Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator wish to go to a vote at this time?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I also acknowledge, as did Senator Kennedy, Senator Reed's intense interest and efforts to address the issue of parental involvement in the school system. His mark is on this bill as a result of that. Parents are mentioned literally hundreds of times in this bill, and there are initiatives to try to give local school districts more resources to assist in bringing parents into the effort of the schoolday. In fact, there is a 1 percent setaside in the title I funds money to carry forward parental involvement initiatives. This can add up to a lot of money. That is where my concern is. Essentially, the Senator from Rhode Island has suggested we create what amounts to a new $500 million program for parents and parental activity in the school systems. It is pretty liberal in its structure. It could be for coffees, in order to get parents involved; it could be for mailers involving parents or for parent peer groups. It is hard for people at the Federal level to be everything to everybody in education. There are important needs in the area of education. But we need to remember that the Federal dollars in education are only 6 to 7 percent of the total dollars spent in local and elementary schools. To get the most value for those dollars, we must focus those dollars in specific areas. We have chosen to focus those dollars on special needs children. We have chosen to focus those dollars in this bill on children from low-income families, and specifically on trying to raise the academic standards of those children to make sure they are not left behind as they move through the school system. There are a lot of other issues that involve schools. There are good language programs; there are good sports and computer science activities. Equally important--and I do not deny it--is the need to have parents involved with their children in the school system. However, we cannot be everything to everybody. If we create a new $500 million program for that, we are taking away from the initiatives being directed at the areas where the Federal Government has chosen to set aside priorities, the special needs programs and the actual academic education of the low-income child. Because of the appropriation process, there will have to be a prioritization, and money will be moved from place to place. Inevitably, somebody wins and somebody loses. This program, No. 1, although well intentioned, is far too expensive for the Federal Government to pursue; and, No. 2, it is inappropriate for the Federal Government to pursue. We have to look seriously at the cost of this bill as we continue to add any more of these well- intentioned programs on to the bill. The bill presently, by my estimations, over the life of the authorization, is nearly $400 million over where it started. That is a lot of money. This is another $500 million on top of that. It may be an appropriate thought, but I do not think we need a new Federal program to accomplish this. The issue of parental involvement is a local issue, probably the ultimate local issue. Shouldn't parents get involved in the schoolday? Absolutely. Should the Federal Government create the mechanisms to do that? No. That is the local responsibility of the parent and the parent structures within the local community and the local school systems which spend 93 percent of the education dollars in this country. As well intentioned as this amendment is, I oppose it because I think it takes away from the main thrust of the bill. Therefore, it draws off potential resources we need to focus on, including the academic day and the special needs child. This is simply an addition of $500 million on top of what has already become an extraordinarily expensive bill, moving beyond the availability of Members to support. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator be willing to take this on a voice vote?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Maine. It is a very appropriate approach to determining how much these tests are going to cost and the best way to address them. I think it will provide a significant amount of information which will be a welcome addition to the process as we go forward trying to evaluate how best to do these tests and how to keep them from being an extraordinary burden on the States, which is of course our goal. The President has set up a testing regime which, as I mentioned, is really the key to this whole bill, as far as he is concerned. It is a process by which all children in America will be tested in order to determine whether or not they have succeeded in learning what they should know at the grade level they are presently attending. The object, of course, is to keep track of children and make sure no child is left behind, which is the stated goal of the President and all of us here in this Congress. In doing that, we are clearly creating a huge new activity in the area of testing. It is appropriate we have this evaluated effectively. The GAO study proposed by the Senator from Maine is the right way to do it. I congratulate her on her amendment and strongly support it. I yield the floor. I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I point out that there has been some representation that the President's initiative in the area of testing is not adequate. In the financial area of supporting the testing regime in this bill, there is $2.8 billion committed for testing over the term of the bill. That is 7 years. Equally important, what we should point out is that what we are adding are three new tests to the regime that was put in place back in 1994 when the reauthorization of ESEA occurred. We then required that States test in three grades. At that time, when we required as a Federal Government that States test in three grades--when the President was from the other party and the Congress was controlled by the other party--we put no money on the table for the purposes of supporting the States as they did that testing. We are now asking that the States do an additional 3 years of testing on top of the three that are already required, and we are putting on the table a dramatic increase in funding--$2.8 billion over that period. But I would come back to the basic point of this amendment. This amendment's goal is to undermine the bonus system necessary to create the incentives to put in place a testing regime that will actually evaluate whether or not kids can succeed or not succeed. It is part of a sequential event of amendments, the goal of which, in my humble opinion, is to undermine the whole testing regime concept. As I have said before, if we start creating a subjective or national testing regime--either one--we end up undermining the capacity to deliver effective tests that evaluate kids and what they are doing in relationship to other kids versus evaluating what some educational guru decides is the new math or the new English. I yield back the remainder of my time. I believe we are ready to vote. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GREGG. I simply point out, this amendment is one of a series of amendments that the Senator from Minnesota is proposing to deal with testing. And the Senator from Minnesota has never been shy--he is never shy on anything--he has certainly not been retiring or shy in his opposition to the testing regime in this bill. The testing regime in this bill is the core of the bill. The President has suggested that if we are going to have effective accountability in this country, we must have an effective evaluation of what children are being taught and what they are learning by grades so we don't leave children behind. He suggests that be disaggregated so there is no group that will be left out or normed in and overlooked. So testing is critical to this bill. This is not the most egregious amendment the Senator from Minnesota has proposed in this area. No. In fact, in the spirit of cooperation, I suggested we simply take it. But the Senator from Minnesota decided he wanted a vote. So I think it should be openly debated because the amendment has some serious problems down the road, unless it is fixed. The reason I was willing to take it is because I assumed it would be fixed in conference. It will be a problem for the testing regime. The issue on testing, as has been highlighted--in fact, the Senator from Minnesota made the case--the issue on testing is whether or not we are going to set up a politically correct regime or one that actually tests kids to evaluate whether they know what they are supposed to know or whether we are going to set up a standard that essentially dumbs down, essentially takes the median and, when it isn't met, decides to drop it. The bonus system is a critical part of that. The President's bonus system is in the bill and is structured in a way that the States get a bonus if they come on line with a good test early. The Senator from Minnesota is trying to gut that in this amendment. That is part of the first step of gutting the whole concept of quality testing. So from my standpoint, this amendment, although not fundamentally bad, moves us in the wrong direction and therefore should be opposed. I would have been happy to try to rewrite it and make it more effective in conference, but the Senator from Minnesota wants a vote on it. Let's vote on it. It may be adopted, but I am certainly going to vote against it because I do not support political correctness as an element of our test regime.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, what is the time situation?

Mr. GREGG. Who is the time being charged to now? I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. GREGG. And the Senator from Minnesota?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I hope we can proceed without a vote on this amendment. But as long as we are going to vote, let me raise some concerns about it. This amendment comes down on the side of political correctness. One of the biggest problems we are seeing today in the whole issue of how we structure our educational system is that it is becoming extraordinarily subjective in the area of testing. The President has proposed a fair and objective approach where kids in the third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade, and sixth grade are tested on key issues involving English and mathematics in an objective manner. This amendment essentially opens the door to the opportunity for the Secretary of Education--whoever that Secretary might be--or for States, depending on how this gets interpreted, to basically create a qualitative test based on subjectivity. It is no longer an issue of whether you know how to add 2 and 2; it is an issue of whether or not new math means 2 and 2 and should be added correctly. It is no longer an issue of whether or not English involves the King's English or English as defined by Webster's Dictionary; it becomes a question of whether or not English maybe should be created in different terminology for certain groups of folks who maybe don't speak English quite as well and therefore need a different type of English in order to pass a test. ``Qualitative'' is a very subjective term. This amendment, although not definitively defective, creates the opportunity for significant harm down the road if it is carried forward to its full potential. So I am going to oppose it. I suspect it will pass because it has the name ``quality'' on it. But I am going to oppose it because I am very tired of political correctness being introduced into our educational system. I think it is especially inappropriate at the level of mathematics and English in the early grades of our educational system. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GREGG. No.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the ``Leap Ahead'' technologies and transformation initiatives within the Defense Science and Technology Program.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 5, 2001 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing as follows: Annual Report on the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom Witnesses Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh, Former Vice-Chairman, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; and Senior Advisor, National Spiritual Assembly, Alta Loma, CA. Ms. Nina Shea, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom, Freedom House, Washington, DC. Mr. Michael Young, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; and Dean, George Washington University School of Law, Washington, DC. Rabbi David Saperstein, Former Commissioner, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom; Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Washington, DC.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to consider the nominations of Mr. Douglas Jay Feith to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Mr. Jack Dyer Crouch, II, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy; and Mr. Peter W. Rodman, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the education bill on Wednesday, there be 20 minutes of debate on the Wellstone amendment equally divided with no amendments in order to the amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relationship to the amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that following that vote, the Senate then begin consideration of the Collins amendment No. 509.