Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Gorton amendment. I listened with great interest to the Senator's presentation, as I did the last time we debated this issue. Of course, we understand now that if the States want to go out to their taxpayers and raise taxes and to vote those taxes to any of the points that the Senator desires, they have every right to do so, and there is nothing that any of us are doing here that would prohibit them from doing it. The fact is that the resources which are being provided here and which the amendment is directed to are the resources that are being raised at the Federal level and have been targeted to those aspects of our educational systems that have been identified as being meaningful in terms of our national interest and our national purpose. The Senator's amendment effectively eliminates the Drug-Free Schools Program. That would be included in his block grant, but the funding would not be there. Maybe parents are speaking to the Senator from Washington and saying they don't like a drug-free program in their schools, but parents in my State are saying they like it and they hope it will be enhanced. They talk about dispute resolutions that are being developed in various schools. They don't want that program emasculated or effectively destroyed. It does not reach a level of priority in the Gorton amendment. When I go around my State of Massachusetts, particularly after all of the publicity that was received in the international competition about where the United States stood in areas of math and science, they are not saying cut out the Eisenhower Math and Science Education Training Program. They are asking me, ``Do we have in our schools qualified teachers in math and science, and what are you going to do in your higher ed bill to try to have enhanced math and science qualified teachers who are going to teach our children in our schools?'' Too many of the teachers who are teaching in the schools in my State--and in every other State, I might add--are not qualified to teach in their particular courses. One of the most effective programs is math and science under the Eisenhower program. That doesn't exist in the Gorton amendment. Maybe people are going around and saying to their Senators that math and science training and additional enhancements for our teachers is something in which they are not interested. But I do not hear that in Massachusetts. I do not hear that. We have support for programming that is going to enhance academic achievement and accomplishments to raise the bar. One of the most important transitions we have seen in terms of education policy is to free ourselves from dumbing down academics, from social promotions in the various schools, and setting high academic standards. The provisions that exist in Federal law would be virtually eliminated by the Senator's amendment. I do not find parents in my State saying, ``We are not interested in establishing higher academic standards in our schools.'' That is eliminated. If, in particular, communities do not choose to take advantage of these programs, they do not have to take advantage of these programs. But why deny the people in my State the opportunity to take advantage of it if it is desired in the local community and the State makes that determination of priority? It is a partnership today. It is a partnership, but they effectively are denying it under the Gorton block grant resolution. Mr. President, our role is extremely limited. We provide maybe 7 cents out of every dollar that is extended locally--maybe 6, 7, 8 cents. A chunk of that goes into nutrition programs. A good part of that is the title I programs, additional help and assistance in terms of IDEA, a small part in terms of the bilingual program and a few others, such as the math and science programs. In the Eisenhower math and science training, it is about $360 million, but it is a very good qualified program. And for the life of me, I do not understand where this demand is coming to vitiate that and eliminate those programs. If a particular community wants to innovate and create and try to do all these other kinds of matters that the Senator talks about, then let them go ahead and do it, let them go ahead and do it. But these programs have been targeted, been basically developed with strong bipartisan support, I might add, or they would not be on the books. We have had strong bipartisan support in terms of the safe and drug-free schools. We have had it with regard to the Eisenhower training programs, math and science training programs. They will be reinstated when we are dealing again with the Higher Ed Act, with strong bipartisan support. Effectively, we are saying, without a day of hearings, with a very limited debate here for 30 minutes--a few hours in the last session of Congress--that we are effectively emasculating all of these programs. It is not sound education policy, and I think it is unwise policy for us to be considering at this particular time. We ought to be looking and evaluating each of these programs one by one. If they are having a heavy administrative burden, we ought to examine that and address that. That is why we are commending the work that has been worked out with Senator DeWine, Senator Wellstone, Senator Jeffords, and others in our committee for consolidating various work training programs, 126 work training programs in six different agencies to eliminate those administrative costs and to try to do it in a way as to protect the function but eliminate a lot of the administrative costs. We have been involved in the last several years with waiving various rules and regulations in States and in educational districts, which is working out. And we can do that, selectively and effectively. We welcome the opportunity to do so. We have had evaluations, and they are effective. We welcome the opportunity to work with Members here. The leader in that effort was Senator Hatfield of Oregon, who is a leader in education as well as an attempt to try to give the focus of limited Federal funds to areas which have national purpose and national accord. Finally, Mr. President, we do not have accountability under the Gorton amendment. We hear a great deal about trying to have greater accountability so we know what are going to be the results of investments of scarce Federal funds. We do not have that in the Gorton amendment. We do not know what is going to happen when that money goes out into these various communities. There may be some feel-good measures that people feel good that they are able to try to move various resources around in different directions, but we do not know what the outcomes are going to be. You do not have the accountability. So finally I just say that we have a relationship at the Federal, State, and local community levels in terms of education. It is a partnership. I think it is fair to review that partnership. It is fair to examine various programs and what is effective in that partnership. But we raise money at the Federal level for national purposes, safe and drug-free schools. We made that a part of our war on drugs in this country. It is a matter of national policy. We said we want, as a national policy, to have drug-free schools. That is effectively eliminated in this program. We said we want focus and attention on math and science in our schools, and we developed a program that if initiated in the local communities on a competitive basis will provide those resources. That program is eliminated. We have said as a matter of national policy that--and just about everyone agrees with that--we ought to raise the bar in terms of academic achievement and accomplishment. Let us go ahead and do that. And we have an agreement by parents. They are enthusiastic about it. And that is going to be eliminated under this program. Mr. President, this is not an advance. It is rearranging the deck chairs, but we are not enhancing the academic opportunities for children in this country with this amendment. And I hope that it will not be accepted. Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we heard from the Senator from Indiana, the reasons for these kinds of reviews are basically that there is nothing wrong with setting high standards for the achievement for the Nation's children and giving parents the opportunity to know how their children are doing. I think that is the basic policy issue. The Senator from Indiana and the Senator from New Hampshire insisted that this is being done in a nonpartisan, bipartisan way, and I agree completely. I believe that is the way it is being done. It should be a national priority to do all we can to help the children meet these high standards. Under the existing proposal, that would be done voluntarily. The States would make a judgment, local communities would make a judgment. I think we ought to retain the current system and try to adjust it if it needs to be adjusted rather than to effectively stop it in its tracks. Therefore, I oppose the Ashcroft amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield. I will be glad to inquire on our side of those who desire to speak or offer an amendment and request their presence so that we can move along and not in any way hold this process up. I will do that. I see our friend, the good Senator from Wisconsin. Maybe he could be entitled to speak for some time. I will inquire from our colleagues on our side about Senators who still have amendments so that we can move this process along.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there is no question that there are tests that are out there, but quite clearly the hearings demonstrated they would not provide the kind of information to the parents across this country that this kind of initiative would provide. It seems to me that we want to challenge the young people of this country, setting the high standards for the Nation's children and giving the parents the opportunity and responsibility to know how their children are doing and then taking action at the local level on how they are going to deal with it. That was the principle that was accepted by the Senate and the strong bipartisan vote last year. Let's continue with that and give that a try before effectively stopping it in its tracks. I yield the remainder of the time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question? As I understand from the Senator from Georgia, then, at 3:45 we intend to start voting on the subject matters which we have debated earlier, and dispose of those, and then, according to the leadership, try to continue to dispose of other amendments subsequent. Am I correct in that?

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask to be able to follow the Senator from Vermont for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 5 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, we had set for 3 o'clock--as the Senator knows, I have been trying to get people over here. I will yield as soon as anybody comes over. I have about 5 more minutes. I would like to be able to continue for 5 more minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have how much time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, literacy is another very high priority, to date. Too many children are reading at unacceptable levels--40 percent of the fourth graders fail to attain the basic level of reading. Incredibly, Mr. President, the tax proposal that is the Coverdell proposal ignores each and every one of these pressing needs. The regressive Republican tax bill does nothing to improve public schools, nothing to address the need for public schools to build new facilities, nothing to reduce class size in school, nothing to provide qualified teachers, nothing to provide afterschool activities to keep children away from drugs, nothing to help all children learn to read, and nothing to help reach higher academic standards. It does nothing to improve the quality of education for children in public schools. Tax breaks for private schools is not the answer to the serious problems facing the Nation's public schools. There are serious problems in the Nation's public schools. We can do much more to turn troubled schools around and undertake a wide-range of proven reforms to create and sustain safe and high-performing schools. There are no magic remedies to improve schools and improve student learning. We need to use our limited resources wisely to get the most benefits for our tax dollars. The Republican approach would divert urgently needed funds away from public schools into private schools. That is wrong for education, wrong for America, and wrong for the Nation's future.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield a minute on that issue?

Mr. KENNEDY. I don't know which particular amendment the Senator is talking on. On the school construction amendment by Senator Moseley- Braun, there is $3.3 billion to create $22 billion in school construction. I don't know which one the Senator is referring to.

Mr. KENNEDY. You are using a 10-year figure for her and a 5-year figure for yourself.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, she was going to make a best effort. She was over here at 1 o'clock and was over here this morning. So we will inquire and try to determine her location, and then I will report back to the Senator.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. We have now an opportunity to make a choice as we are going to vote on this measure, the Coverdell bill, which has been estimated to be $1.6 billion over the period of the next 10 years. We will have a choice either this evening or tomorrow as to how we are going to expend those funds, whether they will be used primarily, as the Tax Committee says, for private schools or, as I understand the Senator's amendment, to recognize excellence in schools all across this country as a result of local decisions that are being made by parents, local community decisions, and to give a financial reward. $100,000 is a considerable reward, but I imagine, since these schools are dedicating themselves to improving and strengthening their academic achievements and accomplishments, those resources are going to be used to further student advancement, thereby giving some real meaning to the local initiatives to put excellence first in terms of public education. So on the one hand we are going to have a choice for recognizing excellence at the local level selected by peer review or the funds will be primarily used in terms of private education. Do I understand it correctly?

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield further, I imagine, then, after they are selected, hopefully these will be models within the local community? People will say, ``These schools have been selected because of their enhanced academic achievement and excellence. I wonder what they did right.'' Parents in neighboring communities will understand it, others will understand it, and hopefully, as a result of these kinds of awards, it will be an incentive for replicating the kinds of decisions at the local level that have resulted in excellence. Is that the objective as well?

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator withhold the time, perhaps, just in case we need respond?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I agree with the Senator from Washington that if the State wants to tax its own people and do whatever it wants to, it should have the ability to do it. If the local community wants to tax its people, they ought to be able to do whatever they want. But what Senator Gorton is saying is, we are going to use Federal taxpayers' money, the money that is directed by the Congress. We have designated three very important areas that are eliminated by the amendment of the Senator from Washington. First, drug-free schools. I do not find any parents from Massachusetts saying, ``Abolish drug-free schools.'' The Gorton amendment will abolish it. Secondly, for the training of teachers in math and science, I do not find parents saying, ``We ought to abolish that program.'' The Gorton amendment does it. And third, in terms of raising high academic standards, the programs that help and assist local schools to be able to do it, I do not find parents in my State saying, ``Abolish that program.'' It will be abolished by the Gorton amendment. It makes no sense, Madam President. And there is no accountability under the Gorton amendment how these funds are being spent and what the effect of it is in improving academic achievement and accomplishment. To do it after 30 minutes of debate makes no sense whatsoever. I hope that the amendment will be defeated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, those who support the education programs, title I and other programs that will be affected, want the greatest amount of money to go to the local classrooms. So we support this measure. We have no problem whatsoever in supporting this measure. It is supported by the administration and by the Department of Education. We want to make sure that as much of the funds as possible go right into the classroom. We are absolutely in support of it. We hope the amendment will pass overwhelmingly. When the Senator initially offered his amendment, it provided not only for this measure but to eliminate the amendment of the Senator from Washington. Now the Senator from Washington will have a chance to have her amendment voted on. I hope all of our Members will support this measure. It makes good sense. We all want the resources to go into the classroom for the benefit of the children.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Missouri has a statement. I will be glad to follow him.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we all know what our priorities are in education. We need to do all we can to support and improve our public schools. That means additional assistance to every State to repair crumbling schools and to build new facilities. It means recruiting more teachers to meet the existing demand and to deal with the crisis of rising enrollments, especially in priority disciplines, in math and science. It means reducing class sizes. It means more support for afterschool programs to keep kids off the streets, away from drugs, and out of trouble. It means a major effort to teach young children how to read because we know that literacy is the foundation of every other aspect of learning. It means setting higher standards for schools to meet in educating their students. We know these ideas will work. But schools across the country are in desperate need of funds to make them work. Our goal is to improve public schools, not abandon them. It makes no sense to call for greater priority for education and then earmark aid for private schools instead of public schools. Public schools are instituting these ideas and getting results. We should make sure that every school and community has the resources to put in practice what works so that no child is left out or left behind. Mr. President, this chart here shows what is happening to the schools in this country. And this is according to the General Accounting Office: 14 million children learn in substandard schools; 7 million children attend schools with asbestos, lead paint, or radon in the ceilings or walls; 12 million children go to school under leaky roofs; one-third of all American children study in classrooms without enough panel outlets and the electrical wiring to accommodate computers and multimedia equipment. This is a tragedy, a national tragedy. It is not only a physical tragedy in terms of the facilities are getting more and more antiquated every single year, but it is also a tragedy in the kind of subliminal message--and it isn't so subliminal a message--that it sends to children and their parents. Because as grownups and as political leaders are talking about the importance of children in our country and in our society, and that the children are our future, on the other hand, we are sending our children into these kinds of conditions every single day. We are sending the message that we do not really care about the kind of facilities where you are trying to learn, and we do not really care very much about education. That is the message that is being hammered home every single day to these millions of children who are going to school in these kinds of conditions. That is wrong. We are trying to address that. And that is a principal policy difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on the education issue. Massachusetts is no exception. Forty-one percent of Massachusetts schools report that at least one building needs extensive repairs or should be replaced. Seventy-five percent report serious problems in buildings, such as plumbing or heating defects. Eighty percent have at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor. It is difficult enough to teach or learn in modern classrooms, and it makes no sense to compound the difficulty by subjecting teachers and students to dilapidated facilities. We cannot tolerate a situation in which facilities deteriorate while enrollments escalate. Mr. President, in far too many communities across the country, children are also learning in overcrowded classrooms. This year, K-12 enrollment reached an all-time high, and will continue to rise over the next 7 years, and will increase by about 4 million children in K-12 over the period of the next 4 years. That is why it is so important that we are going to have a major effort in terms of increasing the teaching profession and giving them the skills to be able to teach these children to ever higher standards and to take into consideration the utilizations of the new electronics and to tie those into curriculum, all of that so that our children are going to have a world-class education. That is a new phenomenon. That is a national phenomenon--the expansion and growth of our children in our schools. We know this is happening. And now we need 6,000 new public schools built and needed by the year 2006 just to maintain the current class sizes. We know this is happening. We have been given that information by the Department of Education and by everyone that has studied this situation. Due to the overcrowded schools, they are using trailers for classrooms and teaching students in former hallways, closets, and bathrooms. And overcrowded classrooms undermine the discipline and decrease student morale. We have had the testimony during the earlier debates--I have given examples of these kinds of conditions--and for the first time heard from an outstanding president of a very important school in neighboring Virginia the fact that because of these overcrowded conditions, a new phenomenon is developing in their school, and it is called hall rage-- hall rage. I never heard those words used before. What he was pointing out was, with the increasing number of students in these confined areas, that from the brushing against one another and the kinds of violence that is taking place in the classroom, you see the explosion in the number of fights, misunderstandings, and a deterioration in both morale and discipline because of hall rage--too many students trying to get to too many different places, and often in these trailers for classrooms and in closets and other situations. That is what is happening in the United States of America. That is what is happening. We ought to give a helping hand to the local communities. We are not interested in superimposing some Federal solution, some ``new bureaucracy,'' those old cliches. I have listened to the same cliches for 30-odd years. You would think they would have new ones, talking about the ``new bureaucracy,'' ``one size fits all,'' ``Washington doesn't know everything.'' You hear those every single day for 30 years, and you would think they would find some new ones. What we are finding out with overcrowded classrooms is, we have the demand for additional teachers and we have the demand for additional kinds of support for students as well in other areas. Mr. President, class sizes are too large. Students in small classes in the early grades make much more rapid progress than students in larger classes. In the exchange earlier today, I pointed out what some of the States are doing, and the findings in Wisconsin, the findings in California, Flint, MI, very important findings in terms of increasing literacy and academic achievement with these smaller classes. It is not the answer to everything, but it is a pretty clear and compelling case to be made. And it was made so clearly by the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, on the importance of getting into smaller classes. As a former teacher and school board member, she is talking about what is happening out on Main Street. This is a message that should have been listened to. And we will have an opportunity to vote on her excellent amendment in just a little while. The benefits are greatest for low-achieving minority and low-income children with smaller classes. Smaller classes also enable teachers to identify and work effectively with students who have learning disabilities and reduce the need for special education at later grades. The Nation's students deserve modern schools with world-class teachers. But too many students in too many schools in too many communities across the country fail to achieve that standard. The latest international survey on math and science achievement confirms the urgent need to raise standards of performance for schools, teachers, and students alike. It is shameful that America's 12th graders ranked among the lowest of 22 nations participating in the international survey on math and science. Here we have prospectively, in the year 2000, on a voluntary basis, on the States and local community tests, so that we can raise the standards of American children in areas of math and science--we have an amendment to strike that, strike that proposal--tests that will be developed in a bipartisan way so parents have greater information to make decisions locally to enhance academic achievement and accomplishment, a compromise that was agreed to by 87 Members of this body, a bipartisan compromise, and now we have an amendment to strike that at a time when we are having these results and effectively denying the parents the opportunity to have knowledge and understanding about where their children are, in their school, in their community, in their State, relevant to other communities across the country, if they want to, if they believe that is important. I think that makes no sense whatever, and I hope the Ashcroft amendment will be defeated. Teacher shortages forced many school districts to hire uncertified teachers or to ask certified teachers to teach outside their area of expertise. That is what is happening in every area of the country. Each year, over 50,000 underprepared teachers enter the classroom. One in four does not fully meet State certification requirements. Twelve percent of new teachers have no training teacher at all. Students in inner city schools have only a 50 percent chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher. Listen to that: only a 50 percent chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher. Instead of putting the $1.6 billion in tax advantage for individuals who will send their kids to private schools, let's do something about those schoolteachers who are not certified in the areas of math and science, and upgrade their skills. They will go back to the public schools and be able to enhance the quality of education for those kids. This is a basic difference between our Republican friends and those on this side on the issue of teachers and the importance of having high standards on which to measure our children. Another high priority is to meet the need for more afterschool activities. Each day, 5 million children, many as young as 8 or 9 years old, are home alone after school. Juvenile delinquent crime peaks between the hours of 3 and 8. Children left unsupervised are more likely to be involved in antisocial activities and destructive patterns of behavior. It isn't just that there are greater opportunities for them to get in trouble, it is that there are advantages of having those children in circumstances where they are able to go into local community-based systems where they may get some help and assistance with their homework over the afternoon or maybe participate in some sports events that are supervised, so when the parents get home after a long, hard day, the children can have some quality time instead of having parents too often come home, know the kids have been watching television, or not knowing where their kids are, and sending them to their room to do the homework, and the parent lacks that opportunity to spend quality time. No one denies if the parents want to work with the child, well and good, but for the parents hard-pressed and working from early morning to late in the evening, and who have the responsibility in terms of the family that value the afternoon kind of program, they ought to be at least available.

Mr. KENNEDY

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

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, it is important to note that under the Moseley-Braun amendment the provision dealing with the construction, the Graham amendment, is not struck, it is preserved, as well as the tuition assistance programs. What is struck is the Coverdell proposal. And the Coverdell proposal, according to the Joint Tax Committee, provides that the majority of its money is going to go to private schools. Now that is a fact. You have the choice of whether you want that or whether you want to have a downpayment in our public schools to try to help ensure that we are going to free our public schools from asbestos, from boilers breaking down, and from leaky pipes. Mr. President, I want to just mention a case here that is right on point. And this is the Revere public schools. That is a blue-collar area in Massachusetts. It has increased by 25 percent the enrollment over the past 5 years in the elementary schools. Revere recently passed a $2.2 million referendum to repair roofs in three schools and to remove the asbestos panels and modernize the fire alarm system in the high school. Since then, the high school roof has begun to leak, threatening to ruin the new fire alarm system. The town estimates it will cost $1 million to repair the roof. The mayor says: We would repair the roof if we had the Carol Moseley-Braun amendment. What I hear from the mayors all over Massachusetts, in the old towns and communities, as well as in the rural areas, is that interest on some of these bonds runs up to 40 percent of the burden and the debt, in many instances, if they are not attended to in a prompt way. This provides a helping hand to those needy communities. And it is an essential part of the President's program. I commend the Senator from Illinois for making this strong case and hope our colleagues will support her.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have 15 seconds left. I ask that the Senator from Illinois be permitted 15 seconds.