them 
before the people before the election, and now is committed to doing 
things he said he was going to do. That is as it should be.
  I hope we are able to move forward and have an opportunity to debate 
these things and come to a favorable conclusion.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
Senator from Washington, the Senator from Idaho be able to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as the Senate gets ready to update our 
Nation's Federal education policy, I want

[[Page 6684]]

to talk this morning about the importance of the education debate, some 
of the issues that we all agree on, the principles that guide my 
decision, and a few concerns I have as we look at this bill coming 
before us.
  Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has defined 
how the Federal Government helps students across the country. In 
America, we believe that no matter where you are born, no matter who 
you are or where you come from, and no matter whether your parents are 
rich or poor, every child deserves an equal chance to succeed.
  This law, the ESEA, puts that principle into practice. Forty years 
ago, many students did not get the help that they needed. Many lived in 
poor or rural areas that didn't have the tax base to support them. Many 
were discriminated against and many were left behind because they had 
special needs.
  In 1965, Congress passed the historic Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act to fix those problems, providing a safety net for 
disadvantaged students, a stepping stone to help all students succeed, 
and a way to help us meet our education goals.
  During the Cold War, ESEA helped us focus on building skills in math 
and science. Today, with our high-tech economy, ESEA is helping 
students learn to use technology. As we update this law, we are not 
just changing letters on a page; we are changing the law that helps 
make our schools more equal, more fair, and more successful for 
students across the country. I take this responsibility very seriously.
  The Senate may only debate education for a few weeks, but what we 
decide will be felt in classrooms across the country for a decade or 
more. So let's make sure we do this right.
  As we begin this debate, there are some things about which all of us 
agree. We all agree that we want every child to reach his or her full 
potential. We all agree that taxpayer dollars should be used for 
efforts that we know work. We all agree that we can make a difference 
at the Federal level with what we do. Otherwise, this debate would not 
be so heated. We know that Federal support is an important part of 
every child's education.
  Finally, we all want to be proud of America's schools. Today, there 
is a lot to be proud of. Every day, we hear stories about the progress 
kids are making. Every day, we talk to leaders who were inspired by 
teachers in our public schools--teachers who helped them succeed. I 
know I would not be here today without great public school teachers.
  The truth is, we have made a lot of progress as a country in 
improving education. This is an opportunity to build on that progress. 
I have been in classrooms where teachers are excited and where the 
kids' eyes are bright and their minds are eager to learn.
  In Washington State, our teachers, parents, educators, and businesses 
have put together annual assessments that are changing the way we think 
about education and expanding our possibilities. We are working on this 
bill because we know that States and local school districts want a 
Federal partner, and we are excited because we know that being a 
responsible partner can help make sure great things happen in every 
school.
  Because we will be talking about a lot of different issues, I want to 
outline some of the principles I have developed to make sure we are 
doing what is right for our students.
  First of all, we have to invest in the methods we know work. I have 
been saying this for years. It is critical as we update our Nation's 
education policy.
  Second, we have to protect disadvantaged students and make sure they 
get the extra help and support they need.
  Third, we have to make sure that public taxpayer dollars stay in 
public schools.
  Fourth, we have to help meet the national education goals we are 
committed to, whether it is making sure that every child can read, 
making sure every child gets the skills they need for tomorrow's 
workforce, or making sure every child attends a school where they are 
safe.
  Finally, we have to set high standards and provide the resources so 
all students can meet them.
  Those are my five principles as we begin this debate on education 
policy.
  Next, I want to outline some of the concerns I have at the start of 
this debate. First of all, so far, I do not see a commitment from this 
administration to provide the resources so all students can reach high 
standards. We can't just tell students they have to meet certain goals 
without giving them the support they need to get there. Just telling 
students they have to pass a test or their school will be reconstituted 
won't help a single student to learn to read or write.
  So far, this administration has been very vocal about saying it will 
punish schools that don't improve. But it has been way too quiet on how 
they will provide the resources so students can improve. Imposing tests 
and punishments without resources will not help students to learn. It 
will just punish them.
  I have a second concern, and this is about the President's testing 
plan. As we all know there is a lot of discussion about testing and 
whether or not it works. That is a debate we ought to have and I expect 
we will. But one thing is clear: We cannot require States to conduct 
these expensive tests on a yearly basis without also giving the States 
the resources to do what we are requiring.
  As a former school board member and a State senator, I can tell you 
what will happen. President Bush will send an unfunded mandate to the 
States requiring them to test students every year. The States and the 
districts and the schools will have to take money--some estimate the 
cost at $7 billion--away from things such as hiring teachers and 
developing curriculums to pay for the tests. That is going to end up 
hurting students.
  If President Bush doesn't pay for the tests he is imposing, students 
will get hurt. I know a lot of my friends on the Republican side are 
very concerned about unfunded mandates from the Federal Government to 
the States, so I hope they will follow through by ensuring that we fund 
the tests that we are demanding.
  There is another important question related to these new Federal 
tests. How are we going to use the results of these tests? If we use 
test results to punish, we are not helping students. We should use 
those test results for what they are--a tool--to show us what areas 
need improvement. And we cannot stop there. We need to invest in the 
areas that need improvement. That is the right way to use tests: to 
make schools better and to allow students to learn.
  Finally, as I look at this proposed bill, I see gaping holes. The 
bill leaves out dedicated funding for class size reduction, for school 
construction, for teacher recruitment, and for school libraries. We 
know these efforts have made a very positive difference for students 
across this country.
  Amendments are going to be offered, as we work our way through this 
bill, to make sure it funds those important efforts. I plan to 
introduce one myself on class size. I look forward to supporting a 
number of the others.
  So as the Senate gets ready to begin this very important debate, I 
hope we will all remember that what we do here will have a real impact 
on students for years to come. We have an opportunity to bring success 
to every student across the country, to support the efforts that are 
working, and to continue our role as an important partner in 
educational excellence.
  Students, parents, and teachers are looking for support and for 
leadership, and I am going to do everything I can to make sure we 
provide it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as you know and certainly now as our 
country knows, for this week and until we have

[[Page 6685]]

concluded, we are focused on the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act and the important role it plays in the future 
education of our young people.
  By overwhelming majorities, Americans have said time and again that 
they want education in this Nation improved. We cannot improve 
education by merely throwing money at the problem. We have tried that 
for a long time. Yet the performance of our young people against the 
performance of other young people around the world simply does not rate 
as it should.
  Our educational system does not need money alone, and that is why we 
have spent the last several years looking at the concepts that fall 
together to create a dynamic education program of the kind that is so 
important for the future of our country and our country's young people.
  Increased funding alone, as I have mentioned, will not help. Do we 
need money? Of course we do, and with this bill, there is a substantial 
amount of more money authorized. What we really need to look at is the 
tremendous bureaucracy of education that has grown up over the years in 
the public systems in our country and does that, in fact, function in 
the dynamic ways that are necessary to stay on the edge of educating in 
a contemporary society. At the same time, we need to deal with all 
young people and all levels of learning that are so necessary to have a 
thorough and responsible system.
  Our President has said time and again over the course of the last 
year that he wants to leave no child behind. Neither do we. The 
combination of our work, with the leadership of this new President, I 
believe, can accomplish what Americans have been asking for a long 
time.
  We have underperforming schools, and when we have underperforming 
schools we have children who have not been provided the opportunity to 
advance as rapidly as they are capable of doing.
  Clearly, if schools are underperforming, then children are 
underperforming. And if they are not able to compete, then the 
likelihood is they run the risk of underperforming for the remainder of 
their lives.
  With the reauthorization of this act and its modernization, we are 
creating levels of accountability that can become the cornerstone of 
the advancement of the quality of education in our country, the kind of 
accountability that will bring constant reform to the educational 
system.
  Key to accountability is the commonsense notion that we should not 
allow Federal dollars to follow failure, but clearly we have. If we 
used the concept that the current system needed more money and the 
current system, in some instances, is failing, that is exactly what has 
been going on. We were financing failure without any level of 
measurement that would determine what that failure was and how it could 
be replaced.
  Accountability is, without question, going to be the greatest key 
factor in what we do with the reauthorization and the modernization of 
this act: accountability in the schools and allowing the parents an 
element of measurement, working to improve those schools that are 
underperformers, but at some point if the system does not respond, 
giving the parents the flexibility to move that child elsewhere. 
Empowering parents and children in the educational system will, by its 
very character, push it toward reform.
  It is that kind of dynamic we must demand of our public education 
system in this country. To strengthen, to assure that a free society 
always has access to a public learning system has been the strength of 
our country historically and can continue to be our strength. As we 
work in this area of education and work to reauthorize this 
legislation, that is clearly part of the goal toward passage of this 
act.
  I am pleased to be a part of it. I will come back to the Chamber over 
the course of the next several weeks as we debate this issue to 
participate with my colleagues in explaining to the American people 
what we are attempting to do, what role the Federal Government can play 
with the States and local communities.
  I and others believe that the bulk of the educational responsibility 
does reside with the State and the local communities. The funding, the 
tax base, the local school districts, the parents--that is where the 
greatest responsibility lies. With help, we set standards that are 
flexible, that fit States, that States can participate in, so it is not 
one Federal-size-fits-all, but there are levels of measurement, and 
most assuredly there are levels of acceptance.
  How do you determine an underperforming school? Clearly, that is 
determined by the child in that school who isn't performing at the 
required level.
  All of these are components of what we work to accomplish in the 
reauthorization of this most important public law for our country. I am 
pleased to be part of it, involved with it, to work with my colleagues 
who spend most of their time in this area and understand it a great 
deal better than I. I am pleased the Senate is now focused on what 
really is one of the most important issues we will deal with this year. 
I am proud to have a President who has made education a priority and 
who has said and now is backing up not only in words but actions that 
in his tenure as President of our country no child will be left behind.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. Mr. President, we had an hour of postcloture debate. That 
time has expired. I ask unanimous consent that the next hour be equally 
divided and the time be counted under the provision of rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are efforts being made to come to 
some agreement to bring to the floor. I thank the Chair. 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. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, we opened up the debate on education. And, 
of course, they tell us that we have an agreement in principle. So at 
this point, for all who believe that it is good for kids, let's go on 
and do it. We are hearing a lot of words with regard to policy and 
money, and basically money will not be a part of this debate and should 
not be a part of this debate. There is a good reason for that.
  We hear stories--some of them are not too good--about the condition 
of some of our schools. There is no doubt about it; we see some schools 
in very poor condition.
  I represent the State of Montana. Some of its schools are on our 
Indian reservations, and some of our Native Americans are under crowded 
conditions. In fact, there are a couple of schools that we are going to 
replace to help them get into new facilities next year; now young 
people are going to class in the janitor's closet.
  Then we like to compare the good old days of our education. Sometimes 
I hear it said, in fact, that it is a wonder we as a nation have 
accomplished what we have because of our educational system. I don't 
want to talk about that. We should be talking about the successes of 
our system and the successes of yesteryear in education.
  I went to a rural school. It was a country school with one room. I 
think it ranged in size anywhere from 18 to 25 or 26 kids. The eighth 
graders taught the first graders how to read. We only had one teacher.
  All of us could tell stories like that about our life as a young 
person in a rural setting. We could talk about that. We could also say 
how we graduated from a smaller high school. There were only 29 
students in my

[[Page 6686]]

graduating class. We could talk about all the things we missed in our 
education, but we don't. We like to talk about our accomplishments.
  When we hear the debate in this Chamber, do we, as policymakers, have 
all of the answers to the challenges of public education and what it 
faces today? No, I do not think we do. We might think we do. We need to 
face the fact that we now come to a subject where success will be based 
on how we make choices. That is the basis for the debate.
  The Founding Fathers of this country placed a high priority on public 
education. They did it for a simple reason. We cannot be a free society 
and understand the Constitution unless we do it with educated minds.
  It is remarkable when you look at the documentation of the two great 
wars fought on this continent, in our country. If you look at the 
Revolutionary War, very small snippets of history are found in our 
history books because most of the people who participated in the 
Revolutionary War at ground level were illiterate. They could not read 
and they could not write.
  Then almost 100 years later--not quite, about 90--we had the Civil 
War, of which we find documentation and letters that soldiers wrote 
home to their folks and to their loved ones, to their mothers and to 
their brothers and sisters, to their families and their friends. From 
those letters we piece together a complete history of the Civil War of 
this country. The Founding Fathers said that public education is a 
must. We have to have a high degree of literacy in this country if we 
are to maintain a free and responsible society.
  Ever since those days, we have seen strong public support for public 
education. In fact, there has been overall support for a strong public 
school system throughout my life--until, I would say, maybe the last 10 
years.
  What happened along the way? And I say the only way we make a good, 
sound argument is when we relate to how things are in our own 
neighborhood. There was a time when you could pass a school bond, and 
it was nothing to it. If you needed more money for buildings--brick and 
mortar--if you needed more teachers, if you needed more money to run 
the school, a school bond was fairly easy to pass because everybody 
supported the local schools and what they were doing.
  I look at my own neighborhood and the support of the teachers and the 
schools. It is still there. But there is something missing because we 
have now experienced a history over the last few years of school bonds 
going down, voted down, to where it takes a real effort--a real public 
relations effort--to pass just an ordinary school bond.
  There is a given in this debate: Anytime education comes before this 
body, it is sure to attract a great deal of attention. I do not know of 
a soul in the public sector or in this Chamber who does not have an 
opinion on education, and they will readily give it to you.
  I have also found some other things to be true. Everybody knows how 
to run a school. That is another given. But I also have found that very 
few look at the record and can think their way through the idea that we 
have arrived at a time in the history of the evolution of public 
education and realize that systemic reform is now needed.
  I am no different than most in this body. One could say: My schooling 
was sufficient for me; therefore, it would be good enough for our 
children. But we know that is not true. If we did that, then we would 
be stuck in low gear.
  We have to look at this. Again, we should not be talking money. We 
should be talking accountability. If we are to have great support for 
public education, we have to have accountability. Everybody understands 
that.
  Accountability means testing. It means the product that you are 
producing has to be a good one. Testing is the only way to do that. You 
can have a big argument about who is going to give the test and all 
that. I still say it should be left to the States. Testing also gives 
us, and public educators, the information needed to develop the sound 
support that public education should have.
  We should be supporting the programs that work, reduce the 
bureaucracy, and give increased flexibility to those who run our 
schools.
  I leave you with a closing thought. Money is not the answer. You will 
see many charts throughout the debate. As this chart shows, we have 
increased spending in education drastically. Look at the blue line on 
the chart. It goes right on up. That shows how we have increased 
spending on education. But look where the achievement line is on the 
chart. Have we improved reading and math? No. So money is not the 
answer. Systemic reform is what is needed.
  I am looking forward to the debate. But I think we have to use some 
common sense because what we need to do now is restore the 
accountability in and the support for our public education system 
because it is the cornerstone of this free society.
  Do not test the young people for reading. Do not test them for math. 
Test them on history because, I will tell you, that is where the seed 
of freedom remains in a society to be perpetuated for future 
generations.
  Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remaining time under my control be yielded to the Senator from 
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask the Senator from Texas to yield me such time as I 
may consume.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time on 
the Republican side to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve and a half minutes is yielded to the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Texas.
  I congratulate the Senator from Montana for his excellent statement 
on how we should approach educational reform--especially on his 
emphasis for the need for reform, not the need to put more dollars into 
education to follow dollars that have already failed in helping our 
children receive a good education.
  I want to continue this discussion on education which was started so 
effectively by the Senator from Montana. I want to review very quickly 
where we are.
  The President of the United States has made education his No. 1 
priority. The Senate has aggressively pursued trying to address the 
issues which the President has raised. Specifically, we have tried to 
adjust, with the bill that is before us today, the role of the Federal 
Government in education.
  The Federal Government has traditionally taken small parts of 
education and focused on them--whether it is the needs of special 
students or, in the case of this bill, the needs of students who come 
from lower income families. We have, as was pointed out so effectively 
by the Senator from Montana, not been very successful in our goal.
  Our goal was to increase the educational capacity and achievement of 
kids from low-income families. We have spent $120 billion trying to do 
that, and in fact during the decade of the 1990s we spent the majority 
of that money. Yet the educational scores and educational proficiency 
of kids from low-income families have actually deteriorated, according 
to the reviews that have looked at it, or remained the same, at best.
  Unfortunately, the child who comes from a low-income family today 
reads at two grade levels below the children from other families in the 
same classroom in the fourth grade. That is true right through the 
school system. That is true of math also. It is also true of the 
graduation rates where there has been a distinct dropoff in graduation 
rates of kids who come from low-income families and in their 
proficiency upon graduation. So we have not succeeded in addressing the 
needs of kids from low-income families even though we have spent a huge 
amount of money.
  The President has suggested: Let's stop throwing money at the 
problem. Although he is significantly increasing

[[Page 6687]]

the funds, he is suggesting: Let's first look at reforming the issue so 
we actually give these kids from lower income families more of a chance 
in America to be academically competitive with their peers and, 
therefore, to have the opportunity of the American dream. The American 
dream today depends on being educated and being able to compete in a 
technological society.
  He has suggested four basic themes: First, that we change the Federal 
programs from being focused on bureaucracy to being focused on the 
children. It is called the child-centered approach: Second is that we 
give local teachers and parents and principals more flexibility, which 
is absolutely critical as to how they educate the child, especially the 
child from low-income family. They know what they need. We here in 
Washington don't know what they need. We can't categorize programs so 
that we are going to help a child. It is much more important that we 
give the principal and the teacher and the parent more capacity to 
control these dollars and have some decision processes which will lead 
to better education. So he has suggested more flexibility.
  Third, however, in exchange for the flexibility, the President has 
said he expects and we should expect academic achievement. That means 
bringing the child up to the level of being competitive with their 
peers; in fact, doing even better than their peers in some programs. 
And fourth, the President has suggested that the academic achievement 
level be made accountable; in other words, that we not allow the low-
income child to be left behind because we norm them in with every other 
child. We basically put them in with the law of averages, and by 
putting them there, we actually ignore them and lose them in the 
process.
  His proposals make a great deal of sense as to fundamentally 
reforming the system, giving the system more flexibility, making it 
more child centered, expecting more academic accountability, and 
getting accountability of what is happening in our system in exchange 
for more money. These are positive steps, and that is positive reform. 
It is reflected in the bill that underlies this legislation and 
hopefully will be reflected in an agreement we can work out and we are 
attempting to work out with the Senator from Massachusetts who I see 
just came to the Chamber. He has been such a major player in this issue 
for so many years.
  I have been picking out certain sections of this bill to talk about 
to try to give people some exposure they might not have otherwise 
gotten because the bill is so big and complex. There are a lot of 
interesting issues in it. I am trying to focus on them in sequence just 
for the edification of my colleagues. Let me focus on one function 
today, and that is what we do relative to teachers, how we try to 
assist teachers.
  There has been a debate raging in the Congress for the last few years 
which was energized, in great part, by President Clinton's initiative 
called classroom size. Essentially his proposal was: Let's put a lot of 
money out there to try to help schools hire more teachers because we 
know there is a teacher shortage. That is a given. There is a huge 
shortage in this country. His proposal was: Let's create a categorical 
program which says, here is a bunch of money, $1.4 billion; you can use 
that, school systems, to hire more teachers and to try to reduce class 
size down to a ratio of 18 to 1.
  This was an interesting proposal, and it was in some ways 
appropriate, but unfortunately the execution of it was not effective.
  We have in this bill tried to reform that proposal and make it more 
effective. First, you should understand that teacher ratio is not 
necessarily the function of a better education. Much like putting more 
money into the problem, reducing the number of kids in a classroom does 
not necessarily improve education. If you put fewer kids in a classroom 
with a teacher who is incompetent, the kids still aren't going to learn 
any better. The competency of the teacher, the teacher's ability to 
actually teach and to be an exciting teacher who excites the minds and 
interests of the children with whom they are dealing, is the key 
category as to a teacher's capacity to improve that classroom.
  That requires teachers who are well informed, teachers who understand 
and are teaching subject matters in which they have been trained, 
teachers who are up to date with the latest technology, if they happen 
to be in the science area, and the latest developments in the 
disciplines in which they are teaching, teachers who have had the 
chance to maybe go to an extra course or an extra workshop to learn to 
teach better. We in Washington cannot unilaterally decide whether a 
teacher in Epping, NH, or Cheyenne, WY, or San Francisco, CA, is going 
to be a good teacher or a bad teacher. We can't even decide whether the 
classroom size in that community is the right ratio.
  It should be noted that the vast majority of the States in the 
country already have a classroom ratio which is below 18 to 1. I 
believe 41 States already have met that ratio. But that really isn't 
the issue. It really is the local school district, the principal 
specifically, working with parents, working with the teachers in the 
class, who can understand whether they need more teachers to teach or 
whether they need their teachers who are teaching to be better educated 
on the subject matter, or whether they have some really good teachers 
in their classrooms who are being attracted to work outside the school 
system and they are afraid they are going to lose them because they 
can't pay them enough, or whether those teachers need technical 
assistance in order to communicate better to their students. We don't 
know that. We don't know any of those factors.
  Unfortunately, the original program, as has been put forward and may 
be put forward as an amendment on the floor, was, we are going to tell 
local school districts: You must, in order to get these dollars, hire 
more teachers.
  There are a lot of school districts in the country that don't need 
more teachers, but they do need the teachers they have to be better 
educated. They need to be able to retain the good teachers they have or 
they need more technology for those teachers.
  What we have done in this bill is something called the Teacher 
Empowerment Act. We have merged the two major funding streams for 
teaching--Eisenhower grants and classroom size grants--and we have 
said: Here is a large pool of money. Last year it would have been $2.3 
billion appropriated and $3.2 billion authorized. We have merged those 
two streams of money, and we are saying to local school districts: You 
can use this money to hire more teachers. If you have a classroom size 
issue, if you have a teacher need, you can use this money to hire 
teachers. But you don't have to hire teachers. You can also use this 
money to pay your good teachers more, or you can use this money to 
bring your teachers up to speed in the disciplines in which they are 
teaching, or you can use this money to give them the technical support 
they need in order to teach their courses better.
  We are giving the local school districts a great deal more 
flexibility with these funds. We are actually giving them a lot more 
funds, but we are also giving them more flexibility. Rather than a 
specific top-down, Washington-knows-best approach, we are essentially 
saying: You, the local school districts, make the decisions as to what 
you need in the teaching area. These funds are dedicated to help you as 
a supplement, essentially, to your local efforts in teaching. And as a 
result, hopefully, the teaching in that school district will better 
serve the students in that school district.
  I pick out this part of the bill to talk about because I think it 
reflects the overall thrust of this bill, which I believe is so 
positive in many ways. I have reservations about certain sections of 
the bill, but the overall thrust of the bill is in the right direction. 
This section on teaching reflects that.
  This Teacher Empowerment Act is essentially saying: OK, local school 
districts, we understand you have a problem. We are going to try to 
help you with some dollars, but we are not going to tell you that you 
must do it one way or the other. We are going to give you

[[Page 6688]]

a variety of options to solve the problems.
  I view it as a cafeteria line, where the Federal Government says here 
are three or four different programs you can use. In the teacher areas, 
they include hiring more teachers, improving the pay of the teachers, 
improving the knowledge base of the teachers, or improving the 
technical support for the teachers; and, you, the local school 
district, can go down that cafeteria line and pick off the plate what 
you need to help your students in your classrooms. Rather than saying 
you only get one choice on your cafeteria line, we are saying you get 
four choices.
  I think it is much more constructive. I think we will have a much 
more aggressive and effective impact on the quality of teaching--to the 
extent the Federal Government can assist in that.
  It is basically the theme of this whole bill--at least of the 
President's proposals as they have come forward on the bill--to give 
the local communities more flexibility. Let's also hold them more 
accountable. There are, by the way, more accountability standards in 
this bill on teachers. We require higher levels of proficiency and of 
certification within the bill. So this is just one concept that I 
thought should be outlined as we go forward.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 29 minutes.
  The Senator from Massachusetts has 20 minutes of his time under 
postcloture remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. So is it possible for me to use that 20 minutes and then 
use a few minutes of the minority time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would have to get unanimous 
consent to do so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to be able to use up to 9 
minutes, which would be the total amount allocated to the Democrats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. No. Mr. President, the Senator very kindly gave his 
time last night to the Senator from Vermont. So I ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to use the 29 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I request just 15 minutes.
  I thank the Senator from Texas. She is always gracious and courteous, 
as well as a gifted Senator.
  I want to just take a few moments to go over the basic elements of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education legislation that will be before 
us this afternoon and then speak on what I consider to be the 
outstanding missing element in this bill. I ask the Chair to tell me 
when I use 10 minutes of my time.
  The legislation we will be considering builds upon the excellent work 
done in a bipartisan way on the Health Education Labor and Pensions 
Committee. The bill includes the elements of our Committee bill plus 
some of the other agreements that have been worked out over the recent 
days.
  The Nation's schools face many challenges that must be addressed if 
all students are to be challenged to achieve high academic standards. 
School enrollments are at record high levels and continue to rise. 
Large segments of the teaching force are preparing to retire. Diversity 
is increasing, bringing new languages and cultures into the classrooms, 
and family structures are changing. More women are participating in the 
workforce, creating a greater demand for quality before, after, and 
during summer school activities.
  In addition, many of the Nation's school buildings are deteriorating 
and must be renovated and modernized so all students can learn in a 
safe learning environment. The demand for Internet skills is at an all-
time high, but the supply of computers connected to the Internet is 
inadequate in school buildings located in the poorest districts.
  The BEST bill is a good start toward improving student achievement in 
the Nation's public schools. This bill creates tough standards that 
must be established for States, districts, and schools which hold them 
accountable for improving student achievement. We must drive resources 
and support the most chronically failing schools to ensure they get the 
help they need to turn around and to succeed.
  The bill requires that every child should be tested each year in 
grades 3-8, not as a punishment, but so that parents and educators know 
where every child stands and what more needs to be done to help them. 
We hope to strengthen provisions within the bill to ensure that these 
State tests are high quality, so that parents will know that the 
results of these tests are meaningful for their children.
  All parents deserve a complete picture of what is happening in their 
child's school. A recent survey by the Center For Community Change 
found that 36 States produce some variation of a school report card 
that includes student achievement in other factors. Report cards will 
highlight school challenges and provide parents with information they 
can use to become more involved in their child's education. They will 
include information on student achievement by desegregated groups of 
students; graduation and dropout rates; teacher quality; information on 
how schools have progressed in relation to their State standards and 
assessments; and information on schools identified for improvement.
  Reading is the golden door to opportunity. Unfortunately, forty 
percent of fourth grade students do not achieve the basic reading 
level, and 70 percent of fourth graders are not proficient in reading. 
Children who fail to acquire basic reading skills early in life are at 
a disadvantage throughout their education and later careers. They are 
more likely to drop out of school and be unemployed. The BEST Act 
triples funding for the reading programs and strengthens the Reading 
Excellence Act to ensure that all children learn to read--and learn to 
read well early--so they have a greater chance for successful lives and 
careers.
  Over the next 10 years, we will need to recruit more than 2 million 
teachers to teach the record number of elementary and secondary 
students in our public schools. Nothing in education is more important 
than ensuring a highly qualified teacher for every classroom. Research 
shows that what teachers know and can do is the most important 
influence on what students learn. Increased knowledge of academic 
content by teachers and effective teaching skills are associated with 
increases in student achievements.
  The BEST bill includes strong definitions of professional 
development, mentoring, and highly qualified teacher and contains 
strong accountability and application requirements. In particular, the 
bill contains many of the elements that research indicates constitute 
effective mentoring and professional development--sustained, intensive 
activities that focus on deepening teachers' knowledge of content, 
collaborative working environments, and training that is aligned with 
standards and embedded in the daily work of the school.
  Under this bill, limited-English-proficient students will get 
substantially more support to help them learn English and achieve high 
academic standards. We are experiencing a tremendous growth in the 
number of limited-English-proficient and immigrant students in our 
Nation's classrooms--from 3.4 million students in the 1997-98 school 
year to an estimated 4.1 million of our school children today.
  Dramatic shifts are taking place in the growth of our immigrant 
population in the United States, and immigrant students are emerging in 
areas where their presence had previously been invisible. The most 
recent census data shows that, between 1990 and 1998, our States in the 
South have experienced a growth in the Hispanic population by 93 
percent.
  The BEST Act responds to this challenge by providing additional 
opportunities for success. The BEST Act increases the federal 
commitment to provide educational assistance to our limited English 
proficient students

[[Page 6689]]

through the Bilingual Education Act. When the program is appropriated 
at $700 million, it will become a state formula program based on 67 
percent LEP population, and 33 percent new immigrant population. Our 
bill responds to States in which the limited English proficient 
population has grown at a tremendous rate, and where there is little or 
no infrastructure in place to provide for the educational needs of 
these students.
  Research shows that children who are home alone after school hours 
report higher use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana. Nearly 45 
million children ages 14 years and younger are injured in their homes 
every year and most unintentional, injury-related deaths occur when 
children are out of school and unsupervised. The bill expands the 
successful 21st Century Community Learning Centers, increasing the 
authorization from $846 million to $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2002. It 
also changes the program to a state formula program, ensuring students 
in every state will have expanded after-school opportunities. After-
school opportunities are necessary to keep children safe before, after, 
and during summer school to keep children safe, help parents work, and 
expand children's learning opportunities. Yet demand for these programs 
continues to outpace supply. According to a report from the U.S. Census 
Bureau last year, almost 7 million children aged 5 to 14 are left 
unsupervised on a regular basis during the after school hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Prior to the passage of the Class Size Reduction program in 1998, 
under the leadership of Senator Murray, more than 85 percent of the 
Nation's students were in classes with more than 18 students, and 33 
percent were in classes of 25 or more students. Because of the Class 
Size Reduction Act, 1.7 million children are benefitting from smaller 
classes this year: 29,000 were hired with fiscal year 1999 funds; 1,247 
are teaching in the first grade, reducing class sizes from 23 to 17; 
6,670 are teaching in the second grade, reducing class size from 23 to 
18; 6,960 are teaching in the third grade, reducing class size from 24 
to 18; 2,900 are in grades 4-12; 290 special education teachers have 
been hired. And, on average, 7 percent of the funds are being used for 
professional development for these new teachers. We should continue the 
Class Size Reduction Act.
  When we send childen to crumbling schools, we send them the message 
that they don't matter. Fourteen million children attend schools in 
need of at least one major repair, such as fixed heating or plumbing 
systems. Half of all schools have at least one environmental hazard, 
like inadequate ventilation. One-third of all schools are more than 50 
years old. Urban, rural, and suburban communities are struggling with 
national school modernization costs of more than $127 billion. The BEST 
bill as reported by the committee is silent on school construction 
needs.
  We should really commit to leaving no child behind by fully funding 
title I. It takes resources, as well as testing and accountability, to 
do school reform right.
  We should maintain our commitment to reduce class sizes for 2 million 
children instead of backing away from it. Senator Murray will address 
that issue.
  We should provide subject matter training for every teacher in high 
poverty schools.
  New teachers should have mentors to pass on wisdom and keep them in 
the profession.
  We should fix 5,000 crumbling schools over the next 10 years.
  And we should ensure every child has a safe and supportive place to 
go after-school.
  Without these types of investments, our efforts at school reform will 
fall of their own weight.
  Mr. President, in order to reach the elements of this legislation, we 
have to provide the resources.
  The fact is only one-third of the neediest children are going to 
benefit from what we have developed if we do not increase the funding. 
We are going to leave behind two-thirds of the children who qualify for 
assistance.
  The fact remains, we have approximately 12 million poor children in 
America. We made a decision in the early 1960s to give special 
assistance to those children. It is still primarily a State and local 
responsibility.
  When I listen to my colleagues on the other side talk about the 
failure of these programs, it is really an indictment of the failure of 
States and local communities to provide the kind of assistance which is 
necessary to make a difference to these children. We know what it takes 
to educate children. That is not a great mystery. We have many schools 
that annually produce very talented and creative students.
  I will tell you, Mr. President, what I fear about this legislation.
  Looking at the funding levels for this legislation, we see we are 
currently reaching one-third of these children. We state in this 
legislation that all of these children, the 12 million who are 
basically poor and somewhat smaller numbers who are actually eligible 
who are very poor. None of these children should be left behind.
  Under the President's budget, in fiscal year 2001, 3.5 million 
children are served under title I funding; fiscal year 2002, 3.7 
million; fiscal year 2003, 3.9 million; fiscal year 2004, 4.1 million, 
and fiscal year 2005, 5.2 million children.
  The Democrats start off with the same base at 3.5 million, up to 5.2 
million, 6.9 million, 8.6 million, and by fiscal year 2005, no child is 
left behind. That is the basic and fundamental gap. This legislation 
offers these opportunities to only a small percent of the eligible 
children, and that is wrong.
  We have fashioned a good bill that can benefit all children. So it is 
a reasonable question to ask: Why aren't we taking care of all the 
children? Why are we taking care of just one-third? Do we have the 
resources? Yes. Do we have the will? Evidently not. Do we have other 
priorities? Apparently so. A small percentage of the extraordinary tax 
cut of $1.3 trillion, about $5.3 billion a year over 4-years, would 
allow every one of these children to get the assistance they need to 
achieve success.
  There is a high demand for afterschool programs. Last year, there 
were more than 2,250 applications for afterschool programs, and only 
310 were funded.
  What happens in these afterschool programs if we do not have enough 
resources? Why are afterschool programs so important? First, we have 7 
million children between ages 9 and 13, who are left unsupervised after 
school hours. Afterschool opportunities are necessary to keep children 
safe, help parents work, and expand children's learning opportunities.
  Do parents want this service? Yes. Do children need it? Yes. Are they 
effective? Yes. Do we have the money? No.
  We are talking about the future of the country. We are talking about 
80 percent of the children going to inner-city schools in the eighth 
grade are without an adequate math teacher who can teach them algebra. 
We know all educators will effectively agree if children do not learn 
algebra, they have a difficult time advancing on to college. Unless 
someone is going to help provide the well-trained teachers who can 
teach student necessary math skills, we are effectively saying to 
millions of children in the country, that opportunity is closed to 
them.
  This issue effects the future of our Nation. We are talking about a 
world economy, a highly educated society; we are talking about updating 
skills; we are talking about continuing training programs for people in 
jobs so they can compete. Are we meeting that challenge at the local 
level? We are not. That is the extraordinary tragedy in this program.
  This legislation is the basis of something that can be enormously 
important and, I believe, can make a real difference in the education 
of some of the neediest children in our country. However, we are going 
to fail to meet that

[[Page 6690]]

test unless we have the resources. Unless we are going to provide those 
resources, we are going to fail our children.
  We know that many poorer schools are more challenged today. We have 
added approximately 5 million specially challenged children, who were 
not in the schools 10 years ago. They are taking the tests.
  We have seen the expansion of the number of homeless children in our 
schools, some 600,000 homeless children. We have approximately 500,000 
seasonal workers' children, a third attending school, and then moving 
on. We have migrant children in our school. We have challenges with 
different languages, with more than 4 million school age children who 
are either limited English Proficient or immigrants. We have seen an 
increase in separations and divorces, which has placed pressure on 
children. We have also seen the explosion of violence in our society--
and in our schools. Many of the schools and teachers bear the brunt for 
dealing with those special needs. All of these factors are impacting 
children as they go to school.
  We must not fail to do what works. That means a well-trained teacher 
in every classroom. It is amazing so many teachers in the inner-city 
schools working as long and as hard under such circumstances. They are 
extraordinary individuals making a difference in people's lives under 
extraordinary conditions. We need to give them help, assistance, and 
confidence. We need to make sure they will have the equipment they need 
to get a first-class education.
  Why do we say education counts and then have children go to a 
crumbling school? It makes no sense. We can talk the talk but unless we 
are prepared to walk the walk, we fail the children.
  We need accountability to make sure the children are actually 
learning. We want to make sure those schools will be safe. We want 
smaller class sizes in the early grades, so a teacher can take a little 
time with a child that has a particular need during the course of the 
day, rather than looking at the child as a number.
  On this side of the aisle, we are virtually united in insisting we 
are going to get the resources to be able to do that.
  We know now there are 10,000 failing schools. We also know that it 
costs about $180,000 to turn a school around. There are a series of 57 
different options that have been tried and tested that are suitable for 
different schools. It would take $1.8 billion out of a trillion dollar 
budget, to try and turn schools around.
  We are missing an extraordinary opportunity and responsibility in 
doing something about these children's education. If this is going to 
be a first priority for the administration, it ought to draw on first 
priority dollars and resources and invest in the children who need it. 
We ought to provide the resources necessary to leave no child behind, 
to reach every child before we even consider providing the tax breaks 
in the President's budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, with the 
agreement of the minority, that Senator Frist be given 10 minutes of 
the next 30 minutes of divided time, that then Senator Gordon Smith be 
given up to 5 minutes, following which the minority would have their 15 
minutes, following which Senator Bunning from Kentucky would have 20 
minutes, following which the minority would have 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak very briefly--for 10 
minutes--on the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, a bill 
that was passed out of the Health, Education, and Pensions Committee, a 
bill that speaks very well to the principles, to the ideals, to the 
practical application of what President George W. Bush has put forth as 
his principles for education reform.
  Let me say at the outset, as most people know, that there is a lot of 
discussion today about funding. We have a bill with significant reforms 
that I hope will very soon be brought to the floor. That reform effort, 
which is terribly important, as we all know, and as both sides of the 
aisle agree, is being linked in concept, but also in process, to 
increased funding, as we just heard from my colleague from 
Massachusetts. I want to quickly provide some perspective about the 
funding side. While we have been talking a lot about the reform side, 
and will continue to talk about it, the funding side has been pushed 
aside. People know negotiations are underway. But I want to put it in 
perspective.
  The primary argument for increased funds, according to the other side 
of the aisle, is that the modernization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act requires increased funding to pay for those reforms. I 
want to make it very clear, again, to my colleagues and to people who 
may be watching this debate across the country, that when the Democrats 
were in charge of this body, that was not the principle that was 
applied. There was no dramatic increase in funding for reforms.
  One example: In 1988 a Democrat Congress reauthorized the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, the same law enacted in 1965 that has been 
reauthorized seven times, and in the subsequent appropriation year--
1989--a 5.1-percent increase in title I was enacted to cover those 1988 
reforms.
  Five years later, in 1994, a Democrat Congress reauthorized ESEA, 
again hailing at the time that it was the most significant reform 
package since the bill was initially put into effect in 1965. I quote a 
Senator from the other side of the aisle who said:

       It is the most important reauthorization of ESEA since the 
     landmark Act was passed in 1965.

  That particular Senator went on to hail the bill's accountability and 
high academic standards. I want to point out that for the major 
comprehensive reform effort, at that time, to the title I 1994 
reauthorization, the Democratically-controlled Congress appropriated a 
mere 5.7-percent increase in the following year, fiscal year 1995.
  So, when in control, the other side of the aisle has offered 
increases associated with reforms of somewhere between 5 and 6 percent 
a year. Yet in our negotiations several weeks ago they asked, not for 
what they had put forward, and appropriated, throughout their history 
of being in charge, which is an increase of 5 to 6 percent, but instead 
came to the table recommending, suggesting, insisting, on a 75-percent 
increase, and not in 5 years or 10 years, but in just 1 year.
  At this moment negotiations are underway. I am not in the middle of 
those negotiations, but the figures being negotiated by the other side 
of the aisle are a 50-percent increase, a 49-percent increase. That 
ends up being about $5.2, $5.3 billion.
  I point out to my colleagues that never, ever in the program's entire 
history has it grown by even $1 billion. So these proposals are 
significant increases. But I hope that when agreement is reached in the 
next several days, whatever figure we end up with, that the American 
people will understand that it is a figure dramatically larger than any 
ever suggested by the other side of the aisle.
  President George W. Bush has demonstrated a strong and remarkable 
leadership position in reforming and modernizing education. He has 
focused in particular--and this is reflected in the agreements and in 
the policy that is being formulated in a bipartisan way--on serving the 
most needy students, so that, indeed, no child will be left behind.
  We have all talked a lot about the achievement gap which has not 
narrowed but in fact gotten wider over time, the gap between the most 
needy students and others, between the underserved and others. The 
commitment of the President of the United States, and the bipartisan 
commitment in the underlying policy, is something, again, that we need 
to keep first and foremost in our mind--putting the emphasis on 
children, on individuals, and not on bureaucracies, on programs, or, I 
would

[[Page 6691]]

add, indeed, not just throwing money at a system uncoupled with reform.
  The President of the United States has expressed a willingness to 
support the largest increase in education funding, focusing on title I, 
ever proposed in the 35-year history of the program. I mention that 
because we tend to lose perspective. The bottom line is this President 
has proposed, and we support, the largest increase ever in the 35-year 
history of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  We have a great opportunity as we go forward. We look at the failure 
of performance of ESEA, especially as we focus on the neediest 
students, and the opportunity to reform and modernize with, yes, an 
increase in investment, but also with reform that captures the very 
best of what the American spirit is all about, and that is the 
creativity, the innovation, and the freedom to address issues and 
reward success rather than failure, as we have done in the past.
  The underlying bill, which I am very hopeful will be released by the 
other side and brought to the floor so we can talk about it, stresses 
issues such as accountability.
  Let me also point out that although people say we do not know what is 
in the underlying bill, that bill is before us, on all of our desks. 
Yes, there are modifications and there are certain agreements that are 
being reached that will be added to that bill. But they can look at 
that bill. I hope that bill will be brought to the floor. Basically, it 
does four things. No. 1, it increases accountability for student 
performance; No. 2, it rewards success; No. 3, it increases flexibility 
and freedom; and, No. 4, it puts emphasis on parents.
  No. 1, it increases accountability for student performance. Over the 
last 24 hours in negotiations, we have reached general agreement on how 
to build in that accountability in a strict way. Yes, we give more 
freedom to innovate, but we link that to demonstrable results, 
measurable results. It is called average yearly progress. The technical 
aspects that have been worked out, and that language will be available 
shortly today.
  No. 2, the BEST bill. It is called the B-E-S-T bill, Better Education 
for Students and Teachers Act. Again, the emphasis is on teachers and 
students. It focuses on what works. As I pointed out in my previous 
remarks on the floor, what is important is that we have an 
understanding, a measurement, of what works based on good science, on 
good research.
  No. 3, the BEST bill will also reduce bureaucracy. It will get rid of 
red tape, and it will increase flexibility. That really comes back to 
the importance of having local control and innovation, of rewarding 
what works and recognizing what does not work. Additional flexibility 
will be given to the States, to the districts, and to the schools, 
stripping away the unnecessary and needless red tape that results in 
teachers not being able to teach; that takes time away from teaching; 
that prevents principals from spending time administering their 
schools.
  No. 4, the underlying bill focuses on parents and on the individual 
student. It involves an element of choice. No longer will a child be 
locked into a school that fails today, that will fail next year, and 
the year after that. in spite of reform, in spite of additional 
resources. That child, for the first time in the history of this 
country, will be given an opportunity to choose another public school.
  Those principles are accountability, rewarding success, reducing 
bureaucracy, increasing flexibility, and empowering parents.
  I am very excited about this opportunity to move forward. I am very 
hopeful that we can, even though the other side objects to its being 
brought to the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 
to take my 20 minutes now and concede to the opponents or the 
opposition 20 minutes following my 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, I rise today to talk for a few minutes in support of 
S. 1, the President's education reform bill.
  We all agree that every child should receive a top-notch education, 
and that no child should be left behind. There isn't one Senator who 
disagrees with that.
  But we can disagree on the best ways to meet this goal, and that's 
what much of the debate is going to be about.
  I believe that the bill before us today deserves our support for a 
number of reasons. And it ensures that no child left behind is more 
than a campaign slogan--it's a promise to our families and their 
children.
  First, the legislation makes badly needed changes to the Department 
of Education--changes that will help us do a better job at educating 
our kids.
  In the past we've relied too much on creating new programs and the 
failed notion that spending more and more money, and that creating more 
and more government, are answers to the question of how to best educate 
our kids.
  If that were true, Federal welfare spending would have ended poverty 
years ago.
  And Federal education spending would have ensured that every child 
could read and write. That hasn't happened because money isn't the 
answer.
  Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about spending 
more money as if it were a magic pill that will fix all of our 
problems.
  This just isn't true. Look at the schools in the District of 
Columbia. Per student spending there is among the highest in the land, 
and the school system has been in terrible shape for years.
  More money and more programs aren't the answer. It might sound good. 
It might make some of us feel better. But it's a false promise that 
cheats our kids.
  And I would like to remind my friends on the other side who are now 
questioning our commitment to kids that the last time Congress worked 
on reauthorizing the ESEA back in 1994 that they didn't say one word 
about linking the bill to appropriations--not one word.
  So all of their complaining now rings a little bit hollow.
  You can't prove your commitment to children, your commitment to 
education just by tossing around dollar figures. Talk is always cheap. 
There is a difference between just spending more money and spending it 
wisely. This bill recognizes that difference.
  For instance, today there are 58 programs funded through the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act alone, and we are going to spend 
approximately $18 billion on these programs this year alone.
  The bill before us simply doesn't just tack more programs onto 
current law and increase spending as part of a hollow promise to 
improve education.
  That would be a cheap out, an easy way to make us all feel better. 
Instead, this legislation makes more fundamental and significant 
changes. It folds many of these programs into more constructive 
approaches, and repeals others that don't work.
  That does not happen often in Washington--getting rid of a program 
that doesn't work.
  But this bill does it. And I think it's going to make a difference 
for the kids. And by folding programs and some spending into block 
grants, we put more power in the hands of the local officials and 
teachers who are on the front lines and have the most experience with 
what methods really work.
  Another good aspect in this bill is that it requires results and 
instead of just tossing funding at a problem, it injects serious 
accountability into education.
  By testing students annually from grades three to eight, we make sure 
they are actually learning and not simply getting passed along to 
become someone else's problem.
  And it holds teachers and school boards accountable for these 
results. If scores don't improve, the kids can

[[Page 6692]]

leave those failing schools and funding will follow them to 
institutions that work and teach.
  Schools that fail to educate their students will face the 
consequences. Parents will be notified and students will be allowed to 
transfer to other public schools.
  If the problems continue, the school could be forced to implement a 
new curriculum, the school's staff could be replaced, or the school 
could be reopened as a charter school.
  This legislation contains other promising initiatives, including the 
Reading First Program that makes sure all children read by the end of 
third grade.
  Instead of social promotion, we are actually going to make sure that 
kids master the most fundamental skill of all--reading. And there is an 
Early Reading First program that focuses on reading for children ages 3 
to 5.
  I realize that this sort of testing and accountability is a change 
from the past for many and makes a lot of folks nervous.
  However, there are times when change is necessary. And this is one of 
those times. We should not be happy with the status quo when it comes 
to educating our children, and should always be looking for better ways 
to educate.
  If something doesn't work, you change it. Fear of improvement or a 
fresh approach is no reason to continue to shortchange our kids. By 
requiring the States to test children, this bill maintains another 
crucial aspect of our educational system--local control.
  Some of my colleagues might remember last year when President Clinton 
took a tour around the country to promote one of his education 
proposals. Some of the Washington bureaucrats put together a map of his 
tour that included a stop in Owensboro, KY.
  Of course the map and the PR material they put out about the 
President's trip to Owensboro showed it being in the middle of 
Tennessee, and actually lopped off the western part of Kentucky and 
gave it to Illinois.
  That is just a funny little mistake, but it demonstrates my point 
that Washington does not know best.
  I definitely trust folks in western Kentucky--who know where 
Owensboro really is--to educate our Kentucky kids than officials who 
work here at the Department of Education.
  I already talked a little bit about block grants and about how 
they'll work. I'm also glad that the legislation strengthens the 
successful ED-Flex Program and I hope it eventually includes the 
important straight A's Program.
  Those are crucial parts of this bill that guarantee local control and 
the best possible results. Under the President's plan, States test kids 
in grades 3-8 in reading and math, States are responsible for creating 
the tests as well as setting performance goals and creating a plan for 
ensuring that all of their students are proficient on their statewide 
tests within 10 years. Additionally, States will also administer a 
national test, called the National Assessment of Educational Progress 
in grades 4 and 8, to make sure all students across the country are not 
being cheated out of a good, positive education.
  By protecting the role of State boards of education, we help ensure 
that local communities can play their traditional role in instructing 
our children. And just to make sure that the work gets done, the 
Federal Government will foot the bill for these testing procedures by 
paying for half of the cost of the statewide tests, and the full cost 
of the national assessment test.
  Local education agencies will be held to the same standards of 
improving student achievement, and will face similar consequences if 
they fail. Just as students have to pay a penalty if they fail, so 
should teachers and schools if they fail in their responsibilities. 
Education is a serious business. There should be real consequences for 
failing our kids. We trust schools and educators with our kids' 
futures, and there is no reason why they shouldn't be called to task 
for the results. Personally, I think that one of the most effective 
parts in this bill is the provision that gives children the power to 
change schools if their school fails them. To sum it up, in this 
legislation the money follows the kids. If a child escapes a failing 
school, the money used to help educate them follows them to an 
institution that works.
  I support completely the choice of schools for children. I think it 
is the best way to give schools an incentive to do a good job. 
Competition is the way to ensure the best results when it comes to 
markets and practically every other part of our society. But for some 
reason, when it comes to education and our kids the opponents of choice 
say no. I don't know why the opponents of choice think that it won't 
work for kids and schools. I believe that this cheats our neediest 
students and takes power away from them. I look forward to this part of 
the debate. But even if we don't succeed in giving complete freedom of 
choice to students, the fact that this bill gives students in public 
institutions the power to change their schools is a dramatic 
improvement over the status quo.
  In conclusion, I urge support for the bill. The legislation before us 
presents an important choice to us: Do we continue with the status quo, 
or do we take an important step in improving education for children, 
and ensuring a bright future for them? Do we listen to those who sing 
the tired old songs about more money and more money, or do we opt for 
real reform and accountability? I, for one, will vote to improve 
education and for a fresh start for our kids. I urge support for this 
legislation before us today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I was not here when the order 
came for my 5 minutes in a unanimous consent agreement. I ask unanimous 
consent I be allowed 5 minutes now, and any time I get be added to the 
Democratic side. I will be very brief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator may proceed.

                          ____________________