[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 53 (Wednesday, May 3, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3280-S3284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the 
floor today and speak with regard to the Educational Opportunities Act 
we will be debating later today. The Educational Opportunities Act 
represents an opportunity to make a striking change in education in 
America. I will quickly go over what it is that this act with which we 
are dealing will do.
  Title I of the act is dedicated to helping disadvantaged children 
meet the high standards of education that we seek to have them achieve.
  Title II is dedicated to improving teacher quality throughout the 
Nation.
  Title III contains enrichment initiatives for our schools, including 
initiatives such as the gifted and talented programs; the advanced 
placement programs; help for neglected, delinquent, and at-risk 
students; and help for each school to meet each child's unique 
educational needs.
  Title IV deals with developing safe and drug-free schools.
  Title V deals with initiatives for educational opportunities, 
initiatives that will involve opportunities such as taking maximum 
advantage of the technology education we need to provide for our 
children.
  Title VI involves innovative education where we give flexibility and 
power to the local teachers and parents to create innovative 
educational programs in their communities that will help empower 
students.
  Title VII deals with bilingual education and language enhancement 
acquisition so those who need to develop the necessary skills to speak 
English can be given the assistance to do so.
  Title VIII deals with impact aid, a form of aid critically important 
for those areas where the Federal Government creates an additional 
burden through its use of Federal property. And Title VIII deals with 
Indians, Native Hawaiians, and Alaskan Native education, dealing with 
specific needs throughout the Nation where we need focused efforts.
  I thank the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Jeffords for his 
leadership on this bill. I also like to thank the ranking member, 
Senator Kennedy, and all the members of the committee for their time 
and efforts to bring forth a bill that invests in public schools and 
offers our children an unparalleled opportunity for education reform 
and a better education. I commend all for your endeavors in tackling 
the tough decisions that face our schools and our children.
  The pending ESEA bill offers students and parents a tremendous 
opportunity for better schools and a better education. Perhaps our 
greatest accomplishment in this bill is the reduction of Federal 
regulations. While the Federal financial contribution is approximately 
7 percent of total education costs, the requirements currently placed 
on States represent a disproportionate burden in redtape and Federal 
control.
  Granting waivers to States, and allowing them to bypass complex, 
confusing, and time consuming mandates, is one of the most important 
things S. 2 does to help schools reach their full potential.
  In exchange for increased State and local flexibility, the Education 
Opportunities Act requires greater accountability for improving student 
performance. By establishing high standards and demanding 
accountability, this bill represents a great step toward ensuring the 
academic success of all students.
  Senator Gorton's Straight A's proposal also allows interested States 
to consolidate up to twelve Federal formula grant programs in exchange 
for flexible approaches that boost student achievement. The Straight 
A's program gives States more flexibility in the use of Federal funds, 
so long as it can be demonstrated that the flexibility is used to 
achieve higher academic results for students.
  Senator Gregg's efforts to promote portability should also be 
commended. This child-centered approach establishes per-pupil amounts 
to be used for supplemental services, such as tutoring. This change, 
would for the first time, ensure that the money follows the student. No 
longer will a school with title I students go without receiving funding 
for the very students it is asked to educate.
  As I have looked through this bill and reviewed the various 
provisions, I am particularly pleased to see a number of measures I 
introduced earlier this year in separate legislation have been 
included. These bills focused on the growing needs of education in our 
rural communities. Earlier this year, I introduced an education bill--
now title VI part B, the Rural Education Initiative--that would allow 
school districts to combine the small amounts of funding they may 
receive for specified programs, to accumulate a book of funds large 
enough to address local priorities. The committee recognized the unique 
challenges facing rural school districts by incorporating this 
important provision into the bill before us today. The students, 
parents, teachers, and administrators in Idaho appreciate your 
commitment to small, and sometimes poor, rural school districts.
  Regarding title VIII and the Impact Aid Program, I am pleased to see 
legislation I authored earlier this year included in the bill. My 
legislation recommended changing the formulas by which Impact Aid funds 
are distributed to schools. This change, and other important changes in 
the bill before us, reaffirm our commitment to those children in 
schools where the loss of local property taxes due to a large Federal 
presence has placed an extra burden on local taxpayers.
  The Educational Opportunities Act also ensures that teachers are an 
integral part of the effort to improve public education. The bill 
recognizes that strong professional development for our teachers is the 
foundation of our effort to facilitate improved student achievement. 
Whether professional development is emphasized through technology 
training, quality mentoring, or programs to recruit, hire, and train 
certified teachers, all which I proposed in legislation earlier this 
year, under this bill schools will have the flexibility to influence 
education based on local principles and local successes. Nothing can 
replace qualified teachers with high standards and a desire to teach. 
Coupled with professional development opportunities, our teachers must 
be equipped to positively influence and inspire every child in their 
classroom, and ultimately accelerate student achievement.
  As I close, I would like to clarify one position that I have heard 
misstated, not only during this debate, but in various forums on 
education reform. Some have expressed the unwillingness of Republicans 
to adequately fund education initiatives like many of those we are 
debating today. Some individuals have gone so far as to say that we 
have proposed significant cuts. This is far from the truth. Last year's 
consolidated appropriations bill included significant funding increases 
for education. In fact, education was funded at $990 million above the 
President's budget request and $2.4 billion more than fiscal year 1999 
levels. While there is a clear disagreement on how to spend education 
funds, I hope that we can proceed with an honest and accurate 
discussion about the support for adequate funding.

[[Page S3281]]

  If we put our differences aside and work together to pass this bill, 
ESEA will be reauthorized for five years, with a price tag of nearly 
$160 billion. In 1965, the original ESEA bill was enacted to close the 
achievement gap between rich and poor students. I have yet to speak to 
a Senator who is not willing to provide the funds to achieve this 
worthy goal. But, I believe there are some Senators who share my 
concern that we will continue to fund a system where the original goal 
of this 35-year-old law is no closer to being met. Instead of narrowing 
the achievement gap, we see the gap actually widening. Too many of our 
students continue to perform at low standards, with many ranking near 
the bottom of a list of 21 industrialized nations in many subject 
areas. Continued Federal funding should be implemented with the goal of 
closing the achievement gap, and rewarding successful schools, rather 
than funneling money into failing programs. If our original goal 
remains--closing the achievement gap--it is not unreasonable for 
Federal funds to be tied to strict accountability standards.
  Congress takes up the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act every 5 years. What we do now will significantly impact 
the lives of all students. We cannot sit around any more waiting to see 
if our old programs suddenly work. In 5 years, one child will have 
completed his or her elementary career. Another will graduate from high 
school and enter our increasingly demanding technological workforce. 
Are we willing to let another 5 years go by before making real changes? 
Are we willing to allow another child to be pushed through a failing 
system? I am not, and that is why the provisions and initiatives 
incorporated in this bill must be supported.
  Education is the key that unlocks the future for our children, our 
State, our Nation, and there is no higher priority. I support the 
Educational Opportunities Act, which reauthorizes the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act and I urge my colleagues to work together to 
pass a bill we can all take pride in supporting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our vision 
for the future, our vision for the future of education and why that is 
important for the future. We have to provide a high-quality education 
to the students of the United States in order for them to be able to 
compete, for them to be able to grow, for them to be able to prosper 
into our future. I think it is critical at this juncture that we in 
this country talk about what that vision is of our future, that vision 
of education in our future.
  We are talking about a different model. We are talking about a 
different way to go. We are talking about more innovation. We are 
talking about more individual decisionmaking. We are talking about a 
system which will allow students in that individual classroom, and 
teachers and local boards of education and States, to make more 
decisions about their future than they have had the freedom to make, 
using education dollars, at any time in the past.
  This is a model we followed previously. I think the correct model to 
look at is welfare reform that this Congress, in 1995 and 1996, debated 
and passed. It was major welfare reform legislation in that we went 
from a federalized system of one-size-fits-all rules and regulations to 
a State system. We set up some parameters and guidelines at the outset. 
We said our objective was to get people to work and have the freedom of 
the workforce and not continue to be strapped down in a system that did 
not allow individuals to blossom. It was a system that confined people, 
in many cases, to failure.
  We said we were going to let the States innovate. We were going to 
let the States work to help people more instead of having this one-
size-fits-all system. It has been a brilliant success in welfare 
reform. Welfare rolls are down 50 percent. People are working and 
receiving a check in the mail, and they are happy about it; they are in 
charge of their future rather than thanking the Federal Government for 
a small subsistence payment to mire them in poverty all of their lives.
  It was innovation, it was opportunities, it was local decisionmaking, 
and it has been wildly successful. We want to replicate that model in 
education--local decisionmaking, innovation, individual opportunities, 
and I think this is going to be wildly successful if we are given the 
opportunity from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the 
Democratic Party to allow us to move forward with this model of 
education reform.
  I hope we do not get hung up as we did last week on the marriage tax 
penalty saying, to pass marriage tax penalty, we want to deal with 
germane amendments, and then we were stopped by a number of nongermane 
amendments on topics that were not relevant at all to the marriage tax 
penalty. It appears we are starting down the same track.
  We want to do something significant in education reform. We can do 
it. We have the time, we have the floor, and we have the opportunity. 
Or are we going to be stopped by things that simply do not pertain to 
education at all?
  The Democratic Party is going to have to decide whether we move 
forward with an education bill or this is just another chance to block 
major legislation and complain about a Congress that does not do 
anything when there are those on their side of the aisle who seek to 
stop us from doing anything.
  In a vision of the future, I imagine a future in which a human being 
actually steps onto another planet in our solar system, and I imagine 
that the coming generations will look forward and say: We do not fear 
cancer as a major threat to health. In fact, the odds may be pretty 
good we both have a pretty accurate vision of opportunities in the 
future.
  Indeed, at this point in our Nation's history, in the wee hours of a 
new millennium, we have tremendous potential to accomplish things that 
until now have been unimaginable--eliminating cancer as a major health 
risk in the country or going to other planets.
  However, for the future to become how we envision it today, our 
Nation's children must receive a first-class education. Over the next 
couple of weeks, we will have a chance to address our visions for the 
future in providing that first-rate education for our children.
  When I say visions for education, I use the plural for a reason. When 
Senators from both sides of the aisle close their eyes and envision the 
future of American education, they often see very different results. 
One vision about which we have heard quite a bit in the past few weeks 
is the vision of the status quo. Some want to move into the new century 
using the old model which spends education funds through specific 
categories that the Department of Education sees fit. They will 
continue to hold school districts accountable primarily for filling out 
their paperwork correctly and on time.
  In one sense, this model is very successful. This model has been 
successful at creating programs. Currently, ESEA is comprised of over 
60 different programs, each one specifically tailored to address a 
problem or problems with public education that Washington perceives. 
With 46 million students in approximately 87,000 public schools, it is 
pretty impressive that we can figure out their needs so well from 
here--one place.
  The status quo model has also been extremely successful at holding 
States, school districts, and schools accountable for filling out 
paperwork. While the Government provides only 7 percent of local school 
funding, it demands 50 percent of all school paperwork. Those are 
pretty bad odds. In fact, some State education agencies devote 45 
percent of their staff to administering the funds they receive from the 
Federal Government. Quite wasteful.

  This paperwork burden demands 49 million hours each year, or the 
equivalent of 25,000 employees working full time on paper rather than 
kids. Indeed, fewer than 50 percent of the personnel employed by public 
schools are teachers today.
  Unfortunately, with all of its success over the past 30 years, the 
status quo model has been a failure in one very important aspect, and 
that is student performance. Many of the status quo programs have been 
specifically targeted toward low-income students. Yet in the fourth 
grade, 77 percent of the children in urban high-poverty schools are 
below basic on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.

[[Page S3282]]

  Problems with student performance are not confined to urban 
districts. These problems have touched the lives of literally millions 
of Americans. Since 1983, over 10 million students have reached the 
12th grade without having learned to read. Over 20 million have reached 
their senior year unable to do basic math.
  The bill before us has in it a different vision for American 
education. This new vision is the vision of innovation versus the 
vision of status quo. Under this model of innovation, instead of 
relying on Washington to assess the problems facing 46 million 
students, we rely on the parents, teachers, and principals who know the 
children's names. Instead of counting on the bureaucrats at the 
Department of Education to figure out the needs of 87,000 public 
schools, we leave it up to the school board members and State education 
officials who can tell you about the neighborhood where the school is 
located.
  Under this model, we count on these people to identify the problems 
facing our students and schools and to be innovative in finding a 
solution to fix these problems.
  This model has already started to work in places such as my State of 
Kansas. Over the past 3 years in Kansas, we have seen Federal education 
funds increase by over $21 million. However, when one talks to the 
people who deal with the Federal education funds, they want to talk 
about the success of consolidated planning, which Kansas implemented 
under an Ed-Flex waiver.
  Consolidated planning was a modest step which helped eliminate some 
unnecessary bureaucracy and helped the State use Federal funds more 
efficiently. More than that, it gave Kansans a taste of what can be 
accomplished with a little innovation. I want to give Kansas and the 
rest of the Nation more room, an incentive to be innovative. That is 
why I support the bill before us today.
  Under the leadership of the Senator from Vermont and other colleagues 
such as Senator Gregg, our committee was able to produce a piece of 
legislation that takes very important steps toward the innovator model, 
the first being the Straight A's proposal about which several of my 
colleagues have already spoken.
  In conclusion, we have had a taste of this in education, and it has 
worked. We like the taste of it, and we like what it produces. We 
experienced it in welfare reform, and we have seen enormous success.
  Let's move forward with this innovation. Let's allow this opportunity 
to blossom so our kids not only can envision but fulfill the dreams of 
going to other planets and of curing cancer, but they need a quality 
education to fulfill those dreams. I thank the Chair. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been listening with a great deal of 
interest as my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed 
their views on education. I particularly commend my neighbor and 
colleague from Kansas and my good friend from Idaho for their very 
perceptive comments about education.
  As I listen to the debate back and forth, it is clear we have two 
very different approaches to education being championed. On the one 
side, we have trust of local schools; on the other side, we have 
mistrust.
  On one side, we advocate local control; on the other side, they 
advocate Federal control.
  On our side, we say that parents, schools, teachers, and school 
boards know best. On the other side, they say Washington knows best.
  For me it is not a tough choice. This is not rocket science: trust, 
local control, parents, schools know best. There is no question in my 
mind.
  I come to the Senate floor today to say--and I have said it before 
and I will say it again--I spent my adult career working with parents, 
teachers, and school boards in Missouri. I have watched them work. I 
have watched their education decisions. I spent the last 13 years in 
this body watching Congress debate issues and watching the Federal 
bureaucracy administer programs.
  When it comes to wasting money, it is not even close. It is not a 
contest. It is a good thing that local schools do not operate as does 
the Federal Government because local schools could not afford to. 
Luckily, schools are far better at applying resources to the needs of 
children in their schools. Unfortunately, the Federal bureaucracy has 
been good at creating waste, misdirected priorities, red tape, and 
unnecessary hassles and regulations.
  As it is the case in other areas as well, our congressional zest to 
provide assistance has become part of the problem--our good intentions. 
And they are good intentions. Nobody questions the intentions. When the 
Congress went about creating 765 programs, every single one of them was 
a good idea. Unfortunately, it was at the wrong place. It was a good 
idea in Washington, not a good idea at the local school level.
  Our good intentions have become burdensome regulations, unfunded 
mandates, mounds of paperwork, and unwanted meddling. We have created a 
system where parents, teachers, and local school officials have less 
and less control over what happens in the classroom.
  Instead of empowering parents, teachers, and local school officials, 
we have empowered the Federal Government and the bureaucrats. We have 
been slowly eroding the opportunity for creativity and innovation on 
the local level and have put a system in place where the Olympians on 
the hill pretend to know what is best for the peasants in the valley.
  We need to be bold enough to stand up and admit that these good 
intentions have gone astray. Our good intentions are failing our public 
schools and, most importantly, they are failing our children. Let's 
recognize what we do not know in Washington has become obvious. 
Washington does not always know best, especially when it comes to 
micromanaging the education of children in local schools throughout 
this country.
  What is wrong with giving control of education to local schools and 
to the States? What happened to everyone saying that education is a 
national priority but a local responsibility? I firmly believe that is 
true. If that were true, and the other side trusted those at the local 
level, this debate would not be as controversial as it is.
  What is wrong with letting classroom teachers, principals, and school 
boards fashion plans to improve learning and achievement in their own 
schools?
  Back in my home State of Missouri, no one thinks the answer to 
improving public education lies within the Halls of Congress or in the 
granite buildings in downtown Washington's Department of Education.
  Almost everyone I have talked to will say: Stay out of the way and 
give the local schools the opportunity.
  Missourians know, and I know, that the real solutions--the 
laboratories--are the local schools when they are given the opportunity 
to excel and not have to play the ``Mother, May I'' game with 
Washington, DC.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep talking about class 
size, afterschool programs, and numerous other programs. These will be 
new programs, with new mandates, and new responsibilities for schools 
directly controlled and regulated by Washington, smothered with reports 
and regulations and redtape. Is this the direction we want to go? I do 
not think so. This will only exacerbate the ``Mother, May I'' game.
  As we debate ESEA today, I hope we will keep certain things in 
perspective. One of those things is how much money the Federal 
Government actually provides to the local school district and what 
amount of Federal involvement is appropriate with the amount of funding 
provided.
  I have heard over and over again that the Federal Government provides 
less than 10 percent of a local school district's budget. Yet the 
Federal Government accounts for over 50 percent of the local school 
district's paperwork burden. How can any of us justify this proportion 
of Federal meddling and paperwork burden for less than 10 percent of 
the district's funding? In my State of Missouri, on average, Federal 
funding accounts for only 6 percent of the local school district's 
budget.

  My great State of Missouri has some wonderful teachers, principals, 
superintendents, and school board members--some of the best in the 
country. I cannot believe my colleagues are not

[[Page S3283]]

hearing the same thing from their constituents that I am hearing from 
mine. If you are not, I suggest you are not listening. Go back and ask 
them. They will tell you. However, just in case you have not heard, let 
me share some of the things I have been told.
  The Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools in Missouri said:

       The amount of paperwork that the federal government causes 
     local school districts to engage in is often overwhelming. 
     That extra effort and time often reduces productive classroom 
     time and energy that could better be spent working directly 
     with children.

  Mr. Berrey of the Wentzville R-IV School in Missouri said:

       Limiting federal intrusion into decisions best left to 
     local communities is what I believe our founding fathers had 
     in mind.

  From Neosho R-5, in Missouri:

       The individuals working most closely with the students are 
     indeed the ones who can best decide how this money can be 
     spent for the benefit of students' education.

  From the Superintendent of the Special School District of St. Louis 
County, MO:

       As head of a school district specializing in special 
     education, I fully understand how my district's financial 
     needs differ from other school districts' needs. In order to 
     best utilize the limited funds that are at my disposal, I 
     need maximum flexibility in determining how to put those 
     funds to the best use.

  From the Board of Education President of the Blue Springs School 
District in Missouri:

       Without local control, the focus is taken away from the 
     needs specific to the children in each school system.

  I think the Superintendent of the Taneyville R-II School District in 
Missouri sums it up well:

       I feel that the State and Federal government has tied our 
     school's hands with mandated programs and mandated uses for 
     the monies we are receiving. The schools are likened to 
     puppets on a string. Pull this string this way and the school 
     does this; pull it another way and the school does that. 
     School systems and communities are as different from one 
     another as individual people are different. What works for 
     one will not work for another.

  These are the types of comments I have heard over the past couple 
years. These comments led to the development of my Direct Check for 
Education proposal that is S. 52.
  As introduced, S. 52 took six Department of Education programs, 
primarily competitive grant programs, and combined them and determined 
that the funding would go out based on average daily attendance in 
school districts. It would give school districts added flexibility.
  I intend to offer an amendment that would allow us to try this as a 
demonstration program.

  I know it is hard sometimes to get Governors to support this concept. 
But I stand here as a recovering Governor. I know that Governors and 
States have the responsibility for welfare programs, State 
transportation programs; but the responsibility for directly delivering 
student education rests in the hands of those at the local level.
  Let's give them the opportunity to demonstrate they can deliver. 
States can still establish standards and requirements. They still have 
the ability to control their local school districts. What I am saying, 
with Direct Check, is to keep their hands out of the bureaucratic maze 
that the Federal Government imposes on them. I hope my colleagues will 
take a look at that proposal when I offer it.
  Another area I am looking at very carefully is having an amendment on 
Impact Aid. Impact Aid is one of the oldest Federal education programs, 
dating from the 1950s, and is meant to compensate local school 
districts for the ``substantial and continuing financial burdens'' 
resulting from Federal activities. These ``activities'' include Federal 
ownership of land, such as military installations or Indian reservation 
lands, as well as local school enrollment of children whose parents 
work on Federal property. It is a Federal responsibility.
  In my State, we have two outstanding military bases: Fort Leonard 
Wood and Whiteman Air Force Base. I would argue it is a quality-of-life 
issue for our military and one we must address. I look forward to 
working on it with my colleagues. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma 
will be working on it.
  I also offer my support, in advance, for an amendment I have been 
working on for some time with Senators Stevens and Jeffords, along with 
a number of our other colleagues, that focuses on early childhood 
education and development.
  While most of the debate this week will be about elementary and 
secondary education--the years of what we might call ``formal 
schooling''--the education and mental development of a child, however, 
begins long before that child enters kindergarten. In fact, the 
education and development of a child begins practically at birth. From 
the experiences we have had in Missouri with parents and teachers, we 
know that those first 3 years are vitally important. Giving the parents 
the right tools to help that child get started can make a tremendously 
important difference in the educational achievement of that child 
throughout that child's educational experience.
  The amendment the Senators from Vermont and Alaska will offer 
recognizes these basic facts; that the education and mental development 
and entire development of a child begins early in life. Through this 
amendment, we hope to support families with the youngest children to 
find the early childhood educational programs that can help those 
families and parents provide the supportive, stimulating environment we 
all know their children need.
  The amendment recognizes that if we want to do everything possible 
for our Nation's children and their overall education, we need to focus 
on the earliest years, as well as the years of formal schooling. We can 
do this--and this amendment proposes to do this--by supporting and 
expanding the successful early childhood programs and initiatives that 
are working right now at the local level. I invite anybody to come to 
Missouri to see how well these programs work.
  I am pleased to say the amendment is based on the basic ideas and 
principles set forth in legislation that I was pleased to introduce 
several years ago with my good friend and colleague from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kerry.
  Mr. President, it is my opinion that if we want to improve our public 
education system to educate our children for a lifetime of achievement, 
we must take the stranglehold of the Federal Government off the local 
school districts and the States and give the resources directly to 
those local school districts and States so they can do their job.
  I look forward to supporting an amendment by my colleague from 
Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, which deals with some of the very serious 
problems that the current IDEA imposes. Talk to any school official, 
any schoolteacher, any school personnel in Missouri, and they will tell 
you they are scared because the requirements of IDEA put other 
students, teachers, and school personnel at risk from dangerously 
violent students who sometimes carry guns and are sheltered by the 
Federal regulations that come with the individual education program. We 
should not have a Federal Government program that puts people 
associated with schools at risk. We need to change the laws to protect 
and nurture those with IEPs but not to expose those with whom they deal 
to violence and perhaps even to guns.
  In closing, we must empower parents, teachers, school administrators, 
and school boards because education decisions can best be made by 
educators, board members, parents, teachers, and local school officials 
who know the names and the needs of the children in their schools. I 
hope we will be spending our time debating education, not every issue 
under the Sun that may come up as an effort to derail this vitally 
important reform of our education system.
  Our children deserve the reform this bill delivers. This ESEA bill 
deals with one of the most important national priorities, and that is 
education. It deals with it by moving the control and the 
responsibility out of Washington and back into the real world where the 
best decisions can be made. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues.
  I thank the floor manager, the chairman of the committee, for 
allowing me the extra time. I look forward to continuing the debate and 
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to achieve 
successful ESEA reform, with perhaps some of the bells and whistles 
added that I have mentioned.

[[Page S3284]]

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. When does morning business terminate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business terminates at 11:15.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________