{ NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS.}
TEACHING AND LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM. NOT FOR F.D.A.-TYPE
ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT TEACHERS -- NOT
FOR FAD-TYPE ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT
TEACHERS NEED TO KNOW TO BE BETTER. IT MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF
COMMON SENSE AND WILL RESULT IN A REAL IMPROVEMENT IN TEACHER
QUALITY. MY HOME STATE SERVES AS A GOOD EXAMPLE. YET VERMONT
STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE CLASS-SIZE MONEY. YET SINCE THE FIRST
DOLLAR WAS APPROPRIATED FOR CLASS-SIZE REDUCTION, VERMONT
{16:00:36} (MR. JEFFORDS) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
SOUGHT GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO USE THAT MONEY FOR PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE
TEACHER IN THE CLASSROOM. BECAUSE VERMONT ALREADY HAD SMALL
CLASSES, SIZES THAT HAPPENED TO MEET THE FEDERALLY MANDATED
STANDARD OF 18, THOSE DOLLARS WERE ABLE TO GO FOR PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT. I WANT OTHER STATES TO DO WHAT VERMONT HAS DONE IF
THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR STUDENTS.
REDUCING CLASS SIZE IS IMPORTANT. HAVING A DYNAMIC, QUALIFIED
TEACHER AT THE HEAD OF THE CLASSROOM IS OF EQUALLY AND GREATER
{16:01:10} (MR. JEFFORDS) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
IMPORTANCE. TITLE 2 OF THIS BILL SUPPORTS BOTH HIGH-QUALITY
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND HIRING TEACHERS TO REDUCE CLASS
SIZE. YET DOES IT IN ANY WAY THAT ALLOWS SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO
COME UP WITH THEIR OWN RECIPE FOR IMPROVEMENT THAT WILL WORK
FOR ITS STUDENTS. S. 2 HAS A NEW FOCUS ON THE NEEDS OF OTHER
EDUCATORS AS WELL. IN ALL THE SCHOOLS I HAVE VISITED OVER THE
YEARS, I CAN TELL ALMOST IMMEDIATELY IF THE SCHOOL'S A GOOD ONE
BY MEETING THE PRINCIPAL. PRINCIPALS HAVE THE ABILITY TO
TRANSFORM THE ENVIRONMENT IN A SCHOOL AND MAKE IT A PLACE WHERE
{16:01:41} (MR. JEFFORDS) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
INQUIRY, COLLABORATION AND LEARNING FLOURISHES. THAT IS WHY I'M
PLEASED THAT TITLE 2 OF THIS BILL INCLUDES A NEW PROGRAM TO
SUPPORT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR SCHOOLTEACHERS. THE
PROGRAM IS BASED IN LARGE PART ON THE VERMONT MODEL. THE
SNELLING SENATOR FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP. IT WILL SUPPORT
TRAINING AND EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP MANAGEMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL
SKILLS AND ENHANCING AND DEVELOPING STUDENT MANAGEMENT AND --
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT AND BUSINESS SKILLS, IMPROVING EFFECTIVE USE
OF EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY AND ENCOURAGES HIGHER-QUALIFIED
INDIVIDUALS TO BECOME SCHOOL LEADERS. IN GENERAL, I AM PLEASED
{16:02:15} (MR. JEFFORDS) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THAT S. 2 MAKES A SIGNIFICANT AND THOUGHTFUL INVESTMENT IN
PROGRAMS THAT WILL GIVE OUR NATION'S TEACHERS THE KNOWLEDGE AND
KNOW-HOW TO EDUCATE OUR NATION'S YOUNG PEOPLE. SUPPORTING OUR
NATION'S TEACHERS IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS THAT WE CAN INVEST IN
THE FUTURE WELL-BEING OF OUR NATION. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE
{16:02:34 NSP} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
FLO FLOOR. MR. GREGG: MR. PRESIDENT?
{16:02:39 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
{16:02:40 NSP} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. GREGG: ARE WE UNDER CONTROLLED -- TIME CONTROL HERE?
{16:02:42 NSP} (THE PRESIDING OFFICER) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THERE'S NO CONTROL OF TIME.
{16:02:46 NSP} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MR. GREGG: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE
TODAY TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE POINTS MADE BY SOME OF OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE DURING THE DEBATE
YESTERDAY. BECAUSE, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED I
BELIEVE TO MISCHARACTERIZE OUR BILL AS IT COMES FORWARD. THE
REASON FOR MISCHARACTERIZING IT, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. MAYBE
THEY DO NOT -- ARE NOT FULLY INFORMED ABOUT IT OR MAYBE THEY
SIMPLY FEEL THAT THE BILL IS SUCH A STRONG BILL THAT THEY CAN'T
DEFEND IT WH THEY TALK ABOUT IT IN ITS REAL FORM. THEREFORE,
THEY MUST CHARACTERIZE IT IN A FORM THAT AMOUNTS TO FANTASY AND
{16:03:17} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
THEN ATTACK THAT FANTASY AS BEING INAPPROPRIATE. LET'S BEGIN BY
T SENATOR FROM MASS MARKS WHO CAME DOWN TO THE FLOOR --
MASSACHUSETTS, WHO CAME DOWN TO THE FLOOR YESTERDAY AND SAID
THAT THE FLEXIBILITY WE'RE AFFORDING TO THE STATES WILL JUST
REVISIT THE SITUATION WHERE STATES WERE SPENDING DOLLARS --
EDUCATION DOLLARS ON THINGS LIKE UNIFORMS AND TUBAS. I MUST SAY
THAT I THINK THE SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS IS IN A TIME WARP
ON THIS POINT. THAT HAPPENED WHEN TUBAS AND UNIFORMS WERE
BOUGHT, AND I GUESS ONE OR TWO STATES ACTUAL DID THAT, IN 1965.
{16:03:52} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
TITLE 1 WAS PASSED IN 1965. THAT WAS 35 YEARS AGO. 35 YEARS
AGO. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE CATCH UP WITH TODAY AND
THE EVENTS OF TODAY. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE CATCH UP WITH
THE EVENTS OF TODAY IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM TODAY. WE HAVE
NOW HAD 35 YEARS OF TITLE 1, OF THE PROPOSAL AS STRUCTURED BY A
DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF ADDRESSING THE
EDUCATION OF LOW-INCOME CHILDREN. CORESS WAS CONTROLLED BY THE
DEMOCRATS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE 35 YEARS. AND WHAT
HAVE WE GOTTEN AS A RESULT OF THAT?
{16:04:25} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
WE SPENT $120 BILLION TO $130 BILLION ON TITLE 1 AND THE
ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS OF LOW-INCOME CHILDREN HAS NOT IMPROVED. IT
HAS EITHER DECREASED OR IT HAS STAYED T SAME. WE KNOW THAT
CHILDREN, LOW-INCOME CHILDREN, IN THE FOURTH GRADE ARE READING
AT TWO GRADE LEVELS LESS THAN LOW -- THAN THE OTHER CHILDREN IN
THAT GRADE LEVEL. WE KNOW THAT THE LOW-INCOME CHILDREN IN OUR
INNER CITIES ARE READING AT GREAT LEVELS -- GRADE LEVELS
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS AND SOME CAN'T READ AT ALL AS THEY HEAD
TOWARDS HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION. WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, AS THIS
{16:05:04} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
CHART SHOWS, THAT 73 -- 70%-PLUS OF OUR STUDENTS IN
HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOLS ARE BELOW THE BASIC LEVELS IN READING.
60%-PLUS ARE BELOW THE BASIC LEVELS IN MATH. AND ALMOST 70% ARE
BELOW THE BASIC LEVELS IN SCIENCE. WE KNOW THE PROGRAM HAS NOT
WORKED. AND YET THE MEMBERS FROM THE OTHER SIDE DECIDE TO
STROLL ON TO THE FLOOR AND START CITING PROBLEMS FROM 30 YEARS
AGO AND ACTING AS IF THEY'VE CORRECTED THOSE PROBLEMS OVER THE
LAST 35 YEARS. THEY HAVEN'T CORRECTED THE PROBLEMS IN
{16:05:40} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
EDUCATION. THEY HAVE AGGRAVATED THE PROBLEMS IN EDUCATION.
GENERATION AFTER GENERATION OF CHILDREN HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH A
SYSTEM WHICH HAS NOT ALLOWED THEM TO ACHIEVE. LOW-INCOME
CHILDREN HAVE BEEN DENIED THE AMERICAN DREAM BECAUSE THEY
HAVEN'T BEEN EDUCATED TO READ AND TO WRITE. AND THEY ARE
COMPLICITY IN THIS. THEY SAY THE STATUS QUO -- C -- STATUS QUO
WORKS. THEY BASICALLY SAY THEY HAVE THE ANSWERS. LET'S SEE HOW
THE PRESIDENT WORKS. I LIKE TO HOLD UP THESE CHARTS, THEN I CAN
{16:06:13} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
READ THEM. EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ARM'S LENGTH FOR ME TO READ IT.
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT TALKING TO "THE WASHINGTON POST." HE
SAID, "HE TOLD THE REPORTERS THAT THE FEDERAL MONEY FOR NEW
TEACHERS DOES NOT BELONG TO THE STATES AND LOCAL SCHOOL
DISTRICTS. 'IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY,' HE SAID." THAT'S THE
ATTITUDE ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY. WELL, WHOSE
MONEY IS IT?
WHERE'S THIS MONEY COME FROM?
IT'S OBVIOUSLY THE TAXPAYERS' MONEY. IT'S OBVIOUSLY COMING OUT
OF THE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE LOCAL STATES. IT COMES TO
WASHINGTON. BUT FOR SOME REASON, THE MENTALITY ON THE OTHER
{16:06:45} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
SIDE IS IS, WE THEN CAPTURE THIS MONEY HERE IN WASHINGTON. WE
SEND IT BACK TO THE STATES. WE TELL THE STATES EXACTLY WHAT TO
DO WITH IT. CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS, TARGETED PROGRAMS,
STRAITJACKETED PROGRAMS. PROGRAMS AFTER PROGRAMS, REGULATIONS
AFTER REGULATIONS. 900 PAGES OF NEW LAW. AND WHAT DO THEY GET
FOR IT?
WHAT HAVE WE GOTTEN FOR IT FOR 35 YEARS?
VERY LITTLE AND OUR LOW-INCOME KIDS HAVE EVEN GOTTEN LESS.
VIRTUALLY NO IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR ACADEMIC EFFORTS. AND SO THE
{16:07:16} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
MEMBERS ON THE OTHER SIDE COME TO THE FLOOR AND THEY SAY THINGS
LIKE, "THIS MONEY WILL BE SPENT ONCE AGAIN AS IT WAS 35 YEARS
AGO IF FLEXIBILITY IS GIVEN TO THE STATES T. WILL BE SPENT ONCE
AGAIN ON TUBAS AND FOOTBALL UNIFORMS." WELL, I GUESS THEY JUST
DIDN'T REAL READ THE BILL. BECAUSE THE BILL IS VERY SPECIFIC.
BECAUSE FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE ARE EXPECTING IN EXCHANGE FOR
GIVING THE STATES THESE FLEXIBILITY OPPORTUNITIES WITH THESE
FUNDS, WE ARE EXPECTING ACHIEVEMENT. THIS BILL AS A RESULT OF
{16:07:48} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
REPUBLICAN INITIATIVES SAYS THERE MUST BE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.
IT MUST BE PROVABLE. IT MUST BE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT WHICH CAN
BE SHOWN TO HAVE OCCURRED THROUGH -- THROUGH TESTS WHICH HAVE
BEEN GIVEN AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. AND THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
MUST OCCUR AMONGST OUR LOW-INCOME KIDS. SO THAT THEY AREN'T
LEFT BEHIND BEHIND. AND WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING DUMMING DOWN, AS
REGRETTABLY HAS OCCURRED IN TOO MANY OF OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING LOWERING THE AVERAGE SO THAT IT LOOKS LIKE
THE LOW-INCOME CHILD IS GETTING CLOSER TO THE NORM. NO, WE'RE
{16:08:25} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
SAYING LOW-INCOME CHILDREN, ACHIEVEMENT MUST IMPROVE AS A
RESULT OF LOW-INCOME KIDS ACTUALLY DOING BETTER IN MATH AND
SCIENCE AND READING IN RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR PEERS. EQUALLY
IMPORTANT, THE ACHIEVEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS IN THIS
BILL ARE VERY SPECIFIC IN SAYING THAT THEY WILL BE
DISAGGREGATED. THEY WILL BE DISAGGREGATED. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
THAT MEANS THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HIDE THE PERFORMANCE
OF LOW-INCOME KIDS BEHIND -- THROWING THEM IN WITH THE AVERAGE.
{16:08:57} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
YOU'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT GROUPS BY THE BASIS OF THEIR ABILITIES
AND THEIR CLASSIFICATION SO THAT WE WILL KNOW WHETHER A POOR
CHILD FROM THE INNER CITY IS ACTUALLY IMPROVING IN THEIR
EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS AND WE WON'T HAVE THAT POOR CHILD BEING
CLAIMED TO HAVE IMPROVED BECAUSE HE'S PUT IN A POOL WITH KIDS
WHO HAVE HIGHER INCOMES AND WHO ARE ATTENDING DIFFERENT SCHOOL
SYSTEMS. SO WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENT REQUIREMENTS IN
THIS BILL. AND YOU CANNOT IN ANY WAY COME DOWN HERE AND IN
{16:09:32} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
FAIRNESS OR WITH OBJECTIVITY OR, IN MY OPINION, WITH AN
ACCURATE READING OF OUR BILL CLAIM THAT THIS IS A TYPE OF
PROGRAM THAT OCCURRED 30 OR 35 YEARS AGO AND IT'S, THEREFORE,
NOT GOING TO WORK TODAY. IT'S ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IT'S AN
ATTEMPT TO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT STUDY AFTER STUDY HAS SHOWN. STUDY
AFTER STUDY HAS SHOWN THAT IT'S NOT FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN TITLE 1
THAT HAVE WORKED TO HELP KIDS. IT IS LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND
{16:10:10} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
STATES FOCUSING ON KIDS' EDUCATION THAT HAVE HELPED KIDS KIDS.
IN THOSE STATES THAT HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN AN INCREASE IN THE
ACHIEVEMENT LEVELS OF LOW-INCOME KIDS, STATES LIKE TEXAS AND
NORTH CAROLINA, SUCCESS HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY ACHIEVED BECAUSE
THE LOCAL SCHOOLS HAD FLEXIBILITY AND CONTROL OVER THE MONEY.
THE STATE MONEY. IT WASN'T BECAUSE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS. IN FACT,
A NEPA STUDY, A STUDY BY THE NESHAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL,
REPORTED -- NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANE REPORTED -- AND I
{16:10:40} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
QUOTE -- "THE STUDY CONCLUDES THAT THE MOST PLAUSIBLE
EXPLANATION FOR TEST SCORE GAINS ARE FOUND IN THE POLICY
ENVIRONMENT ESTABLISHED IN EACH STATE." NOT IN ANY POLICY --
POLICIES THAT CAME OUT OF WASHINGTON. SECOND PART OF THAT
SENTENCE WAS ADDED BY MYSELF. SO THE POINT IS THIS -- THE OTHER
SIDE IS TRYING TO MISLEAD US. IT'S MAKING REPRESENTATIONS WHICH
ARE TOTALLY INACCURATE ON THE ISSUE OF HOW THESE DOLLARS WHICH
ARE PUT INTO MORE FLEXIBLE ARENAS, SUCH AS "STRAIGHT A'S" OR
{16:11:15} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
PORTABILITY, WILL BE USED. THERE IS SPECIFIC ACCOUNTABILITY.
"STRAIGHT A'S" WRITERS THAT STATES ESTABLISH ANNUAL KNEW MARE
RICK GOALS FOR CREATION THE PERCENTAGE -- KNEW MARE RICK GOALS
FOR CREATING THE PERCENTAGE OF ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
STUDENTS, OF MINORITY STUDENTS, OF STUDENTS WITH LIMITED
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY. IT REQUIRES THAT THOSE KIDS MEET HIGHER
ABILITIES OF PROFICIENCY AND THAT THEY ADVANCE IN THEIR ABILITY
IN MATH, SCIENCE AND ENGLISH. SO THIS -- THIS REPRESENTATION,
{16:11:47} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
WHICH WE HAVE HEARD NOW FOR AT LEAST A DAY -- AND WE'VE HEARD
IN THE PRESS FOR NUMEROUS DAYS -- ABOUT THE FAILURE -- ABOUT
THE ABILITY TO JUST SIMPLY THROW MONEY AT THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS
AND ALLOW THEM TO SPEND IT FOR WHATEVER
THEY WANT: FOOTBALL UNIFORMS OR TUBAS, IS A FANTASY. IT'S BEING
MADE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN A TIME WARP. IT'S NOT ONLY A
TIME WARP RELATIVE TO THAT FANTASY. ITS A TIME WARP AS TO WHAT
EDUCATION, WHAT THE PROPER WAY TO APPROACH EDUCATION IS. AND
THEY'RE UNWILLING TO LOOK AT ANY CHANGE. THEY'RE JUST SO
ENMIRED IN THE STATUS QUO THEY'RE UNWILLING TO CONSIDER ANY
{16:12:19} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
CHANGE. EVEN LIKE ONE WE PUT FORWARD, WHICH IS AN OPTIONS
APPROACH, VERSUS AN APPROACH WHICH REQUIRES THE STATES TO DO
SOMETHING. WE SAY TO THE STATES, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO TRY
THESE NEW IDEAS. WE DON'T SAY TO STATES YOU MUST TRY THESE NEW
IDEAS. ANOTHER COUPLE AREAS. THERE WAS A REMIT--
--REPRESENTATION THAT "STRAIGHT A'S" WOULD END UP UNDERMINING
THE ABILITY OF KIDS TO ACHIEVE IN AN -- IN THE SENSE THAT THEY
{16:12:52} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
WILL BE REQUIRED -- THAT THE SCHOOL WILL GET THE MONEY AND THAT
THE MONEY WON'T FLOW TO THE LOW-INCOME CHILD THAT, IT WILL BE
USED ON SOME OTHER ACTIVITY WITHIN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND
THEY'RE NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT TUBA AND UNIFORMS, THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT SOME OTHER SCHOOL ACTIVITY WHICH MIGHT END UP
BENEFITING SOME AVERAGE-INCOME STUDENTS AS VERSUS THE
LOW-INCOME STUDENT. WELL, THAT MAY BE. BUT THE POINT HERE IS,
OF COURSE, THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE SCHOOL SYSTEM MUST
PROVE THAT THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE LOW-INCOME CHILD HAS
INCREASE TO DO GET THE MONEY -- INCREASED TO GET THE MONEY. SO
{16:13:26} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
HOWEVER THEY SPEND THE MONEY, THE RESULTS OF THE SPENDING OF
THE MONEY MUST MEAN THAT THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE
LOW-INCOME CHILD HAS IMPROVED. THIS IS THE NEW THRUST THAT WE
PUT INTO THIS BILL. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ACHIEVEMENT OF
THE LOW-INCOME CHILD, AND WE AREN'T WILLING TO SPEND ANOTHER 35
YEARS OF THROWING MONEY AT A PROBLEM CREATING A STATUS QUO IN
EDUCATION THAT LOSES US ANOTHER GENERATION OR TWO OF KIDS. NOW,
{16:13:57} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
SENATOR MAUR RAY CAME TO THE FLOOR AND SHE SAID -- NOW, SENATOR
MURRAY CAME TO THE FLOOR AND SHE SAID THAT FIRST THIS IS A
BLOCK GRANT. WELL, FIRST, IT'S NOT A BLOCK GRANT BECAUSE ALL
THE CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS ARE STILL IN PLACE. THE MONEY FLOWS
INTO THE STATES STATES. THE STATES STILL HAVE THE CATEGORICAL
PROGRAMS. THEY CAN SPEND IT ON ANY ONE OF THOSE PROGRAMS THAT
THEY WANT BUT THEY WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE IT AMONGST
THOSE PROGRAMS. AND THEY DO HAVE THE ACCOUNTABILITY STANDARDS
WHICH WE PUT IN PLACE. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY THAN THAT, SHE GOES
ON AND SAYS, "AND CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS -- AND BLOCK GRANT
{16:14:30} (MR. GREGG) { NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT }
PROGRAMS ARE ALWAYS EASY TO CUT." WELL, I WOULD POINT OUT, AND,
THEREFORE, WE SHOULDN'T DO THIS BECAUSE THE PROGRAMS MIGHT GET
CUT AND WE WOULD END UP REDUCING FUNDING. I WOULD POINT OUT
THAT IT IS THIS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS THAT HAS SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASED FUNDING FOR EDUCATION OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. WE
HAVE INCREASED FUNDING -- FEDERAL FUNDING FOR K-12 BY 67% 67%.
THAT'S A BIG NUMBER. EQUALLY IMPORTANT, IT IS THIS
ADMINISTRATION -- AND SPECIFICALLY MEMBERS OF THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE -- WHO HAVE SUGGESTED CUTTING BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMS.
{END: 2000/05/02 TIME: 16-15 , Tue. 106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}
{ NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENATE PROCEEDINGS.}