Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator from Alabama would yield?

Mr. GREGG. Hanushek is a professor at Rochester. He looked at 300 different studies on the question of class size and its effect on pupil performance in the classroom. He also looked at teacher performance in the classroom and teacher professionalism and performance in the classroom. Within those 300 different studies on that subject, he evaluated and came to the conclusions being related by the Senator from Alabama very precisely.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the generosity of the Senator from Washington. I yield to the Senator from Alabama 20 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. I believe the Senator from Minnesota wished to speak. We will proceed after the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, on October 15, 1999, Amy Boyer, a young woman from Nashua, NH, was killed by a man who went on the Internet, purchased her social security number for $45, used it to find her place of work and kill her. As a result of that tragic event, and countless others I have subsequently become aware of, it became clear to me that the sale of social security numbers on the Internet was dangerous and needed to be stopped. Last year, I introduced Amy Boyer's law to do just that. The purpose of that legislation was twofold. First, to ensure that people like Amy Boyer's killer would not be able to purchase social security numbers and second, to prevent companies like Dogpile, and Docusearch.com from being able to sell social security numbers without an individual's consent. Amy Boyer's law accomplished both of these objectives but became mired down in controversy, frankly from both sides, over how to strike a balance between legitimate business and other lawful uses of the social security number which are necessary in many instances to prevent fraud and identity theft and a desire on the part of the privacy organizations to significantly limit public access to social security numbers. Let's face it, like it or not, the Social Security Number has become a national identifier of sorts and in many instances, is the only way to ensure accurate identification of people. Health care providers use the social security number to maintain our health records to ensure we are receiving the services we need; banks and financial institutions use them to prevent fraud--a social security number tells them that a loan applicant is exactly who he says he is. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, ACES, use social security numbers to track down kidnappers and deadbeat dads. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America use social security numbers to do background checks on volunteers to make sure that they are not felons or child molesters. A truly blanket prohibition that did not include any exceptions whatsoever would close- out the above uses. In reality, nobody wants this. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach a suitable compromise before adjourning last session, but I am pleased today to introduce, with Senator Feinstein, after many months of very hard work, the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2001. This is indeed a compromise proposal. Both Senator Feinstein and myself have had countless meetings with parties interested in this issue and have produced, what I believe to be, a good product. It is not a perfect product, but it is a good first step toward balancing significant diverging interests. We will, of course, continue to work with interested parties to perfect this legislation, but we have agreed in concept to certain key principles. First, the public access to the social security number must be limited because of the significant risk of invasions of privacy and the potential for misuse, not the least of which is identity theft. And second, that there are certain legitimate purposes for which the social security number is essential--and we must protect those legitimate uses. Let me summarize the bill's main provisions: First, the legislation contains a prohibition against obtaining social security number with wrongful intent. Persons are prohibited from obtaining a social security number for the purpose of locating or identifying an individual with the intent to physically injure, harm, or use the identity of the individual for any illegal purpose. Second, the legislation prohibits the display, sale and purchase of social security numbers to and by the general public without the individual's consent, except for certain limited purposes. Those purposes include: For purposes permitted, required or excepted under the Social Security Act, section 7 (a)(2) of the Privacy Act of 1974, section 6109(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or section 6(b)(1) of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996: for a public health purpose, including the protection of the health and safety of an individual or in an emergency situation; for a national security purpose; for a law enforcement purpose, including the investigation of fraud and the enforcement of child support obligations; for business- to-business use, including, but not limited to the prevention of fraud, the facilitation of credit checks or background checks of employees, prospective employees, and volunteers, compliance with any requirement related to the social security program, or the retrieval of other information from other businesses or commercial enterprises; except that no business may sell or display a social security number to the general public. For data matching programs under the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 or any similar data matching program involving a Federal, State or local agency; or if such number is required to be submitted as part of the process for applying for any type of Federal, State, or local government benefit or program. Third, an individual may not be required to provide their social security number when purchasing a commercial good or service unless the social security number is necessary: For purposes relating to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, for a background check of the individual conducted by a landlord, lessor, employer, volunteer service agency, or other entity determined by the Attorney General, for law enforcement, or pursuant to a Federal or State law requirement; or if the social security number is necessary to verify identity and prevent fraud with respect to the specific transaction requested by the consumer and no other form of identification can produce comparable information. Fourth, within 3 years after the date of enactment of this legislation, Social Security numbers may not appear on checks issued for payment by Federal, State, or local government agencies. Fifth, within 1 year after the date of enactment of this legislation, Social Security numbers may not appear on any driver's license, motor vehicle registration or any other document issued to an individual for purposes of identification of such individual. However, State Departments of Motor Vehicles may continue to use social security numbers internally and for purposes of sharing information about driving records with other jurisdictions. Sixth, the legislation prohibits prisoners from gaining access to social security numbers. Finally, on the issue of Public Records, which was and remains a very difficult issue. In fact, last year, it was one of the issues that resulted in our inability to pass Amy Boyer's Law. Amy Boyer's law allowed Social Security Numbers to continue to appear in public records with no limitation on access. It did so in recognition of the fact that many states, local governments, and other governmental entities use Social Security Numbers in the same way that many businesses do--to ensure accurate identification of individuals who use their services and to prevent fraud. Many States require social security numbers to be used in documents such as marriage licenses, bankruptcy records, real estate and tax liens, etc. These documents are, under most state laws, a matter of public record, which means the general public can readily gain access to them. Were we to make the appearance of social security numbers in every public record illegal, many states and third party beneficiaries whose business is based on providing access to public records to law offices and other subscribers would have to redact social security numbers from many hundreds of thousands of public documents. This would be a huge task, and it is unclear whether we would in any significant way, further reduce the illegal activity we are trying to prevent. In other words, it is unclear whether the administrative burden and cost would outweigh the potential benefit. This was a very real concern. At the same time we recognized the very real harm that could be caused by unlimited public access to public documents containing social security numbers--in many cases, right on the face of the document. Social security numbers in public records can be dangerous if a stalker knows where to look, and so I made a commitment lasts year to continue to look at this problem and to address it in a way that was sound and fair, and consistent with the overall principles and goals of the legislation. As with the other provisions in this legislation, Senator Feinstein and I reached a compromise. Under our compromise proposal there is no requirement for redaction of social security numbers that appear incidentally in public records, (i.e. not on the face of a document or in a document in a consistent manner). We are trying to limit access to social security numbers for routinely appear in a public record consistently and predictably, on the same page, in every document. For those records, records where the social security number appears non-incidentally, the number must be redacted before the public document is sold or displayed to the general public. Individuals requesting the document who are able to provide the social security belonging to the person who is the subject of the document before receiving the document may receive an unrelated copy of the public document. I believe that the Feinstein-Gregg Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act is a well thought-out, tightly woven piece of legislation that has effectively recognized and balanced the many concerns surrounding the uses of Social Security numbers. Passing this legislation is one of the most important things that Congress can do this year to reduce identity theft and protect individual privacy while permitting the continued legitimate and limited uses of the social security number. I thank Senator Feinstein and look forward to continuing to work with her throughout the legislative process.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, on October 15, 1999, Amy Boyer, a young woman from Nashua, NH, was killed by a man who went on the Internet, purchased her social security number for $45, used it to find her place of work and kill her. As a result of that tragic event, and countless others I have subsequently become aware of, it became clear to me that the sale of social security numbers on the Internet was dangerous and needed to be stopped. Last year, I introduced Amy Boyer's law to do just that. The purpose of that legislation was twofold. First, to ensure that people like Amy Boyer's killer would not be able to purchase social security numbers and second, to prevent companies like Dogpile, and Docusearch.com from being able to sell social security numbers without an individual's consent. Amy Boyer's law accomplished both of these objectives but became mired down in controversy, frankly from both sides, over how to strike a balance between legitimate business and other lawful uses of the social security number which are necessary in many instances to prevent fraud and identity theft and a desire on the part of the privacy organizations to significantly limit public access to social security numbers. Let's face it, like it or not, the Social Security Number has become a national identifier of sorts and in many instances, is the only way to ensure accurate identification of people. Health care providers use the social security number to maintain our health records to ensure we are receiving the services we need; banks and financial institutions use them to prevent fraud--a social security number tells them that a loan applicant is exactly who he says he is. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, ACES, use social security numbers to track down kidnappers and deadbeat dads. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America use social security numbers to do background checks on volunteers to make sure that they are not felons or child molesters. A truly blanket prohibition that did not include any exceptions whatsoever would close- out the above uses. In reality, nobody wants this. Unfortunately, we were unable to reach a suitable compromise before adjourning last session, but I am pleased today to introduce, with Senator Feinstein, after many months of very hard work, the Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act of 2001. This is indeed a compromise proposal. Both Senator Feinstein and myself have had countless meetings with parties interested in this issue and have produced, what I believe to be, a good product. It is not a perfect product, but it is a good first step toward balancing significant diverging interests. We will, of course, continue to work with interested parties to perfect this legislation, but we have agreed in concept to certain key principles. First, the public access to the social security number must be limited because of the significant risk of invasions of privacy and the potential for misuse, not the least of which is identity theft. And second, that there are certain legitimate purposes for which the social security number is essential--and we must protect those legitimate uses. Let me summarize the bill's main provisions: First, the legislation contains a prohibition against obtaining social security number with wrongful intent. Persons are prohibited from obtaining a social security number for the purpose of locating or identifying an individual with the intent to physically injure, harm, or use the identity of the individual for any illegal purpose. Second, the legislation prohibits the display, sale and purchase of social security numbers to and by the general public without the individual's consent, except for certain limited purposes. Those purposes include: For purposes permitted, required or excepted under the Social Security Act, section 7 (a)(2) of the Privacy Act of 1974, section 6109(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or section 6(b)(1) of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996: for a public health purpose, including the protection of the health and safety of an individual or in an emergency situation; for a national security purpose; for a law enforcement purpose, including the investigation of fraud and the enforcement of child support obligations; for business- to-business use, including, but not limited to the prevention of fraud, the facilitation of credit checks or background checks of employees, prospective employees, and volunteers, compliance with any requirement related to the social security program, or the retrieval of other information from other businesses or commercial enterprises; except that no business may sell or display a social security number to the general public. For data matching programs under the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 or any similar data matching program involving a Federal, State or local agency; or if such number is required to be submitted as part of the process for applying for any type of Federal, State, or local government benefit or program. Third, an individual may not be required to provide their social security number when purchasing a commercial good or service unless the social security number is necessary: For purposes relating to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, for a background check of the individual conducted by a landlord, lessor, employer, volunteer service agency, or other entity determined by the Attorney General, for law enforcement, or pursuant to a Federal or State law requirement; or if the social security number is necessary to verify identity and prevent fraud with respect to the specific transaction requested by the consumer and no other form of identification can produce comparable information. Fourth, within 3 years after the date of enactment of this legislation, Social Security numbers may not appear on checks issued for payment by Federal, State, or local government agencies. Fifth, within 1 year after the date of enactment of this legislation, Social Security numbers may not appear on any driver's license, motor vehicle registration or any other document issued to an individual for purposes of identification of such individual. However, State Departments of Motor Vehicles may continue to use social security numbers internally and for purposes of sharing information about driving records with other jurisdictions. Sixth, the legislation prohibits prisoners from gaining access to social security numbers. Finally, on the issue of Public Records, which was and remains a very difficult issue. In fact, last year, it was one of the issues that resulted in our inability to pass Amy Boyer's Law. Amy Boyer's law allowed Social Security Numbers to continue to appear in public records with no limitation on access. It did so in recognition of the fact that many states, local governments, and other governmental entities use Social Security Numbers in the same way that many businesses do--to ensure accurate identification of individuals who use their services and to prevent fraud. Many States require social security numbers to be used in documents such as marriage licenses, bankruptcy records, real estate and tax liens, etc. These documents are, under most state laws, a matter of public record, which means the general public can readily gain access to them. Were we to make the appearance of social security numbers in every public record illegal, many states and third party beneficiaries whose business is based on providing access to public records to law offices and other subscribers would have to redact social security numbers from many hundreds of thousands of public documents. This would be a huge task, and it is unclear whether we would in any significant way, further reduce the illegal activity we are trying to prevent. In other words, it is unclear whether the administrative burden and cost would outweigh the potential benefit. This was a very real concern. At the same time we recognized the very real harm that could be caused by unlimited public access to public documents containing social security numbers--in many cases, right on the face of the document. Social security numbers in public records can be dangerous if a stalker knows where to look, and so I made a commitment lasts year to continue to look at this problem and to address it in a way that was sound and fair, and consistent with the overall principles and goals of the legislation. As with the other provisions in this legislation, Senator Feinstein and I reached a compromise. Under our compromise proposal there is no requirement for redaction of social security numbers that appear incidentally in public records, (i.e. not on the face of a document or in a document in a consistent manner). We are trying to limit access to social security numbers for routinely appear in a public record consistently and predictably, on the same page, in every document. For those records, records where the social security number appears non-incidentally, the number must be redacted before the public document is sold or displayed to the general public. Individuals requesting the document who are able to provide the social security belonging to the person who is the subject of the document before receiving the document may receive an unrelated copy of the public document. I believe that the Feinstein-Gregg Social Security Number Misuse Prevention Act is a well thought-out, tightly woven piece of legislation that has effectively recognized and balanced the many concerns surrounding the uses of Social Security numbers. Passing this legislation is one of the most important things that Congress can do this year to reduce identity theft and protect individual privacy while permitting the continued legitimate and limited uses of the social security number. I thank Senator Feinstein and look forward to continuing to work with her throughout the legislative process.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I might quickly conclude, as the Senator from Virginia is not quite ready, the President's $2.6 billion for teacher improvement and class size reduction will be available at the option of the local community under the TEA legislation, which is a very significant increase over last year's funding level.

Mr. GREGG. Debate appears to be resolving around the amendment of the Senator from Washington, and I did want to speak to that. Then I guess we ought to vote. The amendment of the Senator from Washington is an outgrowth of a proposal that was put forward by President Clinton and was carried by the Senator from Washington for the last couple of years. However it fails, in my opinion, for a variety of reasons. The first reason it fails is the basic philosophy behind the amendment which is we in Washington know better--better than you, the American citizens who run their school districts; you, the parents across America; you, the principals across America; you, the school boards across America--how to run your schools. This is a command and control amendment. This is an amendment which says we are going to put a certain pot of money on the table--your tax dollars, by the way, tax dollars we took from you in Auburn, NH, or Cheyenne, WY, or Chicago, IL. The tax dollars that we took from you, we are going to take some of them and put them on the table. But before you can get any of those tax dollars, you have to do exactly what we tell you to do with them. Specifically, in this instance, you are going to have to hire more teachers. Even if you do not need more teachers, you are going to have to hire more teachers because we in Washington know a great deal more about what you need in your school system than you do. That is the basic premise of this amendment. It is one of the primary reasons I oppose it. The second problem with this amendment is there is no statistical standard which shows that certain class size ratios improve education. In fact, study after study, significant studies--in fact, 300 studies-- which have been reviewed conclude that it is the quality of the teacher that is key to the quality of education more than the class size. That is especially true after you hit a certain level of class size. In the United States today, the average class size ratio is 17 to 1. I think 44 States already meet the level of ratio that was put forward by the President as an appropriate level, which was 18 to 1. So we are not talking about dramatic reductions in class size in States across the country. What we are talking about is essentially trying to work at the fringe with some Federal money to demand that more teachers be hired. But the practical effect of that may be to reduce the quality of education. Why? Because you may end up with poorer teachers being hired because you forced on the school system the requirement that they hire more teachers rather than that they improve the quality and the ability of the teachers who are in the classroom, which almost every study has concluded is the key to good education. In fact, I hold California up as a pretty good example of how this works. They set in place--their right, they have the right to do it--a class size ratio proposal. As a result, they went out from 1995 and hired a whole bunch of new teachers. What happened? The number of certified, qualified teachers went up--this is in the K-3 area--from 1,100 to 12,000 unqualified or teachers who were of questionable quality. They were not certified. They had not learned how to teach a third grader or second grader or first grader or one in kindergarten. So it is very possible that by reducing the class size, California actually ended up putting 11,000 more teachers into the classroom who didn't know how to teach. A couple of other important studies proved beyond any question that if a student is exposed to a teacher who doesn't know what they are doing in a subject, the recovery time for that student is extraordinary. Under a Rand study, they concluded a student may never recover from a poor teacher-- which gets back to the initial point: We do not know whether teachers are good or not. I do not know here, standing on the floor, whether the teacher in Epping, NH, is good or poor, whether the teacher going to be hired is a good teacher or poor teacher. I don't know it in Cheyenne; I don't know it in Chicago. What I do know is the principal in that school probably does know who the good teachers are, probably does know teachers who have weaknesses and need assistance, probably does know whether in one class they need more teachers but in the other class they just need to improve the teacher they have. Or maybe in another class they have such a great teacher who is being pushed out of the school system because they cannot afford to pay the costs because the teacher cannot afford to live on the salary they are being paid and they need to pay that teacher more. I do not know the answer to those questions, but I will tell you who does: The local principals, the school boards, the teachers in the class know that, and the parents whose kids are in the classroom. What does this proposal say? It says it doesn't matter; you have to hire a new teacher. That is your option. If you want this money, you have to hire a new teacher. I think that was misguided. I think it was misguided when President Clinton brought it forward earlier, and as a result we have debated this matter on the floor a number of times. What did we do to try to correct this? Because we do recognize, on our side of the aisle, putting more teachers in the classroom may be the proper resolution to a specific incident; that may be what some school systems need. We also recognize on this side of the aisle maybe the proper resolution is giving that teacher more tools to work with, maybe giving that teacher more educational support, maybe giving that teacher some extra pay so they can keep teaching or some of the other things they may need. So we put in the bill something called the Teacher Empowerment Act. What the Teacher Empowerment Act does is to say let's merge these teaching funds; let's take this Eisenhower grant; let's take the class size grant, put it into a pot of money, and then give the States and local school districts the opportunity to use that money in four different areas. They can hire more teachers for their classroom if that is what they think they need. They can, if they need to, say to a teacher who may be leaving for the private sector: You are too good. We cannot afford to lose you. We will pay you some more money. They can, if they have a teacher in a classroom who maybe isn't quite up to speed on the academic issue they are teaching, say we are going to get some outside assistance; we are going to help you get your credentials up to speed; we are going to give you some money to help you get some more education. Or they can give the teacher some technical support in order to assist that teacher. They can make those decisions. We do not make them on the floor of the Senate. We do not tell the people who are running the local school boards: You must do this; you must do that. We do not tell that to the principals, the teachers, or the students that, or the parents of the students. We would rather say: Under the Teacher Empowerment Act, here are four uses for this pot of money. You make the decision. Isn't that much more logical? We are not saying that the idea of reducing the ratio in a classroom is bad. In fact, we are saying it is a good idea in many instances. In fact, we are saying it is one heck of a good idea if you have a good teacher. We are, however, saying that in those classrooms where the principal knows maybe he doesn't have the right teacher or she doesn't have the right teacher coming in, or maybe that teacher does not know enough about the subject of teaching, that they ought to have other tools available to them to make those teachers more effective. Interestingly enough, the studies have shown that by making teachers more effective in the classroom you can teach a lot more kids a lot better at a lot less cost than by going out and hiring unqualified teachers or teachers who maybe aren't cutting it. It costs about $450 per student to bring a classroom into compliance with some of these proposals that are being proposed today, but if you were to do it through technology, it costs, I think, $90 per student. I think that was, again, a Rand study. We are saying on this side of the aisle, let's give the local school board the flexibility to adjust the classroom size. If they want to go to a ratio of 10 to 1, they can use the money to hire more teachers to do it. If they want a ratio, however, of 17 or 18 to 1, which is the average ratio today, if they want that teacher to learn more to be able to teach better, they should have that option. And that option is going to be made available under the TEA amendment, which is known as title II of this act. I think it also ought to be noted that the resources are committed in this area. The President has made a major commitment in the area of resources to teacher improvement and to class size. He has funded in his budget to the tune of $2.6 billion the money necessary to do teacher improvement and class size. I see the Senator from Virginia, whose amendment is coming up which I am not speaking to. I suspect he wants to say something about his amendment before it gets voted on. I yield to the Senator from Virginia so he can tell us what his amendment is about before we vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe we are going to vote on the Warner amendment at 5:15; is that correct?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we have discussed at considerable length the educational issues that have been brought forward by the BEST bill, which is the proposal that came out of the Health Committee I serve on, chaired by Senator Jeffords from Vermont, and ranking member Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. We talked a lot about policy and the fact this bill moves the policy forward to try to reform our school systems in a number of ways. It does not necessarily go as far as some Members would like, but it is progress in areas which are in significant need of progress. I have had a chance to speak about the need for more choice, the need for basic themes such as being child centered, flexibility, has academic achievement as its goal especially for low-income kids, and it has accountability standards to make sure the academic standards are met. I have spoken on a number of specific issues such as how to deal with teachers, how it improves the capacity of local school districts to do more to get and keep good teachers and hire good teachers. I will speak about the issue of the funding in this bill and the funding question generally because there has been a lot of discussion especially from the other side of the aisle about how inappropriate the funding levels are that the President has proposed to support the educational reforms he has requested. When I hear these representations from the other side of the aisle, I am not so sure they come to the table--not to be too aggressive--with clean hands on the issue. The issue of funding education in this country, especially things such as special education, has been debated for the last few years and it has been the Republican side of the aisle that has significantly increased the commitments to educational funding. I think it is appropriate to review the history of where we are in the area of funding. First, it is most important to point out the equation for better education is not more dollars equal better education. Over and over again it has been shown, in study after study, that more dollars do not produce better education. The key to better education is a much more complex formula than some would have Members believe. Those who suggest we put more dollars in and we get better education are wrong. The key to education is a formula that involves, No. 1, parental involvement; No. 2, good teachers; No. 3, good principles; No. 4, local control over the curriculum and how the schools teach; and probably No. 5 on the list, dollars. It is a mixture of these factors and other factors, of course--facilities and things like that--but primarily it is a very complex formula. It is not just more dollars means better education. A number of studies have shown this relative to local dollars and State dollars. Regarding Federal dollars spent, the statistics are especially startling. We have had a Federal program in place now for over 30 years, the purpose of which was to raise the level of academic achievement of especially low-income children. That is what we were focusing on as a Federal Government. Regrettably, our success in this area has been singularly poor. This chart reflects this. We have spent $120 billion on title I, which is directed at low-income children. Yet the score levels of our kids who meet this category of educational support has remained absolutely flat for all intents and purposes in reading and math. The spending has gone up dramatically, but the score levels of these children has been flat. In fact, the average child who comes from a low-income family today, who is in the fourth grade, reads at two grade levels below a peer in that class. That is true not only for the fourth but fifth and sixth, and naturally they fall back as they go into the eighth, ninth, and tenth grade to the point where this group of kids, low-income families and especially minority families from urban areas, are graduating at less than a 50-percent rate from high school, even though we spent all this money. One thing we know for sure is that putting money into the problem has not resolved it. The issue is, What should we do? We need to reform the system. That is what the President has suggested. Through a lot of hard negotiation and aggressive effort on the part of both sides of the aisle, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords taking the lead, we have been successful coming forward with a bill which in some ways significantly reforms the system, although it leaves out key elements I would like to see, but it is still a major step in the right direction, especially once the bill is amended by the underlying agreement which was reached between the chairman and the ranking member and other people who negotiated. Reform is critical if you get something for the dollars spent. Dollars are not the only issue. Let me simply say the representation by the other side that this administration is not willing to commit the dollars to support reform is inconsistent with the history of what has happened over the last few years and who has been willing to fund what. If you look at the amount of funding which President Clinton suggested we put into the educational system over the 8 years of his administration, recognizing for the first 4 years of his administration he has the deficit, the average amount spent, the average increase, was about 3.3 percent. The biggest increase he suggested in any given year was 3 years ago when he suggested 8 percent. But generally, his increases have been proposed at around 4 percent, 3 percent, 2 percent in the area of spending for education. President Bush has suggested an increase of 11 percent in his budget, twice, three times what President Clinton proposed in any budget over the last 8 years. He has suggested, and he has made an offer to the other side which would represent a 50-percent increase in spending in title I specifically, the single largest increase ever proposed in this program by a factor of 10, by my calculations. The simple fact is that the President has been willing to come forward, subject to reform being put in place, and commit the dollars necessary to support those reforms. Remember something about the reform proposals brought forward, even as part of the agreement: There is a lead time to those reforms being put in place. They basically all key off of something called annual yearly progress, which keys off of a testing regime, and the testing regime is not presumed to be effective or completely in place for almost 3 years, probably 4 years. It is not expected, under this bill, that we will attain our goals because it takes so long to ramp up to this type of a situation, for 10 years. Thus, the money that is going into the program this year, the 50 percent increase which the President has been willing to propose, is a huge infusion of money upfront when the reforms are not in place. It is really a downpayment in anticipation of what will happen in reforms. It is really a sign of good faith on his part to make that type of commitment. He is saying, as President, I am committed to these reforms. I know you have to make the reforms to get decent education and achieve improvement in our education. But I also understand money is going to have to be committed. Even though I am not going to get my reforms immediately, I am willing to put the money upfront, and a significant amount of money, a huge amount of money in the context of what has been done in this area for years. So this argument from the other side that the money is not there, there is not any money there--I heard the ranking member of the Budget Committee come down this morning and give us an explanation of that--is simply inaccurate. Not only has the President proposed to increase his budget by 11 percent, not only was the budget reported out with an 11 percent increase in it, but he has gone much further and said, on the appropriating accounts, he is willing to make a much more significant increase. And the people on the other side who have been negotiating this matter know that. The President has agreed he will find those dollars within the contents of the budget that has been settled on, huge dollars of increase. Let's take another subject in which we have heard a lot of talk about money, IDEA, special education. This is something I have been working on for a long time. The Senator in the chair has been working on it for a long time. The Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the committee, has been working on it for a long time. When I came to the Senate, the Federal Government was paying 6 percent of the cost of special education. It had agreed in 1976 that it would pay 40 percent of the cost. So the difference, the difference between 6 percent and 40 percent, was being picked up by the local communities through their tax base or States through their tax base. Essentially States and local communities were having to support the Federal obligation. As a result, their resources were being skewed and sent places and being used to support Federal obligations when they might have wanted to use them to do something else at the State level. So a number of us made a conscious effort to change that, and we have made huge progress. We have gone from the Federal Government picking up 6 percent of the cost to the Federal Government today picking up almost 17 percent of the cost; and we are closing in on 20 percent of the cost. But who is the energizer for this? Did it come from President Clinton? Did these additional efforts in the area of special education come from President Clinton? For 8 years in a row there was essentially no increase sent up here by the Democratic White House to increase special education funding of any significance. Only 1 year did they send anything up with any significance. In fact, in a number of years they essentially flat funded this account. It was not until we got a Republican Congress that this issue was addressed and began to be addressed aggressively. I have a chart which reflects this rather dramatically. This is 1996, the year the Republican Congress came into being. The red accounts reflect the increase in IDEA funding since that period. As you can see from this bar chart, it has gone up every year since there has been a Republican Congress. In this period, of course, you had a Democratic President. I suggest you go back and look at the budget submissions that came from the White House during this period. You will see no increase. If this were to track the budget submissions of the White House, those lines would be cut off right there. The increase in special education funding has come as a result of aggressive initiatives coming from this side of the aisle. The President this year has put in his budget the single largest increase ever proposed by a White House in the area of special education--$1 billion. So we will now exceed $7 billion in funding for special education if we follow the President's proposal. Those are real dollars that will significantly relieve the burden of the local communities in the area of education and specifically in the area of special education. So when we hear this patter from the other side of the aisle that the dollars are not there to support the initiatives which the President has talked about, it is simply inconsistent with the facts. There is no question but that the hundreds of billions of dollars that have been suggested on the other side of the aisle are not there because they were not responsible and they would not resolve the problem. It was ironic, I have to admit, after 8 years of receiving essentially no increase or only marginal increases in title I funding from a White House controlled by the Democratic Party, that during the first few months, when the White House became controlled by the Republican Party, suddenly the Democratic Party decided they needed a 74 percent increase in funding in 1 year in this account. That was after 8 years of saying they did not really need any type of increase of funding in this account. Could it be political? I don't think so. But the fact is, the request was made and so far we have heard from the other side that unless that request is met, we will be underfunding these accounts. The President has proposed, as I said, in his budget and has supported in his budget an 11 percent increase overall in education funding. That is the single largest item of increase in his budget of any account, whether it is defense, NIH, whatever. He has put on the table an extra $1 billion for special ed funding. And he has made an offer on the appropriating side relative to title I, which would represent a 50 percent increase of title I funding in the first year-- the first year, which is not 74 percent, but it is still a pretty darned big number. My view is that the President has more than gone the distance in putting the money on the table necessary to address the reforms which are in this package. The reforms are good reforms. Once again, let's remember these reforms have a lead-in time which is fairly significant. The money is actually going to be available before the reforms are in place. So I would say the President is showing really good faith in this exercise. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I say to the Senator, I will probably speak 15 to 20 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will speak about the education bill.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 2, 2001, at 2:30 p.m., on cloning.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, May 2, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., on Individual fishing quotas.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, May 2, 2001, at 2 p.m., in SD-226.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, May 2, 2001, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 2, at 9:30 a.m., in order to receive testimony regarding the science of global climate change and issues related to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. GREGG

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 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 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.

Mr. GREGG. I ask the Senator from Texas to yield me such time as I may consume.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of a variety of sections of this piece of legislation. I certainly want to second the comments of the Senator from Texas, who has pointed out some of the significant strengths of the bill. Let me talk about one specific area that I think needs clarity, and then some additional amendments I hope to offer to give parents more options. The question of quality education I think we all understand is parental involvement. It is a good teacher, a good principal, but, most importantly it is a parent who gets involved in their child's daily activity of going to school and learning. Unfortunately, the Federal role in education has historically undermined the ability of the parent to be a participant in that activity. In fact, title I, as it has been structured over the last 25-30 years, has been a school-based, bureaucracy-based funding mechanism. It has not been directed at benefiting the child so much as benefiting the bureaucracy which in turn theoretically benefits the child. As a result, I would argue that that is probably one of the primary reasons title I has failed, and ``failure'' I define is the fact that today the low-income child reads at two grade levels below their peers, and that is the same level of inefficiency or inability that the low-income child was reading at 20 years ago. We have seen a huge amount of money spent on title I over the last 20 years--$120 billion--but we have seen, in fact, no improvement in the performance of low-income children. So they have been, even though we have been spending a lot of money on the program, left behind. This bill tries to address that issue. One of the ways it addresses it is as follows. It attempts to empower the parents, giving the parents a little bigger say in how their children are taught. If you are a parent and you are in a failing school, under today's rules, you have no rights. Your child is stuck in that school and there is virtually nothing you can do to help your child. Under this bill, what we say is if a school fails in the first year, we are going to come in with some additional resources to that school, significantly additional resources, and we are going to try to help that school improve. But if the school is failing in the second year, we are going to do some other things to try to improve that school. We are going to replace some people. We are going to try to dramatically improve the curriculum and, again, we are going to fund that. But if by the third year the school is still failing, we are going to say to the parent: All right, you have the right to do something with your children to try to improve their education because it is very obvious that you are not getting the benefit you need as a result of the way the school is functioning. Unfortunately, I would like to have accelerated that so it would happen in the second year, but the agreement is that in the third year if a child is in a failing school that has failed for 3 years, the parent will have the right to get that child supplemental assistance outside the school system so that if that child is failing in reading or that child is failing in math, the parent, at the parent's option, will be able to take their child and get additional assistance for that child after school or maybe during recess time, however the school wants to set it up, so that that child can go away from the school to a Sylvan Learning Center, to another public school or to a private parochial school for the purposes of getting remedial assistance in the academic area where the child needs help. The child still remains a pupil in the public school system. This is not an option of leaving the public school system and going into a private school system. Rather, this is an option of allowing the parent to get supplemental assistance for that child and allow the child to have the assistance he or she needs in order to bring the child up to speed because he or she has been in this failing school now for at least 3 years--they may have been in it longer--and they are way behind. Under most scenarios, you are going to find they are way behind. So this is an attempt to bring them back up to speed with special tutorial support. What does this mean? For the first time it empowers the parent to do something when their child is stuck in a failing school. Who are we talking about? We are not talking about middle class parents for the most part. We are certainly not talking about wealthy parents. What we are talking about for the most part are single moms, many of them in urban societies, who have virtually no options for their children, and we are going to give that single mother an option. We are going to allow that single mother to take her child and get some assistance in math or reading. That language has been agreed to and put in this bill. Some have called it choice. It is not a choice; it is sort of hybrid of choice. It was an idea I came up with more than 3 years ago and got consensus-- in fact, so much consensus that folks on the other side are announcing it was their idea. We are happy to have many authors of it because it is a good idea. But it really is the first step in the effort to try to empower parents. The second step is equally important. It is not in the bill, unfortunately. That is to take a few schools that we know are failing and that have failed year in and year out and say to the parents of those kids in those schools: We are going to give you a full option of choice. We are going to put the pressure on that school to perform, and if it does not perform we are going to allow you to put your child in another school, either a public school or a private school. Under this bill there is an option to take your child out and put them in a public school after being in a failing school, but there is no option to go to a private school. Now, this is the classic choice situation. This is what we call portability. The idea is instead of having the money go to the school systems which have taken this money and produced year in and year out a failing school, to say to the parents: The money is going to go to your child; it is going to be strapped on the back of your child with a backpack, and you can take that money and your child and you can put them in a different learning climate. But when you do that, the conditions are going to be that your child has to learn. That is the only thing we are going to hold you to. Your child is going to have to start to achieve as a result of leaving that school and going to another school, whether public or private. Your child is going to have to start achieving at the level that they should have achieved to be comparable with or equal to a child in their grade level who is in a school that is performing well. We are going to expect academic achievement, and we are going to have accountability standards expecting academic achievement for you, the parent, having the right to take your child and the money that is supposedly supporting your child, the Federal money--and, really, we are only talking about low-income parents; we are not talking about the general population--to another school. Now, does this idea work? Yes, it does. This idea is already being used in Milwaukee, for example, and it has been extraordinarily successful. It is being used in Arizona, and it has been successful. The fact is, there are a lot of school systems out there that are willing to pursue this type of idea. It should be noted that we are not going to suggest that this be done unilaterally by the Federal Government or that the parent have the unilateral right to make this decision. Rather, what we are suggesting is that there be two conditions present. First, that before this option of a choice or portability is given to the parents, the local school district, the local elected public school district, must opt into the program. You will probably say that will never happen. It will actually happen. That is what happened in Milwaukee. The local elected officials who were responsible for education decided in this case that it wasn't the school district but it was the town council that decided they wanted to give parental choice. They wanted portability. If a local elected board, which is charged with the education responsibility of the children in that school district and, therefore, has the responsibility for public education, decides that as one of the elements of its educational system it wishes to give parents of kids who are in failing schools where the school has failed for at least 3 years the option and the ability to move that child to a private school, they will have that option but only if that idea is supported by the public entity which has legal authority over the public school system. It is not a top-down decision. It is not even a unilateral parental decision. The second condition we have is that no title I money will be used for this exercise. This will be a new funding stream so that the portability initiative or the choice initiative--however you want to call it--will not be a drain on title I funding in the school districts but, rather, will be a separate funding stream that will be available to the community that decides to opt into this. So as to the argument that this is going to somehow undermine the public school system, we punch a hole in that balloon by pointing out that the public school system makes the decision to go down this road. As for the argument it is going to undermine the funding mechanisms for title I kids, we punch a hole in that by making it clear that the funding mechanism is independent of the title I dollars and, therefore, has no impact at all on title I. Those two red herrings can then be set aside, although I am sure we will hear a lot about them when the amendment is offered. The real argument is, interestingly enough, by the Washington Post, a paper with which I don't often agree, editorializing this last Saturday in favor of giving parents some options--especially low-income parents, and especially single mothers in urban communities who have no options today as a result of giving them those options and bringing competition into the school system, and it is competition that produces quality in our society, whether you choose to go to a Burger King over a McDonald's because of the competition or a McDonald's over the Burger King. In education we have no competition today. We have no force for improvement that comes from the marketplace or that comes from the pressure of having to perform in order to get clients. This will introduce that into the system, and, most importantly, it will give hope to parents--in particular, single moms, especially in urban communities, mostly from minority districts--hope that their children will have the opportunity to live the American dream and that their children will have the opportunity to be educated. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Alabama in allowing me to go first. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask to proceed for 10 minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the purpose of the Conflict Diamonds Act of 2001 is to eliminate the illegal diamond trade that has fueled violent conflicts in the African nations of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo, Angola, Ivory Coast, and Burkina Faso. The sale of illicit diamonds has allowed criminal gangs like the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone to buy arms and supplies in an effort to expand their influence. In the process, they have inflicted unspeakable pain, including torture and amputation, on the innocent people they encounter. The Conflict Diamonds Act of 2001 bans the importation into the United States of diamonds from countries that fail to observe an effective diamond control system. Under this legislation, no diamond that has ever been in the possession of the RUF or any other rebel group will be allowed to enter the United States. This includes diamonds that pass through another country for cutting or setting. The Conflict Diamonds Act of 2001 authorizes the President of the United States to ban the importation of diamonds and diamond jewelry from countries if he believes that shipments from those countries violate the legislation's intent. Those who knowingly violate the import ban would be subject to criminal and civil penalties under existing U.S. Customs law. The Customs Service would be authorized to seize illicit shipments. The import ban would take effect six months after enactment, regardless of the status of negotiations for an international agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the purpose of the Conflict Diamonds Act of 2001 is to eliminate the illegal diamond trade that has fueled violent conflicts in the African nations of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo, Angola, Ivory Coast, and Burkina Faso. The sale of illicit diamonds has allowed criminal gangs like the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone to buy arms and supplies in an effort to expand their influence. In the process, they have inflicted unspeakable pain, including torture and amputation, on the innocent people they encounter. The Conflict Diamonds Act of 2001 bans the importation into the United States of diamonds from countries that fail to observe an effective diamond control system. Under this legislation, no diamond that has ever been in the possession of the RUF or any other rebel group will be allowed to enter the United States. This includes diamonds that pass through another country for cutting or setting. The Conflict Diamonds Act of 2001 authorizes the President of the United States to ban the importation of diamonds and diamond jewelry from countries if he believes that shipments from those countries violate the legislation's intent. Those who knowingly violate the import ban would be subject to criminal and civil penalties under existing U.S. Customs law. The Customs Service would be authorized to seize illicit shipments. The import ban would take effect six months after enactment, regardless of the status of negotiations for an international agreement. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.