[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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to make a brief 
statement on the scheduling. I had open house town meetings planned for 
today in Philadelphia at 8:30 and in Pittsburgh at noon and Harrisburg 
at 3 o'clock on the subject of health care. It was set up some time ago 
when the expectation was that the bills would be present for public 
evaluation, with the expectation that we would be starting on health 
care by about this day.
  When this 10 a.m. vote was scheduled, I made arrangements for a 
satellite feed to Philadelphia telling my constituents, several hundred 
which were gathered in an auditorium in Philadelphia, that I could not 
be there because there was a vote on the formula which involved some 
$12 million, potentially, in losses to the State of Pennsylvania. I 
finished the satellite feed a few minutes ago and came upstairs and 
found out that the vote had been vitiated, which means that it had been 
canceled.
  So I take the floor to make this statement so that my constituents in 
Philadelphia, who gathered there for a satellite feed, will know, in 
fact, the vote had been scheduled and I cannot be in Pittsburgh at 
noon. This is the first time we have had a vote on Monday morning, 
according to the records which I have checked, going back for about 1 
year and 4 months, when we had the so-called enhancement package in 
April 1993, and in the research I found the Senate has not had a Monday 
morning vote since 1990.
  I understand that the managers cannot know for certain what is going 
to go on by way of a 10 a.m. vote, but I hope that when votes are 
scheduled for 10 a.m. on a Monday morning, where there is good reason 
to expect that there will not be votes--many Senators have made 
commitments and many of our constituents have relied on their 
commitments--that there would be every effort made not to schedule 
votes where they can be delayed or stacked or put on at some later time 
in the afternoon.
  I understand from one of the managers a call was placed to me while I 
was on the satellite that there was an attempt to vitiate the vote. I, 
again, wonder if that vitiation might not have occurred until a Senator 
could be present to object, as I understand it.
  I make a parliamentary inquiry if it is necessary to have unanimous 
consent when a vote is vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct; it takes unanimous 
consent to vitiate a previously ordered rollcall vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I do not want to make a Federal case out of this, any 
more than to advise my constituents as to why I was not in Philadelphia 
at 8:30 and why I am not going to be in Pittsburgh at 12 noon. But I 
also make the point to the managers of the bill that it would be good 
if you know a vote is going to be vitiated, if some effort could be 
made to find out in advance.
  I am told by the managers that it was not knowable until the last 
minute. I am not going to challenge that any further, but I ask, when 
managers have these bills, that some effort be made to determine in 
advance. If there are so many States' votes that are going to be lost, 
I can understand that, but I am a little at a loss to know why it 
cannot be determined in advance. I am a little at a loss to know why 
the vitiation order could not await the conclusion of a satellite feed 
which was ended at 10 a.m. But, most of all, I want my constituents to 
know that I did not fail to appear in cities in Pennsylvania through 
any lack of trying on my part, but I am here to vote on the bill.
  I understand again with the managers, we hear argument on the crime 
bill instead of having amendments presented. But if Senators are going 
to come here expecting to vote on this education bill, it would be nice 
if we moved ahead on the bill.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to briefly respond to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania. I understand his feelings, and I know we all 
felt that way, all of us who came back in expectation of a vote at 10 
o'clock. We are aggravated when we change our plans and come back and 
the vote is vitiated.
  I want to assure the Senator from Pennsylvania that as the manager on 
this side of the aisle, that decision was not made lightly. But in view 
of the fact that we had a very important amendment of which there was 
an accommodation of the interests of the States involved--such as 
Pennsylvania and others--that appeared to be advantageous in that sense 
and the decision was made that it would be wise to vitiate the vote.
  That may be unfortunate. I hope that, upon reflection, those who did 
come here will find the judgment involving Members on both sides of the 
aisle to vitiate the vote will have been a reasonable one.
  I also point out that we are sitting here waiting for additional 
Members who have amendments pending to come over. I can assure the 
Senator from Pennsylvania at least we have full expectations of having 
a vote before 12 noon so that the inconvenience caused of missing his 
engagement at 12 noon probably will be justified by a vote, hopefully, 
at that time. That all depends upon those who have pending amendments, 
whether they are going to come here or not. There also may be an 
amendment to be offered by the Senator from California, which will be 
an important one, and we may well have a vote on that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had not intended to ask the Senator 
from Vermont, or any of the managers, any questions. But in light of 
his taking the floor and making a statement, I do have a question and a 
preliminary statement. We may or may not vote by noon, but if we did 
not have a 10 o'clock vote, I would not have disappointed several 
hundred people assembled in an auditorium in Philadelphia. I could have 
been here later.
  But when the Senator from Vermont says it was a decision which had to 
be made and, on reflection, the Senator from Vermont hopes that other 
Senators will see that it is a wise decision, may I inquire of my 
colleague from Vermont why the order to vitiate the 10 o'clock vote 
might not have been deferred for a few minutes until this Senator could 
have examined to see if this Senator thought it was in the interest of 
Pennsylvania and the Nation to vitiate it?
  Why could not there have been a slight postponement of that vitiation 
or vitiated for 15 minutes so that I could exercise my judgment on the 
action?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. If the Senator will yield, I apologize and take full 
responsibility for not having done that. I deeply apologize to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, and I can assure the Senator that in the 
future I will keep the Senator in mind.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont. No one 
in this Chamber is more diligent than the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and I appreciate his comment. I understand that 
there are exigencies which arise which you cannot prevent.
  I do not intend to pursue the matter any further but just to note 
what is doubtless already known, that to the extent possible we ought 
to avoid such matters. And if a Senator is on the premises--and I was 
in the basement in the television studio on satellite--it would not 
take long for me to be notified and come up and exercise my discretion 
in looking out for the interests of my State on the vitiation of the 
order.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to speak on chapter 1, a very important part of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Mr. President, I understand that both sides have accepted an 
amendment as modified and presented by Senator Hatch which to a great 
extent does reduce some of the problems experienced by high-growth 
States. But I still feel I would like to make my statement on chapter 
1.
  Let me begin with this chart, which shows you essentially what has 
happened with Federal moneys targeted to poor States and the growth of 
poverty in this Nation since 1980.
  What this chart shows, Mr. President, is the fact that these States 
have had over a 25-percent increase in poor children since 1980. These 
States--Florida and others--these States here have had up to a 24-
percent increase in poverty since 1980. And those States that are in 
white have essentially had a decrease in poverty since 1980.
  That is the problem with chapter 1. Between cost factors, effort 
factors, hold harmless factors, the States that do not experience the 
growth of poor children are held harmless, where the States that do 
experience the growth of poor children do not receive enough money to 
compensate them for that growth.
  In my State, California, where public education has a strong history, 
these moneys are desperately needed. When I visit classrooms in my 
State, let me tell you what I see. Some schools have as many as 4,000 
youngsters in elementary school. They are run in shifts to accommodate 
new arrivals. Overworked teachers work with children who speak anywhere 
up to 80 different languages. Books, paper, chalk, blackboards, these 
are the basic tools essential to a classroom, and yet they are often 
missing.
  Low-income children in California and throughout the Nation often go 
to school without books or paper. They sit in classrooms without chalk 
or blackboards. They learn without the benefit of computers or video 
players. They are taught in groups of 45 by a single teacher who may 
not even have the chance to know all of their names.
  California schools educate more than 5 million students in 
kindergarten through 12th grade. California has 969,762 poor children. 
By far, California is in a tier by itself in terms of poor children. 
The next highest number is Texas, with somewhere over 2 million 
children. So California has about 11.5 percent of the Nation's total. 
Our poverty rate is 18 percent. Now, that is relatively moderate by 
national standards, but with a State as large as ours--and this is the 
rub--this represents a very high number. That is the 970,000 children.
  In looking at us, it is important to note that our population of poor 
children--this at over 25 percent--actually increased 38 percent 
between 1980 and 1990. An addition of almost 250,000 poor children came 
to California without any adjustment of chapter 1 allocation. In fact, 
60 percent of the Nation's increase in children during that time 
occurred in a single State, California.
  In 1993-94, high-poverty schools in Los Angeles, Norwalk-La Mirada, 
and Compton received no chapter 1 funds whatsoever, and many high-
poverty schools throughout the State received far too little.
  So while California is committing over 40 percent of its general fund 
expenditures--that is over $28 billion in 1993-94--to pay its teachers 
and educate over 5 million children, a chapter 1 student in California 
receives only $641 in services--much less than schools in other States 
which receive over $1,000 per student.
  Before the use of the 1990 census, California's per pupil expenditure 
dipped as low as $412 while other States received as much as $1,124. 
This cannot continue.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters of Governor Wilson on this 
subject which states the problem as well be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 Gov. Pete Wilson,


                                               Sacramento, CA,

                                                    July 26, 1994.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: I have learned that Senator Dianne 
     Feinstein plans to offer several amendments to S. 1513, the 
     ``Improving America's Schools Act.'' I urge you to support 
     Senator Feinstein in her efforts to render a Title I formula 
     which is fair to California and other states struggling to 
     educate a rapidly expanding and diverse student population.
       In a colloquy with Senator Feinstein on March 26, 1993, you 
     publicly acknowledged that the Title I formula should address 
     three issues: the frequent updating of census poverty data; 
     the inclusion of a Limited English Proficient (LEP) factor to 
     assist states in educating their multi-cultural student 
     populations; and the retention of the AFDC factor. I have 
     enclosed a copy of a letter I sent you on June 14, 1994, 
     which explains in detail why these three factors are critical 
     to California.
       The Title I formula proposed by the Senate Labor and Human 
     Resources Committee is unfair to California. Not only does it 
     fail to address the three factors at issue in your colloquy, 
     but it imposes an ``effort'' factor which penalizes our state 
     for a lower per pupil spending level than the national 
     average. The effort factor as it is written ignores other 
     measurements of effort such as California's high level of 
     teachers' salaries (7th in the Nation), or that California 
     has maintained a constant per-pupil expenditure despite 
     dramatic increases in the number and diversity of its student 
     population. California is spending more on education, but 
     that increase is not reflected when a per-pupil expenditure 
     proxy is used.
       According to the 1990 Census, California is home to 894,202 
     children in poverty. These children need and deserve their 
     fair share of the educational benefit that the Title I 
     program was designed to provide. For that reason, I urge you 
     to honor the commitment you made to Senator Feinstein last 
     year and to support any amendments the Senator will offer to 
     ensure that Title I funds reach the children that need them.
           Sincerely,
     Pete Wilson.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Gov. Pete Wilson,


                                               Sacramento, CA,

                                                    June 14, 1994.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Committee prepares to mark up S. 
     1513, the Improving America's Schools Act, I wanted to bring 
     to your attention several of California's concerns and 
     interests in this legislation. Specifically, I am referring 
     to the provisions that affect Title I, the Emergency 
     Immigrant Education Assistance Act (EIEA), and the Drug Abuse 
     Resistance Education Act. In addition, I urge the Committee 
     to include language in the bill that would provide mandatory 
     reimbursement to the States for the costs of educating 
     illegal immigrant children in our schools.


                            title I formula

       The proposal to reauthorize Title I which emerged from the 
     Education Subcommittee mark holds several troubling concerns 
     for California, the most disturbing of which is the bottom 
     line loss of Title I funds for a state that has shouldered an 
     enormous and continuing increase in the number of eligible 
     children.
       As you know, California's current count of children in 
     poverty of the 1990 census 894,202--a 38 percent increase in 
     the number of poor children during the previous decade. 
     Further, the State realizes a daily population increase of 
     700 people. Despite this significant growth in Title I 
     eligible students, the proposed Kennedy-Pell formula would 
     penalize these children by cutting California's Fiscal Year 
     1995 (FY95) share of Title I funding by $18.4 million, below 
     the level provided under the current Title I formula.
       That is why I urge the Committee to adopt several 
     amendments to the mark. First and foremost, Title I reform 
     should include language specifying a biennial update of 
     decennial census poverty data. California and other high 
     growth states were penalized in the 1980s from receiving 
     their fair share of Title I funds because the early 1981 data 
     did not reflect the enormous population/poverty growth over 
     the course of the decade. Biennial updates would enable Title 
     I funds to flow where needed as population patterns change, 
     and minimize the dramatic impact caused by decennial changes 
     in the data.
       Second, I am concerned that the proposed formula omits any 
     reference to poor students who are further educationally 
     disadvantaged by their limited English proficiency (LEP). I 
     urge the Committee to add a LEP factor as part of the Title I 
     formula to help the States with high ethnic diversity better 
     meet the educational needs of their LEP student population.
       Third, the AFDC factor in the current Title I formula is 
     vitally important to California. Because our State's welfare 
     system provides payments which exceed the national norm, 
     those who receive California welfare payments move above the 
     national poverty threshold and would be excluded from 
     California's poverty count were it not for the AFDC factor in 
     the present formula. I urge the Committee to retain the AFDC 
     factor in the new formula.
       Lastly, I encourage the Committee to consider a cost factor 
     which better reflects the differences among the States in the 
     cost of education. The current state per pupil expenditure 
     (SPPE) less accurately reflects the differential costs of 
     education than does an index of average instructional 
     salaries. I urge the Committee to consider the use of 
     instructional costs as a replacement for the SPPE factor in 
     the formula.
       Mr. Chairman, you will recall that on March 26, 1993, in a 
     colloquy with Senator Feinstein, you expressed your full 
     support for retaining the AFDC factor in the Title I formula. 
     You further stated your support for adding a factor to 
     address the significant increase in LEP students. You 
     correctly noted that the Title I formula needed to reflect 
     the enormous increases in both the eligible populations and 
     the cost of educating these young people in California. I 
     agree, and urge your assistance to make the reforms in the 
     Title I formula as outlined above.


                          immigrant education

       I urge the Committee to authorize full funding for the 
     Emergency Immigrant Education Act (EIEA), to provide for the 
     current entitlement payment of $500 per eligible immigrant 
     child.
       As you know, many states have experienced significant 
     increases in the number of immigrant students and a 
     corresponding increase in financial responsibility for their 
     education. Federal assistance is a vital asset to those 
     impacted States struggling to meet the educational needs of 
     their highly diverse populations.
       Despite the EIEA's per pupil entitlement payment of $500, 
     the Congress never has allowed for full funding of this 
     program. Nor has the Congress recognized the striking growth 
     in our country's immigrant population since the law's 
     enactment in 1984. The result has been an inadequate level 
     funding of EIEA for the past decade.
       In the case of California, the funding rate per pupil in 
     1984-85 was $90.88, $410 less than the amount authorized by 
     law. The funding rate has since dropped by more than half to 
     $35.10 in 1993-94, reflecting fewer federal dollars serving 
     an eligible immigrant student population which has tripled 
     since 1984.
       There is broad bipartisan support across the country for 
     EIEA, and certainly for an appropriate authorization level 
     which reflects the dramatic increase in the number of 
     immigrant students in our country. Actually, a reimbursement 
     of $500 per eligible immigrant child is a modest level of 
     assistance given the kind of services required to provide 
     quality education to these new residents and represents only 
     a fraction of the actual costs of educating a child in our 
     State.
       Clearly, an open authorization level for EIEA is in the 
     best interest of those whom the law was intended to serve--
     the newest and youngest arrivals into our country.
       Finally, with respect to immigrant education, I urge the 
     Committee to include language that would require the federal 
     government to reimburse the states for the costs of educating 
     undocumented children.
       In January 1995, an estimated 392,000 undocumented 
     immigrants will be attending California public schools. The 
     annual cost of providing educational services to these young 
     people will be $1.7 billion--a price tag simply too excessive 
     to ignore. At a time when California needs to build one 
     classroom each day just to accommodate enrollment growth in 
     its public schools, the State cannot afford to pay the costs 
     of educating a population that is illegally residing in the 
     United States.
       As you well know, current federal programs for immigrant 
     and LEP populations were not intended to fund the education 
     of illegal immigrants. Clearly, the funding levels provided 
     in these programs are minimal amounts for our legal 
     residents, and should not be assumed to be sufficient to 
     supplement the costs of educating undocumented immigrants.
       Education represents a compelling incentive to enter the 
     United States. Therefore, until the federal government 
     reviews how best to address this education magnet, I urge the 
     Committee to provide for mandatory federal reimbursement for 
     the costs of educating undocumented immigrants.


                  drug-free schools and community act

       Finally, I urge the Committee to reinstate to 30 percent 
     the governors' portion of funding under the Safe and Drug 
     Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA), in addition to 
     maintaining support for the Drug abuse Resistance education 
     (DARE) set aside.
       In California, DFSCA funding is administered by the 
     Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs which has developed 
     highly creative programs targeted at high-risk youth who are 
     not being adequately served by the school-based alcohol and 
     drug programs. Under these programs, thousands of youth 
     receive services.
       California also funds a myriad of gang, drug, and violence 
     suppression programs with DFSCA funds. These programs are 
     especially important at a time when youth violence has 
     escalated.
       Finally, as a supporter of my amendment in 1990 to create 
     the DARE set-aside, I urge your continued support for its 
     retainment in the final mark. While DARE is successfully 
     providing drug resistance and education services in virtually 
     every State in the nation, many communities still require 
     assistance in bringing DARE to their classrooms.
       As you well know, DARE uses law enforcement to deliver its 
     curriculum, forging important community alliances to prevent 
     crime. It should continue as a top priority under DFSCA.
       Every five years, Congress undertakes the difficult task of 
     reauthorizing the ESEA. The challenge of reauthorization is 
     to ensure that scarce federal funds go where needed and to 
     support programs and services that work. Title I, EIEA, and 
     DARE are examples of programs that have made a positive 
     difference for California's children, and I urge the 
     Committee's continued support for them as it marks up S. 
     1513.
       Thank you for your attention to these issues of importance 
     to California.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Pete Wilson.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As part of the reauthorization of the chapter I 
program, sweeping changes have been proposed, many of them suggested by 
national assessments and expert analysis: more school-wide programs, 
where all children are taught together as part of a specialized 
program, enhanced teacher training opportunities, and better targeting 
of resources among the States.
  Sadly, however, the funding program that has been proposed in the 
Senate by the committee for distribution of Federal dollars to States 
does not reflect these sweeping changes or the recommendations that 
have been brought forth for other parts of the chapter 1 program. In 
fact, the committee formula preserves the status quo. California and 
other large, high-growth States are in desperate need of funds but they 
will receive less than they deserve. And that is true even under the 
Hatch modified formula. California and Texas remain specially 
disadvantaged.
  Let me ask you to look at this from a per-child perspective. 
California under the committee's formula with 969,762 poor children 
receives $783 per child. Texas, with 803,300 poor children receives 
just $729 per child. Under the current compromise formula, California 
would receive $756 million. Now, that is a difference. However, it is 
still $7 million less than the current formula.
  The amendment I was going to propose would have done two things: It 
would have removed the so-called effort factor, and it would have 
reinstated the AFDC factor into the count for poor children for each 
State.
  This would not have been a dramatic or extreme revision of the 
formula. However, deleting the so-called ``effort factor,'' which is a 
new element concocted by the committee, and reinstating the eligibility 
of AFDC would be an important part.
  The amendment would reinstate roughly 44,000 children whose family 
incomes are above the poverty line but who still receive AFDC into each 
State's count of poor children. In States with especially high costs of 
living, California, New York, and Washington, AFDC eligibility is a 
valid indication of poverty, and this amendment would have proposed 
that they remain part of the funding formula.
  One of the problems with the way chapter 1 is handled through the 
effort factor is the gap between the high-cost States and the average 
increases, and the gap between the low-cost States and the average 
increases. So the gap is constantly widening. Idaho, the lowest State, 
receives about $560 less than a poor child in Alaska, the highest 
State, that receives $1,199.51. That gap is made larger by a committee 
formula. That means that schools have dramatically different amounts of 
resources available to address the needs of poor children. With the 
effort factor, seven States received less than $700 per child while 
nine receive more than $900. So those States gain. Some of them, for 
example North Carolina, Georgia, and Oklahoma would receive far less 
than current formula, whereas others, Wyoming, Rhode Island, and New 
York would receive far more. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 
Record those specifics.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 THE GAP                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Current    Committee
                 Selected States                      law       formula 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina..................................        $699        $686
Georgia.........................................         704         691
Oklahoma........................................         706         699
National average................................         814         814
Wyoming.........................................       1,031       1,139
Rhode Island....................................       1,046       1,064
New York........................................       1,050      1,082 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CRS Data, based on a $6.862 billion appropriation.              

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, at the same time, Connecticut, with 
just 53,190 poor children, will receive $1,025 per child. 
Massachusetts, with 120,570 poor children, will receive $1,024 per 
child. Rhode Island, with 20,539 poor children, will receive $1,064 per 
child.
  Therefore, my purpose here today is to make clear the inadequacies of 
the proposed formula for many States, including California, and to 
propose an amendment that--in addition to providing increased 
allocations for 35 States over the committee level or current law--will 
improve the equity and efficiency of the chapter 1 program.


                      Description of the Amendment

  This amendment is very simple, and would do two things: remove the 
so-called effort factor, and reinstate AFDC children into the count of 
poor children in each State.
  This amendment is not a dramatic or extreme revision of the formula 
that has been proposed. In fact, there are no other changes to the 
committee formula than the two I am about to describe: deleting the so-
called effort factor, which is a new element concocted by the 
committee, and reinstating the eligibility of AFDC children, who are 
currently part of the chapter 1 program.


                first change: removing the effort factor

  First of all, this amendment deletes a new provision in the committee 
formula that is known as the effort factor. While others have advocated 
adjusting or redefining this element, I am simply taking it out.
  As proposed by the committee, the chapter 1 formula determines State 
allocations by the following process. First, the formula takes the 
State's count of poor children and multiplies it first by a cost 
factor, which is a measure of State and education spending per pupil; 
then by an effort factor, which is a second measure of State per-pupil 
expenditure in relation to State per capita income; and finally by an 
equity factor, which is a measure that attempts to show how equalized 
local school spending is throughout the State.
  By now, this process may seem familiar:
  The number of poor children multiplied by the cost factor multiplied 
by the effort factor multiplied by the equity factor equals the State 
allocation.
  The effect of this process is to reward States that meet the narrow 
formula definition of high spending and punish States--and the children 
who live in them--who do not meet this definition.


                second chance: reinstating afdc children

  This amendment also reinstates the roughly 44,000 children whose 
family incomes are above the poverty line but still receive aid to 
families with dependent children into each State's count of poor 
children. In States with especially high costs of living--notably 
California, New York, and Washington--AFDC eligibility is a valid 
indication of poverty, and this amendment simply proposes that they 
should remain part of the funding formula.
  Although the committee formula does not include them in its proposal, 
these children are included in the current formula, and their inclusion 
has been publicly supported by the chairman of the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee in the past; for example, in your colloquy with him 
last year.


                    rationale behind this amendment

  Distributing chapter 1 funds to States on the basis of State per-
pupil expenditure levels effectively punishes disadvantaged children 
who live in 27 States that--due to population growth, large influxes of 
poor children, and higher costs of providing education--have not been 
able to maintain a high per-pupil expenditure level.
  When the effort factor--which is a new element in the chapter 1 
formula that has not been thoroughly analyzed or investigated--is 
included, the effects of a single measure of State contributions to 
education are overly magnified.
  However, that is not the only reason I am proposing this approach. 
Let me explain the rationale behind this amendment.
  Chapter 1 should take into account the fact that poor children move, 
and that dollars should be shifted according to need.
  Unfortunately, that is not the case today. Instead, the formula keeps 
Federal education funds in States with decreasing percentages of poor 
children. As a result, the shift of funds to schools in high-growth 
States is delayed. That, to me, is the fatal flaw in both the current 
formula and the Pell-Kennedy proposal.


                   (1) the effort factor is redundant

  First of all, the effort factors is redundant. By using State per 
pupil expenditure to adjust State allocations, the effort factor 
repeats the function of other elements in the chapter 1 formula. As you 
know, the cost factor is set at 40 percent of a State's average per 
pupil expenditure. That is, a State receives 40 percent of its average 
per pupil expenditure for each chapter 1 student, within certain 
constraints.
  While there may be reason to use State per pupil expenditure once, 
there is no reasonable justification for using it twice. The only real 
difference between the effort cost factor is that the new effort factor 
includes State per capita income as part of its calculation, in an 
attempt to capture States' ability to contribute to education spending.
  However, the use of this measure is questionable, and has been 
criticized by the GAO report and several experts. More importantly, 
both factors use State per pupil expenditures as a central element in 
raising or lowering State allocations, and in terms of effects, the two 
factors by and large affect each State the same way. California's 
allocation, for example, is lowered first by its cost factor--.89--and 
then again by its effort factor--.95.


       (2) the effort factor increases difference between states

  Second, the effort factor actually increases the differences in how 
poor children are treated in different States. As I have said before, a 
poor child is a poor child, and with the effort factor the chapter 1 
formula treats poor children very differently--widening the gap in how 
much States receive per poor child.
  Poor children should be treated the same under Federal law, and 
committee members have often spoken of the need to encourage equity in 
local school finances.
  However, under the committee formula the gap is widened, with Idaho, 
the lowest State, receiving $560 less per poor child than Alaska, the 
highest, receiving $1,199.51.
  The gap that is made larger by the committee formula means that 
schools have dramatically different amounts of resources available to 
address the need of poor children. With the effort factor, 7 States 
receive less than $700 per child--while 19 receive more than $900.


       increasing differences in per-child chapter 1 allocations


       (3) the effort factor uses a poor measure of state effort

  Third, per-capita State spending on education is a poor excuse of 
State effort and should not be used to adjust State allocations. If a 
State has a decreasing population of children, and childhood poverty is 
declining, then of course that State may have more to spend on each 
child. But high-growth States with increasing poverty numbers should 
receive more chapter 1 funds, not less.


          (4) the effort factor is unnecessary to the formula

  Finally, the effort factor is an unnecessary add-on. Contrary to what 
you may have heard, the effort factor will not encourage States to 
spend more on education, nor will the absence of this factor encourage 
States to spend less. Because the other cost factors remain, States are 
more than adequately rewarded for maintaining high spending levels.


                the beneficial effects of this amendment

  Under amendment, the allocations of 35 States surpass the committee 
formula or current law: 27 States are raised above their committee 
level, and 8 additional States will still receive more than they would 
under current law.


      there are 27 states that benefit over the committee formula

  While this amendment does not address all of the flaws in the 
committee formula--there are many other criticisms that have been 
levelled at it--it does do some good for a majority of States.
  First of all, this amendment increases the allocation of 27 States 
above the committee formula. For the record, let me list these States 
and their increases:
  Alabama--$4 million.
  Arizona--$3.4 million.
  Arkansas--$2.6 million.
  California--$43.9 million.
  Colorado--$2.3 million.
  Georgia--$4.5 million.
  Hawaii--$2.4 million.
  Idaho--$100,000.
  Illinois--$7.4 million.
  Iowa--$100,000.
  Kansas--$2.3 million.
  Kentucky--$300,000.
  Louisiana--$400,000
  Mississippi--$4.5 million.
  Missouri--$3.8 million.
  Nebraska--$500,000.
  Nevada--$600,000.
  New Hampshire--$500,000.
  New Mexico--$2.1 million.
  North Carolina--$4.3 million.
  Oklahoma--$2.8 million.
  South Carolina--$200,000.
  South Dakota--$600,000.
  Tennessee--$4.1 million.
  Texas--$19.9 million.
  Utah--$1.2 million.
  Washington--$5.2 million.
  This does not include Puerto Rico, which also benefits.


there are eight states that do better than they would under current law

  Second, this amendment does not lower the remaining States' 
allocations below current law. In fact, it provides for eight 
additional States that do better with the effort factor removed than 
they would under current law.
  Delaware would receive a $2 million increase over current law.
  Florida would receive a $6.8 million increase over current law.
  New Jersey would receive a $1.4 million increase over current law.
  North Dakota would receive the identical amount.
  Vermont would receive a $1 million increase.
  West Virginia would receive a $600,000 increase.
  Wisconsin would receive a $200,000 increase over current law.
  Wyoming would receive a $500,000 increase over current law.


                prechild allocations are made more equal

  Perhaps most importantly, this amendment also treats poor children 
more equitably than the unmodified committee formula, by lessening the 
gap between low and high spending States. In fact, poor States receive 
more per child under this amendment, while wealthy States receive 
slightly less.
  Overall, the gap from the highest to lowest per-pupil allocation is 
only $543, down from $560. While that still leaves a large gap, at 
least it is not larger than under current law. This amendment also 
brings up the lowest States. Instead of seven States, only two States 
receive less than $700 under this amendment.

        DECREASING DIFFERENCES IN PER-CHILD CHAPTER 1 ALLOCATIONS       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Committee   Feinstein
                 Selected States                    formula    amendment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina..................................        $686        $714
Georgia.........................................         691         709
Oklahoma........................................         699         728
National average................................         814         814
Wyoming.........................................       1,139       1,073
Rhode Island....................................       1,064       1,002
New York........................................       1,082       1,018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CRS Data, based on a $6.862 billion appropriation.              

                      committee states are helped

  Last but not least, several Committee States also benefit from this 
amendment:
  Kansas gains $1.3 million, over the committee formula.
  New Mexico gains $1.1 million.
  Illinois gains $7.4 million.
  Iowa gains $100,000.
  New Hampshire gains $500,000.


                               conclusion

  The basic effectiveness of the chapter 1 program is at stake, and no 
amount of improvements to the educational programs funded by chapter 1 
will provide effective without giving high-poverty schools the 
resources to accomplish them.
  That is why I am urging my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
amendment, which will make the chapter 1 formula more equitable and 
effective.
  Mr. President, I recognize that the modified formula as presented by 
and accepted by the committee is most likely to be accepted. I myself, 
representing California, with some remaining unhappiness, will vote for 
it.
  Unless there is substantial evidence from States to the contrary, I 
would not at this time introduce my amendment which would remove the 
effort factor, and retain the AFDC factor. However, I am hopeful that 
in conference a great deal more discussion will be given to the impact 
and the way in which chapter I funds are dispensed throughout our 
Nation. A poor child is a poor child. States spend what they can.
  In my State, 40 percent of a $55 billion budget goes for elementary 
and secondary education--40 percent. So the cost factor is there.
  In a State as disparate and large as California, pockets of poverty 
can be as large as one-half of other States, and yet they do not count 
for much in the way the formula is presently figured. I think that the 
Senate's methodology of assessing chapter I or distributing chapter I 
dollars for poor children is really out of date.
  It is my very strong belief, too, that the poverty data involved in 
chapter I ought to be updated at least every 2 years as part of this. 
So that money follows children.
  I recognize that this is difficult to do in this body because the 
interests that control the formula militate toward maintaining the 
status quo as much as possible. And that is the dilemma. The modified 
Hatch formula is somewhat of a breakthrough.
  The only way, frankly, I believe to solve the problem eventually is 
to say we have x dollars for x child, and those dollars will go to 
States based on need and numbers, and not some convoluted formula which 
is filled with redundancy, and really just continues this enormous gap 
that exists with one State's children getting $1,100, and another 
State's children getting $600.
  So the upshot of my comments is that, whereas the Hatch formula is a 
step forward in the right direction, I am still hopeful that the 
California delegation and others in the conference committee in the 
House will be able to effect additional modifications which can benefit 
the high growth States because they are still shorted by this formula.
  I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________