Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi very much for that explanation. I agree with him that clearly Congress needs to maintain its oversight of this program, as well as all other programs. And this is a very high priority for many of us here in Congress and everyone, I think, who is concerned about national security issues. So I would not want, by my amendment, to bring into question the ability of Congress to maintain that oversight. I do not believe the language of my amendment does that. I am encouraged to hear that the Senator believes that operational effectiveness is an essential part of what has to be established before we go ahead and actually deploy something. I want to just ask, in order to sort of complete the circle here, my good friend, the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, which I have the privilege of serving on, Senator Levin, if he has any thoughts about the underlying bill. Again, I guess the question is, Is there, in the language of the underlying bill, essentially a requirement that the Department of Defense treat this weapons system and this program the way it treats other major programs; and that is, to put them through the appropriate operational tests before they go forward with any deployment?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me explain my amendment and then hopefully discuss with the two managers, the chief sponsor of the bill, my friend from Mississippi, and the manager on the Democratic side, my friend from Michigan, their understanding of what the underlying bill provides and the appropriateness of my amendment. We had a hearing the other day in the Armed Services Committee. Mr. Gansler was there, and he testified that the administration's plan, with regard to this national missile defense program, is to handle this as they would handle other major weapons programs, weapons systems; that is, they would proceed with development, but they would not go the next step, they would not go into full production and deployment until they had done the necessary operations tests to determine the effectiveness of the system. I have had some concerns, frankly, about this legislation. I opposed this in the last Congress because of those concerns, concerns that we were, in this legislation, changing those ground rules on the Department of Defense and saying to them, ``No, you should not do the appropriate testing. In this case, you should go ahead and proceed to deploy the system regardless of how ready it is for prime time.'' I guess that has been the concern that has prompted me to offer this amendment. In private discussions with the manager of the bill, the sponsor of the bill, he has assured me that he does not see it that way. I want to just ask, if I could, the Senator from Mississippi if he could just respond to a question sort of directly on this. I was encouraged, frankly, by the statements I just heard from the Senator from New Hampshire, where he said that it is his understanding and his intention, clearly, by this legislation, that we would not be requiring the Department of Defense to do anything by way of full production or deployment until they were convinced that this weapons system was operationally effective. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Mississippi also?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, thank you. Amendment No. 74 (Purpose: To modify the policy)

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 638, S. 639, and S. 640 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of final passage of S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 and would like to take a brief moment to describe my reasons for supporting this legislation. Despite serious concerns about the amendments that will be offered here on the floor today, I am voting for this legislation as a strong supporter of both increased federal flexibility and additional federal funding for special education. First and foremost, I am in favor of making federal education programs as flexible as possible. Over the years, requirements and regulations in many areas have crossed the line from responsible monitoring to redundant paperwork. Much has been done in recent years to lessen administrative burdens and eliminate federal regulation. However, I strongly believe that federal education programs need to go farther in to set clear goals and then provide as much flexibility as possible to local policymakers, as well as principals and classroom teachers. To that end, this bill will allow schools in all 50 states to apply for waivers from a set of state and federal education laws. I voted for expanding Ed-Flex in 1998, and I am proud to have supported creation of the demonstration program that gave New Mexico this flexibility three years ago. I am also supporting this bill because I am a strong advocate of increased funding for special education. Special education provides specialized services to students that can require significant additional costs to schools and local school districts. These services are essential to these students, and the federal government should do its part to support these efforts. During the past 3 years, I have worked with my colleagues in the Senate to help increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by billions of dollars. My goal, as stated in the IDEA statute, is that the federal government meet its commitment to IDEA funding by providing 40 percent of the costs of educating special education students. And this bill sends a strong signal that additional funding in FY2000 and beyond is required for IDEA grants to states. For these reasons, I am voting in favor of final passage. However, I will carefully watch the final legislation that is produced by the conference committee on S. 280 before deciding how to cast my final vote before this bill is sent to the President. For example, in my view it is unfortunate that the final version of this legislation could have the unintended and unnecessary effect of diverting funding from the new class size reduction program started last year. Under this program, New Mexico is slated to receive $9.6 million in FY99, which would allow schools around the state to hire more than 250 teachers. There is no reason that the Senate cannot support this program as well as increased funding for IDEA. In fact it would have been preferable to have extended the authorization for the class size reduction program so that these efforts could continue into the future. I am concerned that, by merging two viable streams of funding into what is in effect just one source, the overall amount of funds awarded for education may not increase as much as is needed. Because of these concerns I voted against several amendments to S. 280 that would make schools decide between the special needs of disabled students and the clear imperative to lower class size in the early grades. Ideally, there would be two strong programs that would both receive the funding they deserve. I am also concerned that the Senate version of this legislation may not have sufficient accountability measures to go along with the expanded flexibility that is in the Ed-Flex bill. The taxpayers expect us to account for the roughly $15 billion per year that is sent to local schools, and in my view there should be stronger measures of performance and review in the final conference report. Finally, it is extremely unfortunate that this version of the bill does not create the national dropout prevention program that I had offered as an amendment. This amendment, which passed last year by 74 to 26, would address the fact that 500,000 students drop out of school each year. There is no funded program to help lower dropout rates. And yet students in too many schools have just a 50-50 chance of graduating. Those that don't will earn less, be more likely to need public support, and more likely to get involved in crime. That affects all of us, not just the individual students. It is my hope that some of these concerns can be addressed during the conference between the House and Senate.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to commit the Federal Government to help local school districts deal with a very serious problem, the problem of students dropping out of school before they graduate. There is no Federal program that is intended to resolve this problem. I hear a lot of talk about how there are other Federal programs. There is no Federal program that is funded that is intended to solve this problem. This amendment would help us do this. Clearly, this is a major issue in all of our States. This is particularly an important issue in our States where we have large numbers of Hispanic students. The dropout rate is 30 to 50 percent among that community. I yield the rest of the time to the Senator from Nevada who is a cosponsor on this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, is there additional time?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Also, on behalf of Senator Boxer, I send an amendment to the desk to expand afterschool opportunities for children nationwide.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray and a long list of additional Senators whose names I will put in the Record, I send an amendment to the desk to help communities reduce class size for the youngest children in the school.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the state of the business in the Senate?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before I start, let me just indicate my support for the amendment that the Senator from Minnesota is offering. I agree with him. I favor the Ed-Flex bill, and I intend to vote for the Ed-Flex bill. I also, though, believe we need to be sure the funds we provide at the Federal level get to the students who most need those funds, and to the programs that will benefit disadvantaged students. So I favor that amendment. The amendment I have sent to the desk here and that I will speak on right now relates to what I consider perhaps the most severe problem facing the educational system in this country today--at least in my State, and I believe throughout the country--and that is the problem that too many of our students are leaving school before they graduate from high school. For an awful long time, this was a problem that people sort of ignored, and education policy wonks here in Washington and around the country essentially looked the other way and talked about other aspects of the educational issue. But more and more I have come to believe that this amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and Senators Reid, Levin, Bryan, and Boxer deals with a crucial issue for our young people and for our educational system. We can deal with the dropout problem. We can provide assistance to States and local school districts that want to reduce the dropout rate, and we can do that at the same time we are adequately funding special education. We can do it at the same time we are providing this additional flexibility in the Ed-Flex, which is what the Ed-Flex bill calls for. Last week, when I offered the amendment, it was plain that there was some sort of contest between the proposal to adequately fund dropout prevention and the needs of special education. I do not see that as the case. That is a false choice. There is no rule and there is no limitation or requirement on those of us in the Senate to deal with one and not the other. We can deal with both of these issues. I favor dealing with both of these issues. Special education is extremely important. In order to address this, I put a couple of provisions in the amendment that I just sent to the desk. Two key provisions relate to special education. The first says that there is a sense of the Senate that there is a great need to increase funding for special education. I support doing that. And the amendment makes it very clear that that is what we intend to it. A second provision I have added says that any funds that are appropriated for dropout prevention above the $150 million annual amount that is called for in this bill shall go to special education rather than to this dropout prevention need. So it is not an either/or decision. And I don't think we should see it that way. This legislation on dropout prevention was offered last year. It was adopted here in the Senate by a vote of 74 to 26. Its main provisions are very well known to the Members of the Senate. Let me just go through them. There are five main provisions. First, it provides better coordination and streamlining of existing Federal programs which serve at-risk students. We have several programs intended to serve at-risk students. This bill would try to bring those together and coordinate them. Second, it sets out a national plan to address the dropout crisis that exists at the State, local and national levels. Third, there is $150 million authorized in grants to schools with high dropout rates in each State. Fourth, there is a requirement for uniform dropout data to be provided so that parents will know where the problem exists most severely, and for policymakers to have that information so that we can make good decisions. Finally, it calls for what we designated here as a ``dropout czar,'' or a person who will have a full-time job working in the Department of Education to try to work with local school districts and States to deal with this issue. We ought to have at least one person in the Department of Education who comes to work every day with the responsibility of trying to help solve this problem. That is not too much to ask in a country of our size. So that is what the bill tries to do. The problem is serious. It warrants our attention. Since we have been debating this bill, there have been over 20,000 young people drop out of our schools. There are over 3,000 young people who drop out of our high schools and our middle schools before graduation each schoolday. So the problem is severe. There have been over 400,000 students who have dropped out since last April when we last approved this amendment here in the Senate. These new dropouts join a large pool of unemployed, most of them unemployed adults who lack high school degrees. We have a serious problem here. I think many Senators and many people in this country would be shocked to know the extent of this problem. Let me give you some figures that came out of ``Education Week'' recently. According to ``Education Week,'' which is a very respected publication that does good research on education-related issues, according to their study, there are 30- to 50-percent dropout rates reported over the 4-year high school period in communities around this country. Let me give you some specific statistics which they reported. In Cincinnati, ``Education Week'' claims that 57 percent of students in Cincinnati's high schools do not complete high school, who drop out before the completion of high school; in Philadelphia, 54 percent; Salt Lake City, 39 percent. Everybody, at least in my part of the country, in the Southwest, looks to Utah, and says: ``Oh, they have a better educational system than we do in New Mexico, and they always do everything right in Utah.'' The truth is that 39 percent of their students don't complete high school--in Salt Lake City, not in Utah, but in Salt Lake City--47 percent in Oklahoma City; in Dallas, according to ``Education Week,'' 61 percent of students do not complete high school. I hope that Senators will come to the Senate floor and contradict these statistics and tell me that this is crazy, that they do not agree with these statistics. I hope they can do that, because, in fact, I find these statistics to be very startling. But I know for a fact that in my State the percentage of people not completing high school is very high. It is particularly high among Hispanic students in my State. We have a great many Hispanic students in my State, and way too many of them leave school before they complete high school and middle school. There currently is no Federal program that is intended to help solve this problem. We have a TRIO Program. People point to the TRIO Program. It is an Upward Bound Program. But less than 5 percent of the eligible students participate in those programs. There is a program just now getting started called GEAR UP. This is for middle school mentoring. The unfortunate thing about this is that it doesn't reach ninth or tenth graders. That is where the problem really occurs most severely. Then title I--title I, unfortunately, does not usually get any funds to the high school level. Most of the title I funding goes to elementary schools where the need is great. But what I am talking about is middle school and high school. And those schools see very little title I funding. One of the main reasons this bill is needed is to restore some balance to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which, at present, is heavily weighted toward the younger grades. I favor the assistance to the early grades, but I believe we need to do something at the middle school and high school levels as well. A lot of what needs to be done is reforming our high schools. Our high schools are too big. That is where the dropout problem is most severe. You get a 2,500-student high school, and, frankly, it is too anonymous. Too many of the young people come to that school; nobody knows whether they come in the morning or not. I have talked to high schools in my State, the large high schools, and I ask, ``What do you do if a student doesn't come to school?'' They say, ``After 3 days of them not coming to school, we send them a letter. We send a letter to their home address and ask them why they are not coming to school and complain to the parents.'' Well, the reality is you need a more personalized response and a more immediate and effective response when students start dropping out of school. This legislation can help us accomplish that. United States graduation rates are falling behind other industrialized countries. When the Governors met and President Bush met in Charlottesville in 1989 and set the National Education Goals, the second goal was that we want to have at least 90 percent of our students complete high school and graduate from high school. The reality is we have made virtually no progress towards achieving that goal since 1989. We are now in 1999, and we have made virtually no progress. Clearly, we need to deal with this issue. Some have said: ``Well, let's put it off. Let's deal with it later on in this Congress. This is a 2-year Congress. We are going to eventually get around to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. We can deal with it then, maybe not this year. But surely next year we will get around to it. So just relax. We will get around to it.'' I believe we have a crisis with our high school dropout rates, and I believe we need to deal with it now. There is no logical reason why we can't do the Ed-Flex bill, which I support, and do whatever this Senate wants to do with regard to special education, and do something to assist local schools in dealing with the dropout problem. We can do all three of these things. As our former President, Lyndon Johnson, was famous for saying, ``We can walk and chew gum at the same time'' here in the U.S. Senate. This is not too much for us to take on. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope we get the same kind of strong vote this time that we got in the last Congress--at least have the 74 votes that we got in the last Congress. I hope we can get even a stronger vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you very much. I thank my friend and colleague from Nevada for yielding me some time. Mr. President, I agree with the sentiments that were just expressed by the Senator from Connecticut about his frustration about not being able to vote on some of the crucial issues that relate to education in this country. I wanted to particularly draw attention to this issue of the Dropout Prevention Act that I offered last week, along with my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid. This is legislation which is not new to the U.S. Senate. It is legislation that passed in the last year. There were 74 votes in favor of this Dropout Prevention Act. What we are trying to do now is get this same legislation, identical legislation considered as part of this Ed-Flex package of legislation. We think that will be good for the American people. We think it would advance the handling of this very important issue. Otherwise, we will be put off for perhaps a year, perhaps 18 months into the new year. I believe very strongly that we ought to go ahead and deal with this. In my State, when I go around my State and say what is the No. 1 concern that people have about education----

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts yielding me some time to speak. I strongly support the Ed-Flex legislation. In fact, New Mexico has seen the benefit of being one of the Ed-Flex States for the last 3-plus years. So we have seen there is some value in that. We certainly favor expanding that authority to other States as well. But I don't understand why we are in the condition or situation we are in here on the Senate floor today. I am not opposed to Ed-Flex. I am just in favor of going ahead and doing a few other things at the same time. I proposed an amendment which incorporates the provisions of the Dropout Prevention Act, which passed this Senate by 74 votes in the last Congress. All we are saying is that is a bill which had 30 Republican Senators supporting it. It had, I believe, virtually all Democratic Senators, or nearly all Democratic Senators, supporting it. That is something we can agree upon. Let's go ahead with that. That is a priority. We do not need to say, ``Look, it has to be Ed-Flex alone, or it can be nothing.'' That is the part of this debate that I don't really understand. The notion is sort of being left out there that somehow or other we are trying to stall a resolution of this issue or stall the final vote on Ed-Flex. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would be happy to have a vote on this Dropout Prevention Act amendment which I proposed last week after 15 minutes of debate on our side and 15 minutes of debate on the other side. So there is no effort by me or my cosponsors to slow down the consideration of this Ed-Flex bill. I believe that the other Senators who are interested in having amendments brought to the floor for consideration would also be glad to have short time limits so that those amendments could be considered and voted upon by the Senate. Clearly, if the Senate believes that some of these proposals are too expensive, then we can vote against them. If the Senate believes that some of these proposals are not yet refined enough and need to be postponed until the Elementary and Secondary Education Act comes to the floor, that is fine; you can vote against the amendment at this time and explain that is the reason. But I do not understand why we can't at least have votes on the other important education proposals that people feel strongly about going ahead with. My own State, as I said, has this Ed-Flex provision in law already. We have had it for over 3 years now. During that time, 1 of the school districts--we have 89 school districts in New Mexico--1 of our 89 school districts applied for a waiver 1 time during those 3 years. As you can see, we have not used the Ed-Flex authority to great advantage in our State, and I think that may be partly our fault. But Ed-Flex is not a cure-all. I support expanding the authority to all States. I support putting it in permanent law. But I do not think we should be out here on the Senate floor leaving the impression that, once we pass this, all the problems of education are going to be resolved and the States are going to have this tremendous capability to resolve everything and the problems will go away. During the 3 years we have had Ed-Flex authority in New Mexico, we have had 1 application by 1 of the 89 school districts for 1 waiver, and at the same time--and that waiver was granted --we have had 20,000 of our New Mexico students drop out of school before they graduate. So I come to this from the point of view that it is at least as important with my State that we go ahead and consider the problem of students dropping out of school in the early part of this Congress. Some say we can deal with that later. Well, if later means a year and a half or 18 months from now, at the end of the 106th Congress, if that is as soon as we can do it, fine. But if it is important for the Senate to move ahead at this point on Ed-Flex, it is also important that the Senate move ahead at this point on this dropout prevention initiative. A preliminary analysis of last week's fourth grade reading scores showed where the problem begins--or early indications of the problem. Between 1992 and 1998, the gap in reading skills between Hispanic students and non-Hispanic students in nine of our States widened, and only in four States did that gap decrease. So we are going in the wrong direction as far as heading off this dropout problem. I do not think Ed-Flex is going to solve that. I favor giving that authority to the States. I favor using it more effectively in my own State of New Mexico. I certainly intend to vote for this bill, but I also think it is appropriate that Senators be allowed to offer amendments and get votes on them. As I say, if people want to vote against the amendments, that is fine. But I don't see why we cannot have a vote on an amendment unless that amendment somehow passes some kind of litmus test.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I do urge my colleagues to oppose cloture at this time so we can offer our amendments. I yield the floor. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Reid, Senator Bryan and Senator Levin.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In fact, I had the good fortune to go to that school in New York and see some of that success. It is a great success story and it shows the value of a small school where you have teachers and administrators and students and parents, all taking ownership in the education process. That is what she was able to create.