[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.
____________________