Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nickles amendment of which I am a cosponsor along with a number of other Members of the Senate. This proposal addresses one of the underlying political debates we are confronting today in trying to reach conclusion on our entire budget, which is the manner in which we should handle Social Security surplus. It is a key element of how we can resolve this matter and resolve it in a way that fulfills at least the stated goals of the various parties. We have heard the President say on a number of occasions he wants to protect the Social Security surplus and preserve it for Social Security. It has been our position, as the Republican membership of this Senate, that we should do exactly that. In fact, we have offered time and again something called a lockbox which would essentially guarantee all Social Security surplus be held independent of any other spending and would not be available for any other activities of the Government but, rather, be reserved for the purposes of paying down the debt and being retained in the Social Security trust fund as debt instruments. Unfortunately, as we have moved down the road to address the operating budget of the Federal Government, it has been clear the administration wants to have it both ways: They want to say, on one side, protect the Social Security trust fund, and specifically the surplus which is now being generated by the Social Security accounts; but, on the other side, they want to propose a large amount of new spending which would inevitably lead to using up some portion of the surplus of the Social Security trust fund. Senator Nickles, other Members of this Senate, and I have come forward with this proposal which is a sense of the Senate and therefore isn't binding. Hopefully at some point it will be put into binding language. It says under no circumstances will Social Security trust fund dollars or the surplus now being generated by the Social Security taxes being paid be used to operate the general functions of the Federal Government, and that we should have a mechanism to guarantee what is known as a sequester which is a system of saying, if ever we should spend a dollar or it is looking as if we are about to spend a dollar of Social Security surplus funds, there will be a sequester in spending of the general fund, the general operating accounts of the Federal Government, the discretionary accounts of the Federal Government, the ``sequester'' meaning those accounts would be reduced to the extent necessary in order to be sure no Social Security surplus funds would be used. This, of course, is the proper way to proceed because it sets in place a mechanism which makes it clear, and which makes it absolutely a sure thing, that there will be not an invasion of Social Security surplus funds. To step back a second, let's understand what the Social Security surplus funds are. We all pay Social Security taxes on our earnings. They are called FICA taxes. Those taxes go into what is known as the Social Security trust fund. That trust fund is used to pay for the operation of the Social Security system. The Social Security system for many years ran a deficit where the taxes being raised were not enough to support the money being paid to support the benefits, or it was about to run a deficit. Therefore, we changed the tax law and we changed the structure of the benefits back in 1983 so the system was put into a solvent situation. As the baby boom generation grew in its earning capacity and the older generations preceding, the World War II generations, retired, we found the earning capacity of the baby boom generation was so great it was generating a huge surplus. In other words, there was more money going into the Social Security trust fund than was needed to support the people on Social Security. For a number of years, because the operating accounts of the Federal Government, the day-to-day operation accounts independent of Social Security, were running a deficit, the Social Security trust fund was borrowed from to mask the deficit of the operating accounts of the Federal Government. We ended up with the Federal Government day-to-day operations, whether defense, education, or social services, being supported by the Social Security taxes which were being paid into the Social Security trust fund. With the occurrence of the good economy and a strict fiscal discipline put in place by this Republican Congress, we now are in a position where we are running what is known as a real surplus. In other words, the amount of money we are taking in in order to operate the Federal Government in its day-to-day activities is about the same, and it is starting to grow to the point where it is actually exceeding the amount of money necessary to operate the Federal Government. So things such as education, defense, and general social services can be paid for by the general revenues of the Federal Government. It is no longer necessary for us to invade the Social Security trust fund in any way to operate the Federal Government. Yet there is still some pressure, because there is this surplus running up in the Social Security trust fund, to say we can spend a little more on the operations side of the Federal Government--a little more for defense, a little more for education. All we have to do is take it out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for it. That is what this debate is about; there are many of us who believe that is not the proper way to do it. The money that goes into the Social Security trust fund should be reserved for the purposes of preserving and protecting Social Security. Some of us have even gone so far as to put forward major pieces of legislation, bipartisan in nature, which would structure a program to make the Social Security system solvent not only for today but for the next hundred years. In fact, there is a bill that would do exactly that which I cosponsor with Senator Breaux, Senator Grassley, and a number of other Members, Senator Kerrey, Bob Kerrey from Nebraska. It would make the Social Security system solvent for years. It would use this surplus in the Social Security trust fund to accomplish that solvency. That is really another story. But it points out it is important the Social Security surplus is preserved for Social Security, the preservation of Social Security, and it is not used to operate the general government. In order to keep Social Security solvent, in order to keep the surplus from the day-to-day operation of the Federal Government, we have put forward this sense of the Senate. As I mentioned, what the sense of the Senate essentially says is, if it occurs that the day-to- day operation of the Federal Government--for national defense, for education, for general social activities--should exceed the operating income of the general government--income taxes, business taxes, various excise taxes we receive--if it should exceed those incomes, then rather than go into the Social Security trust fund to pay for that deficit, we will reduce the spending of the Federal Government to the point where the incomes of the Federal Government meet the expenses of the Federal Government on the operating side of the ledger and the Social Security surplus will, therefore, be kept protected and preserved for the purpose, I hope, of putting in place a large, comprehensive plan I just described to you, that Senators Breaux, Kerrey, and Grassley, and I have introduced. This proposal is a sense of the Senate. It is not even actually a legislative event. I hope someday it will be. But this legislation simply states that the Senate is not going to tolerate the invasion of the Social Security trust fund for purposes of operating the day-to-day functioning of the Government of the United States; that we are going to expect the Government of the United States to meet its day-to-day operating expenses from the traditional resources that are available to it for operations and not from the income that comes from those people who are paying Social Security taxes. Rather than just making that as a statement, we are also taking it a step further, saying we shall create a sequester mechanism whereby there will be an actual reduction in spending on the day-to-day operations side of the account should there ever occur a situation where the Social Security trust fund was going to be used in order to pay for day-to-day operations. Thus, we create this clear, enforceable protection for Social Security and for our Social Security trust fund. It is a very simple idea. It is a very appropriate idea. Most important, it is an idea that is absolutely consistent with everything we have heard from the White House and from the other side of the aisle as it has put forward its concepts of how we should protect and preserve the Social Security trust fund. Essentially, Senator Nickles, I, and the other Senators who support this legislation, most of whom I guess are Republican, are really doing the work of the administration. We know, for that reason, we are going to be supported both by the administration and Democratic Members of the Senate.

Mr. GREGG. Ten minutes.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I am joined with Senator Hagel in introducing a bill to allow States and schools districts to switch Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education from a school-based to a child-based program. We will soon take up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The centerpiece of which is Title I which was created in 1965 to provide extra educational assistance to low-income students. Since its inception, Title I has grown into the largest federal education program for elementary and secondary school students with funding, in this year alone, at $7.7 billion. Unfortunately, after more than 30 years and expenditures of $118 billion, national evaluations indicate that Title I has failed to achieve its primary aim of reducing the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Reading scores in 1998 showed that only 6 States made progress in narrowing the gap between White and African American students and just 3 made progress narrowing the gap between White and Hispanic students. While the gap actually grew in 16 States. In math, nine year olds in high poverty schools remain 2 grade levels behind students in low- poverty schools. In reading, nine year old students in high poverty schools remain 3 to 4 grade levels behind students in low poverty schools. Seventy percent of children in high poverty schools score below even the most basic level of reading. Two out of every three African American and Hispanic 4th graders can barely read. It is time to take a fresh look at this important program to ensure that our neediest students are receiving the services they need. We must provide enough flexibility in Title I for students to receive high quality supplemental educational services, wherever those services are offered. In order to enable needy students to access high quality supplemental services, States and school districts should be given the opportunity to transform Title I from a school-based program to a child-centered program. Which is exactly what my bill does. Let me explain. Currently, Title I dollars are sent to States, then distributed to school districts, and ultimately to schools--this is known as a school- based program. Aid goes to the school, rather than directly to the eligible child. This process of sending dollars to districts and schools rather than students has a serious unintended consequence--millions of eligible children never receive the educational services promised to them by this program. To make matters worse, even schools which have been identified by their States and communities as chronic poor performers continue to receive Title I dollars, despite that fact that well over one-third of eligible children (about 4 million children) receive no services. Today, 4 million children generate Title I revenue for their school district, but never receive Title I services; despite the fact that the school district received federal funds to provide supplemental educational services to those very children. We should not continue the practice of sustaining failed schools at the expense of our nation's children. The very serious problem of under serving our neediest students can be alleviated by giving States and school districts the ability to focus their efforts by directly serving Title I eligible students through a child-centered program. This bill permits interested States and school districts to use Title I dollars to create a child-centered program. Here is how it would work. Interested states and school districts could use their Title I dollars to establish a per pupil amount for each eligible child--any child between the ages of 5-17 from a family at or below the poverty line. The per pupil amount would then follow the child to the school they attend. The per pupil amount would be used to provide supplemental educational (``add-on'' or ``extra'') services to meet the individual educational needs of children participating in the program. Since some schools continue to fail to provide high quality educational services to their neediest students, students could use their per-pupil amount to receive supplemental educational (``add-on'') services from either their school or a tutorial assistance provider, be that a Sylvan learning center, a charter school or a private school. The idea behind this provision is to allow parents to use their per- pupil amount to purchase extra tutorial assistance for before or after school. There are numerous benefits to turning Title I into a child-centered program. It increases the number of disadvantaged children served by Title I. It ensures that federal dollars generated by a particular student actually benefit that student. It rewards good schools and penalizes failing schools, as children would have the option to go the schools that best meet their needs and take their Title I money with them. A child- centered program decreases the practice of financially rewarding schools that consistently fail to provide a high quality education to their students. And, it ensures that students who are stuck in a bad school have access to educational services outside the school, by permitting parents to use their child's per-pupil allotment for tutorial assistance. In short, this bill creates a much-needed market for change in that it gives families the ability to take their federal dollars out of a school that is not using them effectively and purchase services somewhere else. Families are empowered and schools are compelled to improve in order to keep their students. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Turning Title I into a child-centered program puts Title I back on the right track, focusing on what is best for the child first and foremost. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, today I am joined with Senator Hagel in introducing a bill to allow States and schools districts to switch Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education from a school-based to a child-based program. We will soon take up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The centerpiece of which is Title I which was created in 1965 to provide extra educational assistance to low-income students. Since its inception, Title I has grown into the largest federal education program for elementary and secondary school students with funding, in this year alone, at $7.7 billion. Unfortunately, after more than 30 years and expenditures of $118 billion, national evaluations indicate that Title I has failed to achieve its primary aim of reducing the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Reading scores in 1998 showed that only 6 States made progress in narrowing the gap between White and African American students and just 3 made progress narrowing the gap between White and Hispanic students. While the gap actually grew in 16 States. In math, nine year olds in high poverty schools remain 2 grade levels behind students in low- poverty schools. In reading, nine year old students in high poverty schools remain 3 to 4 grade levels behind students in low poverty schools. Seventy percent of children in high poverty schools score below even the most basic level of reading. Two out of every three African American and Hispanic 4th graders can barely read. It is time to take a fresh look at this important program to ensure that our neediest students are receiving the services they need. We must provide enough flexibility in Title I for students to receive high quality supplemental educational services, wherever those services are offered. In order to enable needy students to access high quality supplemental services, States and school districts should be given the opportunity to transform Title I from a school-based program to a child-centered program. Which is exactly what my bill does. Let me explain. Currently, Title I dollars are sent to States, then distributed to school districts, and ultimately to schools--this is known as a school- based program. Aid goes to the school, rather than directly to the eligible child. This process of sending dollars to districts and schools rather than students has a serious unintended consequence--millions of eligible children never receive the educational services promised to them by this program. To make matters worse, even schools which have been identified by their States and communities as chronic poor performers continue to receive Title I dollars, despite that fact that well over one-third of eligible children (about 4 million children) receive no services. Today, 4 million children generate Title I revenue for their school district, but never receive Title I services; despite the fact that the school district received federal funds to provide supplemental educational services to those very children. We should not continue the practice of sustaining failed schools at the expense of our nation's children. The very serious problem of under serving our neediest students can be alleviated by giving States and school districts the ability to focus their efforts by directly serving Title I eligible students through a child-centered program. This bill permits interested States and school districts to use Title I dollars to create a child-centered program. Here is how it would work. Interested states and school districts could use their Title I dollars to establish a per pupil amount for each eligible child--any child between the ages of 5-17 from a family at or below the poverty line. The per pupil amount would then follow the child to the school they attend. The per pupil amount would be used to provide supplemental educational (``add-on'' or ``extra'') services to meet the individual educational needs of children participating in the program. Since some schools continue to fail to provide high quality educational services to their neediest students, students could use their per-pupil amount to receive supplemental educational (``add-on'') services from either their school or a tutorial assistance provider, be that a Sylvan learning center, a charter school or a private school. The idea behind this provision is to allow parents to use their per- pupil amount to purchase extra tutorial assistance for before or after school. There are numerous benefits to turning Title I into a child-centered program. It increases the number of disadvantaged children served by Title I. It ensures that federal dollars generated by a particular student actually benefit that student. It rewards good schools and penalizes failing schools, as children would have the option to go the schools that best meet their needs and take their Title I money with them. A child- centered program decreases the practice of financially rewarding schools that consistently fail to provide a high quality education to their students. And, it ensures that students who are stuck in a bad school have access to educational services outside the school, by permitting parents to use their child's per-pupil allotment for tutorial assistance. In short, this bill creates a much-needed market for change in that it gives families the ability to take their federal dollars out of a school that is not using them effectively and purchase services somewhere else. Families are empowered and schools are compelled to improve in order to keep their students. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill. Turning Title I into a child-centered program puts Title I back on the right track, focusing on what is best for the child first and foremost. I ask that it be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I object to that at this time, until I have a chance to talk to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GREGG. I would suggest that we allow Senator Kerry to speak and then we can discuss this.

Mr. GREGG. That is exactly what I am doing at this time. So I suggest we go forward with Senator Kerry and discuss this further.

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object. In fact, I would object to that. I am not sure who else may want to second degree my amendment. I am not sure what the proper order will be for recognition relative to second degreeing my amendment.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator would yield, I am not sure why we would vote on the Boxer amendment if the Gregg amendment survived.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from California. What this amendment says is, rather than taking the $200 million, which is new money, brand new money, to be advance funded into next year, and therefore it would be a credit against the 2001 budget--rather than taking that money and putting it into a program which the Senator from Pennsylvania has already increased by $200 million, and which has been aggressively funded, before we start out with an additional doubling of that amount, $200 million, that we begin the process of fulfilling our commitment to the special ed funds. As I have said almost ad nauseam now on this floor, the Federal Government agreed to fund special education, when the bill was originally passed, at 40 percent of the cost of special ed. Unfortunately, as of about 4 years ago, the percentage of the cost of special ed which the Federal Government paid was only 6 percent. Over the last 3 years, as a result of the efforts of the Senator from Pennsylvania, the majority leader, and a number of other Senators, that funding has increased dramatically. In fact, the funding for special education in this bill is up by almost $700 million over the last 4 years. If you include this bill, the funding will be up more than 100 percent over that time period. But there is still a huge gap between what the Federal Government committed to do in the area of special education and what we are presently doing. Thus, before we begin down the road of a dramatic increase on top of another dramatic increase in funding for the afterschool programs, recognizing there is already $200 million in this bill for afterschool programs, an extremely generous commitment made by the Senator from Pennsylvania and by the majority party, I believe we should take any additional funds that are going to go on top of that $200 million and put them into the special ed accounts, which is where the local schools really need the support. It may be when the local school districts get this additional $200 million for special ed, which will free up $200 million at the local district, that the local school district may make the decision with their freed up money, which was local tax dollars, to do an afterschool program. That may be very well what they decide to do with that. They also may decide to add a new teacher so they can address the class size issue. Or they may decide to put in a computer lab. Or they may decide to put in a foreign language program. Or they may decide to buy books for the library. But it will be the local school district which will have that flexibility, because they will have had the Federal Government at least add $200 million more into the effort to fulfill the Federal Government's role in special ed. This is a very important issue. It is one which I have talked about, as I said, innumerable times on this floor and raise again with this second-degree amendment. I think the issue is prioritization. If we are going to start throwing money or putting a great deal of additional money into the Federal effort in education, my view is the first effort, the first priority is that we fulfill the obligations and commitments which are already on the books which the Federal Government has made to the local school districts. The biggest commitment we made to the local school districts which we presently do not fund is the commitment in special education. One can go to almost any school district in this country and ask them what the biggest problem is they have in the Federal Government's role in education, and they will tell you the Federal Government refuses to fund its fair share of the cost of the special education child. The effect of that, of course, is we pit the special education child against parents of children who do not have special education children in an unfair way. It has disadvantaged the parents and the special ed child because they are now competing for local resources which should be used for general education activities because those local resources have to be used to replace the Federal obligation which is not being fulfilled. This amendment is very simple. It says before we start another $200 million on top of $200 million for a new program, a program which is aggressively funded already under this bill, let's do what we have already put on the books as our commitment, which is fund special ed with any additional money. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. GREGG. Regular order. I do not think the Senator may be yielded to for a statement.

Mr. GREGG. I also note the Senator from Massachusetts must not have heard my speech because I outlined specific reasons why class size is not as important as quality of education and quality of teachers. Isn't it true the quality of the teachers is what is the key here, and the amendment of the Senator from Washington will go to allowing schools to improve quality of education and quality of teachers?

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor. The bill has been so distorted in its presentation from the other side for the last hour and a half, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, in fairly quick terms, disposed of that distortion. But let me reinforce the point that was made. There is $1.2 billion in this bill for teachers--teacher activity. It is not an authorized program in the bill because this is an Appropriations Committee, and it doesn't authorize. I find it a bit unique to hear the ranking member of the authorizing committee come to the floor and say that he wanted it as an authorization on this appropriations bill when 2 weeks ago--or 5 weeks ago now--we passed an amendment in this body which said we weren't going to authorize on appropriations bills. So the chairman of this subcommittee has appropriately put the money in for teacher assistance--$1.2 billion. And he has not authorized, which is the proper way to proceed. On the issue of class size itself, there are disagreements. Time and again, we heard in the speeches from the other side how they were going to tell the local school districts how to run their business. There is no longer any sugar-coating of this issue. The fact is that the proposal from the other side of the aisle, which originated with the White House, is a proposal specifically directed at telling local school districts how to run their local school districts. We heard terms such as: How can we pass the language in the appropriations bills when there are no strings attached? The Member from the other side said that. How are we going to know it works if we don't put strings on? Yesterday, in the committee, the junior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, stated as a metaphor: Well, this is like a parent who gives a child an allowance. If you do not tell the child how to spend that allowance, how are you going to know how the child spends it? She might go out and buy candy instead of buying school lunches. That was the metaphor used in committee yesterday. I point out that the Federal Government is not the parent of the local school districts. The parent in this instance happens to be the parent of the kids. They are the parents. They are the ones who should be making the decision as to how the money gets spent. We are not the parents. We are not the local parents for every school district in the country, although that happens to be the view of the Democratic minority in this House and the White House. They are the great fathers from Washington who come down into the school districts, and say: Oh, school districts. Give us your money so we can take it to Washington, and, by the way, spread a little bit of it out among the bureaucracy in Washington. And then we will send you back some percentage of your money--maybe 85 cents on the dollar, if you are lucky--and then we will tell you how to spend the money. That is the theory that comes from the other side of the aisle. This class size proposal is the ultimate example of that because where do they get the money for the class size proposal? They took it out of special education dollars, which essentially meant that local money which was supposed to be used for local decisions--whether it was to add a new teacher for a school or to add a new wing to the school or to add a new computer program to the school--that local money was lost because it had to go to support special education needs which were supposed to be supported by the Federal Government, while the Federal Government came and took the special education money and put it into a classroom program and said: Here, school district. In order to get your money, you have to take our program as it is presented to you, and in no other way. You must accept a class size program in order to get your money back, money which you were supposed to be getting to begin with to help you with special education dollars, for example. The whole theory of this class size proposal, as it comes from the White House and on the other side of the aisle, is flawed because it essentially is the theory that says Washington knows best. You either do what Washington says or else you are not going to get your money back from Washington--your hard-earned dollars you sent here. We, however, take a different approach on this. We suggest that when you send money to Washington--unfortunately it still goes through bureaucracy--when you get it back, especially in the area of education, the teachers, the parents, the principals, and the local school districts know best how to spend it. Yes, we are going to put in some very broad parameters that basically go to quality. But we are not going to exactly tell you that you must hire a new teacher. Rather, we have proposals such as the TEA bill, which passed the House, which I hope will pass here, which says for this money--$1.2 billion--if you want to hire a new teacher, fine, but if you want to train your present teachers to be better math teachers, you can do that, too. Or, for example, if you have a really good teacher, maybe in the sciences, and a lot of pressure is being put on that teacher to move out of the classroom and into the private sector because they can make so much more, you can use the money to give that teacher some sort of bonus in order to keep them in the classroom where they are doing such good. Give the local communities flexibility. Let's give some credibility to the idea that the teacher, the principal, and the parent actually know what is best for the kid; that maybe the President does not know what is best for every classroom in America; that maybe the Department of Education does not know what is best for every classroom in America. Maybe it is the people in the classroom and the parents, who have a huge interest in what is happening in this classroom, who know a little bit more about what is happening in that classroom and what the adequate allocation of resources should be. Our proposal is that we put this $1.2 billion in the context of flexibility. Make it applicable to teachers, make it available for teacher activity, but do not say you must hire a teacher. Remember that this is not a debate over money, although some will try to characterize it that way. In fact, this bill brought forward by the Senator from Pennsylvania exceeds the President's request in education by almost $.5 billion. In this account--the issue of the teachers account--the money is the exact same. What the President asked for and what we have in this bill is $1.2 billion. It is not an issue of money. It is an issue of power and who controls the dollars and who makes the decision over how those dollars are spent. We happen to think the parent, the teacher, the principal, and the school district should have the power. The other side thinks they should have the power--specifically right here in this Chamber, with no strings. They have to have strings attached--from that desk right over there; that desk three rows up and two desks over--running from that desk out to every school district in the country; thousands of strings all over the country running out of that desk telling Americans how to spend that money and how to control the classroom. Then we are going to reel in those strings. And when we find at the end of the string that somebody did something we don't like, somebody from that desk three rows up and two desks over will say: You are not educating your kids correctly, and we know how to do it better. So we are going to take your money away. Here, we are cutting this string right here. That is not right. Let's send the money out to the schools. Let's let the parents make the decisions. Let's let the teachers make the decisions. Let's let the principal make the decisions within the context of requiring quality. While we are on the subject, let's talk a little bit about this mythology--that is what it is, mythology--that class size isn't the issue. This has been polled. That is the reason this is being put forward. This is a polling event. It has nothing to do with the substance of the studies that have been done on the education. They keep quoting the STAR study out in Tennessee. The STAR study has been reviewed by a lot of other studies, including the STAR study itself. The conclusion has been that it isn't so much class size that is important, but it is quality of the teacher that is important. One of the conclusions in the Tennessee study was that if you had first- class teachers for 2 or 3 years, then those students' ability to do the work was improved dramatically. It not only was improved dramatically for the years they had first-class teachers, but it carried forward for 3 or 4 years after they got a really good teacher. That ability of that student went up. It wasn't size of classrooms so much as quality of teachers. That is what our proposal does, the TEA proposal that goes to the issue of quality teachers and trying to keep quality teachers in the classroom, and letting the local school districts decide who is the quality teacher and who isn't. It does no good to put a child in a classroom--whether it is 18-to-1, 15-to-1, 10-to-1 or 25-to-1--if that kid is being taught by a teacher who does not know anything about the subject they are teaching or who is an incompetent teacher. It simply doesn't do any good. The child doesn't learn anything because the teacher doesn't know the subject or the child isn't able to communicate with the teacher because the teacher doesn't have the ability to communicate effectively with children. Class size is not the critical function. It is whether or not that teacher knows the subject and knows how to communicate it and deal with the children. That has been the conclusion of study after study. If we are citing studies, there was an excellent study done by the University of Rochester which has led the subject for years. They looked at over 300 other studies on the question of class size and teacher quality. The first conclusion of that study by Professor Hanushek was that class size reduction has not worked. The second conclusion was that Project STAR in Tennessee does not support overall reduction in class size except perhaps in kindergarten. Remember, this study looked at 300 other studies. Third, the quality of teacher is much more important than the size of the classroom. That study is not unique. He looked at 300 different studies. In the State of Washington, there was also a study which came to the exact, same conclusion. In my own State of New Hampshire we did a study. The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies did the same study and came to the same conclusion. A study in Boston dealt with a charter school and found the same. Studies have been done. The evidence is absolutely clear. It is not size of the classroom; it is quality of teacher. Yes, size may play a marginal function. So we may ask, isn't it obvious size has an impact? We all can agree that size has a small impact but size has been addressed in most States. The President's initiative said we had to have an 18-1 ratio in class size. That is what his goal was. Maybe Members haven't been out of Washington to look at the school systems; maybe they are getting their information from the Education Department or their teacher union friends. But the fact is 42 States have an 18-1 ratio in class size; 42 States already meet the class size requirements. What those 42 States need is a better effort in producing high-quality teachers. What we have in this country is a severe lack of well-trained teachers, teachers in the classroom who are not capable and not doing the job in core disciplines and in areas of education communication. That is where we need help. That is where our teachers need help. More than 25 percent of the new teachers entering our schools are poorly qualified to teach; 1 out of every 4. Mr. President, 12 percent of the teachers entered without any prior classroom experience; 14 percent of the teachers entered our Nation's schools having not fully met the State standards. In Massachusetts alone, 59 percent of the incoming teachers failed the basic licensing exam; 96 percent of those who retook the exam failed again. The issue is not numbers in the classroom. The issue is quality of the teacher, how to get a good teacher into the classroom. This is especially true in mathematics and science where we have a dearth of the talent we need because the teachers are not being adequately trained and science moves so quickly they can't stay up with the science. Forty percent of the math teachers in this country do not have a major or a minor in the field in which they teach. Tell me how it will help a student to be in a classroom with a teacher who has not had algebra, who has no major in algebra, maybe didn't even take algebra? How does it help a student, whether there are 10, 15, or 20 students in the classroom, if the teacher doesn't understand the subject matter? Clearly, we are not going to help the student no matter how many kids are in the class. The issue is not class size. The statistics prove it is not class size. Studies show it is not class size. Even the Tennessee study referred to by the Senator from Massachusetts shows it is not class size. The issue is quality. Yet the President's program and the program of the junior Senator from Washington says to the States: States must reach this ratio, and if they don't reach this ratio, we will take your money away to some other account. And you must hire a teacher to get your money back--the money you sent to begin with. We say that is foolish. It is intuitive. It is obvious if you have a school district with parents involved, teachers involved, principals, and school boards involved, they will know whether they need another teacher or they will know whether they need another classroom or they will know whether they need another computer science lab or they will know whether they have to send some of their teachers to educational classes that might help them in their capacity to handle certain subjects, or they will know if they have a teacher about to leave whom they think is good and they want to teach. The local school district will know these things. These people are not out there committing their lives to education in order to bring down education. These people are well-intentioned, well- purposed, well-meaning, sincere, hard-working individuals who work in our schools. Yet we treat them, as the Senator from Washington described yesterday in committee, as if they were children getting an allowance. It is insulting to them, No. 1. No. 2, it doesn't work. Obviously, these folks who are running our schools should be given the flexibility to make the decisions within certain parameters so they can do what they think is best for the school district. The parameters we laid out are quality parameters set not by the Federal Government but set by the States. We say: State, you can have this money, but you have to meet certain quality standards and you set those quality standards and test for the quality standards. When you fail to meet the quality standards, you have to take action to correct it. If you don't correct it, then action can be taken by the Federal Government, but not until the local community has had a chance to meet its decisions in the context as to what it sees as its problems. That is a much more logical approach to all of this. I know the Senator from Arkansas is one of the leaders on this subject and wants to speak. I could go on for quite a while because I find the arguments on the other side to be so outrageous and so arrogant in their viewpoint which is: We know best for school districts of America. We know best because we happen to be elected to the Senate or elected President of the United States. We know what is best at the local school districts. That is outrageous. This is not about money. The money is in the bill, $1.2 billion. It is there. The Senator from Pennsylvania has been extremely aggressive in funding education. We have on all sorts of accounts exceeded what the President requested. This is about power and the fact there are interest groups in Washington, specifically major labor unions and the education bureaucracy, who want to control the curriculum and the school activities and the educational structure of our elementary schools across this country. They don't want to give up that control. Every time they create a new program, it is directed at control from Washington, telling the local districts how to spend their money. That is what it is about. We put forth proposals which are aggressively funded which do the opposite: We empower the parent; we empower the teacher; we empower the principal; we empower the local school district. That is the way it should be done and that is the way we improve education. This is a debate which I enjoy engaging in because I believe it is fairly obvious that proposals from the other side are misdirected and do little to improve education--maybe a lot to improve the power of the local unions, the national unions, and the national education lobby, but they do nothing for local education, whereas our proposal does a great deal to help the local school districts help their kids get a better life, a better education. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the Reid amendment be set aside.

Mr. GREGG. What is the regular order?

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to say a few words about a good friend of mine upon his retirement. I have known Dominick Giovinazzo, the retiring Executive Director of the Greater Nashua, NH, Boys and Girls Club, for many, many years. During that time, I have regarded him as one of the finest people I know. For the past 28 years, he has worked at the Greater Nashua Club and has dedicated himself to serving the kids who are members there. He is a passionate advocate of child safety and has worked to ensure that no child in the city of Nashua has to spend his or her afternoons and weekends on the streets or doing drugs. He has become an advisor and mentor to the staff of all of the New Hampshire Clubs; his wisdom and experience have guided each Boys and Girls Club in the State to become strong pillars of their communities. Most importantly, he has been a good friend to his own community and to his fellow public servants. Over the years, I have appreciated his friendship, support, and guidance. I can only hope that others will follow his example of charity and dedication. Rarely does one come across another human being who so fully dedicates himself to a life of helping others. It was Dominick who brought the importance and success of the Boys and Girls Clubs to my attention many years ago. And it was because of his tireless advocacy for the Clubs that I have worked so hard to ensure that the federal government helps fund the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Dominick showed me the importance of giving our youth a safe place to go and dependable, responsible friends to lean on. No other person so richly deserves an easy retirement than Dominick Giovinazzo. I wish him luck in his future endeavors, and I am sure that he will never stop caring about and lending his talents and civic- minded wisdom to his community. He is a valuable resource who I know the City of Nashua, the Greater Nashua Boys and Girls Club, and his other friends and admirers will rely on for years to come.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Maine has been a leader on education issues, also, especially IDEA. To complete my thought on that issue, the President sent up a budget which had no increase in IDEA. He took the money from the special ed kids and he started these new categorical programs--buildings, afterschool, teachers. That money should have gone to special ed to fulfill the obligation of the 40 percent we said we were going to pay in the first place. But, no, he took the money from the IDEA program and put it into the categorical programs, which had the double, insidious effect of making the local governments have to now support the Federal programs, so they lose their local schools. They could have built schools if they wanted to build schools or added teachers or done whatever they wanted to. Now they don't have the dollars because they are supporting IDEA. On top of that, he says to the local school districts: I have taken your dollars for special ed, which we were supposed to pay you to begin with, and I put them in categorical programs; to get the dollars, you have to do what I tell you to do--build a school, or add a teacher, or you have to do an afterschool program. The local school district may not want to do that; they may want to do something else, such as a new French program, or a new computer system. They may want to add to the football team, or put in an arts department. But they can't do it because the money they were going to have to do that with is being spent to do the Federal end of the special ed funds. Now the money that is supposed to come in for that is coming into a categorical grant. It is all about power and who is going to run the education system. Is it going to be run in Washington by labor union leaders and bureaucrats, or is it going to be run by the teachers, parents, and the principals? That is what this debate is about; it is not about money. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG. That is exactly right. It is about philosophy and it is about power.

Mr. GREGG. The Senator is absolutely correct. Regarding IDEA, the President, all during his term in office, has never sent up a budget of any significance. However, the Republican Senate and Congress have increased IDEA funding by over 85 percent and, after this year, there will be up to about a 110-percent increase in it over the baseline with which we started.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think, going forward with this debate, there ought to be some facts pointed out for clarification because the resolution of the Democratic leader and the representations of the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Illinois are not consistent with the facts, as they are presently in existence and on the ground. Specifically, the Republican budget included a dramatic increase for education, and the mark for education under the Labor-HHS bill, which is being marked up this evening, represents a $2.2 billion increase over last year; no reduction, a $2.2 billion increase. Let me go through a few of these programs that have been represented by the other side as being reduced. That is misinformation. It is inaccurate, and it is really inappropriate, that the Democratic leader would bring to the floor of the Senate a resolution which is so totally and grossly inaccurate. In the area of Pell grants, the committee will be marking up a bill which has a $74 million increase over last year's funding; that represents a number of $7.7 billion. In the area of IDEA, the committee will be marking up a bill which has a $701 million increase over last year's funding; that represents a number of $5.8 billion. In the area of IDEA part B, the committee will be marking up a bill which has a committee increase over last year's funding of $678 million, a total budget of $4.8 billion. In the area of the TRIO Program, the committee will be marking up a budget which has a $30 million increase over last year's spending, $630 million. In the area of title I, the committee will be marking up a budget which has a $324 million increase over last year's budget, a number of $8.7 billion for title I. In the area of the safe and drug-free schools, the committee will be marking up a budget which has an increase of $45 million over last year, a total number $611 million. In the area of Head Start, the committee will be marking up a budget which has a $608 million increase over last year, total budget of $5.2 billion. In the area of afterschool programs, the committee will be marking up a budget which has a $200 million increase over last year. When you add these increases up, we are significantly above the administration request. For example, in the Pell grant area, we are $315 million over the administration request. In the IDEA area, we are $375 million over the administration's request. In the IDEA part B area, we are $675 million over the administration's request. In the title I area, we are $16 million over the administration's request. In the safe and drug-free schools area, we are $20 million over the administration's request. The simple fact is, the representations put forward in this resolution by the Democratic leader are absolutely inaccurate. It is inappropriate that this has not been amended to reflect the markup vehicle which is going forward in the Senate. Maybe the Democratic leader thinks he represents the House of Representatives, not the Senate. In the Senate, these are the numbers we are working from, dramatic increases in funding and a commitment to programs we think are working. Yes, there are significant differences on priorities. As both the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Massachusetts have said, their priorities are different than our priorities. That is true. There is a different philosophy of government, a different philosophy of approach to education. We happen to believe parents should be empowered. We happen to believe teachers should be empowered. We happen to believe principals should be empowered. We happen to believe local school boards should be empowered to make decisions as to how they operate their schools and where they will put their scarce and valuable resources. The other side of the aisle happens to think they have the best ideas in the world, that all the good ideas come from the national labor unions and from the Department of Education and from the administration; that, therefore, there should be developed a set of categorical grants which will tell the parents, the teacher, and the principal exactly how they will run their local school because Washington absolutely knows better how to do it than the local parents, the teacher, or the school. Well, there is the difference. No question about it. The other side wants to set up a categorical program in the area of buildings, in the area of afterschool programs, in the area of teacher ratio. What we want to do is say to the local school district, to the parents, to the teacher, and to the principal: Here are the dollars. We tell you you must set a standard of education which is an excellence standard, a standard which requires that the children in your school meet the basic elements of education--math, reading, and writing. You have to have those standards. But within the context of meeting those standards, which standards shall be set at the State, not by us in Washington--we don't believe in national tests because we don't happen to think people here in Washington should write the tests; we think people in the States should write the tests--once those standards are set at the local school district by the States, then we say to the States, local school districts, parents, and teachers: You make the decision on where the dollars should be. Should they be in a new classroom or with an additional teacher, or maybe there are some schools out there that happen to want another computer, that happen to want to have another French teacher, that want to have another math teacher, or maybe they want to send their kids to some special program. Maybe they have some new concept of education they think is going to work better. Leave it to the local school district to make that decision. Leave it to the parent to make that decision. Leave it to the principal and the teacher to make that decision. Let us not make those decisions in Washington. Yes, there are priority differences. Our priority is to empower the parent, the teacher, and the principal. Their priority is to empower the national labor unions, the Department of Education, and the great thinkers in Washington who have the answers to everything on every subject and especially on the issue of education. We have, in the proposals we will be putting forward, specific programs which do empower parents, which give parents a chance to do something when their kids are in schools that fail. It is an outrage that in this Nation we have 5,000 high schools and elementary schools combined that are failing schools, by the standards set by the people who run those schools. If you have your kids in those schools, what is your option? You don't have an option. Your kid is stuck in that school. Parents ought to have an option. If their children are in a school that has failed year after year after year after year to teach those children how to write, how to read, how to think, parents shouldn't have to be subjected to sending their kids to those schools. They should have the opportunity to say to that school: OK, we are going to give you 2 years to clean up your act--which is exactly what our proposal does--on your standards. We are not setting the standards. We will not set a bar so high that nobody can reach it. You get to set the standards--you, the State; you, the community. If that school doesn't meet those standards--and I suspect those standards are going to be reasonably stringent; at least they are in New Hampshire--so that an elementary school, once again, for 2 years in a row fails, then we basically put that school on probation. We say to the State: You have to go into that school and you have to straighten it out. You have 2 years to do that. You have 2 years to get those kids an education, which is what the goal is, obviously. If after 2 more years that school still doesn't cut it, then we say to the parents of the kids who are going to be subjected to this horrendous school: It is up to you. You make the decision as to whether you want your son or daughter to go to that school. If you decide you want your son or daughter to go to another public school or to another program that involves afterschool activities and you are a low-income person, we are going to let the funds go with your child. We are going to let the funds follow your child rather than have that school absorb all these funds that will do nothing for you in the way of educating your children. That is a difference of opinion. They want to run the failed schools, keep sending money to the failed schools, and they want to build more failing schools. We say if a school is failing, let's get it under control and make it work; if it doesn't work, let's give the parents some options. We also say: Listen, we have all these categorical programs that almost tell teachers how many pencils they can have in their classrooms. Let's stop that and take a bunch of these categorical programs and put them into a basket of money, and after setting the standards--again, the standards are set by the State, not by us--after setting the standards, say to the local school districts: You can use this basket of money to try to help your kids make the standards. It is called ``straight A's.'' Every school district in this country is for it. The only people against it are the big labor unions in Washington and the Department of Education because they don't want to give up the categorical programs. Why? Because there is political power in those programs. This isn't about education; this is about power, about controlling dollars for the sake of power. We are talking about getting money out to the parents; they are talking about empowering a bunch of people in Washington who happen to be affluent in their field or effectively are elitists, in my opinion. So, yes, there are differences of philosophy. But on the facts, this resolution carries no weight because it is totally inaccurate on the facts. It should be amended because every one of these cuts it lists is not a cut at all. While we are on the subject of cuts, who does make the most significant cut at the Federal level? Is it the Republicans? No, it is not. It is the President's budget, sent up here without any increase in spending for the IDEA program, the special ed program. Let's talk about that a little bit because there is a difference in priorities. Special ed is a very important part of education, a good idea put together back in 1976 under 74-142 or 76-142--I am not sure which; there are so many numbers floating around. But it said, if you have a special needs child, that child has the right to a good education in the educational system, and the Federal Government knows it is going to cost a lot to educate that child, so the Government will pay for 40 percent of the cost of that child's education. What happened? While the Democrats controlled this Congress, year in and year out, that 40-percent number went right down like a roller coaster going down a big hill. The Federal Government's share of education was down to 6 percent when the Republicans took control of the Senate and the House. We recognized that was wrong. What happens when we don't pay the special needs cost is the dollars flow from the local community, who takes over the Federal responsibility, and then the local community no longer has flexibility over the local dollars because they are paying for what the Federal Government was supposed to do in the first place. (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)

Mr. GREGG. How much time remains on this side?