Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio said the Governors support his amendment. All the State, local, and county officials support the Bingaman provisions. We are saying if the State has made the decision to let the Governor run education, then they ought to be the ones to make that decision. If the State makes the decision to let the State educational agency make that decision, the Bingaman amendment also makes that decision but permits the Governor to be consulted. Talk about States rights. We are letting the States make the decision who is going to make the judgment. The Voinovich amendment overrides any State decision that says they are going to let the State agency do it and insists the Governor do it. We have not had a hearing on it. Naturally, the Governors are for it, but the State and local educators are strongly opposed to it. The Bingaman amendment permits consultations. That is the way we ought to proceed.

Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 389, As Modified

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we just completed the acceptance of approximately 10 or 12 amendments. We had a series of amendments that were accepted last evening, and we will have additional ones later in the afternoon. At the request of the leaders, we have put off the votes hopefully until 4:30 this afternoon where we will have several votes on matters which have been debated. It is not the way I would like to proceed nor, I am sure, the way my friend and colleague from New Hampshire would wish to proceed. However, there are other considerations. We have been able to move a number of these. We have disposed of a number of amendments. We have had some amendments which have been withdrawn, and we are going to talk to other colleagues. I have, through the staff, talked to each Member two or three times on their amendments. We are under a lot of pressure to reach a time definite for final passage of this legislation. We have tried to respect the fact that our colleagues have offered these amendments--they are important to them--and to accommodate their interests. Quite frankly, we are reaching the point where I will join with those--I know this has been the position of my friend from New Hampshire--who believe that we ought to set a time definite and then go into a vote-athon, if people want to vote in that way, every 2 minutes. The Senate will have to work its will. What is completely unacceptable is for Members, who have been on notice prior to the time we went on the Memorial Day recess, to now, in the midafternoon, believe they are not quite ready to deal with these. We want to put everyone on notice that we are getting to the point where we are going to urge that we have a time definite for final passage. There will be objection. They will come to the Chamber and object, and then they will go off. And when they are off, we will make the motion again. So they are going to have to come. That is the way it used to be done. We want to accommodate our colleagues, but we want to be clear that this is serious business. If Members have amendments and they are serious about them, which I believe they are, they ought to be serious enough to come and offer and debate them. We are running into the situation where too many of our colleagues have been unwilling to do so. Everyone understands there are a lot of different activities going on, particularly today. But there are always a lot of different activities every single day. This is about education. It is about our children. It is about their future. Senator Reid will go back and call those who have the amendments. We should not have to do it. We should be hearing from our colleagues about the time. We will do the best we can to arrange it. But we are getting into the position now, after this week, where we are going to move towards reaching a time definite for final consideration. Then we will have an opportunity to dispose of these amendments. I would like to support a number of them. A number of them would be helpful to the bill. But if we get into that kind of situation, it doesn't serve the cause, the amendments, or those who are offering the amendments well. We will put in, starting tomorrow at least, the amendments that remain and the authors of those amendments and try, by publishing those amendments, to indicate which ones are remaining so that the American people know what the amendment is and who is offering it. Hopefully, we will be able to move this process forward. We have every intention of doing so. It is a disservice to the children and to the parents in the country that we don't meet our responsibilities in this very important legislation. I know my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, will be here in a few moments. The good Senator from Wisconsin has a matter of great importance to bring to the Senate's attention. I yield the floor at this time. Hopefully, we will have enough time to dispose of the Dodd amendment.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. We are ready.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand the impact aid amendment, I am going to urge the support of that amendment. It will be included in the next group for consent. It is in the pipeline, and I have every expectation it will be so included and I thank the Senator for his cooperation on that.

Mr. KENNEDY. For the information of the Senate, we expect the vote on the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island sometime in the later afternoon. There will be a proposal on behalf of the leadership that will indicate the exact time, but it will be sometime around 5 o'clock.

Mr. KENNEDY. For the information of the Senate, these amendments are the Graham amendment No. 412, Domenici amendment No. 416, DeWine amendment No. 444, Cleland amendment No. 449, Gregg amendment No. 454, Bingaman amendment No. 485, Smith of New Hampshire amendment No. 488, Collins amendment No. 507, Sessions amendment No. 603, and Conrad amendment No. 645. The amendments (Nos. 412, as modified; 416; 444, as modified; 449, as modified; 454, as modified; 485, as modified; 488; 507, as modified; 603, as modified; and 645, as modified) were agreed to, as follows: amendment no. 412, as modified (Purpose: To identify factors that impact student achievement) On page 53, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following: ``(8) Factors impacting student achievement.--Each State plan shall include a description of the process that will be used with respect to any school within the State that is identified for school improvement or corrective action under section 1116 to identify the academic and other factors that have significantly impacted student achievement at the school. On page 71, line 24, strike ``and''. On page 72, line 3, strike the period and end quotation mark, and insert ``and'' after the semicolon. On page 72, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following: ``(11) a description of the process that will be used with respect to any school identified for school improvement or corrective action that is served by the local educational agency to determine the academic and other factors that have significantly impacted student achievement at the school.''; On page 104, line 7, strike ``and''. On page 104, line 13, strike the period and insert a semicolon. On page 104, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following: ``(C) for each school in the State that is identified for school improvement or corrective action, notify the Secretary of academic and other factors that were determined by the State educational agency under section 1111(b)(8) as significantly impacting student achievement; and ``(D) if a school in the State is identified for school improvement or corrective action, encourage appropriate State and local agencies and community groups to develop a consensus plan to address any factors that significantly impacted student achievement.''. On page 119, line 19, strike the end quotation mark and the second period. On page 119, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following: ``(g) Other Agencies.--If a school is identified for school improvement, the Secretary may notify other relevant federal agencies regarding the academic and other factors determined by the SEA under Sec. 1111(b)(8) as significantly impacting student performance.''.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to talk with the Senator in the next few minutes and give him an update on that issue.

Mr. KENNEDY. No, it is not included in this group.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have amendments which have been cleared on both sides, and therefore I ask unanimous consent it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc and any modifications, where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our Nation is less literate today than it was at the time of its founding. That might startle people, but that happens to be a fact. We are moving in the wrong direction with regard to literacy. My State of Massachusetts is recognized, by most of the various economic evaluators and indicators, to be one of the top States from an education point of view, and a third of our workforce is at level one. A third of our workforce is at level one on literacy. That means they have difficulty reading a phone book. Those workers have children. Those children are going into title I schools, by and large. They may be above the minimum wage, but many are going into schools that are hard pressed. We now have results. We find adult literacy works, but that is more complicated because these are parents who have to go to class after a long day's work, perhaps one or two jobs. This effort in bringing the family into the educational system has a proven, established record of positive results with regard to the parents and with regard to the children. All we are trying to do is make sure, if we have something that we know works, we put that out before the local communities and let them make the judgment as to whether they want to participate in that program. That is what this amendment is all about. Finally, it is true there has been a substantial increase in the cost of the legislation. It has been done in this way. To make sure the benefit of this legislation has accountability--it has an enhancement of teacher professional development and mentoring, it has an expansion in the literacy programs and accountability programs, the science and technology afterschool programs--we are going to make that available not just to a third of the children but to all the children. That has been done with the votes, particularly the bipartisan vote on Dodd- Collins and also the significant increase because of the bipartisan vote on Hagel-Harkin with regard to funding special needs. Frankly, those were bipartisan efforts and I think they do reflect national priorities. We are moving along. Amendments Nos. 412, As Modified; 416; 444, As Modified; 449, As Modified; 454, As Modified; 485, As Modified; 488; 507, As Modified; 603, As Modified; 645, As Modified, to amendment No. 358

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, for his perseverance on this issue over a long period of time. He has been an enormously active, involved, informed, committed member of our Education Committee. Not only does he have that commitment in the Senate, but he had it in the House of Representatives as well. When he talks about what we did in 1994 with title I, he knows because he was in that conference. Those of us who served with him know his strong and sensible commitment on involving parents in the education of their children, as well as on the issues of libraries. There are many others, but those always spring up when I hear him talk about education policy. He is absolutely correct about the importance of parental involvement. I am not going to take the time of the Senate this afternoon, but there is an excellent report of the Department of Education of several years ago that reaches the conclusion that there is significant academic improvement by involving the parents in the educational learning process of children. The studies at that time happened to be in the fifth grade and earlier. It is fairly self-evident--as a father, as well, of a senior who will be graduating this Friday, and of a daughter who is in high school-- every parent who does involve themselves in that opportunity can make an extraordinary difference in the children's understanding as well as their desire to learn. I certainly have seen that through personal experience, and I think most parents do. The problem, as the Senator has pointed out, is that the teachers themselves do not receive training in the techniques of involving the parents in the classroom and classroom work. With very limited resources, that effort can produce significant and profound results. That is what the Senator is advocating this afternoon: that we take a tried and tested concept, which is parental involvement, and give additional life to that concept in resources and build on what we did in the 1994 title I education legislation. This builds on what we have attempted to do, and what we have attempted to do in this legislation is to understand better what is working across this country and to give these menus to local communities and permit local communities to make decisions based upon local needs, and then to hold them accountable in how these funds are going to be invested and have an evaluation of these programs so we know what is working in terms of our participation and our support of these initiatives. This one makes a great deal of sense. It is about as intuitive as any amendment. Every parent who has a child in school understands the value of involvement. If more teachers reach out and involve the parents, this will add an additional dimension. We will build particularly on a number of the existing programs, most obviously in literacy, helping children to read and give new value to books and help them work with children in a very productive way. I thank the Senator. I am hopeful this amendment will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair repeat the request.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, momentarily, I will send a second-degree amendment to the Voinovich amendment. At the appropriate time, we will move toward a vote on these two proposals. I believe the leadership has made that request. It will be at approximately 4:30 this afternoon. I now send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, some States have made a judgment that they want the Governor involved. This legislation respects that. In other States, they have made the judgment that they don't want it, that they want the State educational agency to be in charge. We respect that. Under the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, he overrides that State decision. What we are saying is, with this legislation, even the State authority ought to consult. Let me just wind up, and I will list the various groups opposed to this legislation. They make this point: We oppose the amendment because it makes a very fundamental change in a time-honored separation of powers for education between the Federal and State governments. The governance and administration of education is clearly the responsibility of the States. The Federal Government is recognized as the authority in all the Elementary and Secondary Education Acts for 50 years by providing that whatever each State has determined to be its administrative agency for elementary and secondary education will be the agency responsible for the Federal education programs. The Federal Government must continue to rely on that agency without imposing added conditions. Now, the Voinovich amendment does alter that and changes those conditions. That is why these 28 groups are against it. Amendment No. 791 to Amendment No. 389

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Voinovich amendment and its attempt to change the role of the Governors in Federal education policy. The amendment would require Governors and chief State school officers to sign off jointly on any title I plan or consolidated ESEA plan. As a result, the Governor would have veto power over all Federal ESEA funding and reform. For the first time, the Governor would have a veto over all Federal ESEA funding and reform. The Voinovich amendment would supersede current State law by giving the Governor the veto power, regardless of the State constitution or current State law. The proponent, Senator Voinovich, asked for a modification of the amendment and in the modification, he provides, under ``Nonapplication of Provisions'': The requirements of this section shall not apply to a State where compliance with such requirements is expressly prohibited by State constitution or a State law. Find a State constitution that prohibits activities. State constitutions guarantee. They authorize and they protect rights and liberties. But they don't basically prohibit. He is saying that this will go into effect unless it is prohibited. That is basically an entirely new concept in terms of many States. States have made decisions about how they are going to administer their education law, and we have, to date, worked in the development of this legislation, with the language that we have that permits consulting with the Governors. But now this will change that particular provision. The Federal Government has a strong role to play in ensuring that the neediest children get the support they need to obtain a good education. By superseding State law and giving veto power to the Governor over Federal education policy, the amendment would concentrate greater power in the government and would unfairly tilt the balance against other authorities in the States. Under the current law, State education agencies in every State implement Federal and State education policy. We want to ensure that there is a strong coordination among all education programs so that local schools obtain the best support available. The Voinovich amendment would distort the control of education policy in each State, causing confusion and unnecessary burdens on States and local communities. We have all worked together to create a bill that focuses on strong, urgently needed reforms, especially in areas of testing, accountability, and targeted support for students in failing schools. We have also worked together to create the right overall structure for educational policy in the Federal system. Under the bill's pilot programs on performance agreements, the Governor is required to consult with the State education agency. That is an appropriate role for the Governor and one that I support. I, therefore, urge the Senate to approve the amendment offered by Senators Bingaman and Hatch and to ensure that Governors consult with State education agencies in implementing Federal education policy. Their amendment gives the State Governor an expanded role without undermining the State law or constitutions by giving the Governors a veto. We have seen in the past where title I programs that have gone into the States effectively have gone to the local communities. We have other education programs that go to the States and are administered at the State level. And we have respected those, the way that the States have worked out their administration of it. But this changes action in the States which the States have not indicated they wanted to change in a number of different States. We have not had any hearings on this. We don't know. We can go through the various States which this legislation would effectively override. There are many. But we haven't given that consideration. We are glad to give it some consideration at some time, but we are effectively overriding the authority for the distribution of the resources at the State level by Federal fiat. That is the effect of this program of Senator Voinovich. Under the Bingaman proposal, we are taking the responsible action of ensuring that there will be a consultation, but we are respectful. If it is handled one way in a State under the Governor, that is the way it ought to be. If it is handled under the State education authority, that is the way it ought to be. I am just wary of the Senate overriding State decisions about how that will be distributed. That would be the effect of it. The Bingaman amendment addresses this and is the way we ought to follow.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take one moment to thank the Senator from Maine for this excellent amendment. There has been concern about what is going to be the real cost. There have been wide disparities in terms of the estimates. I have looked through a number of these studies. The Senator from Maine said let's really get a definitive study so we will know what the burden upon the States is going to be so we can act responsibly. I think it makes a great deal of sense. I think it will make even more sense if we include the more recent alterations that are in the Wellstone amendment. I thank the Senator. I think this is enormously helpful and valuable.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from New Hampshire is here. We want to move ahead with this amendment. First, I commend the good Senator from Illinois for this amendment. I remember when we passed the Eisenhower program. It was passed in 1984 after the excellent report of Ernie Boyer, ``A Nation at Risk,'' which is still the definitive work as to where we were in early education and the challenges we faced. We have been trying to respond to those challenges from that period of time. This legislation, as has been pointed out by the Senators from Illinois and New York, is different from the Eisenhower program in that it enhances the opportunity for recruitment, which is enormously important, and also has an emphasis on curriculum, which is extremely important, as we are finding out in the review. In the first testing we are going to have for the 3-8 grades, it is going to be on math--science is going to be down the road, but it is going to be on math and it is also going to be on literacy. As the Senator from Illinois pointed out, we are seeing a three-fold increase in literacy but we have not increased in math and science. If we are going to have a greater sense of expectation of the children in literacy, because this is the area that is going to be tested, the Senator says let's give equal priority to the areas of math and science. That makes eminently good sense. It is a modest increase. It is basically going to establish similar funding in math and science, as we have on literacy. It strengthens our whole effort. The legislation has provisions for recruitment and curriculum; this is an enhancement of that program. It makes a good deal of sense. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his willingness to accept it. It is an important amendment. It adds to the legislation. I welcome the excellent presentation the Senator made and the strong support of my colleague and friend from New York. I look forward to voting on this measure at this time, if possible.