Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. The amendment we have now is Lott No. 67. Fulfilling a promise is not as exciting as raising new expectations with new programs. We don't get much press coverage, presumably, for doing the right thing, but if we fulfill our obligation to fund IDEA, State and local agencies will be able to target their own resources toward their own, very real needs. These may be needs for afterschool activities, or for dropouts, or for any number of the pressing needs facing our Nation. All of this is going to be discussed in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. With that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, let me explain what we intend to do on this side of the aisle. I intend to arrange for a voice vote on the next two amendments. They are Lott amendments. They are very similar to the ones that we had before. I do not believe it is worthy of time to get votes on those, because that dye is well cast by the previous vote. Amendment No. 67

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is all the time that is available? Mr. President, for the reasons that I have stated, I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am reluctant to oppose this amendment because I have such great empathy and sympathy for the problem, and, because I respect the Senator from New Mexico a great deal. We have worked together on so many programs and problems over the years, and we will continue to do so. And I respect his judgment. However, to address this issue at this time is not appropriate. This is a program already in existence, though obviously, not working well. The program is within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am dedicated to working closely with the Senator from New Mexico to find out how and what we should do to amend existing programs in order to have better dropout programs. So I hope he would understand that, and that by opposing this amendment, which I will move to table eventually, I am not doing anything other than saying wait--wait until we go through the reauthorization of the ESEA this year. We are going to hold hearings and make sure we do the best thing possible to solve the dropout problem. Right now, I cannot accept this amendment. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I point out that all we are doing is giving flexibility to States like Wyoming, North Dakota, Vermont, and other States that are already at the reduced class size. Why not let them spend it for IDEA, which is grossly underfunded? That is where the money is really needed. That is where the kids will be helped. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is very similar to the amendment we previously voted on, referred to as the Lott-Jeffords amendment. The pending amendment would amend the class size reduction provisions of the fiscal year 1999 Department of Education Appropriations Act to expand the choices available to local school officials. They would have the opportunity to determine whether hiring teachers or educating children with disabilities is a greater need for their schools, and to spend the additional funds accordingly. I am sure that many areas would choose to hire teachers, although I strongly suspect that most communities in my home State would choose to use their funds for IDEA. A number of small States are already at the level of teachers they need, but we are grossly underfunded in taking care of our special needs children. I have heard many times during my trips home, that the current level of funding for IDEA falls far short of the 40 percent we promised in 1975. Full funding of IDEA would offer local school officials the flexibility in their budgets to develop dropout prevention or other programs that best meet the needs of their communities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield back the remainder of my time and I move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will not support the amendment offered by my colleagues from Washington and Massachusetts. First and foremost, the 100,000 teacher proposal is flawed. It puts quantity over quality. There is little or no emphasis on improving teacher quality in the proposal. Yet, the research shows with certainty that the quality of the teacher leading the class is significantly more important than the size of the class. Furthermore, adopting a new, untested, multi-billion dollar program without hearings or local input is no way to make good public policy. We have begun the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and we should examine this proposal during consideration of that bill. I give my assurance to my friends on the other side of the aisle that I intend to fully examine this question. But the proper way to do it is under the orderly committee process. We are in the middle of that right now. We have begun the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and this issue should be appropriately addressed during this process. So I inform my colleagues that I will, at the time of the vote, move to table the amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Am I correct that the 5 minutes is for debate only?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President----

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield back my time. Quorum Call

Mr. JEFFORDS. I reiterate what I said before. If you want flexibility, vote yes. This amendment gives the local communities total flexibility to meet the needs they have. If you want to limit them down to one thing, hiring new teachers, vote no. All of our schools want total flexibility, especially in order to have money for special education. We have promised them 40 percent, but have given them 11 percent. We are the cause of the terrible problems local schools have in trying to do what they can to improve their school systems. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. President, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment for your local school districts. This is the most important amendment you will have this afternoon. I emphasize that this is extremely important for your local school districts. The pending amendment would amend the class size reduction provisions of the fiscal year 1999 Department of Education Appropriations Act. It would allow any local educational agency the choice of using its share of the $1.2 billion provided under those provisions either to hire teachers or to carry out activities under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. We reauthorized IDEA last year, and this is the perfect time to do this. Local school officials would have the opportunity to determine which of these two activities is a greater need for their schools, and to spend the additional funds accordingly. In addition, the amendment contains a finding that reemphasizes a simple fact--full funding of IDEA would offer LEAs the flexibility in their budgets to develop class size reduction, or other programs that best meet the needs of their communities. I believe this approach offers a good middle ground. It is a compromise between those of us who are urging we live up to our promises, with respect to IDEA funding, and those who believe we should undertake a massive new effort to hire teachers for local schools. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it ought to be unanimous.

Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my understanding the yeas and nays have already been ordered on all of these amendments.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the concurrent resolution.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. JEFFORDS. This is a very important issue for me, but not nearly as important as it is to the parents of the nearly 24 million school- age children who need care while their parents work. The issue of how best to meet the needs of school-aged children and youth will be addressed--not just in the context of one program, like the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act, but within the framework of a comprehensive, cohesive review of Federal public education policy.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to thank Senator Dodd for helping us move the educational flexibility legislation along. I want to assure him and my Senate colleagues that the withdrawal of Senator Dodd's amendment does not signal the end of the Senate debate on school-aged child care, but the beginning of our work. Senator Dodd has been a leader on child care and other youth issues for his entire congressional career. He has continually worked to craft effective legislation that will help children and their families, and I appreciate his tireless efforts. By working together, I have little doubt that we can greatly improve the Federal Government's response to the needs of school-aged children and their families.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee, the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the remainder of my time to myself. I have noticed over the years with my good friend from Massachusetts, that the weaker his arguments, the louder the volume. He exceeded all my expectations today. My Democratic friends have a number of amendments that will be coming up for votes shortly. As I have pointed out this week, we will be considering the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act this Congress. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has already held several hearings on the ESEA, and many more are in the works. I will oppose all amendments that are relevant to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I will do this, not because I am callous to these issues, in fact, I ve championed them, but because these amendments should be discussed in the normal committee process. I will, however, support amendments that are designed to let local educators direct more money to special education. The reauthorization of special ed occurred last year, and it is open to have more money. The amendment I introduced on behalf of Senator Lott and others will provide local communities with a choice regarding how much they will use their share of the $1.2 billion included in last year's omnibus appropriations bill for education. Under our amendments, a school system may use the funds either to hire teachers or to support activities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. What fairer system can you have under the circumstances? That is all we are doing. We are saying give them an option, give the locals an option: More teachers or more money for special ed. Our amendment will permit local school officials themselves to decide whether they need more money to educate children with disabilities or whether they need funds to hire more teachers. In Vermont, I am betting the funds will be used for IDEA. Time and again, Vermonters have made clear to me that special education funding is far and away the most pressing need of our communities. And time and again, Vermonters have pressed me to find out whether the Federal Government will honor its promise to pay 40 percent of the costs of special education. We are fortunate in Vermont to have already achieved the small class sizes which the President is trying to promote with his teacher hiring program. We do not need more. We need more money for special ed. I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine 2 minutes.