[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 103 (Monday, August 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 1, 1994]


 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of S. 1513, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1513) entitled ``Improving America's Schools Act 
     of 1993.''

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Hatch amendment No. 2429, to remove the arbitrary floor 
     ceiling of the title I formula, and create an equalization 
     factor allowing States to control the distribution of 
     resources among local school districts in the State.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is on amendment No. 
2429. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that the matter that is 
before the Senate now is a Hatch amendment to the legislation; is that 
correct? And there is a 1-hour time limit, and the time is evenly 
divided.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I yield myself 7 
minutes.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we hope that over the past few days there 
has been a focus by the membership on the issues which remain to be 
resolved on the elementary and secondary education legislation.
  One of the prime issues, the issue that is before us this morning, is 
related to the allocation of funds for the neediest and poorest 
children in the country. I reviewed, during the debate last week, the 
essential elements that have been included in the formula. We have 
included a number of these items.
  First of all, we included a weighted formula which was the result of 
the various studies and reviews and assessments that have been made on 
chapter 1, both by the Department of Education at the State level and, 
also, the various foundations.
  These have indicated that the areas of greatest need, in terms of 
poor children, are where there is a concentration of poor children. If 
the number of poor children are spread through the educational system, 
their opportunities of advancing at the same pace with the other 
children at the same time are greatly enhanced.
  So, in developing the formula, we gave some weight to the greatest 
concentrations of poor children, and we will come back to that in a 
moment.
  Second, concerning the cost of educating a child in a particular area 
and in a particular region, there are some disparities. We focused on 
that issue as well.
  Third, we gave consideration to the concept of an effort factor. More 
specifically, we wanted to look at what the State is doing in terms of 
its ability to afford or to pay for education? What is its effort? We 
tried to give some benefit to those particular States that are making 
an important effort, in terms of their total available resources, into 
education.
  We also have what we call an equity factor, which is an effort to 
help reduce the disparity between the poorest school districts and the 
wealthier school districts. With that, I think, as a matter of policy, 
we are limited in what we can do.
  This is an issue that is being reviewed in the States. There are 
probably close to 30 States that have had various forms of 
constitutional challenges. Some States are moving ahead on their own on 
these issues--the State of West Virginia, the State of Kentucky, the 
State of Washington. There are several States that have moved along. 
Some are doing it in different ways.
  In my own State of Massachusetts, we now have a commitment over the 
period of the next 4 or 5 years to provide all of the various school 
districts with adequate and sufficient funding in the area of 
education. However, the State has prohibited school districts in more 
affluent areas from providing additional resources for education in 
their communities, if they should choose to do so.
  Those have been the essential elements. A lot of us have been around 
this body long enough to know that the elements can vary and that we 
can see a significant shift in the amount of resources available in 
this legislation that can go to particular States. We have talked about 
that and debated it over the period of last week.
  In his amendment, the Senator from Utah adds a much more dramatic 
weight to the equity factor, and in that way, his amendment provides 
for a rather dramatic skewing of the resources away from where very 
poor children are. The major losers are eight States, including my own 
State of Massachusetts. We are a loser--not nearly to the extent that 
States like Illinois or the State of New York, the State of Michigan, 
and other States that would be adversely affected.
  The basic result of the amendment of the Senator from Utah is that 
there will be eight States which will be major losers. There will be 
other States that will gain because you can spread this out.
  Just over the weekend, I asked how we could develop the formula in a 
way that at least 38 States that would gain, including my own State of 
Massachusetts. The result would be to take very significant funding, 
help, and assistance away from some of the neediest children in this 
country that are grouped in different States of the country.
  The fact remains that one-third of all the poor children in America 
are in these eight States. Be it by design or not, the areas that will 
be most adversely affected or impacted are the major cities in those 
areas and where there are high concentrations of needy and poor 
children and where, in many instances--in most instances, as a matter 
of fact--they are not even the beneficiaries of any of the chapter 1 
funds, because we know that chapter 1 does not even begin to reach the 
total number of very poor children in this country.
  So this is where we are, Mr. President. I think that the amendment 
itself is bad policy. I do not see how there can be any justification 
for it. We reviewed in some detail the statement of my friend from 
Utah, and it is very complete in indicating that the real hope and 
desire and the reason for the amendment is to try to do something about 
poor children. But it flies in the face of all the reviews, of all the 
studies, of all the recommendations which have been made to the 
Congress in reviewing the funding allocations and resources--
recommendations and studies which make the very clear and compelling 
case that the best way to help and assist the neediest and the poorest 
children is to try to provide the focus and attention where the 
concentrations of poor children are greatest.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch].
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the difficulty of my 
colleague.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. How much time does the Senator yield.
  Mr. HATCH. I would yield 7 minutes to myself.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the first thing I believe we should do is be honest 
about why we are here. I am prepared to acknowledge up front that I am 
offering this amendment because I believe that the State I represent 
needs and deserves a boost in its title 1 allocation that is over and 
above the amount it will receive under the formula in S. 1513.
  As I have said previously, I believe that on these mathematical and 
statistical matters there are many roads that lead to Rome. There is 
more than one way to achieve the desired results.
  I supported the formula that is now incorporated in S. 1513 when this 
bill was considered in the committee. Unlike some of our colleagues, I 
do not think it is a fundamentally bad formula or fundamentally bad 
policy to include an effort or equity factor. I have stated that 
repeatedly.
  That does not mean I think it cannot be improved upon. I believe we 
can do a little better for those States that have been struggling for 
years under the current formula, particularly many States in the South 
and the West. And in all likelihood, we will not have another crack at 
this formula for at least another 5 years.
  I listened with great interest to the debate last Thursday evening on 
the Bumpers amendment. It seemed to me that the major competition was 
over which formula--Bumpers or S. 1513 --did the most to help poor 
children. I daresay that every Senator here wants to help all States 
and all school districts meet the educational needs of poor children.
  It is true that these formula proposals all come at this problem in a 
different way, but I do not happen to think that the S. 1513 formula is 
the only way to do it, nor do I believe that if we adopt the Hatch 
option, or the Feinstein option, or the Bumpers option, we have somehow 
failed to support the title 1 mission.
  My leadership on this amendment has been questioned by some of my 
colleagues because Utah's child poverty rate is relatively low compared 
to some other States, and it is true that Utah gains a bit under the 
bill's formula relative to current law. So why am I causing all this 
trouble? I have been told that we in Utah do not need the money.
  The heck we do not. Utah has the worst-case scenario when it comes to 
school finance. We have the highest percentage of school-age children 
and the lowest percentage of working-age adults.
  We have a per-capita income $3,000 lower than the national average. 
We have a median family income of only $33,246. Nearly 30 percent of 
our school children are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches. 
Does this sound like a State that is rolling in dough, Mr. President?
  It is true that Utah does not have the poverty rate as high as other 
States, but we also do not have a high number of upper-income people 
either. In my view, poverty rates taken alone are--at least in this 
debate--a misleading measure of a State's ability to finance education. 
Yes, to answer the question, Utah can use the money.
  I would like to brag about my home State for just a moment. I would 
suggest to my colleagues that Utah can do more with less than any other 
State. Utah's eighth grade math achievement scores, for example, would 
rank sixth in the world if Utah was its own country. We rank second in 
the United States with an 85.1 percent high school graduation rate, our 
SAT and ACT scores are higher than the national average, and more of 
our students take and pass advanced placement tests than any other 
State.
  We may have the lowest per-pupil expenditure of any State, but Utah 
education can compete with the best of them.
  Utahns take education seriously. That is why more than 50 percent of 
our entire State budget is devoted to public education. That is why 
Utahns spend $73.87 cents of every $1,000 of personal income for public 
education. This compares to the national average of just $42.87. 
Compare those-- $73.87 versus $42.87, the national average.
  For years, Mr. President, Utahns have been shouldering the burden of 
an unfair chapter 1 formula. And I might add just not Utahns, a number 
of other States as well--39 States--benefit from this formula. Utahns 
should not have to pay more so citizens in other States can pay less to 
support their own educational system.
  That is why I am offering this amendment today. Utah is not alone in 
this; 38 other States--39 of the 50 States--would benefit from one 
simple adjustment in the S. 1513 formula. I also hasten to point out 
that, to the extent poverty rates are an indicator, every one of the 
States that have child poverty rates of 20 percent would benefit from 
my amendment relative to S. 1513, and all but one would benefit 
relative to both S. 1513 and current law. So do not say that the poor 
States are being bereft by my amendment.
  I regret that any State has to lose some of its allocation under any 
formula proposal including the formula currently in S. 1513. One of my 
aims in developing this formula was to minimize the number of adversely 
affected States. I also hope that Senators from these States will 
understand the broader purpose of this formula.
  The effect of this change is not only to shift money around among 
States, it is also to light a fire under some of our States so that 
they begin thinking more about assisting their low-income areas from 
within. Our budget constraints mean that the Federal Government cannot 
always be there to plug the holes. The Federal Government cannot 
undertake the full responsibility for financing education for low-
income children. I am persuaded that within-State equalization is one 
means of directing education resources where they need to go. This is a 
concept whose time has come.
  There have been many speeches in our committee and on the Senate 
floor in recent years about equity in education. My amendment is an 
opportunity for Senators to do something about it without imposing 
mandates. Incorporating this factor into the title 1 formula, without 
arbitrary boundaries limiting the effect, will be a powerful incentive 
for States to do better to meet the needs of all students.
  Now, I am very pleased to be joined in this amendment by my 
colleague, the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], and the Senator from 
California [Mrs. Feinstein].
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HATCH. I reserve the remainder of my time and ask unanimous 
consent that a quorum call be entered with time charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears no 
objection. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah.
  Title I funding--formerly chapter 1--is one of the most important 
aspects of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. 
This chapter alone affects over 90 percent of our Nation's school 
districts. These are supposed to be the schools that serve the most 
poor and the most needy students of our country. Yet, as my colleague, 
Senator Kennedy, pointed out in his floor statement last week, there 
are States where this whole process and formula has not worked out 
fairly, and that has been true, I think, particularly in California and 
in Texas.
  Mr. President, if the chairman of the committee acknowledges that 
these two States, with over 22 percent of our Nation's poor and needy 
students--nearly 1.7 million--do not benefit under this formula, then 
the formula is unfair.
  We are talking about one-fifth of our Nation's needy students--one-
fifth of our Nation's students, period, in the States of California and 
Texas. The purpose of chapter 1 is to help our Nation's poorer 
students. This bill and the formulas being discussed are about 
America's future and its future generations.
  Mr. President, I cosponsored the Bumpers-Cochran amendment because I 
thought it would have a more fair allocation, and it was consistent 
with the original principles of the chapter 1 program. I am now 
supporting the Hatch amendment, and if that fails, I will support the 
Feinstein amendment, because each one is one step closer to the 
original principles of chapter 1 funding, not because Texas gets more 
money than under the committee formula, but because all of the 
alternatives are fairer and help more of our needy students.
  As I stated earlier, a majority of the money in ESEA goes to chapter 
1, and chapter 1 affects 90 percent of our Nation's schools. The Texas 
child poverty rate is 5 percent over the national average. Yet, under 
the Hatch-Feinstein and the committee formulas, Texas does not see any 
increase in funding. In each of these formulas, States with less 
poverty and which are more affluent receive a majority of the money, 
while Texas and other more needy States either maintain the status quo 
under the current law, or lose money--a great deal of money. This is 
not fair to the poor and needy students of Texas or to America.
  Mr. President, we need a formula that is more equitable to all of the 
States which bear the responsibility of educating our Nation's needy 
students. Unless we get a fair formula, such as the Hatch amendment is, 
such as the Feinstein amendment will be, I cannot possibly support this 
bill.
  Let me just say that I believe what makes America different from 
every other country in the world is that we have a public education 
system that gives every child a chance. It does not matter from where 
that child came, or if the child's parents even speak English. Every 
poor child in this country, as well as every rich or middle-income 
child in this country, has the same chance with a strong public 
education system. That is why this bill is very important if the 
funding formula is in fact equitable, because it makes sure that we 
have the help we need for our poor and needy students, and particularly 
border States, where we have illegal immigration and we are educating 
the children of illegal immigrants, it is very important that we give 
the extra measure of help to make sure that we do keep what makes 
America different from every other country in the world, and that is a 
strong system of public education which allows every child, regardless 
of background, to reach that child's full potential so that every child 
has the ability to work hard, play by the rules, and be anything he or 
she wants to be--president of a university, president of a corporation, 
president of a small business, or President of the United States. That 
is what our public education system does in this country. We are very 
fortunate and we must preserve it. The way to do that is to make sure 
that we have the fair allocation of funding. I am supporting the Hatch 
amendment because I think it will do what we have asked.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Utah. This amendment robs Peter to pay Paul. It shifts 
money away from some of the most vulnerable children in our Nation. It 
is unfair and unwise.
  Under the formula proposed by this amendment, many States will gain 
funds. That's true. But these funds won't come from savings. They won't 
come from the peace dividend, or cutbacks in bureaucracy or from other 
programs.
  They'll come directly from other poor children, children in our 
Nation's largest cities, the same cities we claim to want to 
revitalize. This amendment would decimate the chapter 1 programs in 
Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, and Chicago. While States with poverty 
rates as low as 7 percent will gain under the formula proposed by the 
Senator from Utah, cities with poverty rates as high as 79 percent will 
lose.
  It's easy to sit here in and debate dry formulas. But Mr. President, 
this isn't just about some mathematical formula. We're talking about 
children's futures. About our future.
  Let me give you an example of how this formula would work in practice 
in my State. A third of Pennsylvania's chapter 1 funds go to 
Philadelphia--so that is where most of the cuts under this amendment 
will come from. Philadelphia has a poverty rate of 79 percent. The 
children of Philadelphia are some of the poorest in the country. Yet we 
provide chapter 1 services to less than half of our eligible students.
  If this formula is enacted, the Philadelphia School Board estimates 
that 10 percent of the city's schools would lose their chapter 1 
programs; 10 percent. Three thousand poor children would no longer 
receive the additional help many of them need to succeed in school, and 
in life.
  Mr. President, the cuts proposed under the Senator from Utah's 
amendment would come on top of a 20-percent reduction in chapter 1 
funds that Philadelphia experienced as result of the 1990 census. As a 
result of that census, Pennsylvania lost more than 10 percent of our 
chapter 1 funds. Philadelphia has one of the highest concentrations of 
childhood poverty in the Nation--yet it bore the brunt of the cuts in 
Pennsylvania--losing nearly 20 percent of its chapter 1 funds. 
Philadelphia's schools cannot withstand another reduction in its 
chapter 1 funds.
  This amendment proposes shifting more money away from Philadelphia 
and other large cities. I will not support a formula that has this kind 
of effect on my State's poorest and most vulnerable children.
  Mr. President, no formula is perfect. But the formula crafted by the 
Labor Committee is fairer and more workable than any other proposal I 
have seen. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to modify the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2429), as modified, is as follows:

       Beginning on page 554, line 21, strike all through line 15 
     on page 556 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       (iii)(I) Except as provided in subclause (II) the 
     equalization factor for a local educational agency shall be 
     determined in accordance with the succeeding sentence. The 
     equalization factor determined under this sentence shall be 
     calculated as follows: First, calculate the difference 
     (expressed as a positive amount) between the average per 
     pupil expenditure in the State served by the local 
     educational agency and the average per pupil expenditure in 
     each local educational agency in the State and multiply such 
     difference by the total student enrollment for such agency, 
     except that children from low income families shall be 
     multiplied by a factor of 1.4 to calculate such enrollment. 
     Second, all the products under the preceding sentence for 
     each local educational agency in such State and divide such 
     sum by the total student enrollment of such State, except 
     that children from low income families shall be multiplied by 
     a factor of 1.4 to calculate such enrollment. Third, divide 
     the quotient under the preceding sentence by the average per 
     pupil expenditure in such State. The equalization factor 
     shall be equal to 1 minus the amount determined in the 
     previous sentence.
       (II) The equalization factor for a local educational agency 
     serving a State that meets the disparity standard described 
     in section 222.63 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (as such section was in effect on the day preceding the date 
     of enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994) 
     shall have a maximum coefficient of variation of .10.
       (iv) Special rule.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     Section 1122(b)--
       (I) For fiscal year 1995, no state's allocation shall be 
     increased by an amount greater than 2 percent or reduced by 
     an amount greater 2 percent of the amount to which it would 
     otherwise be entitled when the provisions of clause (iii) are 
     multiplied according to the provisions of paragraph (2) of 
     this section.
       (II) For fiscal year 1996, no state's allocation shall be 
     increased by an amount greater than 4 percent or reduced by 
     an amount greater than 4 percent of the amount to which it 
     would otherwise be entitled when the provisions of clause 
     (iii) are multiplied according to the provisions of paragraph 
     (2) of this section.
       (III) For fiscal year 1997, no state's allocation shall be 
     increased by an amount greater than 6 percent or reduced by 
     an amount greater than 6 percent of the amount to which it 
     would otherwise be entitled when the provisions of clause 
     (iii) are multiplied according to the provisions of paragraph 
     (2) of this section.

  Mr. HATCH. In an effort to try and solve this in an amicable fashion, 
we have worked closely with the distinguished chairman of the committee 
and others on the committee and the ranking minority member. The 
modification would take the formula that we have suggested that 
benefits 39 States and is far more equitable, in our view, than the 
formula of the committee. It would phase it in over a 3-year period, 
rather than do it instantly.
  In other words:

       For fiscal year 1995, no State's allocation shall be 
     increased by an amount greater than 2 percent or reduced by 
     an amount greater than 2 percent of the amount to which it 
     would otherwise be entitled when the provisions of clause 
     (iii) are multiplied according to the provisions of paragraph 
     (2) of this section.

  The amendment speaks for itself. It is 2 percent for fiscal year 
1995, 4 percent for fiscal year 1997, and 6 percent for 1997. We think 
it is a reasonable result and compromise. I ask that the amendment be 
approved this morning.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. As a member of our 
committee, he knows that these are difficult and trying challenges. We 
welcome the fact that, over the period of the next 4 years, there is 
every indication that the administration is going to put an additional 
billion dollars in every year toward this effort. So many of us are 
hopeful that all of these figures will be going up in any event. I 
appreciate the modification.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am confused. Are we adopting the 
amendment to the amendment which I do not believe is necessary or are 
we----
  Mr. HATCH. The amendment has been modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been modified.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Right. So we are now voting on the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the amendment, as modified.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like a moment to speak, if that 
is agreeable to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I certainly agree that the amendment, as 
modified, is better than the original amendment, as it does give us a 
time to adjust to the full impact of that amendment. However, I would 
like my colleagues to know how I feel about it.
  Vermont has nothing to gain or to lose either by the amendment before 
it was modified or the amendment after it was modified or as against 
the committee mark.
  So I would like at least to let everyone know exactly what we are 
doing here, because I am concerned we are saying that the States are 
not being affected as to what we are doing with policy.
  I understand fully that any amendment or any formula which gains more 
for more States in the Senate is going to win probably unless there is 
some real egregious problem with it. But I do believe that it is 
important to point out what we are doing here.
  The formula will almost likely garner enough votes to win, and we 
will deal with that.
  The formula that was adopted by the committee was a formula based on 
sound, balanced policy. Unfortunately, I do not feel we can say the 
same thing for the alternative formula which we are considering at this 
time.
  Consider the following: Under the Hatch formula, 38 States benefit 
from the so-called equity factor, indicating that 38 States have 
equalized expenditures across district lines to the extent that they 
will be rewarded by this factor in the formula. In the same formula, 
nine States are heavily penalized. In the committee formula, only 22 
States receive bonuses under this equity factor, while the remaining 
States are basically held harmless, neither harmed nor helped by the 
factor.
  Considering the fact that 25 States are currently undergoing 
litigation concerning their State finance systems, I find it hard to 
believe that 38 of them should be considered equalized under Federal 
law. Of the States that would benefit under the Hatch formula, at least 
18 of them have cases pending in State courts regarding the inequities 
of their school finance systems. I think we would be sending those 
States the wrong message if we passed this alternative formula, even as 
modified.
  Furthermore, in the committee formula, the equity factor is construed 
so as to be only a bonus for those States who have made progress toward 
equalizing per-pupil expenditures across district lines, not a penalty 
to those who have not achieved school finance equity. In my mind, this 
is the right policy and the way we should go.
  I can tell you from Vermont's experience that changing school finance 
laws is no easy task. Our legislature spent a full year trying to work 
out a proposal and ended the year without reaching agreement on the 
issue. This is unchartered territory for Congress, and I believe we 
should approach it with the utmost caution.
  Let me highlight some of the other discrepancies that arise from the 
Hatch formula. I do not want to pick out certain States, but I would 
like to make a point as to the policy of this formula. In Arizona, for 
example, which gains 4 percent with the Hatch formula, 2 percent with 
the modification or phase-in, over the committee formula, the richest 5 
percent of school districts spend twice as much, an average of over 
$5,000 per pupil, as the poorest 5 percent of school districts that 
spend less than $2,500 per pupil. Yet Arizona gains from the equity 
factor in the Hatch formula.
  The same argument could be made for any number of States that gain 
under this formula.
  While I know that this formula certainly has enough winners to win 
the votes in the Senate, I urge my colleagues to consider the policy 
that they would be setting if the Senate adopts this formula. I will 
point out that I am not going to ask for a vote, or whatever, but I 
think it is important to put this in the Record before we go to 
conference because we are going to have a very substantial difference 
with the House formula and the current law than the formula that we are 
considering today, and that is true also of the committee formula.
  So I think it is important that we understand what we are doing here 
and hopefully in conference when we work out the various equities and 
inequities of the various formulas we can keep this in mind.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont yields the floor.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the time.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the time, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the rollcall vote be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2429), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask my remarks be considered as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________