Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend and colleague from Massachusetts on this issue. He makes the point very clearly. This is not radical. We are asking for accountability and responsibility by everybody when it comes to education. We are assuming it here at the Federal level with the underlying bill. We are requiring it of young children in the third grade and on, their parents, teachers, schools, and school boards. I am only saying that States must be part of this equation. That is all this is--to provide for comparable educational opportunity at the State level as we have required for 36 years at a district level. We leave to the Secretary the discretion about how much to withhold administrative funds--not funds to children--if necessary. For States to provide assurances that they are moving to achieve comparability is not radical. That is common sense. We are asking to test everybody in America. We ought to ask the States to take a little test as well. I thank my colleagues. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I discussed the amendment with my good friend from New Hampshire. The way I have dealt with the modification is to take out the section that speaks to the specific kinds of comparability issues such as class size, teachers, and the like. My intention was not to suggest we ought to have identical class size standards set by the Federal Government or to mandate how States should provide equal educational opportunity, but rather to ensure that they do provide it. Therefore, I have left the language basically as it has been for 36 years when dealing with school districts; that is, achieve comparability of educational opportunities, except to apply it to States, as well. As I pointed out, we have school districts in this country that have student populations in excess of the population of 27 States, and they have been able to deal with comparability, without, to use the example that concerned my friend from New Hampshire, infringing upon charter schools or magnet schools.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DODD. I appreciate the candor of that answer. People from New Hampshire are noted for their brevity in coming right to the point. He does not gussy it up with trappings and garnishes. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD. I am hopeful we can vote on this amendment. We debated yesterday afternoon, we debated yesterday evening, and this morning. I am fully prepared to have a vote and go to the next amendment and get the education bill done. The President wants the education bill to be passed. I know my colleague, the chairman of the committee, is anxious to move this along. I am confident the Republican leader is as well. I am hopeful this amendment can be considered and voted up or down and that we move to the next order of business. I ask the question, Can we vote? We have debated the issue. I am prepared to debate longer, but I made my case on why I think accountability and responsibility belong to everyone, including the State. I ask my colleague and friend from New Hampshire, is there any chance we might have a vote on this amendment some time soon?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on my time, the point I am making --in fact, we debated this yesterday--Is that the words ``comparable'' and ``identical'' are not synonymous. ``Comparable'' allows for great latitude. We have mandated comparability within school districts. If you take the school districts of Los Angeles and New York, there are more students in each of those school districts than in 27 different States. They have found it very workable to have reached comparable levels of educational opportunity within a very diverse student population, in the city of New York and the city of Los Angeles, to cite two examples. There are plenty of other school districts that have student populations vastly in excess of the entire student populations of States that have dealt with this requirement for years. My point is, States bear a responsibility in educating children. This bill, and legislation preceding it over the years, has mandated that teachers, parents, students, school boards, and school superintendents be accountable and responsible. We are asking it of ourselves at the Federal Government. My amendment merely says, should we not also ask our States to be accountable for the equal educational opportunity of all children? That is all. We have laid out some basic commonsense standards without mandating what the standard should specifically. For example, individual science schools exist in Los Angeles and New York. My colleague mentioned Stuyvesant High School. When the Federal Government said ``comparable'' in the school district of New York, it did not wipe out Bedford Stuyvesant High School. That school has done well under a Federal mandate of comparability. We are mandating there be better performance, but if we don't say to States, as much as we are saying to school districts, that there has to be a comparable educational opportunity, we are setting a standard that poor communities, rural and urban, will not meet. In New Hampshire, the supreme court decision was most eloquent in pointing out it was wrong to mandate that a small, poor community be required to increase its property tax fourfold to meet those responsibilities without the State stepping forward. The court said that ``[T]o hold otherwise would be to . . . conclude that it is reasonable, in discharging a State obligation, to tax property owners in one town or city as much as four times the amount taxed to others similarly situated in other towns or cities.'' It is an eloquent statement. In closing, I thank my colleagues from New Jersey and Minnesota for their support and ask all my colleagues to join me, Senator Biden, and Senator Reed, in supporting this amendment to provide equal educational opportunity for all children in a State. This amendment is supported by the National PTA, the National Education Association, the Council of the Great City Schools, which represents the largest 50 school districts in the country, and the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, which includes 180 prominent organizations, such as the AARP, the American Association of University Women, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Veterans Committee, Catholic Charities USA, the NAACP, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League, the YMCA, the YWCA, and others.

Mr. DODD. I think I am out of time.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague let me respond without asking a question?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield further, he has just recited very accurately the provision on page 2 of the amendment of things under ``Written Assurances'': A State shall be considered to have met the requirements [of this amendment] if such State has filed with the Secretary a written assurance that such State has established and implemented policies to ensure comparability of services in certain areas. If my colleague reads further down to ``class size,'' we do not say what class size, what qualifications. We all know, and I ask my colleague this in the form of a question, is there anywhere in this language where it sets class size, where it sets the standard by the Federal Government, other than saying the State should have comparability of those standards without setting the standard?

Mr. DODD. Yielding for a question. As my colleague must be aware--and this is in the form of a question, Mr. President--we have had the word ``comparable'' on the books regarding school districts for 36 years. The law has said that within school districts, educational opportunity must be comparable. Is it not true, I ask my friend from New Hampshire, that magnet schools, charter schools, and science schools have all functioned within school districts with a Federal law that has required or mandated comparable educational opportunity? I am not changing that. I am just extending the geography from school districts to States. I am not applying any new standards from those that have existed in the law for more than three decades.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. This is an important point. Again, I have great affection for my friend from New Hampshire.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on this point?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, if I may.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from New Jersey for his very eloquent statement. In my State of Connecticut a real effort has been made to address this issue, as in New Jersey. In Minnesota as well. Many of our States are working hard at this but, as the Senator from New Jersey said, there is still a huge gap in terms of educational opportunity. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. DODD. I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. DODD. While I am waiting for one of my colleagues to enter the Chamber, I will just take few more minutes to share some additional thoughts on why I believe this amendment is worthwhile. And I will anticipate some of the arguments my good friend from New Hampshire will raise in his eloquent opposition to this amendment so that my colleagues may have the benefit of these thoughts. I am confident my colleague is going to call this a cookie-cutter approach, that I want to establish, at a Federal level, what every classroom in America is going to look like. Nothing could be further from the truth. What this amendment requires is that every child in a State have a comparable educational opportunity with other children in that same State. Last evening, I cited the supreme court decision in the State of New Hampshire, which makes the case more eloquently than I could, saying that in the State of New Hampshire children, regardless of the community in which they are raised, ought to have an equal opportunity. I stress the word ``opportunity.'' I do not believe any of us has an obligation to guarantee any person in America success. That has never been the American way. What we have always believed, since the founding days of our Republic, is that equal opportunity has been the magnet which has drawn the world to our shores. Where people had been denied opportunities for a variety of reasons--religious, ethnic, gender, whatever--America has been the place where they get judged on their abilities. There are countless stories of people, coming from the most humble of origins, who have risen to the very heights in their chosen field of endeavor. I could cite the example of the Presiding Officer as a case in point, if he wouldn't mind my making personal reference to it. Providing an equal opportunity to everybody, that is all this is. What better key to a success than an education? If you don't have a good educational opportunity, it is very difficult to achieve your full potential. My great-grandmother, when she came to this country with my great- grandfather, was about 16 years old. They were married. They came from a small community on the western coast of Ireland. The first thing she did--she couldn't read or write--was to get herself elected to the local school board in the 19th century because she understood that education was going to be the key. She had been raised in a country where she couldn't go to school because of her religion. She understood that an opportunity for herself and her family--her nine children, my grandfather being the ninth child--was going to be education. Educational opportunity is what I am focusing on. As we have been saying to school districts across America for 36 years, you must provide comparable educational opportunity for each child within that school district. I am expanding that equation to say in each State because the States really bear the responsibility for funding education through decisions made by the legislatures. How do they fund education? It is a State decision and a local decision. We are mandating things at the local level and we are leaving out the States. I am suggesting that States also have a responsibility to meet their obligations. If we are going to mandate performance and not provide the funding for it and exclude the States from being accountable, then we are going to be back here a few years from now asserting that the Federal Government mandated something, but did not fund it. I see my friend from Maine, Senator Collins, on the floor who believes passionately in our responsibility for funding special education. I agree with her. In fact, we have all fought hard to see that we meet that obligation. The underlying bill we are considering mandates that children do better in schools. We set standards that are going to have to be met. We are going to have to provide resources for this. Some communities do not have the resources; others do. To mandate a level of performance and not provide the resources for children to achieve that level of performance is dangerous. I see my colleague from New Jersey. How much time remains on the proponents' side of the amendment?

Mr. DODD. So I have heard. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to both sides.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair very much for that notice. I could have gone on. As you can see, I was building up a head of steam. I see my friend from New Hampshire is in the Chamber. There are several colleagues--at least one I know of--who want to be heard on this subject. I want to reserve some time for them. Would my colleague from New Hampshire like to be heard at this time? I know he wanted to respond to some of these very thoughtful and persuasive arguments I am making.

Mr. DODD. I accept that point. We do. My point being, my amendment has been called intrusive. Because I have suggested that the States be accountable and responsible, it is said that I am proposing a new Federal intrusion into what has historically been a local and State decisionmaking process. Yet, as my colleague from New Hampshire has pointed out, we already mandate tests. And, this bill mandates even more tests. We also mandate standards for teachers at the local level. We are going to tell school districts that if schools do not perform at a certain level, we, the Federal Government, will require them to close the school. We require the States to establish statewide content and performance standards, and tests that are the same for all children in the State. The point is, we are mandating decisions at the local level. Down to the level of detail of telling third graders, and their parents, when they will be taking tests. My amendment says that if we are going to ask for accountability and responsibility from students, parents, school principals, teachers, and school boards, is it unreasonable to ask States to be accountable? Since 1965, we have mandated comparable educational opportunity for students within school districts. This amendment simply says that there should be comparable educational opportunity throughout the State. Why do I say that? Of the total education dollar spent in our public schools, 6 cents comes from the Federal Government, 94 cents comes from State and local governments. In this bill, we are mandating that schools and school districts do a better job. If they do not, there are consequences. It is a Federal mandate. But the resource allocations are not really there, nor are we insisting at a local or State level that they meet their obligations. My amendment says States must take on responsibility. If we are asking students, and parents, and teachers, and schools, and school districts to do better, why not the States? Many States are working hard at this. But, nevertheless, many children, simply by the accident of their birth, have a disparate level of educational opportunity. They are born or raised in a school district where the resources are not there. A child born in a more affluent school district has an educational opportunity that is vastly different. I see it in my own State. I represent the most affluent State in America on a per capita income basis, the State of Connecticut. I also have communities in my State that are some of the poorest in America. Hartford, our capital, was just rated as the eighth poorest city in America. So, even in my small State, there are children who attend some of the best schools in America because we support education through a local property tax, and others, just a few miles away, who have much less educational opportunity, for the same reason. Just as we are going to test children, and schools, and districts, should we not also test States? It doesn't seem to me that providing comparable opportunity to all children is too much to ask. As I pointed out earlier, there are a number of Federal mandates that we already include in law. We withhold funds from States or school districts if they do not pass certain laws concerning children and guns, for example, in addition to the mandates I discussed earlier. I am not drawing judgments, but pointing out that this law is full of mandates, supported by both sides. We bear a responsibility at the Federal level to do a good job to see to it that dollars taxpayers have sent to us go back to support education in the ways in which title I and the rest of ESEA. In this bill, we say that school districts should do a better job, that parents and teachers and school superintendents should do a better job. Shouldn't States be included in that community of accountability and responsibility? That is all I am suggesting with this amendment. We leave it to the discretion of the Secretary of Education to determine to what extent administrative funds would be withheld. We give these States 6 years to at least demonstrate they are moving in the direction of offering ``comparable'' educational opportunity. The words I have chosen have been in the law for 36 years. I see I have used 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Let me explain this amendment once again. I explained it when I offered it yesterday afternoon, and again early last evening. This is a very straight forward, simple amendment. I said yesterday that if there is one word that could be used to describe the underlying bill, it is the word ``accountability''--we want greater accountability. I would add ``responsibility''--``accountability and responsibility.'' Students, parents, school principals, teachers, superintendents, and boards of education all have to be more accountable and more responsible if we are going to improve the quality of public education in our country. There is no doubt in my mind that, while there has been improvement in recent years in classrooms, there is room for more improvement. We need to raise the next generation of young people to be prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century and be competitive in a global economy. In years past, a child raised in Connecticut, West Virginia, Massachusetts, or New Hampshire, competed, if you will, with children in the neighboring town or the neighboring county, maybe the neighboring State. Today, our children compete with children all over the world. So we need to prepare a generation like no other in the history of this Nation. Therefore, the issue of a sound, firm, good elementary and secondary education is critical. This bill mandates a number of things. We, will mandate, for the very first time, that every child be tested every year from third grade through eighth grade. That is a Federal mandate in this bill.

Mr. DODD. I thank the President. I am somewhat disappointed that we have not scheduled a vote on this amendment. But I am told that on the expiration of an hour that I will have to set this amendment aside, and that the minority floor leader of this bill is opposed to a vote occurring on this amendment. I hope that we will have an opportunity to cast a vote in this body on the amendment that I have offered on behalf of myself, Senator Biden of Delaware, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island. There is at least one other Member, or maybe two, who want to be heard in support of this amendment. I ask the Chair on the expiration of 10 minutes that I be notified to make sure I reserve time for others who want to be heard on this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. President, as I understand it, there is 1 hour of debate equally divided on this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. We could do this one, too, and we would be done with it.