Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. That is fine with me if you want 20 minutes equally divided. Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. GREGG. I don't know how the time is charged, but it seems to me that time is obviously being charged fairly and equitably because we are down to 4 minutes on our side, and I think the Senator from Massachusetts probably spoke for at least 4 minutes on his time. As to the equity of time charge, I think it was reasonable. As to the issue which the Senator from Massachusetts has asked--did I know this was the Enzi amendment--unfortunately, I didn't. But I still like the Enzi amendment. So I guess I am certainly for it. However, at this point I will yield to the Senator from Arizona, if the Senator wishes to claim time from Senator Hagel.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Nebraska has 4 minutes, I have 4 minutes, and there is no time on that side.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Nebraska?

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from California has how much?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, possibly, could you tell us what the time situation is?

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield?

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to claim the time in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from California, but right now I rise in support of the Hagel amendment and yield myself such time as I consume. I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska. Senator Hagel has proposed an amendment which is very appropriate. He essentially said in his amendment, before we start doing construction activities--renovation, repair--on public schools in jurisdictions where States have responsibilities or communities have responsibilities, we ought to first do our job in our own areas where we have responsibilities, specifically in the Indian reservation areas and especially at our military facilities. Many of our military personnel have young children and those children are, first, under the pressure of being children of military personnel, which is a difficult position and it puts a lot of pressure on the family. And, second, a lot of them are in school buildings which are dilapidated and simply not up to snuff as far as being a physical facility in which education should be performed. We, the Federal Government, have a first line of responsibility to take care of those school buildings and those school construction needs and renovation needs on our military installations. The same can be said for our Indian reservations where we have the primary responsibility through treaty agreements. There are numerous instances where the Federal Government has the responsibility of maintaining the physical facilities of the schools on those reservations. We have an obligation to do that. I think the Senator from Nebraska has really pointed out a very appropriate obligation of the Federal Government and has prioritized this process of using funds, to the extent they are going to be used, in the renovation area out of title VI, and the use of those funds in a manner which is consistent with our obligations as the Federal Government. The Federal Government's first responsibility should be the Federal facilities, and especially to children on our military bases. I strongly support the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska and hope it will be accepted. I look forward to voting on it. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. GREGG. I think we will have to reserve our rights. We cannot do that right now.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, we have not seen the modification. I have no objection.

Mr. GREGG. Certainly.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I will not try to say anything that is identical to what I said yesterday or the day before or last week on this issue. Let me simply point out that this amendment, in my humble opinion, is one of the most significant ones we are going to take up in that it reflects and makes one of the most significant attempts to have the Federal Government become intrusive in the school systems of our country. The practical implications of this amendment are that the Federal Government will now require that every State and all its communities have comparable educational systems. We went through in some length debate on this amendment over a couple of days last week. But, essentially, that is a role that is inappropriate for the Federal Government. The Federal Government should not be telling the State, whatever State it happens to be--Montana, Indiana, West Virginia, New Hampshire, or Ohio--you must have a school system structured so that all your school systems are comparable; so that every school system in the entire State must do essentially the same thing from school district to school district in order to meet that comparability standard. There are States in this country that, either through court actions dealing with funding, such as New Hampshire, or through court actions maybe dealing with something beyond funding. I am not familiar with any that have gone beyond the funding issue that have determined there should be comparability within the State. There are States which may have--I don't know this--State legislators that have decided it is part of their State organizational structure for education that they want comparability. But I also know that there are a lot of States in this country that have decided they do not necessarily want comparability because there are significant differences within that State between what one school district needs to do in order to be a good school educational system and what another school needs to do in order to be a good educational system. Those differences are reflected in the collective bargaining agreements between where you might have one part of the State with collective bargaining agreements where teachers have introduced agreements where the teacher has a different workweek than another part of the State; or where the number of students for a classroom is different in another part of the State; or the responsibility of teachers in extracurricular activities is different in another part of the State; or you might have a school district where States have decided that in one part of the State kids will be educated in a certain technical skill area that is unique to that part of the State-- say forestry or farming--and in another part of the State that technical skill is not relevant because it is an urban part of the State; or you might have a school district in one part of the State that believes it wants to focus on foreign languages; whereas, another part of the State wants to focus on technology skills versus foreign languages, so they restructured their structure, or you might even have different schooldays. One may have a longer schoolday or a shorter schoolday. Obviously, in the end, they probably have a State law requiring so many schooldays or the way buildings are configured may be significantly different. States have legitimate reasons because of the weather requirements in a State. They may not want to have a comparable school system across the State and still believe that they can deliver quality education. But other States may decide they want comparability. But it is truly the responsibility of the State to make that decision and not the Federal Government. With the Federal Government to come in with 6 to 7 percent of the dollars spent on local elementary and secondary school education and say we have the right to demand statewide comparability is incredibly intrusive. It opens the door to all sorts of issues that I think significantly expand the role of the Federal Government in an inappropriate way. The logic of this amendment would be that the next step is entire school systems across the country have to be comparable. Why stop at the State border? If you are going to say that every State has to have comparable districts why would you stop there? Wouldn't the next logical step be the true nationalization of the school systems, saying that every State has to have comparable educational systems? That would be an excessive reach of the Federal Government. I believe this amendment, as has been characterized, clearly undermines fundamentally the agreement that was reached in negotiations as to the core elements of this bill. It is a dramatic departure from the traditional role of the Federal Government, with an excessive amount of intrusion by the Federal Government. For that reason, I strongly oppose this amendment and hope it will be defeated. I understand my colleague is going to ask for the yeas and nays and we can go to a vote.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I inquire of the Senator from Connecticut, after I speak, does the Senator want to go to a vote at that time on his amendment?

Mr. GREGG. I thank my friend. Amendments Nos. 505, 545 as modified, 520 as modified, 583, 561 as modified, and 461 as modified, En Bloc, to Amendment No. 358

Mr. GREGG. With that good news, I will curtail my statement and yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. I am sure the Senator from Delaware will be relieved to hear no one is in opposition to the amendment. I certainly am. That is good news.

Mr. GREGG. I certainly will yield.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Delaware. Madam President, I support the Senator from Delaware in his amendment. I thank him for bringing it forward. The Senator, of course, served as Governor of Delaware prior to coming to the Senate. He understands intimately the issues that are involved in education, as all Governors do, because it is the No. 1 issue with which most Governors deal. Therefore, I think his amendment, which I am supporting, is a reflection of a comprehensive understanding of the question of how we try to address the improvement of our school systems. I believe that those who have been exposed to the charter school movement see in it the embryo of a way to move our school systems into a phase of significant improvement. Charter schools are being tried in a lot of States. In fact, they have expanded dramatically across the country. I think we are now up to some multiple thousand charter schools. They have caught on because they make sense. Essentially, what a charter school does is give a community which is unhappy with the way the public school system is working an opportunity, within the public school structure, to set up an independent school, which is a public school but which is not subject to the restrictions that the public school system may put on the traditional school in the community, thus creativity can and does occur within that charter school. In fact, there are many instances of charter schools being cited as schools that have radically improved the educational services delivered to the communities, and to students in those communities. I know, for example, that President Bush is fond of citing his experience with a charter school in Houston. I have forgotten the name of the school, but I do recall vividly his discussion of it on the campaign trail, especially when he was in New Hampshire, and his enthusiasm about the way this charter school had taken a low-income urban school district population, which basically did not have a very good experience in the educational system, and turned it around so that it was now the leading school in the State in that age group. That happens because charter schools are vibrant and exciting places. To begin with, the people who start them are enthusiastic about education. They want to make sure that children have an opportunity to learn in a different climate. Therefore, they start these schools with the energy that comes from a new expedience and desire to change and improve the community, and especially the educational system. They have a great track record. But they have run into some problems. What the Carper amendment does is essentially try to address, to the extent the Federal Government can participate in addressing this issue, some of the concerns of these school systems. One of the biggest I think--and one of the reasons I am excited about the amendment--is it addresses the capital needs of actually starting these schools. Even though he has had to modify the amendment in order to avoid a technical problem with the Ways and Means Committee on the House side--those who are familiar with the Ways and Means committee understand it is extremely territorial. I served on it and, I assure you, that is part of the character of the Ways and Means Committee--even with that adjustment, the amendment has in it initiatives which will allow charter school construction costs to be alleviated, or participated in to some degree, through these new funds which will be available. That is very important because one of the biggest problems you run into with a charter school is not getting the talent, the people who want to run it out getting the building into shape where it actually can handle kids coming into the school system. So that, in my opinion, will be a very positive impact of this amendment. Also, I think it should be pointed out that this amendment assists in the transportation activity, which is a critical part of the charter school problem. A lot of parents want to send their kids to a charter school, but they are low-income parents, and they do not have the capacity to physically move their kids from their home to the school. The school their child may be attending might be around the block, but it might be a school that simply isn't working and they may want their child to go to a charter school. But that charter school may require a significant amount of transportation costs on a daily basis, which may simply exceed the ability of a low-income parent to maintain. So this amendment assists in that area. It is also important for us to understand--at least I believe it is important for us to understand--the way you improve education is not by a top-down approach. We in Washington do not have the answers. It is that simple. The way you improve education is by allowing the creative minds of the educational community, and the parents, to step on to the playing field of education and do what they think is best, do it with aggressiveness and do it with imagination. Charter schools are an example of that opportunity. We should not say a charter school must be set up this way or must have this amount of procedure. It is just the opposite. We should simply say: You have the option to take that charter school route, if you want. And if you decide to go that way, we are going to help you by assisting you with the dollar support which will work for your benefit, and allow the school to be creative. Some might argue: This is a new program or a significant increase in a program. And with all the other new programs that have been put into this bill, is it appropriate to create another program or add another significant amount of money into this bill. Obviously, I have reservations about that. I am concerned about the fact that this bill has exploded in costs. The 10-year cost of this bill presently exceeds the original cost of this bill by almost $200 billion. But I think what we have to remember is that what this bill should be doing is creating incentives for creative ideas and approaches. And charter schools, as much as anything else that can occur in the educational community, will accomplish that goal. In this bill money is being spent to promote programmatic activity that is already in place and that maybe isn't working all that well or, if it is working all that well, maybe is tangential to dramatically increasing the learning capacity of children. Charter schools, on the other hand, are working and we know they will significantly impact the capacity of children to improve their education, not only because the child who is in the charter school gets a better education but because charter schools, by definition, put pressure on the rest of the public school community within that city or town or State to improve. So it is bringing competition into the public school system using the public school system itself. We just had an amendment to try to bring competition into the public school system using the private school system. That was rejected. This amendment stays within the context of the public school system and brings competition into the system. As a result, in my opinion, it puts significant positive pressure on the other public schools to improve their product. And as a result, I think that is very positive.

Mr. GREGG. I am not claiming opposition time. I am in support of the amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. GREGG. We are now moving onto the Carper-Gregg amendment?

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, it is my understanding after the Carper amendment we are going to have 10 or 20 minutes equally divided on the Dodd amendments?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I send a modification to the desk.