Jim Jeffords

Mr. JEFFORDS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Washington if she would like to discuss her amendment, and I would be happy to yield to her 15 minutes for debate only and then take a look at things as they exist at that time and decide whether or not we should proceed with the offering of her amendment.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I have the floor, and I am yielding for a certain number of minutes. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I am asking unanimous consent. Object to it.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I make a point of order a quorum is not present. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar: No. 5; I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the nomination appear in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate immediately return to legislative business.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this morning, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. Amendments are expected to be offered this morning. Therefore, Members should expect at least one rollcall vote by 10:30 a.m. As a reminder to all Senators, a cloture motion was filed last night to the Jeffords substitute amendment, and the vote has been set to occur at 5 p.m. on Monday. Also, under rule XXII, Members have until 1 p.m. today to file first-degree amendments to the substitute. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this week the Senate has been debating S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. During the debate, we have heard various interpretations of Ed-Flex. I want to take a moment to remind my colleagues about the idea behind Ed-Flex. The Department of Education, under the leadership of Secretary Riley, has stated that Ed-Flex authority will help States in ``removing potential regulatory barriers to the successful implementation of comprehensive school reform'' efforts. Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State some authority to grant waivers to a State, giving each State the ability to make decisions about whether some school districts may be granted waivers pertaining to certain Federal requirements. I would like to remind my colleagues that States cannot waive any Federal regulatory or statutory requirements relating to health and safety, civil rights, maintenance of effort, comparability of services, equitable participation of students and professional staff in private schools, parental participation and involvement, and distribution of funds to State or local educational agencies. It is very limited, but very helpful. I believe this week, working in a bipartisan fashion, we strengthen the accountability aspects of the Ed-Flex bill even beyond that of the bill that was passed out of committee last year by a vote of 17-1. The accountability features of the bill are designed to improve school and student performance, which should be the mission of every education initiative. For a moment it appears that the debate on this bill has become mired in a debate over other education proposals not related to education flexibility but related to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the foundation for most Federal programs designed to assist students and teachers in our elementary and secondary schools. This year, this legislation is up for review. As we embark on a new century, it is the perfect opportunity for us to examine the Federal role in our educational delivery system. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions--the HELP Committee--is currently engaged in the hearing process and has been since last December. Through the hearing process, we are evaluating currently authorized programs and exploring new ideas. The first hearing the committee held this year in regard to education examined various initiatives that have been introduced by Members of this body. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the most important education legislation we will consider this year, and probably the most important one we have. There are a lot of good ideas that are being discussed in and out of this Chamber that deserve a thorough review. It is for this reason that we should not be debating these issues as amendments to the Ed-Flex bill but should be debating these proposals in the context of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, so that they can receive adequate attention in determining their merits. For this fiscal year, the Federal Government is currently spending approximately $15 billion on programs related to elementary and secondary education. This figure excludes special education and vocational education. How are these dollars being spent? Who is being served? Is student performance improving? What types of professional development programs are helpful to our classroom teachers? Are those teacher training activities translated into better teaching methods? What are the proper roles for the various levels of government? These are questions that must be, and will be, addressed in the coming months during the Elementary and Secondary Education reauthorization. I urge my colleagues to work with me and the other members in the committee in finding the answers to these questions through the reauthorization process. Do not attempt to short circuit the process by offering those proposals to the Ed-Flex bill. The Education Flexibility Partnership Act is not meant to serve as the sole solution to improving school and student performance. However, it does serve as a mechanism that will give States the ability to enhance services to students through flexibility with real accountability. I urge my colleagues to support immediate passage of S. 280. Now, we have had, over the past few days, the desire--and I can understand that desire--to move ahead of the schedule of hearings and thorough review of the present Federal programs, to introduce the programs basically that have been recommended by the President for the purposes of trying to add them to this Ed-Flex bill way ahead of when they should be offered after a thorough examination and review of the problems we are facing as well as what the recommended programs would do to solve those problems. It is the unenviable position I am placed in of trying to pass a bill called the Ed-Flex bill which will immediately give help to the States in better utilizing those resources that are already available and not to encumber it in the process by amending and trying to create programs which will hold up the passage of this bill not only here in the Senate but through the Government in the legislative process. So I don't know why we should or would like to do that. I also point out where we are and will take a few minutes just to point out where we are presently with respect to our attempts and ability to be able to try to improve the educational process. Back in 1983 during the Reagan years, Secretary Bell held a Senate hearing on the status of education in the United States. As a result of that, a report, ``A Nation at Risk,'' was handed down in 1983 and, with words which are incredibly, I would say, looking towards the future in examining our educational system, said, ``If a foreign nation had imposed upon this Nation our educational system we would have considered it an act of war.'' Those were incredibly strong words. We didn't fully understand what they meant for years. In 1988, the Governors met in Virginia, in Williamsburg, and they agreed, after examining where we were not within ourselves, the tendency we have in this country is to try to compare ourselves among ourselves. In Vermont we say, ``Oh, my gosh, we are doing better than most of the other States. We must be in good shape. We don't have to do anything.'' But it did prevail throughout Vermont and the country for some time. But gradually we recognized the problems. One of the most, I think, poignant demonstrations of that problem was by the Motorola company when they had a real problem with the quality of their production in this country. They found that the Japanese were moving ahead of them in the area the United States should have been the leader in--cell phones. The president of Motorola at that time brought his leaders together, the board of directors, and said, ``What do we do?'' The recommendation was, first of all, we ought to find out what our problem is in education, and secondly--I think the tone of it was-- we ought to look elsewhere, to other countries, to find the educated population that we need in order to produce in competition with the Japanese. The CEO did not like the thought or the idea of sending our jobs overseas because they were better educated. So he asked to have an examination of his own employees to see what could be done in order for them to produce the quality that was necessary. The results were amazing. They did not have the capacity in math. But that wasn't the basic problem. They found out--this is amazing in a corporation like Motorola--that the people who were given the math problems couldn't understand the math problems because they couldn't read. Wow. That sent a shudder through them. But the CEO went on, saying, ``I don't care. We can do it.'' So they set up remedial education programs in reading so they could get their employees up to skills in reading sufficiently to be able to understand the math problems. Then they had the training in math. Although the staff still recommended that they ought to send the jobs overseas to Malaysia, the CEO said, ``We will do it here.'' It turned out that with the proper remedial training and upgrading of math, they not only were able to produce on a par with the Japanese but were also superior to them. Therefore, they were able, after considerable problems getting into the Japanese market, to outperform the Japanese and kept the jobs at home. In 1988 it was established that we had a problem by the Governors. But it took until 1994 before the Congress reacted and passed what is referred to as the ``Goals 2000'' bill. We took a look. Here it is now, 15 years after the ``Nation At Risk'' report and a goals panel which Senator Bingaman and I sat on with respect to the Senate, and we found, to our alarm, that we had no measurable improvement in the 15 years since the Nation was put on notice we had to improve--no measurable improvement, except our children were coming to school healthier. In other words, when they reached the sixth grade, they were healthier than they were 15 years ago. That still is not a very successful thing. Then the thing we learned this last time, which was even more amazing, was that the data we were using to determine whether or not our young people were improving was 1994 data. We did not even have the capacity in this Nation, after 15 years, to find out where we were. This is very extreme and a key element of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as to why we could not as of yet find out in an expeditious way where our young people stand as well on the kind of standard we need to be competitive internationally.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. JEFFORDS. In answer, I say that the Senator is right, absolutely right. What we need to do is to get this country in a position where the Governors have the flexibility to assist us as we move forward. I would point out that what we have done also as a fallback in that sense is, with second-degree amendments, to point out that the best thing we can do right now for the Governors and the Nation is to fully fund IDEA, which is the largest expense that local schools have in doing what is constitutionally required; that is, to provide a child with an appropriate and free education. A recent Supreme Court decision just the other day points out how important that is now, where, under the 1988 Americans with Disabilities Act, the schools are now responsible to ensure that health care, which is necessary in order to allow the child to be able to obtain the maximum they can, is to be paid for by local governments. Now, we promised to pay 40 percent of that bill when it was passed. I was on the committee, so I feel a little personally responsible. We said we would pay 40 percent. If you look at the chart behind me here, you can see that we are far from doing that. The total cost now--and that is going to go up significantly with the Supreme Court decision-- is $40.5 billion a year. The Federal Government, in order to take up its share, which would obviously be around $10 billion--well over $10 billion, right. But we are far from that. Right now we are still $11 billion short

Mr. JEFFORDS. That is absolutely correct. I praise the Senator for raising that issue and for the introduction on the Ed-Flex bill, because that is a no-cost measure. In fact, it is a ``no-brainer'' in the sense of passage. It ought to be passed. All it does is give the States flexibility to maximize the utilization of Federal funds. That should be on the books before we add any new programs and have the Governors have the maximum flexibility. Mr. President, I want to also alert people about the program for this morning. We have promised that we will have a vote before 10:30 in order to accommodate several Senators. So I want to continue to expand on where we should be going right now. I am hopeful that we can be finished with another amendment in the next 20 minutes so we can call the vote before 10:30 to accommodate those Senators. I again urge that the only amendments I will consider on this bill with respect to education will be those that will not encumber this bill with programs which should appropriately be on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which we will be discussing, and on which we are already holding hearings. We may accommodate amendments, but not those that will interfere with an orderly process of this legislation going forward, unencumbered, on bills that should be appropriately brought before the committee with respect to education and other matters. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Maryland. Does the Senator desire to speak on the bill?

Mr. JEFFORDS. I see no other Senators. I desire to speak at some point. I would be happy to let the Senator speak now, even though it does not appear to be totally relevant to this bill. I would like an understanding of how much time he might like.

Mr. JEFFORDS. All right. That is fine.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I think that is relevant to the bill so I do not have a problem with you proceeding as you desire.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. JEFFORDS. Let me explain the position I have taken. My concern is getting amendments now which should be on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which is presently under consideration by the committee, if we are to start passing programs out here that should be more properly considered in committee as to how to allocate expenditure of funds and matters like that. I understand that the pending amendment--we all know in the exigencies of time, and sometimes in order to get a message through, a situation arises where it is necessary, in a sense, to add an amendment that is really nongermane in order to send a message downtown. That is the understanding, and I think clear from the vote, that the Members want to send a message downtown that the process toward getting involved in the privacy of individuals' banking is not one which is acceptable to the Senate. I suspect it will disappear into the great unknown at some point, but my main concern is to make sure that the committee, which is addressing the serious problems we have in education in this country, does it in an orderly process. We do recognize that the funds which local communities would like to have in order to meet the demands of some of the restrictions and regulations put on them are needed to replace the funds which should have been coming from the Federal Government with respect to IDEA or with respect to what is more commonly referred to as ``special education.'' We were committed to 40 percent, and we are only sending less than a quarter of what we are committed to. So I will do all I can to make sure that anything which is possible to enhance the local communities, as well as bring us closer to meeting the commitment we have to 40 percent of the cost of special education, is considered. But I am not going to allow amendments, or do my best not to allow amendments, to this bill which was meant to be expedited to assist the local communities to have an opportunity to be more flexible in meeting the needs, as they see them, under the restricted resources they have by virtue of the fact that we have not fully funded our commitment under special education. I intend to do that, to try to see how we can ensure that they get the resources to which they are entitled. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I do not believe he has spoken out on that. He is supportive of our efforts to try to improve the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I would say that he would not be unduly concerned if the President's program got attached to this amendment, obviously. He is the Secretary, he supports the President's programs, and they would like to get them implemented any way possible. On the other hand, I doubt very seriously if he would take a position adverse to knowing what we were doing when we put together the bill, which is the one which will have more impact upon elementary and secondary education in this country than any other Federal act--that it is done well, that it proceeds with due care, and that we examine the present situation to see how things can be improved. Right now we are spending somewhere close to $15 billion on primary and secondary education. And, as I stated earlier, there is no demonstration that we have had any improvement since the 1983 acknowledgement that this country had a serious problem in education. So I think it is incumbent upon us to try to look at why, after spending all those billions of dollars over those years, things have not improved since we understood we had a serious problem back in 1983. To just continue spending the money we are spending the way we are now, without looking at why it has had no measured improvement--which is an important part of the process--and to go ahead and just pass new programs without fully taking those matters into consideration, in my mind, would be irresponsible.

Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator knows as well as I know that in the final hours of any legislative session things happen in the exigencies of trying to get something together where people are dealing with the issues and probably are not fully aware of the implications of what they do. And that is what happened here. These matters, through the pressure of the administration wanting to get something they had not been able to get through the normal legislative process, were able to get on the bill, which was that bill that was 40 inches high. Nobody knew what was in it until it got read. And the reason we are here with Senator Murray is there were some problems in the way that bill was thrown together that need to be attended to. And I understand that. It may be helpful in the amendment process that we get into next week with amendments. We might be able to make that bill more meaningful. So that is not off the table, as far as I am concerned, as long as the changes that are made are constructive in making that bill that passed to be more usable by the communities. But right now, obviously, we are here with an amendment, because when it gets thrown together like that at the end of a session, they end up doing something that they do not know what they are doing.

Mr. JEFFORDS. There is only one study which has been considered to have been done in a way that would give you evidence, and that study did come to that conclusion. The other studies were not really worth discussing. However, again, these decisions were made in a back room, in the wee hours of the night; and obviously we would not be considering an amendment if it had been done well. Furthermore, the great debate, in my mind, of what is more important, reducing the class size from 20 to 18 or having a teacher teaching the class who knows the subject which he or she is teaching--I will bet you 10 to 1 you get better results by improving the quality of the teacher and the qualifications of the teacher than you will by reducing the class size by 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. I do not think anybody would debate that. That is one thing we should consider, the flexibility under the bill--and this may come up--as to whether those moneys could not better be used and should not better be left to the discretion of the school systems to use those moneys to improve the proficiency of the teachers rather than just merely reducing the class size by 2 or 3 or 4. Certainly if we get to her amendment next week, we will consider other options as well. And it may prove to be a productive experience. Hopefully it will. And I am very pleased to have listened to the leaders on both sides, that we can agree to a small number of amendments which we can consider next week, and move this bill on so that the benefits of the flexibility can be given to the Governors to help improve education overall; and the local communities will be able to do what they feel is necessary to improve that flexibility. I know the Presiding Officer has been very active in trying to make sure that the local communities have more to say on how their schools can improve. So I think we are moving on a path right now that leads us through next week being a productive exercise, to have the kind of flexibility that the Governors need to help the communities. At the same time we may make some changes that will be beneficial but that do not involve superseding the normal process of the Education Committee to bring about some meaningful reform within the Federal structure. As I pointed out, there has been no evidence that the huge Federal structure has made any improvement over the last 15 years in our education. We are on our way this year to being the most education- minded Congress that we have had in this century. I am hopeful that when we finish this year we will all be proud of the accomplishments we have made in this country to get us on a path to making sure we will survive the strong competition we are getting from overseas, unduly impaired by our present educational system.

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

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe we are now in morning business.

Mr. JEFFORDS

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a bill that my colleague Senator Baucus and I are reintroducing 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 the 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 do 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 postal services.'' 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. 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 me in support of this important legislation.