[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 127 (Monday, September 27, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11476-S11491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REAUTHORIZING THE 
             ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

                                 ______
                                 

     TO EXPRESS THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING EDUCATION FUNDING

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. Res. 186 and S. Res. 187, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 186) expressing the sense of the 
     Senate regarding reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       A resolution (S. Res. 187) to express the sense of the 
     Senate regarding education funding.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be a total of 2 hours debate on 
the two resolutions under the control of the two leaders.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged against each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam President, as I rode to the office this 
afternoon, I was listening to news accounts which were reporting that 
the President was making a series of speeches in which he was 
criticizing the congressional majority and their plans for education 
and education improvement in this country.
  It seemed to me as I listened to the news accounts--assuming they 
were accurate--the President was basing his criticism on two counts: 
No. 1, if you did not believe that his priorities in education were the 
proper priorities, then you did not really value education in this 
country and you were failing in your commitment to public schools. His 
second criterion was the amount of money that was going to be spent on 
public education at the Federal level.
  So really two criteria: You have to spend it where he wants to, and 
you have to spend the amount he desires, or else you have failed in 
some kind of litmus test as to a commitment to education.
  I reject both of those tests. I think, as you look at the amount of 
money and the increases in funding for education nationally over the 
last 25 years, you have to conclude that simply spending more money is 
not the answer to improving education--that that criterion fails. If 
that is going to be the criterion, well, then, there may be a lot of 
people who can say they are committed to education but with very little 
evidence of success or results.
  Because we, as Republicans, disagree with the President's particular 
priorities, which are funding a new program for 100,000 teachers, 
whether or not that happens to be the great need in a particular area; 
and increased funding for the construction of schools, though we know 
there are many dilapidated schools, many schools that are in need of 
construction, that may or may not be the priority, the great need in a 
particular area--because we disagree with his priorities and his effort 
to further nationalize education in this country, he would deem us then 
as lacking commitment to education.
  I believe, with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act this year, we have a golden opportunity to dramatically 
improve Federal education programs that for years have not provided a 
good return for every dollar.
  If we are going to spend taxpayers' money on education--and poll 
after poll indicates that this is a high priority with the American 
people; it is high on their list of where they believe emphasis should 
be placed--then I suggest we must hold the States, we must hold school 
districts, we must hold even individual schools accountable for the 
funds they are receiving.
  In the past, ESEA has not rewarded success nor has it punished 
failure. Instead, money is allocated only for specific uses, with no 
results demanded or expected.
  For example, we allocate funding for technology in schools, but in no 
way do we require schools to show us how this is helping kids to learn. 
We only require them to use the funding appropriately, but there is no 
link to the ultimate goal, which is and should be student achievement. 
In category after category, we find this to be the case. We provide the 
funds and so long as the States can demonstrate they are spending it 
appropriately--that is, for the appropriate category--there is no 
requirement that they demonstrate student achievement.
  I believe this system must change. We must allow schools more 
flexibility in how they use funding to meet their individual needs and 
show how they are improving student achievement for all students. The 
bottom line should be, the bottom line must be, in education: Are 
students learning? Not are we spending more money, not is our funding 
increasing, not are they meeting a set of regulations that can fill out 
the forms and demonstrate that they, in fact, have spent technology 
money on technology, but are students learning, are student achievement 
scores increasing? That must be the ultimate test.
  It is in that area that Federal education programs have abysmally 
failed. Schools currently receive Federal funding with so many strings 
attached they cannot effectively use the funding they receive. I 
believe those strings must be reduced so that the only requirement is 
the dollars are being spent in the classroom to enable children to 
learn.
  Over the past 34 years, since the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act was first passed, it has grown dramatically in size and scope. The 
Department of Education currently administers 47 K-through-12 programs 
that are authorized under ESEA. In his fiscal year 2000 budget 
proposal, the President wanted to create 5 new programs in addition to 
the 47 currently administered by the Department of Education. I suggest 
to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the last thing this 
Congress should do is add 5 new programs to ESEA, when all the evidence 
is that we are failing in the 47 that currently are authorized.
  Diane Ravitch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and 
former Assistant Secretary of Education, who has testified on numerous 
occasions before congressional committees, puts it this way:

       At present, American education is mired in patterns of low 
     productivity, uncertain standards, and a lack of 
     accountability. Federal education programs have tended to 
     reinforce these regularities by adding additional layers of 
     rules, mandates, and bureaucracy. The most important national 
     priority must be to redesign policies and programs so that 
     education funding is used to educate children, not to 
     preserve the system.

  The proposal from the President to add five new programs to ESEA 
simply reinforces the status quo. In fact, it expands the existing 
system which has failed American students so terribly.
  A study by the Ohio State Legislature reported that more than 50 
percent of the paperwork required by a

[[Page S11477]]

local school in Ohio was the result of Federal education programs and 
mandates, even though the Federal funding in that Ohio district 
accounted for only 7 percent of the total education spending--7 percent 
of the funding, 50 percent of the paperwork. I am afraid that is all 
too typical of what we find with regard to Federal education spending 
and Federal education programs.
  While spending on education has increased, there has been no 
corresponding rise in academic achievement. According to Investor's 
Business Daily, over the past 25 years, inflation-adjusted, per-pupil 
spending for grades kindergarten through 12 has climbed 88 percent.
  Republicans are not opposed to more education spending. In fact, we 
have proposed that we dramatically increase education spending. But we 
believe that simply increasing education spending without a 
corresponding reform of the system is money ill spent. In Arkansas, 
total education spending since 1970, adjusted for inflation, Federal, 
State and local, has grown by almost 58 percent. Since 1970, we have 
seen in Arkansas a dramatic increase in per-student spending, the 
expenditures on each child, in the public schools in the State of 
Arkansas. Unfortunately, overall performance of the average 17-year-old 
student on the NAEP test changed little between the early 1970s and 
1990.
  Before we decide the answer to improving our education system is to 
throw in more money and create more programs, may I suggest we examine 
closely the programs as we reauthorize them and that we change the 
current system to allow schools to innovatively use their funding to 
address their problems as they see fit and as they know best.
  Now, in the area of IDEA, funding for disabilities, I think that is 
an area all of us could agree we have done too little. During the 
reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, the Federal Government was authorized 
to pay up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating special 
education students. However, the President, who lauds his record on 
education, has consistently funded special education at only about 10 
percent of the excess costs. For fiscal year 2000, the President has 
requested $4.31 billion. That is the same amount appropriated in fiscal 
year 1999. This is an area Democrats and Republicans have agreed we 
have not met our Federal commitment and our pledge to the States and 
local school districts. Yet the President, who wants to create five new 
programs, has level funded the area of IDEA.

  Reduced funding for special education causes the local school 
districts to pay the cost of educating children with disabilities. 
Often these costs, as we all know, can be three to four times the 
amount spent on other students. Therefore, what is happening is that 
those local schools are taking money from other programs and other 
services because the Federal law requires them to provide that 
education for special ed students. As a result, they are shortchanging 
other needed educational programs because the Federal Government has 
failed to meet its commitment.
  Another area I think we have failed is in the area of impact aid. The 
President's fiscal year 2000 budget requests $736 million for impact 
aid. That is an increase of $128 million from 1999. But impact aid 
provides support to school districts affected by Federal activities, 
children living on Indian lands and children who live on Federal 
property who have a parent on active duty in the uniform services. This 
is one area in which I believe it is very clear that the Federal 
Government has a role in education. Yet the President's budget does not 
reflect that priority, that clear responsibility that we have on the 
Federal level.
  Education is mainly a State and local responsibility, where funding 
is generated from local and State taxes. Yet children who live on 
Federal lands or on military bases are being cheated out of an equal 
education. In Arkansas, we have the Ouachita National Forest. We have 
the Ozark National Forest, the St. Francis National Forest, the Buffalo 
National River. We have, though many don't realize, because Arkansas is 
not a far western land, hundreds of thousands of acres in the public 
domain, school districts that are dependent upon impact aid to fund the 
educational base because they do not have a tax base upon which they 
can rely. There is no tax base for these areas.
  Any decline in impact aid funding requires State and local school 
districts to find additional funding to give their children a good 
education. It is an area that Congress clearly has a role in providing 
funding. Yet the President continually tries to reduce funding and 
deemphasize this priority and this responsibility of the Federal 
Government. In his budget proposal for fiscal year 2000, the President 
seeks to increase administrative spending for the Direct Loan Program 
by $115 million. That is a 26-percent increase in the Direct Loan 
Program for administration. Perhaps nothing reflects the misguided 
priorities of this administration more than their effort to increase 
administrative spending in a student assistance program by 26 percent.
  Adding programs--the wrong priorities in spending--I think reflects 
the misguided effort of this administration to further nationalize, 
further remove local control, and, I believe, continue a system that 
has demonstrated itself to be broken, which has not given us the 
results students in this country deserve.
  They want to promote the Direct Loan Program--there is no doubt about 
that--and particularly increase the area of administration that is the 
very area in which we need to be reducing spending. Then in other areas 
of student assistance, while the maximum Pell grant award would 
increase from $3,125 to $3,250, total Pell grant funding would be cut 
by $241 million. They are particularly important in higher education in 
States such as Arkansas or any State that has a rural population and a 
relatively low per capita income.
  In Arkansas, that is exacerbated because we have a rather low 
percentage going on to higher education. The reason for that, many 
times, is because there is not adequate student assistance available. 
So while we increase the total amount of a Pell grant, we don't 
increase--in fact, what would be available is cut in the President's 
budget dramatically. The result is we have fewer Pell grants available, 
even though the demand is greater than ever before.
  Madam President, let me reiterate my point and my concern about the 
President's priorities in education and his very ill-timed attacks upon 
the Republican majority in the House and the Senate. Because we 
disagree on priorities, his judgment is we are not committed to 
education. Because we disagree in the amount and where that money 
should be spent, his conclusion is that we are not committed to 
education.
  I believe Republicans have come forward with one of the most 
creative, innovative educational priorities since taking control of the 
House and the Senate: The idea of taking 21 Federal education programs 
under ESEA and telling the States that, on a cafeteria basis, they can 
choose which ones of those programs they wish to have consolidated with 
new flexibility to find creative and innovative solutions at the State 
and local level. That is what we need to be doing.
  But there are those entrenched in the status quo who say: Let's 
reauthorize what we have been doing; let's put more money into a system 
that has not given us greater educational achievement. They think that 
demonstrates greater commitment to our children. I think we do have a 
golden opportunity this year, and I think the line could not be clearer 
between those who believe the Federal Government is the solution and 
those of us who believe we need local control with greater local 
flexibility, while demonstrating a commitment on the Federal level but 
giving maximum flexibility for local policymakers to decide how the 
local issues can be best solved.
  I look forward to the education debate in the coming hours and weeks 
as we conclude this session. I hope that as we reauthorize the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will do so in a way that 
truly demonstrates our love, our commitment, and our concern for the 
public school students of this country. I look forward to working with 
Senator Gorton, who has been so active in this whole education area, 
and Senator Frist, Senator Jeffords, and all on the Education 
Committee, to fashion an Elementary and Secondary Education Act that 
will take us

[[Page S11478]]

in a new direction and result in higher student achievement, better 
results, better education, as we compete in a world economy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield myself 10 minutes of the time on this side of the 
aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas for 
his eloquent comments. I am honored to be a part of a partnership with 
him and with the distinguished Senator from Maine, who now occupies the 
chair, in proposing a set of reforms on the way in which the Federal 
Government relates to education in the United States that emphasizes 
student achievement and a higher quality of education, as against a 
number of categorical programs where school districts become eligible 
simply by filling out the right forms and spending the money in the way 
the Secretary of Education tells them to spend the money, without 
regard to student achievement and without regard to the priorities set 
by elected school board members and superintendents and principals and 
teachers and parents all across the United States.
  This afternoon, we are going to vote on two distinctly different 
approaches to education--a proposal by the minority leader and a 
proposal by the majority leader. The proposal by the minority leader 
beats a dead horse. It starts from the proposition that we are to 
reduce the amount of money we spend on education by some 17 percent, 
when later on this afternoon--at 6 o'clock--the subcommittee in charge 
of appropriations for education, in fact, will pass an appropriations 
bill that not only increases the amount of money we spend on common 
school education in the United States but increases it by more than the 
amount requested by the President of the United States in his budget. 
That is a true commitment to education.
  The Democratic proposal ignores the proposition that the President's 
budget, in fact, lessens the amount of money available for special 
needs students and education for the disabled; that it reduces very 
substantially the amount of money for impact aid to those school 
districts that are greatly impacted by a Federal presence in national 
parks or forests or military installations; in fact, the proposal 
before us from the minority leader, ignoring the responsibilities the 
Federal Government has already undertaken in education, simply talks 
about new programs, the great advantage of which is that they are 
titled with names either of the President or of present members of the 
minority party. It does seem to me that even if we are working within 
the present system, we would be far better off financing those 
undertakings which the Congress and the President have already made 
than by beginning new ones, not particularly requested by the schools 
themselves, while leaving the financing of past programs to local 
entities, whether they regard them as the highest priority or not.

  But there are, as I think the Senator from Arkansas pointed out, two 
major differences in the philosophy of education of the two parties 
exemplified by these two resolutions. First, as I have said, the 
resolution by the minority leader speaks about a proposal that does 
not, in fact, exist. It talks about the fact that education spending 
will be reduced when, in fact, it will be increased by more than the 
amount the President requests.
  Now, the end of that resolution, of course, does say that we should 
spend more. Interestingly enough, however, it says we should spend more 
and take it out of other spending programs without breaking the so-
called budget caps. That is an interesting proposition but one that 
would require genuine magic to accomplish. This body has already passed 
every appropriations bill, except that which includes education. It is 
on the basis of the passage of those bills that the minority leader 
comes up with this proposition that we will cut spending for education. 
I cannot remember a single member of the other party voting and 
speaking against a single one of these appropriations bills on the 
grounds that it spent too much money.
  As a matter of fact, the great majority of them voted for each one of 
these bills that brings us into exactly this situation. Yet they state, 
with alarm, the fact that we would reduce this amount of spending, 
saying we should not do it; we should spend more money; we should not 
break the caps; we should take it out of something else--something they 
have already voted for. Well, we are, in fact, going to increase the 
amount of money we are spending on education. But we should do it--and 
this is the second great difference between the two resolutions--in a 
way that actually improves the quality of education of our young 
people, measures it in an objective fashion--actual student 
achievement.
  The other side proposes not only more programs that have not 
dramatically had that impact, but they would like a half a dozen new 
ones in addition--all categorical aid programs--decided here in 
Washington D.C., all one-size-fits-all for every school district in the 
country.
  The proposal of the Presiding Officer, myself, and others is a very 
simple one. We believe the people who spend their lives educating our 
children, and who have dedicated their lives to educating our children, 
might just possibly know more about what they need than do Members of 
this body or bureaucrats in the U.S. Department of Education.
  We say, let's take 12, 21, or 24 of these present programs, and let 
any State which guarantees that it will use that money to improve 
student grade achievement do so for a period of 5 years and then be 
tested on one ground: Have students done better? Is the quality of the 
education they are getting improved by teachers, parents, principals, 
superintendents, and school board members who decide priorities? A 
rural district in Maine or an urban district in Washington or a 
suburban district in Pennsylvania will obviously have different 
priorities.
  That is our goal, and it is a goal that is finding agreement in our 
educational establishment, wherever the Presiding Officer goes in her 
State, or wherever I go in my State, or wherever any of us go. Our 
schools want to be liberated because it is their goal to provide better 
educational opportunities for the kids. They think they know what the 
kids and students need. It is as simple as that.
  We are fighting a phony battle today because, in fact, we are going 
to increase the amount of money available for education. But it will do 
us little good unless student achievement is increased and improved 
upon. We can only do that by changing the system and trusting those who 
have devoted their lives to educating our children with coming up with 
the right answers by which to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as I understand it, we are expected to 
have two votes at the hour of 5:30--on Senator Daschle's and Senator 
Lott's Sense-of-the-Senate proposals. The time has been divided for 
those who favor and those who are opposed to the different proposals. I 
strongly support the Sense-of-the-Senate which has been introduced by 
Senator Daschle and which I am a cosponsor.
  The essence of Senator Lott's proposal is: Resolved that it is the 
sense of the Senate that this Congress has taken strong steps to reform 
our Nation's education system, and allows States, local schools, and 
parents more flexibility and authority over their children's education; 
and the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 will enable this Congress to continue its effort to send 
decision making to States, local schools, and families.
  Of course, we are all in support of reauthorization of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. We don't have any dispute over that. I 
have listened to a good part of the debate. I have yet to hear those 
other steps enumerated and identified or commented on. The one piece of 
legislation that we took was what was called ED-Flex. That is basically 
a modest expansion of what was done under the Democratic Goals 2000 in 
1994. Goals 2000 was President Clinton's initiative. At that particular 
time, the initial ED-Flex gave the Governors the flexibility. We 
provided some modest increase in the flexibility, and I supported it. 
But it

[[Page S11479]]

doesn't deal with the kind of problems which we are talking about. That 
is at the heart of this debate and discussion.
  I welcome the fact that since the time Senator Daschle introduced his 
resolution that our Republican leader has made a decision to have a 
mark-up tonight on these education bills. That is real action. This is 
the kind of encouragement we would like to have--that we have the 
introduction of the Daschle resolution, and then under evidently the 
urging of the majority leader, the Committee on Appropriations is going 
to meet this evening in order to try to indicate the priority education 
would have in terms of the national budget. That is as much as you 
could ever hope for in terms of positive action of a Sense-of-the-
Senate resolution--real action. We will wait to see how the Committee 
on Appropriations in the Senate of the United States is going to act.

  What brought about the reasons for the Daschle resolution? Quite 
frankly, what we heard over the course of the afternoon would respond 
to those facts. The fact is, since the Republicans have taken over 
leadership in 1995, in the Senate of the United States, we have found 
that education as a part of the Federal budget has been the last--not 
the next to the last but the last--appropriations the Congress has 
considered. We on this side believe it ought to be the first--not the 
last but the first.
  Now we are caught in a situation with the deadline for adjournment is 
some time at the end of October and there are only 3 or 4 days 
remaining in the fiscal year. Finally, we have the Republicans saying: 
All right. We will finally hold an Appropriations Committee meeting on 
Monday night when the fiscal year starts later on this week, on Friday. 
We find that unacceptable.
  Members over here can talk in generalities about flexibility. They 
can talk about the makeup of the Pell program and they can talk about 
administrative costs over in the Department of Education. We are 
delighted to get into a more detailed discussion about those particular 
items. But what those on the other side of the aisle haven't answered 
is why the funding for the education of the young people in this 
country has been the last priority under the leadership of the 
Republicans. That is the issue. That is the question.
  With all respect to my friend from Mississippi, and with all respect 
to the many years he went to public school--I admire that and respect 
it--it doesn't answer that simple question about why, with all the 
priorities we have in this country, the leadership has placed this as 
the last priority.
  The history of where the Republicans have been with regard to 
education as a last priority kind of escapes certain facts. This is 
extraordinary. My good friend from Mississippi said on September 24: 
Since Republicans took control of Congress, Federal education funding 
has increased by 27 percent.
  Why? Because of President Clinton and because of the Democratic 
leadership.
  You can say: Well, that is an interesting statement, an interesting 
comment. Show me.
  That is exactly what I intend to do. Right over here is a chart that 
shows what the funding levels have been under the Republicans since 
1995.
  In 1994, the Democrats lost the election. The Republicans took over 
the House and the Senate.
  What happened in 1995? In 1995, we had a rescission. What is a 
rescission? A rescission means the House has appropriated money, the 
President has signed it, but we want to take some of that money 
back, rarely used in education, and the Republicans did what? What did 
they do? We have the suggestion our Republican leader is attempting to 
convey, that they have been the supporters of expanded use of funding 
in education.

  They had a rescission for $1.7 billion below the bill actually 
enacted; they asked for a rescission of $1.7 billion.
  In 1996, the House bill was $3.9 billion below the 1995 final 
figure--$3.9 billion below.
  In 1997, the Senate bill was $3.1 billion below the President's 
request.
  In 1998, it was $200 million below the President's request.
  In 1999, the House bill is more than $2 billion below the President's 
request.
  Those happen to be the facts.
  Let me state the time line for passage of these appropriations.
  On March 16, 1995, the House rescission bill came to the floor. The 
Republican leadership could hardly wait to get into office when they 
sent this bill up to take some of the money back that funded education.
  Then we have the omnibus bill in 1996, the last continuing 
resolution. The funding of that program passed 7 months after the end 
of the fiscal year.
  In 1997, it passed on the last day of the fiscal year.
  In 1998, it passed 1 week after the end of the fiscal year.
  The agreement for 1999 was passed 3 weeks after the end of the fiscal 
year.
  As we have seen, they have virtually all been the last 
appropriations. Nothing my friends have stated has disputed that. This 
is the record of the requests under Republican leadership in the House 
of Representatives and the Senate of the United States. The reason we 
find that Federal education funding rose during this period of time is 
that we had the Government shutdown and our President refused to go 
along with it. He actually raised it.
  For the majority leader now to say, look at what we have done, is a 
complete distortion and misrepresentation of the facts. They cannot 
dispute it. Those are the facts.
  The reason this was brought into such sharp relief is that last 
Thursday, the House Appropriations Committee went to work again and 
finally had their series of recommendations where they have cut back or 
effectively eliminated the President's program to go for smaller class 
sizes. They had agreed on it at the end of the last Congress. In 1998, 
Congressman Goodling said how wonderful it was they had gone ahead and 
reduced class size for 1 year.
  Former Speaker Gingrich said:

       . . . a victory for the American people. There will be more 
     teachers and that is good for all Americans. I'm in.

  The Republican leader in the House said this will mean more teachers 
and this is good for all Americans.
  We say fine, that is why we want to expand it. The Republican leader 
said it was good for all Americans; President Clinton thinks it is good 
for all Americans; the various statistics and figures in the various 
STAR evaluations for smaller classes in the State of Tennessee indicate 
children are making progress. Everyone seems to agree--except who? The 
Republicans in the House Appropriations Committee that zeroed that 
program out.
  I don't hear from the other side why we have the inconsistency, why 
it is we have in 1998 Republicans saying it is a victory for the 
American parents and we have President Clinton supporting it, we have 
the statistics that say smaller class size for grades 1, 2, and 3 are 
particularly important in terms of children's academic achievement and 
accomplishment, and now we find the Republicans in the House of 
Representatives zero it out, eliminate all of the funding for that 
particular program. We ask, why?
  That happened last week. Later, I will review the various studies 
showing how the smaller class sizes have been important in terms of 
academic enhancement and achievement. It ought to be self-evident. No 
one makes this case more passionately and with more knowledge than 
perhaps the only school teacher in this body, and that is Senator 
Murray of the State of Washington. She has taught and been a member of 
a school board and can state the difference between having 15, 25, and 
30 children in a classroom. We have had the eloquent statements and 
comments made by the Teacher of the Year, talking about the difference 
in being able to know the names of the children and the needs of those 
particular children and being able to take time with those particular 
children. It is self-evident. We have seen that. But not according to 
the Republican Appropriations Committee.
  We say this is wrong.
  We saw other examples. In the program for helping and assisting 
children to read, we have made some progress in the area of reading--
not much, but we have made noticeable progress. We have a long way to 
go. We know the challenges out there. There have been a variety of 
different approaches developed. The chairman of our committee, Senator 
Jeffords, has long been committed to this program. A number of Members 
enjoy the opportunity to read at Brent Elementary School, here in

[[Page S11480]]

Washington. We know the importance of children learning to read and how 
important that program is in terms of their ability to read and in 
terms of their own academic achievement and accomplishment.
  Why in the world would we cut that program way back? It is a matter 
of priorities. I read Members' comments made on Friday saying: We 
cannot fund everything; some people--knowing they were meaning this 
Senator from Massachusetts--want to fund all these programs. The fact 
is, here is a question of priorities. The debate is about priorities. 
We are saying education is a No. 1 priority; that is where scarce 
resources ought to be continued. If there are other priorities, there 
is a problem, and we have to make a judgment.
  But hold this institution accountable for making education the No. 1 
priority. We are prepared to do that. We are prepared to call the roll 
on it. If Members have other priorities they think are more important, 
they can go along with those and make their judgment.
  One of the major achievements of the reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act last year was trying to increase the total number of 
teachers. We don't just need 2.2 million teachers in 10 years; 30 to 40 
percent are in retirement at the present time. There is also rising 
enrollments--447,000 more children started school this year. Some might 
say we have more teachers, maybe the programs that are working need 
some help and assistance if we are going to try to help those 447,000 
students. What we have found out is one of the important cutbacks was 
in the program to enhance the additional qualified teachers to be 
teaching in our schools.

  These are the realities. These are the numbers. This was, actually 
with regard to teaching, 40 percent below the President's request. It 
is the Teacher Quality Enhancement Program.
  We know, even with the President's programs, with 100,000 new 
teachers, we are not going to be able to do the whole job. The record-
high enrollment this year of 53.2 million students--447,00 more 
children than last year, and the continued rise over the next ten 
years; 324,000 in 2000, by 282,000 in 2001, by 250,000 in 2002, and 
continuing on an upward trend in the following years. I do not hear any 
discussion about: Look, there is an expanding number of students in our 
schools in this country. How are we going to ensure we will have 
sufficient teachers who will be qualified; not people who will be in 
the classroom but well-qualified teachers? That is what we are strongly 
committed to.
  I see my friend and colleague from Illinois who, I am sure, wants to 
address the Senate. These are questions of priorities. As I have said 
before, allocating the resources is a question of priorities. Money 
does not solve all of the problems. But one thing we do know, without 
resources you are not going to be able to invest in the children of 
this country--you are not going to be able to do it. We believe this is 
an indication of a nation's priorities. Not all the programs are going 
to work perfectly. Some may be altered or changed. We will look forward 
to the debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is 
the principal instrument to help and assist the local schools.
  Their answer to the question of priorities is suggesting we should 
give first priority to helping and assisting families in this country 
in the partnership--and it is a partnership--between the local 
communities and the States and the Federal Government. We provide very 
little, 7 cents out of every dollar. This idea we are making these 
decisions that will decide all education policy--we understand where 
the education responsibility is, it is locally. They put up the 
majority of resources in it. But we provide some targeted resource to 
try to make a difference in specific areas. That is what we believe in.
  We cannot support this concept that the Congress has taken strong 
steps. Look at the record: Nothing this year for more teachers or 
smaller classes; nothing to modernize schools, to help with repairs, to 
wire the schools for computers; nothing to help train teachers; nothing 
to help with the basic skills such as literacy--virtually nothing. 
Virtually nothing. All we have seen so far are cuts in education. That 
is not strong steps to reform our Nation's education system.
  I will be glad to yield 10 minutes to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, 
not only for his statement but also for his leadership on this issue. I 
do not think there is another Member of Congress, let alone the Senate, 
who could rival his commitment to education over the years.
  I am happy it has come to this vote because I think between these two 
resolutions--one offered by the Republican majority leader, Mr. Lott, 
and one offered, as well, on the Democratic side, an alternative by the 
Democratic minority leader, Senator Tom Daschle--we see a difference in 
approach and a difference in attitude when it comes to education.
  It is curious, as the Senator from Massachusetts has noted, that we 
have left the education issue for last. After we have talked about 
every other appropriations bill, some 12 other bills, we are finally 
going to get around to talking about education. Our human experience 
tells us we usually leave to last the thing we do not want to do. But 
why in the world would this Congress not want to deal with education? 
What is our reluctance to deal with an issue which, on a Republican, 
Democratic, and independent basis, is judged to be the No. 1 issue in 
America today? The No. 1 issue with American families is dead last when 
it comes to Senate consideration.
  We are only a few days away from the beginning of a new fiscal year. 
I will be very honest and concede that rarely, if ever, does Congress 
have all of its work done on time so we start October 1 with all the 
new spending bills. But I can never recall a time in the 17 years I 
have served on Capitol Hill when Congress has been in such utter chaos 
as we approach October 1.
  If the Republican leadership has some master plan they have been 
holding back on how we are going to meet our responsibilities and do 
the right thing for the American people, I hope they will unveil it in 
the next 4 days because October 1 is Republican Responsibility Day. The 
leaders in Congress, Republican leaders, are responsible for, at a 
minimum, telling the American people what their plan is so we do not 
have another horrendous Government shutdown and we meet the priorities 
on which the vast majority of American families agree.
  I look at these two resolutions on education and I can clearly tell 
there is a difference of opinion between the two political parties 
about an issue where there should be so much common ground. First, 
Senator Lott's S. Res. 186--I assume it will be the first one voted on, 
but whether it is or not, it is interesting to note Senator Lott goes 
through and recounts some of the things that have been done in funding 
education and finds many shortcomings with our public education system. 
Ninety percent of the children in America go to public schools, 10 
percent to private schools and home schools, and I concede in many 
public school districts and systems there are schools and classes and 
teachers that, frankly, should be better. I think we ought to strive 
for accountability when it comes to education but also for a commitment 
to education from this Nation.
  I think Senator Lott, however, overlooks some of the more important 
progress that has been made in public education. I note that student 
achievement on a nationwide basis is definitely improving. Average 
reading scores have increased from 1994 to 1998 in all grades tested--
4, 8, and 12. It is interesting to me the Republican Party generally 
opposes the idea of national testing so schools can be held 
accountable. They think this is all local and it should be done 
locally, though the students, when they graduate, are going to compete 
far beyond their localities, probably their States, and maybe 
nationally or globally. But when we look at these tests we find things 
are getting better.

  We have seen student access to modern computers increasing 
significantly, and we know the partnership we have been striving to 
establish between the Federal Government and local school districts has 
improved reading scores in many districts. In my home State of 
Illinois, which I am honored to represent in the Senate, we have done 
remarkable things in the public school

[[Page S11481]]

system. A system written off by Secretary of Education William Bennett 
a few years ago has now become a model for the Nation. It is because of 
a partnership--Federal, State, and local partnership. There is nothing 
inherently wrong with that. In fact, we are proving, in Chicago, that 
partnerships can make a difference.
  So when Senator Lott, in his resolution, says Congress has to 
recognize the need for significant reform in light of troubling 
statistics, I think this is clearly a case where we are either going to 
light a candle or curse the darkness. In Senator Lott's situation I am 
afraid the candle isn't lit.
  What we have in the resolution, in the ``resolved'' clause, which is 
where you get down to business, very little is said. Let me read it to 
you. This is Senator Lott's Republican resolution:

       . . . it is the sense of the Senate that--this Congress has 
     taken strong steps to reform our Nation's educational system 
     and allowed States, local schools and parents more 
     flexibility and authority over their children's education. . 
     . .

  And he goes on in the second paragraph:

       The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 will enable this Congress to continue 
     its efforts to send decision making back to States, local 
     schools, and families.

  What a contrast with the resolution that is being supported by 
Senator Kennedy and offered by Senator Daschle which, for two pages, 
goes into specific detail as to what this Congress needs to do before 
we go home if we are going to be able to face families across America 
and say: Yes, we get the message. Education is critically important.
  In the Daschle Democratic resolution, unlike the Republican 
resolution, he speaks out specifically for us to reduce class sizes so 
teachers in the early grades can pay more attention to kids who need a 
helping hand; to increase support for the development and training of 
professional teachers, and that is something we know we will need as 
teachers are retiring and as school enrollments continue to work.

  More afterschool programs, an issue I feel very strongly about. We 
can lament violence in our schools; we can lament juvenile crime; but 
if we do not invest money in afterschool programs, it is easily 
understood why these problems get worse instead of better.
  An increase, and not a decrease, in funding for the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994.
  An increase in funding so kids who come from the toughest 
neighborhoods and families with the most problems have a chance to 
succeed.
  More money for kids who are disabled, so they will have a chance to 
prove themselves.
  More money for Pell grants. Boy, if you are a parent who has sent any 
of your kids through college, you understand what kids coming out of 
college face: A diploma in one hand and the equivalent of a mortgage in 
the other; $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 for a bachelor's degree. If we do 
not accept the commitment that Senator Daschle challenges us to accept, 
these kids will have more and more debt when they graduate. That is 
clearly something we do not want to see.
  We want to make certain that kids, particularly from working 
families, come out of the college experience and are able to take a 
good job and not worry, first and foremost, about paying back their 
school loans which have greatly increased in size.
  The Daschle resolution calls for more money for technology in 
classrooms; also, that the school facilities be modernized. We have 
seen too many schools that are ramshackle and falling down.
  What a clear difference between the Daschle resolution, which speaks 
in specific terms about the challenges ahead in education, and the 
resolution offered by Senator Lott, who is now on the floor, which 
points, I guess, with some pride, to passing the Ed-Flex bill, which I 
supported, but says, I guess, in a way, that Congress has already taken 
strong steps. I think the steps taken by Congress can be a lot stronger 
and more specific. As we face Responsibility Day, October 1, just a few 
days away, the question most American families will ask us is, Have we 
addressed education?
  I will close with this thought. At this moment in our history, with 
our economy the strongest, many say, that it has ever been, with more 
people, particularly in high-income categories, realizing more income 
and a better quality of life, with the general economy having 
weathered, endured, and experienced the most prosperous decade in our 
history, at a time when we are talking about a surplus in our Federal 
Treasury when only a few months ago we talked about deficits, at a time 
when the majority party, the Republican Party, has said, we have so 
much money in Washington, we have to give $792 billion away in a tax 
cut primarily to wealthy people, I have to say: Before we do that, 
let's get things right when it comes to education. I want to say to the 
American people: We got the message; we will start the 21st century 
committed to education to make sure the American century, the 20th 
century, is followed by the next American century, the 21st century.
  We will not achieve that by holding to the standards suggested in S. 
Res. 186. It is weak soup. Instead, we should be dealing with Senator 
Daschle's resolution which calls on this Congress in specific terms to 
meet its obligation not only to the families across America and the 
voters who sent us here but the future generations who count on us to 
be prepared to put education as our highest priority.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator was going over 1995 through 1999, does 
the Senator remember when it was the standard Republican position to 
abolish the Department of Education? I think you and I want every time 
that President meets with his Cabinet officials one person who is going 
to think nothing but education, and every time that President talks 
about national priorities, to speak for the education of the children 
of this country. That I know has been the position of the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Does the Senator understand why, on the one hand, they were going in 
that direction and then, within about a year after that, we had 
Secretary Lamar Alexander's answer in terms of the elementary and 
secondary school reform: That we have a model school in each 
congressional district and in each of the States, and they to be 
decided, by whom? By the local community? No; by the Secretary of 
Education.
  Now we have another approach. We have the block-grant approach. Can 
the Senator explain to me, within a period of about 5 years how we can 
go from, on the one hand, abolishing the Department of Education to, on 
the other hand, having the Secretary of the Department of Education 
saying we ought to have model schools in each of the congressional 
districts, to now block granting everything and sending it back to the 
States?
  Mr. DURBIN. It is a curious thing, I respond to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, that the Republican Party--and I believe it might have 
been in the party platform; it certainly has been a position taken by 
many of their prominent Presidential candidates that we should abolish 
the U.S. Department of Education and, in abolishing that Department of 
Education, give back responsibility for education to the local school 
districts and families.
  The local school districts and the families should have the premier 
voice when it comes to educational decisions. But we should not 
overlook the fact, as the Senator from Massachusetts notes, that there 
are responsibilities we in Washington should accept. And one of those 
responsibilities is to gauge the demands of the global economy and to 
make certain that, as a nation, we are moving forward with the kind of 
educational system in general that will prepare kids for the future.
  I have yet to run into a school district in my home State of Illinois 
that does not want to have Federal assistance in meeting that 
responsibility. I concur with the Senator from Massachusetts that the 
Daschle resolution really deals with that in specific terms. The Lott 
resolution, unfortunately, does not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I did speak at length on Friday afternoon 
on this issue of education. I will not repeat everything I said then. I 
do have a unanimous consent request I want to

[[Page S11482]]

make momentarily. First, I will make some opening remarks.
  I am the son of a schoolteacher. I went to public schools all my 
life. So did my wife. So did my children. I care a great deal about 
quality education, public education, private and parochial education. I 
will take no backdoor approach to education. We have to have quality 
education in America. It also has to be safe and drug free.
  There is a fundamental difference about how we do that. The Democrats 
think the answer is here in Washington, that nameless and faceless 
bureaucrats in Washington, DC, know better what should be done in 
education in Bangor, ME, or Pascagoula, MS. I reject that. I have faith 
in the students, the teachers, the parents, the administrators, the 
local officials, and the State officials to do what is right for 
education.
  I may or may not have been right on some educational issues over the 
years. I voted for a separate Department of Education. I voted for it. 
I do not want too much revisionist history to be made this afternoon. 
When I was in the House of Representatives, I did that, and I took a 
pounding for it. My constituents did not agree with me. They did not 
think we needed a separate Department of Education. I argued at the 
time that it was being overrun and overwhelmed by the Department it was 
in, HEW--Health, Education, and Welfare. It was blocked by the other 
two issues and did not get the attention it should have. I did that.
  I must say, I do not see where a separate Department of Education has 
done a whole lot of good for education in America. The education scores 
have continued to go down, although recently some of the test scores 
may have gone up.
  When my children finished high school, I felt they did not have as 
good an education as I did when I finished high school in Pascagoula, 
MS. By the way, they went to two of the best high schools in America: 
Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern Virginia and Annandale High 
School in Northern Virginia. Yet when they got to the University of 
Mississippi, even though they had been to the public schools of Fairfax 
County, they did not have as good a background and preparation for 
college as some of the students in Biloxi, MS.
  What is going on here? I have been through this education thing for a 
long time. I feel strongly about it. We must have a better education 
system in America. What we have is not working. What the Democrats are 
advocating is the same old thing in the same old box. It will not work. 
We have to come up with different ideas, new ideas.
  I repeat one example I went through last Friday. Why is it that 
elementary and secondary education in America is way down the list of 
elementary and secondary education programs of the world? I have seen 
some statistics where we are 17th, and yet higher education is rated 
the best in the world. How can that be, that elementary and secondary 
education is not what it should be and higher education is excellent?
  I have a couple suggestions for you. One, when you finish high school 
in America, you have a choice of where you go. You can go to work, if 
you have been in a vocational education program in high school; you can 
go to a community college or junior college, a technology training 
program or job training program; you can go to a college, a university, 
a State university; you can go to a parochial university; or you can 
go, Heaven forbid, to Harvard if that is what you choose. Every student 
in America, everyone who finishes high school, can get a college 
education--with scholarships and loans.
  I was a beneficiary of what was then known as the NDEA loan. When my 
own family fell apart, I was trying to get a law degree. I held down 
two jobs and got an NDEA loan, thank the Lord. It helped me get an 
education. I am for loans. You also have grants and supplemental 
grants. With the combination of jobs and the Work-Study Program--jobs, 
grants, loans, scholarships--you can go to school.
  Every student may not be able to go to Harvard. Some may have to go 
to local community college where, by the way, you can get a great 
education. The community college system in America is fantastic. You 
have a choice, but not if you are in high school. If you live in a 
middle school district in a neighborhood, you have to go to the middle 
school in that neighborhood. If it is no good it does not make any 
difference. It does not make any difference if it is drug infested. It 
does not make any difference if it is violence prone. You have to go 
there, even though there might be a good quality public school right 
down the street.
  Right here in the District of Columbia, you have some good high 
schools. Yet, if the parents want their children to go or the students 
themselves want to go to a good high school, they are told: No, you 
can't do that. That does not seem fair. Some of the teachers union 
people say: Well, the bad schools might not make it. Right. If the 
school is not doing its job, then get out of the way. Choice is one of 
reasons we have much better higher education in America.
  The other one is financial aid, because if you want to go to college, 
you get a loan. But you do not get a loan if you want to help your 
sixth-grade student get a computer or if you want to help them with 
some of their other needs. You cannot have a Coverdell A+ savings 
account for elementary and secondary education. Oh, no. No, we can't 
have that. They might choose to save their money and put their students 
in some other school.
  So I think we need to think about those differences in how we can 
improve education overall.
  Also, I want to make this point. There is talk about, oh, how 
Republicans are going to starve education. That is total baloney. In 
fact, in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill that will be on 
the floor this week, the Republicans have a half a billion dollars more 
for education than the President's budget--surprise, surprise. How 
could that be? As a matter of fact, in recent years--I will give the 
statistics here in a moment--Republicans have provided for a 27-percent 
increase for education.
  We are not stingy on education. We want education to have the money 
it needs. We don't want it to be able to waste money on programs, but 
we want to do it differently. We don't want it to be eaten up here in 
Washington, DC, where the bureaucracy takes a bite out of it, and a 
little dribbles down to Atlanta, and a little dribbles down to Jackson, 
and eventually it gets down to where the student is. No.

  We say we have faith in the local and State governments and the 
teachers, the administrators at the local level. We would like it to go 
down to where the rubber meets the road. Let them make the choices. If 
they want to put that money into computers, great. If they want to put 
it into elementary education, or if they want to put it into remedial 
reading or remedial math, or if they want to fix a roof, great.
  Of course, the answer again for the Democrats is, we should get into 
the school building business; the Federal Government should start being 
in charge of repairing local school building roofs, by the way, at a 
time when every State in the Nation--every one--has a surplus.
  Every State has a surplus, and some people say: Well, it might be a 
few dollars--$34 billion. So how about local and State governments 
being in charge of building schools? If we start down that road, if we 
start being in charge of the roofs and building the buildings at the 
Federal level, we will have to build every one in America. I think once 
again it will bring more control to Washington, and we should be 
directing it the other way.
  I would like to ask consent to add a modification to our resolution 
we have pending. I do now ask unanimous consent that the pending 
resolution be modified with changes I send to the desk.
  Before the Chair rules, let me say to the Senate, these are 
modifications regarding the vetoed tax bill and all the education 
benefits that bill would have extended to the American people if it had 
been signed into law by the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we just received these changes. There 
was an initial presentation, a Lott resolution. Then that was changed 
on Friday, which was fine. Now this is an additional one. At this time, 
I would have

[[Page S11483]]

to reserve the right to object just so we would have an opportunity to 
read it and familiarize ourselves with it. So I object at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank the Senator for putting it in a 
reservation in that way. He would like to have a chance to read it 
over.
  This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The Democrats are stating 
their sense of the Senate on education issues. We have our resolution, 
and we would like to do the same thing. So I hope they will review the 
language we have in this modification and agree that it could be added 
to our resolution. But in the meantime, let me state what is in this 
resolution.
  So here is the untold story. This modification, that may be objected 
to, would simply spell out what was in the tax cut bill the Republicans 
passed--the Congress passed and sent to the President, and he vetoed 
it. What has not been told is that there were a lot of education 
benefits in that bill.
  In fact, it was interesting to me that 1 day after the President 
vetoed that bill, providing considerable new incentives for education, 
the Democrats complained about this Congress' performance on education. 
But they raised not a single voice to protest the unwise veto when you 
take into consideration the tremendously enhanced education for 
millions of Americans that was included in that bill.
  The President's veto denies 14 million American families from 
participating in the education savings accounts--that is what I was 
referring to a while ago--to allow parents to save for their children's 
education needs at the elementary and secondary level, which they 
cannot do now. These accounts would have generated $12 billion for 
parents to provide tutors, pay for books, buy computers, send children 
to afterschool instruction, and pay for tuition at private schools if 
their public school failed to make the grade. Twenty million Americans 
children would have benefited, but the President said no to that.

  The President's veto denies 1 million students savings to make 
college more affordable. Our bill would have provided 1 million 
students in-State prepaid tuition plans. And my State of Mississippi is 
one of those; I think the State of Maine may be one of those, and a 
number of other States. They are being denied this prepaid tuition plan 
which would provide significant tax relief to make college more 
affordable.
  Why shouldn't parents be able to save in advance for their own 
children's college tuition? The financial crunch for college would be 
eased for 1 million students, but the President said no.
  The President's veto denies 1 million workers receiving education 
assistance through their employers. This is something that I believe 
the Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, has advocated for years. In 
today's competitive economy, education is the key to maintaining 
skilled workers. One million American workers would have had access to 
better education or more education, but the President said no.
  The President has made college more expensive for millions of 
Americans. The Taxpayer Relief and Refund Act would have allowed recent 
college graduates to deduct the interest on their student loans. I 
would have liked to have had that when I graduated. For my own NDEA 
loan, the interest rate was not that high then, but it would have 
helped in paying that loan back. This provision is particularly 
critical for young people trying to hold down their first job and 
paying off their college debt at the same time. College would have been 
more affordable for millions of American students, but once again the 
President said no.
  The American people would have benefited also by the help given in 
this bill to schoolteachers. Our bill allowed every elementary and 
secondary school teacher in America to receive tax relief for their 
professional development expenses.
  My mother taught the first grade through the sixth grade but 
generally first grade. This is something that would have been helpful 
to her when she was teaching those 19 years. This bill would have made 
professional development less expensive, but the President said no; 
that, once again, the teachers should not have this benefit.
  So I wanted to point out several educational features that are in 
this bill. All I am trying to add to our resolution is this information 
so people will be aware of it.
  With regard to our commitment to education, in the bill that will be 
coming to the floor--and in bills that have come to the floor in recent 
years--we have raised the Pell grant funding for our Nation's poorest 
students to historically high levels. We have increased funding for our 
Nation's disadvantaged schoolchildren, thanks to the leadership of 
Senator Gregg of New Hampshire and others. And we have raised the 
funding by $2 billion over the last 3 years for IDEA, the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act. Our commitment to our Nation's 
disabled children certainly outstrips the President, who recommended 
funding levels this year that do not even keep pace with 
inflation. Funding for education has increased by 27 percent since 
1994. We will continue moving forward. We will continue to provide 
adequate funding for education. We will continue to work for innovative 
ways to improve education, and we will have a bill on the floor this 
very week that puts money where our mouths are. We are not interested 
just in saying what the President didn't do or what the Democrats 
didn't do. We are interested in getting the job done. That may mean 
doing some things differently from the way they have been done in the 
past.

  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes 37 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think, going forward with this debate, there ought to be some facts 
pointed out for clarification because the resolution of the Democratic 
leader and the representations of the Senator from Massachusetts and 
the Senator from Illinois are not consistent with the facts, as they 
are presently in existence and on the ground.
  Specifically, the Republican budget included a dramatic increase for 
education, and the mark for education under the Labor-HHS bill, which 
is being marked up this evening, represents a $2.2 billion increase 
over last year; no reduction, a $2.2 billion increase.
  Let me go through a few of these programs that have been represented 
by the other side as being reduced. That is misinformation. It is 
inaccurate, and it is really inappropriate, that the Democratic leader 
would bring to the floor of the Senate a resolution which is so totally 
and grossly inaccurate.
  In the area of Pell grants, the committee will be marking up a bill 
which has a $74 million increase over last year's funding; that 
represents a number of $7.7 billion. In the area of IDEA, the committee 
will be marking up a bill which has a $701 million increase over last 
year's funding; that represents a number of $5.8 billion. In the area 
of IDEA part B, the committee will be marking up a bill which has a 
committee increase over last year's funding of $678 million, a total 
budget of $4.8 billion. In the area of the TRIO Program, the committee 
will be marking up a budget which has a $30 million increase over last 
year's spending, $630 million.
  In the area of title I, the committee will be marking up a budget 
which has a $324 million increase over last year's budget, a number of 
$8.7 billion for title I. In the area of the safe and drug-free 
schools, the committee will be marking up a budget which has an 
increase of $45 million over last year, a total number $611 million. In 
the area of Head Start, the committee will be marking up a budget which 
has a $608 million increase over last year, total budget of $5.2 
billion.
  In the area of afterschool programs, the committee will be marking up 
a budget which has a $200 million increase over last year. When you add 
these increases up, we are significantly above the administration 
request.
  For example, in the Pell grant area, we are $315 million over the 
administration request. In the IDEA area, we are $375 million over the 
administration's request. In the IDEA part B area,

[[Page S11484]]

we are $675 million over the administration's request. In the title I 
area, we are $16 million over the administration's request. In the safe 
and drug-free schools area, we are $20 million over the 
administration's request.
  The simple fact is, the representations put forward in this 
resolution by the Democratic leader are absolutely inaccurate. It is 
inappropriate that this has not been amended to reflect the markup 
vehicle which is going forward in the Senate. Maybe the Democratic 
leader thinks he represents the House of Representatives, not the 
Senate. In the Senate, these are the numbers we are working from, 
dramatic increases in funding and a commitment to programs we think are 
working.

  Yes, there are significant differences on priorities. As both the 
Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Massachusetts have said, 
their priorities are different than our priorities. That is true. There 
is a different philosophy of government, a different philosophy of 
approach to education.
  We happen to believe parents should be empowered. We happen to 
believe teachers should be empowered. We happen to believe principals 
should be empowered. We happen to believe local school boards should be 
empowered to make decisions as to how they operate their schools and 
where they will put their scarce and valuable resources.
  The other side of the aisle happens to think they have the best ideas 
in the world, that all the good ideas come from the national labor 
unions and from the Department of Education and from the 
administration; that, therefore, there should be developed a set of 
categorical grants which will tell the parents, the teacher, and the 
principal exactly how they will run their local school because 
Washington absolutely knows better how to do it than the local parents, 
the teacher, or the school.
  Well, there is the difference. No question about it. The other side 
wants to set up a categorical program in the area of buildings, in the 
area of afterschool programs, in the area of teacher ratio. What we 
want to do is say to the local school district, to the parents, to the 
teacher, and to the principal: Here are the dollars. We tell you you 
must set a standard of education which is an excellence standard, a 
standard which requires that the children in your school meet the basic 
elements of education--math, reading, and writing. You have to have 
those standards. But within the context of meeting those standards, 
which standards shall be set at the State, not by us in Washington--we 
don't believe in national tests because we don't happen to think people 
here in Washington should write the tests; we think people in the 
States should write the tests--once those standards are set at the 
local school district by the States, then we say to the States, local 
school districts, parents, and teachers: You make the decision on where 
the dollars should be. Should they be in a new classroom or with an 
additional teacher, or maybe there are some schools out there that 
happen to want another computer, that happen to want to have another 
French teacher, that want to have another math teacher, or maybe they 
want to send their kids to some special program. Maybe they have some 
new concept of education they think is going to work better.
  Leave it to the local school district to make that decision. Leave it 
to the parent to make that decision. Leave it to the principal and the 
teacher to make that decision. Let us not make those decisions in 
Washington.
  Yes, there are priority differences. Our priority is to empower the 
parent, the teacher, and the principal. Their priority is to empower 
the national labor unions, the Department of Education, and the great 
thinkers in Washington who have the answers to everything on every 
subject and especially on the issue of education.
  We have, in the proposals we will be putting forward, specific 
programs which do empower parents, which give parents a chance to do 
something when their kids are in schools that fail. It is an outrage 
that in this Nation we have 5,000 high schools and elementary schools 
combined that are failing schools, by the standards set by the people 
who run those schools. If you have your kids in those schools, what is 
your option? You don't have an option. Your kid is stuck in that 
school.
  Parents ought to have an option. If their children are in a school 
that has failed year after year after year after year to teach those 
children how to write, how to read, how to think, parents shouldn't 
have to be subjected to sending their kids to those schools. They 
should have the opportunity to say to that school: OK, we are going to 
give you 2 years to clean up your act--which is exactly what our 
proposal does--on your standards. We are not setting the standards. We 
will not set a bar so high that nobody can reach it. You get to set the 
standards--you, the State; you, the community.
  If that school doesn't meet those standards--and I suspect those 
standards are going to be reasonably stringent; at least they are in 
New Hampshire--so that an elementary school, once again, for 2 years in 
a row fails, then we basically put that school on probation. We say to 
the State: You have to go into that school and you have to straighten 
it out. You have 2 years to do that. You have 2 years to get those kids 
an education, which is what the goal is, obviously.
  If after 2 more years that school still doesn't cut it, then we say 
to the parents of the kids who are going to be subjected to this 
horrendous school: It is up to you. You make the decision as to whether 
you want your son or daughter to go to that school. If you decide you 
want your son or daughter to go to another public school or to another 
program that involves afterschool activities and you are a low-income 
person, we are going to let the funds go with your child. We are going 
to let the funds follow your child rather than have that school absorb 
all these funds that will do nothing for you in the way of educating 
your children. That is a difference of opinion. They want to run the 
failed schools, keep sending money to the failed schools, and they want 
to build more failing schools.

  We say if a school is failing, let's get it under control and make it 
work; if it doesn't work, let's give the parents some options. We also 
say: Listen, we have all these categorical programs that almost tell 
teachers how many pencils they can have in their classrooms. Let's stop 
that and take a bunch of these categorical programs and put them into a 
basket of money, and after setting the standards--again, the standards 
are set by the State, not by us--after setting the standards, say to 
the local school districts: You can use this basket of money to try to 
help your kids make the standards. It is called ``straight A's.'' Every 
school district in this country is for it. The only people against it 
are the big labor unions in Washington and the Department of Education 
because they don't want to give up the categorical programs. Why? 
Because there is political power in those programs. This isn't about 
education; this is about power, about controlling dollars for the sake 
of power.
  We are talking about getting money out to the parents; they are 
talking about empowering a bunch of people in Washington who happen to 
be affluent in their field or effectively are elitists, in my opinion. 
So, yes, there are differences of philosophy. But on the facts, this 
resolution carries no weight because it is totally inaccurate on the 
facts. It should be amended because every one of these cuts it lists is 
not a cut at all.
  While we are on the subject of cuts, who does make the most 
significant cut at the Federal level? Is it the Republicans? No, it is 
not. It is the President's budget, sent up here without any increase in 
spending for the IDEA program, the special ed program. Let's talk about 
that a little bit because there is a difference in priorities. Special 
ed is a very important part of education, a good idea put together back 
in 1976 under 74-142 or 76-142--I am not sure which; there are so many 
numbers floating around. But it said, if you have a special needs 
child, that child has the right to a good education in the educational 
system, and the Federal Government knows it is going to cost a lot to 
educate that child, so the Government will pay for 40 percent of the 
cost of that child's education.
  What happened? While the Democrats controlled this Congress, year in 
and year out, that 40-percent number went right down like a roller 
coaster going down a big hill. The Federal Government's share of 
education was down to

[[Page S11485]]

6 percent when the Republicans took control of the Senate and the 
House. We recognized that was wrong. What happens when we don't pay the 
special needs cost is the dollars flow from the local community, who 
takes over the Federal responsibility, and then the local community no 
longer has flexibility over the local dollars because they are paying 
for what the Federal Government was supposed to do in the first place.
  (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)
  Ms. COLLINS. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. GREGG. I will certainly yield to the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. So what the Senator is saying is it has been the 
Republican Congress that has attempted to live up to the promise made 
in funding special education; it has been the Republican Congress, and, 
today, the Appropriations Committee is going to meet to add educational 
dollars to the President's budget. In fact, we will be increasing 
spending for essential programs such as special ed, Pell grants, the 
TRIO programs, above what the President has requested; am I correct in 
that understanding?
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator is absolutely correct. Regarding IDEA, the 
President, all during his term in office, has never sent up a budget of 
any significance. However, the Republican Senate and Congress have 
increased IDEA funding by over 85 percent and, after this year, there 
will be up to about a 110-percent increase in it over the baseline with 
which we started.
  Ms. COLLINS. If I may, I will ask the Senator from New Hampshire, who 
has been such a leader on education issues, one further question. So 
this is not a debate about money because it has been the Republicans 
who have continually increased educational funding. What this is a 
debate about is who is going to make the decisions. This is a debate 
about philosophy. Does the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. GREGG. That is exactly right. It is about philosophy and it is 
about power.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Maine has been a leader on education 
issues, also, especially IDEA.
  To complete my thought on that issue, the President sent up a budget 
which had no increase in IDEA. He took the money from the special ed 
kids and he started these new categorical programs--buildings, 
afterschool, teachers. That money should have gone to special ed to 
fulfill the obligation of the 40 percent we said we were going to pay 
in the first place. But, no, he took the money from the IDEA program 
and put it into the categorical programs, which had the double, 
insidious effect of making the local governments have to now support 
the Federal programs, so they lose their local schools. They could have 
built schools if they wanted to build schools or added teachers or done 
whatever they wanted to. Now they don't have the dollars because they 
are supporting IDEA.
  On top of that, he says to the local school districts: I have taken 
your dollars for special ed, which we were supposed to pay you to begin 
with, and I put them in categorical programs; to get the dollars, you 
have to do what I tell you to do--build a school, or add a teacher, or 
you have to do an afterschool program. The local school district may 
not want to do that; they may want to do something else, such as a new 
French program, or a new computer system. They may want to add to the 
football team, or put in an arts department. But they can't do it 
because the money they were going to have to do that with is being 
spent to do the Federal end of the special ed funds. Now the money that 
is supposed to come in for that is coming into a categorical grant.
  It is all about power and who is going to run the education system. 
Is it going to be run in Washington by labor union leaders and 
bureaucrats, or is it going to be run by the teachers, parents, and the 
principals? That is what this debate is about; it is not about money.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, how much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 23 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Madam President, a couple of quick facts. If the good Senator from 
New Hampshire went back to March 25 of this last year--the time we were 
considering the $790 billion tax cut--we offered an amendment that 
would have taken one-fifth that amount of money and completely funded 
IDEA. The Republicans unanimously rejected it. They unanimously 
rejected it. They thought we ought to have tax breaks rather than 
funding IDEA. So, before we get all worked up about this position that 
was just talked about, we ought to understand that.
  Madam President, with all respect to my friend, the majority leader, 
I don't find traveling around Massachusetts that the school systems are 
saying: We have sufficient resources and we don't need any help or 
assistance. The role of the Federal Government, historically, is to 
provide a very limited amount of resources in targeted areas, where 
there are some special needs, and that is why we have these targeted 
resources.
  If our good friends on the other side want to have a good deal more 
funding, generally, in terms of education, they can request their 
Governors to go ahead and do so. Our role is to find targeted 
resources.
  Now, what are these targeted areas we have talked about? Let's get 
specific. One of the key areas are smaller class sizes. As I mentioned, 
the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, is our leader on that issue. 
The project STAR studied 7,000 students in 80 Tennessee schools. 
Students in small classes performed better than students in large 
classes in each grade from kindergarten through third grade. Follow-up 
research shows that gains lasted through at least the eighth grade. 
STAR students were less likely to drop out of high school. Research 
also shows that STAR schools and smaller classes in grades up from K 
through 3 were between 6 and 13 months ahead of regular classes in 
math, reading, and science, all the way through the fourth, sixth, and 
eighth. That is one of the programs that we support. That is a priority 
item. The Republicans zeroed that out.

  I was interested in the Republican leader saying we are going to have 
a big bill on the floor of the Senate next week. We are saying: Where 
has it been? We are glad it is going to be here, but where has it been? 
That is our point.
  We have the situation of after-school programs. We know the dangers 
of young students getting in trouble with violence after school. 
Juveniles are most likely to commit violent crimes after school, as 
this chart shows, it is between 3 and 6 p.m.
  We had a modest program by the President with $200 million. There 
were 1,700 applications for that program. Only 184 programs can be 
funded at the current level of $200 million. There were 1,800 unfunded 
after-school programs. We are trying to fund those. The Republicans say 
no.
  Take a look at what these dollars have meant in terms of math scores 
improving. This is in the neediest areas of this country. From 1992 to 
1996, in every one of these areas, and particularly in the areas where 
the students are the poorest, almost double the performance for 
children in the area of math and science. In each of the various 
quarters, we have seen a significant increase in the last 4 years.
  That is our priority: Smaller class size, after-school programs, and 
trying to improve student achievement in the areas of math and science.
  I'll mention one more area, wiring the schools for the 21st century. 
We have seen the gradual increase in the schools that are wired. But 
still, for the instructional rooms where children learn, they do not 
have those kinds of resources. We believe we should provide some help 
and assistance. Local school districts want that help and assistance. 
We are being denied that under the Republican priorities.
  Finally, with all respect to our majority leader, the history and the 
record shows that it has been this President and the Democratic 
leadership who have seen the increase in the funding over the period of 
the last 6 years. That is just a matter of record, with all respect.
  The final point the Republican leader says: Why didn't they support 
our tax reductions? The Office of Management and Budget has stated that 
there would have been a 40-percent reduction in

[[Page S11486]]

support of education in order to pay for that tax break.
  I ask the majority leader, if you have $780 billion that you want to 
give away in tax breaks, why aren't you providing additional funding on 
programs that have been tried, tested, and have enhanced the 
educational achievement of the children of this country?
  Madam President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Democratic 
leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will use leader time so as not to 
take what limited time may be left.
  I want to speak for a moment and commend the distinguished Senator 
from Massachusetts for his remarks and for the incredible message I 
think that chart alone points out.
  We heard our Republican colleagues say over and over that they are 
the ones who have supported education; they are the ones who can take 
credit for the fact that we have actually improved funding over the 
course of the last several years. As Senator Kennedy has pointed out so 
ably, it is only because we have forced our Republican colleagues to 
increase this investment that we see any real improvement whatsoever.
  That is the reason I am hoping our colleagues will be very wary of 
the resolution posed by our Republican colleagues this afternoon.
  Obviously, if you look at some of the stated priorities, there is 
very little for which there can be disagreement. We should have well-
trained, high-quality teachers. Parents need to be involved in 
education of their children. There have to be safe schools, and we need 
to have orderly places for children to learn.

  But the problem is the rhetoric and the record are totally opposite. 
Rhetoric is what we just heard. The record is deep cuts in education 
every single year. The Republican agenda will not achieve the rhetoric 
that the resolution the Republicans are proposing today calls for.
  Look again at what the House Labor-HHS-Education subcommittee did 
last week. How does killing class size reduction match the rhetoric in 
the resolution? How does it match the rhetoric in the resolution to 
provide only half of the money the President has requested for 
afterschool programs? How can you ensure that we have orderly places 
for children to learn when you cut funds from the Safe and Drug Free 
School program? How do we help make sure children are ready to school 
when you provide $500 million less for the Head Start Program than the 
President has requested? How can you do the things the Republicans 
propose in their resolution and then eliminate the Class Size Reduction 
Program, making it even more difficult to make sure that every 
classroom has a qualified teacher. Giving families a $5 annual tax 
break isn't going to make schools safer or provide afterschool 
programs. Vouchers do nothing for these kids left behind in low-
performing schools.
  I urge our colleagues to look very carefully at this resolution, and 
look at the statement at the end of the resolution which says this 
Congress is now in a position to be congratulated for its strong 
education performance.
  How do you congratulate a Congress that cuts as deeply as the House 
did last week? How do you congratulate a Congress that has nothing to 
show for the record in education except for an Ed-Flex bill we passed 
last spring that is of very little value in reaching the goals and the 
stated objectives in the Republican resolution?
  That is why we have offered our resolution. Our resolution addresses 
the priorities stated by our Republican colleagues. We put our money 
where our mouth is. We do what we need to do--fund the priorities 
within this budget to ensure that we are able to achieve those goals, 
not just talk about them.
  We provide $1.4 billion to reduce class size. We triple the funding 
for afterschool programs. We increase college access and affordability. 
We expand opportunities to incorporate education technology. We advance 
school literacy and readiness.
  Those are the kinds of things you need to do if you are serious about 
these stated goals which are found in both resolutions.
  You have to look at what happens once the resolution passes. From 
where does the money come, and how big a commitment is there on the 
part of colleagues on either side of the aisle to achieve what we say 
we want to achieve? Only one resolution pending does that.
  I hope everyone will understand that before they cast their vote.
  Let me also make a couple of comments. The Senator from Massachusetts 
did such a good job that very little else needs to be said with regard 
to some of the remarks made by our Republican colleagues. But the 
majority leader on Friday made a couple of statements to which I think 
there must be a response. He pointed out that spending on education has 
risen every year since the Republicans took the majority.
  It has risen, all right. But it has risen over the objections of many 
of our colleagues on the other side. It has risen only because this 
caucus and the administration have pressed the Republican leadership 
and the Republican Members of the Senate to do what we have advocated 
again this year--to provide the kind of commitment and resources 
necessary.
  One of the Republicans' first action was to rescind $1.7 billion in 
education funding. One of their most famous actions over the years has 
been to propose abolishing the Department of Education altogether. Of 
course, they shut the Government down in an effort to enact the 
Draconian cuts in education and all other programs. It was only because 
Democrats refused to make education such a low priority that these 
investments are made.
  So how ironic now that we have prevailed, they attempt to take 
credit. I think most people understand that. Democrats have supported 
real options to involve parents in our education system as well.

  Our majority leader asserted last week the Democrats oppose giving 
parents options. Nothing could be further from the truth. I cannot 
imagine anybody could actually say that and be serious. We have 
supported providing choices through open enrollment in public charter 
schools. More importantly, we believe communities and parents should 
have the tools--including the resources--to make sure each local 
neighborhood school provides every single child a high quality 
education, not just some.
  Despite suggestions to the contrary, we support increasing resources 
for special education. We believe we need to do that in addition to, 
not instead of, addressing other problems. Helping all children is what 
we want to do with our educational agenda.
  We offered an amendment earlier this year to fully fund the special 
education program by reducing the Republican tax cut. Guess what. The 
majority rejected it. I think almost to a person, if not to a person, 
they rejected it. When it came down to a tax cut or fully funding 
special education, our Republican colleagues did what we could almost 
predict they will do every single time: They voted for the tax cut.
  I think it is important to note the Republican resolution doesn't 
give the whole picture about the state of public education. There are 
problems, but some good things are happening. There is not a word in 
the resolution they offer today about the good things that have been 
effective.
  I think it was Senator Murray who said last week, and it ought to be 
repeated over and over: Public education isn't failing us; we are 
failing public education. When we look at the shortfalls in this 
budget, once again, and the failure to fund the commitment to public 
education, I think she was right on the mark when she said that.
  With the help of incentives from Goals 2000 and the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, school districts are now setting higher 
academic standards; many school districts are taking strong steps to 
reform schools using proven, research-based methodologies. Student 
performance is rising in math, science, and reading. SAT scores are 
increasing. Students are taking more rigorous, tougher courses they are 
doing better. A higher percentage of students are receiving passing 
grades on advanced placement exams, and fewer students are dropping 
out. I think it is important to note that the gap between whites and 
blacks in completing high school is closing in many communities.
  I hope our Republican colleagues will join in our agenda to help 
communities achieve all these goals and more. The bottom line is, they 
have made education their last--not their first, their

[[Page S11487]]

last--priority. As the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out, we are 
less than 1 week away from the end of the fiscal year and we have yet 
to act on education, yet to act to provide the resources necessary to 
ensure education is funded.
  We have a real opportunity this afternoon to voice our concern, to 
express our support, to commit the resources. There is no question, a 
strong public education system is critical for our Nation's future. 
That is exactly what the Democratic agenda provides.
  I urge our colleagues who support the resolution we propose to oppose 
the Lott-Gregg-Coverdell resolution. I urge my colleagues to make the 
Federal Government a constructive partner in improving our public 
schools and to work to enact a strong education agenda with more than 
rhetoric and with a commitment to the resources and the investments 
that are required to ensure our actions meet our rhetoric.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We heard from the majority leader and the Senator from 
New Hampshire that we don't have to worry about education funding 
because they are going to have an appropriations bill that will far 
exceed the President's request.

  I ask the Senator if on the one hand he finds it perhaps encouraging 
that we are finally moving to get education reform, and what kind of 
consideration we ought to give to that kind of assurance?
  It is Monday evening. We go into the fiscal year on Friday. The 
majority leader has said we are going to have a budget that will exceed 
the President's. Can the Senator tell me why, if they are going to 
exceed the President's budget, that suddenly we find this money, does 
he know of any reason we have not had this money before? Doesn't he 
believe we should have had it before? Or does he know from where the 
funding will come?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I think the Senator asks a very good question. I respond 
by asking three questions of my own.
  If that is the case, why did the House Republican caucus choose to 
make the deep cuts they did? And, second, why was there not an outcry 
on that side of the aisle in this Chamber against those cuts? Where was 
the outcry when those deep cuts were made? If that is the case, my 
third question is, why today are we continuing to use the Health and 
Human Services subcommittee's budget, their allocation, as an ATM 
machine to fund everything else? Why the outcry on our side? Look at 
the record. Why the practice of using this budget as an ATM machine for 
everything else? If they support education, why doesn't the record show 
it?
  I think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts asks a very good 
question. Frankly, I am interested in their response to that question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield further, I searched the Record 
and I didn't find it as of last week when the leader put in his own 
resolution and when we talked about this. There was no comment, no 
sense of outrage at that particular time.
  This is a poor way of dealing with the families of this country that 
understand our role in the area of education is limited. We spend about 
7 cents out of every dollar, but we try to target it in areas of 
special need. To be able to on one day see these dramatic cuts and 3 
days later hear a statement by the majority leader that it will be far 
in excess of the President's request, does not he agree with me that 
the American people are entitled to a more serious discussion and 
debate of a priority which they believe so deeply is important for 
their children and the future of this country?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely right.
  Ask people in South Dakota, and I am sure in Massachusetts: What do 
you want us to put our time, effort, and resources into? Without 
question, time and time and time again they say: We want to make sure 
that one thing happens--our young people are educated. We want to make 
absolutely certain if you do anything, ensure we have an educated 
workforce.
  I was with a number of businesspeople over the weekend. Again, I was 
reminded this is not just an education issue; this is a business issue, 
an economic issue. This is an American strength issue. This could be 
called a national security issue. That is what this is. It isn't just 
about education. Our country is at stake. Whether or not we educate our 
young people adequately determines in large measure what kind of 
economy we will have, what kind of society we have, and certainly what 
kind of strength we will have in the long term.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Democratic leader for an 
excellent statement and for reminding all Members why we are here on a 
Monday evening debating this issue: The American public has said 
education is its No. 1 priority. It ought to be the No. 1 priority of 
the Senate.
  I have been delighted to hear the rhetoric from both sides throughout 
this year that education is the No. 1 priority. That is why I am so 
disappointed tonight. Clearly, the budget priorities we now see show 
education has dropped to last. It is the last appropriations bill to be 
considered. It is the appropriations bill we have been using from which 
to steal the funds throughout this entire process. Who gets hurt in the 
end? It is our children.
  I listened to a Senator a few minutes ago saying this is a debate 
about philosophy. I agree. It is a philosophy about whether or not just 
a few kids in our country get a good education or whether we are going 
to make sure every child, no matter who they are or where they come 
from, gets a good education and how we do that.
  In talking to parents across this country, they are not saying 
eliminate bureaucracy; they are not saying block grant the programs. 
They are saying: Make sure my child can learn to read and write. They 
are saying: If my child is in a smaller classroom in first, second, and 
third grade and gets the attention they need, they will get a good 
education. They will learn how to read and write; they will be a 
success.
  They are asking Congress to partner with their State and local 
governments to reduce class size. They are asking Congress to make sure 
our teachers are given the skills they need to teach the young kids in 
our classrooms. They are asking Congress to put the resources behind 
the rhetoric.
  When I tell people in my State and across this country that 1.6 
percent of the Federal budget goes to education, something they believe 
is a priority, they are appalled. Education needs to be funded at a 
level where every child can learn to read and write and be a success in 
this world. This Congress is failing.
  I was extremely disappointed with the House appropriations bill that 
passed out of committee last week; it eliminated the Eisenhower Teacher 
Professional Development Program. That is a program that is geared to 
helping our teachers teach the basics of math and science. Talk to the 
new startup businesses and the businesses that are succeeding. They say 
our kids need to learn math and science.
  That is what the Eisenhower Grant Program is all about. I met with 
some scientists in my home State just a few months ago, leaders in the 
biotech industry, leaders in the technology industry. They spent an 
evening with me, of their own time, because they wanted to tell me how 
great the Eisenhower teacher professional development grants were, what 
they have done for students in our local high schools, invigorated them 
and got them to go on to science and math in college. They wanted to 
make sure we continued this program.
  What did the House do last week? They took the money out. It is gone. 
No longer are we saying to schools across this country that making sure 
we have math and science students who succeed is important. That is 
wrong.
  What else did they do? They eliminated the Goals 2000 Program. This 
is a program that helps school districts fund their own locally-
designed programs to help student achievement by improving the quality 
of teacher training. Every one of us knows, if you want your company to 
succeed, you make sure your employees have the best skills they can to 
work for you. That is what we need to be doing with our teachers. We 
need to be training them. We need to be making sure they have the 
skills they need to pass on to our young students today. That is what

[[Page S11488]]

Goals 2000 is about. The House eliminated it.
  The Class Size Reduction Initiative? Eliminated in the House budget. 
When I went out to my State just a few weeks ago, I went to a school in 
Tacoma, WA, where they had taken the Class Size Reduction Initiative 
money we had given them and focused it entirely on the first grade 
classrooms in the Tacoma school districts. Today, this year, 57 schools 
in Tacoma, WA, have 15 students in their first grade classrooms. They 
then used their title I money to help train those teachers in literacy 
efforts. Their focus this year is to make sure every first grade 
student can read at the end of the year. That is an amazing program. We 
are making it happen with the class size reduction money that was 
passed with bipartisan support a year ago. We are going to now take 
that away and tell those students and tell those teachers we no longer 
are going to help them do what they told me was absolutely critical?
  As you can see behind me on this chart, K-12 enrollments are 
increasing dramatically right now. Why are we, then, reducing the 
levels of support for these students? We have to make sure every child 
gets the resources he or she needs. We have to make sure the local 
communities have the resources behind them. We at the Federal level are 
a partner with our State and our local governments to make sure our 
kids learn. We want to know their classes are small enough that kids 
can learn to read and write and do math. We want to know those teachers 
are trained. We want to know there are afterschool programs so our 
students do not go home alone, to their neighborhoods, alone where they 
are not learning or where they are unproductive or can get in trouble. 
That is what the Democrats have been fighting for. That is what we will 
continue to fight for.
  We know the rhetoric is not going to educate one child. We know all 
of the bills with big names are not going to educate one child. We do 
know the dollars--behind reducing class size, training our teachers, 
Eisenhower grants--make a difference. School districts are held 
accountable for making sure our kids learn, and we are making sure we 
have the resources behind those efforts to make sure it happens.
  This debate is important. The debate tonight in the Appropriations 
Committee is even more important--whether we are willing to put those 
dollars behind those students. I think it is appalling that our kids 
have been left to last in the budget process, that they are going to be 
funded by smoke and mirrors. We will not see the reality of this for 
probably several months, but it will happen. When this is all said and 
done, if we do not put the dollars behind our students and our teachers 
and our schools, our kids will get the message. They will get the 
message that we do not care. I do not want to be sending that message; 
I do not think anybody here does.
  I have listened to the rhetoric. I have heard every Senator come out 
and say education is critical. If that is the truth, let's pass the 
Daschle amendment, go to work and make sure our kids have the resources 
they need to be productive in the next century.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry? I thought the 
vote was scheduled by unanimous consent to be at 5:30. Might the 
Senator from New Mexico inquire when we might start voting?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has been extended. There are a little 
over 9 minutes for the Senator from Massachusetts and 41 seconds for 
the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think we were prepared, after these last two speakers, 
to move ahead. I am told we will reserve.
  I know just one Senator who wants to speak for 4 minutes on our side, 
and we will be prepared to yield back the other time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 41 seconds.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed 
to speak up to 5 minutes on the pending resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, this morning President Clinton 
announced we have set a new record budget surplus. It now stands at 
$115 billion, according to the President. That would be absolutely 
wonderful, if it were true. The President says our prosperity now gives 
us an unprecedented opportunity and an unprecedented responsibility to 
shape America's future by putting things first, by moving forward with 
an economic strategy that is successful and sound, and by meeting 
America's long-term challenges.
  He continues to operate as if he has a $2.9 trillion surplus over the 
next 10 years to take care of every problem and pay for every program 
over the next decade. However, the numbers the President is relying on 
are nothing but a mirage, pure speculation. The $2.9 trillion surplus 
everyone seems to be talking about in the next 10 years is based on 10-
year projections. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said:

       . . . it's very difficult to project with any degree of 
     conviction when you get out beyond 12, 18 months.

  In addition, he stated that:

       . . . projecting five or ten years out is a very precarious 
     activity, as I think we have demonstrated time and time 
     again.

  Again, the President continues to play games with the numbers and 
continues to use Social Security to puff up his inflated budget surplus 
numbers. How much of this $115 billion so-called surplus is actually 
offset, using our Nation's pension fund, Social Security? With today's 
pronouncement, he continues to perpetuate the myth that we have a huge, 
honest-to-goodness surplus. But he is using Social Security.
  Just this last year--and I think this is really important for the 
American people to understand--there was a great celebration here about 
having a surplus. But the fact of the matter is that in 1998, when 
everybody celebrated, there was no on-budget surplus; actually, there 
was a $30 billion deficit. That is, the expenses exceeded the revenues, 
and we glossed it over with the Social Security surplus.
  We have to stop playing games as if we had all this money to spend. I 
think the President is doing the American people a disservice. But it 
is the only way the President is going to be able to fund his expansion 
of the Federal Government--by claiming the surplus is bigger than it 
really is and that we are flush with cash. This is not how we should 
run the Government. It is just plain wrong.
  When I was Governor of Ohio, if somebody had come to me from the 
schools, or from the cities, and said, ``Governor, we want to spend 
$100 billion on a program,'' and then they said to me, ``I want to use 
the pension funds from the State of Ohio to pay for it,'' I would have 
thrown them out of the office. That is what we have been doing in this 
country, and continue to do, is to pay for programs, frankly, that are 
the responsibilities of State and local government, by taking the money 
out of Social Security.
  If the President was still the Governor of Arkansas, this wonderful 
program I have heard about from my Democratic colleagues, all this 
money for schools, and for all these other new programs, would be 
appropriate. But the President is not the Governor of the United States 
of America and this Senate is not the school board of America. The 
responsibility for education is at the State and local level. Today in 
this country, with our $5.7 trillion debt, with a deficit that has gone 
up 1,300 percent, with an interest payment of 14 cents out of every 
dollar --we are spending more money on interest today than we are on 
Medicare--we have a terrible financial problem.
  I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk 
about the President's vision. I listen to them every day. I watch them 
on C-SPAN. They are talking about school construction, 100,000 
teachers--they are all great priorities, but they are the 
responsibility of State and local government.
  One of the things this Senate has to face up to, and this country has 
to face up to: There are certain responsibilities on the Federal 
Government and there are certain responsibilities on State and local 
government.
  I am going to vote against the Democratic leader and his resolution 
which continues to raid the pension funds of the United States of 
America. Does everybody hear me? There is no surplus.

[[Page S11489]]

 Let's stop talking about it. We have a Social Security surplus, and it 
is time we stop using the pension funds of the people of this country 
to pay for programs that are the responsibility of State and local 
government, particularly in terms of where the States are a lot more 
flush than we are on the Federal level.
  Today I will vote against that resolution. I will support the 
Republican resolution which advocates giving the most amount of 
flexibility to our State and local school districts and in programs 
where we do have a proper role.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. They are on the front lines and should be given every 
opportunity to make decisions that are most appropriate for their 
children.
  Earlier this year, we passed Ed-Flex in a bipartisan effort. I even 
went to the Rose Garden when the President signed it. We need more 
programs similar to Ed-Flex which give local officials flexibility, and 
we ought not to be funding State and local programs with our pension 
funds. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  I rise to support the Daschle resolution. There is a difference. It 
says something about any institution in terms of how it prioritizes its 
agenda, and it says volumes about where the leadership in this Congress 
is that puts as the last issue for us to discuss and debate the 
Education appropriations bill. We are last. This is the last one to be 
considered, despite the fact the American public has said on numerous 
occasions over the last year or so that they think this is the most 
important issue. They apparently think it is the least important issue 
because they have decided to put it at the end of the day. When 
everything else is taken care of, now we will see if there is anything 
left over for education.
  We have a different point of view. We say we ought to do this first 
because this is the Nation's No. 1 priority. If we lack an educated 
society, if we fail to provide opportunities for children and their 
families to learn, then every other issue will suffer accordingly.
  The U.S. Government contributes about 7 percent--7 cents on every 
dollar--that goes to fund elementary and secondary education. That is 
our commitment. What we are talking about is as much as a 17-percent 
cut of that 7 percent. It will be one thing if we are talking about the 
Federal Government doing the lion's share of the work in education. We 
are not. We have a paltry 7 percent that we help contribute to the 
education of America's young people. Now we are talking as much as a 
17-percent cut of that 7 percent.
  There is a sense of frustration one can hear in our voices because 
the American people are frustrated. They understand that for this 
Nation to succeed in the 21st century, it must have the best prepared, 
best educated generation we have ever produced. Yet here we are with 
every other appropriations bill having been passed but this one, the 
last one.

  What does it mean in real terms to the American public? It means in 
real terms there can be a lot fewer children who will get child care, a 
lot fewer who will get Head Start--about 140,000 of them--a $1.3 
billion cut in title I, an $880 million cut in special education.
  Let me tell you how important that one is. Ask any mayor of any city 
in this country whether or not special education dollars are important 
to them. Put aside, if you will, the needs of families, which I think 
speak for themselves. But one of the rising costs for our communities 
across this country is the staggering cost of educating a special needs 
child. Yet when we are talking about $880 million in cuts for special 
education, how do we expect our communities to meet that tremendous 
challenge for those children?
  I respect the Ed-Flex bill. We all voted for it. But to call that 
major education policy--that does not even come close to being major 
education policy. It is worthy, but it is not the answer. I think it is 
things such as class size, school safety, Pell grants for needy 
families, and certainly doing what we can to see to it there is equal 
opportunity in education all across this country.
  I have school districts in my State where my communities have the 
resources, and they have every imaginable technological opportunity. 
But I can take you to a school 15 minutes away in inner cities where 
you will find four or five computers for a student body of 2,000. I 
come from an affluent State, but most of our educational funding comes 
from the local level. There are disparities that exist in every one of 
our States--huge disparities. When all the U.S. Government does is 7 
percent--7 cents on the dollar comes from us--with a huge disparity in 
opportunity, to suggest somehow we have done enough with the Ed-Flex 
bill and that is all we need to worry about in 1999 in preparation for 
the 21st century I do not think convinces the American public we are 
there.
  The Daschle bill is something I will support but, candidly, we ought 
to be voting on a funding resolution on education, not a sense of the 
Senate that we ought to deal with education. I am disappointed that is 
not before us. But of the two propositions in front of us, the Daschle 
proposal at least lays out the fact we ought to be voting on the 
funding measures and not stealing from education to pay for every other 
program in this country. Education ought to come first. That is where 
we stand, and that is what our resolution suggests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Whatever time is left, I yield to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized for up 
to 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, first, I join my distinguished colleague from 
Connecticut in his eloquent address and the passion he brings to that 
subject. I share that passion.
  I certainly join many of our colleagues who have spoken about the 
need to adequately fund our public education system, but I want to 
respond to an argument the distinguished majority leader made on Friday 
regarding the condition of our Nation's schools.
  The Senator from Mississippi indicated it is not the Federal 
Government's job to fix leaky roofs. He indicated it is not the 
responsibility of the Federal Government to build local schools. He 
indicated that every State has a budget surplus so the Federal 
Government should not get involved.
  As a former Governor who was able to pump over $1 billion of 
additional money into public education without a tax increase, I might 
ordinarily agree with that premise, but there are times which call for 
extraordinary partnerships among localities, States, and the Federal 
Government. I believe we are experiencing one of those times.
  We have three phenomena that are colliding to put the greatest level 
of stress on our educational infrastructure that we have seen since the 
1950s. Our school facilities across the Nation are over 40 years old on 
average, our school-age population is skyrocketing, and our States and 
localities simply do not have the resources to do what needs to be done 
despite their surpluses.
  To say that providing school construction funding is not a Federal 
responsibility is easy. It is an easy way to sit on our hands and do 
nothing to help children who wade through puddles to get to class, to 
do nothing to help children who suffer in up to 100-degree temperatures 
in buildings with no air conditioning, to do nothing to help the 
countless mayors across this country who stated they desperately need 
our help.
  In Virginia alone, despite our Commonwealth surplus and plans to 
invest more money in school infrastructure, we still face a $4 billion 
shortfall in school construction and repair needs. I have heard from 
superintendents, local officials, State legislators, parents, and, most 
important, students who have all asked for Federal help in this area.
  For those colleagues who fear Federal intrusion in the area of 
education, I simply say, if Federal officials want to help local 
officials pay for school buildings and repairs, things we all 
acknowledge we need urgently, how do we encroach on local school 
control of education? Localities have asked for our help, and it is 
help we can provide

[[Page S11490]]

without telling them how to run their schools. I believe this is 
actually one of the least intrusive things that we can do to help from 
the Federal level.
  Providing school infrastructure assistance is not intended to be a 
panacea for all the challenges we face with respect to increasing 
academic achievement, but it is certainly a critical need.
  Under the leadership of a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, 
our predecessors in Congress summoned the political will to fund a 
massive national infrastructure initiative.
  We did help build roads. We did help build schools. We did it because 
our States and localities needed our help. We did it because our 
population was booming. And we did it to try to ensure that the United 
States would have the infrastructure it needed to be economically sound 
and competitive. It is my hope that we can summon that will once again.
  With that, Madam President, in full support of the statement made by 
our distinguished Democratic leader and my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle, and in opposition to the proposal from the other side of the 
aisle upon which we will vote momentarily, I thank the Chair and yield 
the floor.


                        Vote On S. Res. No. 186

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to S. Res. No. 
186.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been called for. Is 
there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to S. Res. 186. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Leahy) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 293 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bunning
     Chafee
     Hagel
     Kohl
     Leahy
     McCain
     Torricelli
  The resolution (S. Res. 186) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 186

       Whereas the fiscal year 2000 Senate Budget Resolution 
     increased education funding by $28,000,000,000 over the next 
     five years, and $82,000,000,000 over the next ten years, and 
     the Department of Education received a net increase of 
     $2,400,000,000 which doubles the President's requested 
     increase;
       Whereas compared to the President's requested levels, the 
     Democratically controlled Congress' appropriations for the 
     period 1993 through 1995 reduced the President's funding 
     requests by $3,000,000,000, and since Republicans took 
     control of Congress, Federal education funding has increased 
     by 27 percent;
       Whereas in the past three years, the Congress has increased 
     funding for Part B of Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act by nearly 80 percent, while the Administration's fiscal 
     year 2000 budget only requested a 0.07 percent increase which 
     is less than an adjustment for inflation, and Congress is 
     deeply concerned that while the Administration has provided 
     rhetoric in support of education of the disabled, the 
     Administration's budget has consistently taken money from 
     this high priority program to fund new and untested programs;
       Whereas Congress is not only providing the necessary funds, 
     but is also reforming our current education programs, and 
     Congress recognizes that significant reforms are needed in 
     light of troubling statistics indicating--
       (1) 40 percent of fourth graders cannot read at the most 
     basic level;
       (2) in international comparisons, United States 12th 
     graders scored near the bottom in both mathematics and 
     science;
       (3) 70 percent of children in high poverty schools score 
     below even the most basic level of reading; and
       (4) in mathematics, 9 year olds in high poverty schools 
     remain two grade levels behind students in low poverty 
     schools;
       Whereas earlier in 1999, the 106th Congress took the first 
     step toward improving our Nation's schools by passing the 
     Education Flexibility and Partnership Act of 1999, which 
     frees States and local communities to tailor education 
     programs to meet the individual needs of students and local 
     schools;
       Whereas the 1999 reauthorization of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 will focus on increasing 
     student achievement by empowering principals, local school 
     boards, teachers and parents, and the focus should be on 
     raising the achievement of all students;
       Whereas Congress should reject a one-size-fits all approach 
     to education, and local schools should have the freedom to 
     prioritize their spending and tailor their curriculum 
     according to the unique educational needs of their children;
       Whereas parents are the first and best educators of their 
     children, and Congress supports proposals that provide 
     parents greater control to choose unique educational 
     opportunities to best meet their children's educational 
     needs;
       Whereas every child should have an exceptional teacher in 
     the classroom, and Congress supports efforts to recruit, 
     retrain, and retain high quality teachers;
       Whereas quality instruction and learning can occur only in 
     a first class school that is safe and orderly;
       Whereas Congress supports proposals that give schools the 
     support they need to protect teachers and students, remove 
     disruptive influences, and create a positive learning 
     atmosphere; and
       Whereas success in education is best achieved when 
     instruction focuses on basic academics and fundamental 
     skills, and students should no longer be subjected to untried 
     and untested educational theories of instruction, rather our 
     Nation's efforts should be geared to proven methods of 
     instruction: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) this Congress has taken strong steps to reform our 
     Nation's educational system and allowed States, local schools 
     and parents more flexibility and authority over their 
     children's education; and
       (2) the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 will enable this Congress to continue 
     its efforts to send decision making back to States, local 
     schools, and families.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the resolution was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                          Vote on S. Res. 187

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, 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. The question is on agreeing to S. Res. 187. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Vermont (Mr. Leahy) would vote ``aye.''

[[Page S11491]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bunning
     Chafee
     Hagel
     Kohl
     Leahy
     McCain
     Torricelli
  The resolution (S. Res. 187) was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________