Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Madam President, let me, first of all, very briefly explain what this means to Minnesota. I think we on the floor have already gone over what this proposal is. It is $12 billion over 7 years, $7.3 billion over 5 years. It is an initiative to enable our school districts to reduce class sizes, grades 1 through 3, to an average of 18 students. It is an additional 100,000 teachers. Estimates are that we are going to need to hire 2 million really good teachers over the next 10 years in our country. This is our way, at the Federal Government level, of providing some resources to States and school districts that are sorely needed. Under this proposal, Minnesota would receive $19 million in fiscal year 2000 to support 519 teachers. Minneapolis would receive $2,355,271; St. Paul, $1,761,943; and Anoka-Hennepin, $489,090. This money is sorely needed, and it would be put to great use. I am pleased to announce that this comes as a complement to what the Ventura administration is planning on doing, which is to provide $150 million in the next 2 years to reduce class sizes in kindergarten through third grade, with the goal of having no more than 17 students per classroom. Let me say to my colleague from New Hampshire that in Minnesota, at least, I do not think you are going to get any argument whatsoever that the Federal Government ought to do a better job of providing money for special ed children. There is no question about it, the IDEA program is a great idea. We want children with special needs to be in our schools. We want them to get the best education possible. What troubles me is two things. No. 1, what troubles me is this sort of playing off one group of children against another group of children. I will say right now that in the State of Minnesota, we have also made it a goal to try to reduce class size because we know--I try to be in the schools about every 2 weeks--that there are a couple of things for sure that work. One of them is to make sure that we have the parents involved, and one of them is to make sure that children come to kindergarten ready to learn. We are not there as a Nation. One of them is smaller class size. At the elementary school level, it makes a huge difference. It makes a huge difference, I say to my colleague from Washington, at the middle school level, at the junior high school level, and at the high school level. So why are we talking about these proposals as if it is one versus the other? I say to my colleagues that what disappoints me the most is that the evidence is crystal clear. Let me just lay this out as I talk about this. Project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 schools in Tennessee. Students in small classes perform better than students in large classes in each grade from kindergarten through eighth grade. In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education Program is helping to reduce class size in grades K through 12 in low-income communities; again, showing significant improvement in reading, math, and language tests. In Flint, MI, efforts over the last 3 years to reduce class size in grades K through 3 have produced a 44-percent increase in reading scores and an 18-percent increase in math scores. The research shows that it makes a huge difference. When we talk to the teachers, they tell us it makes a huge difference. When I am in schools and I ask students, ``What do you think represents real education reform?'' the first thing they talk about is reducing class size. They say, ``Smaller classes.'' I ask them, ``Why would smaller classes make a big difference?''

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, how much time do we have?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. How about if I reserve the remainder of my time? I will reserve the remainder of my time, and if the Senator from Oregon wants to speak, that would be fine with me. How much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Fifteen minutes of my time? I would be pleased to do that.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will take about 5 or 10 minutes, and then I will yield back the rest of my time. I have had several hours. I say to my colleague from Tennessee that I will yield back my time because I have to give a talk with law enforcement people in Minnesota via video. There are some students from Minnesota who are here. Welcome. We are glad you are here, and teachers and parents. Let me just make three points. First of all, although we will have tougher debate later on, I say to my colleague from Oregon, we certainly didn't have any lengthy debate on Ed-Flex this Congress. We never had a hearing--not one hearing at all. When my colleague says they can't talk about any abuses, the fact of the matter is that both the Congressional Research Service and GAO-- I am not prejudging one way or other, but it is difficult to talk about what is going on--both have said we don't have the data in yet. We don't have the data in. What is the rush? I might have a different judgment about this on the basis--I don't know whether I will generalize 12 States to 50 States, but I certainly might be less skeptical if in fact we had the data and if we had the reports in. We don't. But we are rushing ahead. The second point I want to make is that my colleague talks about the ``core'' requirements. Certainly it is true that, with IDEA, the core requirements are kept intact. But as a matter of fact, we will see that the truth will be very clear with this amendment. I will have an amendment on the floor, and it will simply say that the core requirements are that title I students be taught by highly qualified professional staff, that States set high standards for all children, that States provide funding to the lowest income schools first, that States hold schools accountable for making substantial annual progress toward getting all students, particularly low-income and limited- English-proficient students, to meet high standards, and that the vocational programs provide broad education and work experiences rather than their own job training. I will have an amendment that says those core requirements will be fenced off and no State or school district will be exempt. Can my colleagues tell me that that is the case right now? If so, then that amendment will pass with overwhelming support. Right now, that is not in the bill. Do you have language in the bill that guarantees that all those requirements will be met?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Do both my colleagues agree? Lord, we don't even have to have a debate on it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield the floor in just a moment. I appreciate my colleague's courtesy. The C-SPAN quote, just so it is in the Record, was from a Mrs. Elizabeth Washington of the Mott Haven community in the South Bronx.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, this amendment will say that States cannot waive the following core requirements. These have been the core requirements of title 1. Would my colleague agree that States will not be able to waive these core requirements?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Just to be clear, I get a different message from my two colleagues here. This is where the rubber meets the road. I spent a lot of time on what Ed-Flex doesn't do and what we should be doing. My point right now is that every single person I know who has worked on title I and knows what it is all about is absolutely committed and insistent that the core requirements be fenced in, remain intact, and no State can get a waiver, no school district can get a waiver. I am asking the Senator whether he agrees. If the Senator agrees, this certainly makes it a far better bill than it is right now. And my second question is, What about the 75 percent rule? That is a core requirement right now. We worked that in in 1994. Would both of my colleagues agree that schools with 75 percent low-income students or more should be first priority in funding and that we keep that in as a requirement, so that we don't lessen the financial aid to the neediest schools? Would you agree? Could I get support for that right now?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment simply requires that schools with over a 75-percent low-income student population must receive funds first, as a matter of priority--first, in terms of the allocation of the title I money--and that those neediest schools with a population of low-income students over 75 percent would have first priority in receiving those funds. It is accepted by both sides. I thank my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Wyden, and Senator Frist, as well.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct, and this is why I speak with some indignation.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. Mr. President, this is not on the whole question of funds and, frankly, I have been worried about the dilution of funds. I have an amendment that will be accepted tonight that says schools with over 75 percent low-income children have first priority to funds. And I say this to my colleague from Vermont, I really speak now with some sadness because he is going to move to table this because this goes to not technical issues, not formula, this goes to the very essence of what title I is about. This goes to the core requirements, the core mission, the core accountability, and you now have a piece of legislation that tosses that overboard. You are overturning 35 years of important history. You are overturning 35 years of history of a commitment on the part of our National Government to poor children in America. You are overturning the hard work of many women and men who have written a title I program with accountability that has really worked well for children. That is why the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is so strongly in favor of this amendment. I hope my colleagues will vote against this motion to table this amendment. This is the central accountability amendment. If this amendment does not pass, we do not have the accountability that has been so important to the success of title I. I yield back the rest of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question or yield time to my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I ask my colleague, I assume he would want me to take my time and then finish up; is that correct? Is that the way he would like to do it?

Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague from Massachusetts is absolutely correct, and I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, I will list these other core requirements. One of them has to do with title I students, that they be taught by highly qualified professional staff. Another one is that the LEAs hold schools accountable for making substantial annual progress toward getting all students, particularly low-income students and limited-English-proficient students, to meet the same high standards, and the requirement that schools provide timely and effective individual assistance for students who are farthest behind. I say to my colleague, the reason that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights feels so strongly about this amendment and the reason my colleague from Massachusetts does, is we know this goes to the very mission of title I. Why in the world would we not want to have this accountability built into this legislation?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't know whether we are going to reach agreement on this amendment or not. If we do, that is great. If we don't, then I will come back to these points again and debate it. I would like colleagues to know what is at issue here because I think this amendment goes to the very essence of accountability. Mr. President, I have a couple of letters and talking points from the leadership conference on civil rights that I want to briefly mention to colleagues. Let me just start out and read a little bit here. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has made the continuation of the standards-based reform adopted in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act a top priority in the 106th Congress. In order to protect these reforms, we urge you to support amendments offered by Senators Kennedy, Reed, Dodd and Wellstone to the Ed-Flexibility Partnership Act that are urgently needed to protect the opportunities of economically disadvantaged children, children of color, children with disabilities, and other children who need the law's protection. Next paragraph: While the stated purposes of S. 280 are to advance the efforts to achieve comprehensive school reform, the bill as reported by committee does not assure that States will qualify for waivers only if they can demonstrate that they have complied with a strong record of reform in the 5 years since Congress with strong bipartisan majorities adopted standards-based reform as national policy in title I of the ESEA, nor does S. 280 assure that States once having achieved Ex-Flex status will not excuse local school authorities from fundamental requirements of title I, such as maintaining high quality teaching staffs and offering afterschool and summer programs for children who need them. That is it. That is what this amendment says. This amendment is really simple, and my colleagues have stated in spirit that they support it. This amendment simply says that we take the core requirements, and we make sure that the core requirements, the fundamental requirements of title I, such as maintaining high quality teaching staffs, or offering afterschool and summer programs for children who need them, that no local school authority can be excused from meeting these standards. Let me again just mention what we are talking about. The requirement that title I students be taught by highly qualified professional staff--who can be opposed to that? The requirement that LEAs hold schools accountable for making substantial annual progress toward getting all students, particularly low-income and limited-English- proficient students, to meet the high standards. Who can be opposed to that? The requirement that schools provide timely and effective individual assistance for students who are farthest behind; and, finally--this is it--the requirement that funded vocational programs provide broad educational and work experience rather than narrow job training. That also applies. All this amendment says is that we will make it crystal clear by making sure that we will have flexibility with accountability, that no State will provide a waiver to a school district from the core requirements of title I. My colleague, Senator Wyden, has said to me that he agrees with that. I am hoping that my colleague, Senator Jeffords, will agree. That is the reason for this letter by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The reason that I have been out here on the floor for hours is twofold. One, I think we ought to be focusing on what we can really do for children that will make a real difference. This piece of legislation won't. But the second is I don't want to turn the clock backwards. I don't want to go back to pre-title I, 35 years of good history. I don't want us to essentially say that we as a Federal Government, we as a national community are going to abandon poor children, that we are going to now say for the first time that we are going to allow a State to allow a school district to exempt itself from the core requirements of good teachers, high standards, and measurement of results. My colleagues want to argue that there is already language in the bill that says this. I don't think so. The people who I think have been involved with this, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights for years, have put a lot of sweat and tears into making sure that there are educational opportunities for disadvantaged children, low-income children, children of color. They are very worried about the lack of accountability. This amendment is specific. It says let's make sure that we keep this accountability. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the amendment will be accepted. I guess that we will wait and see. I will have other supporting evidence, if we go into a debate. I guess we are now negotiating on this amendment. But it is really, I mean, simple. There are a couple of things. The States have to be in compliance with title I. Who could argue that we would be interested in giving States flexibility, exemptions and all the rest, if they are not in compliance with title I? The second thing the amendment says is no State should be able to provide a waiver to a local school authority from these basic core values, the core mission of title I. And what are these requirements? That these students be taught by highly qualified professional staff, that schools be held accountable to making annual progress toward helping students, including students with limited English proficiency, that the schools provide timely assistance to those kids who need it the most. How can anybody oppose this? If you do not want to have accountability, and you basically want to gut part of what title I has been all about for all of these years, a program that, as Senator Kennedy has said, worked very well, go ahead and do it. Otherwise, this amendment should be accepted. I will wait, for we will continue to talk, and I hope that there will be support for this. Mr. President, I have had a chance to speak a long time today. So I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry for a moment. Certainly that is fine with me. The pending business is the amendment that I have on the floor; is that correct?

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