Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, climate change poses potential real threats to Vermont, the Nation, and the World. While we cannot yet predict the exact timing, magnitude, or nature of these threats, we must not let our uncertainty lead to inaction. Preventing climate change is a daunting challenge. It will not be solved by a single bill or a single action. As we do not know the extent of the threat, we also do not know the extent of the solution. But we cannot let our lack of knowledge lead to lack of action. We must start today. Our first steps will be hesitant and imperfect, but they will be a beginning. Today I am joining Senator Chafee, Senator Mack, Senator Lieberman, and a host of others in cosponsoring the Credit for Early Action Act in the U.S. Senate. Credit for Early Action gives incentives to American businesses to voluntarily reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Properly constructed, Credit for Early Action will increase energy efficiency, promote renewable energy, provide cleaner air, and help reduce the threat of possible global climatic disruptions. It will help industry plan for the future and save money on energy. It rewards companies for doing the right thing--conserving energy and promoting renewable energy. Without Credit for Early Action, industries which do the right thing run the risk of being penalized for having done so. We introduce this bill as a signal to industry, you will not be penalized for increasing energy efficiency and investing in renewable energy, you will be rewarded. In writing this bill, Senators Chafee, Mack, and Lieberman have done an excellent job with a difficult subject. I am cosponsoring the Credit for Early Action legislation as an endorsement for taking a first step in the right direction. I will be working with my colleagues throughout this Congress to strengthen this legislation to ensure that it strongly addresses the challenges that lie ahead. The bill must be changed to guarantee that our emissions will decrease to acceptable levels, and guarantee that credits will be given out equitably. These modifications can be summarized in a single sentence: credits awarded must be proportional to benefits gained. This goal can be achieved through two additions: a rate-based performance standard and a cap on total emissions credits. The rate-based performance standard is the most important item. A rate-based standard gives credits to those companies which are the most efficient in their class--not those that are the biggest and dirtiest to begin with. Companies are rewarded for producing the most product for the least amount of emissions. Small and growing companies would have the same opportunities to earn credits as large companies. This system would create a just and equitable means of awarding emissions credits to companies which voluntarily increase their energy efficiency and renewable energy use. The second item is an adjustable annual cap on total emissions credits. An adjustable annual cap allows Congress to weigh the number of credits given out against the actual reduction in total emissions. Since the ultimate goal is to reduce U.S. emissions, this provision would allow a means to ensure that we do not give all of our credits away without ensuring that our emissions levels are actually decreasing. With these two additions, Credit for Early Action will bring great rewards to our country, our economy, and our environment. It will save money, give industry the certainty to plan for the future, and promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, all while reducing our risk from climate change. This legislation sends the right message: companies will be rewarded for doing the right thing--increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy use.

Mr. JEFFORDS

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I offer this amendment in hopes that we can, again, emphasize what the proper procedure is for this bill--to try to see if we can get it through with the least possible delay. At the same time, since there seems to be a desire to utilize the amendment process, we can try to rectify what was an attempted procedure on an appropriations bill at the end of the last session, to get to the question of funds for schools. We believe very strongly, as we have emphasized over and over again, that the best way to help the schools out, with the money that was appropriated at that time, is to have that money flow to the schools to assist in taking care of children with disabilities. There is no question in the mind of anybody outside of Washington that the best way to help local communities is to get them out from under the problems that were put on them by the Federal Government when it promised to fund 40 percent of special education and only funded it at around 10 percent. That has put huge stress on the local communities, and this stress has just been made even worse by the recent Supreme Court decision which has emphasized, that it is the school's responsibility to have health care available to a child in order for the child to get what is promised under the Constitution, an appropriate education which is free. And ``free'' is the key word here with respect to the recent Supreme Court decision. Obviously, if a child cannot concentrate or be effective, as far as the learning process goes, without some help from medication or a nurse, then, without that help, that free and appropriate education is not being provided. Just to emphasize again where we are, this is the time for us to be helping the States out, to increase their flexibility and their ability to use title I funds in particular. It is not a time to try to place upon them new restrictions or to utilize the funds for less desirable programs than those which are available now, and encumber them with only being able to do it through the decrease in class size, as in the amendment as passed out of the Congress last year. So I am hopeful we can take the time now to analyze where we ought to be going in education. I already discussed that to a substantial extent previously, but would like to point out again, as we go forward trying to improve the education of this Nation, this can only be done by the Federal Government and the local communities and the States all working together to provide the kind of educational changes which will maximize the ability of our children to learn. Certainly all the Governors in the country have agreed that the best way to do that is to free the communities from the huge burden we placed upon them back in 1975. Although we made a commitment to take care of 40 percent of that, as has been explained on the floor, we are well lacking that. We have been showing a chart to you for some time which dramatically emphasizes that huge shortfall. I am hopeful as we go forward today, we will continue to try to find a way to get this bill passed. It is unfortunate it is being objected to for reasons which really are not relevant. It is very important, as we progress towards the end of this year, that we not keep stalling and preventing action that would result in benefiting communities, and stop encumbering ourselves with legislation which will accomplish what is not the highest priority. Depending upon where you are, we would accomplish relatively low priorities. The need for flexibility is immediate in order to help students and teachers, and in order to allow the local communities to be free to provide the education which would be much more beneficial than what could be achieved with the restrictions they currently face. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Objection.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. As I understand it, no amendments can be offered on the motion to debate relative to the cloture?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, let me give Members a little bit of information on where we are. We are now on debate for cloture. We are trying to get this bill--which is very small in the sense of the number of words--but would be very helpful to the Governors with respect to trying to utilize their title I funds in a better way. The States would be able to assist the maximum number of children in need of help. The 50 Governors support it as it will help them have more flexibility. It does no damage to anyone and would be helpful to many. According to the latest estimates for the Department of Education, this school year there are 6.1 million schoolchildren. We are also looking at an alternative--if you continue to refuse to let the bill go out in order to help the Governors to help the children, we have offered, and will continue to offer, second-degree amendments. These amendments will not run into the problem of being under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act jurisdiction of the committee, where we are now holding hearings, as the other amendments have. These amendments will say that the highest priority now and the best thing to do now, would be to take the funds appropriated last year or authorized last year and to have those instead utilized to reduce the burden on our local schools caused by the failure of the Federal Government to live up to their promise to provide 40 percent of the funding for children with disabilities. We believe that is, by far, the better option and would not in any way impair our ability to continue to move forward on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. However, and it is unfortunate, the minority believes they would rather try to have the President's program. There are many parts of the President's program that I don't have a problem with. To put these proposals up at this time, however, without going through the normal process of debate, analysis, and hearings that normally go on in the committee process, is irresponsible. We must be able to determine whether the programs work, how best to put them in, what kind of law change would be needed--all those things are normally handled during the committee process. We have already had several hearings and we will have many more hearings on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am anxious to move forward now and continue with those hearings, and at the same time give the Governors maximum flexibility in their ability to be able to utilize funds presently appropriated, especially under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Twelve States have demonstrated how you can utilize this to enhance the education of your children. Texas and Vermont have had a special success in utilizing these flexibilities, but there are now 38 other States that would like to have the same benefits. Why we would want to stall and delay that time, I am not sure, but that is the situation we are in right now. We, therefore, are going to have 2 hours of debate from now until 5 o'clock on the motion to invoke cloture so that we can proceed to this very important but relatively simple bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Were you in the back room?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I think if you check your memory, I was not there.

Mr. JEFFORDS. If I had been there, there would not have been anything to complain about.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I just want to remark very briefly. All we have done-- and I do not understand why my good friend from Minnesota cannot agree with it--is to give the Senate a choice. Do you want to send it for special ed, where it is desperately needed, or do you want to see whether the States would prefer to have it to put more teachers in place? It is as simple as that. We are not getting an opportunity to vote on our amendment either. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee----

Mr. JEFFORDS. For 9 minutes.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield an additional 60 seconds to the Senator.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I don't have the time to give you.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts that I desire to make a statement for a while, if that is all right with him.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are again back with the Ed-Flex bill, which is a bill, as everybody knows, that would merely attempt to make it easier for States to be able to utilize regulations to their advantage by being able to waive them for communities or school systems within their jurisdiction. This has been used successfully by 12 States now--6 originally, and then another 6. It has demonstrated that there are problems in the present system which make it impossible to take care of very, very minute differences in schools in order to get them to be able to have the flexibility for the utilization of the title I funds. We are also facing, apparently, a filibuster. Therefore, we will have a cloture vote at 5 o'clock this afternoon. It is my hope that we can proceed perhaps on to another amendment, and then we will be able to make some progress on this bill. This is our fourth day on the Ed-Flex bill. This bill, which is supported by the administration and all 50 Governors, has broad bipartisan support in both the Senate and in the House. I urged my colleagues last week to limit their amendments to the bill before us. As we have shown, we are perfectly willing to work with the limited issues raised by the Ed-Flex bill. As my colleagues know, later this year we will be considering the statute that governs the K-through-12 educational programs, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and that is where the debate on these larger questions should take place. I say this not because I am a stickler for procedure, but because the whole point behind the committee system is so that complicated issues can be debated and examined in detail. That is not possible on the floor of the Senate. This doesn't happen in every instance, and I have been on both sides of the question, but I cannot recall when we have been in a similar situation where one side is trying to load up a small, noncontroversial proposal when the logical vehicle for the debate and consideration of these larger questions is only a few months away. We have never really considered these issues in committee. To be fair, Senator Murray offered her class size amendment to the Ed-Flex bill last year. But Republicans felt then, as we feel now, that this issue should be considered as part of the ESEA reauthorization. The amendment was not adopted. Reducing class size in our Nation's schools is a fine idea. Common sense tells us that a smaller class allows a teacher to spend more one- on-one time with each student. According to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, common sense has been backed by data that also reinforces that small class size is correlated to higher student achievement. There is something else that most of the data says. It says that the quality of the teacher leading that classroom makes a significant difference. Contrary to statements made on the floor last week, the class size proposal of my colleague from Washington does little or nothing toward improving teacher quality. Funds allocated for professional development are limited to 15 percent in the first 3 years it is authorized. Worse yet, the legislation prohibits funds from being used to enhance teacher quality in the last 2 authorized years. What kind of sense does that make? Only after class size is reduced to an average number of 18 students does a school district have the flexibility to use those funds to improve the quality of teaching in the classroom. Proponents point to studies which show that smaller classes make a difference and improve academic achievement. I argue that class size is less important than having a quality teacher. That, to me, is common sense. As I mentioned, this common sense idea can also be backed with hard data. Ronald Fergeson, in an article entitled ``New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters,'' notes: What the evidence here suggests more strongly is that teacher quality matters and should be a major focus of efforts to upgrade the quality of schooling. Skilled teachers are the most critical of all schooling input. Bill Sanders, a statistician at the University of Tennessee, stated in a 1997 article in ``The Tennessean'': Teacher effectiveness is the single largest factor affecting the academic growth of students. Poor teachers hold students back, while strong teachers can push students ahead by nearly a grade. When compared to class size, expenditures, and so forth, they all fail in comparison. The residual effects of teachers can linger at least three years, regardless of the performance of subsequent teachers. The report ``Doing What Matters Most; Investing in Quality Teaching'' states that: Studies discover again and again that teacher expertise is one of the most important factors in determining student achievement, followed by smaller, but generally positive influences of smaller schools and small class size. Eric A. Hanushek, a researcher from the University of Rochester, concludes: All things being equal, small classes are preferable to larger ones because teachers can give students more individual attention. However, all things are seldom equal, and other factors, such as the quality of the teacher, have a much more decisive impact on student achievement. Moreover, the huge expense of class-size reduction may impede the ability of schools to make other important investments in quality. In fact, in nearly all the studies that I looked at on the subject mentioned quality and class size together. While my colleagues say that the class size reduction proposal has quality components, this program actually prohibits funds from being used for improving teaching in the outyears. This legislation is seriously flawed. It puts quantity over quality. In my opinion, it is not a well-thought-out proposal, and, not surprisingly, it is becoming apparent that it will not work very well in rural America. We have not held one hearing on it. We have not heard from anyone at the local level as to whether this program will meet the real needs that they have in their communities. And we have not heard where these tens of thousands of well-qualified teachers will come from. Where is the emphasis on teacher quality in this proposal? My colleagues keep telling me there is an emphasis on quality, but nowhere in this proposal do I see a real commitment to professional development. This amendment would have us agree that a teacher's being ``certified'' is synonymous with ``high quality.'' Does ``certified'' equal ``high quality''? Not necessarily. Currently 91 percent of teachers are ``certified'' in their main field of teaching assignment. Are we all comfortable saying that 91 percent of our nation's teachers are highly qualified? There is a great deal of debate on that issue. Furthermore, State certification requirements, in many instances, are lacking. Title II of the Higher Education Act we adopted last year recognized that fact and actually encourages States to improve certification standards. Sadly, by today's measure, certification is not a ``Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.'' And as I mentioned before, the proposal actually prohibits the use of funds for professional development for teachers in 2004 and 20005 unless the local educational agency has reduced its average class size to 18. We have an opportunity to address these problems and consider this legislation in a timely yet thoughtful manner during consideration of the Elementary Secondary Education Act Reauthorization. Let's not rush ahead. Let's take some time to consider what will really make a positive difference for our nation's students. The class size initiative is built on a foundation of sand. It came about because President Clinton insisted that it be part of the omnibus appropriations bill last October. It was drafted in a back room by a few people with virtually no input from anyone else. This happens from time to time, and it doesn't really bother me. But I think it is a bit of a stretch to characterize this process as a ``bipartisan agreement'' that the Senate is obliged to extend. As I've said, I don't think we should be getting into these issues on the ed flex bill. But if the ed flex bill is going to spill over in to broader issues, I think we should perhaps revisit whether this attempt to hire one teacher in a hundred or more is the best use of federal funds. At this point, I think the answer is ``no.'' Education policy must be built on consensus, not focus groups. I have no doubt but that this class size initiative is politically appealing, and the chair of the Democratic Senatorial Committee has already made clear that he wants to use it against those of us who might be running for reelection next year. But that is exactly my point. As soon as educational policy is driven by the electoral needs of one party or another, we have undermined it. It will change every two years based on the outcome of the elections. And state and local governments, which already chafe at the restrictions that accompany the 7 percent of funds derived from the federal government, will become even more frustrated. My Democratic colleagues argue that school districts need certainty in planning for the future. Yet the source of the uncertainty is their own failure to build consensus for this proposal. You can, and we all do, force things through in the waning hours of a Congress. But you cannot expect that this process transforms a weak idea into a strong one. I do not want to paint too bleak a picture. We do have plenty of consensus in education policy. In the last Congress we passed an amazing number of major pieces of education legislation by unanimous or nearly unanimous votes. And none of this would have been possible without support from our Democratic colleagues. I do not think there is any greater consensus than on the subject of the federal role in helping schools educate the disabled. The first hearing we held and the first bill we passed were on Individuals with Disabilities Act. I don't think there is any more important federal role than to meet the basic commitment which we made nearly 25 years ago. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing last month on education budget proposals that drove home this point. Representative Albert Perry from the Vermont State Legislature and Allen Gilbert, a school board member from Worcester, Vermont, told us unequivocally that the single most important thing we could do to help local school districts was to fulfill our pledge to fully fund IDEA. Fulfilling an old promise is not as exciting as raising new expectations with new programs. We won't get much press coverage for simply 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. For some districts this may mean school construction or class-size reduction. In other districts the most pressing needs may include teacher training or music and art education. If we decide to use this forum to discuss budget priorities, we should all come together and agree that no new and untested elementary and secondary education programs should be funded until we fulfill our basic commitment to programs--like IDEA--that are tried and proven. The real issue today is not whether the legislation before us addresses all of the problems that plague our education system. There are issues which are important to me--for example, in the areas of professional development--which I have not addressed on this bill because I believed that it was more appropriate that these issues should be addressed in the context of the reauthorization of ESEA. My own view is that we should have a longer school year, that children lose too much ground over the summer months. But is this area ripe for federal involvement? I don't know. The real issue we are considering today is simple. Are we going to give state and local communities the flexibility they have requested to improve the performance of their own students? I want to emphasize this point. They have not requested this flexibility solely to make their lives simpler or as a way to avoid delivering important services. The accountability requirements that are contained within this bill and that have been implemented in current Ed-Flex states like Texas and Vermont make it clear that this is not their goal. And we would not expect this to be their goal. I have traveled across the State of Vermont meeting with students, parents, and educators. I can tell you that no one cares more about the educational achievement of students than do their own parents, teachers and community leaders. Let us keep ourselves focused on this simple but important task. We must fulfill the commitment we made more than 25 years ago and we must move to quickly pass this important legislation. In order to do so, I am offering an amendment proposing that all funds made available in Fiscal Year 1999 for class-size reduction will be used instead for part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). I believe it is important that we honor past commitments before taking on new obligations--particularly those as expensive, untested, and fractious as the class-size reduction initiative. We have never come close to providing local school districts with the level of IDEA assistance promised to them in 1975. Yet, rather that meeting this long-standing commitment, we are instead encouraging them to take on additional obligations in order to reduce class size. These are obligations for which States and localities will be solely responsible once Federal assistance for class-size reduction efforts disappears. It is not too late to correct this mistake. No funds are scheduled to be distributed until July. Most school districts have not yet received guidance on the class-size reduction program, as the guidance was not issued until this past weekend. Perhaps the situation will change now that guidance is available, but school officials in Vermont have been telling me that they have been unable to get answers to even relatively simple questions about the program. Supporting programs for students with disabilities is a far better use of the $1.2 billion provided in fiscal year 1999 than is starting up an untested teacher hiring program which was written in about a day- and-a-half in the closing days of the 105th Congress as part of an appropriations bill. In fact, several school districts may be faced with entirely unforeseen increases in their IDEA funding needs because of last week's Supreme Court decision. Freeing up these funds for IDEA, a program which is in place and the contours of which are well known, is a better use of the appropriations scheduled to be distributed this coming July. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Washington. I believe she is ready and desires to introduce her amendment. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill that my colleague Senator Baucus and I are re-introducing titled the, ``Post Office Community Partnership Act of 1999.'' Aside from a few technical changes, the bill is similar to the one we introduced in the 105th Congress that was supported by so many of our colleagues in a 76-21 vote last July. Unfortunately our postal language was dropped from the underlying bill during conference with the House. However, I am hopeful that this year our bill will become law. I should add that this year we have coordinated our efforts with Representative Blumenauer of Oregon and an identical companion bill is being put forward in both the Senate and the House. Mr. President, I live in a small town in Vermont. I understand the importance downtowns and village centers play in the identity and longevity of communities. Downtowns are the social and economic hearts of small communities. They are where neighbors catch up on the news, shop, worship, and celebrate national holidays. Our bill will enable the residents of small villages and large towns to have a say when the Postal Service decides that their local post office will be closed, relocated, or consolidated. Local post offices are important tenants in any vibrant downtown. A recent article in USA Today cited a 1993 study that found that 80 percent of people who shopped downtown planned their visit around a visit to the post office. There is much talk in the news today about revitalizing our downtowns and encouraging smart growth. I say to my colleagues, if you want to encourage smart growth, let's start by doing what we can to keep federal facilities such as post offices in downtowns. Some of my colleagues may ask why this legislation is necessary. A story from my home state of Vermont will answer that question. A few years ago the general store on the green in Perkinsville, Vermont went bankrupt and the adjacent post office wanted to leave the small village center for a new building outside of town. By the time the community was aware of the relocation, plans were so far along--the new building had actually been constructed based on the promise of the post office as the anchor tenant--that there was no time to fully investigate in-town alternatives. One elderly resident wrote that in contrast to families now being able to walk to the post office, ``we certainly won't be walking along the busy Route 106 two miles or more to get our mail.'' The State Historic Preservation Officer commented that as people meet neighbors at the post office, the threads of community are woven and reinforced. ``It may be intangible, but its real, and such interaction is critically important to the preservation of the spirit and physical fabric of small village centers like Perkinsville.'' In other Vermont towns such as Springfield, Arlington, and St. Albans, the threat of our legislation has encouraged the Postal Service to work more closely with these communities as plans are developed to expand their local post offices. Our bill would codify the process that communities should go through and would avoid a one-size fits all approach to community needs. Mr. President, post office closings and relocations are occurring all across the country and especially in small and rural communities. My colleagues will quickly discover similar examples in their own states where the removal of the post office has harmed the economic vitality of the downtown area, deprived citizens without cars of access, and contributed to sprawl. The basic premise for this legislation is to give the individuals in a community a voice in the process of a proposed relocation, closing, consolidation, or construction of a post office. This bill does not give the citizenry the ultimate veto power over a relocation, closing, consolidation, or construction. Instead, the bill sets up a process that makes sure community voices and concerns are heard and taken into account by the Postal Service. Additionally, this bill will require the Postal Service to abide by local zoning laws and the historic preservation rules regarding federal buildings. Because it is a federal entity, the Postal Service has the ability to override local zoning requirements. In some cases this has led to disruption of traffic patterns, a rejection of local safety standards, and concerns about environmental damage from problems such as storm water management. Mr. President, post offices in Vermont and across the nation are centers of social and business interaction. In communities where post offices are located on village greens or in downtowns, they become integral to these communities' identities. I believe that this legislation will strengthen the federal-local ties of the Postal Service, help preserve our downtowns, and combat the problem of sprawl. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Baucus and I in support of this important legislation. I ask to have the text of the bill printed in the Record. The text of the bill follows:

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Thursday, March 11, 1999, 10 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``Key Patients' Protections: Lessons From the Field.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224- 5375.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for information of the Senate and the public that a hearing of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will be held on Wednesday, March 10, 1999, 9:30 a.m., in SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Building. The subject of the hearing is ``What Works: Education Research.'' For further information, please call the committee, 202/224-5375. committee on health, education, labor and pensions

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, let me comment on the remarks of the Senator from Washington. First of all, this bill is a very simple bill to help the Governors have flexibility--the States to have flexibility to maximize the utilization of title I funds, in particular. I don't think anybody disagrees with it. What I have set out as a policy for me, working with the leader, is that this bill ought not to be encumbered by matters which are under the jurisdiction of the committee which should be considered separately and after due hearing and after all of the elements of the legislation are considered. The amendment of the Senator from Washington really shortcuts that. Now, I agree that is an existing piece of legislation which needs some improvement. However, it does not fall out from the jurisdiction of the committee. On the other hand, with an appropriate amendment, I will endorse it. So I don't understand the concern of my partners on the other side of the aisle. We have an offer which will be before the Senate, and this side can endorse her amendment with the modification that is in that amendment. What that modification does is say, all right, let's reach a compromise here. The compromise would be, very simply, let the local governments decide whether they want to use the money which was appropriated but not quite available; they should have the local option. If they want to spend it on more teachers, additional teachers, they should have that option. If they want to spend it on IDEA, which I think most of the communities would do, they would have that option. I don't see why you can say that we are placing ourselves in a position of preventing the amendment from going forward. I don't want to do that. Let's also take a look at the problems of this committee. This committee has huge jurisdiction. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act spends about $15 billion, and amendments that have been addressing this bill would bypass the committee's ability to review all of these programs, which we should do. We haven't done so for 5 years, and the education of this country is suffering badly from not being able to maximize the opportunities for our young people. We have already had several hearings. We will have more hearings on it, and in the orderly process we ought to take those amendments up and vote on them at that time, but not now when we are just starting the legislative session. We will have an opportunity for the Senate to vote on an excellent amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Washington and give this body an opportunity to express itself. It will be, apparently, filibustered. I don't understand why or how anybody could filibuster an option for the local communities to decide whether they want to use it for new teachers or for special education.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?