Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized after the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I think the Senator from New Hampshire is precisely correct. It may be that a school system is in circumstances where they believe that class-size reduction is important. That can be done under this bill as it is written today. They can use the funds for class-size reduction. But I think we ought to be careful that we do not require them to take steps that could cost tremendous sums of money, money which could be better spent for bringing in a high-quality computer laboratory, a new science laboratory, the latest and best ways to teach mathematics, sending teachers to attain advanced degrees and advanced training in history and science and math and how to teach reading. Those kinds of things may be more important than simply whether the number of students in the classroom is 20 or 16. If you go from 20 students to 16 students in a classroom, that is a 20-percent increase in the number of teachers you have to hire. If you go from 20 students to 16 students, you have to have 20 percent more classrooms and 20 percent more overhead and cost. So I would just say that from Professor Hanushek's analysis, and from what appears to be common sense over 40 years of rapidly reduced class size with no academic benefit, we ought to be a little bit humble in this body before we start suggesting that it is the sole and best way for any school system in America to spend its money to enhance learning. That is all I am saying in opposition to this amendment. I have serious doubts that this is the best leadership we can give to American schools. If the best we can say is, don't make any changes, keep on with business as usual, we will just give you more money and more teachers and a smaller class size, that is not going to guarantee that learning will improve in America. We have not seen that improvement. The data does not show it. Serious scientific questions have been raised about the importance of it. With regard to the highly touted Tennessee STAR experiment, that experiment was based on a class reduction of eight students over the comparative-size classroom--a very expensive proposition. If you have 24 students in a class and you reduce the class size by 8 students, and go to 16 students, you have increased the number of teachers needed by one-third and increased the number of classrooms needed by one-third. That is a huge increase and huge reduction in class size. We have, at best, according to Professor Hanushek, something like a .2 percent statistical or standard deviation improvement, raising real questions about the validity of that. So the critical issue for us, it seems to me, is that we do not need to be pressing this mandate down on schools, requiring them or making them think that the only way they can get Federal money for this project for teachers is to go on a commitment.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to see the Rand study. I would just say this, that Michigan Professor Linda Lim has done comparative studies of the United States and Asian schools and found that class sizes are 50- plus in places such as Taiwan and they have not kept those schools from surpassing ours.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to provide the Senator his analysis of the existing studies he reviewed. That was his conclusion. He also reviewed the Tennessee STAR report in some depth and concluded that its methodology was dubious, that benefits, at best, were very small, even under the STAR report. It took an heroic endeavor by the writer of the STAR report, based on a single British study of how much more money you make, if you receive a little more education, to justify the expense of it. His conclusion was that the problem with that analysis is that it compares something to nothing. If you count the amount of billions of dollars that were spent on reducing class size, and you receive such a minimal benefit, perhaps it would be better spent in focusing on questions such as quality teachers. We know, for example, that good teachers benefit students dramatically. We have studies, that I think are not disputed, that top- quality teachers can produce learning in a year of 1.5 year's worth of learning under their tutelage, whereas a poor teacher may produce an average of .5 year's worth of learning. In other words, an excellent teacher could gain for a child in learning a full year's advantage over a poorer teacher. If we are going to go out and hire one-third more teachers to reduce class size further down, aren't we running a risk, and isn't that probably why the numbers do not show the kind of improvement we desire? Because we are bringing in less qualified teachers, who may not be producing the kind of quality learning environment that excellent teachers would be. Which would you prefer?

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be glad to yield and talk about it specifically.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and appreciate his leadership on all issues relating to this education bill. As a former Governor and a person who has been deeply involved in trying to get the best possible advantage from every dollar spent on education, his influence has been very valuable to us in this body. I think President Bush--as a former Governor himself who made education a high priority, who traveled his State and who was in schools and met with school boards and principals all over his State, he wrestled with those kinds of issues that face all educators--also is providing great leadership. I am pleased to be able to support legislation that he proposes. We deeply care about improving learning in the classroom. My wife and I both have taught. She taught a number of years. We care about it, have been active in the PTA and those kinds of things, and have tried to keep up with the relevant issues of importance to education. With regard to class size reductions, it would seem that class size reductions is a wonderful idea. I am sure teachers would say: Wouldn't it be great if I had a smaller group of students? And teacher unions like it; they get to hire more teachers. Polling numbers show that people think they like that. How are you going to improve education? What do you want to do? Poll? Reducing class size. That sounds like a good idea. It sounds like a good idea to me. It sounds like a good idea for politicians who want to please the public and do something about education. I have thought over the years it is a good public policy we ought to pursue. I do not suggest there is no benefit from reducing the size of the class. I think we need to be real serious about it. We are talking about a lot of money and a major commitment. We need to know whether or not this is the best way to achieve additional learning. Senator Murray's goal is a noble one. I know it comes from her heart. She believes in it. But her amendment is, in fact, a federal mandate and a $2.4 billion requirement on education for fiscal year 2002 alone. It is in such sums as are necessary for the next 6 years. It would require States to use those funds to reduce class size whether this is, in their mind, a local need or not. The bill we have under consideration would allow schools to use the already increased Federal funds for class size reduction, but it does not require them to do so. It leaves those decisions in the hands of the States and localities. I think they should make those determinations. In addition to that, I think we ought to be real careful in this body when we pass an amendment--if we were to pass this amendment--that we would be sending a signal that it is the considered opinion of this body and the Federal Government that class size reduction ought to be made the No. 1 priority in the schools around America. If that were the right thing to do, I would feel more comfortable about this. Reduction of class size is a highly expensive policy to place on the States. Many researchers have found little or no benefit in reducing class size. Some would say, Jeff, that is just skinflint talk. You are always frugal. You are always worried about spending money, and you know that we are going to have more learning if we have smaller classes. Why would you suggest otherwise? I thought so myself. But the more I look at the facts and the studies, I am less and less convinced that we receive any real benefit from a reduction in class size. Professor Hanushek, a professor at the University of Rochester, and now I believe at Stanford University, has written that class size reduction is best thought of as a political decision. Past evidence suggests that it is a very effective mechanism for gaining voter support, even if past evidence also suggests that it is a very ineffective educational policy. The problem is, we are dealing with a counterintuitive circumstance here. But we weren't thinking this way in 1988. The Department of Education of the United States declared that reducing class size in 1988 was probably a waste of money. Then we had a series of efforts and programs around the country and campaigns to raise this issue. It seemed to have taken hold. I would like to mention a few facts that we need to consider if we really want to make sure the money we are spending benefits children. In 1961, the average class size in America was 30. In 1998, the average class size was 23. Most Americans who are thinking about reducing class size probably don't realize that the average class size in America is that small. I think we have made some very good progress in reducing class size already. In fact, that is almost a one-third reduction since 1960 in the size of classes. Unfortunately, we need to ask ourselves what kind of benefit have we received from this one-third reduction, this reducing down to 23 students per classroom. If we look at the standardized test scores over that same period from 1960 to 1998, scores have fallen. They have not gone up. You say, well, a standardized test is not a perfect evaluation for a lot of complicated reasons. That is true. But most experts who have studied these numbers will tell you they believe fundamentally test scores have not gone up since 1960. I think most would agree they probably have at least declined some. The NAEP scores of 17-year-olds have been conducted since 1969, and from 1969 to 1995, class size dropped 23 percent. But NAEP scores on academic improvement show that math and reading were level and science and writing declined. We have a continual decline in classroom size and no improvement in learning scores. I think that is strong evidence when we are talking about these numbers. Make no mistake. When we reduce a class size by one-third, what have we done? We have required that we hire one-third more teachers. We have required that we build one-third more classrooms; that we will have one-third more insurance to pay for; one-third more maintenance; and one-third more upkeep and all the things that go with operating a school--a tremendous wealth investment in classroom size reduction. We have had big classroom size reductions, and I have always thought that was great. But we surely haven't had great test score results in recent years. The question I guess would be, if we have already had a one-third classroom size reduction and no benefit, why do we think further reductions of a significant order are going to be paid for in increased educational return? I think that is the question with which we need to wrestle. In 1994, Professor Hanushek did a study. He examined 277 studies that have been conducted of the effects of classroom size in America. He took every one of them. He pored through their data and examined it and reached a number of startling conclusions. He published his study. It showed that in statistically significant studies 15 percent of the studies found some positive benefit from reducing classroom size and 13 percent found a negative benefit from reducing classroom size-- negative, adverse consequences from reducing classroom size. Seventy- two percent were basically neutral and didn't show any effect. If you took all the studies, it was 27 percent positive and 25 percent negative.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would be glad to get the Senator the information.

Mr. SESSIONS. Professor Hanushek.

Mr. SESSIONS. This is a study by Eric Hanushek, a professor at the University of Rochester who published his writings, and who I think is well known in the field and referred to by experts.

Mr. SESSIONS. We need to be sure we are not spending $2.4 billion a year in encouraging a further investment in classrooms and overhead for schools on a policy that sounds good--that is, to reduce class size even further than we have reduced it in the last 30, 40 years--when we may not be receiving an educational benefit from it. I do not know about all the studies, but I know this professor examined 277 of them as of 1994. He found no benefit statistically proven for smaller class sizes in education. Isn't that stunning? It is almost counterintuitive. But that is what he found. No studies that I have seen have shown any dramatic improvement. So I think we ought to allow the local school systems a choice as to whether they want to go to smaller class sizes, improve their science lab, or have better teachers, more funding for top-quality teachers, more training for teachers who are weak. That kind of choice would be better for education. We need to be more humble in this body about what we think we know. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. May I have 30 seconds to wrap up?

Mr. SESSIONS. He is now from Stanford University, I believe. He was at the University of Rochester, I believe, previously.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I simply ask that this amendment be considered. Its purpose is to deal with the situation that we have seen in recent years in which teenagers at school have caused serious violence or committed criminal acts and in which other people knew about it and did little to respond. I believe we can improve upon that. In my State of Alabama, a crisis hotline was set up several years ago. In just a few weeks, they had 800 calls. For example, parents were calling in to say they heard that a certain child had a gun or a weapon or that they were threatening the lives of other people. Having such a hotline would allow the police and school administrators to know about those situations and to perhaps intervene and keep this from happening. I think Senator Cleland has some similar language in his legislation. Our language goes into more detail and was made part of the juvenile justice bill that we passed in this Senate but which never became law. I think it is appropriate that this amendment be made a part of this legislation involving education. It does not appropriate money. It provides an authorized use. The moneys can be used for this, but it does not mandate it on the States. I do believe it is a policy that if more States followed, it could save lives by simply providing a 1-800 number that would be readily available to everyone in and about the school, including parents, to have a place to call to express concerns that something serious may be going on. Maybe they just want to say: Billy has a gun. Maybe the police could stop by and knock on Billy's door and see if he has a gun and perhaps stop a crime. I thank the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Nevada. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one of the things we have learned from the shootings in a number of the schools that have traumatized all of America is that quite often certain individuals, family, schoolmates, or others had reasonable cause to believe that a child might be about to commit some serious act of violence. But in each of those cases, no real intervention occurred, and the act of violence was carried out. Back in my hometown of Mobile, AL, we had a problem of children using guns and bringing them to school. I was a U.S. Attorney, and we had a big meeting with the district attorney and the sheriff, the juvenile judge, the juvenile referee, the Colleagues for Drug Free Mobile, and the Drug Council. We talked about how to deal with it, and we came up with the idea of a bumper sticker that we called ``Kid With A Gun Call 911.'' The police chief said if they received a call from a parent or a child who made a serious allegation that another child was carrying a weapon or maybe about to plan something dangerous, the police would followup on that call. Bumper stickers were put on the police cars, and the message got about town. Later, the State of Alabama adopted a hotline in which they set up the same kind of thing with a centralized 24-hour-a-day center to receive those calls from all over the State. Within 2 weeks of the setting up of that hotline, quite a number of calls were received. I think there were about 400 calls in that short period of time. Many of those came from 5 to 9 o'clock at night and came from parents or grandparents of children who had seen or heard things that troubled them where the kids went to school. I believe a hotline of this kind should be given serious consideration by other States. This legislation will make clear that the funds already appropriated can be used for safe schools and violence prevention, and that creating a hotline of this type would be a permissible use of that money. A mechanism needs to be set up so that anyone who has a serious cause for concern would know precisely where they could call. They would not have to give their name under most circumstances. Then perhaps something could be done to intervene in the situation. If, for example, a child comes home and says that down the street in the vacant lot Billy is playing with a gun, and he says he is going to shoot somebody, the mother, the grandmother, or somebody at home could make that call. Somebody would come out and check it out. They are not going to arrest the person if he doesn't have a gun. They are just going to ask questions about it. Perhaps those kinds of immediate responses and immediate interventions would be effective in reducing the likelihood that a child would actually go and shoot someone. In fact, we could get a lot of illegal weapons off the street. I think this is a good approach. It is legislation that we discussed in depth when the juvenile justice bill was moving through this Senate and passed this Senate, but it never became law. I think that this provision is appropriate for schools. I believe it would be a good preventive tool for violence. I thank the Senate and the leaders on both sides for agreeing to allow this amendment to be approved and made a part of this bill. I hope and pray that this type of intervention may prevent violence and possibly save lives. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks on amendment No. 600, as agreed to.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, earlier today I had a followup amendment 600 that I offered to create a crisis hotline so parents and schoolchildren who see a child carrying a weapon or making a serious threat can call on that hotline and something would be done about it because in the most serious high school violent cases we have had in America those children were sending signals in advance and perhaps lives have been saved in that regard. I offered the amendment earlier, and I ask unanimous consent to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a minute and a half to offer my amendment in relation to crisis hotline grants.

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Dorgan. I appreciate his courtesy. I call up amendment No. 600. This is an amendment I call the ``Crisis Hot Line Grant.'' It is an amendment for confidential reporting of individuals suspected of imminent school violence.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I haven't asked but 7 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the distinguished Budget Committee chairman. There is no one who has given more of his heart and soul to battling for a sound economy in this country and a sound balance between the individual American citizen and our Government than the chairman of the Budget Committee. We are looking at numbers. They are extraordinary. Money is pouring into our National Government. Even in this time of slowdown, preliminary numbers I heard recently indicate that we will still have more money coming into the Government this year than was projected even last year. All the projections for the last 4 years have been below the size of the actual surplus. What are we talking about? We are talking about an unusual period of time in which the Federal Government is growing at an unprecedented rate. It is a fundamental period for us to make a decision. Are we going to go down the road of the socialistic economic philosophies of European nations and others in the world, or are we going to maintain the great American tradition of individual freedom and free enterprise? It is a fundamental question. There are Members of this body who either have not thought about that, or have thought about it and won't admit it and want to see us go in that direction because every time a tax cut is proposed, they say: No, we can't trust the American people with their money. We have to take it and spend it on this program, this program, this program, and this program. Are there not families in America and senior citizens in America who need to put a set of tires on their car and need a $75-a-month tax reduction to help them do that? Are there not people who will benefit from that? Aren't children going to benefit from the tax credit that families will have with two children with a $1,000-a-year tax credit? I don't mean you get $1,000 and have to pay taxes on it. I mean they get to keep $1,000, if they have two children, for the year. It adds up to almost $100 a month to help them raise their children, to take care of us when we retire, educate their children, and raise them in the proper way. But the most important thing for us to know is that in 1992 this Federal Government alone took 17.6 percent of the total gross domestic product in the form of taxes. Mr. President, 17.6 percent of all the goods and services produced in this country were sent to Washington, DC. Since 1992, it has grown every single year. We are now at 20.7 percent of the gross domestic product going to the Federal Government in Washington. Is there any wonder why we have a surplus? There is no doubt about it. The Government is taking a larger percentage of America's wealth. Are we going to let it go to 22 percent or 25 percent so politicians can spend it and go out and claim they did great things for you, and have buildings named for them that they built with your money? I don't think so. I think this is a defining moment of great historical importance. The bipartisan majority, I am confident, will approve this budget of $1.3 trillion in tax reductions over 10 years, with $100 billion in the first 2 years for an economic stimulus to help get this economy moving again, and to help do something about these high energy prices which are a direct result of a no-growth environmental extreme policy that did not allow production of energy sources and left us in a shortage and left us with high prices. We do not need that kind of shortsighted mentality, in my view. We are in a position to do something very special. We are in a position to allow the American people, vis-a-vis their central government, to have a little bit more money, to be able to keep a little more of what they earn, and to reverse that trend. Because when money is taken from an individual, a free American citizen, and is sent to Washington, Washington is empowered. Washington is enriched. Washington is strengthened. And the individual American is diminished. His wealth is diminished; his freedom, his autonomy, his ability to do as he or she wishes is diminished. I think we are at a point where we are sending enough here. I don't believe the people who elected me said, Jeff, go up there and preside over one of the greatest increases in accumulation of wealth in Washington, DC, in the history of our country. I don't believe that is what I was sent here to do. The 20.7 percent coming to this Government right now as a percentage of gross domestic product is the highest figure since the height of World War II. One year in World War II it hit 20.9 percent. We are drifting into a state-dominated, socialist-type economy, if we don't watch it. The trends are not healthy. Let's slow that down. Compared to the Reagan tax cut, this one is small. Compared to the John F. Kennedy tax cut, this is small. It is not a breathtaking tax cut. We are looking at it over 10 years. But it is significant. I believe it will help contain that trend of ever increasing concentration of wealth in Washington, with more and more Federal programs--all for the greatest sounding good that seldom produces the results they set out to do. I think we are on the right track. I believe we are going to have a strong vote for this. I think it is the right direction for our country to go in. I could not be more excited about it. I have no doubt that we will not cast a more important vote. We will not deal with a more important governmental issue than trying to contain this powerful growth in spending and wealth in this Nation's Capital. By the way, we are paying down the debt as fast as it can be paid down without paying penalties on the Treasury bills that are out there. It is a tremendous reduction of wealth. The estimates are that instead of paying 14 percent down now to fund our debtload, we will be down to under 2 percent at the end of this budget projection at the rate we are going. It is a good trend to be on. Less than 2 percent for debt service is a healthy trend for us. In a couple more years, we could have all the debt eliminated. That is a wise economic step for us to take at that time. I certainly believe in paying down debt. I certainly believe we ought to lock up the Social Security surplus and not spend it. Senator Domenici is correct. Senator Domenici founded the idea of a lockbox, and fought for it on this floor. I supported him. Senator Spence Abraham of Michigan supported him. We worked hard on the lockbox. We didn't get it passed. The Democrats opposed it. The Democrats opposed that lockbox. Then, stunningly, we were in a political campaign and the Vice President said he was all for a lockbox. He should have told some of his friends in the Senate. But we are going to do that. We are locking that money up. I will say one thing. I am not voting for a budget that is going to spend the Social Security surplus. That debt needs to be paid down. It should be for that purpose and should not be spent. I will oppose any spending or any tax program that reduces or spends any of that surplus. It is not going to happen. It is a commitment on both sides of the aisle not to allow that to happen. We are not going to allow that to happen. That would be wrong. We have done that too long. It is time to end that. In fact, a good frugal congressional battle has resulted in better spending ideas and the containment of spending which has helped produce this surplus. The budget is pretty good on spending increases. The President wants us to hold to 4 percent. It looks like the budget is going to have us at a little over 5 percent. We have to watch ourselves. It is so tempting to spend. If we can just maintain spending at the rate of inflation, or only slightly above the rate of inflation, I think we can do well. But if we go crazy and we spend like we did last year--nearly an 8-percent budget increase in spending--and do that every year, we are not going to have any Social Security or tax cut possibilities. I am excited about what is happening. I think we will have bipartisan support for this. I know some people just cannot stand the thought of a tax cut. I think it is a great idea. I think it is time, and we have the money to do it. We ought to let the American people keep some of their money, and quit this unprecedented growth in the accumulation of wealth going to Washington, DC. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. That is a very conservative posture to take.