[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 121 (Friday, September 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9244-S9245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   OPPOSITION TO THE GORTON AMENDMENT

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I wanted to speak first today about 
this Gorton amendment that we adopted yesterday as part of the Labor 
and Human Services appropriation measure.
  The Senate approved that amendment by a narrow vote of 51 to 49. And 
the effect of the amendment is to convert billions of dollars in 
Federal education funds into unrestricted block grants that go to 
school districts, and with very few restrictions or accountability for 
how the funding is spent. I think the amendment is extremely far-
reaching, and it was a mistake by the Senate to go along with this 
amendment. I hope very much that, in the final analysis in the 
conference, we can drop the amendment and send to the President a bill 
that keeps intact the various programs that many of us have worked for 
on both the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle for many years.
  Let me just say, putting it in its baldest terms, that this amendment 
would eliminate much of the U.S. Department of Education. That is a 
radical and a misguided effort, which does not have strong public 
support. This is an issue that was discussed in the last Presidential 
campaign. It became clear, I believe, during the course of that 
campaign and in the polling that was done throughout the campaign and 
since, that the American public does not favor elimination of the 
Department of Education, either in a formal way or by the gutting of 
the Department through an amendment such as this.
  I have fundamental problems with the notion that there is no national 
interest in helping parents and schools and students to compete in the 
world economy. What we are saying is that the local schools in every 
part of this country can figure out how to prepare their students to 
compete in the international marketplace if they have no help from 
outside. I disagree with that. It is not realistic to expect a local 
school board to have at its disposal the resources and expertise that 
we can develop at the national level and provide as assistance in the 
educational process.
  So there is an honest disagreement here about whether we as a nation 
can step up to this responsibility and assist States and local school 
districts, or whether we need to stay completely out of it. I feel very 
much that we need to provide assistance and expertise where we can.
  The Secretary of Education, in a quotation in the morning paper, says 
very clearly--this is Secretary Riley in the Washington Post:

       Secretary Riley warned that the Senate's action, which he 
     called a ``back-door attempt to kill the Department of 
     Education'' would abolish many vital programs for students, 
     including Clinton's Goals 2000 grants for school reform.

  Madam President, when you look at the roughly $12.5 billion in annual 
funding for Federal education programs that would go into block grants 
under this amendment, you see how broad-based this amendment is. Let me 
just go through the list so the people know what we are talking about 
here.
  First of all, there is the Goals 2000 program that, of course, has 
been somewhat controversial, but has been a great benefit to many 
school districts in my State. I go to school district after school 
district as I travel around New Mexico and talk to those school 
district administrators and teachers and students about the Goals 2000 
program. I find good support for it. I think they appreciate the 
funding they have received and the assistance that the Federal 
Government provides. So it would be eliminated.
  The School-to-Work Program. The education funds involved in the 
School-to-Work Program--not the Department of Labor funds, but the 
Education Department funds--would be eliminated.
  Education technology. This has been a concern of mine and of many 
Senators for many years now as to how do we get additional resources to 
our schools and to our school districts so that they can put in place 
the various purchasing of hardware and software and training of 
teachers that is necessary for them to turn out a technologically 
literate group of graduates at the end of the high school experience.
  Star Schools Program, the regional technology education consortia, 
the telecommunications demonstration programs that are in place around 
the country, the challenge grants for technology innovation, technology 
literacy challenge fund--all of these are specific initiatives that 
have benefited my State significantly.
  I think it would be a major error for us to eliminate the Federal 
funds. Some will say we are not eliminating Federal funds, we are 
giving a block grant to the school districts and if they want to spend 
them on this, they can. The unfortunate reality is that a local school 
district is under tremendous pressure. The school board members in my 
State are elected, as they are throughout most of the country. They are 
under tremendous pressure at the local level to raise salaries, raise 
salaries for school administrators, to build additional facilities, and 
to do a whole range of things. If we want funds to go to improve 
technological literacy and provide educational technology for our 
schools, we have to specify that is what the money goes for. Otherwise, 
the reality is that it will be spent for other purposes.
  So this Gorton amendment eliminates any requirement that any funds be 
spent for this purpose. I think that would be a major mistake. In my 
own State, we have received, this year, about $1.7 million in Federal 
funds for educational technology. We are expected, this next year, to 
receive $3.5 million in funds. The total, nationwide, is $425 million. 
I think this is money well spent. It is cost-effective. It is a cost-
effective way for the taxpayers to try to assist in improving education 
at the local level.
  Let me go through some of the others that are covered here. The 
Eisenhower professional development State grants. These are funds that 
go to assist teachers in getting additional training so that they can 
better teach and remain in the profession of teaching. The innovative 
education program strategies under title 6. The safe and drug-free 
schools program. Again, in my State, I have gone to many schools and 
they have been extremely appreciative that the safe and drug-free 
schools program has allowed them to hire counselors to work at the 
middle school level, so that when students are beginning to get into 
difficulties with drugs or beginning to lose interest in school and 
become truant, they can have counselors there to be an early prevention 
device to keep those students involved. That safe and drug-free schools 
money would be eliminated under this amendment.
  The magnet schools assistance. That, again, has been very helpful in 
many school districts around the country. Education for homeless 
children and youth. Women's educational equity funding. Education for 
native Hawaiians. Alaska Native education equity funding. Charter 
schools funding. Funding for Indian education. All of these are 
specific programs that will not be funded if this amendment prevails. 
So, clearly, I think we have a major problem. Bilingual and immigration 
education programs are another example.
  The key part of this amendment that I think is most objectionable is 
that it creates an unmonitored windfall to local school districts that 
would be used for any of a wide range of purposes. There would be no 
oversight, no

[[Page S9245]]

accountability as to how any of the funds are spent. The various 
purposes that we have meticulously specified over the years as 
priorities for the Nation, those priorities will be put aside.
  Let me mention one other program, Madam President, that I think is of 
particular concern as to how it would fare under this amendment, and 
that is title I. When I talk to elementary schoolteachers and 
administrators in my State, the one Federal program that they 
consistently point to and say ``thank you'' for sending the funds to 
the State and to local districts, it is in this title I area. That is 
funding for disadvantaged students. It makes a tremendous difference in 
many of our schools. I think for us to--in an amendment here on the 
floor, without hearings, without any comprehension of what we are 
doing--just say we are going to eliminate title I, I think that is 
highly irresponsible. I believe very strongly that we made a serious 
mistake when we went that way.
  So there is no accountability if this amendment prevails. There is no 
oversight by the Federal Government as to how these funds are spent if 
this amendment prevails. We would cut State support networks out of the 
picture, also, if this amendment prevails. The Gorton amendment fully 
bypasses State educational agencies. In my State, our State educational 
agencies help to coordinate and monitor programs. Those are all 
bypassed under the amendment. Some people think that block granting 
education funds might give local school districts more control or more 
funding. The reality is that if we block grant these programs and 
bypass the entire State education network, we put a huge administrative 
burden on school districts, which very few of them are equipped to 
handle at this point. About 6 percent of Federal funds is taken off the 
top by States for administrative and technical expenses. I wish they 
didn't have to take any expenses off. But I fear that we will see a 
duplication at the local district level that will soak up substantially 
more than 6 percent of the total Federal funds if we bypass the 
networks that the States have set up.
  In my own State, there is really no way to anticipate the total 
effect of this amendment. It is untried. Funding levels would basically 
be determined by having each individual district conduct a self-
reported census on its own of all school-age children in the district, 
weigh the district's funding according to each State's average per 
capita income level. It is not difficult to guess that we won't do 
nearly as well in my State as some might think. Current formulas 
already awarding money directly to the school district based on 
individual community need would be scrapped and many communities would 
be left to fend for themselves.
  Madam President, in summary, let me just say that this amendment 
should not become law. I am persuaded that if it remains in this bill, 
the President will veto the bill, as he should.
  I think this is the kind of irrational, unwise, misguided action 
which we sometimes get involved in here in the Senate when we don't 
have active debate. There was not adequate debate on the Gorton 
amendment. We have not had hearings in the Education Subcommittee of 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee on the Gorton amendment. If 
Senator Gorton and other sponsors of this bill want to pursue this 
course of action, I believe it should be put out as a piece of 
legislation that we can have hearings on in the authorizing committee. 
I am fortunate to be a member of the Labor, Health and Human Resources 
Committee which has worked long and hard over the years to authorize 
the various Federal programs being eliminated with this amendment. I 
think the proper course would be to have a full set of hearings on all 
of these programs, and determine which of them should be eliminated. If 
the will of the Senate and the will of the Congress and the will of 
President is to eliminate some of them, then fine. But coming along 
with this kind of an amendment absent hearings and absent adequate 
debate I think is not the responsible way to proceed.
  So I would join others here in objecting strenuously to the 
provision. As Senator Dodd suggested yesterday on the floor, if the 
bill comes back from the appropriations conference with this provision 
in it, he would commit to filibuster against the 1998 appropriations 
bill. I hope very much that course is not required. But, obviously, I 
and many others would have to join him in that course of action, if 
that amendment remains in the legislation.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator's time just expired.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 10 additional minutes as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________