[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Pell] is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. PELL. I thank my colleague and friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I rise to express my strong and enthusiastic support 
for the conference report on H.R. 6, the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. There are several landmark 
provisions in this legislation, provisions that make it very important 
that we approve this conference report in the remaining days of this 
session.
  The title I program, which provides education assistance to 
educationally deprived children in areas of poverty, is the backbone of 
this bill. We have refined that program, better targeted it to children 
most in need, and linked it to the achievement of challenging academic 
and student performance standards. This is an achievement of 
considerable import and significance. In my own home State of Rhode 
Island, it will mean the provision of $20.7 million in needed funds, 
and in the coming years will provide an important increase in funding 
for cities such as Providence and Central Falls where the child poverty 
count exceeds 30 percent.
  We have expanded the Eisenhower Professional Development program to 
include not only mathematics and science but also other disciplines, 
such as English, history, civics, economics, and geography. As the 
author of the original emergency math and science legislation in the 
mid-1980's, I believe the expansion of this program is most important. 
I have long contended that the teacher is the linchpin to a quality 
education, and the provision of professional development for teachers, 
administrations, and other school personnel on a ongoing basis is 
critical to making sure that American education is second to none. Well 
over a $1 million of these funds will to to Rhode Island, and that, 
without question, will have a dramatic and positive impact on the 
upgrading of the skills and knowledge of our teachers.
  The Technology for Education title in this legislation is truly 
historic. It will help ensure that instruction is state of the art, and 
that students, teachers, and schools will have access to the very 
latest advancements in technology.
  The Safe and Drug Free Schools title will enable us to provide 
continued support to insure that our children will be free of the 
scourge of drugs. It is augmented by strong provisions to insure that 
the school is a safe haven for learning, that weapons will not be 
tolerated in the classroom and that those who bring them will be dealt 
with sternly.
  We have reworked the details of the Impact Aid Program, a program 
which is extremely important to school districts in which there is a 
heavy Federal presence. In Rhode Island, this will mean almost $2 
million in aid for Middletown, aid which is necessary for the viable 
operation of that school district. There are similar communities in 
State after State, and the reauthorization of the Impact Aid Program 
will mean that the doors of schools in those communities remain open.
  The Dropout Prevention Assistance Program, which I authored and was 
first enacted in 1988, will be continued but no longer as a 
demonstration program. This is good news, indeed, for the many 
innovative and effective programs that have been started as a result of 
this program. In Rhode Island, Providence has, as a result of this 
legislation, implemented a dropout program that has brought the dropout 
rate down. In maintaining this federal initiative, our hope is the 
existing programs will not only continue but also will spread to other 
communities where efforts to solve the exceptionally serious problem of 
school dropouts is vitally needed.
  We also establish or continue a series of small, but particularly 
important education programs. While small, these innovative education 
programs are often considerable in their impact on American education. 
They include continuation of efforts in areas such as Reading is 
Fundamental, the We the People Program, the Gifted and Talented 
Program, the Close Up Program, and the Fund for the Improvement of 
Education. They also cover new initiatives in areas such as extended 
time for learning and a longer school year, arts in education, and 
cultural partnerships for at-risk children and youth.
  Mr. President, as I said at the outset, this is a landmark piece of 
legislation. We all know the Federal contribution to education is 
small, only six cents out of every dollar spent on education in 
America. That small amount, however, can make a huge difference in 
aiding the education of children in high poverty areas, in improving 
professional development, in making our schools safe places in which to 
learn, and in spurring educational reform and innovation. We should not 
let these efforts lapse, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in 
approving this conference report.
  Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished 
chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee.
  The Educating Children for Parenting Program is being used in many 
school districts around the county to help parents and children to 
learn parenting skills. My understanding is that the managers of the 
Improving America's Schools Act intended to include language on this 
innovative program in the Statement of Managers.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. The managers commend the 
Educating Children for Parenting Program and urge local education 
agencies to consider incorporating this model as part of their 
comprehensive drug and violence prevention activities, as authorized 
under title IV of this act.
  Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.


                              assessments

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, one of the most important elements of the 
new title I program is the set of high-quality assessments that each 
State will use to measure the progress of children served relative to 
the State's standards, and I would like to make a clarification 
regarding this issue. In section 1111(b)(7), we provide that the 
transitional set of yearly assessments should include at least 
mathematics, and reading or language arts, and be administered at least 
once in grades 3 through 5, grades 6 through 9, and grades 10 through 
12. This will ensure that the transitional assessments, as well as the 
permanent assessments, will measure whether students served by the 
title I program are held to the same high academic standards as all 
students.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island 
yields. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats].
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Coats] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I think it is safe to say that a strong 
majority of Members of the United States Senate support the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act and its purposes. It is a critical program 
for our Nation's children.
  Title I, which was formerly Chapter 1 of the act, is especially 
important because it provides financial assistance for the education of 
educationally disadvantaged children. At $6.7 billion a year targeted 
for fiscal year 1995, title I is our Nation's largest Federal 
elementary and secondary education program. Because this amount of 
money is allocated, it is particularly important to Senators who 
represent their States to see that the money is fairly and equitably 
distributed.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today substantially varies from 
what the Senate produced and what the Senate voted on, in terms of how 
those funds are distributed.
  The new formula, which was not even available to conferees when we 
voted on final passage of the conference report but was subsequently 
configured--and now we have the figures--the new formula disadvantages 
33 States; 33 of our States will receive less funding under title I for 
needed programs for disadvantaged students than what they currently 
receive or would receive under current law. I have listed these 33 
States and I have provided Senators with a listing of those States.
  You can just look down the line: Pennsylvania--nearly $16 million 
less in funding from fiscal years 1996 to 1999 than under current law; 
North Carolina, Wisconsin--$11 million less; Virginia, Minnesota--$10.4 
million less than in current year, and down we go. New Jersey, $9 
million less; Georgia, $9 million less; Oregon, $8 million less; 
Missouri.
  The rationale is that this formula was devised so as to target 
needier students. It is interesting that many of the States that will 
receive less under the new formula are Southern States, States that 
have children that certainly would fall in disadvantaged and low-income 
categories. The new formula very suspiciously looks as if it were 
crafted to satisfy members of the House conference committee. It does 
not reflect what the Senate passed.
  It does not reflect the work of Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords 
and Senator Kassebaum, who in my opinion represented the Senate in 
devising a fair distribution formula. But it does represent the work of 
a conference which was not even presented to conferees before the vote. 
It represents the work of, perhaps, staff that configured the formula 
after the conference report was voted on.
  So I urge Senators, No. 1, to look at their States. I urge those 33 
Senators from those 33 States--66 Senators--to compare what they 
receive under this so-called new reformed ESEA bill versus what they 
would receive under current law.
  There has been some talk on the floor, and the Department of 
Education has suggested, and others, if we do not reauthorize this bill 
in the waning hours of this Congress, these funds will be lost. Nothing 
could be further from the truth. Section 414 of the General Education 
Provisions Act provides for the automatic extension--the automatic 
extension--of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's 
authorization for an additional 2 fiscal years. We have already passed 
the appropriations for this. So Senators need to know the programs will 
continue and 33 States will receive more if we defeat this cloture vote 
than they would receive if this bill is passed.
  There are several other reasons to oppose this particular bill. It is 
far from the reform bill that has been alleged. We all know the 
problems we are having in education. I think we all realize that 
maintenance of the status quo in education is certainly the last thing 
we want to do.
  Senators have come to this floor and presented innovative, 
experimental, voluntary ideas that school districts ought to be given 
an opportunity to experiment with if they do so on a voluntary basis, 
approved by the Secretary of Education. Those provisions have been 
adopted by the Senate, and in many cases the House, by very substantial 
majorities. Yet the conference committee summarily dismissed the work 
of the Senate, the work of the House.
  Senator Helms has spoken at length about the school prayer amendment. 
Senator Gorton will be speaking very shortly about the provision 
regarding violence in schools; that is a bipartisan provision that he 
and Senator Lieberman sponsored and which received overwhelming support 
in the Senate--summarily dismissed in the conference. Senator Danforth 
has a provision that passed here by a substantial margin--summarily 
dismissed in the conference.
  Beyond that, it is bad legislation. As former Secretary of Education, 
Secretary Bill Bennett and former Secretary of Education, Secretary 
Lamar Alexander have said in the last few days, this is an 
unprecedented Federal takeover of local and State education. I quote 
from Secretary Bennett:

       H.R. 6, the ESCA, is the kind of pernicious legislation 
     which, if enacted, will make American education worse, not 
     better. H.R. 6 is hostile to the best reform ideas in 
     education. It is over-regulatory and intrusive. It imposes 
     new Federal controls on States and localities. It is a 
     Washington knows best contribution to the worst decline in 
     the history of American education.

  I urge my colleagues to study what happens to their States under this 
formula, to look at this bill and understand that if funding is 
provided under current law they will do better. I encourage them to 
look at the thousands of new pages of Federal regulation and takeovers. 
I encourage them to look at what the conference committee has done in 
summarily dismissing the work the Senate has done in votes here on this 
floor.
  Mr. President, if I have any remaining time I yield it back, and 
reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  I take strong issue with my friend and colleague from Indiana. He has 
construed the formula in a particular way. Under the legislation that 
is before us we have the chapter 1 formula and we also have the equity 
and effort formula. He has taken a $400 million appropriations increase 
and skewed it in one particular way. If you take the $400 million and 
if you assume that we put it under the equity and effort provisions, 
you have 34 States that come out ahead. So his charts are completely 
misleading. They represent only one possible outcome. If you divide the 
appropriations increase as has been intended by some members of the 
conference, if you have half by equity and effort and half by the 
chapter 1 formula, then you have 29 States that come out ahead. So the 
effort to persuade the Members of the Senate on that particular issue 
fails.
  Second, there is no question that the $100 million for school 
construction, the $80 million for safe and drug-free schools, the $40 
million for educational technology, the $157 million for school 
improvement, the $400 million, which are not authorized in the existing 
legislation--all of that money would be lost. All of that money would 
be lost if this action is not taken.
  Finally, I have respect for the legal ability of my friend from 
Indiana, but we do have a letter from the Department of Education, 
which I will put in the Record. It indicates that, in the second 
paragraph, ``It is our view that the provisions of the legislation 
which apply to elementary and secondary education, including the Title 
I Program, appropriate funds contingent upon the enactment of the 
reauthorization, and that the funds would not be available for 
expenditure in the absence of an active reauthorization.''
  The Senator can say the funds will be available. We have the 
Secretary of Education saying they will not be. At the very least we 
are going to have ambiguity. At least we are going to have court cases. 
At least we will be sending messages to school boards all across the 
country that it is not clear which way this is going to come out.
  If you want confusion, if you want ambiguity, if you want uncertainty 
for school districts across the country, if you want the loss of those 
additional funds which I have mentioned here, then just play Russian 
roulette with the needs of the children in this country.
  This formula may not be perfect, but what we have done is try to 
bring some small amount of targeting on the children with the greatest 
needs.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, before I yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Washington, let me just yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
chairman.
  The numbers which we presented in the chart which I have here are 
derived from the Congressional Research Service. The CRS has provided 
us these numbers, and that is based on the directions that the 
conference committee gave to CRS to run the numbers. They have been 
revised several times. This is the latest revision.
  So the Senator from Indiana is not skewing the numbers or sitting in 
his back office manipulating these to make it look good. These are CRS 
sources and numbers and the latest that we could find.
  Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, each year on a number of occasions, school 
directors from districts throughout the State of Washington come to my 
office to speak to me about bills relating to education, as do 
representatives of principals and administrators and teachers and 
parents. And each year, each visit, one of the important points that 
they make is: Trust us to know what is best for the students in our own 
districts.
  They say this very politely, but the message is that they believe 
that they know more about the education of the students in their own 
districts and have a greater concern for that education than do we as 
Members of the U.S. Senate or than does any Federal bureaucrat in the 
U.S. Department of Education.
  With that proposition, Mr. President, I fully, totally and completely 
agree. We should not be detailing with page after page after page of 
Federal regulations the way in which our students are to be taught and 
instructed and disciplined.
  This Senate, twice during the course of this year, has voted to move 
in the direction of more local control and influence over our schools 
in an area of particular interest to me; that of school discipline. 
Twice we have voted to restore to local school district officials, 
whether directors or administrators or teachers, powers over the 
discipline of criminal, unruly and violent students. And twice 
conference committees have totally and utterly rejected those ideas and 
have, if anything, increased the degree of control the Federal 
Government and the Federal courts impose on local school districts on 
one of the most fundamental of all policies: order in our schools, 
order without which teaching cannot take place, no matter how brilliant 
the teachers, no matter how fine the equipment that a school district 
has.
  This happened in classic fashion in connection with this bill. An 
almost day-long debate, ending in a 60 to 40 vote in favor of restoring 
to local school districts power over students who come armed to school 
or who engage in life-threatening behavior, was watered down, perhaps 
watered down to the point in which the situation is perhaps worse for 
school districts than it was before this bill started.
  Mr. President, it is for that reason primarily that I intend to vote 
against cloture and to vote against this bill. This bill, in this area 
and a wide range of other areas, increases the Federal involvement in 
the day-to-day operations of our schools. It says that we do not trust 
the people who are teaching in or administering or running those 
schools.
  I am convinced that my experience with my school directors and 
administrators and teachers is no different than that of any other 
Member of this body. How is it that we constantly ignore people who 
give their entire lives and careers to our students by saying ourselves 
that we know better how students should be disciplined and under what 
circumstances they should be disciplined, how they should be taught, 
the details in the way in which they should be taught, is beyond my 
understanding.
  My State is one which loses under this formula some $5 million from 
title I. But, Mr. President, in spite of that loss, I would vote for 
this bill if I thought that this bill helped our educational system, 
gave more authority to our teachers, our administrators, our school 
board directors. But it does not, not in this connection, not in 
connection with the dropped Danforth amendment, not in connection with 
all the regulations that will result from the committee report and the 
long and detailed text of this bill.
  Mr. President, we can do better. If we start over again at the 
beginning of next year, I am convinced that we will do better. The 
money will be there; the controls will not be. We will be able to start 
to unwind this list of Federal regulations and place authority for our 
schools where it belongs: in our people, in our administrators, in our 
school board members, in our teachers, in those who are most concerned 
with the schools in each community in the United States. We should 
reject this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields to the Senator?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts will yield 
5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
version of H.R. 6, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. The Senate approved this version of this legislation, as 
has been stated, by a vote of 94 to 6, and the bill before us is very 
similar, in many ways, to the Senate measure and does retain a 
substantial number of its positive features.
  We just heard some comments from those who are disappointed that the 
features that they particularly supported and/or the formula that was 
passed in the Senate was not retained. As has been stated, this is not 
a perfect bill, but when one goes to conference, fight as hard as one 
might to keep the Senate version intact, it is not always possible.
  I would just like to list a number of positive features that were 
retained from the Senate measure. It provides greater flexibility for 
schools to combine Federal elementary and secondary education program 
funds in order to provide education services in a more coordinated and 
comprehensive way. It reduces paperwork for schools and teachers by 
providing for combined applications for Federal aid under multiple 
education programs.
  It targets chapter 1 funding to the poorest schools more effectively 
than current law and allows States to use more accurate data to 
identify high poverty school districts. Kansas, Mr. President, loses 
some money under this formula. However, the whole purpose of Federal 
moneys to education under chapter 1, which was initiated in 1965, was 
to target Federal assistance to the poorest districts and schools. It 
is not easy figuring out a formula, and some States are going to win 
and some will lose. We argued over it a long time in conference, and 
actually many of us came to the conclusion that it might be best to 
wait until next Congress. However, I am convinced that the formula 
before us is probably the best formula that we can put together.
  Another positive feature about this bill is that it encourages needed 
transition activities between preschool and elementary school to help 
assure that gains made in programs such as Head Start are not lost in 
the early elementary years. I think that is a very important provision, 
Mr. President.
  It puts in place a system that will help guard against a lower set of 
expectations being applied to disadvantaged students. It promotes a 
strong belief of mine that children will rise to our level of 
expectations, and we need to demand more of all of them. It continues 
the current chapter 2 block grant program which allows school boards 
and teachers to decide what their most pressing educational needs are 
and provides Federal help to address those needs.
  In addition, Mr. President, the measure retains important provisions 
included in the Senate bill to assure that the Federal Government will 
assist, not dominate, education. I do not think this is a takeover of 
education by the Federal Government. As a former member of a school 
board, nothing is more important to me than local control in 
educational matters, and I think we always need to protect that here in 
Congress.
  This bill includes provisions that prohibit the imposition of 
unfunded mandates under this act and that prohibit the Secretary of 
Education from dictating the standards or assessments that a State may 
use.
  It also specifically prohibits the Secretary of Education from tying 
receipt of funds under this act to a State's participation in the Goals 
2000 Program. That was something that many of us believed was very 
important.
  I am also pleased that the conference bill does not mandate either 
the development or the implementation of opportunity-to-learn 
standards.
  This bill, once enacted, will allow us to continue to offer valuable 
assistance to States, local schools, and teachers. The largest program 
included in ESEA is the chapter 1 program which provides supplemental 
services to educationally disadvantaged children.
  Concern has been expressed at some length about the formula for the 
title 1 program. As I have said, it is not easy to figure out a formula 
that is going to work best for every State. The conference formula is 
more targeted, I would suggest, than current law, in an effort to 
target scarce Federal dollars to States and schools. This is as it 
should be, where we want to target funds to the greatest amount of 
poverty. In fact, the formula passed by the Senate was even more 
targeted than the conference formula.
  In many respects the compromise formula represents only a slight 
change from current law. The current formula will remain in place for 
the first year of the reauthorization period and all States and 
districts are guaranteed not to lose a penny of funding during the 
second year. Only in the third year does the new formula take effect, 
and it applies only to any ``new'' funds appropriated in that and 
succeeding years. However, even in these later years, the legislation 
prevents any State or district from losing more than 85 percent of its 
funds from the previous year.
  Other criticisms of various kinds have been made about this bill, and 
I would just like to comment to a greater extent on a few of them.
  I recognize that many are disappointed that the school prayer 
language from the House bill is not included in the final bill. I 
should just note, Mr. President, that the House receded in conference 
to the Senate language. The House then voted to recommit the bill to 
include the original House prayer language, and that motion to recommit 
failed on the House floor after the conference. I was prepared at that 
point, if the motion to recommit had been successful, to move that we 
recede to the House language. But the House did not move to recommit 
the bill to conference.
  I should just like to suggest both the House bill and Senate bill 
protect rights of students to engage in constitutionally protected 
prayer. Where the two amendments differ is determining who will 
interpret the Constitution and in establishing how the provisions will 
be implemented.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I wonder if the Senator from Massachusetts will yield 
2 additional minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. I yield 2 minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. My greatest concern about the House prayer language 
is that it would have put school administrators in the position of 
having to determine what is or is not constitutionally protected 
prayer. It is for that reason that I drafted the language included in 
this bill which makes it clear that such a decision is the 
responsibility of the courts.
  In addition, the language in the House amendment was very vague in 
terms of identifying the point at which Federal education funds would 
be withdrawn. Enactment of this amendment would have resulted in 
depriving children of Chapter 1 help in cases where an arbitrary 
judgment is made by unspecified parties that school officials have 
prevented legal prayer. The Senate amendment clearly defines when funds 
will be withdrawn and that is the point where the school is found to be 
in willful violation of a court order.
  Finally, I would suggest there is a great deal of misinformation 
about several aspects of this legislation. Let me emphasize that it 
does not federalize education. For the most part, it reauthorizes 
existing Federal programs and does not affect the regular education 
provided to most students supported with State and local funds. This 
bill does not affect home schooling. It does not mandate national 
standards or outcomes-based education. Decisions about curriculum and 
instructional methods are properly left with State and local school 
boards.
  This bill taken as a whole moves us in a positive direction in terms 
of improving many federally funded elementary and secondary education 
programs.
  Mr. President, this is not a perfect bill. It is too wordy, in my 
mind, with all of these pages and there is a lot of underbrush in here. 
However, I believe that the basic aspects of it are important and we 
should move forward and approve this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, could I inquire how much time is remaining 
on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 12\1/2\ minutes, 
the Senator from Massachusetts, 7 minutes.
  Mr. COATS. I yield to the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, it has become more and more frequent in the past 2 or 
3 years that the distinguished Senator from Kansas and I have had to 
agree to disagree agreeably. She has just said this bill does not 
federalize education. But it does further federalize education. 
Education began to be federalized when we bought this crazy concept of 
providing Federal aid to education--that is because every time the 
Federal Government aids something, the Federal Government moves in and 
takes control of it.
  Yesterday, two distinguished former Secretaries of Education called 
on this Senate to defeat this bill. Let me quote Bill Bennett, the 
Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan. He said: ``It is big 
Government''--he was referring to this bill--``throwing money at 
problems. It gives parents no leverage and it constrains State and 
local decisionmaking. It is filled with all the trendy notions of 
gender equity and it wants in 8 years for the Federal education 
appropriation to be $160 billion.''
  Lamar Alexander and Secretary Bennett are quoted as saying they also 
want to know why so few Republican lawmakers are willing to oppose the 
legislation. Maybe it is because Senators fear that it may have some 
political consequences.
  Well, I have news for them. Any Republican Senator who voted for this 
bill, or who fails to vote for cloture, better look out for the people 
back home because they are wise to what is going on. The people back 
home--and I am one of them--often contemplate the increasingly obvious 
fact that America is in the midst of an historic struggle between those 
who on the one hand yearn for the restoration of the heritage 
envisioned by our Founding Fathers and those, on the other hand, who 
contend that anything goes, no matter how destructive or how debased, 
particularly when the Federal Government finances it. Nobody mentions 
the fact that the Federal Government has no money except that which it 
forcibly extracts from the pockets of the American taxpayers back home 
in our States.
  But, what is really taking place in this Nation today, Mr. President, 
is a struggle for the soul of America. How it is finally resolved will 
determine whether America will move forward, or end up on the ash heap 
of history as so many nations have done before us.
  The American people, I guarantee you, are more aware than ever before 
as to what is at stake. They are sick and tired of crime, and 
pornography, and mediocre schools, and politicians who cater to every 
fringe group that comes down the pike.
  Now, Readers Digest not too long ago, a year and so ago, published an 
article entitled ``Let Us Pray,'' in which the magazine reported the 
results of a Wirthlin poll. That poll found that 80 percent of the 
American people resent the Supreme Court's ruling 2 years ago that it 
is unconstitutional for prayers to be offered at high school 
graduations.
  I was encouraged back on February 3 when the Senate voted 75-22 to 
approve an amendment offered by Senator Lott of Mississippi--and this 
Senator--to the Goals 2000 bill to prevent public schools from 
prohibiting constitutionally protected, voluntary, student-initiated 
school prayer.
  Now, 75 to 22, that was the vote in the Senate. The House then voted 
overwhelmingly on February 23 to support the amendment by passing, 367 
to 55, a motion to instruct the House conferees on the Goals 2000 bill 
to accept the Helms-Lott amendment.
  But on Friday, March 17--despite those two overwhelming votes in both 
Houses--Senator Kennedy and other liberal Democrats in the conference 
between the House and the Senate dropped the Helms-Lott school prayer 
amendment and instead adopted do-nothing language written by 
Representative Pat Williams.
  I was dismayed that this amendment was dropped in the closing 60 
seconds of the conference. There was no debate, no discussion, no vote; 
just a wink and a nod and a slap on the back between the Senator from 
Massachusetts and his counterpart on the House side, who by 
prearrangement dropped the amendment and replaced it with do-nothing 
language--the very same do-nothing language the House subsequently 
rejected 179 to 239 the following Monday, March 21 as part of the H.R. 
6 education reauthorization bill.
  As I said to the majority leader the other night, when I first came 
to the Senate, conferees did not routinely use the legislative 
conference between the House and the Senate as an excuse to give one 
Senator or one House Member--or a combination of the two--the right to 
override overwhelming majorities of the Senate and the House.
  We used to have something called ``scope of conference.'' If an 
amendment or an issue did not fall within the scope between the House 
version and the Senate version of legislation, then it could not be 
added or substituted in conference. But that is no longer the case. It 
is a wink and a nod and the conferees put in, take out, and rewrite 
whatever they please. And the school prayer amendment has been 
victimized not once, but twice that way this year.
  So I will just conclude by saying that this vote today, in addition 
to being about all of the faults of expanding Federal control over 
education in this country, is also about the prayer amendment--the 
school prayer amendment--which is a paramount issue in the minds of 
about 80 percent of the American people. The voters will know who 
really supports school prayer from this vote--friends of school prayer 
will vote against cloture.
  I thank the Senator for yielding to me. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS. May I inquire of the remaining time on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 6 minutes and the 
Senator from Massachusetts has 7 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from California 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the chairman 
of the committee for giving me this opportunity to speak on this 
important bill, because what could be more important than our children? 
I say that as a mother and I say that as one of the Senators from the 
largest State in the Union, that has more children than any other 
State. We need this bill. What is at stake in this bill is very 
important.
  I am stunned to see the slowdown on this bill. I would think for all 
our disagreements we could come together and work together for the 
children of this country. I am proud to see some of my Republican 
friends who support this bill. I hope we can all come together as 
Democrats and Republicans and move this important bill forward.
  The Senator from North Carolina said that ``Federal aid to education 
is a crazy concept.'' I repeat: The Senator from North Carolina said 
``Federal aid to education is a crazy concept.'' That is an extreme 
view. As a matter of fact, I say to my colleagues that Federal aid to 
education is sound and it works. And, I want to tell you, the President 
who really brought it to the fore was a Republican President, Dwight D. 
Eisenhower. I remember those days in the fifties, when he said our 
national security depends upon whether or not our kids are educated. He 
put forward the National Defense Education Act. That was Dwight David 
Eisenhower. So to call Federal aid to schools a crazy concept is saying 
a former Republican President had a crazy idea. And I do not buy that.
  So I think it is important that we put the rhetoric behind us and 
move forward with this bill. What is at stake? Title I for poor 
children, teacher training in math and science, dropout prevention, 
computers in the classroom, and safe schools. That is what this bill is 
all about.
  Our national security, as far as I am concerned, does depend on 
whether our children are educated.
  I want to talk about prayer in the schools. I do not think Government 
has to tell us when to pray, where to pray, what to pray, and how to 
pray.
  Mr. President, I am a product of public schools. I prayed all through 
school. When I was not prepared, I prayed the teacher would not call on 
me. When I took a test, I prayed I would do OK because my father would 
have been mad if I did not. I did not need the Federal Government 
telling me how to pray, when to pray, or what to pray. I find it 
interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are 
always saying big Government should get out of our lives want us to be 
the ones to tell our kids how to pray, what to pray, and when to pray.
  I believe in prayer. I belong to a house of worship in my home 
county. I am proud. I support education of children so that they learn 
about religion. But, there is a difference between that and prayer in 
public schools. Let me talk about the prayer amendment that is in this 
bill because I think it is a good amendment written by Senator 
Kassebaum, my Republican colleague from Kansas, and voted on by this 
body 93 to 7.
  I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for fighting for the Senate 
position in conference. He did not go in there and blow up the Senate 
position. He fought for the Senate position and he won the Senate 
position, which the Senator from North Carolina also voted for.
  I have to say, the Senator from North Carolina, who objects to this, 
lost his chance. His amendment, as I understand it, was defeated. 
Senator Kassebaum's amendment prevailed. It says ``Schools which are in 
violation of the court order regarding the students' right to prayer 
will lose funds under the act.'' That is tough language, the strongest 
prayer language we have ever had. To tell you the truth, I voted for it 
because I thought it was the best. I think it is very strong.
  Again, I want to commend my colleague, the chairman of the committee, 
who did not fight for my position, his position, or anything else. He 
fought for the Senate position, and the Senate position prevailed.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a second?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is it possible to get 1 minute additional?
  Mr. KENNEDY. May we ask for 2 additional minutes evenly divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding that there are two cloture votes scheduled back to back 
that were set for 10:45. I was informed by the leadership that our time 
was up to 10:45, and that the minority leader was attempting to ask 
unanimous consent to speak on leader time to present a unanimous 
consent request.
  I am reluctant to agree to this request. I believe there is still 
some time left.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think there is 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute at 
this point.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I believe I had 7 minutes; I yielded 5 minutes to the 
Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is running.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield what time remains to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I strongly support the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 6, a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. We will soon see whether the Members of the U.S. Senate 
will support the millions of children helped by this bill, or whether 
we are more interested in scoring political points against one another 
at their expense.
  Before us is the single largest education program within the Federal 
Government. Yet I predict in this debate we will hear very little about 
education.
  And you have seen that from the debate. For instance, we are hearing 
a great deal about the school prayer issue but it is not an issue. The 
school prayer provisions included in this bill passed the Senate 93 to 
7. The conference report retains the school prayer provisions of S. 
1513. As my colleagues know, the Helms amendment was defeated on the 
floor. Yet, we are spending a great deal of time on it when it is not 
an issue.
  They say that partisanship ends at the water's edge. I say it must 
end at the school house door as well, because too many of our school 
house doors today are guarded by metal detectors. And from too many 
school house doors emerge children whose education is not worthy of the 
name.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana controls the 
remaining time.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I yield myself the remainder of the time that I have left.
  Mr. President, we will be shortly moving to a cloture vote on this 
bill. Let me just repeat some points that have been made and try to 
make some additional points for Senators to consider before we move to 
this vote.
  ESEA has been supported by a majority of Senators in the past because 
it does provide needed funds to State and local communities to help 
with the educational process for needy students. It is not true that if 
this cloture vote is defeated, these funds will expire. The program 
will continue, as I have indicated, because of provisions that are 
already in the law, because the appropriations have been appropriated 
for this program.
  So Senators need not be concerned with the possibility that funds 
will be lost if somehow this bill is defeated.
  The formula has been changed. It was changed in conference--actually, 
it was changed after the conference and voted on the bill. The formula 
was finalized, and the latest run, which we have here, showing that 33 
States will do far worse under the new formula than under current law 
is what was presented to us by CRS just yesterday. That is the latest 
run.
  It is not so much the distribution of funds that concerns me as much 
as how the decision was made. A fair, equitable, and a targeted 
procedure was very carefully crafted by the chairman from Massachusetts 
and by the ranking member from Kansas, and by members of the Education 
Committee in the Senate, and was presented to the Senate and supported. 
It was that formula that was not accepted by the House. Some have 
charged that the House formula was designed to ``buy off'' House votes. 
I do not know if that is true or not.
  The bottom line is that the House rejected the Senate formula, and 
the consequence of that is that 33 States lose an awful lot of funds. 
It is hard for me to conceive that the State of Ohio wants to lose 
$22.5 million; or the State of Pennsylvania, $15 million; and 
Wisconsin, $11 million; and Virginia $10.5 million; Minnesota $10.5 
million; Iowa, $9.5 million, because they think the money ought to be 
better targeted somewhere else. You can argue perhaps it ought to go to 
Southern States, States where we have a disproportionate number of low-
income and needy students. But Alabama loses $6.7 million. South 
Carolina loses $5.7 million. West Virginia loses $5.2 million. So it is 
hard to make the argument that this money is better targeted somewhere 
else.
  Even if you do not buy the funding formula argument, I think you 
ought to understand that these thousand pages of new law under this 
reauthorization does not bring about the reform in the education 
process that many of us are seeking.
  If you like the way the Federal Government runs education today, I 
think you should vote for cloture. But if you are not happy with the 
education system and the Federal Government's involvement in terms of 
how it regulates decisions made by State and local officials on 
education, then I think you ought to vote ``no,'' against cloture, 
because this denies some of the very reforms that the Senate wanted to 
do on a voluntary, experimental basis, summarily dismissed by the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COATS. I would like to, but I have a Senator seeking time. I have 
very little time left in order to do that. If I have time at the end, I 
will be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. President, in summary, if you think Washington knows best, you 
ought to vote for cloture. If you think we ought to grant States and 
local jurisdictions more flexibility in terms of making education 
decisions, you ought to vote against cloture. If you vote against 
cloture, current law remains in place. If current law remains in place, 
33 of our States are going to do better and, frankly, we will send a 
message to the conferees that this game of denying what the House does, 
the majority of the House, denying what the Senate does, and simply 
doing what the conferees want to do in a conference in the last few 
days of the Senate will not be accepted, and that it ought not to 
override the will of the majority in either body. If you think that is 
the way we ought to do business, then I think you should vote for 
cloture.
  Why do we not send a message and say we think it is more important 
what a majority of Senators and House Members agree on and vote on--
sometimes two and three times, and we even instruct the conferees on 
what to do. The House had a motion to instruct on the prayer amendment 
that was overwhelmingly bipartisan; 360-some votes were cast in favor 
of the language of the Senator from North Carolina. Yet, the members of 
the conference simply said forget that.
  I urge Senators to vote against cloture.
  Mr. INOUYE. I rise to commend the distinguished chairs and ranking 
minority members of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and its 
Subcommittee on Education and Humanities for their leadership in 
writing the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, and for ensuring 
that provisions important to Native Americans were incorporated in the 
conference report. As I extend my appreciation to Senators Kennedy, 
Kassebaum, Pell, and Jeffords, I would like also to express my 
gratitude to Senators Bingaman, Simon, and Wellstone, for the special 
contributions they made to the Native American provisions.
  I rise, too, to ask the distinguished chairman of the committee to 
clarify two provisions of special importance to schools that are funded 
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. These provisions will ensure, for the 
first time, that virtually all of the 185 schools funded by the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs will become eligible for all programs for which 
public school districts are eligible, whether such programs are 
administered under the Department of Education or elsewhere, and which 
provide eligibility for local educational agencies. Am I correct in 
this reading of the two provisions?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs is 
correct, and I thank him for his kind comments on the work of our 
subcommittee and committee.
  The conference report would end the disadvantage Bureau of Indian 
Affairs funded elementary and secondary schools have suffered regarding 
eligibility for Federal grants and services for which local education 
agencies [LEA's] are eligible. Under current law, Bureau schools are 
not covered by the definition of LEA, so, except for a few programs in 
which they have been specifically included, these schools could not 
benefit from the wide range of Federal grants and services available to 
public schools through the eligibility of their LEA's.
  Since this issue is addressed in two provisions of the bill, let me 
explain it more fully. The first provision defines virtually all Bureau 
funded schools as LEA's, except in those cases where a specific statute 
already makes provision for their eligibility, as in Chapter 1 and Even 
Start. This exception ensures that there is no double benefit for 
Bureau schools. The bill also protects tribal sovereignty by providing 
that the Bureau shall be the State educational agency for its schools, 
rather than the State in which the schools are located.
  Let me note that the definition of Bureau schools as LEA's in this 
provision does not include those schools which are smaller than the 
smallest LEA which receives assistance under the act. But, as I will 
point out in a moment, there is an opportunity for these schools also 
to benefit from provisions of the Improving America's Schools Act 
intended to benefit local school districts. The exclusion of the 
Smallest schools from the definition, which would omit only a small 
number of Bureau funded schools, was the result of concern from some 
conferees that very small schools would have difficulty in preparing 
competitive applications.
  The opportunity for the smallest Bureau funded schools to participate 
in programs and receive services is contained in a separate provision 
that authorizes such schools to form consortia with other schools, 
tribal, or community organizations and be treated as LEA's for purposes 
of the act. This provision would also allow all Bureau funded schools 
to form consortia for the purposes of applying for grants or services 
under the act, if they so elect.
  In summary, I agree with the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee 
about the importance of including Bureau funded schools in that 
definition of local education agencies. Many Federal statutes will cite 
the definition of LEA's incorporated in the Improving America's Schools 
Act. Inclusion of Bureau funded schools in that definition will ensure 
that such schools and their students will no longer be left out of 
Federal programs.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for the clarification, and I again 
congratulate him and his colleagues for their accomplishment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is now 
taking up this far-reaching education legislation--the reauthorization 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It was approved last 
Friday in the House by a vote of 262 to 132--a margin of 2 to 1--and it 
deserves a similar majority in the Senate.
  This legislation is the result of weeks of bipartisan negotiation and 
cooperation, and it has the strong support of Senator Kassebaum, 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Durenberger, and Senator Gregg on the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
  This bill is a major reform in Federal aid to help improve elementary 
and secondary education throughout the Nation. It is the most important 
reauthorization of ESEA since that landmark act was first passed in 
1965.
  It is a very significant step forward, because it puts the Federal 
Government squarely behind the reform efforts that are taking place in 
States and school districts throughout the country. The truly 
innovative feature of this legislation is that it encourages these 
local reforms without dictating them from Washington.
  Much of the opposition we are going to hear this morning is an 
attempt to suggest that we should have done more on school prayer. But 
I believe a solid majority of Senators will agree that this bill 
contains strong provisions on school prayer. No Federal funds under 
this bill will go to any school district that fails to safeguard a 
student's right to constitutionally protected prayer as defined by a 
court. That compromise does not go as far as Senator Helms would like, 
but it is a reasonable solution that strikes the right balance on this 
sensitive and important issue.
  Make no mistake. Those who vote against ending this filibuster are 
voting against education. They are voting against an increase in 
Federal aid to hard-pressed local schools. They are voting against 
teachers and students. They are voting against major reforms and 
improvements in the most important Federal assistance for schools in 
every city, town, and village in America.
  First, this bill creates a new Title I Program based on high 
standards for all students. Over 90 percent of the school districts in 
the country have been receiving these funds for years. But their use 
has been focused on bring some low-income children only up to the 
standard of other low-income children not in the program. This 
misguided emphasis has had the unintended effect of creating thousands 
of separate, watered-down programs that have been found ineffective. We 
set our sights too low.
  The core of this bill will scrap that dead-end low-standard approach 
and establish high academic standards for all students. It will hold 
disadvantaged students to the same standards that all other students 
are held. Why should we target disadvantaged children for special aid, 
and then educate them to a lower standard than other children? The 
American dream is open to all. Education is the key that opens the 
golden door, and this legislation can help millions of children use 
that key the way it should be used.
  Second, and related to the first, this bill offers unprecedented new 
flexibility in the use of Federal funds to achieve this goal. It makes 
it far easier for schools to serve disadvantaged students in regular 
classes, rather than in separate, pull-out classes. For too long, for 
example, too many students have missed out on regular reading classes, 
because they have been pulled out for low-level drills.
  Half the teachers in these classes have not been teachers at all, but 
uncertified teacher's aides. This reform will enable schools to end 
this practice and use Federal funds for all students.
  In addition, there are also important new waiver provisions as well, 
which will enable schools to request exemptions from particular 
requirements of programs if they can show in their plans how the needs 
of the students can be met in other ways.
  Third, this bill offers an unprecedented new investment in the 
Nation's teachers. All of title II in the bill is dedicated to 
professional teacher development. It makes no sense to provide Federal 
aid for education, and then neglect the single most important part of 
any education program--the teachers. This bill offers generous new 
support for the Nation's teachers, and will help them learn new 
strategies that will enable their students to reach higher academic 
achievement.
  Fourth, the bill encourages the use of modern technology in the 
schools. Technology is transforming all sectors of our economy, from 
health care to manufacturing to retailing. Yet most public school 
classrooms lack even a telephone, let alone a computer. If students are 
to acquire the skills they will need to function effectively in 
tomorrow's workplace, we must give them the opportunity to work with 
today's technology in their schools. Title III of the new ESEA is a new 
education technology program that will help the poorest schools pay for 
new computers and electronic network links, and encourage the 
development of new educational software and programming.
  Fifth, the bill offers new Federal support for violence prevention. 
It makes substantial improvements in the Safe and Drug Free Schools 
Program. Violence prevention becomes a key element of all programs. The 
new provisions also set measurable goals, such as a decrease in drug 
use, violent behavior, and illegal gang activity.
  Sixth, the bill improves current bilingual education programs. The 
new provisions focus on English-language skills and on how all the 
students meet high standards--rather than how many years they stay in 
the program.
  It also creates several worthwhile new programs important to many of 
us in Congress, such as charter schools, character education, and 
incentives to lengthen the school day and school year.
  Seventh, the bill makes substantial grants available for school 
construction. For the first time, the Federal Government is finally 
recognizing the third-world conditions in which thousands of children 
go to school every day. For the first time, real Federal help is on the 
way.
  Finally, and by no means least, this bill contains a better formula 
for targeting Federal funds to schools most in need.
  For the first time in the ESEA's 30-year history, significant changes 
are made in the formula to do a better job of carrying out the historic 
purpose of the landmark 1965 act, to target Federal aid to schools and 
pupils who need help the most.
  The formula is phased in so that the changes will take place 
gradually and enable school systems to adjust to the changes. For the 
next 2 years, virtually every school district in the country is 
guaranteed at least as much funding as it currently receives. In later 
years, funds are increased for districts in a formula that has the 
greatest increases for districts with the highest numbers and 
concentrations of poor students.
  In my view, this formula is our best effort to act responsibly in the 
highest interest of our Federal system. Some States will gain, and 
other States will not do as well a they hoped. It is true that many 
States will not do a well as if the current formula is retained.
  But the current formula is badly flawed, and it would be 
irresponsible to continue it. The new formula is a fair compromise that 
makes better use of scarce Federal dollars by better targeting funds to 
States with the greatest need, while mitigating the dislocation to 
States that have benefited for so long from the old, failed, and flawed 
formula. No States will lose unduly, and the Nation will gain 
immensely.
  For all of these reasons, I urge the Senate to end this senseless 
filibuster and approve this legislation. It is a bill that all of us, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, can be proud of, and proud to take 
home to our constituents as one of the genuine bipartisan achievements 
of this Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with provisions 
     of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate hereby move 
     to bring to a close debate on the conference report to 
     accompany H.R. 6, the elementary and secondary education 
     bill:
         George J. Mitchell, Daniel K. Akaka, Max Baucus, Harris 
           Wofford, Carl Levin, Claiborne Pell, J. James Exon, 
           Barbara Boxer, Jay Rockefeller, Daniel K. Inouye, Byron 
           L. Dorgan, Howell Heflin, Harry Reid, Joseph I. 
           Lieberman, Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Russell D. 
           Feingold.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been 
waived. The question is: Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
the conference report accompanying H.R. 6, the elementary and secondary 
education amendments bill, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and 
nays are required.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 75, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 320 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Specter
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--24

     Bond
     Brown
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Helms
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Stevens
       
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 75, the nays are 
24. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could we have order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senate has spoken decisively and I 
hope now that we could move to early conclusion and the passage of this 
vitally needed education program that has demonstrated bipartisan 
support.

                          ____________________