[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9062-S9078]
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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we are, for the information of our 
colleagues, in a position soon to vote on three pending amendments, and 
I think a fourth amendment which will be offered by the distinguished 
Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. And we expect to proceed soon to 
the amendment to be offered by Senator Daschle. And as soon as that is 
done, we will be proceeding to rollcall votes on four amendments. The 
time should not be too extensive. I just give notice to my colleagues 
that that will be occurring in relatively short order.
  Then following the votes we will proceed to debate on the Gorton 
amendment, and that will leave then two principal outstanding issues--
the issue of school testing, where the parties have been negotiating 
and may be in a position to give us a final answer soon whether they 
could come to agreement or whether we will have to move ahead with 
Senate debate on that, and the issue with respect to the pending 
Nickles amendment. We will see what will happen on that, if we are in a 
position to move ahead there. I am not sure exactly what will occur 
there.
  Mr. President, I have just been advised that Senator Daschle is 
engaged in a meeting that he cannot leave at the moment. So we will 
have to defer action on his amendment.
  On behalf of the leader, I have been asked by staff, at the request 
of the majority leader, to propound this unanimous consent request. I 
ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 5 o'clock today, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on or in relation to the Murray amendment, No. 1118; 
to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Wellstone amendment, 
No. 1087; to be followed by a vote on the Coverdell amendment, No. 
1098. And I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided prior to each vote. I ask, finally, unanimous 
consent that no amendments be in order to any of the previous 
amendments prior to the vote, and that the first vote be with the 
customary 20 minutes, and that each additional vote be--the first vote 
be 15 minutes, but we have the automatic extension of 5 minutes, and 
each subsequent vote be limited to 10 minutes, with the extension of 5 
minutes, so they can expedite the vote process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the submission of Senate 
Resolution 121 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of 
Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. Seeing the hour of 5 o'clock having arrived, I yield the 
floor.


                           Amendment No. 1118

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Murray amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am advised, Mr. President, that Senator Murray is on 
her way. We do not want to use up her 2 minutes. She is on her way.
  So I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided on the Murray 
amendment.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this body is about to go to a vote that 
is not one that is unknown to this Senate. It is regarding the welfare 
bill that was passed a year or so ago, an amendment that we offered at 
that time that was unanimously approved by this body and sent to the 
conference committee that merely allows a woman who is a victim of 
domestic violence a temporary waiver from the work requirements if she 
needs to get medical care or she needs to change her Social Security 
number so that she is not pursued by her abuser, or to put her children 
in a safe place so she is not worried about them and can work without 
being concerned about what happens to her children while she is at 
work.
  It is a temporary waiver. It has been passed by the Senate three 
times. Not one Senator has spoken against it. Not one Senator has voted 
against it. But every time it goes behind closed doors in a conference 
committee it is pulled out.
  That is what happens to abused women constantly. In the light of day, 
everyone is there to say, ``I support you,'' but when they go behind 
closed doors they are abused.
  I call on the Senate to vote with a strong voice to the members of 
the conference committee. We want this amendment to remain in so women 
across this country, children across this country, communities across 
this country, and police who are required to come to the scenes of 
domestic violence incidents are safe once again.
  I yield my remaining time to Senator Wellstone, who has been helpful 
in this debate and has been very good at working through this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired so the 
Senator must seek unanimous consent.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am very pleased to have worked on this with Senator 
Murray going way back when. I think it is extremely important for the 
protection of many women and many children in all of our States. Our 
States are looking for clear direction from the Congress, from the 
White House, and from Health and Human Services.
  This amendment is very important. I hope we will have a resounding, 
strong vote.
  The Murray-Wellstone amendment is an amendment I think the Senate 
will be proud to support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1118 of the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 228 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray

[[Page S9063]]


     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Helms
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bingaman
       
  The amendment (No. 1118) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of scheduling, to inform Senators 
as to what we anticipate, as previously ordered, we have two more 
votes. We then intend to go to the amendment by the distinguished 
Democratic leader. And then we intend to go to an amendment by Senator 
Gorton. It is our hope that we will vote on those two amendments this 
evening, not too late. That will leave us with only two major matters 
remaining--the issue of testing, where we may be able to have an 
agreement, and the Nickles amendment.
  The majority leader earlier said we would like to go to final passage 
tomorrow morning at 9:30, if we can clear those matters and after we 
have these two votes, and perhaps two more votes, so that we will 
conclude the rollcall votes not too late. And if there is any argument 
on the remaining matters, we will try to vote on them tomorrow morning 
at 9:30 and go to final passage at that time.
  I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 1087

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes, equally divided, on 
the Wellstone amendment No. 1087.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both managers of the bill for 
their fine work on Head Start. But I think we can do better. If we 
reach the goal the President set forth, and we say that we are for 
really serving 1 million children, then the Head Start Association says 
we need an additional $535 million to do that. That would be 1 million 
children. I might add that if we are talking about the early years, 1 
million children is but a tiny percentage of the children that could be 
served by this program.
  So I think we could do better. This just says let's get it up to what 
the Head Start Association says they need to make sure that we cover 
the 1 million children that we say we are committed to covering. This 
$535 million would come from the Pentagon budget. There is plenty of 
waste in that budget that we can talk about.
  I hope that this amendment will get a good strong vote.


                       Motion to Waive Budget Act

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also move to waive the Budget Act. I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute in opposition to the 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, fellow Senators, I made a point of order 
because the Wellstone amendment seeks to add $535 million to the Head 
Start Program. We have already added $325 million in agreement with the 
President of the United States. This is a priority item. We filled 
every priority the President sought. And we have increased it by a 
total of $325 million. That is one point.
  Second, Senator Wellstone would like to take the wall that separates 
defense and domestic, and he would say the appropriators can 
appropriate $535 million less in defense by virtue of this amendment, 
which essentially takes the wall and spends $535 million of defense 
money for Head Start, which we have already fully funded as requested 
by the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to waive the Budget Act in relation to the Wellstone amendment No. 
1087. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 27, nays 72, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 229 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--72

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bingaman
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 27, the nays are 72. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment fails.


                             Change Of Vote

  Ms. SNOWE. On rollcall vote No. 229 I voted yea. It was my intention 
to vote no. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to change 
my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)


                           Amendment No. 1098

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate under 
the previous order equally divided in relation to the Coverdell 
amendment No. 1098.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Chair requests 
the Senate to please come to order so the Senator from Arizona may be 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the regular order the proponent or the opponent of the 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each side has 1 minute.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the amendment upon which we are about 
to vote--incidentally, I ask unanimous consent Senator Santorum be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senate will please come to order so the Senator from Georgia may 
be recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, this amendment is endorsed by the 
American Meat Institute, the National Pathological Association and the 
National Cattlemen's Association. It deals with E. coli, it deals with 
research, it deals with education, and it deals with health.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment if carefully read directs 
``the Secretary shall.'' It also directs ``the Secretary shall 
provide'' funding to detect and prevent colonization in live cattle, 
which is to only take place in Atlanta, GA. That is the place where 
this amendment is intended to apply. It flies in the face of everything 
I have stood for, and I have committed to demand recorded votes on what 
I believe are earmarked pork barrel projects.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.

[[Page S9064]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I take some exception to the remarks of 
the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. the Senator from 
Georgia will withhold until the Senate comes to order. There is only 40 
seconds remaining on each side.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rest my case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has concluded. Does 
the Senator from Arizona have any further debate?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have no additional remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 1098, an amendment in the second degree to amendment No. 1097. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will now call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 230 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Ashcroft
     Bryan
     Glenn
     Gramm
     Grams
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     McCain

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bingaman
       
  The amendment (No. 1098) was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 1097, as amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the underlying amendment, 
as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1097), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.


                         Explanation of Absence

  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I was absent on the recent vote on the 
motion to table the Sessions amendment. Had I been present, I would 
have voted aye to table the Sessions second-degree amendment No. 1125. 
My vote would not have changed the outcome of the vote. This morning I 
was issued a new legislative pager to announce rollcall votes. 
Unfortunately, the pager was not properly programmed and did not 
function when the vote was called.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I think we are making some good progress 
now. Those three votes move us much closer to being able to get to 
final passage.
  I see the manager of the bill is here. I have been talking to the 
Democratic leader and I need to converse a few moments more with the 
manager of the bill. We are hoping maybe we can take up another 
amendment and get a vote in a relatively short period of time, and then 
after that we are working on getting some time agreement on a couple of 
issues. Depending on how much time is needed, then we would probably--
if it is going to be a lengthy period of time, we would probably have 
those votes in the morning, at 9:30, one or two of them, as we come in. 
But we are still working through how much time is needed for debate and 
the time agreements. As soon as we get that all worked out we will 
notify the Members.
  It is our plan now, I think it is safe to say, that the next major 
amendment we would like to take up is Senator Daschle's amendment and 
have a vote. I assume that would not take too long. At that point we 
hope to be able to give the Members an idea about what the remainder of 
the night would be and what would be the votes, if any, tonight or the 
first votes in the morning.
  I believe we have a 20-minute time agreement on the amendment of 
Senator Daschle.
  Before we begin on that, 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. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1116, As Modified

  Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1116, as modified.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I want to commend Senators Specter and 
Harkin for the commitment they have made to educational funding levels 
that are represented in this bill. They certainly have demonstrated, I 
think, the extraordinary need for investment in education in ways that 
we have not seen in recent years. I am very grateful for their 
leadership and their responsiveness to many of these issues. The 
overall funding level for education is now well over the level 
requested by the President.
  There still is some unfinished business that needs to be addressed, 
and this amendment addresses two very significant concerns. I am 
introducing, with Senator Kennedy, this sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
to draw attention to two places where, in our view, more action is 
needed to fulfill the budget agreement agreed to earlier this year.
  This amendment will call on Congress in the form of a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution to authorize and increase Pell grant funding to 
support both independent and dependent students and, second, to fund a 
child literacy initiative at $260 million for this fiscal year.
  I don't think there is much disagreement that Pell grants are an 
indispensable source of college aid for low- and middle-income 
students, but the current eligibility rule shortchanges too many 
students today. The current needs analysis system expects independent 
students, those whose eligibility is not linked to their parents' 
income, with incomes of $10,000 or higher to make such a large 
contribution that they receive little or virtually no help at all from 
the Pell Grant Program today.
  Furthermore, many of these students will not be helped by the tax 
credits enacted earlier this year. So the rules need to be changed so 
that students with low incomes can get help if they need it, students 
that don't have families, students that are working, students that have 
a marginal level of income that put them right in the middle between 
those eligibility criteria that would favorably affect them at the low 
end and those eligibility criteria having to do with tax credits at the 
high end.
  Similarly, the current rules governing the Pell Grant Program are 
discouraging dependent students, those whose parents' income are 
considered in determining eligibility, from getting part-time work. 
Students who have low incomes and who try to help out with their 
college expenses should still be eligible for some level of assistance.
  The President has proposed that we modify the rules to ensure that 
more of the students in these circumstances have the opportunity to 
qualify for

[[Page S9065]]

Pell grants. As many as 250,000 students will be helped if the 
President's proposal is enacted as he proposed it. These are young 
people who are just getting started in life who want an education, but 
now their Government is denying them assistance. That simply isn't 
right, and we should resolve to fix it.
  So I hope this amendment will send a message to the authorizing 
committee and the conferees to this bill that we think this provision 
is important and worth reconsideration. I hope that we will closely 
consider the issues facing these students and act on it in this bill, 
and in a more substantive way in other legislation as it presents 
itself to the Senate.
  The second part of the amendment addresses a vital issue for the 
country, and that is literacy. We have an undeniable problem in this 
country. Forty percent of the Nation's fourth-grade children cannot 
read today at the basic level. Low achievement in reading is a national 
crisis, and it demands immediate attention. Children are at higher risk 
of falling behind in school and eventually dropping out because of it. 
It is important not only to these children, but for the future of this 
country that we address this problem head on. We can't afford to leave 
any child behind as we head into the next century. That is why we have 
to provide the full amount, the $260 million agreed to in the budget, 
and live up to our commitment if, to address this critical issue of 
child literacy. We must show that we are willing to respond to what we 
have said is our commitment this year.
  We are falling short in that regard and this is our only opportunity 
to revisit the question and really ask ourselves if, indeed, we are 
facing up to this challenge, to this crisis, if, indeed, we want to see 
literacy to be a higher priority as we consider education. What will we 
do to address it budgetarily? We can only hope that we live up to the 
budget agreement we passed just a month ago.
  So I hope that, on an overwhelming basis, we can support this 
amendment and send the message both on literacy, as well as on 
assisting those independent college students that we are going to live 
up to our words and our expectations with regard to the budget and the 
commitment we have made to them to give them the kind of education they 
deserve and need in society today.
  I am asking for a rollcall vote simply because I think it is 
imperative that we be forceful and as certain about this issue and 
demonstrate the broad bipartisan commitment about these issues that I 
believe exists within the Chamber tonight.
  So, Madam President, with that, I reserve the remainder of my time 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I strongly support Senator Daschle's 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment and its two key provisions--that Pell 
grants should be funded at a total of $7.6 billion, and that a child 
literacy initiative should be funded at $260 million in the 1998 fiscal 
year.
  I also congratulate Senator Specter and Senator Harkin for their 
leadership in making education a priority in the bill. Education is a 
national priority and we need to do all we can to make sure that 
education is accessible and affordable for all Americans of all ages 
and all income levels. This amount is a significant step toward 
achieving that goal.
  Pell grants are an indispensable source of college aid for low- and 
middle-income students. But too often, the current eligibility rules 
shortchange too many students.
  Single, independent students at public 4-year institutions are not 
eligible for a Pell grant if their annual income is over $10,000. At 
that low-income level, many of them will not benefit from the tax 
credit for college expenses recently enacted in the budget law. So fair 
eligibility standards for Pell grants are especially important for 
these students.
  A similar problem faces parents trying to pay for college for their 
children. Current law penalizes college students who work part time to 
help pay the cost of their education, by reducing their eligibility for 
Pell grants. We should be encouraging students to work, not take out 
additional loans, so that they do not graduate under a mountain of 
debt.
  The budget agreement contained a clear commitment to allocate $700 
million to improve the needs analysis formula for Pell grants. The 
House bill provides only $500 million to meet this commitment, and the 
Senate bill contains no funds at all for this needed change. A strong, 
bipartisan vote in favor of the Daschle amendment is our best hope of 
achieving the reform we need in the conference because the House of 
Representatives, with their figures, have some disposable resources 
that will be available. A strong vote in the Senate will be a clear 
indication of a strong, bipartisan effort to channel those funds into 
this needed area.
  The second provision of the amendment reiterates the budget 
agreement's promise to provide $260 million for a child literacy 
initiative this year. The Senate should be strongly committed to seeing 
that legislation authorizing the initiative is enacted as soon as 
possible.
  Forty percent of the Nation's fourth grade children cannot read at 
the basic level. Low achievement in reading is a national crisis, and 
it demands immediate attention. President Clinton is right to focus on 
this critical problem, and Congress should respond. It makes no sense 
to delay the appropriation.
  Both of these items have been considered over a considerable period 
of time in the discussion on the budget resolution and, basically, we 
are conforming this appropriation bill to what was agreed on in the 
budget resolution by Republicans and Democrats. We believe that there 
is a very, very important reason and justification in prioritizing 
these funds, in these two very particular areas, when this legislation 
goes to conference.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I hope we will have 
an overwhelming vote of approval to insist that the conferees find a 
way to pay for these two essential reforms in education. It will be a 
clear indication that education, and particularly for the independent 
students and also in the area of reading, have the wholehearted support 
of the Senate, and it will be a clear instruction that those functions 
should be given the priorities that I think all of us in this body and 
the American people think they should receive.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Daschle amendment 
expressing the sense of the Senate in support of Pell grants. I would 
say to my colleagues, however, that I think we have already achieved 
what is intended here when the Senate considered my amendment last 
week.
  Even though my amendment to increase Pell grant funding was not 
adopted, the Senator from Pennsylvania, the distinguished chairman of 
the Labor-HHS appropriations subcommittee, assured the Senate that, to 
the extent the committee could yield to the Pell grant number in my 
amendment and the House bill--a figure that was $528 million higher 
than in the Senate's Labor-HHS bill--Senate conferees would do so.
  Let me read back Chairman Specter's remarks from the Record:

       I might say to my colleague from Arizona that with the 
     additional arguments he has advanced today in a very cogent 
     way, to the extent we can yield to the House figure, we will 
     try to do so when we get to conference.

  Mr. President, in many ways, the vote on the Daschle amendment should 
be an easy vote for Members of the Senate. It expresses support for the 
very important Pell Grant Program, but does not say where the increased 
funding will come from. It is not binding on the Senate.
  By contrast, it was my amendment last week that expressed more than 
non-binding support. It would have provided the actual dollars to 
extend Pell grant eligibility to additional categories of needy 
students, including independent students without dependents.
  I am sure it is not the minority leader's intent to merely add the 
cost of that expansion to the budget deficit--to the debt that our 
children and grandchildren will ultimately have to repay. But if 
education is as high a priority as we all believe it is, we ought to be 
willing to put funding for Pell grants ahead of other programs. That is 
what I attempted to do last week

[[Page S9066]]

with my amendment to fund Pell grants with offsets from the LIHEAP 
Program.
  I can understand that some people did not agree that LIHEAP should be 
cut. Those who believed LIHEAP was a higher priority than education and 
Pell grants voted against my amendment. But then why not identify some 
alternative source of funding?
  Mr. President, I have a letter from the chairman and ranking member 
of the authorizing committee--a letter that was sent to Chairman 
Specter and Senator Harkin--pledging that, if the additional Pell grant 
money were provided, the Labor and Human Resources Committee would work 
to authorize the increase in assistance for independent students. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 1997.
     Hon. Arlen Specter,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services 
         and Education.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
         Services and Education.
       Dear Arlen and Tom: We are writing to express our strong 
     support for increased funding for the Pell Grant Program. 
     Increasing the maximum Pell Grant to $3,000 should be the top 
     funding priority for all of the higher education programs. It 
     is also very important to increase assistance for certain 
     categories of independent and dependent students 
     participating in the Pell Grant Program.
       The 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act established 
     a new Federal Needs Analysis Methodology to be used for the 
     Pell Grant Program. The new methodology resulted from the 
     integration of two existing formulas. In reconciling the 
     differences, Congress attempted to minimize the impact on the 
     current distribution of Pell Grant recipients and award 
     amounts.
       Unfortunately, single, independent students without 
     dependents and dependent students with earnings have been 
     hurt by the new formula. We believe some modest changes to 
     the needs analysis formula would significantly improve the 
     Pell Grant Program. Specifically, the income protection 
     allowance provided for these two groups of students needs to 
     be increased. The income protection allowance for single, 
     independent students without dependents is too low to reflect 
     actual living expreses. With regard to dependent students, we 
     believe an increase in the income protection allowance will 
     provide an incentive for students to work, rather than borrow 
     to finance their education.
       Concerns about the eligibility for these two groups of 
     students for Pell Grant awards have been raised both at 
     Higher Education reauthorization hearings as well as through 
     letters from students across the country. At many campuses, 
     the average age of the student population is over twenty-
     five. These students are studying to improve their skills for 
     the job market or are starting in new fields as a result of 
     business closures and downsizing. Pell Grant assistance is 
     often vital to their ability to pursue a new career.
       The current House Appropriations Subcommittee mark for 
     independent students is about $500 million, subject to 
     authorization. The amounts provided for the Pell Grant 
     program by the House fall below the levels included in the 
     bi-partisan budget agreement. We urge that the Senate 
     subcommittee provide the full amount of approximately $700 
     million so that needs analysis adjustments for independent 
     students without dependents and for dependent student with 
     earnings can be made. We are aware that there are difficult 
     decisions to be made, and addressing these needs should not 
     be done at the expense of an increase in the Pell Grant 
     maximum or other education programs.
       We believe that we need to continue our investment in 
     education at all levels in order to strengthen our economic 
     and technological competitiveness. Our support for students 
     today through the increase in the income protection allowance 
     for independent students without dependents and for dependent 
     students with earnings will lead to a stronger economy and a 
     better future for the country.
       If this request for funding is granted, we will work to 
     ensure that our Committee makes the necessary changes to 
     authorize this increase in assistance for these students. 
     Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     James M. Jeffords,
                                                         Chairman,
                           Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
     Edward M. Kennedy,
                                                   Ranking Member,
                           Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

  Mr. KYL. As I noted before, Chairman Specter has already indicated 
that he will move toward the higher numbers for Pell grants in 
conference. And the Labor Committee has indicated that it will act on 
the necessary authorization. So I think we have already accomplished 
what is intended here in the Daschle amendment. Nevertheless, since 
this represents another opportunity to express support for Pell grants, 
I will support it. However, I do hope that the conference committee 
will offset the increase from savings in other programs, and not just 
add the cost to the deficit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, if there is no other Senator seeking to 
debate the matter, I suggest we yield back all remaining time, and I 
ask for the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Without objection, all time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1116, as modified. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Faircloth
     Helms
     Inhofe

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bingaman
       
  The amendment (No. 1116), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous-consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, the majority leader and the minority are 
working on a unanimous-consent agreement for the order to proceed with 
several more amendments tonight. Amendment No. 1122, of which I am the 
primary sponsor, will be the first of those amendments, and I am 
authorized to ask we call up amendment No. 1122 and begin the debate. 
It will be interrupted by the majority leader when he is prepared to 
offer a unanimous-consent agreement.


                    Amendment No. 1122, As Modified

  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent amendment No. 1122 be placed 
before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now 
pending.


                Amendment No. 1122, as Further Modified

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I am sending a modified amendment to the 
desk, and I ask unanimous consent it be considered in place of the 
amendment that is before the Senate now.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator 
would be so good as to explain what the modifications are.

[[Page S9067]]

  Mr. GORTON. Yes. This amendment changes the one we talked about 
yesterday only in that it has the distribution of the amount of money 
going to title I based on the total number of eligible title I students 
in each district rather than the total of all students in each 
district.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I withdraw my objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1122), as further 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;
       (J) to carry out part K of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965;
       (K) to carry out subpart 5 of part A of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965; or
       (L) to carry out title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965; 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 to the 
     Secretary.
       (d) The Secretary shall determine the amount awarded to 
     each local educational agency under subsection (a) 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.
       (3) 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) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the Secretary shall 
     compute the amount awarded to each local educational agency 
     serving the State 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 described in subsection 
     (b) that are made available to carry out subsection (a) 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 subsection (a), 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)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Education shall award the total amount of funds 
     made available under this Act to carry out title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for fiscal 
     year 1998 directly to local educational agencies in 
     accordance with paragraph (2) to enable the local educational 
     agencies to support programs or activities for kindergarten 
     through grade 12 students that the local educational agencies 
     deem appropriate.
       (2) Each local educational agency shall receive an amount 
     awarded under this subsection that bears the same relation to 
     the total amount of funds made available under this Act to 
     carry out title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act of 1965 for fiscal year 1998 as the number of children 
     counted under section 1124(c) of such Act for the local 
     educational agency for fiscal year 1997 bears to the total 
     number of students so counted for all local educational 
     agencies for fiscal year 1997.
       (h) 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.

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I spoke to this amendment at length on 
two occasions and intend to do so again tonight, but as a matter of 
deference to my many friends on this side who want to speak on the 
amendment and to many of those on the other side who wish to do so and 
to go on to other business, I will reserve my principal argument until 
the end.
  Suffice it to say this is an amendment designed to see to it that the 
individual school districts in the United States be permitted to spend 
the great bulk of the money that we appropriate, in this case somewhat 
over $11 million, as they see fit rather than with respect to hundreds 
and thousands of pages of detailed regulations that are the bane of 
almost every school district in the country.
  The fundamental philosophical question is just this: Do we believe 
that individual school districts and parents and teachers know best how 
to handle education in their own communities, or do we believe those 
fundamental decisions are best left to bureaucrats here in Washington, 
DC? I believe the former. The opponents to this amendment believe the 
latter.
  With that, I yield the floor to allow other Members who wish to speak 
to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I am pleased to rise as one of 
the cosponsors of Senator Gorton's amendment. Many here, including the 
Presiding Officer, spent the last year campaigning, and, frankly, I 
made education one of the cornerstones of my campaign.
  Everywhere I went there was frustration at the local level about 
Federal redtape, bureaucracy, burdens and costs that were imposed upon 
our common desire to educate our children. I said over and over again 
that I believed in local control. Now it is time to put to the truth 
what we said in how we will vote.
  I am proud to cosponsor this with Senator Gorton because it does 
exactly what we ought to be doing.
  Madam President, this amendment focuses the area of education on 
reform, returning the control of our education dollars back to where it 
belongs, at the local level. This amendment simply block grants the 
funds from the Department of Education for K through 12 and gives it to 
local schools.
  As my colleague, Senator Domenici, stated, we keep adding 
regulations, adding programs, adding money. But when we get to the end 
of the equation, we end with a negative result and subtracting from 
education.

  This amendment gives us the opportunity to give schools the 
flexibility to improve the quality of education at the local level, to 
improve the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic.

[[Page S9068]]

  Madam President, this is an opportunity for us to do the right thing, 
not only by reducing the bureaucracy that exists in our school 
education system, but to provide our schools with the flexibility and 
the funding to achieve a higher standard.
  I urge my colleagues to support this. I urge government at all 
levels, who care about education, to do so by showing, in an 
affirmative way, that our interest is in an educated child, our 
interest is not in adding to well-funded bureaucracies. I urge support 
of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I have listened with considerable 
interest to the comments of my friend and colleague from Washington 
with regard to his amendment. I would like to make certain that I 
understand what he seeks to do.
  I say to my friend from Washington, is the Senator from Kentucky 
correct that the Gorton amendment, with the exception of IDEA, I 
gather--or is that still excepted?
  Mr. GORTON. With the exception of IDEA impact aid, and a few other 
smaller categoric aid programs.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would it essentially distribute the balance of Federal 
educational funds for elementary and secondary education to the school 
districts of America?
  Mr. GORTON. It would.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And would it be safe to say that, in all likelihood, 
the school districts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky would receive more 
Federal assistance under the amendment of the Senator from Washington 
than they currently receive?
  Mr. GORTON. I cannot answer that question categorically. I can say 
that we have something over $11 billion in this appropriations bill, 
which would be distributed pursuant to this amendment. Because at the 
present time the administrative costs --the sand in the wheels--amounts 
to about 15 percent of all of the money that we as taxpayers send to 
Washington, DC, that goes to the Department of Education, before it 
gets back, the total distribution to the school districts of the United 
States will be more than a billion and a half dollars more than it is 
at the present time, which means--just in simple mathematics--that a 
great bulk of school districts will end up getting more money. 
Moreover, that 15 percent doesn't include the amount that the State 
superintendents of public schools take out of most of these categorical 
aid programs for their part of the administration at the present time, 
further enhancing the amount of money that will get to each individual 
school district.
  Even having said that, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I believe 
the most important single element in this bill, from the point of view 
of having money spent on children's education, is the removal of the 
huge numbers of requirements to meet the qualifications for hundreds of 
different categorical aid programs, which now come out of even the 
money that gets to the school districts, who must hire all kinds of 
administrators to see to it that the money is spent in this federally 
determined, uniform category. One school district superintendent, 
reported to me by one of my friends, has said something that is 
consistent with what I hear from my own State: ``We get about 10 
percent of all of the money we spend on schools from the Federal 
Government, but 60 percent of all of the forms we have to fill out, 60 
percent of all the time we have to use, is spent accounting for that 10 
percent.''
  So it is hard for me to imagine a school district anywhere in the 
country that is going to have less money to spend on the education of 
its children under this amendment than it does at the present time, and 
the overwhelming majority of them will have far more.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Further, I ask my friend from Washington, a State like 
Kentucky, which frequently is ranked among the lowest 10 States in 
variety of categories, including poverty, would a State like that under 
the distribution formula in the amendment of the Senator from 
Washington also be likely to gain additional assistance over and above 
what is anticipated would be saved by a reduction in administrative 
costs here in Washington?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes. I am quite certain that Kentucky would--with the 
exception of the modification that we made with respect to title I, 
where the proportions will be identical next year to what they are in 
the present year. We have a slight poverty-based preference in this 
bill. We divide the 50 States --or the 48 States other than Alaska and 
Hawaii--into five categories, and the 10 richest States have their 
allocation multiplied by .9, the 10 poorest States by 1.1, and the 
States in between by 1.05, 1.0, or .95, respectively, so that the 
student in the poor State gets a greater degree of aid than the student 
in a rich State.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from Washington.
  Madam President, I think the explanation of the distinguished Senator 
from Washington makes it quite clear that support for his amendment 
would mean more money for the school districts of my State of Kentucky 
and substantially fewer regulations with which they would have to 
comply.
  It seems to me, Madam President, as education moves into the position 
of No. 1 on the interest chart of the American people, it is our 
responsibility here at the Federal level to think of ways that we can 
further enhance American education and help those who are really doing 
the job, which are obviously the local school districts and the parents 
of our country.
  So I commend the Senator from Washington for a superb amendment and 
indicate my enthusiastic support for the Gorton amendment. I urge my 
colleagues, when we finally have a vote, to resoundingly support a 
proposal that clearly will benefit the school districts and the 
children of America.
  Madam President, few would dispute that one of the primary concerns 
of American families today is the quality of education that our 
children receive. I am sure that other Members of the Senate have heard 
from concerned parents as I have. They don't understand why instruction 
in the most basic skills has fallen to the wayside, and they fear that 
a rudderless education will leave their children adrift and unprepared 
for the future.
  Nearly everyone involved in education today--parents, teachers, 
administrators, and legislators--wants to improve the quality of 
learning in America. But the quest for education reform will only be 
successful if the classrooms--the classrooms--have the money they need 
to implement change and follow-through on the academic programming our 
children need.
  When the Senate approves funding for education, most of our 
constituents believe--and trust--that those moneys are going directly 
to their child's school. But, the numbers show that this is not the 
case. An examination reveals that out of $100 billion in Federal 
education support, local schools received only $13 billion. Let me 
repeat--$13 billion of $100 billion. Where is this money going? It's 
supporting paper-pushing and concept discussions in the Washington, DC 
education offices of adults while our children starve for learning 
aides and chalk at home.
  Senator Gorton's amendment to S. 1061 seeks to help our children by 
actually providing their schools with the funds we assign to them. This 
amendment consolidates selected Federal education funds for 
kindergarten through 12th grade and sends the money directly to school 
districts. State and local education agencies can then use these 
additional funds to design and operate the quality education programs 
families are begging for. It does not change the administration of 
funds for special education, professional development for teachers, 
adult education, education research, the national writing project, 
impact aid, and other similar programs.
  This amendment will not undermine education in America. It seeks to 
strengthen a teetering educational system by focusing our resources on 
the construction of a firm foundation--strong schools. I am confident 
that Kentucky communities can use these funds to better their future. 
Local educators must negotiate through a teeming swamp of 
administrative rules and regulations in order to meet the day-to-day 
needs of their students. They need flexibility to implement change and 
determine what works. The Gorton

[[Page S9069]]

amendment provides the first key step to stronger schools across 
America--funding children's education not layers of repetitive 
bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Gorton 
amendment and its promise to help our Nation's schools fulfill their 
commitment to our children and communities.
  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, I take the floor this afternoon to talk 
about an issue that we have debated in this body all week, an issue 
that is as important to our Nation as these young pages who sit among 
us today and the future of this country, as any issue that we debate.
  The issue of education is the foundation of the future of our 
country. At a time when our schoolchildren--over 50 million--across 
America are returning to school, including my 6-year-old daughter, 
Allyn, who started first grade last week at Great Falls, VA, elementary 
school, it is appropriate that we talk about education not just in 
terms of amendments to the appropriations bill, but we talk about 
education in a way that is relevant to our young people and to our 
future. We will continue to debate education, as we should, because not 
only does every home in America show, as it has shown over the years, 
that education is the No. 1 issue on the minds of our citizens--and 
well it should be--but because we spend billions of dollars on 
education, K through 12 and beyond.
  This morning's Washington Times had two very interesting articles, 
one talking about the American Federation of Teachers and President 
Sandra Feldman discussing why our young people are not being educated.
  If I might, Madam President, allow me to read the first paragraph of 
a story that appeared in the Washington Times this morning.

       The practice of promoting students to the next grade before 
     they are ready is ``rampant across the country,'' according 
     to American Federation of Teachers President Sandra Feldman.

  It is a very lengthy article. Madam President, I ask unanimous 
consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 10, 1997]

  Schools Promote Regardless of Merit--Teachers Federation Calls for 
                               Standards

                           (By Carol Innerst)

       The practice of promoting students to the next grade before 
     they are ready is ``rampant across the country,'' American 
     Federation of Teachers President Sandra Feldman said 
     yesterday.
       While no school district explicitly endorses social 
     promotion, most have an ``implicit policy'' encouraging it 
     because they place limits on holding students back, she said.
       ``That is a clear message to promote socially,'' Miss 
     Feldman said at a newsmaker luncheon at the National Press 
     Club, where the teachers federation released a national study 
     on student promotion policies.
       Citing examples, she noted that students in Orange County, 
     Fla., can be held back only once in elementary school, and in 
     New Orleans they can be retained only twice. Houston 
     restricts retention to once in kindergarten through fourth 
     grade and once in fifth through eighth. Other districts 
     forbid holding back students with limited English or learning 
     disabilities.
       Simply holding students back isn't the answer either, she 
     said. Many students are retained each year, and most do not 
     receive the special help they need to catch up.
       An estimated 15 to 19 percent of U.S. students are retained 
     each year. In many large, urban districts, more than 50 
     percent of the students who enter kindergarten are likely to 
     be retained at least once before they graduate or drop out.
       The report, ``Passing on Failure: District Promotion 
     Policies and Practices,'' examined promotion policies at 85 
     school districts, including the 40 largest districts 
     nationwide.
       Locally, the study looked at public schools in the District 
     and Montgomery, Prince Georges, Anne Arundel and Fairfax 
     counties.
       D.C. policy is ``unclear as to who has the final authority 
     for promotion decisions in all grades,'' the report says. It 
     states that a student may be retained for a maximum of two 
     years.
       Prince Georges has no formal promotion policy. In 
     Montgomery County, the principal has the final authority in 
     promotion decisions in all grades, but there are limits on 
     retention and for special education students.
       Parents are the final authority on promotion decisions for 
     elementary students in Anne Arundel County, the principal has 
     the final say for junior high students and the policy is not 
     clear at the high school level.
       Fairfax County policy does not specify limitations on 
     student retention. Promotion is based on grades for 
     elementary and junior high students. The criteria is not 
     clear for high school students.
       Among the study's general findings:
        Some districts limit the number of times a student 
     can be retained, prohibit retention in specific grades or set 
     age limits to move older students along.
        Student progress often is judged according to 
     vague and varying criteria, as in Nevada's Clark County 
     schools where a promotion requires only that a student's 
     ``progress should be continuous and student advancement 
     through the curriculum should be according to the student's 
     demonstrated ability.''
        Teachers play only an advisory role in promotion 
     decisions.
        Only 15 percent of the districts mention tutoring, 
     and 13 percent call for alternative programs and strategies 
     such as transitional classes or extended instructional time 
     for students who are held back. Half the policies mention 
     summer school.
       Solutions to the problem, according to Miss Feldman, 
     involve creating rigorous grade-by-grade standards for 
     students and ensuring that all elementary teachers are 
     proficient in teaching reading, catching and helping 
     struggling students early in their school careers.
       ``Without common standards, teachers' grades appear 
     arbitrary--and therefore negotiable,'' she said. ``This 
     undermines students' motiviation to work hard in school. 
     Teachers who uphold high standards can find themselves under 
     a lot of pressure to change grades or just pass kids on.''

  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, another story in the Washington Times 
this morning talks about the Governor of Minnesota, Arne Carlson, who 
was in town yesterday, it says:

       . . . to spread the word on how he finally made school 
     choice a reality in his State by finding an alternative to 
     politically unpopular vouchers.

  It goes on. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Washington Times, Sept. 10, 1997]

  Carlson Shares School-Choice Success Story--Minnesota Governor Lost 
           Battle for Vouchers but Won Support for Tax Breaks

                   (By Nancy Roman and Carol Innerst)

       Gov. Arne Carlson was in town to spread the word on how he 
     finally made school choice a reality in his state by finding 
     an alternative to politically unpopular vouchers.
       Mr. Carlson said yesterday that vouchers--government 
     education dollars that follow children to public or private 
     schools--are the best route to school choice, but he stressed 
     that tuition tax credits and deductions are achievable now.
       At several gatherings, he told GOP policy-makers and 
     reporters how the Minnesota Legislature, controlled by 
     Democrats, overwhelmingly defeated his voucher proposal in 
     1995, so he put together a $150 million package of tax 
     incentives for Minnesota parents seeking alternatives to 
     public schools.
       ``Vouchers were a lost battle, so we revamped, went to the 
     tax side and put together a plan,'' Mr. Carlson said in a 
     message he hopes will resonate with the public and policy-
     makers as Congress prepares to debate several school-choice 
     measures.
       The results in Minnesota was overwhelming support for 
     Democrats, Republicans, rich, poor, blacks and whites for a 
     dollar-for-dollar tax credit for families earning less than 
     $33,500 and a tax deduction for educational expenses of up to 
     $2,500 for families earning more than that.
       Mr. Carlson said the trick was making sure to offer 
     something for everyone, including suburban and rural voters 
     and the parents of public school students.
       The strategy confounded the teachers unions, which 
     historically ``opposed virtually everything'' having to do 
     with school choice, he said at a luncheon at the Heritage 
     Foundation. ``A lot of people, including Democrats, got very 
     tired of this `no, no, no' position of the unions.''
       The Minnesota plan, which goes into effect next year, 
     allows a family to use the money for educational efforts 
     ranging from a summer language program to a math tutor to the 
     purchase of a home computer.
       Technically, the education credit cannot be used to pay for 
     private school tuition, but private schools can easily shift 
     their accounting to use the credits for approved expenses 
     such as books and transportation.
       ``It's a tantalizing strategy,'' said Jeanne Allen, the 
     president of the Center for Education Reform, a clearinghouse 
     on national choice issues. ``But each state has to figure out 
     its own political realities.
       ``There's no correlation for the District. In places with 
     no history of tax credits, it's a tough call. In many areas, 
     there's a need for full tuition to follow children, and the 
     District would be one.''
       Paul Steidler, senior fellow at the Alexis de Tocqueville 
     Institution, regretted that Mr. Carlson had to ``back off'' 
     on vouchers but found the governor ``inspiring'' for his 
     tenacity against Democratic lawmakers and the vast resources 
     of the teachers unions.
       Equally impressed, house majority Leader Dick Armey of 
     Texas invited the governor to Washington this week to talk to 
     fellow Republicans.
       ``All too often school vouchers can be thought of as a 
     conservative notion,'' Mr.

[[Page S9070]]

     Armey said. ``We are finding that the idea has great appeal 
     across the political spectrum.''
       Mr. Carlson said that after his defeat on vouchers he 
     assigned two staff members to work full time on a plan 
     offering educational choices to parents and having the 
     political support to make it viable.
       Tax breaks across the economic spectrum were the answer.
       ``The bulk of the public raised their eyebrows,'' Mr. 
     Carlson said.
       But as tests revealed that half the children in Minneapolis 
     and St. Paul were dropping out, a third of the state's eight-
     graders failed a basic reading test and a fourth failed a 
     math test, he said, the public realized something had to 
     change.

  Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, as we pick up newspapers daily across 
this country we don't talk of great success stories for the most part 
about our American education system. We talk about failures. That will 
be a self-fulfilling prophecy if we allow our newspapers to be consumed 
with what is wrong with our public educational system without focusing 
on not only what is right, because there are many things right with our 
system, but how we fix them. How do we make American education better? 
It is easy to criticize. But how do we make it better? It is not just 
money. We know that. Quite honestly, it is more important than money. 
There is not a parent in this country who doesn't understand that.
  We need to look beyond the technicalities and the small details of 
the Gorton amendment, or any other amendment to the appropriations 
bill. We need, and we will continue, to debate a much bigger question 
that gets to our Nation's philosophy, our basic philosophy on 
education.
  Who should control what our children learn and what our teachers 
teach? The Federal Government? I don't think so. No, I don't think so. 
That is not the role of the Federal Government. Our Founding Fathers 
gave us the answer very clearly. We need to look no further than 
article I and amendment 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which reserve the 
authority for education to the States, to the people--not to the 
Federal Government.
  Education should be between parents, teachers, and local school 
boards--not the Department of Education, not the President, not the 
Congress, but the school boards, the teachers, the parents.
  I am one Senator who wants to stop the flow of taxpayers' money, 
parents' money, coming to Washington, and it resides here, and all the 
smart people in Washington sort out for all the children of America--
more than 50 million--what they should know and what teachers should 
teach. I want to stop that.
  One, among many, reasons why I support the Gorton amendment is that I 
want to give the money back to the States, back to the people, back to 
the local school boards and the teachers. They can better spend it. 
They can reward teachers. They can improve our schools. They can help 
our students. Who understands it better than the people who are there? 
I trust the people. I trust our teachers. I trust our school boards. I 
don't trust Government. I don't trust Government to educate our young 
people. Who cares most about making sure that children get a good 
education? Who cares most? Well, of course, the parents care most, and 
the teachers care most.
  All parents--all parents--should have the opportunity to choose where 
their children go to school. It shouldn't be just for rich people. The 
parents pay the bills. We seem to forget that dynamic in Washington. 
The taxpayers, the parents of the children, pay the bill for education; 
for everything. Why then do we take the opportunity away from the 
people who pay the bill from applying their money where they think 
their children can get the best education? That makes sense to me.
  Another reason is that I support efforts by my colleague from 
Georgia, Senator Paul Coverdell, to allow parents to use money they 
have saved in educational savings accounts for K through 12 education. 
What in the world is wrong with that? Not only does logic dictate that 
that makes sense, but it seems to me that it is fundamental to America. 
Education standards should be set locally, not imposed by the Federal 
Government.
  We need to motivate our children to learn. We need to motivate our 
children to learn, not just take tests. There has been some debate 
lately on national testing and school standards. We are confusing the 
issue here by shifting the emphasis from learning to testing. We have 
it backward. The emphasis should not be on testing; it should be on 
learning. The motivation should be learning and not testing. If we 
institute national testing, our teachers will teach to the test. Of 
course, they will. Who wants to be a teacher in a school with a low 
standard on national testing? So if you figure out what the test is and 
what the testing process is and what the questions are, then you teach 
to the test. That is wrong. That doesn't prepare our young people.
  It is time that we stop making our teachers jump through the hoops 
that they have been jumping through with these senseless and burdensome 
paperwork responsibilities and free them up to do what they can do 
better than anybody, and that is teach our children. Let's help our 
teachers teach our children. It is a novel idea. Anyone who has talked 
to teachers in any State, in any town, or in any community has heard 
all the horror stories of amounts of time they spend on wasteful, 
unproductive paperwork. That is time that could be spent teaching our 
children. We need to prepare our children to compete in a global 
economy in the 21st century. Just preparing them to pass a test will do 
nothing to ensure they have the knowledge and the skills, the 
abilities, to compete in a very competitive new century.
  For example, if we let students off the hook in math by letting them 
use calculators for the most basic of problems, they will never learn, 
they will never grasp the logic and discipline gained through 
exercising good mathematics skills.
  There is nothing wrong with calculators, but let us start with the 
basics first. Everybody knows why we have trigonometry and geometry and 
the advanced mathematical courses. Very few will ever use that in their 
professions, but it is about discipline. It is about learning. It is 
about pain in your mind and using your brain. Any fool can pick up a 
calculator. That is not what education is about. That kind of thinking, 
that kind of training will be vital, if we do it right, throughout the 
lives of our young people for what they will need to succeed in a very 
competitive global economy.
  Where I am from in Nebraska, we call that thinking. We call that 
thinking. If our young people cannot read and write, they do not know 
much about science and math and have limited knowledge of history, 
economics, and geography, what chance do they have to succeed in the 
next century? Very little.
  Preparing our children for the next century is not the job of the 
Federal Government. My goodness, we have not been able to balance our 
budget for over 30 years. That is not our job. It is the job of parents 
and teachers and local school boards working together to ensure that 
all of our children have the very best education possible and ensuring 
that all of our children have an opportunity to attend the school of 
their choice.
  That is what this is about. Our Founding Fathers knew very clearly 
what they were doing when they determined that education should be a 
local issue.
  It is time we get back to the fundamental principles and basics that 
made this a great nation. We are a great nation today not because of 
our Government, not because of our systems, but because of our people. 
Our people have, through their wisdom, through their common sense, 
through their hard work, their discipline, made the right choices for 
over 200 years. And basic to all those choices has been how you educate 
your children. There will be much debate, as there should be, in this 
Chamber over the next few days, weeks, months, and years on our 
philosophy about education, but let us not forget where it all resides. 
It resides at the local level with the parents, with the teachers, with 
the schools.
  I wish to go on record supporting the Gorton amendment. I wish to 
also go on record supporting the Coverdell bill and the philosophy of 
local control for education.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

[[Page S9071]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to join my 
colleague from the State of Washington this evening in support of and 
as a cosponsor of his amendment to allow resources, money, tax dollars 
to get to the young people of this country in a way that seems so easy 
and so simplistic and, yet, so right, because I suspect that the 
Presiding Officer, myself, and everyone on this floor believes in, and 
we are collectively supporters of, public education.
  I happen to be a member of the Republican leadership, and I have 
worked hard over the last several years to make sure that education 
funding is one of our party's top priorities and that we, along with 
everyone else who serves here, are seen to be strong supporters of 
public education. And we do that by expanding programs where the need 
is, by increasing dollars, by looking at priorities. That is what we 
should be doing.
  As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Education 
and Human Services, I have worked to make sure that that kind of 
rhetoric gets translated into increases in Federal funding for 
education, and I am pleased that this year's bill--the one that we are 
currently debating--has such increases in it.
  In other words, what we are doing here in the Senate is something we 
should be doing because the American public has asked us to do it--to 
examine our priorities, balance the budget, and redirect our resources 
and, in doing so, placing education as one of those enhanced 
priorities. Yet, despite all of the increases in spending, I find that 
teachers and parents in my State and across the Nation have not yet 
been able to see an improvement in their schools. There is still a high 
level of frustration, especially at the parental level, with the 
quality of education that our young people get, the method by which 
they are educated, and the whole combination of the environment that we 
call our public school system. They want to know--and I want to know--
where the money goes, how the money gets spent. Why do we have a lot of 
people at different levels of the administrative process making 
decisions when, in fact, we have elected officials at the local level 
and professional educators who should be allowed to make the largest 
block of those decisions?
  Now, in many instances, the Department of Education can't tell you 
where the money went. It doesn't get lost, it just gets administered. 
The fact is that between the time we appropriate it and the time a 
student feels the impact of it, anywhere from 15 percent up to 25 
percent of the money gets lost at the Federal and State administrative 
levels. The Gorton amendment cuts to the chase. It basically asks us to 
be true to the very arguments we have placed time and again in our town 
meetings and in our citizen gatherings in every State, and that is, we 
want local control and we want the money to get to the local level. 
Yet, in our desire to fund public education, we are constantly working 
at--if I can use the word--new schemes, new processes by which the 
money moves through. And in the end, as I say, as much as 25 percent 
doesn't get there.
  As the Senator from Washington was mentioning a moment ago--and he 
didn't mention my name, but I was the one visiting with him the other 
evening in relationship to an administrator in my State. After I toured 
his school, he said, ``You know, Larry, the Federal programs that we 
have just seen, some of them are very good and well meaning and are 
providing very valuable service to our young people, but there is a 
problem.'' I said, ``What is that problem?'' He said, ``Well, 60 
percent of the paperwork that my school has to do . . .''--and he means 
all of the paperwork--``. . . is spent on approximately 10 percent of 
the money we get, and that 10 percent is Federal money. That is about 
one-and-a-half staff people in time involved in the paper shuffle to 
get 10 percent of the money, because the programs are there and the 
projects are there. So they are bound to go after them.''
  By the way, that individual is not in the classroom teaching. That 
individual is sitting in an office filling out forms to identify with 
the Federal dollar. We all support education, but how will increases in 
spending make a difference if the money gets lost in the process or 
gets diminished dramatically in the process, at a time when we are 
trying to balance the budget and sort out the differences in very 
limited resources, trying to empower our taxpayers by letting them keep 
more of their hard-earned money, and still wanting to spend more on 
education because the public believes it is necessary, and so do we? So 
why can't we think of a better way to do it, instead of the schemes and 
the systems and the bureaucracies, when we have people who are elected 
at the local level, charged and empowered with the responsibility of 
educating young people and professionally trained educators who are 
there to do it, and yet the Federal system and the State systems tells 
them how to do it, where to do it, why to do it, and when to do it. The 
Gorton amendment says in a very clear way that there is a better way. 
Title I has been corrected, and it is important that it be corrected. 
The idea of funding has been exempt. Impact aid should be exempt 
because that speaks to the Federal presence in a given school district, 
a Federal presence of employees that oftentimes don't pay tax dollars 
by the nature of Federal property they might be on, be it a military 
base or an Indian reservation. And because there is a Federal presence 
it is important that that money be selected.

  Senator Gorton has exempted that. But what he has said--and 
importantly so for the rest of it--is create an equitable formula, 
allow the Secretary of Education to be the administrator of that 
formula, and pass the Federal dollars straight through to the local 
school districts, and each school might choose how to spend that money 
just a little bit differently. But they would choose it on a priority 
based on what was needed in that community and in that school district 
instead of pursuing the paper chase because there was a Federal 
program. And, we can get the money, but we really do not need that 
particular project in this district. But it is there, and we ought to 
apply for it because it will help fund a piece of this teacher's 
salary, and we can have them educate in the standard curriculum program 
along with the special program.
  That is, of course, exactly what happens. And those are the dynamics 
involved. That is why Senator Gorton has brought to the floor what I 
think is a very clean and simple idea. We are all for public education. 
This amendment is about public education. It is for public education. 
It dramatically increases the ability to get the $11 billion that we 
spend in public education to the teacher, to the school board member, 
and to the administrator but, most importantly, directly to the 
student.
  In fact, the Senator, who is the primary sponsor of this, believes 
that it increases the amount that goes to the students by well over $1 
billion. I suspect we are going to hear arguments tonight: Well, but, 
but; How about; maybe, and This program is so valuable. Of course, that 
is the standard argument because that is the bureaucracy that has built 
up over the years, and we become defensive about it, if we are a 
creator of it, or an administrator of it.
  But what we are saying here tonight is let us pass the money through 
the Department of Education directly to the schools, to the students, 
to the educators, and to the administrators, and save 15 percent in 
administrative costs at the Federal and the State level, increase the 
finite resource dollar spent by well over $1 billion to the student, 
and be proud of the fact that we are strong supporters of public 
education but recognizing the fact that there are the professionals at 
the local level who know what they are doing and we are simply 
empowering them with more resources to do it.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Gorton education amendment. I 
hope my colleagues will join with us at the time of passage in voting 
for it.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there has been a concerted effort on all 
sides to work out a unanimous-consent agreement. I think it is a fair 
one in view of the time--and the amendments--that we have spent on this 
important appropriations bill, the Labor-Health and Human Services and 
Education bill.

[[Page S9072]]

  We have an agreement here now that I think will allow us to complete 
all action on the bill before noon tomorrow. Then it would be our 
intent at that time to go to the Interior appropriations bill. In the 
middle of the afternoon we would probably go to FDA reform. There would 
be at least an hour of debate by Senator Kennedy, followed by others 
certainly, and then we would have probably a cloture motion, and we 
would return to Interior appropriations.
  That is not a part of the UC. There are a lot of contacts still being 
made on behalf of Senators on both sides of the issues involved in 
Interior appropriations. But I believe we have the FDA reform time, and 
general understanding of what we will do there.
  But I just wanted to give Members some idea of what we hope our 
schedule will be tomorrow beyond this agreement.
  I ask unanimous-consent that time on the Nickles amendment, No. 1081, 
be limited to 30 minutes equally divided in the usual form, and 
following the debate the Craig second-degree amendment, No. 1083, be 
agreed to, and that no other second-degree amendments be in order.
  I further ask that the time on the Gregg amendment, No. 1070, as 
modified, be limited to 30 minutes, equally divided in the usual form, 
and, following the debate, the second-degree amendment, No. 1071, be 
withdrawn, and no other second-degree amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that following the debate on the 
Gorton amendment, No. 1122, the amendment be laid aside, and, at 10 
a.m. on Thursday, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the 
Gorton amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the 
Nickles amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the 
Gregg amendment, to be followed by third reading and final passage of 
S. 1061.
  So we have stacked votes beginning in the morning at 10 on the 
amendments that are listed here, and on final passage.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader 
consider the 2 minutes equally divided for debate just prior to the 
vote?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, certainly we should do that. I should have 
included that in our unanimous consent, as is always the case when we 
stack votes like that. We will have 2 minutes equally divided before 
each vote so that Members will know exactly what the substance is.
  Mr. FORD. The majority leader has always been generous with that 
portion of it. I apologize for bringing it up.
  Mr. LOTT. That is fine.
  Mr. FORD. We want to be sure. So that is part of the UC agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask that, following the passage of S. 1061, on 
Thursday the Senate begin consideration of S. 830, and there be 1 hour 
under the control of Senator Kennedy and 1 hour under the control of 
Senator Jeffords, and, following the filing of a cloture motion by the 
majority leader, S. 830 be placed back on the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I wonder if 
the leader has the language of the modification on testing? If not, I 
would be constrained to object unless he could modify his agreement 
with respect to the modification.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in response to that reservation, I 
understand that the efforts are still underway to get agreement on the 
exact language. It is hoped that we will be able to get some agreement. 
I understand the White House is involved in that discussion, and 
Senators from both sides of the aisle are I think making some progress. 
But if that does not come to a head, I would modify then--let me put 
this part of the consent.
  I modify the consent to reflect that, if the Gregg amendment, as 
modified, is not the agreed-upon text between the two leaders, then 
this consent agreement will be null and void.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I have no objection under those 
circumstances.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, then in light of this agreement, there will 
be no further votes this evening, and at 10 a.m. on Thursday, four 
back-to-back votes will occur. Also, for those Senators interested in 
the Gorton education amendment, that debate will be occurring this 
evening. The debate on the Teamsters issue and the testing issue will 
occur between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. followed by, of course, the stacked 
votes.

  I do want to say, Mr. President, that I appreciate the effort by 
Senator Gorton. I agree with the statements I heard being made by 
Senator Craig. And the idea is to get education back to the people, 
back to the local level, back to the parents, and the children, the 
teachers and administrators. Let them make the decisions of how best to 
spend their allocation of these Federal funds. I believe they will make 
the right decisions, and it will be a way to help improve education in 
America. It is one thing to test. But we know that our children are not 
doing as well as they should be. What we should be focusing on is 
greater parental involvement in education, and in the decisions 
affecting that education at the local level. This amendment would do 
it.
  I heartily endorse the Gorton amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a 
cosponsor of the Gorton amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, every once in a while a vote comes along 
that is a defining vote. I am sure that to a lot of people the Gorton 
amendment looks like a fairly simple, straightforward concept. And that 
concept is that we are spending a lot of money on education at the 
Federal level. Yet, if one looks at the 30-year history of that 
expenditure, Federal spending and Federal control have expanded and we 
have crowded out parental involvement, and the quality of American 
education by almost any measure has declined.
  This has created a dilemma on the part of many Members of Congress. 
Congress and bureaucrats dictating local education priorities and 
programs is failing. Yet those who are concerned about education have 
loathed the idea of reducing the amount of resources committed by the 
Federal Government for a purpose that they support.
  So we have been in an endless debate where everybody admits that what 
we are doing is failing. And, yet, we continue year after year adding 
more money for the very programs that we have all concluded are failing 
because we want to show that we support education.
  For example, one of the provisions of the bill before us that I 
strongly oppose is bilingual education. This program has become a 
vehicle to keep people dependent on a language other than the language 
of opportunity and commerce in America. It begins to produce a society 
where people who do not learn English are isolated. Yet, in this bill 
we have a 36-percent increase in funding for bilingual education. That 
is the dilemma.
  How can we see the money is spent efficiently, if, in fact, we want 
to improve the quality of education? The Gorton amendment solves the 
problem by eliminating the dilemma.
  The Gorton amendment will spend every penny on education that this 
bill calls for. For poor students, it maintains the same allocation for 
title I.
  We have already dealt with the education of disabled persons. That is 
outside the purview of this debate. We have recently reformed that 
program. It is not included.
  Impact aid is given on the basis of the number of Federal employees 
who are working in facilities that do not pay local taxes. That is a 
property tax supplement. Impact Aid is not included. But nearly all 
other K-12 educational funding at the Federal level is included in the 
Gorton amendment.
  So what the Gorton amendment essentially says is this: Take the 
amount of money that is currently being spent by Washington bureaucrats 
and congressional politicians and give it to the school systems. But 
take away all of the mandates as to how it is to be spent, and let 
local teachers, local parents, and locally elected school board members 
decide how this money is spent.

[[Page S9073]]

  I think conservatively it has been estimated that over $1 billion of 
additional spending will get through the massive web of bureaucracy, 
through that maze of grants and applications and bureaucratic 
oversight, and get to the students. I think that number is a gross 
underestimation.
  So this is one of those votes that really defines where we stand.
  Those who vote against this amendment are voting to continue a system 
that for 30 years has failed the children of this country, that has 
increasingly dictated education policy in Washington, DC, where 
bureaucrats and Congressmen set priorities in education and where 
parents are basically excluded from having a real voice in how their 
Federal tax money is spent and often how their State and local tax 
money is spent. Those who oppose the Gorton amendment are saying let's 
protect the status quo. Let's continue a program where Washington knows 
best.
  Those who support the Gorton amendment are saying, look, we want to 
commit the money, but rather than letting Washington bureaucrats and 
Washington politicians decide how it is being spent, let's let local 
teachers, local parents, local administrators, and locally elected 
school board members take this money and use it in a way that maximizes 
the rate of return in terms of quality education that we get.
  I think for years to come, people will be able to look at this vote 
and determine where people stand on this fundamental issue. Do you 
believe Washington knows best on education? Well, obviously many do. 
But if they do, they believe it is in spite of 30 years where the 
record has shown a clear failure as Washington has dictated more and 
more of the spending on primary and secondary education in America.
  It seems to me it is very difficult based on empirical evidence to 
suggest that the current program really works. What the Gorton 
amendment says is let local people set priorities in education. The 
American people overwhelmingly in poll after poll believe that. I am 
confident that local parents in my hometown of College Station, TX, 
local teachers, locally elected school board members love their 
children at least as much as we do.
  I remember once engaging in a debate with someone from the Department 
of Education in the early 1980's, and I made what I thought was the 
convincing point. I said I may be ignorant, I may not know curriculum, 
I may not have a Ph.D. in education, but I do love my children more 
than you do, to which this very sweet lady said, ``No, you don't.'' And 
I said, ``Then what are their names?'' She loved them but not enough to 
know their names.
  So I am confident that people in my hometown care more about the 
quality of education their children receive than we do. I am convinced 
that if we give them the same money we are giving them now but we let 
them decide how to spend it, they will do a better job.
  It is not going to do us much good to have the Department of 
Education or some surrogate create a test to give students, then 
discover that our schools are failing to teach our children. We already 
know that. Nothing is more documented in the country than the fact that 
public education is failing, especially in the big cities. The question 
is what are we going to do about it?
  The Gorton amendment says let us in a very simple way fundamentally 
begin to change the equation. It is only the first step. If we give the 
money directly to the school system, then you have to ask, what do we 
need all these bureaucrats for? Perhaps next year we can go back and 
take the money we are spending on all the people who administer these 
programs and give that money to the school system and thereby greatly 
multiply our efforts.
  So I am proud of this amendment. I think this is a defining 
amendment. I think how you stand on this amendment basically says 
whether you believe that Washington knows best or whether you believe 
that local parents, local teachers, locally elected school board 
members know best and care most. I do not have any doubt about the 
answer to that question. That is why I am for the Gorton amendment. I 
hope it will pass.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise in order to offer support for the 
principles outlined in the legislation submitted by my friend from the 
State of Washington, Senator Gorton. This amendment begins to bring 
about some very needed reform to give youngsters in our public 
education institutions, particularly so many in our large metropolitan 
areas and our inner core cities, the needed reforms that are long 
overdue.
  What we are saying is that we want to see to it that the money gets 
into the classroom, that we empower good teachers to teach, that we 
give to the local districts the opportunity to direct the resources 
they need.
  The amendment combines all of the Federal funds devoted to education, 
with several large exceptions, into block grants. The Secretary of 
Education is then required to distribute the consolidated funds 
directly to each school district through a formula outlined in the 
bill. Now, under this innovative approach, the Federal funds will be 
distributed directly to school districts, and it will be used in 
classrooms and no longer will Washington bureaucrats be dictating how 
schools use scarce resources. We need to empower local educators, and 
more importantly, parents and teachers, with the ability to bring the 
kind of education to youngsters that has been lost to many for so long.
  I feel very strongly that we have to maximize resources and to return 
to citizens the ability to give educational opportunity to their 
children. It is clear that this country has now begun a long overdue 
debate on the future of public education, and I strongly believe that 
we need fundamental reforms that will give to our children what they 
need and deserve.
  I have proposed five fundamental reforms which I hope we can make 
part of our educational mission, not necessarily by legislation, but as 
guiding principles.
  First, you cannot give youngsters an educational opportunity unless 
we get violent and disruptive juveniles out of the classrooms so that 
teachers can teach and good students can learn.
  A little over a week ago there was an article in the New York Times 
about crime in the schools, and according to New York City Chancellor 
Rudy Crew, last year there was a total of 22,615 reported--I say 
``reported'' because we don't know how many were unreported--incidents 
including one murder, 221 sexual assaults including rape, and nearly 
1,000 other physical assaults. That is outrageous. We are talking about 
schools that are supposed to be sanctuaries and havens for our 
children. How can teachers teach good youngsters with that taking 
place? Yet in district after district, State after State, we find 
parents unable to secure for their children a safe environment. 
Disruptive juveniles are permitted to stay in the classroom and create 
chaos to keep others from getting the education that they deserve. How 
can good teachers teach in those kinds of circumstances?
  Second, talking about good teachers--and there are many, many--how do 
we reward good teachers when they are all treated the same? It is about 
time we rewarded outstanding teachers for their good performance with 
merit pay. What do we hear in response to that? I hear the president of 
the teachers' union say, ``We are opposed to merit pay.'' Imagine, 
opposed to giving merit pay to good teachers.
  Instead, what the union does is protect its own perks without making 
determinations about rewarding good teachers. We have outmoded tenure 
systems in State after State. In my State, the teachers' union protects 
incompetence, notwithstanding that the school board associations have 
begged, have pleaded, have said give us renewable tenure, tenure for 5 
years so that we can review someone's performance. Now we lock in 
incompetence. We reward it. You have unions that are more interested in 
protecting the perks and the privileges of their members, not rewarding 
outstanding teachers, those teachers who come in early, those teachers 
who work with our youngsters, those teachers who stay after school, who 
give additional thought, who are inspirations--and there are so many. 
No, they are not rewarded with merit pay, but incompetents are 
protected.

[[Page S9074]]

  We need to give parents more control over their children's education, 
and that means letting parents choose which public school in their own 
school districts their children can attend. Bring about competition. Do 
not assign, particularly working poor families, to the worst of public 
education systems without the choice or without the ability or without 
the financial means to give their children an educational opportunity, 
but give them choice.

  By the way, in areas where this has been effected, it has worked. It 
has worked in East Harlem, and it can work elsewhere. In fact, there 
are at least four other examples of New York districts that are 
experimenting with similar interdistrict programs, and they work. It 
will let us empower parents to make educational choices for their 
children, and particularly those who are not of great affluence.
  Finally, we need to put our children first and stand up to those 
special interests, which are teachers unions that are more interested 
in pay and perks than they are in good education for our children, and 
reward those teachers who are excellent and should deserve that 
recognition. I am strongly supportive of the principles of this 
amendment.
  I have to ask my good friend and colleague, though, Senator Gorton, 
what, if anything, in the bill will see to it that the districts that 
will be receiving these moneys will not be impaired and that they will 
get at least as much in terms of funding under this proposal as they 
received in the past? I think that is a very important element.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the statement by my friend and colleague 
from New York on educational policy is greatly to be commended. He set 
out a vision that I think is a magnificent one for parents and students 
and teachers and all interested in education all across the United 
States.
  As he pointed out, this amendment is not directed at all of those 
goals by any stretch of the imagination but is focused on the goal of 
trusting to a far greater extent than we have in the past the wisdom of 
the parents and the teachers and the administrators and local school 
board members in each of the thousands of school districts in the 
United States with respect to what best can advance the education of 
the students for which they are responsible.
  The principal goal of my amendment is to remove these thousands of 
pages of regulations and detailed supervision, frequently on a one-
size-fits-all basis, directed from on high here in Washington, DC, at 
urban, rural and suburban school districts all across the United 
States.
  Already, this amendment has been improved by suggestions by the 
Senator from New York and others with respect to title I. And he has 
now asked the question that was asked by the Senator from Kentucky in a 
slightly different form--each Senator, while he or she has strong 
general ideas, also represents particular constituencies in the 
particular State--as to whether or not it is possible to see to it that 
as we move into this situation we do not have States that are huge 
losers as well as winners.
  It is my opinion--it is the reason that I introduced this amendment--
that every school district in every State in the United States should 
be a winner in two ways. First, because so much less money has to be 
spent on administration that more dollars would actually get down to 
individual students; but, second, because these mountains of 
regulations and impositions from the Federal Government on local school 
districts will be removed, the use of the same number of dollars would 
be far more effective in the ultimate educational result.
  But, since that is much more important than the formula, the Senator 
from New York has said, ``Can't we hold harmless each of the States, at 
least?'' I think we can only do it by States, because now so much of 
this money doesn't go to school districts, it goes to the States. The 
States distribute it. And, on reflection, I think he is right. I think 
he is correct in that.
  So, I will ask the indulgence of my colleagues to send one more 
modification to the desk. Before I send it to the desk I think I just 
simply ought to read it for their approval. It would be that:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the 
     total amount awarded to local education agencies in each 
     State under this section shall not be less than the net 
     dollars that State would have received absent the provisions 
     of this section.

  What does that mean? That means that roughly 85 percent of the money, 
the money that now gets out of Washington, DC, would be distributed 
just as it is at the present time. The other 15 percent, or the great 
bulk of that 15 percent that is no longer needed for all of the 
bureaucrats writing and enforcing these regulations here, would go in 
the way in which the rest of the amendment describes.
  I think probably that makes even more forceful the point that I have 
made from the very beginning of this debate, that its primary goal is 
to see to it that we allow the decisions about the way the money is 
spent to be made by the people who are actually spending it and 
actually providing the education. My own opinion is that's far more 
important, even, than the billion-plus dollars that would be 
distributed to the various States because of the smaller expenses of 
administration. I think this meets with the suggestion the Senator from 
New York made, and I would like to ask for his comments on it.
  Mr. D'AMATO. It certainly does. Mr. President, once again, I want to 
commend Senator Gorton for his willingness to look at a problem that he 
has worked on for a long time, in terms of solving it, and having that 
flexibility of recognizing that there are complexities and ways to deal 
with this. I applaud the modification that the Senator has indicated he 
is willing to make because we now assure against the argument that, 
``Oh, this may cost us money.'' Indeed, I think what the implementation 
of his legislative proposals will demonstrate is that not only do you 
get at least the amount of money that we are talking about now, but 
absent the red tape, absent the administration--both from Washington 
and at the local levels, that schools are burdened with, hours and 
hours, and thousands of people nationwide who are just working on 
filling out forms and sending them back and forth --those wasted hours 
and resources can be used and directed much better to meet the 
educational needs that our youngsters have. We are talking about 
empowering the local districts, parents, and good teachers to utilize 
these scarce resources.
  It is literally finding over $1.5 billion. That is what the import of 
the Senator's message is here, giving that kind of resource; and, more 
important than just the money, is the tools to direct how these moneys 
will best be used, the resources to give the best education to 
youngsters--maybe determine in certain areas they need more computers, 
maybe in another area they need more books, maybe in another area there 
are some remedial requirements that are necessary. Whatever it is, 
those decisions should be made by the parents, by the educators, by the 
local superintendents, by the local districts, and not on high from 
Washington and not burdened with all kinds of reporting requirements 
that do nothing to educate our kids.
  So, if the Senator goes forward with that, I commend him for his 
initial undertaking and for the fact that he has demonstrated that he 
has a willingness to meet the needs of the entire educational community 
and see to it that the resources get there, and that no one can make 
the argument, ``Oh, in my school district our children will not get the 
resources that they are entitled to, or they will get less.'' This 
modification that he suggests will assure that. I am deeply 
appreciative of his sensitivity; more important, of his leadership in 
this important area.
  There is no area more vital. Our public educational institutions, on 
the elementary level, have been suffering mightily throughout this 
country, particularly in the large metropolitan areas and our inner 
core cities, since so many working families are deprived of choice, are 
deprived of opportunity, are deprived of giving their youngsters a good 
education that we have had in the past.
  I might make one comment. I am struck by the deterioration in our 
public schools, again: Because of disruptive students--you can't get 
them out

[[Page S9075]]

of class; you should be able to get them out of class--because we have 
not given and empowered good teachers with the kind of recognition and 
good pay that they need, because we have protected incompetents with 
outmoded tenure laws, because we stripped away the ability to make 
choices.
  When my dad was in elementary school 75 years ago, when he first 
entered elementary school--and it was even a little more than that, 
almost 80 years ago--he didn't speak a word of English. His mom and pop 
had just come to this country. They lived in a ghetto, in a poor 
community. No one spoke English there. When he went to grammar school 
he flunked English right throughout. But he had teachers who were 
dedicated, willing, who persevered. And they were interested in giving 
those youngsters who came from all kinds of diverse backgrounds the 
best education. Let me tell you, disruptive kids--and they had 
disruptive kids--were not tolerated, nor their conduct.
  As a result of that, over a period of time, going to summer school 
and with help, he graduated, went on to a State teachers college. He 
majored in English because the people who worked with him were an 
inspiration to him. That is the story of so many of our grandparents 
and parents, who had that great educational opportunity in our public 
schools. That is an opportunity that all too often, in too many of our 
communities, is lacking. It is one that we have an obligation to fight 
for and to bring about. We have to empower local educators, local 
decisions, parents, so the good children can get that opportunity that 
was available many years ago and unfortunately, in too many cases, is 
not available now.
  So I commend the Senator for his excellent amendment and his 
initiatives and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the Gorton amendment 
because it hurts students and goes against the Nation's commitment to 
helping poor and educationally disadvantaged students who need our 
strong support. It also undermines the partnerships that have been 
created by Federal, State, and local education agencies to improve all 
schools for all children.
  We all agree that education is a local responsibility. But the States 
and the Federal Government are important partners in helping to improve 
education for all children. We all need to work together to improve the 
Nation's public schools.
  This amendment rejects that basic principle. It shifts Federal 
dollars away from the neediest communities to the wealthier ones. It 
destroys carefully crafted and widely supported Federal programs. And 
it undermines the States' roles as vital partners in improving the 
achievement of all students.
  This amendment would strip the States of their ability to integrate 
Federal funds with innovative State programs and State standards. Most 
of the small portion of Federal funding that is retained by the States 
under current law--only 6 percent--supports technical assistance and 
training for local school districts that do not have the expertise, 
resources, or desire to conduct such training themselves.
  Currently, Federal funds are offering a helping hand to local school 
districts in meeting high priority responsibilities important to the 
Nation as whole. The funds help schools and school districts improve 
reading and math skills of disadvantaged students, help teachers get 
the extra skills they need to teach all children to higher standards, 
help communities create safe and drug-free schools, and help 
communities modernize their schools. This amendment would take away 
Federal funding for these crucial, targeted purposes to help children 
who need it most, but who are often short-changed under current State 
and local law.
  Contrary to arguments made by proponents of the amendment, Federal 
education laws are more flexible and school-friendly than ever before. 
States and local education agencies are working in closer and more 
effective cooperation. The result is that schools are doing a better 
job of helping all children meet higher standards of achievement. The 
Federal-State-local partnership in education isn't broken and the 
amendment can't fix it. Congress should be doing all it can to 
strengthen that partnership, not destroy it.
  As a nation, we have made a commitment to help all students have the 
opportunity to get a good education. We have a responsibility to make 
sure that public tax dollars are well spent. This amendment provides no 
accountability for how these dollars are spent. Reforming the Federal 
role in education does not mean abdicating that role.
  This amendment is the wrong direction for the Nation's children and 
the wrong direction for education. It is not an attempt to offer a 
helping hand to local schools. It is simply a thinly veiled attempt to 
dismantle the Federal role in education.
  We should support efforts to improve education for all students, not 
undermine them. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gorton amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the amendment fundamentally alters the 
distribution of Federal education funds by converting a poverty based 
formula to a general aid formula. This is major change in Federal 
education policy and there has not been a single hearing on the impact 
or advisability of such a change.
  The Senator from Washington said it is his goal to get more money 
into the classroom. However, I wonder how there can be any such 
assurance since his amendment eliminates the requirement that Federal 
funds must supplement and not supplant existing education funds. We all 
know that dollars are fungible and there is nothing to prevent a state 
from merely reducing State Support for education and spending more 
money for other worthy things like roads and bridges.
  The 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act provided schools with greater flexibility, especially with respect 
to title I. These changes are working.
  As Federal lawmakers, we have a responsibility to make sure the 
Federal dollar is well spent. This amendment undermines the provisions 
of the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act to improve accountability of Federal education programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Two mechanical matters. First of all, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senators Domenici, Abraham, Craig, and Smith of Oregon be 
added as cosponsors, if they are not already cosponsors of the modified 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 1122

  Mr. GORTON. Second, I send the modification I just discussed to the 
desk and ask unanimous consent it be included.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The modification to the amendment (No. 1122) is as follows:

       Insert between lines 22 and 23 on page 6: (h) 
     notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the 
     total amount awarded to local education agencies in each 
     state under this section shall not be less than the net 
     dollars that state would have received absent the provisions 
     of this section. Old subsection (h) relettered subsection 
     (i).

  Mr. D'AMATO. Might I ask I be also included as an original cosponsor.
  Mr. GORTON. I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from 
Washington, Senator Gorton, for an outstanding amendment. Every once in 
a while we will vote on an amendment that will make a significant 
difference in our lives and the lives our families, and this is just 
such an amendment. This is an amendment that says local school boards, 
local school districts and parents will be making decisions instead of 
Washington, DC.
  I remember when we debated welfare reform and I asked my staff: How 
many Federal welfare programs do we have? I was thinking maybe we had 
60 or something. It turned out we had 350-some Federal welfare 
programs. They were stacked on top of each other and, frankly, people 
could qualify for any number of programs, multiple programs.
  Then I remember we started talking about education. I asked somebody 
how

[[Page S9076]]

many programs do we have and how much money are we spending in 
education? And my staff sent me back: Well, there's hundreds of 
programs and we spend almost $100 billion.
  I thought, ``Well, I don't really think that's the case. We don't 
spend that much in the Department of Education. And we don't spend that 
much--I know we have other education programs in other agencies, but 
surely that is an exaggeration. Maybe that was something that some 
right-wing Rush Limbaugh group or somebody made up.'' So I asked the 
question and we did some homework and we got some information from CRS.
  This is a listing of all the Federal education programs. It is a big 
list. There are 788 Federal education programs. I don't care how bright 
anyone is, there is no one person who can keep track of all these 
programs. These are all Federal education programs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at this point--not this lengthy list, because I don't want to charge 
the Government that much--but a little summary of the list by 
departments, programs, and funding; and also by category; the listing 
and the amount of money spent on Federal education programs.
  I ask unanimous consent to have these printed in the Record at the 
close of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. NICKLES. To outline just a little bit, the Department of 
Education has 307 education programs and spends a little over $59 
billion. The Department of Health and Human Services has 172 Federal 
education programs, that costs $8.6 billion. The Department of Labor 
has 21 at a cost of $5.4 billion, and I can go on down the list but we 
have had it printed in the Record. It is a total of 788 programs; a 
total cost of almost $97 billion a year. I found that hard to believe, 
and I served on the Budget Committee for years and thought I knew a 
little bit about Federal budgeting. But I started looking at these 
figures, and they are astronomical.
  Mr. President, we have had this information printed in the Record. I 
hope my colleagues will pay a little attention to it. I hope as a 
result of that they will realize there is no way in the world that we, 
on the Federal level, from Washington, DC, can micromanage 788 
programs.
  The amendment of the Senator from Washington says let's let the local 
school boards do it. Let's put this money, with a few exemptions--
impact aid and a couple of other exceptions that maybe really have 
Federal cause--let's exempt them. But for the most part, let's take the 
balance of them, 788 programs, and put that money together and turn it 
over to the local school boards and to the parents and to the teachers 
where they can really do some quality education. They know what works. 
Frankly, what works in Oklahoma may be different than what works in New 
York, what works in Arizona.
  So I think my colleague from Washington has an outstanding amendment. 
I hope and urge my colleagues to support it. I hope it will be adopted 
tomorrow morning.
  I complement him for his outstanding work and hope this amendment 
passes. I believe, if it passes, it will make a very positive 
contribution towards improving education throughout this country.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                 FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS BY CATEGORY                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               No. of                   
                  Category                    Programs       Funding    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction................................         9      $627,096,000
Education Research..........................        14       841,534,000
General Education...........................        52       684,250,501
K12.........................................       181    25,920,623,342
Libraries...................................         9       249,869,103
OMB 1&2.....................................        33       577,929,000
Professional Development/Teacher Training...        60       731,528,342
Postsecondary...............................       259    44,765,196,759
Preschool...................................        17     5,770,992,000
Research....................................        27     1,711,255,000
Social Services.............................        42     6,790,978,287
Training....................................        79     8,178,372,048
Set Asides..................................         6        19,719,038
                                             ---------------------------
      Total.................................       788    96,869,343,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    DEPARTMENTS, PROGRAMS AND FUNDING                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               No. of                   
                 Department                   Programs   Federal dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appalachian Regional Commission.............         2        $2,000,000
Barry Goldwater Scholarship Program.........         1         2,900,000
Christopher Columbus Fellowship Program.....         1                 0
Corporation for National Service............        11       501,130,000
Department of Education.....................       307    59,045,043,938
Department of Commerce......................        20       156,455,000
Department of Defense.......................        15     2,815,320,854
Department of Energy........................        22        36,700,000
Department of Health and Human Services.....       172     8,661,006,166
Department of Housing and Urban Development.         9        81,800,000
Department of Interior......................        27       555,565,000
Department of Justice.......................        21       755,447,149
Department of the Treasury..................         1        11,000,000
Department of Labor.........................        21     5,474,039,000
Department of Transportation................        19       121,672,000
Department of Veterans' Affairs.............         6     1,436,074,000
Environmental Protection Agency.............         4        11,103,800
Federal Emergency Management Administration.         6       118,512,000
General Services Administration.............         1                 0
Government Printing Office..................         2        24,756,000
Harry Truman Scholarship Foundation.........         1         3,187,000
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Program...         1         2,000,000
Library of Congress.........................         5       194,822,103
National Aeronautics and Space                                          
 Administration.............................        12       153,300,000
National Archives...........................         2         5,000,000
National Institute for Literacy.............         1         4,491,000
National Council on Disability..............         1           200,000
National Endowment for the Arts/Humanities..        13       103,219,000
National Science Foundation.................        15     2,939,230,000
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...............         3         6,944,000
National Gallery of Art.....................         1           750,000
Office of Personnel Management..............         1                 0
Small Business Administration...............         2        73,540,000
Smithsonian.................................        14         3,276,000
Social Security Administration..............         1        85,700,000
State Department............................         1                 0
United States Information Agency............         8       125,558,000
United States Institute for Peace...........         4         3,371,000
United States Department of Agriculture.....        33    13,339,630,410
U.S. Agency for International Development...         1        14,600,000
      Total.................................       788    96,869,343,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I see no overriding reason to extend this 
debate. I want to thank the large number of my colleagues who have come 
to the floor, many of them greatly to their inconvenience, during the 
course of this evening to speak in favor of my ideas, and the 
significant number who, at one time or another during the course of the 
last 3 days, have spoken on it at other times.
  I am prepared now to summarize the reasons for favoring the 
amendment, to defer to Senator Jeffords from Vermont, who will oppose 
the amendment, and perhaps take the opportunity to close very briefly 
and to announce, as I understand it, there is no further business to 
come before the Senate this evening except for a little wrapup which I 
will undertake.
  The Senator from Oklahoma spoke about a study that I believe was 
prepared by a very thoughtful Member of the House on the total number 
of Federal education programs, and the number approaches almost 800. He 
also spoke of almost $100 billion that were spent on these programs. 
That is a longer list and a larger amount of money than is involved in 
this amendment because, of course, it includes higher education, it 
includes preschool education, like Head Start, and it includes a number 
of education and training programs managed by departments other than 
the Department of Education.
  I think that many of those programs could be and should be equally 
integrated into the formula that I have posed here, but I simply lacked 
the ability to analyze each of those 760 or 788 programs. So what we 
have done is to take the principal kindergarten through 12th grade 
programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education, with the 
exception of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, which we 
debated very thoroughly in the Senate a few months ago, impact aid and 
a few other programs which don't fit well into this formula, and to say 
that instead of continuing dozens of narrow, categorical aid programs 
to education, each managed by its own bureaucracy not just here in 
Washington, DC, but in State capitals and in school district offices 
all across the country, each with its own requirements, each presenting 
to school districts the risk that they may inadvertently spend some of 
the money on an educational purpose other than that outlined in the 
statute, and consolidating all of them into one appropriation which 
will total something over $11 billion and stating that once each State 
has received the net amount of money that it would get under present 
law, that all of the money will be distributed not to State education 
agencies, but to local school districts on the basis of the number of 
students each of those school districts serve, with some slight 
preferences for school districts in poorer States and with the changes 
I have already described in title I.

[[Page S9077]]

  One of the goals of this amendment, Mr. President, is to see to it 
that our school districts get more money, and get more money they will, 
because close to 15 percent of all of the money that we appropriate at 
the present time stays in administration in Washington, DC, or close to 
Washington, DC. More of it sticks in our State capitals with the 
administrators of school programs in each of those States, not so much 
because the State capitals want to stick it there, but because they 
have to meet the multitudinous requirements in Federal statutes and 
regulations. And much more of it must be spent by school districts, not 
on education, but on complying with these hundreds of pages of 
statutory and administrative requirements.
  So if this amendment is adopted, school districts will have more 
money to spend on educating children in an aggregate amount of well 
over $1 billion, and I suspect probably $2 or $3 billion out of the $11 
billion. But I think more important than even the extra money is the 
freedom that we will give to the people who are actually providing our 
children with their education: their teachers, with the contributions 
that come from active and concerned parents, the principals and other 
administrators of our schools, the elected school board members who 
almost, without exception, serve without pay. They will be empowered by 
this legislation to determine in each case how best to meet their 
educational goals, how best to meet standards imposed by the States or, 
in some cases, by the Federal Government, general standards of how well 
people should be educated, not detailed standards of how money should 
be spent.
  So, in summary, seeing my friend and colleague from Vermont here, I 
simply want to present the issue in these terms: Do we believe that 
fundamental educational policies and procedures are best determined by 
those who are closest to the students--their parents and teachers and 
administrators--or do we believe that those policies are best 
determined on the floor of this U.S. Senate or by the bureaucrats of 
the U.S. Department of Education? To the extent that we hold the latter 
belief, of course, this amendment is unacceptable. I don't think that 
that belief is warranted. I don't think it is shared by other than a 
relatively small minority of the American people. In a free country, in 
a free society, we trust the people, and that's exactly what this 
amendment proposes to do.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
know the intentions of the Senator are certainly the best in wanting to 
assist our local governments in having a better handle on their 
educational situation. However, I want to point out several problems 
with the amendment. I will also say that, given the modifications that 
have been made, my opposition, as far as the energy involved, has been 
diminished substantially. Now, we are now talking about only $4 
billion, whereas originally the figure was closer to $12 billion.
  Even with those modifications having been made, I still want to raise 
my colleagues' understanding of what this amendment does.
  A lot of the discussion has been about doing away with Federal 
involvement, but what the amendment really tends to do is to turn over 
to local governments functions that are now handled by the States. With 
the modifications, this is somewhat less the case.
  As a Republican, I have the feeling that the States are better able 
to control, to help, and otherwise assist local schools than is the 
Federal Government. This amendment shifts some responsibilities back to 
the local governments, but also shifts a great bulk of it back to the 
Federal Government. For that reason, I am a little bit ambivalent as to 
how serious I consider this amendment.
  I would like to point out one thing that does alarm me, as someone 
who believes that the States should have more control over things, and 
that is the fact that the control that we give back to the local 
governments is very precarious. If you read the amendment, the 
amendment says:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Education shall award the total amount of funds described.

  I will recount a problem I once had. I had a wonderful amendment to 
reorder the Nation's priorities in energy. I worked with the committee 
that handled energy. They adopted all my points, and I thought I had a 
great victory. Then they said, ``Gee, Jim, all we did was change one 
word in the amendment.''
  I said, ``What was that?''
  They changed ``shall'' to ``may.''
  Now, if you were to take your language here and change ``shall'' to 
``may,'' then the Secretary of Education would have complete control of 
all these funds. It leaves us in a precarious situation when, with one 
word, you can change the total impact of this amendment.
  As far as the full impact now, as I mentioned earlier, when you take 
out title I, you take out a huge, huge chunk of money. When you add to 
that the programs which were excluded from the original amendment, such 
as IDEA and 50 percent of voc-ed and several other programs, you end up 
with this amendment affecting a mere $4 billion of the roughly $20 
billion made available under this bill for elementary and secondary 
education programs. So my vigor has diminished substantially.

  But let me also point out that, without any guidelines to the local 
governments, funding for those programs which are included in the 
amendment and which is now targetted to try to help special bodies of 
individuals--Indians or whomever else--can be used in any way 
whatsoever.
  I remember back when we had revenue sharing. What an embarrassment 
that turned out to be. I was a great one for revenue sharing: Send it 
back to the local governments. We found that, instead of doing the 
things we thought they would do with it, they built skating rinks, fish 
ponds and others things. So we said, ``Gee, we better take it back.''
  I wish I had that much confidence that local governments would make 
the optimum use of general Federal funds for education. However, they 
have tight budgets. In my State, almost every town in the State is 
having a problem with its education budget because of its impact on 
property taxes.
  There is nothing in the amendment about a maintenance of effort. You 
don't have to use the funds for additional education programs. You can 
take that money and replace the tax funds now being used. You don't 
have to improve your schools at all. You can just merely reduce the 
property taxes to the people in the community. I bet you, if we pass 
this and it becomes law, that a few years from now we will find out 
almost all the money went to property tax relief.
  The problems of education are at the local level. They are not at the 
Federal level. They are at the local level. We argue about how much the 
Federal Government should influence the decisions of local governments, 
but what we have to do is give the local governments the ability, 
through professional development and assistance from the States, to try 
to make sure that they are living up to the obligation of educating our 
children.
  In this Nation right now, 51 percent of the kids who graduate from 
high school graduate functionally illiterate. We are way in the back, 
almost last among the more developed nations, in math. We have right 
now 190,000 jobs in the information-technology area alone for which we 
can't find people who have the skills to fill them. In Europe and Asia, 
those skills are taught in high school.
  Is giving money back to localities going to make a difference? I 
don't believe so. So I am afraid what we have here is a well-
intentioned amendment which could backfire completely by a change in 
one word.
  Let me also say that, although this amendment will not get enacted 
because it is veto bait, imagine yourself back home after you have 
voted for this amendment. You are out there, you are debating your 
opponent, and you say you are in favor of this amendment. He then 
brings up the amendment and reads it, without knowing the implications: 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Education shall award all the money.''
  You can argue, but you know how it is trying to argue in a political 
situation by saying that the language is not really what it meant; 
that's what it says.

[[Page S9078]]

  So, I just think we are not going to accomplish anything of any great 
dimension in terms of the intent of the amendment--to give the local 
communities more flexibility with spending. We have cut the States out, 
and we have a direct linkage now between the Secretary of Education and 
every local school district--with language just open, ripe for being 
changed from ``shall'' to ``may'' if we should ever lose the majority 
here.
  Reluctantly, I have concluded that this amendment would be a very 
serious mistake if we were to pass it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe my friend and colleague from 
Vermont has stated the arguments on his side forcefully and eloquently 
and has illustrated, as I hope I have, the fundamental philosophical 
differences over this amendment, over any amendment that is even 
remotely similar to this.
  The Senator from Vermont believes that a large number of educational 
priorities ought to be set here in the Congress of the United States by 
the Secretary of Education and the people who work in his department. 
Certainly there is an appropriate theory in this country that that is 
true, that the U.S. Department of Education ought to be able to impose 
significant controls over State departments of education and even more 
detailed controls over every school district in the United States, and 
that in the absence of such requirements not only will money be wasted 
but the quality of the educational product will be depreciated, will be 
less.
  I don't know that there is much out there in the educational field 
that indicates any huge degree of success on the part of this top-down 
set of educational priorities. But nonetheless, it is possible to make 
such an argument.
  My argument, and this is where the Senator from Vermont and I 
disagree, is that I believe informed parents, informed teachers who are 
in the classroom every single day of their professional lives, informed 
and dedicated administrators and school board members, most of whom are 
elected to nonpaying jobs, not only have an interest in the quality of 
education that they supply to their children, their students, the young 
people in their community, but that they are better able to determine 
how the money they have from whatever source is spent toward those ends 
than can we here, or anyone in a Washington, DC bureaucracy.
  As a consequence, this amendment says get rid of the regulations that 
apply to the programs that are covered by it, distribute the money 
directly to the school districts that are providing education and let 
them spend it as they will.
  At one level, of course, that does bypass State education entities in 
order that they not spend any of the money or hold any of it back, but 
it does not prevent any State education entity from saying you have to 
instruct the mathematics, history, whatever they wish to do, to set a 
curriculum, much of which is set by the States.
  It just says with Federal money, the Federal Government is not going 
to tell you how to spend it. It is as simple as that.
  We are not talking about local governments. The phrase in this 
amendment is ``local education agencies.'' By and large, though not 
entirely, single-purpose school districts.
  To say what this really means is that people in these local 
communities will immediately take the new money and not spend it on 
education but do something else with it or provide property tax relief, 
in my view, evidences a great lack of trust in the fact that our 
citizens care about the education of their children.
  I think we know from all of the surveys in which we engage, from all 
the speeches we make, from all the people we listen to, that our 
citizens care very deeply about the education of their children, and to 
say if we do not force them to spend money in particular ways here in 
Washington, DC, they will not spend it at all, that they will ignore 
our kids, is without any evidence, in fact, in the real world.
  Much of this money is getting through to these school districts right 
now. I differ with the Senator from Vermont on how much we are talking 
about. We have not, by any of the changes of this amendment, taken out 
impact aid, disability education, or 50 percent of local education. 
They were never in the first version.
  With respect to title I, we have not taken it out. We just have a 
somewhat different distribution formula. The same number of dollars is 
involved now as when I first discussed it earlier. The point, roughly 
85 percent of this money is somehow or another getting at least down to 
the State level at the present time. Added money that school districts 
will get will be the money we save in administration here and in State 
capitals. I am convinced it will all go into the education of our 
children. But the number of dollars, the additional dollars, even if 
they can be measured, will not be nearly as important as the removal of 
Federal regulatory detail.
  The Senator from Idaho described the situation in one of his 
districts, which I believe is pretty close to universal: 10 percent of 
the money comes from the Federal Government and 60 percent of the 
rules. That is a terrible imbalance. We would like to get rid of almost 
all of those 60 percent of the rules and power our school districts, 
power our teachers, and power our parents and see whether or not they 
cannot do a somewhat better job than the rather poor job we have done 
so far ourselves.
  I yield the floor.


                      Amendment No. 1090 Withdrawn

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Mack, I ask unanimous 
consent amendment No. 1090 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1110

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendments be set aside and the Senate turn to consideration of 
amendment No. 1110 to S. 1061.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1110, as Modified

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President I send a modification to the amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (1110), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 9, line 11, strike ``$3,292,476,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$3,288,476,000''.
       On page 10, line 18, strike ``$216,333,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$212,333,000''.
       On page 12, line 11, strike ``$84,308,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$88,308,000''.

  Mr. GORTON. This amendment provides $4 million to the Department of 
Labor for the administration of the welfare-to-work job training 
program authorized and funded in the recently enacted Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997.
  The administration had requested $6.2 million but the level was 
reduced in the amendment because of concerns raised by the Finance 
Committee.
  The additional funds are fully offsetted.
  The amendment has been cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1110), as modified, was agreed to.

                          ____________________