[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 11 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Just to review for the membership exactly where we are, we will 
commence voting at 10 o'clock and the first vote will be on a school 
choice amendment by Senator Coats. Our position is in opposition to 
this. We addressed this issue in 1990. We had a good debate on this at 
the end of last week. We believe that scarce resources should not be 
utilized for private schools but should be focused on the public 
schools of this country. That position is supported overwhelmingly by 
the American people.
  Second, we will have a Grassley amendment to protect the parental 
role in surveys administered to children. I thank the Senator from 
Iowa. We support that amendment. We think it strengthens the Gephardt 
language which exists in current law.
  Third will be Senator Mack's amendment on the role of the States. We 
oppose his position, and we are supported by the Governors, as well as 
the heads of the State agencies dealing with education. We hope that 
the Senate will reject this amendment.
  Next will be the Helms amendment requiring parental consent for 
distribution or provision of condoms or other contraceptive devices or 
drugs or information about contraception. We recommend voting no, and 
instead we hope that the Senate will support an amendment which Senator 
Jeffords and I have offered restating the law which has been in effect 
since 1981, which involves parents to the extent possible. So we will 
vote on the Helms amendment first and then on the amendment which 
Senator Jeffords and I have offered.
  Then there will be the Jeffords amendment, which is a sense of the 
Senate that does not impose unfunded mandates, of which we are in 
strong support.
  Finally, there will be a Gorton amendment to the school-to-work 
legislation. The Senator from Washington would provide tax credits for 
the hiring of summer youth. We are in opposition to the Gorton 
amendment, and there will be a motion to table the amendment. We have 
tried to work this issue out. There may be changes in the Summer Youth 
Program, but this amendment would not really provide any kind of 
accountability, no assurance that at the end of the summer these young 
people would continue to work. We do not know how decisions would be 
made as to which companies would be able to get the approval of the 
young people. So we recommend tabling the Gorton amendment.
  We will then move on to the Goals 2000 legislation. We still have 
pending the final passage of both Goals 2000 and the School-to-Work 
Program.
  There are two or three items left: The Levin school prayer amendment 
to Goals 2000, and another amendment offered by the Senator from North 
Carolina relating to that; Senator Dole's School-to-Work amendment on 
paying for the program; and Senator Coverdell's amendment on paying for 
earthquake relief. We are still in the process of trying to work these 
out. I am hopeful we will be able to do so.
  Again, I thank all of the Members for their attention. As I mentioned 
earlier, we worked out a great majority of the amendments, and we are 
thankful to all of our colleagues. We are hopeful that we will be able 
to conclude consideration of both of these measures today. I reserve 
the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?


              State Governance of School-to-Work Programs

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam President, I rise to express my concern about a change in the 
provisions for State governance which was made in the substitute 
amendment to the committee bill. Specifically, the committee provided 
that the Governor of each State would apply for these grants, with the 
provision that plans for implementing a statewide school-to-work system 
would have to include evidence of support of the agencies and officials 
responsible for the different programs affected by the plan and their 
agreement with the plan. That provision is dropped in the substitute we 
are considering here, and I am concerned about what that means for 
assuring the commitment of State and local education agencies and 
resources which must be linked with Federal funds to provide effective 
programs. The committee bill included the provisions so that there was 
clear agreement by the education authorities presented to the 
Secretaries in considering the application and grant approval.
  We must be certain there are affirmative agreements from education 
authorities to make this program work. In many States, Governors do not 
have the authority to commit certain education resources or agree to 
provisions for education standards, certification, or quality controls 
assigned to chief State school officers and or State boards of 
education. In addition, there are provisions in the bill for waiver 
requests under Federal laws, such as chapter 1 and Perkins vocational 
training, which are under the authority of education agencies.
  New systems for school-to-work transition are not going to work 
without the explicit agreement of the State education officials for 
those parts of the plan that involve their programs. We must be certain 
this Federal law does not override States rights in the governance of 
education.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague's concern 
here. As he knows, we have in the committee bill and the substitute 
amendment a provision that says, ``Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed to supersede the legal authority of any State agency or 
official over programs that are under the jurisdiction of the agency or 
official.'' We strengthened that provision in the substitute amendment 
to assure that all the responsibilities recognized in Federal law and 
granted in State law are respected. The House version of the bill 
contains the same provisions.
  We also provided in the committee bill and the substitute that in 
approving these plans, the Secretaries of Labor and Education would 
give priority to applications that demonstrate the highest levels of 
collaboration among the various State agencies and officials in 
planning and implementing these systems. We strengthened the provision 
in the substitute amendment by including concurrence of these officials 
in that priority.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. It is reassuring to know there are provisions to 
recognize State statutes and avoid unintentionally changing the 
responsibilities education agencies have under other Federal laws. 
However, we need more than a priority for concurrence among these 
officials and the Governor in the review of applications. That does not 
prohibit the Secretaries from approving grants to States where 
concurrence is not evident. Concurrence and explicit agreement, stated 
in the State plan, must be a condition for the Secretaries' approval. 
Without explicit statements of agreement, the Federal departments are 
in the business of judging the degree of agreement at the State level, 
and does not assure that the various education agencies and officials 
responsible for the programs affected by the plan are on board. There 
need to be something up from in the plan itself to show this agreement.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand the Senator's concern and assure him this 
will be an issue we will address in conference with the House. Madam 
President, as you know, the House bill has provisions for education 
officials and agencies to approve the parts of the plan over which they 
have jurisdiction. We all know we are going to have to work out 
something that assures there is the broadest feasible agreement among 
all the responsible agencies and officials with the plan.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman. I appreciate his willingness to 
work with me on this. The provisions for planning and administration of 
these school-to-work systems at the State levels must reflect the kind 
of collaboration and explicit agreement that is demonstrated in this 
bill between the Federal Departments of Labor and Education. That is 
key to the success of this initiative across the States.
  Madam President, I would like to make a few additional comments, as I 
see no other Members on my side of the aisle present at this time. I 
would like to say, again, that this is a critically important bill, the 
importance of which we cannot overestimate. I want to give some reasons 
as to why that is the case. Let me run through first some of the goals 
that we have established and where we are.
  With respect to the first goal--by the year 2000 all children will 
start school ready to learn--we find that there are many, many children 
who are not in that capacity at this point. We have, for instance, only 
a small percentage of our young children attending preschool, 
especially with respect to the economically underprivileged.
  For instance, in 1991, only 37 percent of 2-year-olds had been fully 
immunized.
  Less than half of all 3- to 5-year-olds from families with incomes 
less than $30,000 were enrolled in preschool.
  Fully 70 percent of the children eligible for Head Start go unserved.
  Goal 2 can be a little misleading. It says by the year 2000 the high 
school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. You will 
find there are records that, at least by the age of 24, 88 percent do 
get a high school diploma. But if you take a look at how they rate, 
relative to the skills and knowledge they should have under goal 3, you 
will find that we are really in bad shape.
  Some of the facts there: Less than 50 percent of those who graduate 
from high school now have the basic skills necessary to be able to meet 
the goals that are in the bill, goal 3 in particular.
  Also, as far as goal 3 is concerned, we have a long way to go before 
we are going to reach the standards which are necessary in order to 
meet what has to be done for this Nation.
  In goal 4, for instance, by the year 2000 our students are supposed 
to be first in math and science, and yet in recent tests of 13-year-
olds in 11 of the industrialized nations, we were last in math and next 
to last in science.
  We also have a real problem with respect to those who are going on 
now to get their doctorates. More and more of our doctorate degrees are 
given to people from out of this country. That used to be good when 
they stayed in this country to aid us, but now almost all of them are 
leaving. For instance, 50 percent of those who get doctorate degrees in 
mathematics are from out of this country; 44 percent computer science 
and 50 percent in engineering are not members of this country, because 
we do not have a sufficient number applying for those schools.
  Goal 5 is another one where we are really in bad trouble: By the year 
2000, every adult American will be literate. The evidence is that we 
have anywhere from 30 to 80 million functionally illiterate people in 
this country, incapable of meeting the skills necessary for jobs, even 
the simplest employment in most cases. By the year 2000 we are supposed 
to have them all literate. It is a goal which will be incredibly 
difficult to meet.
  I wish to say that we have a long way to go, but let me also, before 
I end, talk a little bit about the cost of not meeting those goals.
  The total cost right now to our country by the failure to have an 
adequate educational system totals close to half a trillion dollars. 
One-half of a trillion dollars is lost in our GNP because of our 
present problems with education.
  Let me summarize some of those areas.
  Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont controls 6 
minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Lost productivity: $225 billion a year. These are all from studies 
which have been done by experts to determine the cost of our 
educational system in its present state.
  One is probably the most interesting in the sense of defining what we 
have to do to correct our problems. The cost of on-the-job remedial 
training and education to our industry is $200 billion a year. In other 
words, our industries have to spend $200 billion a year to make up for 
the deficiencies in our school system training.
  Welfare costs: Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
Department of Education, and the Department of Labor spent over $208 
billion, while States spent another $82 billion on means tested 
entitlement programs collectively referred to as welfare. The programs 
consist of trying to make up for the deprivation of education to a 
large extent. Improved education there will save much of that money.
  For instance, in a book by David Kearns and Denis Doyle, ``Winning 
the Brain Race,'' it was indicated that early intervention with the 
Head Start Program could have a major impact to improve the prospects 
of young children, and yet we only serve 30 percent of those who are 
eligible.
  The cost of drugs, another area which is greatly related to the 
educational system, $238 billion. The Institute of Health Policy at 
Brandeis came up with these figures. That is what is lost to our 
economy by people not having choices perhaps other than use of drugs.
  Crime and incarceration: $43 billion a year. If you look at the 
record, 82 percent of those who are in prison now are school dropouts.
  I could go on and on.
  Another area is unemployment. The figures show that a substantial 
number, a very large percentage of those unemployed are those who are 
school dropouts.
  Health care: Another $141 billion is estimated to be lost by the lack 
of adequate education; 15 percent of the population is not covered by 
health insurance. Those people are primarily working poor and would be 
helped by increased educational opportunities. That is from the Health 
and Human Services Census Bureau.
  My point is, yes, we have serious problems but, more importantly, if 
you look at it from the future of the country, if we do not correct 
them, then we will continue to lose the economic growth that would be 
created by an adequate education system. The choice is ours.
  I am confident that we will pass the goals, but the question that 
will remain is, will we have the dedication to change the priorities of 
this Nation in order to provide the resources necessary to have a 
chance of meeting those goals. We will pursue that later on, but today 
let us set the goals.
  Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Kansas such time as she 
may consume.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I ask if I may have 2 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is fine. The Senator is yielded 2 minutes and, if 
the Senator needs more, let me know.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, I wish to express my appreciation for the 
stewardship and leadership that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] 
has given to educational issues. He was dedicated to this issue when he 
was in the House. He has continued that dedication in the Senate and 
has managed, of course, the Goals 2000 legislation for the Republican 
side of the aisle.
  As has been stated over and over, Madam President, this is 
legislation which addresses education from the bottom up. It reinforces 
support for local control. It reinforces the importance of the school 
boards. It reinforces the need to work from the local level and 
encourages States to be participants in the partnership. It has the 
strong support of the National Governors Association. It is not a 
mandatory bill. It is a bill that addresses the importance of education 
with the interests of students, parents, and teachers at the heart of 
it.
  It is for these reasons I am supporting this bill, and I wish to 
express appreciation to all staff and Senators who have been very 
involved in addressing the issue in this Chamber.
  I thank the Chair.


                           amendment no. 1386

  Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, I rise in support of the low-income 
school choice demonstration amendment. Choice may not be the panacea 
for all our Nation's education ills, but we cannot afford not to take 
an honest look at whether more options would help kids who today are 
trapped in the worst schools in our poorest areas.
  When we first took up this amendment 2 years ago, I thought about the 
schools and the families in the most desperate and impoverished areas 
of New Jersey, such as the cities of Paterson, Jersey City, and Newark. 
I asked people then, and I have asked them more recently, are those 
school systems better or worse than they were 15 years ago, when I came 
to the U.S. Senate? Worse, I was told, and my own eyes confirm that sad 
fact. There are schools where crime, disorder, and drugs so dominate 
the daily lesson plan that there is hardly time to begin dealing with 
real learning.
  For 15 years, while we have stood here debating what to do with the 
public schools, we have lost a generation. To save the next generation, 
we need to try anything that might work. We need to try anything that 
gives families that want their kids to learn and grow an immediate 
option, a way out. We need to be imaginative about using resources for 
education that are already there and can make an immediate difference. 
I strongly support Goals 2000, and share the commitment to systemic 
reform in our public schools. I have seen such reform begin to make a 
difference in Camden, Trenton, and other cities that have begun to 
change their own expectations of what students and teachers can 
achieve. I support full funding for every public program that works for 
kids, Head Start and Chapter 1. But real change may take time. Kids do 
not have time. If there is something out there that might work, we 
cannot wait to find out.
  There is a resource in our cities that gives families a way to see 
that their kids get a basic, disciplined education in this sort of 
environment. I think of schools like St. Benedict's in Newark or St. 
Bartholomew in Camden. They happen to be private; these two happen to 
be operated by Catholic dioceses. But they have been serving the public 
at modest cost. Most of the students are non-Catholic; most are black 
or Hispanic.
  That option is rapidly disappearing for many families. More than 25 
urban Catholic schools closed their doors in New Jersey, not because 
they did not want to educate poor kids, but because they could no 
longer afford to. Across the Nation, there are 300 fewer urban 
parochial schools than there were 10 years ago. Enrollment in the 10 
largest cities declined by 200,000 kids in the last 10 years; in 
Newark, 20,000 fewer students are served, largely because the schools 
are in trouble.

  When a school that works shuts its doors, especially in an area where 
most schools do not work, it is a tragedy whether that school is public 
or private. An opportunity is lost to thousands of families and their 
kids. Nothing we do here with a few hundred million dollars for 
systemic reform can make up for the loss of hundreds of schools that 
work. If there is a way to keep good schools that serve the broadest 
public purposes alive, we should try it. If there is a way to encourage 
new schools to emerge to serve public purposes, we should try it. This 
amendment will help us find out if we can open schools to students who 
deserve better options.
  If this amendment were much different than it is, I would not be able 
to support it. I would not support the demonstration program were it 
not targeted to the families that most need help--those eligible for 
subsidized school lunches--in the most troubled areas. I am skeptical 
of voucher proposals that might subsidize the few who can already 
afford private schooling, but this demonstration will pay for the full 
cost of attendance at any participating school, so that it will create 
realistic options. The certificates will cover transportation costs, 
again making the option more realistic than in other voucher proposals. 
The funding will be new money and will not cut into our other 
investments in education. The amendment includes language that I 
suggested 2 years ago to absolutely guarantee that none of the funds 
provided through this program go to schools that discriminate on the 
basis of race. Above all, this amendment asks a great deal of all the 
schools that might participate. It insists that those schools serve, or 
continue to serve, a public purpose.
  I view this amendment as a real demonstration: It might work, it 
might not. Advocates of choice have put a lot on the line with this 
proposal. If it does not work, we will know it, and we will never again 
hear choice described as the sure cure for American education. If it 
does work, we will learn more about how to improve all schools. We will 
learn whether empowering parents with good choices gets them 
constructively involved with their kids' educations. We will learn 
whether schools that now succeed at educating students whose families 
can pay for their education can remain successful servicing more 
students from poorer backgrounds and with troubled home lives. Above 
all, we will find out whether a school choice demonstration project 
improves results across the board, for all students in all the public 
and private schools participating.
  I do now know whether these choice demonstrations will improve 
results, whether students will do better at math and science, come out 
better prepared for college or the work force. I do know that at a time 
of crisis, we have to take risks. We have to find out what might work, 
before we lose another generation. I support the amendment.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, there will now occur a series of 
votes, at least seven in number. It is, I think sensible that we limit 
the length of time for all of the votes after the first one. Therefore, 
I now ask unanimous consent that all votes after the first vote be for 
10 minutes in duration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. No objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. So, Madam President, Senators should be aware that the 
first vote, which will occur shortly, will be the usual time limit, and 
then votes thereafter will be for 10 minutes. Senators are encouraged 
to remain in the Chamber to cast those votes. Further, it is their 
responsibility to see that the clerk has recorded their vote, and I 
encourage them not to leave so as not to miss votes during this 
sequence.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, do I have 20 seconds remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.


                       vote on amendment no. 1386

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour 
of 10 a.m. having arrived, the question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats]. On this question, the yeas and 
nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Illinois 
[Ms. Moseley-Braun], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Texas 
[Mrs. Hutchison] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wofford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Breaux
     Chafee
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Moseley-Braun
     Rockefeller
  So the amendment (No. 1386) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                vote on amendment no. 1388, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 1388 offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley]. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Illinois 
[Ms. Moseley-Braun], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Texas 
[Mrs. Hutchison] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--0

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Breaux
     Chafee
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Moseley-Braun
     Rockefeller
  So the amendment (No. 1388), as modified, was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 1389

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs now on amendment No. 1389 
offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack]. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Illinois 
[Ms. Moseley-Braun], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Texas 
[Mrs. Hutchison] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Breaux
     Chafee
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Moseley-Braun
     Rockefeller
  So the amendment (No. 1389) was rejected.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 1390

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1390, offered by the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms]. The yeas 
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Illinois 
[Ms. Moseley-Braun], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Texas 
[Mrs. Hutchison] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Breaux
     Chafee
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Moseley-Braun
     Rockefeller
  So the amendment (No. 1390) was rejected.


                       vote on amendment no. 1393

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs 
on amendment No. 1393 offered by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy].
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Illinois 
[Ms. Moseley-Braun], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Texas 
[Mrs. Hutchison] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--2

     Faircloth
     Wallop
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Breaux
     Chafee
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Moseley-Braun
     Rockefeller
  So, the amendment (No. 1393) was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 1420

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment No. 1420 
offered by the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], 
the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], the Senator from Illinois 
[Ms. Moseley-Braun], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. 
Rockefeller] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from Texas 
[Mrs. Hutchison] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Breaux
     Chafee
     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Moseley-Braun
     Rockefeller
  So the amendment (No. 1420) was agreed to.

                          ____________________