[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8945-S8952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 1061, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1061) making appropriations for the Departments
of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and
related agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 1998,
and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Gregg amendment No. 1070, to prohibit the use of funds for
national testing in reading and mathematics, with certain
exceptions.
Coats-Gregg amendment No. 1071 (to Amendment No. 1070), to
prohibit the development, planning, implementation, or
administration of any national testing program in reading or
mathematics unless the program is specifically authorized by
Federal statute.
Nickles-Jeffords amendment No. 1081, to limit the use of
taxpayer funds for any future International Brotherhood of
Teamsters leadership election.
Craig-Jeffords amendment No. 1083 (to Amendment No. 1081),
in the nature of a substitute.
Durbin-Collins amendment No. 1078, to repeal the tobacco
industry settlement credit contained in the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997.
Durbin amendment No. 1085, to provide for the conduct of a
study concerning efforts to improve organ and tissue
procurement at hospitals, and require a report to Congress on
the study.
Durbin (for Levin) amendment No. 1086, to express the sense
of the Senate that hospitals that have significant donor
potential shall take reasonable steps to assure a skilled and
sensitive request for organ donation to eligible families.
Mack-Graham amendment No. 1090, to increase the
appropriations for the Mary McLeod Bethune Memorial Fine Arts
Center.
McCain-Gramm amendment No. 1091, to eliminate Medicare
incentive payments under plans for voluntary reduction in the
number of residents.
McCain-Kerry amendment No. 1092, to ensure that payments to
certain persons captured and interned by North Vietnam are
not considered income or resources in determining eligibility
for, or the amount of benefits under, a program or State plan
under title XVI or XIX of the Social Security Act.
Craig-Bingaman amendment No. 1093, to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 to adjust the maximum hour exemption
for agricultural employees.
Landrieu amendment No. 1095, to increase funds to promote
adoption opportunities.
Coverdell amendment No. 1097, to enhance food safety for
children through preventative research and medical treatment.
Coverdell amendment No. 1098 (to Amendment No. 1097), in
the nature of a substitute.
Specter (for Nickles) amendment No. 1109, to require that
estimates of certain employer contributions be included in an
individual's social security account statement.
Specter amendment No. 1110, to reduce unemployment
insurance service administrative expenses to offset costs of
administering a welfare-to-work jobs initiative.
Specter amendment No. 1111, to provide start-up funding for
the National Bi-partisan Commission on the Future of
Medicare.
Harkin (for Wellstone) amendment No. 1087, to increase
funding for the Head Start Act.
Harkin (for Wellstone) amendment No. 1088, to increase
funding for Federal Pell Grants.
Harkin (for Wellstone) amendment No. 1089, to increase
funding for the Education Infrastructure Act of 1994.
Harkin-Bingaman-Kennedy amendment No. 1115, to authorize
the National Assessment Governing Board to develop policy for
voluntary national tests in reading and mathematics.
[[Page S8946]]
Harkin (for Daschle) amendment No. 1116, to express the
sense of the Senate regarding Federal Pell Grants and a child
literacy initiative.
Ford amendment No. 1117 (to Amendment No. 1078), to express
the sense of the Senate on compensation for tobacco growers
as part of legislation on the national tobacco settlement.
Murray-Wellstone amendment No. 1118, to clarify the family
violence option under temporary assistance to needy families
program.
Murray amendment No. 1119, to provide funding for the
National Institute for Literacy.
Harkin (for Bennett) amendment No. 1120, to award a grant
to a State educational agency to help pay the expenses
associated with exchanging State school trust lands within
the boundaries of a national monument for Federal lands
outside the boundaries of the monument.
Ford (for Kerrey) amendment No. 1121, to exempt States that
were overpaid mandatory funds for fiscal year 1997 under the
general entitlement formula for child care funding from any
payment adjustment.
Domenici (for Gorton) amendment No. 1122, to provide
certain education funding directly to local educational
agencies.
Gorton modified amendment No. 1076, to allow States to use
funds received under title XXI of the Social Security Act to
provide health insurance coverage for children with incomes
above the minimum Medicaid eligibility requirements.
Amendment No. 1122
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up an
amendment that I introduced yesterday to provide certain educational
funding directly to local educational agencies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1122, As Modified
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a modification of that amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The clerk will read the modification.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself, and
Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 1122, as
modified.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the
Senator going to explain the modification?
Mr. GORTON. I will explain the whole amendment, as modified.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 85, after line 23, insert the following:
Sec. . (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Education shall award the total amount of
funds described in subsection (b) directly to local
educational agencies in accordance with subsection (d) to
enable the local educational agencies to support programs or
activities for kindergarten through grade 12 students that
the local educational agencies deem appropriate.
(b) The total amount of funds referred to in subsection (a)
are all funds that are appropriated for the Department of
Education under this Act to support programs or activities
for kindergarten through grade 12 students, other than--
(1) amounts appropriated under this Act--
(A) to carry out title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965;
(B) to carry out the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act;
(C) to carry out the Adult Education Act;
(D) to carry out the Museum and Library Services Act;
(E) for departmental management expenses of the Department
of Education; or
(F) to carry out the Educational Research, Development,
Dissemination, and Improvement Act;
(G) to carry out the National Education Statistics Act of
1994;
(H) to carry out section 10601 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(I) to carry out section 2102 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965; or
(J) to carry out part K of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965;
(K) to carry out title IV-A-5 of the Higher Education Act;
or
(2) 50 percent of the amount appropriated under title III
under the headings ``Rehabilitation Services and Disability
Research'' and ``Vocational and Adult Education''.
(c) Each local educational agency shall conduct a census to
determine the number of kindergarten through grade 12
students served by the local educational agency not later
than 21 days after the beginning of the school year. Each
local educational agency shall submit the number of the
Secretary.
(d) The Secretary shall determine the amount awarded to
each local educational agency under this section as follows:
(1) First, the Secretary, using the information provided
under subsection (c), shall determine a per child amount by
dividing the total amount of funds described in subsection
(b), by the total number of kindergarten through grade 12
students in all States.
(2) Second, the Secretary, using the information provided
under subsection (c), shall determine the baseline amount for
each local educational agency by multiplying the per child
amount determined under paragraph (1) by the number of
kindergarten through grade 12 students that are served by the
local educational agency.
Lastly, the Secretary shall compute the amount awarded to
each local educational agency as follows:
(A) Multiply the baseline amount determined under paragraph
(2) by a factor of 1.1 for local educational agencies serving
States that are in the least wealthy quintile of all States
as determined by the secretary on the basis of the per capita
income of individuals in the States.
(B) Multiply the baseline amount by a factor of 1.05 for
local educational agencies serving States that are in the
second least wealthy such quintile.
(C) Multiply the baseline amount by a factor of 1.00 for
local educational agencies serving States that are in the
third least wealthy such quintile.
(D) Multiply the baseline amount by a factor of .95 for
local educational agencies serving States that are in the
fourth least wealthy such quintile.
(E) Multiply the baseline amount by a factor of .90 for
local educational agencies serving States that are in the
wealthiest such quintile.
(4) Nothwithstanding paragraph (3), the Secretary shall
compute the amount awarded to each local educational agency
serving the States of Alaska or Hawaii by multiplying the
base line amount determined under paragraph (2) for the local
educational agency by a factor of 1.00.
(e) If the total amount of funds made available to carry
out this section is insufficient to pay in full all amounts
awarded under subsection (d), then the Secretary shall
ratably reduce each such amount.
(f) If the Secretary determines that a local educational
agency has knowingly submitted false information under
subsection (c) for the purpose of gaining additional funds
under this section, then the local educational agency shall
be fined an amount equal to twice the difference between the
amount the local educational agency received under subsection
(d), and the correct amount the local educational agency
would have received if the agency had submitted accurate
information under subsection (c).
(g) In this section--
(1) the term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning
given the term in section 14101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965;
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Education; and
(3) the term ``State'' means each of the several States of
the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands,
the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Senator from
Vermont, the modification strikes all references to any departments
other than those going through the Department of Education, and there
is a modification with respect to the distribution formula for the
States of Alaska and Hawaii, States that have artificially high income
levels which do not necessarily reflect the standard of living in those
two very expensive States, and adds one additional minor exception to
the scope of the bill.
Fundamentally, Mr. President, this amendment is based on the
philosophy that the school board members, the administrators, the
teachers and the parents in communities all across the United States
are better able to set their educational priorities and to meet their
educational goals than is the Congress of the United States or
bureaucrats of the Department of Education. You can't make a telephone
call because we tried to call the Congressional Research Service and
ask how many programs there are that support the education of our
children between kindergarten and 12th grade.
Instead, they can identify a few programs, large programs, which are
devoted exclusively to that purpose, but there are hundreds of others
which do so in part that they cannot identify.
Congressman Hoekstra of Michigan, in the House, has identified
approximately 760 programs funded by the Federal Government directly or
indirectly affecting the education of our
[[Page S8947]]
children between kindergarten and the 12th grade. No one can say how
much of this money actually gets into teaching children as against
paying for bureaucrats at the Federal level, the State level, the
school district level, or the time it takes the teachers to fill out
all of the forms necessary to meet the auditor's requirements of each
of these individual programs.
The Cato Institute has determined that of the roughly $15 billion
going from the Department of Education for K through 12 programs only
about $13 billion gets to local education, but it does not and cannot
reflect how much the local education agencies have to spend on the
administrative requirements of these 760 education programs.
So what this bill says is that with certain exceptions, the largest
and most notable of which are the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act that was debated earlier this year, and impact aid, which
goes to school districts with a large Federal presence, for 1 year at
least we are going to ignore all of these hundreds of programs and
their specific requirements and all of the bureaucracy in the
Department of Education and simply take the exact number of dollars
that are included for those programs in this bill and to distribute
them on a per student basis to every school district in the United
States. To the best of our ability to do so--and I must confess that in
dealing with this number of programs, we may have missed some--we are
speaking of a little bit more than $11 billion of the appropriations in
this bill.
We are going to say, instead of our deciding how they ought to be
spent, instead of our saying that every school district in the country
has to meet exactly the same requirements for getting this money, let
us accept the novel idea to which almost all of us give lip service
when we are at home that maybe the men and women who are dedicated
enough to run for positions on local school boards, maybe the teachers
who are in the classroom every day, perhaps the principals and
administrators there can use that $11 billion plus to provide more in
the way of educational services than are being provided at the present
time. Almost without exception our debates in this Chamber on education
policy, when we deal with budget resolutions, when we deal with
reconciliation bills, when we deal with this appropriations bill, have
to do with how much money we are going to spend on education. It is the
firm view of Members of this body and most of the general public that
the more money we spend the better the results will be. And yet we are
all convinced that the results are not very good. We are disturbed
enough about it so that we want to create national standards and
national tests.
I just had a discussion on that subject with the distinguished
Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan]. At the same time I shared with
the body the pioneering work my own State of Washington is doing in
setting standards and testing students against those standards and the
highly disappointing results of the first of those sets of tests this
year, that only 22 percent of our fourth grade students meet those
standards in mathematics. I am convinced that we ought to talk about
quality as well as quantity; that simply adding dollars to programs,
the net result of which are test results like these and like the others
we deprecate all across the country, is not the wisest course of
action.
Last year, the Congress in its wisdom did something that Congresses
rarely do. We decided that we did not know an awful lot about welfare
and that maybe 30 years of an increasing nationalization of welfare
policy, the net result of which was worsening almost every social
pathology welfare was designed to cure, was not the right course of
action. And so in essence we said perhaps we should not set all the
requirements ourselves. Perhaps we should let 50 States experiment
broadly with welfare policy and maybe all of us will learn more about
what works and what does not work.
This amendment gives the Senate the opportunity to do just exactly
that with our education policies in kindergarten through 12th grade.
Curiously enough, we seem to have largely accepted that policy with
respect to higher education. The great bulk of our higher education
programs go directly to students--guaranteed student loans, Pell
grants, other means tested aid to students go to the customer, the user
of educational services rather than to some huge bureaucracy that is
given the power to say what colleges and universities can teach and how
they teach it.
Now, we know that there are higher educational institutions that do
not do a very good job, but our cure has not been to cut off students
and stop allowing them to make choices. We do allow them to make those
choices. Why don't we try in this particular case--this is not a debate
on vouchers and giving money directly to parents, as much as I may
favor that. This is a debate about giving the money directly to school
districts, to the professionals who work in the classrooms, to the
amateurs in almost all cases who run for and are elected to school
boards all across the United States. It is difficult for me to imagine,
with three Senators in the Chamber, that the priorities of the school
districts in Rutland, VT, and Portland, OR, and Bellevue, WA, are going
to be identical. It is impossible for me to justify the amount of
paperwork that must go into justifying the expenditure of the money for
these hundreds and hundreds of programs that go to K through 12
education at the present time, right from the level of the classroom on
up through the individual school, to school district, to the State
education agency, to the U.S. Department of Education.
Let's take a page out of what we hope will be a successful
decentralization of our welfare policy and decentralize decisionmaking
in our schools. Let our parents through their PTA's, our teachers, our
school board members, our principals, decide how to use this $11
billion to educate kids. And then if we can devise it, we can in fact
come up with some tests, some standards that they ought to meet and
test them against those standards. What we know now is that the money
is not being spent very well, at least it is not being spent very
successfully. Let's try temporarily to let someone else make those
decisions and see whether we cannot do better.
I am convinced that we will do a great deal better.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from
Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I wish to speak against the amendment.
I think the desires and the hopes of the Senator from Washington are
certainly admirable, but I think if one examines where the problems are
in education right now the thought that it will be solved by just
giving a blank check to the local agencies to correct these problems I
think would find itself quite misdirected.
First of all, it goes without saying and everybody must recognize
that this is probably the grossest exercise of changing the situation
from what is normally considered the authorization process that I have
seen to date.
Now, I do not disagree with the fundamental problem that the Senator
from Washington recognizes, and that is we have an awful problem in
this Nation educationally. When 51 percent of the students in this
country graduate functionally illiterate, when we find ourselves
trailing way behind other nations in competition for the type of work
that is necessary in our country, we know we have a problem. Right now,
for instance, we have 190,000 jobs available in this Nation that we
cannot fill because schools have not produced students with the skills
to take them, whereas our competitors do not have that problem.
But where is the problem? The problem is at the local level because
they have not had the guidance from above or whatever to increase the
mathematical skills and to ensure that we do not push young people
through the school systems by what is called social promotion. Those
are the big problems. Giving blank checks to the local governments is
not going to solve the problems. I would guess it would probably
exacerbate them.
For instance, one of the programs that we have which is more aimed at
the problems than anything is the Eisenhower math program. It is
designed to provide professional development. Congressman Goodling, who
is chairman in the House, and I agree on one thing, that the most
important thing we can do now is to improve the professional
development of our teachers. If
[[Page S8948]]
they don't know what the standards are they should meet in order to
meet worldwide competition, then it is difficult to expect that they
are going to change to meet those standards. The Eisenhower program has
been very successful in the math area, but it is so small that it
cannot possibly do all the work. If we were to take and throw more
money, if you want to call it throw, into the Eisenhower program and
things like that, it might make some sense. But just to give it carte
blanche to the districts dependent on the wealth, not on the quality of
education, this makes a presumption that is not accurate in many cases,
and that is, the quality of your education will be determined by the
amount of money that is spent; therefore, if you give more money to the
poor areas, they are going to end up with better education, and if you
take it away from the ones with higher expenditures on education, they
are not going to be hurt. There is no basis for making that kind of
conclusion.
Title VI, a block grant, which is chapter 2, is the best hope we have
for getting the kind of professional development which Congressman
Goodling and I agree is the greatest need of this Nation today that
would eliminate the money that goes toward that direction of trying to
make sure that we improve the ability of our teachers to meet modern
needs of our society.
You can argue about some of the other programs, but School to Work is
another one. School to Work is putting its finger on the basic problem
in this country, and that is that we do not train our young people for
work; we ignore that. The educational institutions, in most cases, are
just making some progress now with bringing the school into the work
area and letting them know what the young people need for skills in
order to get those very well-paying jobs that are out there. School to
Work is aimed at that. To cut the funding for that and give more money
to the local agencies to do what they want with it is not going to
solve the problems of this Nation.
We are going to try to in the Work Force Improvement Act, which we
will be moving out of committee very soon, consolidate a lot of these
programs that perhaps eat up more money in bureaucracy than they do in
producing results. I don't have a problem with that, but that should be
done during the reauthorization process. To make such a fundamental
change now on an appropriations bill where we would take away from the
States--remember, the States distribute title I money and things like
that in accordance with not only financial problems, but educational
need. This would do away with that aspect and give that role to the
Secretary of Education. I am amazed to think the Senator from
Washington would suggest we ought to give the money to the Department
of Education to distribute. Granted, it is a formula distribution, but
still right now it is the States that make the decisions based upon the
educational need as well as economic need.
So I think for all these reasons I would have to strongly oppose this
amendment. I encourage, though, as the Senator from Washington has
done, to raise the level of understanding of what the problems of this
Nation are in education. The basic problem is very fundamental, and
that is that the schools in this country are not equipped now to handle
the demands made upon them by the competition in the world economic
situation which requires us to produce kids that have better skills.
There is certainly no excuse for allowing young people to go through
the school system and come out the other end, like half of our kids do,
without knowing how to read. That is why emphasis is being placed by
the administration, myself, Congressman Goodling and others on that. We
have to face up to the problem. Facing up to the problem is not going
to solve it by throwing more money and taking it away from any
direction at all, but just giving it to the local school system.
I must strongly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Washington,
but I do praise him in the sense of raising again the awareness of this
body and the Nation to the serious problems we have with education at
the local level.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on this subject, it is obvious that
between my friend, the Senator from Vermont, and myself there is a
great gulf to fix. I note just a couple of his phrases. One was ``carte
blanche.'' The other was the necessity for ``guidance from above.''
It is the view of the Senator from Vermont that without ``guidance
from above,'' our teachers, our school board members, our principals
won't know what to do, that they will be clueless about the education
of our children for our 21st century world, and that unless they are
told by us, right here in this body, U.S. Senators, what their
priorities are, how they are going to meet those priorities, and unless
we let a group of bureaucrats in the Department of Education, right to
the tiniest detail, dictate how Federal money is going to be spent, our
teachers, school board members, principals and parents won't have the
slightest idea of how to meet these challenges, and they will waste all
of this money, it will go for nothing.
Well, my golly, if we had been able to show by tests that we have
been overwhelmingly successful, that everyone was doing well, I don't
suppose I would be out here now. But one of the other features we are
almost certain to authorize, with my conditional approval at least, is
to come up with a rational way in which to test our students at various
levels with respect to their knowledge about the most important of the
academic subjects they are in school to learn.
My reservations on that is, I have grave fear that national testing
may actually drive out more rigid State testing in a number of places
across the country. If it encourages even stronger standards, then it
seems to me that it is a very, very good idea. It is one thing to test,
but it is another thing to tell every teacher, ``Here's who you have to
teach and here is how you have to teach and, by the way, here are all
the forms you have to fill out at some point or another during your
school day to make absolutely certain you didn't teach the wrong
student and, therefore, disqualify our school district for some of its
title I money.''
Obviously, every Member of this body who believes that he or she
knows more about educational priorities than do his school board
members, his teachers, his or her parents should certainly vote against
an amendment like this. If Members are content, Mr. President, with
between 700 and 760 different education programs coming out of probably
five or six different Departments of the U.S. Government, each with its
own requirement and its own forms to fill out, if they believe that is
a satisfactory way to do things, fine, they should vote for the status
quo.
I have more trust in the American people. I have more trust in the
people who give up their time without compensation to serve on school
boards and in parent-teachers associations. I have more trust in the
teachers that we have in the schools themselves. I think they will do a
better job with the money. I think we will get better education. Of
course, anyone can have a quarrel with the formula for distribution,
which is a rough formula giving slightly more money to poor States or
school districts in poor States than it does to school districts in
wealthy States. But I believe I can make this representation, Mr.
President. It will be difficult to find a school district anywhere in
the United States that doesn't have more money for the actual education
of its students under this formula than it does at the present time.
Why? Because at the present time, a whole bunch of this money, hundreds
of millions of dollars, gets taken out right here in Washington, DC, by
the bureaucracy. More hundreds of millions of dollars get taken out by
the State educational entities, and tremendous burdens, nonteaching
burdens, are imposed on local schools, school districts and teachers in
keeping track of all of it and filling out the forms. So the most
disfavored school districts under this formula will actually get more
money to put into the education of their students than they do at the
present time.
I will be the first to admit, Mr. President, that on the floor of the
Senate, this is a brand new and a radical proposal. I would be
surprised if it became
[[Page S8949]]
law as a part of this appropriations bill. But, Mr. President, we are
10 years past due in discussing this subject. It is time we did here
what we say we want to do when we are at home. I can't speak for every
other Senator, but I know that one of the most popular statements I can
make at a town meeting or to any group in the State of Washington is,
``I believe you, through your schools right here, should have more say
as to how you spend the money that goes into educating your children.''
Principals approve of it, school board members approve of it, teachers
approve of it, parents approve of it, the taxpaying public approves of
it.
I would be willing to make a small wager that, in general terms,
almost every Member of this body makes the same speech under
appropriate circumstances in his or her own State when he or she is
asked about that question. ``Yes, I believe in local control of
schools. Yes, I believe in locally elected school boards. Yes, I
believe decisions can be made better close to the student, but * * *''
Usually they don't articulate the ``but.'' ``But'' comes back here when
they actually vote in a manner totally contrary to the way in which
they speak at home.
So this provides a simple opportunity, Mr. President, an opportunity
to say whether you really do believe that educational policy, that
money for education is likely to be spent more wisely and more
effectively by those who are in the field doing it professionally,
meeting with their students every day, or whether, in the phrase of the
Senator from Vermont, they need ``guidance from above,'' guidance from
right here in these seats, because otherwise, a carte blanche will
result in educational disaster.
I hope Members will give serious consideration to this philosophy.
This may be the first time we have discussed this in the form of an
amendment like this in a number of years, but I do not think, Mr.
President, it is going to be the last time. I believe we will discuss
the general philosophy of this proposal, at least, increasingly until
the time that we are willing in fact to place a degree of trust in
local educational authorities that we all say we have in theory.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will make a couple more comments here.
Let us just think about what would happen if we did this, what it
would do for education. All of a sudden, without any qualifications or
requirements, or anything else, if we were to send checks to our local
governments, with a hope they would spend it on education--I know what
would happen in my State.
We have just gone through property tax reform. Everybody is up in
arms over the cost to the local governments from property tax reform. I
bet if you were to do it, this would end up in property tax relief.
Maybe that is a good thing. Maybe it is a good thing to relieve the
local property tax in communities around the country. But it is not
going to tackle or do anything to solve the very basic problems we have
in education. There is nothing in here that would in any way determine
that the local governments are going to spend it on education.
Now, ``above'' can mean the superintendent of a region, they are
knocked out. The State's school system has no control or no suggestions
in any way how to spend this money. We are just sending checks to the
local communities and saying, ``Gee, we would kind of like you to spend
this on education, but there's no requirement, or you can say you do,
but then you just cut yours back and you spend this money on education,
but you cut back on the local money, on what you're spending on
education now, and you can cut your property taxes.'' It might be very
popular. I think it would be. I expect it would sell very well with the
taxpayers of local communities saying, ``Wow, finally we can start
going down on the cost of education in this community.''
Will it benefit the students? Not at all. This is, again,
authorization of the grossest kind in the appropriations process.
So I say to Members that this is one area where we have huge needs
trying to change what is going on in this country in education, to
raise the levels to be able to meet international competition, to make
sure we are not embarrassed again as we have been for years now on
international tests with our young people, especially in math and
science. We know we have to make changes. Anyone here who believes that
just throwing money at the local communities is going to bring about
these kinds of changes, I do not think you will find anyone who can
consider this is seriously the way to go.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished occupant of the chair, the junior Senator from Oregon, be
added as a cosponsor to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, that is a truly incredible statement on
the part of the Senator from Vermont. In the first place, of course,
this amendment does not give this money to local governments. It gives
it to local education authorities, that is, school boards and school
districts. Evidently the Senator from Vermont feels that his own
constituents have so little regard for education in the State of
Vermont that they would immediately cut their contribution to the
education of their children by the amount of the distribution to those
local school boards. I would be ashamed to make that comment about the
people of the State of Washington. I cannot imagine that that would
happen.
Moreover, Mr. President, the Senator seems to forget that at least a
significant part of this money is in the educational system at the
present time. It is my view that just not enough of it gets there, that
too much of it gets siphoned by the bureaucrats on the way to a school
district in Vermont or in Oregon or in the State of Washington. But to
make the statement that only we are wise and only 100 Members of the
U.S. Senate are really concerned about education and that, if we were
to allow a local school agency to set its own priorities with the money
we appropriated to education, that they might not do it, that they
would just simply decide, ``Oh, no, education isn't very important. We
can now cut down our own contribution level,'' is insulting, I would
say, Mr. President, to every citizen of the United States who cares
about his or her children or his or her country or their future.
This money is going into education now. That is why we are
appropriating it. Too much of it is going to a bureaucracy and not
getting to the children who are being educated. Too many priorities are
being set here, and too few at home. That is what the question is
about.
Mark my words, Mr. President, successful or unsuccessful, if this
amendment passes, more money--not less--more money will get into the
education of almost every student in the United States of America. The
fundamental question is not how much; the fundamental question is, who
ought to make the decision as to how it is spent? We here in this body,
great educational experts as we seem to think we are, or the people who
are actually providing the teaching in the day-to-day operations of our
schools?
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to yield the floor to the
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee who needs some time
here to take up another issue, but just quickly before I do that, I do
want to congratulate the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, for
his proposal here, because it has highlighted what is the core debate
in the issue of education, which has been raised in part by the
President.
This administration's approach to education is about the same as it
has approached campaign finance reform--talks one game; does another
game. Basically, the purpose of almost all the
[[Page S8950]]
major initiatives that have come out of this administration on the
issue of education have been to encourage and strengthen the control of
the Federal Government over the process of educating children. Every
initiative that seems to come out of this administration seems to have
been drawn up in the bowels of the major labor unions, major teaching
unions here in Washington, the purpose of which appears to be the
fundamental goal of moving the control of education out of the local
communities and into the Federal sector, out of the hands of the
parents, out of the hands of the teachers, out of the hands of the
school systems at the local level, into the hands of the Federal
bureaucracy, into the hands of the big labor unions centered here in
Washington.
Their education initiatives can almost all be characterized as having
that as their basic philosophical groundwork, whether it happens to be
their initial proposal on Goals 2000, which luckily was amended so that
that did not happen, or their initial proposal on national educational
testing, which the President has now backed off of because the country
has been alarmed by it and which he is changing.
What Senator Gorton's proposal does is say, ``Let's end it right
here. Let's return to the local folks, people who control the
educational process, people who should be involved in the educational
process, specifically, the parents, the teachers, the principals, local
school boards, the capacity to manage the money we have the Federal
Government presently controling. Let's end this huge bureaucracy which
is draining off billions of dollars annually from the students of this
country, turning it over to a class of individuals whose basic goal is
to perpetuate their own careers versus perpetuating better education.
Let's put an end to that. Let's give the dollars right to the schools.
Let's let the schools, the parents, the teachers and the principals
make the decision.''
It really should not be a unique or radical idea. It should be a very
common, very appropriate idea. But in the context of the strange
thought process which dominates the beltway, it appears to be a radical
idea.
Actually, I congratulate the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton,
for putting forward this initiative. I think it is going to generate a
very huge and positive debate of the question of where the control of
education should be. I look forward to participating in that debate.
But I do not wish to take further time from the Senator from Delaware.
Therefore, I yield the floor at this point.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Amendment No. 1091
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the McCain amendment on
graduate medical education, amendment No. 1091. I oppose it, although I
am sure it is well-intentioned. I believe this amendment is not
appropriate on this bill. I also believe the amendment is based on some
misunderstandings.
But first, as a general rule, I do oppose any amendments on
appropriations bills designed or related to Medicare or any other
matter that we dealt with in the Balanced Budget Act. Some of these
amendments may seem noncontroversial or even desirable; however, it is
simply not appropriate to begin loading up important appropriations
legislation with amendments unrelated to the underlying bill.
Let us remember the ink is hardly dry on the Balanced Budget Act. If
we begin the process of reopening this legislation, I assure you there
will be no end to other amendments.
Many of these amendments will likely affect matters important to
other Members and their States.
Then there is the matter of good faith. A provision in the McCain
amendment would strike a House provision we accepted in the conference
on BBA. I am sure there are many Senate provisions the House would like
to strike.
Mr. President, I will briefly comment on the substance of the McCain
amendment. The McCain amendment eliminates funding for a program that
would provide assistance to teaching hospitals that voluntarily choose
to downsize their residency programs. The funds provided through this
program will partially cushion the financial losses teaching hospitals
will incur as they reduce the number of doctors in training.
Members should know that Medicare does not simply pay teaching
hospitals for training but rather for care given to Medicare patients.
These funds do not reimburse hospitals for doing nothing, as some
claim. Far from it. Hospitals will use their funds to hire staff
doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and other personnel
to replace the residents. These funds will also help teaching
hospitals, often the Nation's best hospitals, to adjust to a highly
competitive health care marketplace and develop alternate means of
caring for vulnerable uninsured patients.
One last point. The provision that the McCain amendment would strike
saves at least $380 million in Medicare over the next 5 years,
according to CBO. Let me emphasize this important point. Medicare will
actually save money as we help the Nation's teaching hospitals. The
McCain amendment would add to the deficit by almost $400 million
because no offset is provided.
Mr. President, once again, I urge Members to oppose the McCain
amendment on graduate medical education.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to support my revered and
respected chairman in this regard. It is the case, sir, that 5
legislative days ago we passed this measure. It is a measure which
originated in the House and in a good faith exchange in conference the
Senate accepted it, the conferees did. There were three of us--Mr.
Lott, the chairman, and myself. The bill passed Congress in a spending
measure that was appropriate to the occasion.
Now, first, although it is not technical, it is so profoundly
important. This is legislation on an appropriations bill. It is the
ancient wisdom of this body not to do such things. A point of order
would obviously lie against the amendment. It is important. It is how
we proceed in this body.
Further, sir, on the merits of this matter, I, for my part, would
have to say I would like to see how this works. This is a 5-year
period. I can attest, and I know that my colleague from New York and
our chairman would agree, the Finance Committee has been seized with
this subject. As the medical care system of our country becomes more
rationalized, as economists would put it, as price considerations enter
into markets and decisions are made, and health maintenance
organizations rise and you see all manner of mergers and acquisitions
and the general evidence of a market which is good, you also find
yourself with some of those effects which are common which involve
institutions or desirable behaviors that markets do not provide.
In the profession of economics, they are known as public goods.
Everybody benefits from public goods so nobody will pay for them. If
you want them, you have to find them in a public mode. That is why we
have public schools. That is why we have, come to think about it, why
we have the Marine Corps. These are public goods that you have to
provide for in the collective mode.
In 1994, as the Finance Committee was considering the health care
legislation sent to us by the administration we found ourselves more
and more interested in the question of medical schools. In this new
world, who takes care of these special institutions which have high
prices? They have high prices because they have high costs. They have
high costs because they are teaching.
We had a wonderful exchange and I am sure the chairman recalls it.
One morning a witness from Fordham University, an ethicist, Father
Charles J. Fahey said, ``What I am seeing is the ``commodification'' of
medicine--a wonderful phrase. The then head of the UCLA Medical Center,
Raymond G. Schultze, said at another hearing ``Can I give you an
example? In southern California we now have a spot market for bone
marrow transplants.''
All that is something that is to be welcomed. It is happening anyway,
going to happen in whatever market for medical care, and we have to
provide some nonmarket provisions for these singular institutions,
these great teaching hospitals, in the great age of
[[Page S8951]]
medical science. In the history of the species it is only in the last
40 or 50 years--40 some say, 50 radicals would say--that medicine has
really been able to do something. It is learning exponentially,
learning by the hour.
In this situation there can be a surplus of some doctors generally,
of some specialists in particular, some judgments need to be made, and
this transition needs to be made.
As I understood the legislation, I think the chairman would agree, we
were proposing a 5-year transition period to see whether we did not get
good results--we will not know in the next 5 years, at least--to save
money.
It has a clear and necessary purpose. On both grounds, Mr. President,
I rise to join the chairman. First of all this is legislation on an
appropriation bill, which we must not have. Secondly, this is a measure
that was included in the Balanced Budget Act only just this moment, and
it is in response to a real life situation in an open experimental
mode. In 5 year's time we will know more, and I plead--this is a
subject that will not go away. We will be debating this matter, the
matter of teaching hospitals and medical schools on the floor of the
U.S. Senate for a quarter century to come.
I join the chairman in proposing that we not approve this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
join with the distinguished ranking member and the senior Senator from
New York, the ranking member on Finance and the chairman of Finance,
the distinguished Senator from Delaware, in opposing the McCain
amendment.
Let me say that the rhetoric is rather fascinating, the rhetoric that
is used in support of this amendment, that we are paying for something
that we are not getting. The fact of the matter is that it totally
ignores the reality that teaching hospitals that administer to the
poorest of the poor, that provide training for our Nation's doctors,
that provide medical services to those who would otherwise in many
cases find it difficult to get those services, will actually be saving
the taxpayer money as a result of the legislation that has been
enacted, a legislation which the amendment that we are now discussing
would strike down.
The fact is the Congressional Budget Office as recently as this
morning has scored the McCain proposal as one that would cost the
Treasury $350 million. So it is rather disingenuous to say that we are
paying for something, in the rhetoric which is used, to suggest that
``Government rationing of medical training, ultimately the rationing of
health care, smacks of socialism, not democracy'' does not recognize
the problem that exists.
It costs approximately $100,000 a year. That is what the Government
is paying, for every resident who is employed at the various hospitals
throughout the country. There is a recognition that there is an
oversupply. So the Congress, with the administration, developed a
format whereby over a period of time, hospitals would reduce the number
of doctors and would actually be then saving the Government $350
million.
Now, if we want to continue business as usual, want to continue
subsidizing the oversupply, then we strike this amendment. That is what
the Senator would be doing. What he would be doing is absolutely in
contravention of what good planning and what good medical practice and
what is in the best interests of the taxpayer--allow this amount to
gradually go down in the number of doctors who are being trained.
Now, I understand the Senator from Arizona has asked for the ability
to debate this measure later in a fuller context and would like an hour
equally divided. At that point in time I hope the chairman of the
Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, would raise a point of order
against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act
because that point of order, in my opinion, lies, it is proper, and
would request a ruling of the Chair. I am not going to do that. I hope
we would have the chairman of the Budget Committee review this as to
whether or not technologically this would cost the taxpayers $350
million and there is no offset provided.
Now, do we really want to say we want to knock out a program that
will reduce the number of doctors and save the taxpayers of this
country close to half a billion dollars? That is what the McCain
amendment would do, as well-intentioned as it might be. And believe me,
I do not question the Senator's intentions. I think he has a legitimate
point.
Are we paying for something that we are not getting? I think the fact
is we are going to be reducing the supply and we will be saving $350
million but we are doing it in an orderly manner. We are allowing those
who are on the battlefield, those who are providing services for the
neediest of the needy, for those who do not have adequate health
insurance, those people who would otherwise not receive the kinds of
medical services and high quality, they are in our inner core cities
throughout our Nation because those are the hospitals in most cases
that will be affected, the great institutions in our metropolitan
communities throughout this country.
It makes no sense, it seems to me, to knock out a program that will
deprive us of the opportunity of seeing an orderly downsizing, and,
yes, save taxpayers money at the same time.
I join in opposition to this amendment and I commend the chairman of
the Finance Committee from Delaware and my distinguished colleague from
New York, Senator Moynihan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Amendment No. 1076
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I should now like to turn to Amendment 1076,
offered by the Senator from Washington. I must oppose this amendment
which alters the complexion of the newly created State children's
health insurance program. The appropriations bill is simply not the
vehicle for reopening the Balanced Budget Act. The amendment raised
issues which should be addressed for all States, not just a few. Barely
a month has passed since the bill was enacted. This is not the time to
reopen the balanced budget amendment.
Mr. President, as reported out of the conference with the House, it
is clear that the fundamental purpose of the new $24 billion children's
health program is to expand health insurance coverage for children who
do not presently have health insurance.
Under the new children's health program, the Federal Government will
increase its share of the cost of providing public insurance in some
States by as much as 30 percent. This so-called enhanced match is to
act as an incentive to expand coverage to more children. And, indeed,
that is what we all expect will happen.
At the same time, we do not want to simply shift new costs to the
Federal Government to provide services to individuals who are already
covered by insurance whether through the private sector or the public
sector. Nor should these funds be used to merely supplant State funds.
At the very least, we should try to minimize this from happening.
As the Senate considered the children's health legislation over the
summer, it limited eligibility to 200 percent of the Federal poverty
level. The Senate was gravely concerned, and rightly so, about the
crowding out effect in which public insurance would replace private
insurance.
But States which had already expanded eligibility above 200 percent
of poverty argued that they would not be able to use their new child
health allotment because of this limitation. There would be no children
to cover, they argued.
In deference to those States, we agreed to raise the eligibility
limit to 50 percentage points above a State's Medicaid standard in the
conference with the House. We also provided States with options for
participating in the program above their current levels.
The Gorton amendment is not about States expanding coverage for
children beyond their current commitment. It is about claiming
additional Federal dollars to do what the States have already agreed to
do.
This is an important issue which should not be determined after a few
minutes of debate on an appropriations bill.
Furthermore, the amendment would create another inequity which should
be carefully considered and addressed, if necessary.
[[Page S8952]]
The Gorton amendment applies to only a handful of States which have
previously expanded coverage to children. The Gorton amendment applies
only to those States which have expanded Medicaid at least up to 200
percent of the poverty level and up to age 17. These States are to be
congratulated for their leadership. But there are also at least 20
other States which have also expanded Medicaid eligibility, which would
not gain the advantage extended by the Gorton amendment.
While the amendment provides the enhanced match for total expansion,
it does not provide the same advantage for those States which have made
only a partial expansion. For example, a state which has expanded to
185 percent of the poverty level would not be eligible for the enhanced
match for new children up to that level.
Creating such inequities illustrates a fundamental problem with using
the appropriations process for legislating in place of the authorizing
committees. While perhaps a problem might be solved for a few States,
that solution might create new inequities among several more States.
If the policies in the new children's health program should be
changed, then let us examine the issue in a thorough and complete
manner which is equitable for all States. But we cannot and should not
attempt to do so today.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President----
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. ROTH. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent that
consideration of Senate Resolution 120 begin following the remarks of
the distinguished senior Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise simply and succinctly for the
purpose of endorsing the statement by our revered chairman and, once
again, to say, as he put it, the ink is scarcely dry on this
legislation and here we are changing it. Could it have been 5
legislative days since it was last enacted, and we are changing it?
And, importantly, this is legislation on an appropriations bill. It
is not in the interest of our institution to let that begin. It is a
lesson we have learned in difficult ways in the 19th century, and we
have shown how important it has been in this century. As we approach a
new century, it is no precedent to establish.
I believe we will now move to the measure indicated by the Senator
from Delaware.
____________________