[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 104 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Kassebaum amendment, No. 2438, be laid aside and Senator Pressler be 
recognized to offer an amendment regarding language proficiency for 
bilingual teachers; that there be a 10-minute limitation on his 
amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of his time, the Senate 
vote on, or in relation to, the Kassebaum amendment, No. 2438; that 
upon the disposition of that amendment, the Senate vote on, or in 
relation to, the Craig amendment, No. 2437; that upon the disposition 
of that amendment, the Senate vote on Senator Pressler's language-
proficiency amendment; that no amendments be in order to any of these 
three amendments; that the preceding occur without any intervening 
action or debate, and that the first vote be the usual 15 minutes, and 
that the two following votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that it be in order that the 
Senator from Wyoming, should he choose, be allotted 5 minutes before 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2439

 (Purpose: To require that certain applicants for financial assistance 
    for bilingual education employ personnel proficient in English)

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2439.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 913, line 13, strike ``and''.
       On page 913, line 18, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 913, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
       ``(C) provide an assurance that the applicant will employ 
     teachers in the proposed program that, individually or in 
     combination, are proficient in English, including written, as 
     well as oral, communication skills.''.

  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I had the amendment read in full so 
the Senate would have a chance to know what it is.
  I rise today to offer a very simple, commonsense amendment to S. 
1513. My amendment would merely require bilingual education programs, 
under title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
to employ teachers who are proficient in English, including both 
written and oral communications skills. In other words, this amendment 
requires bilingual teachers to prove they can speak and write English 
well before they can teach English to children whose native language is 
not English. The amendment also provides for situations where two or 
more individuals teach the courses together. My amendment requires 
that, between them, they must be proficient in spoken and written 
English.
  Some of my colleagues may be surprised to learn that currently there 
is no requirement that bilingual teachers be fluent in English. I was 
certainly surprised. Bilingual education suggests by its very name that 
it is conducted in both English and another language. It seems obvious 
that a bilingual teacher should have to demonstrate proficiency in both 
languages. However, that is not the case.
  Many school districts claim difficulty in finding proficient 
teachers. We now have a situation where school districts across the 
country are recruiting bilingual education teachers, recruited from 
foreign countries, can barely speak or write English. For example, 
Spanish-speaking teachers are being recruited from Mexico, Puerto Rico, 
Spain, and elsewhere. They may speak their native language beautifully, 
but their students will never truly learn English well, and never be 
able to fully integrate into our society, unless their teacher 
comprehends the nuances of American English.
  Let me add, Madam President, that I think on our Indian reservations 
in South Dakota the key mobility and opportunity in our society is 
learning to speak English and to write English well. That may sound a 
bit arrogant, but as a practical matter, the ladder to success in 
America has been proficiency in English. Years ago, I cosponsored an 
amendment with Sam Hayakawa, then a Senator from California, to 
recognize English as the national language.
  This amendment does not do that, but it does require that bilingual 
teachers have a capability in English to qualify under this program.
  This past April, the Texas Education Agency conducted a review of the 
Houston Independent School District's Bilingual Education Program. The 
agency found that some bilingual teachers had a ``very limited use of 
English.'' In fact, 90 bilingual teachers were found in the city's 
program that spoke little or no English. Some of these so-called 
bilingual teachers had been given their required basic skills test in 
Spanish, rather than in English. These teachers could not speak English 
themselves. How could Houston expect these teachers to teach anyone 
else to speak and write English?
  In other words, a bilingual teacher should be truly bilingual. In 
many parts of the United States, that is not the case, and the 
taxpayers are being misled.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record at this point an op-ed piece by Linda Chavez. It appeared in the 
USA Today on June 15, 1994. The title says it all: ``Bilingual 
Education Gobbles Kids, Taxes--Forget About Multiyear Programs--The 
Best Way to Teach English in School is to teach school in English.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, June 15, 1994]

    Bilingual Education Gobbles Kids, Taxes--Forget About Multiyear 
Programs--The Best Way To Teach English in School Is To Teach School in 
                                English

                           (By Linda Chavez)

       Bethesda, MD.--If you think bilingual education is a 
     temporary program to help immigrant youngsters learn English, 
     think again. Hispanic students, in particular, are likely to 
     be placed in classrooms where their native tongue, Spanish, 
     is the medium of instruction--and they can end up staying 
     there for years.
       Bilingual education began in 1968 as a small, $7.5 million 
     federal program to help Mexican-American students, half of 
     whom could not speak English well when they entered first 
     grade. The idea was to teach these children reading, writing 
     and math in Spanish for a short period while they learned 
     English.
       Like so many well-intentioned government programs, however, 
     bilingual education has become an unruly behemoth costing 
     local, state and federal governments billions each year. New 
     York City alone spends $300 million annually on its 126,000-
     student program. Currently, 2.3 million children are eligible 
     for bilingual programs nationally, the great majority of whom 
     are Hispanic.
       And not all of these children are immigrants--or non-
     English-speaking, for that matter. In one New York City 
     school district, half the Hispanic children in bilingual 
     classes are American-born. And many--if not most--speak 
     English better than they do Spanish. They end up there 
     because New York automatically places in bilingual programs 
     all Hispanic children who score below the 40th percentile on 
     a standardized English test.
       But standardized tests are designed so that 40% of all 
     students who take them will score at or below the 40th 
     percentile--even if all of them speak only English.
       Bilingual education advocates argue that teaching immigrant 
     children in their native language first is the surest way for 
     them to learn English. In fact, there is virtually no 
     scientifically valid research that this is true.
       One much-touted 1991 study for the U.S. Department of 
     Education shows that students in so-called late-exit 
     programs, which last six years, fall well behind other 
     students in the first three years. It's impossible to tell 
     from the data whether this group ever actually catches up 
     during the remaining years in the program.
       Yet more school systems are moving to Spanish programs for 
     Hispanic youngsters. In Burbank, Calif., this spring a group 
     of Hispanic parents protested when they found out their 
     children's elementary school program had been converted to a 
     Spanish-only program earlier in the year--without their 
     consent. According to the school's bilingual education 
     director, ``What we're doing is being done all over the 
     state.''
       In May, Denver school officials ordered one local high 
     school to stop teaching 450 Hispanic students in English and 
     suggested the school transfer 51 Asian students so it could 
     concentrate on Spanish bilingual programs.
       School systems that insist on Spanish instruction are 
     having difficulty finding qualified teachers. School 
     districts from Los Angeles to Chicago have begun recruiting 
     teachers from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Spain and elsewhere to 
     meet the demand for native Spanish-speakers, with little 
     concern for whether such teachers can speak English.
       In April, authorities in Houston launched an investigation 
     when they learned that 90 teachers in the city's 
     ``bilingual'' program speak little or no English. Many also 
     lack college degrees and some of the foreign-born teachers 
     may have been smuggled into the country illegally.
       Despite such problems, Congress appears ready to encourage 
     even more school districts to adopt Spanish-language programs 
     for Hispanic youngsters. The House has already passed its 
     version of a bilingual-education reauthorization bill, and 
     the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee takes up its 
     own bill this week. Both favor new provisions to encourage 
     native-language instruction and to allow children to stay in 
     the program indefinitely, even if their primary language is 
     English.
       The chief lobbyist for bilingual education recently boasted 
     that this reauthorization represents ``the biggest shift in 
     federal bilingual education since 1968.''
       He's right. But it also represents a radical departure from 
     the goal of teaching English to immigrant children.
       (Linda Chavez is author of ``Out of the Barrio: Toward a 
     New Politics of Hispanic Assimilation'' and the forthcoming 
     ``A Nation Divided: Multiculturalism and the Politics of 
     Race.'')
                                  ____



                         learning two languages

       States with the most bilingual students in 1992:

California......................................................986,462
Texas...........................................................313,243
New York........................................................168,208
Florida..........................................................83,937
Illinois.........................................................79,291
New Mexico.......................................................73,505
Arizona..........................................................65,727
New Jersey.......................................................47,560
Massachusetts....................................................42,606
Michigan.........................................................37,112

Source: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, this article cites several important 
statistics I shall not go into at this time. However, I urge my 
colleagues to take the time to read the article.
  The scandal in Houston was made a national issue by Education Week on 
April 6 of this year. Today, we have an opportunity to rectify this 
ridiculous situation.
  Madam President, some may argue that my amendment destroys bilingual 
education. They may argue that there are not enough teachers who speak 
both good Spanish and good English out there for bilingual programs to 
hire. Well, if that is the case, then we should call this program 
something other than bilingual education. Linguistic separatism 
perhaps. The American people are tired of being sold something and than 
unwrapping it and finding the opposite of what they thought they had 
bought. Maybe this should be called the truth-in-labeling amendment. 
Bilingual teachers should be truly bilingual.
  If there are not enough English-proficient bilingual teachers to go 
around then we should give the States and localities more flexibility 
to implement alternative English education programs. But retaining 
bilingual education teachers who are not truly bilingual does not serve 
the purposes of title VII and it does not serve the children this 
program is intended to help.
  The real losers in these situations are the limited-English 
proficient students. I do not think I need to argue that learning 
English at an early age--as early as possible--is a good thing for 
children living in the United States. Experts agree that the best time 
to learn a language is during childhood. Children attending school in 
the United States have a right to learn our national language, English. 
The U.S. Supreme Court essentially said so in Lau verses Nichols. The 
Court did not say that children with limited English skills must be 
taught bilingually--that is, in their own language--but the effect of 
Lau is that a school district must do something to assist these 
children learn English. We are denying innocent children their right to 
learn English when we allow them to be taught in their native language 
by someone who is not proficient in English.

  These children are being prevented from learning the same English 
that is taught to every other child in an American public school 
system. And not just children in the United States--Japanese, German, 
and French children are routinely taught English. Parents all over the 
world want their children to learn English because they know of the 
limitless opportunities their children will have if they can speak and 
write English fluently. Increasingly, English is the language of 
international business. Only in the United States are some kids not 
learning English because their teachers don't know it very well.
  If my amendment is adopted, Madam President, that loophole will be 
closed. I would note that my amendment does not attempt to define what 
constitutes proficiency in English. I leave that determination to the 
local school districts applying for grants under title VII or the 
Secretary of Education. I do not wish to impose a new burden on our 
hard pressed States and localities. But under my amendment, grant 
applicants must provide an assurance that their bilingual teachers can 
read and write English proficiently.
  States and localities could use the same English proficiency tests 
they currently use to test high school seniors except a higher passing 
score could be required. If a State does not administer a standardized 
English achievement test to their high school seniors, it could use any 
other State's test. The Secretary of Education, or his or her designee, 
could issue guidelines or promulgate regulations for applicants.
  My goal is not to create a new unfunded mandate. But a meaningful 
assurance of English proficiency must be made. The passage of title VII 
has evidenced the intent of Congress that bilingual education, first 
and foremost, should result in a thorough understanding of the English 
language.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded to the Senator has expired.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I have asked for a rollcall vote on 
this amendment so it will stand a much better chance of surviving the 
conference committee. It is important to send a strong signal to the 
conferees that this requirement has the full backing and support of the 
entire Senate.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts very much and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, very briefly, I thank the Senator from 
South Dakota for his cooperation with us in developing the language of 
the amendment.
  We have a situation I know in my own State with the number of 
Cambodians. We have the second largest population of Cambodians In the 
world outside of Phnom Penh, and they settled initially in different 
places in the country and came to Lowell, MA, many did. They have three 
temples there. They are doing extraordinarily well. The community has 
expanded the school base.
  It is one of the very extraordinary stories of acceptability in a 
difficult economic situation. They have significant numbers of Khmers, 
for example, children, and they had no help and assistance getting 
books in the language. They went down to the United Nations. We get the 
State Department all over the world to try to get both books and also 
develop skills for communication and working in this area.
  They have done an absolutely remarkable job. For example, in my 
State, they are all moving toward proficiency both in the spoken, the 
verbal, as well as in the written.
  We have also seen significant increases in Armenians. The language 
problems are not quite as much in my State. But as a result of all the 
tragedies there, there is under the State the requirement to move for 
verbal as well as written skills, and they are moving in that 
direction.
  The Senator's amendment recognizes at least some degree of 
flexibility and ensures those children are going to be exposed if not 
from that particular teacher, but then in that educational experience, 
from proficiency in both oral and written works, we will work with him 
and continue on it.
  I agree with the objective of giving at least some degree of 
flexibility, which has been helpful in dealing with some of the real-
life situations we are seeing in a number of different schools.
  I thank the Senator. I urge our Members to vote in favor of this 
amendment. I think it is an important one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, this is an increasing problem in the 
United States, which the Senator from Massachusetts just pointed out. 
It is just amazing how many different languages we have. I know in the 
last census, I cannot remember the exact number, but I know in my 
little State of Vermont there are over 50 foreign languages that are 
spoken predominantly in the home. They are from all over the world.
  Yet, even though we get very little, if any, money under the 
bilingual program, it is important to point out the absolute necessity 
that we provide teachers that are proficient in English to help those 
students along, rather than trying to hobble along as we have to do in 
many cases in this area.
  So I commend my friend from South Dakota and will do what I can 
certainly to try and hold his amendment in the conference, and it makes 
eminent sense.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to ask for the yeas and nays on the Pressler amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to ask for the yeas and nays on the Kassebaum amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I believe we have asked for the yeas and nays on the 
Craig amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. For the benefit of the membership, will the Chair 
indicate the order for the votes that we are having at the present 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield back the remainder of 
the time on the amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I do.


                       vote on amendment No. 2438

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the Kassebaum amendment No. 2438. On this question, the 
yeas and nays have been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 247 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boren
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2438) was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 2437

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2437, offered by the Senator from Idaho. This will be a 
10-minute vote.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 248 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Bennett
     Bond
     Boren
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Roth
     Sasser
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2437) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 2439

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota. On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2439) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 2436, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
return to amendment No. 2436 by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, let me read the amendment which I 
understand has been submitted as modified by the able Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  I feel a little faint as I read this because I agree with this 
wholeheartedly. It says:

       None of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
     Act may be used to make condoms available in the public 
     schools.

  I ask the Chair if she will inquire of the clerk if that is the way 
the amendment reads.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is how the amendment reads as modified.
  Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I feel a little bit like Redd Foxx on 
television. When something would excite him, years ago he would say, 
``Elizabeth, this is the big one.''
  The millennium is here, Madam President.
  I ask the Senator from Massachusetts to make me a cosponsor of his 
amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senator from North Carolina be added as a cosponsor.
  Mr. HELMS. And that this amendment hereafter be known as the Kennedy-
Helms amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would say this is sort of an Olympic 
moment right here, and I think we ought at least for 10 seconds to 
savor it. It may or may not ever happen again.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This, too, shall pass.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2436), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. 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.


                     Amendment No. 2433, as Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                 vote on amendment no. 2433, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from New Hampshire. On this question, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

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

                                NAYS--9

     Boxer
     Chafee
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Jeffords
     Metzenbaum
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Wellstone
  So the amendment (No. 2433), as amended, was agreed to.


            Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Extension of Recess

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
majority leader be recognized to speak at 2:15 p.m. and that the period 
for the recess be extended until that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as far as I know, and I believe as far 
as my friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords knows, we do not know of 
any other amendment dealing with the education provisions of this 
legislation.
  Generally, we try to at least indicate to the body what the other 
matters would be that we would address. I understand we are not 
prepared, nor is the leadership prepared, or others, to make a consent 
request as to the follow-on order of the discussion and debate. 
Hopefully, we will be able to do it soon.
  I, again, thank all of the Members for their cordiality.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that no other 
floor amendments be in order for S. 1513, other than amendments the two 
managers have cleared and Senator Gramm's crime amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank all the Members for their 
courtesy and for their cooperation. The Senate will address those 
particular matters, and then we will move toward a final vote on the 
elementary and secondary education legislation.
  I would like to just speak very briefly at that time and acknowledge 
the contributions that Members have made both in our committee and also 
on the floor and the work of the staffs.
  I thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont, Senator 
Jeffords, and Senator Pell who has been here hour in and hour out as 
chairman of our Education Committee, Senator Kassebaum and others for 
their attention to the work of the Senate on this issue, as with so 
many other issues.
  Madam President, I ask that the Senate stand in recess according to 
the previous order.

                          ____________________