Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. What is the objection of the Senator to agreeing to a time limitation on the five amendments and to move toward final passage on tomorrow?

Mr. KENNEDY. I was there part of the time, but not when he had his press conference. I was in the room, yes, I was, and glad to be there, because we were fighting then for smaller classrooms.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator wasn't there, I apologize to the Senator. It was, as I see now, Senator Gorton, Chairman Goodling, Congressman Clay, and myself. So I apologize to the Senator. Would the Senator have complained in the back room last year if he had been there?

Mr. KENNEDY. We will let the record stand and let the people figure it out. The point is, Madam President, what we have tried to do with this Ed- Flex legislation, which some Democratic Governors and Republican Governors desire, is to create greater flexibility, while at the same time insisting that we are going to have some accountability--those issues have not been completely resolved--and to ensure that Federal funding that was going to be available was going to be targeted to the neediest students. We all want to make sure that we are going to be able to judge the Ed-Flex by how the students' achievement and accomplishment actually are enhanced over a period of time. There is another amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island, who wants to ensure that parental involvement in these decisions will be considered. That has not been accepted. We certainly hope that will be included, because every single study that has been made with regard to the importance of early education shows the importance and significance of parental involvement. So we still have to resolve those issues. As our majority leader pointed out when he addressed the Governors two weeks ago, we would get a chance to debate the issue of education. This is what our Majority Leader Lott, who spoke to the National Governors' Association, said: Now, when we bring up the education issues on the floor next week, there will be some amendments and some disagreements. But at the leadership meeting we had yesterday afternoon, I said, ``That's great. Let's go to the Senate floor, let's take days, let's take a week, let's take 2 weeks if it's necessary, let's talk about education.'' What happened, Madam President? What happened to that kind of commitment that was made to the Governors? What happened to the opportunity to be able to address the issue of class size and to be able to vote on it? What happened in the last two weeks which has denied the Senator from Washington the opportunity to offer her amendment last Friday and denied the opportunity to offer it today? I daresay she will be denied the opportunity to offer it tomorrow. What happened here, Madam President? What is more important to the families of this country than the issues of education? What is more important than having a good debate on issues such as classroom size? What is more important than considering other issues that our colleagues wanted to bring up for Senate consideration, such as the afterschool programs to try to assist children that too often are finding themselves in trouble or spending too much time watching the television in the afternoon? What is wrong with an amendment to expand that program? Let's hear the arguments and have a vote here. Let's have a short time limit. The Senator from Washington had indicated that she would be willing to enter into a time agreement. We don't need to have a cloture vote tomorrow. We could vote on the Senator's amendment late this afternoon, if that is the desire. I bet the membership would stay here during the evening, if that was the desire and others wanted to speak on it because of its importance to people in communities all across this country--parents, children and schoolteachers. We can do that. We can reach a time agreement, as our minority leader said, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, for five or six amendments with time limitations. We could wind this whole debate up by tomorrow. But, no. Are we sure we can't have any amendments this afternoon? Yes, the Senate can be assured that it is not possible for any Member of the U.S. Senate this afternoon to offer an amendment. Fine. Then you can go ahead and speak. That is known as a gag rule, Madam President. We had that kind of problem at the end of the last session. We had the gag rule on minimum wage. We had the gag rule on the Patients' Bill of Rights. And now we start off this Congress and we have a gag rule on education. If the majority agrees with you, you can bring up your amendment. But if you have an amendment like Senator Bingaman and Senator Reid on school dropouts, where we had a very substantial number of Republicans who supported that, absolutely not. Absolutely not. The amount of time spent in quorum calls last week when they brought up this simple amendment that had been debated and discussed and accepted and dropped in conference last year is beyond belief. We had a small number of amendments that could have been worked out. All of us understand that there is a program and a schedule, and Senator Daschle spoke for all of us on our side to try to reduce any number of amendments, and to try to get a time limitation and to move on. But that continues to be denied. ``Not as long as school class size is one of the amendments,'' they say. Isn't that wonderful? No agreement as long as school class size is an issue. What is this terrible issue about school class size that they won't even permit Republicans or Democrats to vote on? I see my colleague, the author of this amendment. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Washington and withhold the remainder of the time. Cloture Motion

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. KENNEDY. I object, Mr. President.

Mr. KENNEDY. I would object to that.

Mr. KENNEDY. How do we yield time if there is no time agreement?

Mr. KENNEDY. Absolutely.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the regular order, Mr. President. Regular order is that a Senator can yield for a question. We are now in debate time; we are not under a time agreement, and I make a point of order.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I move to recommit the bill to report back forthwith with the following amendment.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am sure that many Members of the Senate, and certainly Americans who have been watching the Senate for the past few days, must have a question on their minds about what is going on in the U.S. Senate. For many of us who have been here for some period of time, it is becoming painfully clear what is going on. Our good friends on the other side look up to the Parliamentarian and ask, ``There is no opportunity for them to offer an amendment at all, is there?'' and after they get their assurance, then they permit this side to speak. If you agree with them, you get a chance to speak, and they don't object to calling off the quorum; but if you don't agree with them, then you don't get a chance to speak. This is the new U.S. Senate. I guess this must be part of the attitude we all heard about after the impeachment--that we were going to try and work things out in a way of comity and understanding, and we are going to have give-and-take on both sides. We were denied an opportunity to debate this issue or offer amendments last Friday when we wanted to, and we were denied the opportunity to offer amendments here today. There are evidently objections to the consideration of the Murray amendment, even though the majority and the chairman of the committee were quite prepared to tag amendments on to this Ed-Flex legislation, which is of so much importance to local districts. I supported this legislation, but it doesn't really compare in importance to the Murray amendment which will result in the reductions of class size. We saw the acceptance of a far-reaching banking amendment, and I doubt very much whether there are five Members in the U.S. Senate that would be able to explain it. And then the majority talks to us about not trying to clutter up this legislation with amendments, like the Murray amendment to reduce class size, whose only purpose is to continue the commitment made last year which the Republicans signed on for and took credit, to make sure this commitment was going to continue for the next 6 years, but we have been denied the opportunity to bring it to the floor. But we have accepted a banking amendment of enormous significance and importance and there isn't a complaint over here, not a complaint over here. So now we have a prohibition on offering amendments from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock. It is neatly timed to divide the time up so that we can talk about this. I dare say when the majority leader comes over here, we will have the same kind of situation tomorrow, the same situation since he has filed the cloture motion. We will have the explanation, ``Look, we have been on education for a number of days now and it is time we resolve it.'' Madam President, maybe that explanation satisfies some Americans. But it defies logic, Madam President, if we are prepared to try to debate and discuss these matters, why we don't let the Senate make a judgment on it. I listened to my friend talk about the amendment. Last year, the amendment that was accepted on teachers was drafted in a back room. As I remember, the good Senator from Vermont was in that back room at that time. I didn't hear him complaining at that time about being in the back room. When the chairman of the House committee, Congressman Goodling, went out there to announce this, he was quite prepared to take very considerable credit for what had been done in terms of expanding the classrooms. He went out and stated at that time: 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 mandates, redtape and regulation. That is what the chairman of the House committee said on this.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to just take a few moments at this time, because we have others who would like to speak, to say that I am somewhat perplexed at some of the arguments that have been made here this afternoon about the importance of local control and the role of the States in terms of education, because just last fall, in October, we gave assurance to the States that there would be help and assistance toward making the classrooms smaller. We gave them those assurances. Communities all across the country were depending on them. Now we have an amendment on the floor that effectively wipes out that commitment. So not only do local school districts not know how to plan for the future, but they don't even know now--even with the assurance they have gotten from HEW--about what funds would come into local communities and whether they would have the resources to be able to plan for the fall. If that makes a great deal of sense, it makes a great deal of sense to others, not to me. Now, Madam President, I will include in the Record what we have done over the past several years on increasing funding in education. We have seen that, since 1995, we have made a bipartisan commitment to increase IDEA funding by $2 billion. That has been very worthwhile. Many of our Republican friends initiated that. I am glad to support it. It made sense and it continues to make sense. We also had a bipartisan commitment to help the neediest children in America by increasing Title I funding by one billion dollars. We have initiated bipartisan commitments for the funding of afterschool programs and education technology by about $700 million. Since 1995, we have expanded opportunities for qualified students to go to college. And last year, we made a 1-year downpayment on a bipartisan commitment to reducing class size across the country over 7 years. We reject the idea of pitting children against children. I listened to the eloquence of my friend from New Hampshire, talking about how we wanted one group of children to benefit at the expense of other children. Let me just mention that I am strongly committed toward enhancing the resources available to the IDEA, just as I am for supporting the Murray amendment. Improving teacher quality, having well-trained teachers, can identify children with special needs early and better address their needs. They can also better teach all children. If you are talking about special needs children, improving the teacher quality and getting well-trained teachers helps us to meet that responsibility. Reducing class size, as the Murray amendment provides for, would help all children--all children--including children with disabilities. They would get more individual attention, which they need. Modernizing the school buildings--school construction--would offer support and help for all children, including those with disabilities and give them access to safe and modern schools. Children with disabilities would benefit from having buildings with appropriate access to school facilities and buildings equipped to handle modern technologies. Expanding the afterschool programs would help all children, including those with disabilities, stay off the street and out of trouble and help them get extra academic help. The Reading Excellence Act will help all children read well early. It will help teachers address reading difficulties early and possibly eliminate the need for costly special education later. All of these initiatives would help all children, including children with disabilities, get better educations. We are committed to all of these factors, to try to help children all across the country. So we welcome the opportunity to work with the Senator from New Hampshire, or any others, to see expanded resources for IDEA. It is essential and important. But we don't want to penalize some children to benefit others. Let's make a commitment that we move all the children along together. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY. We will give you 1 additional minute, Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield for a question.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, next week, on March 17th, St. Patrick's Day, one of Revere, Massachusetts' finest sons, Charles Paone, will celebrate his 90th birthday. Charlie, as he is known by his many friends, has spent most of his life in his hometown of Revere. He graduated from Immaculate Conception High School in 1927, and went on to Georgetown University, graduating in 1931. After college, Charlie returned to Massachusetts and attended Boston College Law School, receiving his law degree from that outstanding college in 1935. Charlie was inducted into the Army in 1942, where he served with distinction in the 209th Counter Intelligence Corps. He's been a member of the American Legion for more than 50 years, and he's been very active in his post. He has also been a member of the Knights of Columbus for more than 60 years, and is a past Grand Knight. In 1981 he retired from the Revere Public School System after four decades of outstanding service. Charlie is loved by his family and friends as a wonderful role model who is always willing to go the extra mile for those in need, whether it's helping someone with their taxes or providing a ride to the local store for groceries. And, of course, all of us in the Senate know Charlie's nephew Marty, who does an excellent job as our Secretary for the Minority. In many ways, our country is great today because of Americans like Charlie of the World War II generation. They served their country far above and beyond the call of duty in the war, and they came back from the war to rebuild the nation on the home front and make America the great country it is today. Tom Brokaw, in his current number one best- seller, calls them ``The Greatest Generation,'' and it's leaders like Charlie that he's writing about. It's a privilege to join Charlie's family and friends in wishing him a very happy 90th birthday and a very happy St. Patrick's Day, and to commend him for all that he has done for his family, his friends, his community, and our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the statement of the majority leader on the issue that is before us, the Ed-Flex legislation. If you look back over the history, it was officially initiated by an amendment by the Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, and myself. It was initially provided that six States were going to have the power of waiver, and then when we considered the Goals 2000 we added six more States. So many of us on this side are very familiar with the legislation, are very familiar with the record that has been made, and are in support of the kind of accountability that the majority leader has stated. We are eager to see this legislation move towards completion. But we want to point out too, as the majority leader knows, that the underlying legislation may very well be the major opportunity for debate on education this year. Because the Elementary/Secondary Education Act does not expire until next year, it may very well not be up at that time. We will have a chance to express a sense of the Senate on the budget items. We will look forward to debating appropriations. That is generally the last piece of legislation that comes here in October. But this may very well be the only serious debate on education for the whole year. That is why, given the fact that there is not an extensive or busy calendar, given the importance of the issue--education--to families all over the country, and given the timeliness of the particular issue--the Murray amendment in terms of giving assurances to local communities all across the country--it is imperative that we have an opportunity for the Senate to address this issue in a brief way. Senator Murray has indicated her willingness to enter into a reasonable time limit to move toward a disposition of that legislation and that particular amendment. I just finally remind our colleagues that our leader, Senator Daschle, had indicated that he would urge short time limits on as few as five or six amendments. I would think that Senator Daschle might even be able to get a reduction to maybe even four amendments, even though there are many Members here who have plans and believe they are important. We could dispose of all of this in the period of a day, if not a day and a half. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to say that on this issue which is of central importance and significance to families all across this country--the issue over partnership, the Federal Government working with the States and local communities--that we address the issue of class size, and we also address the very important issue of the funding of the IDEA. I think we can find very, very broad support for making sure that local communities are going to have the funding for IDEA, but I also think if put to a vote we would have a strong majority of Republicans and Democrats in favor of giving the communities across this country some help and assistance in terms of class size. That is something that every parent understands. It is something every teacher understands and every student understands. No one makes that case better than the former school board member and former teacher herself, Senator Murray. I welcome the chance to hear her on this issue.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield further, we could have even had the debate during the course of this morning.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the leaders came to you and said, We are prepared to enter into a time of a couple of hours to discuss this, you would be willing, perhaps--I know there would be a number of people that want to speak on it--but you are prepared to at least accommodate the leadership and the schedule on that issue. You would certainly support an initiative by the leaders, even from our side--maybe there are some on the other side--to move towards a very few amendments--I think the leader said five or six--and do it with a time limit so that we can move along with the Senate schedule. Do I understand correctly?

Mr. KENNEDY. We could have moved ahead towards the vote on that next week, and we could have accommodated the Senate schedule.