Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, generally around here if there is someone who is proposing the amendment, they are recognized to make opening comments. I understand there is a cosponsor on that. I think they should be entitled to also make opening comments. We will be glad to hear from the other cosponsor of the amendment if he would like to speak first.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just make a brief opening comment. I want to start off by mentioning where we are on the issue of teacher training and teacher enhancement that is being addressed by my good friend from Michigan. Under the Republican bill, there is $2 billion for teacher quality and class size--that is a total of $2 billion. Included in that, is $1.3 billion which is presently allocated for the class size reduction program that has been implemented for 2 years in a row. Therefore, the 29,000 teachers teaching today in grades 1, 2, and 3, who are getting paid out of class size reduction program funds, will effectively be receiving pink slips because the Republicans are taking that program's money and putting it into the Republican bill. Second, part of that $2 billion is the $350 million that is currently being used in math and science professional development across the country. The $350 million program, named after President Eisenhower, helps local schools to develop the capability of math and science teachers. It has been a good program and is working effectively around the country. So, the Republicans want to wipe out the new teachers who have been hired for the first, second, and third grade; they want to end the Eisenhower math and science professional development program. On the other hand, our total proposal on the Democrat side is $3.75 billion. We have $2 billion which is for professional development, mentoring and recruitment, and $1.75 billion for class size reduction. We had, as part of our debate yesterday, included our $3.75 billion in the democratic substitute. Last evening, I reviewed what we did in our particular proposal and the guarantees we provided for teacher quality and education. We made sure in our amendment that there was going to be a guarantee of funds for professional development. The other side only mentions ``a portion of funds for professional development''. It is ironic to hear my friends talk about the importance of professional development, when they barely target any funds in their existing bill for professional development. ``A portion can be spent.'' Furthermore, their bill does not guarantee any funds for mentoring programs, which we all know are so important and effective for retaining teachers. We find the turnover of teachers serving in title I underserved areas averages 50 to 60 percent in 4 years as compared to those who have mentoring, which can make a great deal of difference to teachers. Their amendment does not address the issue of how to resolve the high turnover rate issue. It does not guarantee that teachers are going to get special skills to help students with disabilities or limited English proficiency. It does not give priority to developing math and science training programs. When all is said and done, our Republican friends have come up with nothing to ensure that a certain amount of these funds go for professional development, mentoring programs, recruitment programs-- activities we know are proven to improve teacher quality and retention. We were anticipating, maybe unreasonably so, that in the areas that are tried, tested, and true, such as enhanced teacher training in the classroom, that our friends were going to come up with something. Basically, what they came up with is merit pay and testing of teachers. We have listened carefully to what the Senator stated. We are, as I mentioned, somewhat interested in the fact that these are the two areas. In looking through the studies and reports of incentives for teachers to advance their capability of academic achievement and results, the cumulative studies are very compelling and are rather common sense. Obviously, the academic background of the teacher's expertise is enormously important. But, we still are finding out that of the more than 50,000 teachers who were hired this past year, the majority of those serving in high-poverty areas are not fully qualified. We need to do something about this. We find there is a higher turnover rate in high-poverty schools. We know that if the schools want to hold on to new teachers, mentoring by experienced teachers, is effective. Studies have shown this. Also, it is very evident that there ought to be continuing education and professional development for all teachers. As the information comes in and more studies are conducted, it is clear that professional development ought to take place not outside the school but in the classrooms and schools. These are the models which have had the greatest success in ensuring all of our teachers are of the highest quality. For those who are not going to measure up, after evaluations and professional development, they ought to be given their fair due in terms of a hearing, but then moved out of the educational system. That is what we believe, that is for what we stand, and that is included in our educational provisions. Those are the issues that we feel are important. I ask the Senator whether he knows of any States that have embarked on a merit pay program.

Mr. KENNEDY. I asked the question because last night I tried to find out which States have merit pay programs, and I was unable to find any. Currently, there is nothing prohibiting States from implementing merit pay programs. If it is so successful, I would have thought we would have had several States already doing it and demonstrated that it has improved student achievement. I can give the Senator a number of places where it has been tried and dropped. In Fairfax County, VA, they developed a merit pay program in the last few years, but the program was dropped. I am all for incentives for teachers who move ahead in their academic achievements and accomplishments. We ought to provide incentives to encourage professional development and more advanced degrees. I am all for schools that are able to move ahead, and for giving flexibility to the States and the educational districts to provide financial incentives to do that. But in the areas where we are talking about rifleshot programs, which this amendment does, for particular individuals--I can, probably like the good Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, think of teachers who are teaching in some of the toughest schools in Boston, in Holyoke, MA, and in a number of other communities, who are showing up every day, working hard, facing extraordinary challenges where almost a third of all the children attending those schools are coming from homes where there is either physical abuse or substance abuse. They deserve combat pay. But that isn't what this is really about. This is about individuals and principals giving individual financial incentives. What we want to try to do is to make available--at least on our side--the kinds of financial resources available to local communities, for whole school reform. I know the other side believes that States should have block grants-- blank checks--but we want to support tried and tested programs that have worked. I have a very interesting study here that was just completed by the National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. A review of 65 studies of science teaching concluded that teachers' effectiveness in teaching science depends on the amount and kind of teacher education, disciplinary training, and the professional development opportunities they experience later in their careers. That is what we should have, the continuing, ongoing availability and requirement that there is going to be a continuing upgrading of the skills of teachers. That is what they want. What we have seen to be a strong determinant of teacher effectiveness stems from the quality of the teacher's initial teaching education and certification, and, second, later, professional development. Studies done over the last few years have shown this to be true. In listening to our colleague speak, I was just trying to find out where his programs have been effective. I yield at this time and then will come back to the issue. There are others who want to speak.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota yielded without losing his right to the floor and is entitled to recognition.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in order to try to inform the membership, we are attempting to establish a time situation so Members will know. We wanted to have a very brief comment on this second degree to the underlying amendment, and then to move ahead with an announcement which will be agreed to by leaders that would spell out how we would proceed from that time. That is in the process of being worked out, as I understand it. But we are reasonably hopeful that in a very short period of time we will either have a vote on this, or perhaps we could set it aside and start considering other amendments. We are prepared to do it. I will see what the mood is after I address the Senate for just a few minutes at this time. Mr. President, I will speak briefly about the second-degree amendment that Senator Murray and I have offered. I think there has been a good debate and discussion about the importance of well-trained teachers, continuing and ongoing professional development, and also incentives for teachers who want to try to have a continued academic degree and who go through various certification processes. Our amendment, as Senator Wellstone pointed out, seeks to do the merit program on a whole school level that rewards all teachers in the schools; improve achievement for all students, including the lowest achieving students; provide incentives and subsidies for helping teachers with advanced degrees; and implements a rigorous peer review evaluation recertification that takes in many considerations during the course of a year. It is a very rigorous program where teachers are evaluated by master teachers, where there is a video sample of their work evaluated. We believe that is consistent with other provisions of the Democratic alternative. We are saying to the parents of this country that we are including in our educational program, recommendations that work--that have been tried and tested. We differ with our Republican friends who say let's have a blank check and send it to the State capitals. Let's have block grants and let the Governors make the decisions and judgments about what they are going to do. We differ with that. That is why we offered this second-degree amendment. You could say: What is your evidence in terms of these particulars schoolwide? I want to correct the Record of my good friend from Georgia who said Secretary Riley tried merit pay in North Carolina. It is true. He did try it. It is also true he also decided that it failed after the State spent $100 million. They changed their program to the merit schools program, which is working, which is exactly what we are doing today. You now have probably the most successful school district in the country, which is in North Carolina, which is using just the kind of program that we are talking about. We are seeing the development of the same kind of program in the State of Kentucky. In North Carolina, the State focuses on whole school achievement and overall student achievement for reward. The State doesn't believe that individual activities can be isolated to determine what produced the improvements in student achievement--it's a whole school effort. Therefore, the focus is rewarding the whole school. Rewards are given to the school, and all teachers and the principal benefit. If any State wants to use their 93 cents out of any dollar for the objectives that the Senator from Michigan points out, they are free to do so. We don't prohibit it. If they want to do it, they can do it. We are saying with our 7 cents of the money that is going out in the local community, we are going to support tried and tested programs that have been successful. I asked earlier in the day what States permit individual merit pay, and we still do not have an answer. What we know on our side, for example, is supported by a CRS Report dated June 3, 1999, ``Performance-Based Pay for Teachers.'' It states that many individual merit-pay plans were adopted as a means to increase teacher accountability and improve classroom performance. But, these plans not only failed to improve student achievement, but also destroyed teachers' collaboration with each other and teachers' trust in the administrators. Instead, the more recent shift toward group-based, whole school incentive pay plans, allows teachers to focus on fostering overall student learning. These plans encourage teachers to work together within a school in a noncompetitive environment. We support States that have merit pay with regard to whole school programs, merit pay for enhanced academic accomplishment, merit pay for evaluations and the recertifications. All of those are very worthy and are permitted and encouraged in our amendment. We listened earlier about an excellent school in New Haven, CA, one of the poorer districts in California. Classroom teachers, while still working with children, have opportunities to have their knowledge and skills rewarded both financially and by returning something to the profession. In New Haven, classroom teachers carry out internship programs, develop curriculum, design technological supports, and create student standards, assessments, and indicators of student learning. Using a combination of release time, afterschool workshops, and extensive summer institutes, the district involved more than 100 teachers--nearly two-fifths of K through 4-- on the language arts and math standards committee during 1996-1997 year. During the summer of 1997, nearly 500 teachers, approximately 65 percent of the certified teachers, participated in district-sponsored staff development activities. The district had 24 different workshops in technology alone, offering a wide variety of different areas, including math and science instruction, bilingual programs, and many others. The district pays the teachers for the courses leading to the additional certification in the hard-to-staff areas, such as special education, math, science, and bilingual. If the district does not pay the teachers for their time directly, the work counts toward increments on their salary scale. The district provides free courses that reap ongoing financial benefits for teachers. The district is bringing the salary incentives for those who have successfully passed the National Board for Professional Training Standards. The NBPTS for teachers was instituted in 1987. Achieving the national board certification involves completing a year-long portfolio that illustrates teacher practices through the lesson plan, with samples of student work over time and analyses of teaching. They found that this school district--one of the poorest and neediest in all of California, the New Haven Unified School District, in a low- wealth district--now has an excellent reputation in education. Twenty years ago, it was one of the poorest in education, as well as financially. Today, they have closed their doors to out-of-district transfers and moved up into one of the highest achieving schools in California. This is how it was done with regard to the teachers. There are other elements necessary in terms of classrooms. Finally, I mention in Charlotte, NC, Mecklenburg, they ran an annual achievement goals-bonus cycle. This is how they consider their school district. Based on the degree to which the schools attained a set of goals, including improvement in academic performance, advanced course enrollment, dropout rates, and student attendance, there were two levels of bonus awards--100 percent and 75 percent. Schools that earned 75 to 100 percent of the possible goal points were designated exemplary, and bonuses of $1,000 and $400 were awarded to teachers and classified staff. Schools earning 60 to 74 percent of the possible goal points were designated as outstanding, and the bonus amounts were $700 and $300 for teachers and staff, respectively. We are for it. But we ought to do it in ways that work. That is what our amendment does. That is why it deserves to be accepted by this body.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, from our side we have had a good discussion of the Abraham amendment. We had a brief discussion, but I think a good exchange, on the second-degree amendment with regard to the best way to provide incentives that will have a direct result in enhancing academic achievement and accomplishment for students. We are under the strong impression, based upon the best experience and the record to date, that is the best way to go. Of course, as we all know, the 93 cents out of every dollar spent locally is within the domain of the State. If the Governors want to go ahead with a program outlined by the Senator from Michigan, they will still be able to do it. While the legislation represents a small percentage of the dollars that will be expended, at least on our side, we feel very strongly we want included in the legislation, programs that are tried, true, and tested and have had a sound record of performance. That is expressed by our second-degree amendment. We are prepared to move toward the consideration of the Murray amendment that dealt with the class size. I think it is appropriate following this discussion on teachers. As I mentioned earlier today, of the $2 billion from S. 2, the Republican teacher proposal, $1.3 billion of that comes from the class size program which they effectively eliminated. Mr. President, $300 million is from the Eisenhower math and science program which is in existence now, which I think is a pretty good program. They are ending that program. They are only adding some $300 million to do all of the things they talked about in terms of enhancement of academic achievement for teachers and teacher support. This is in contrast to the amount we are proposing on the Democrat side, $3.75 billion, that we have outlined in the debate and discussion yesterday. We hoped we would be able to go ahead with the Murray class amendment. We are prepared after that to move to the Lieberman proposal. There aren't any real surprises in the Lieberman proposal. Senator Lieberman and others have outlined that in considerable detail. The language has been passed over to the other side. We wanted to go on giving the Senate the option to be able to consider the alternatives in S. 2 just on the teacher programs, both the recruitment and mentoring, and the academic enhancement and achievement for teachers. We wanted also to have a good debate on the proposal of Senator Harkin on modernization of our schools. We wanted to debate the afterschool programs. We wanted to debate the excellent proposal of Senator Mikulski on the digital divide. We wanted to debate our strong accountability proposal of Senator Bingaman. There are no real mysteries about where we are. I imagine we will get an opportunity to talk about safety and security in schools. There is very little surprise about the programs and our amendments. We understand we want to go back and forth, but we are quite prepared to move ahead. We have been virtually free of any quorum calls since this legislation was laid down. That is rare. On Monday, we had seven speakers from our side, seven speakers from the other side. We went until almost quarter to 7, starting debate at 1 o'clock, and free from any quorum calls. That was true Tuesday evening and yesterday as well and has been true up until now. We are getting close to 2 o'clock. We are not in tomorrow. On this side we are prepared to get into debates and discussions on these items. They are at the heart of education reform. They have been demonstrably effective in helping and assisting the schoolchildren of this country. I listened to my colleagues before 1 o'clock talking about all of the challenges we are facing educating children in underserved areas--all of which is true. What I didn't hear is how they believe they felt their bill would solve it. That is the question. Everyone can come to the floor and talk about the challenges we are facing with children in underserved areas. We all understand that. But when I hear time after time, speech after speech, we have a problem out there and we have to do something about it, I think it is beginning to sound empty. Generally speaking, we identify a problem and we try to identify the solution to the problem. That is not being done here. The reason it is not being done is because the Republican proposal is basically a blank check, a block grant to the Governors. When we find out we don't have well-qualified teachers, what is the answer? Blank check to the Governor. We have trouble and difficulty in overcrowded classrooms and we have dilapidated schools. What is the answer? Blank check to the Governor. We have new technologies that are coming down the pipe, and we want to make sure we will have a balance, that we are not going to get into a digital divide using technologies that will separate the haves and the have-nots in our schools. What is their answer? Give it to the Governor. We have tried that before and we have not gotten very satisfactory answers. We have not gotten satisfactory answers in the time from 1965 from 1970 when we had block grants. We found how the money was diverted for football uniforms and band uniforms and swimming pools, for a wide range of different kinds of activities that were distant and remote and unrelated to children who had very important needs. We had the other side, with all due respect, that took the position, as we started off in the 1990s, that the best answer in solving these problems is to close down the Department of Education. That was their position: We do not want any Federal participation. We do not want any partnership. Close it down. That was their position in the early 1990s. That, and the rescission of funding that had been appropriated and signed into law by the President of the United States during that time. I, for one, as I have said a number of times on the floor, I think most parents would agree, that at every single meeting the President of the United States has with his Cabinet, there is going to be someone there who is going to say to the President: What about education for the children of this country? When they are going to be meeting at the Cabinet table and deciding priorities in the expenditure of our $1.8 trillion, you want someone there who says: What about education, Mr. President? The Republicans do not want that voice in the room because they do not want any Federal participation on that. That has been their historic position. Now we have the time to have this debate. As others reminded us, we do not do it every year. We do it every 5 or every 6 years. We are having this debate now, just after the turn of the century. What is their answer? Instead of no more Department of Education, instead of cutting back even more in terms of the education budget, they say let's give it all to the States. Let's give it all to the States and let them make a judgment about it, virtually free from much accountability. All States have to do to get the money is to have an application and general outline of what the State intends to do to enhance educational quality. Then there is a long list of things that can be included in that effort. But also included are the words ``for any educational purpose.'' Who decides that? The Governor decides that. This is their ``Uses of Funds Under the Agreement.''--Funds that may be available to a State under this part shall be used for educational purposes. Every Governor can just make a decision that this is for educational purposes and then they are not accountable until after 5 years. Then there has to be a finding by the Secretary of Education that they have not made substantial progress in the area of education. So their position is: Blank check, block grant, give it to the States, let the Governors do whatever they do. That in spite of the extraordinary record of the efforts of serious Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, in the period of the 1980s and the 1990s, who said what we have a responsibility for is for the underserved schools in our States. There were eloquent calls for action by the Governors themselves. The National Governors' Conference, time in and time out, we found were asking for it, going back to 1986. Governors Alexander and Clinton and Keene and Riley, urging they give greater focus and attention to underperforming schools and districts, and that States take over the academically bankrupt districts. Those were speeches being made in 1986. I am glad to hear they are being made by our Republican friends now. Then, in 1987, 9 States had authority to take over, annex educationally deficient schools--only 9 out of 50. The call went out again in 1990, and again in 1998. The National Governors' Association policy: Support the State focus on schools, reiterating the position first taken in 1988 in the National Governors' policy: The States should have the responsibility for enforcing accountability and including clear penalties in cases of sustained failure to improve student performance. Now we find there are 20 States that provide assistance to low- performing schools; 18 States apply some type of schoolwide sanction out of those 20. Now we have 20 States. It will take another 50 years, if we were going to get all the States to do what 20 States are doing now. But that is not good enough. Our Republican friends say give the money to the States, in spite of the facts. You have the record about what the deficiency has been at the gubernatorial level. There are some notable exceptions, Republicans and Democrats alike. We are glad to recognize it. We pointed some of those out during the debate. But that has been the record. They have not measured up, done the job; they have not taken that responsibility. We are not prepared, with the scarce resources here, to try to turn that over to the Governors one more time and expect they are going to do the job. No. We are going to insist that there will be incentives and disincentives for performance. That is what we do. As I mentioned, whether you are talking about dedicating resources to turning around schools--in our particular program we have the resources to be able to do that. We make sure we are going to allocate scarce funds that each year are going to be set aside that can be utilized and will be effective in turning around failing schools. The schools are going to have to show annual gains for student performance. We are to the point where we are going to insist there will be a report card that is given to every parent in this country about how their child's school is doing, every year. I think parents would like to know how their child's school is doing. We are guaranteeing that. We asked our good friends on the other side how their bill is going to solve the issue of accountability. They cannot do it. We have been challenging them since the beginning of the debate. They cannot do it. We can. We are glad to go through these various provisions we have outlined about the assurance of real accountability of failing schools. If they fail, there are real consequences. After a period of time they are closed down. There is a whole new leadership for those schools if they are going to be reopened. Otherwise there is support for the children to go to other schools. We also have a strong commitment to try to reach out to those children who are so often left out and left behind. We are talking about the homeless children. We have over a million homeless children in this country. We have over 700,000 children who are migrant children, who travel through this Nation at the various harvest times. There is a similar number of immigrant children who eventually are going to be American citizens. It is in our interest that they get educated. It is in our interest that they get educated, not cast aside. Now, what does this Republican bill do? What it does is eliminate all those kinds of protections which have been out there now, guaranteeing those needy students are going to have their interests addressed. It sends the money back to the States, which prior to 1987 had not given those populations their attention. I see the majority leader on the floor. If he wishes to address the Senate, I will be glad to withhold.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will withhold.

Mr. KENNEDY. At any time the majority leader wants to propound the consent request, I will be glad to yield. I wanted to read the 1987 report. In March of 1987, the Center for Law and Education sent a questionnaire regarding State practices and policies for homeless students to the chief State offices in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and received 23 responses. The majority of the respondents, however, had no statewide data, so out of the 50, you got 23, and out of the 23, the majority had no statewide data on the number of homeless children within their jurisdiction, or whether these children were able to obtain an education. The majority of States had no uniform plan for ensuring homeless students received an education--the poorest of the poor. Can those who want to give this money directly to the States tell us about programs that had been developed by the States prior to 1987? I have searched. I have looked. I cannot find them. Why? Because they were not a priority because they did not vote. Children do not vote, and the parents did not vote. We know the reasons, and that has been true with migrant and immigrant students as well. As for the homeless children, we made marginal increases in the enhancement of those programs annually during the appropriations process, but we maintain our commitment. I wish we could be out here in a bipartisan way trying to find ways to strengthen these programs, to help those kids, to find out how we can be more effective. But oh, no, do my colleagues know what we are going to do? We are going to take those three programs, which is millions of dollars, and instead of continuing to target the homeless and neediest children, we are going to send that money to the Governors, to the State capitals to let them decide whether they want to be bothered by this. The record is very clear: They have not historically, and there is little indication that they will today. If one looks over what is being allocated at the State level versus what the Federal Government is doing with programs in these areas, one will find they are begrudging support for these programs. There are certain exceptions, and we are always glad for that. We enable students in failing schools to transfer to higher-quality schools. We say you cannot use more than 10 percent of the title I money for transportation. We let the local communities make the judgment of what they will do. Under the Republican bill, there is absolutely no cap. They can use the whole title I program for transportation. On accountability, we find there continues to be a deficiency. I will take a couple of minutes to go through the merit pay issue again and our particular proposal. Since we knew this was coming up, we tried to find out what different States have done and what has been successful. We were reminded by the Senator from Georgia about a merit pay program that Secretary Riley instituted. It cost the State of South Carolina $100 million, and it was abandoned. I am sure my friend from Georgia does not realize it was abandoned. Probably those last words or last couple of sentences were missing in his presentation. They have switched to more of a school-based program. In looking over the use of merit pay incentives for teachers across the country, one of the most successful has been in Dallas, TX. In 1991-1992, they implemented one of the most sophisticated accountability systems in the Nation. The centerpiece of it was that all staff in schools which increased student achievement received monetary awards. A 1996 study found when the scores were evaluated against the comparable school districts, the Dallas program had a very positive impact on test results. That is our amendment--schoolwide, with regard to that aspect. In North Carolina, a State in which great progress has been made in education--I do not know why, but when we find out that some things work, as in the State of North Carolina, we do not try to share that with other parts of the country. We have tried to do that in this legislation. North Carolina, in 1997, implemented its incentive program for whole school merit programs, and the legislature recently budgeted $75 million for the awards. More schools met their performance goals than expected. The second year required $125 million rather than scale back the level of the award. The legislature increased the budget to increase this successful program. It is working. We have no problem with our friend from Michigan on this type of merit pay program, but let's get it correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Quickly, my answer would be no. Secondly, I think that-- perhaps the Senator would agree with me--if we are going to give some extra pay, perhaps those teachers who are working in these combat conditions in underserved areas, whether they are rural or urban areas, might seem to be ones who could be deserving of it. That could be a decision that is made by the State. But what I want to mention to the Senator, is that the States can do what the Senator from Michigan is proposing today, out of their 93 cents.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have challenged the proponents of this to give us one State that is doing an effective merit pay for individual teachers program. We have not heard one. It would be nice if they said, oh, we have 15 States doing it and these are the results of it in academic achievement. They cannot give us one example.

Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on the Murray amendment for the proponents?

Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to object, we will be voting on Tuesday. On our side--and the leader can correct me--there are probably seven substantive amendments. As the leader knows, having talked with all of us, we are willing to enter into time agreements on this so we can move the process forward. We want to try to do that in the early part of the week. I know the leader has other matters for consideration by the Senate. Tonight we cannot make that request, but I hope both Senator Daschle and the majority leader can, at least in the first part of the week, see if we can enter into a time sequence. We had good discussions and debate today. I believe with the debate we had on the substitute, plus on S. 2, we have covered the ground pretty well. There are some areas we perhaps need to give additional focus. There was no time indicated by the majority leader for disposition of those two amendments. I am trying to find out the intention of the leader so we can at least tell our people when they can expect some followup.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 7 minutes of that 8 minutes at the present time. Mr. President, just to review very quickly, there has been some suggestion about the fact that in so many different underserved communities teachers are unqualified. We recognize that. That is why we have a very vigorous program in terms of recruitment and training and enhanced professional development. Everyone ought to know that in the Murray amendment there are requirements to carry out effective approaches to reduce that through the use of fully qualified teachers who are certified or licensed within the States. The comments about the Murray amendment earlier about qualifications and being unqualified just are not relevant to this debate and discussion. I will not take the time to review the obvious, but studies have been done. The Tennessee study of some 7,000 children in 80 different schools says it all. It was done recently. In grade 4, students who attended small classes K through 3 were 6 to 9 months ahead of the regular class students in math, reading, and science. By grade 8 these advantages grew to over 1 year. In Wisconsin, a similar study called the Sage Study had similar kinds of results. Their report had the analysis that suggests the teachers in Sage classrooms have greater knowledge of each of their students, spend less time managing their classes, and have more time for individualized instruction, utilizing a primary teacher incentive approach. It is unquestioned. It is unchallenged. We have been waiting to hear from the other side a challenge of the basic and fundamental results of the smaller class size with good teachers. That is out there. We are strongly committed. Senator Murray, who has been fighting this fight for the past year, is committed to make sure we are going to have that availability to school districts across the country. That is No. 1. No. 2, I can understand the anguish that our Republican friends are having about teacher quality, and also about the expenditures. Under the Republican bill, there is $2 billion. They effectively wipe out the current class size. That is 30,000 teachers they take out of K through 6th grades. They take them out. Those are lost. They get pink slips in a program that is supposedly providing quality teachers. These are quality teachers. They get the pink slips because they are using $1.3 billion of the President's program. They wipe out the $350 million in current Eisenhower math and science. They only have $300 million new money. I can understand their frustration as compared to our program which is $3.75 billion. Finally, I would like to remind our Republican friends that when this amendment was first passed here, we had Bill Goodling on this the first time we had the negotiations. Senator Murray was there during the early parts of the negotiation and was our leader. This is what Bill Goodling, who is the chairman of the House committee, said the first time we had the smaller class size. This is a real victory for the Republican Congress, but more importantly, it is a huge win for local educators and parents who are fed up with Washington's mandate, red tape, and regulation. Goodling said: We agree with the President's desire to help classroom teachers, but our proposal does not include a big, new, Federal education program. Rather, our proposal will drive dollars directly to the classroom and give local educators options to spend Federal funds to help disadvantaged children. Interesting. Here is the Republican Policy Committee, a dictionary of major accomplishments during the 105th Congress. Here is the Republican Policy Committee. They list 14. Number 9: Teacher quality, initiative--cleared, cleared for the President. The omnibus FY99 funding bill provides $1.2 billion in additional education funds--funds controlled 100-percent at the local level--to school districts to recruit, hire, train and test teachers. This provision is a major step toward returning to local school officials the ability to make educational decisions for our children. Here they are taking credit for the same proposal, the Murray proposal. Three years ago it was the Republican proposal. They are the ones issuing the press releases. They are the ones taking credit for it. All Senator Murray is doing is continuing that program. It is the same program. The President is putting up the money. It is the same program. It was good enough at that time for Mr. Goodling, and it was good enough for the Republican leadership to take credit. Here is what former Speaker Newt Gingrich said about it at that time. He called it ``a victory for the American people. There will be more teachers, and that is good for all Americans.'' Here is what Dick Armey said. Well, I think, quite frankly, I'm very proud of what we did and the timeliness of it. We were very pleased to receive the President's request for more teachers, especially since he offered to provide a way to pay for them. And when the President's people were willing to work with us so that we could let the state and local communities take this money, make these decisions, manage the money, spend the money on teachers as they saw the need, whether it be for special education or for regular teaching, with a freedom of choice and management and control at the local level, we thought this was good for America and food for the schoolchildren. The same program today, the same program that we are going to be voting on, the same one, endorsed by Armey and endorsed by Gingrich and Goodling. What is it with our Republican friends that they were so enthusiastic for this program 3 years ago, taking credit for it, putting it on the list of major achievements of the Congress? Now we hear out here: No, no; we can't; Oh, Lord, we cannot have this new program. We can't have it. It has all kinds of problems. Oh, Lord. It has problems. It has problems. Come on. We have been making an attempt in this area. You ought not be out taking credit for it if that is what you are interested in. And I am sure Senator Murray would be glad to offer you cosponsorship on this program and go with you up to the gallery when we have the celebration. I will go with Senator Hutchinson, with Senator Gorton, and the rest of our friends. This is something that is basic and fundamental and successful. We have heard more speeches around here about the problems that we are facing at the local level. This program is tried and tested with good results and excellent outcomes for children. Teachers themselves embrace it. It was endorsed by Republicans 3 years ago. It is the same program. It was good enough for them then; it ought to be good enough for them now because mostly all of it is good for the children of this country. We hope this amendment will be successful.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be good enough to yield 8 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. There was a dramatic outcome in one of the poorest communities in California where they had schoolwide summer programs and they took all of the teachers--500 teachers--and gave bonuses to the whole school as the academic achievement went up. They also supported teachers if they wanted to obtain professional development or work towards advanced degrees. Finally, they gave encouragement for recertification, which is a very rigorous program of examination by senior teachers and review of the skills and talents of these teachers. But most of all, they gave support for the classes and the schools that were increasing academic achievement. It went from one of the poorest schools, in terms of academic achievement, to one of the best in California in a period of 7 years.

Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, our amendment focuses funds on what works. If the States want to use their 93 cents out of the dollar for purposes that Senator Abraham has mentioned, they can do it. We are focused on what works: School-based merit programs for improving the achievement of all students in a school, incentives and subsidies for helping teachers earn advanced degrees, implementing and funding vigorous peer review evaluation and recertification programs for teachers, and providing incentives to help the most fully qualified teachers to teach in the lowest achieving schools. These are the programs that are tried, tested, and that work. That is the second degree to the proposal of the Senator from Michigan. I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, that is absolutely my recollection of it.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. If the Senator will permit, does the Senator's language affect the portability provisions?

Mr. KENNEDY. That's fine. He has indicated we could not use vouchers for private schools. Now we are asking, ``Are you going to be able to use funds for private school vouchers under the portability provision?'' Under the portability provision, there is every indication that you could use funds for private schools and religious schools as well. I am trying to understand whether we are addressing both of these concerns or just part of them.

Mr. KENNEDY. The question is, since this is the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire, has the Senator inquired if the Senator from New Hampshire supports him?