[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.

                          ____________________