[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5845-S5873]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION AND 
            RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS, 2001--continued

  Mr. REID. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3631

  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Minnesota be interested in entering 
into a time agreement on his amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, I do not think it will probably 
be necessary. At least on my part, I think within a half an hour I can 
make my case for the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator is agreeable, we agree that his amendment 
will be debated for 45 minutes, 30 minutes to his side and 15 minutes 
in opposition.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be pleased to accommodate my 
colleague.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New 
Hampshire, I would like to send an amendment to the desk that I ask be 
laid aside, if I could.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. This is just an amendment to be filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be numbered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could clarify----
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, are you requesting there be 
no second degrees?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Or you just filed one?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have no objection to the request of the 
Senator from Minnesota that there be no second degrees to his amendment 
as part of the language which was just agreed to relative to the 
timeframe on his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President and colleagues--Democrats and 
Republicans alike--just for a little bit of context for this amendment, 
this amendment deals with an increase in funding not to where we should 
be but at least a step forward for the title I program.
  When the HELP Committee authorized the title I program, we actually 
voted to increase the authorization of title I to $15 billion. The 
interesting thing is that every Democrat and every Republican on the 
HELP Committee supported this increase. Every Democrat and every 
Republican supported the increase to authorize up to $15 billion.

[[Page S5846]]

  As a matter of fact, during the floor debate on May 1, the majority 
leader himself, Senator Lott, said:

       This is a $15 billion reauthorization bill. Good work has 
     been done by this committee.

  We have a budget resolution that doesn't work. We are not able to 
adequately fund important priorities. Given the emphasis on tax cuts, 
given the significant allocation of money for the Pentagon, we have 
robbed ourselves of our capacity to invest in children and in 
education.
  What this amendment does is essentially say that the appropriation 
would go from $8.36 billion for title I up to $10 billion for title I. 
Right now, all we have in this appropriations bill is a $400 million 
increase, when the HELP Committee authorized $15 billion. We are trying 
to bump up the appropriation so we can do better for our children.
  What I was saying on the floor earlier is important: The title I 
program is one of the heart-and-soul Federal programs. This is targeted 
money that goes to primarily low- and moderate-income communities and 
low- and moderate-income students. It is assistance for the schools and 
the school districts for more reading instruction, for afterschool 
programs, for prekindergarten programs, for more teaching assistance. 
It is a very important program. The title I program has made a 
difference, even as severely underfunded as it is.
  One of the reasons I bring this amendment to the floor--I have 
continued, week after week, month after month, it seems year after 
year, to come to the floor and talk about the need to provide more 
funding for the title I program--is that right now this program is 
funded, maybe, at the 30-35 percent level, so that 65 or 70 percent of 
the children who could benefit don't benefit. These children come from 
primarily low-income families. These are kids who have been severely 
disadvantaged. We are trying to give these schools and the teachers 
and, most importantly, the children some additional help so they can do 
better.
  In my State of Minnesota, for example, typically the situation is 
that if a school has less than 65 percent of the students on a free or 
reduced school lunch program--say it is only 60 percent--there is no 
money for the school because we have run out of the money. We have run 
out of financial assistance.
  The HELP Committee Democrats and Republicans are on record saying we 
ought to authorize this to $15 billion. The majority leader came out 
and said: Authorize the $15 billion; good work. But we have a budget 
resolution that has so constrained the work of appropriators that we 
have not made the investment in education. This is precisely the 
opposite direction of where Americans want us to go. People want more 
investment in education. Over 60 percent of the American people say 
that we spend too little on education. The Federal share has gone from 
12 cents to 7 cents on the dollar.
  The title I program is a flexible program that allows our school 
districts to use this money to provide help for these children so they 
can do better. One hundred percent of major city schools use title I 
funds to provide professional development and new technology, 76 
percent of title I funding to support afterschool activities. Ninety 
percent of the school districts use title I funds to support family 
literacy and summer school programs. Sixty-eight percent of the school 
districts use title I funds to support preschool programs. Again, if we 
look at Rand Corporation studies and others, they tell us that even as 
a vastly underfunded program, title I is making a difference.

  In my own home State of Minnesota, the Brainerd public school 
district, which is in greater Minnesota--that means outside the metro 
area--has a 70 to 80 percent success rate in accelerating students in 
the bottom 20 percent of their class to at least average in their 
classes following 1 year of title I-supported reading programs.
  We are funding title I at only one-third the level of what is needed 
to help children in this country. Forty percent of America's fourth 
graders are still reading below grade level. Forty-eight percent of 
students from high-income families will graduate from college; the 
percentage from low-income families who will graduate from college is 7 
percent. At the very time that we know that a college education is the 
key to economic success, more than at any other time in the history of 
our country during the years of our lives, only 7 percent of children 
from low-income families will graduate from college.
  There are dramatic differences in terms of the resources of school 
districts. My friend Jonathan Kozol, who continues to write beautiful, 
powerful, and important books about children, sent me some figures from 
the New York metropolitan area where in the city maybe it is $8,000 per 
pupil per year that is spent, and in some of the suburbs it is as high 
as $23,000 per pupil. There are dramatic differences in terms of which 
schools are wired and which schools aren't; which schools have the 
technology, which schools don't; which schools can recruit teachers and 
pay much better salaries, which schools can't; which schools have the 
support services for students, which schools don't; which schools have 
the best textbooks and the best lab facilities and which schools do 
not.
  I will only say this one more time because it sounds so much like 
preaching, but this is the best point I can make as a Senator. It came 
from my visit to the South Bronx to the Mott Haven community about 2 
weeks ago with Jonathan Kozol, meeting with the children at PS-30 and 
with Ms. Rosa, the principal. My colleagues would love this woman. She 
will not give up on these children.
  I say to my colleagues, vote for this amendment for some additional 
help for title I which means additional help for these children, not 
because if you invest in these children when they are younger and give 
them this help they are more likely to graduate from high school, that 
is true; not because if they graduate from high school they are less 
likely to wind up in prison, that is true; not because if you invest in 
these children and provide a little bit more help, say, for example, in 
reading, that they are more likely to graduate and more likely to be 
productive and more likely to contribute to our economy, that is true. 
I am telling the Senate, this amendment deserves our support because 
the vast majority of these children are all under 4 feet tall. They are 
all beautiful. They deserve our support, and we ought to be nice to 
them. That is why we should vote for this.
  I believe this is a theological, spiritual amendment. I do not 
understand how it can be that we are not investing more money in 
education and children. I cannot understand why, when we have some 
proven programs that are so targeted and so helpful to vulnerable 
children in this country, they are so vastly underfunded. I do not 
understand our distorted priorities.
  We seem to have plenty of money for tax cuts, even tax cuts for 
wealthy and high-income families. We have plenty of money for the 
Pentagon. Fine. OK. But why can't we, when we are talking about 
surpluses and about an economy that is booming, make more of an 
investment in programs that provide support for these children.
  What about our national vow of equal opportunity for every child? I 
don't get it. I don't get it any longer. I have been a Senator for 
almost 10 years. I do not understand how it can be, when the polls show 
that people want us to invest more in education, when we have record 
economic performance and we are talking about surpluses and not 
deficits, and when we all go to schools and we are with children--and 
we all like to have our pictures taken with children--that we cannot 
make more of an investment in these children?
  I am not talking about a new program. I am not talking about a 
program that has not had a proven record of success. I am talking about 
the title I program. I am talking about a program that is vastly 
underfunded. I am just saying we ought to at least get the 
appropriation up to $10 billion.
  I reserve the remainder of my time just to hear what my colleagues 
might say in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 15 minutes. 
The Senator from Minnesota has 19 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me make a couple of points on title I 
generally. Title I is one of those programs which was conceived as an 
excellent

[[Page S5847]]

idea and which has accomplished many things. Unfortunately, it hasn't 
accomplished one of its most critical goals.
  When title I was originally created, the purpose was to get low-
income children into the educational system in schools which would have 
the capacity to teach them and the ability to teach them at a level 
that was equal with their peers. The concern was that many low-income 
children weren't getting fair treatment in the school system. That was 
a good idea. Unfortunately, the way it has worked out over the last 35 
years, it has not proven to be such a great success. In the last 35 
years, we have spent $120 billion on title I, attempting to educate and 
give a better chance in life to low-income kids. The problem, however, 
is that we have accomplished very little.
  Most low-income kids today are not getting any better education than 
they were getting 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Their academic 
achievement levels are actually stagnant or they have dropped. We have 
seen that instead of improving the academic capability of these 
children, we continue to send these children through school systems 
that essentially end up passing them through the system and not giving 
them the skills they need to compete in America, to take part in the 
American dream.
  The statistics are fairly staggering. I think I have some of them 
here. Just off the top of my head--I believe I recall most of them--
over 7,000 schools that have title I kids in them have been identified 
as failing--not by the Federal Government but by the school systems 
themselves, generally. We know that in our schools where we have 
children who are under title I, low-income kids, those children are 
learning at at least two grade levels less than their peers--in the 
area of math, for example. We know that children in the third and 
fourth grades who are low-income are consistently at least a grade or 
two grades behind their peers. We know that low-income fourth graders 
are simply not able to compete with other fourth graders who are not 
low-income. We know that in our high schools we are seeing the child 
who has been a low-income child, who is qualified for title I dollars, 
who has gone through the system--it turns out that their skills are 
right at the bottom of their classes in many cases and as a matter of 
average. The achievement gap really has been dramatic. Yet we have 
spent all this money to try to improve their achievement.

  So we as Republicans, in the markup of the title I bill this year, 
the ESEA bill, attempted to try to address the problem. We put forward 
a whole series of ideas, the purpose of which was to improve the 
academic achievement of the low-income child. Instead of warehousing 
these children and moving them through the system, we would actually 
expect and demand that for these Federal dollars we received results.
  One of the suggestions we made was called Straight A's, where we said 
to the local school districts: Your results on low-income kids hasn't 
been that good; maybe it is because the programs are too categorical. 
We will let you merge them and put them into a flexible program. But if 
you take the money under this scenario, you have to prove there has 
been academic achievement by low-income kids; that the gap between low-
income kids and kids who are not low-income is closing--not by reducing 
the abilities of the higher income kids or the average children in the 
school system but by actually improving the capability of the low-
income child.
  Another suggestion we made was called portability, where we said that 
the low-income child in a failing school should not have to stay in 
that school; They should be able to move to another public school 
system, and the dollars that are allocated for the purpose of trying to 
help that child out should follow the child to the different school. 
That is called portability.
  The reason we suggested that is that the present title I program is 
structured so the money goes to the administrators and the schools; it 
doesn't go to the kids. In fact, in cities such as Philadelphia, if you 
aren't in a school where 70 percent of the kids are low income, you get 
no dollars from title I. So maybe if you have a low-income child 
attending a school where, say, 50 percent of the kids are low income, 
that school will get no title I money. That is true in a lot of 
different cities across this country. In fact, there is a threshold of 
35 percent, I think, where, if you are in a school with only 35 percent 
low-income kids, that school absolutely gets no money. Other cities 
have adjusted that. In Philadelphia, as I said, it is up to 70 percent.
  The practical effect, under the law as presently structured, is that 
a lot of the dollars that should be going to children are not going to 
them. A lot of the low-income kids who should be getting assistance 
dollars for tutorial help or special needs help are not getting them; 
those dollars don't flow to that child. So we end up with a system 
where the dollars flow to the school and the administrators but not to 
the children.

  We suggested that we actually have the dollars go with the child, and 
if the child goes from school to school--or if they decide to do so and 
their parents want to get involved and make that decision--let the 
dollars that are supposed to support the child also go from school to 
school.
  We have put forward a whole lot of ideas. Those are only some of 
them. We also have something called ``choice'' for public schools, 
where parents will be able to move their children from school to 
school. We have the Teacher Empowerment Act, which affects the title I 
kids, which comes out of the ESEA bill, to try to improve teacher 
capability. We have a whole set of ideas to make title I work better. 
That is the bottom line.
  What the Senator from Minnesota has suggested is that in a program 
that has already spent $120 billion over 30 years and has produced 
negative results in the area of academic achievement for children, it 
should today arbitrarily get an additional $10 billion. In this bill, 
we already increase that funding significantly. But this $10 billion 
should be on top of what is already in title I.
  Unfortunately, what would happen is the same thing that has happened 
to the $120 billion. It would end up being spent and going to 
bureaucracy and going into school systems. It would not necessarily end 
up giving children a better education--especially low-income children--
because we have already proven fairly definitively that the present 
system isn't doing that.
  So rather than breaking the budget by adding $10 billion which is not 
offset--and it is subject to a budget point of order, by the way--what 
we should do is reform title I and reform the ESEA bill. We tried to do 
that. We brought the bill to the floor, and, unfortunately, a number of 
Senators wanted to put extraneous matter on it, and, as a result, it 
got all balled up and wasn't able to be moved. But the point here is 
that until we get fundamental reform of title I and until we get 
fundamental reform under the new ESEA authorization, putting another 
$10 billion into this system is not going to help.

  Therefore, I oppose this, first, on the budgetary grounds that it is 
not offset and therefore is a $10 billion increase that has no way to 
be paid for; second, on the grounds that it probably won't accomplish 
what the sponsor would like to accomplish, which is to improve the 
achievement of low-income kids.
  Until we require that low-income kids' academic achievement goes up 
for the dollars we are spending on them and put in place systems that 
are going to give the local school districts the capacity of 
accomplishing that and to give them the flexibility of Straight A's, or 
portability, or the parents the chance to participate through public 
school choice, there is really no point in making this type of huge 
increase in funding in this program--especially on top of the fact that 
this committee has already significantly increased funding for this 
program in this bill.
  Mr. President, I reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I hope the Senator from New Hampshire 
and all Senators understand this point clearly. This amendment does not 
call for an additional $10 billion in appropriations. This amendment 
just simply says we should go from $8.36 billion to $10 billion--a 
slight increase. It is not an additional $10 billion.
  Second, my colleague from New Hampshire and every Republican Senator 
and every Democratic Senator on the health committee voted to authorize 
title I to $15 billion.

[[Page S5848]]

  Can I repeat that?
  Every single Member of the health committee--Democrat and Republican 
alike--voted to authorize title I to $15 billion, and the majority 
leader came out here on the floor and said:

       This is a $15 billion reauthorization bill; Good work has 
     been done by this committee.

  If my colleague thought that the title I program was such a miserable 
failure--and I intend to certainly take that argument on in a moment 
since I don't think there is a shred of evidence to support it--then I 
don't understand why my colleague and all the Republicans on the health 
committee and the majority leader said that they supported an 
authorization up to $15 billion. This amendment just tries to get it 
from $8.36 billion up to $10 billion.
  Third, in regard to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I 
sure would like for you folks to bring that bill out to the floor. I 
have been waiting for my Republican colleagues to bring the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act to the floor. I have a lot of amendments. I 
am ready for the debate on education. You pulled the bill from the 
floor, and I would love it if you would bring it back.

  My colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, talks about how the 
title I program has been such a miserable failure. The largest gains in 
test scores over the past 30 years have been made by poor and minority 
students. One-third to one-half of the gap between affluent whites and 
their poor and minority counterparts closed during this time. The 
Center on Education Policy 2000 report, a study by the Rand 
Corporation, linked these gains to title I and other investments in 
education and social programs. The final report of the National 
Assessment of Title I by the U.S. Department of Education showed that 
national assessment of education progress scores for 9-year-olds in the 
Nation's highest poverty schools have increased over the past 10 years 
by nine points in reading and eight points in math.
  The Council of Greater City Schools shows that 24 of the Nation's 
largest schools were able to decrease the number of fourth grade title 
I students achieving in the lowest percentile by 14 percent in reading, 
and 10 percent in math.
  I say to my colleague from New Hampshire that is pretty remarkable, 
given the fact we don't even fund this program except at a 30-percent 
level. We severely underfund the program. We make hardly any 
investments in pre-K education.
  The Federal Government and the Senate ought to be a player in getting 
money to the local communities so we can have not custodial but 
development child care--so that when children come to kindergarten they 
are not so far behind.
  We don't make that investment.
  We don't make the investment in health coverage. We still have 
millions of children without health care coverage. When they come to 
school with abscessed teeth, they cannot learn. Is it any wonder? They 
live in communities where their parents can't afford housing, and they 
have to move three, four, or five times a year because we don't make 
the investment in affordable housing.
  My colleagues, in the face of our failure to do anything about the 
grinding poverty in the country, in the face of our failure to invest 
in the title I program, in the face of our miserable failure to invest 
in education, my colleague from New Hampshire comes out here and says 
this has been a miserable failure when I can cite reports showing that 
title I has made a real difference.
  Colleagues, 46 percent of title I funds go to the poorest 15 percent 
of all schools in America.
  When the Senator from New Hampshire says--and I agree with him--that 
it is just outrageous if a school has a 60-percent low-income 
population and there may be no money, this is why: Because it is so 
severely underfunded.
  We have one group of low-income children in a zero sum game 
relationship to another group of low-income children.
  It is severely underfunded. Seventy-five percent of title I funds go 
to schools where the majority of children are poor. The General 
Accounting Office estimates that title I has increased funding to 
schools serving poor children by 77 percent. It is going up.
  This is a targeted investment that can make a huge difference. Yet 
even with the increases, we are only reaching one-third of the children 
who could use our help.
  By the way, I would like to say this to every Senator before you vote 
on this amendment. If your staff is looking at this debate, and they 
are going to be reporting back to you on how to vote, I will tell you: 
Go back to your States and meet with the educators. Talk to people in 
your school districts. They will tell you they need more money for the 
title I program. They will tell you they are interested in a whole 
range of issues. Senator Bingaman is going to be talking about some of 
those.

  Again, just looking at where the money goes, 100 percent of the city 
schools use title I funds to provide professional development and new 
technology. Does that sound like a flawed program? Ninety-seven percent 
use title I funds to support afterschool activities. Does that sound 
like a mistake? Ninety percent of the school districts use title I 
funds to support family literacy and summer school programs. Do you 
want to vote against that? Sixty-eight percent use title I funds to 
support preschool programs. Do you want to vote against that?
  The title I program has been a remarkably good program given the 
realities of these children's lives.
  I didn't quite add it up. But I think what my colleague from New 
Hampshire was saying is we spent $4 billion a year, or thereabouts, for 
title I programs over the last 30 years. I say to the Senator that is 
not a bad investment. The largest group of poor citizens in the United 
States of America are poor children. There are 14 million poor children 
in America today. Twenty percent of all the children in our country are 
growing up poor today. Fifty percent of those children are children of 
color. I don't think it is too much to provide a little bit more help 
for these children.
  When you go to these schools, you meet people who do not give up. You 
meet principals and teachers who do not give up on these kids. You 
wonder how they do it. But they are so dedicated. And the largest part 
of title I money goes to the children of the youngest ages.
  I will repeat what I said before. Make the investment and provide the 
additional help for these children because they are small. They are 
little. Most of them are under 4 feet tall. They are beautiful. We 
ought to help them.

  I rest my case, although I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 5 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Minnesota has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has made a 
couple of points to which I think I need to respond. First, the reason 
the authorization bill is not on the floor is because Senators from the 
other side decided to put a political agenda on that bill. The 
unanimous consents which were requested by the majority leader to limit 
the number of amendments to that bill and make them education 
amendments and thus complete that bill were rejected by the other side.
  Second, yes, we strongly supported increasing funding for title I, if 
it was reauthorized under a bill which was student centered. The 
problem with the present law is it is not student centered. It is 
bureaucracy centered.
  I am not surprised the other side of the aisle is defending the 
bureaucracy-centered bill. It was their idea in the first place. Our 
position is we should look for academic achievement. We should not 
leave these children behind. The Senator says these are poor children. 
Yes, they are poor children. Regretably, they are poor children caught 
in the cycle of poverty for generation after generation because their 
educational system has failed them for generation after generation, 
even though we spent $120 billion on title I. Child after child has 
come out of the system unable to compete with their peers because their 
academic achievement has been so low.
  What we suggest is a proposal which is child centered, which is 
flexible, which is targeted on academic achievement, and which has 
accountability standards which will work so these children are not left 
behind.

[[Page S5849]]

  The Senator on the other side of the aisle makes the argument these 
children are being left behind not only because they are educationally 
underfunded but because they have all sorts of other concerns. Yes, 
there is no question about that. But when we look at school systems 
that work, because they demand achievement from the children they are 
serving, the same children, then we know success in this area is 
possible. We can look at our Catholic school systems in which the same 
population is served. Yet they accomplish good things with those 
students' academic achievement.
  The statement there has been a great increase in academic achievement 
among low-income kids is simply not accurate. What has happened is the 
academic achievement of low-income kids has finally gotten back to the 
level it was in 1992. From the period 1992 to 1998, the gap in academic 
achievement between African American and white students actually grew. 
The same was the case for Hispanic students and white students; it 
actually grew in a number of the most critical States that have a large 
population of African American and Spanish students.
  The simple fact is, we have not been serving these kids effectively. 
We do not have a program that serves these kids effectively.
  The Senator from Minnesota is right on one count. It is not $10 
billion he is proposing this year, but over a 5-year budget it would 
add up to approximately $10 billion. I stand corrected.
  I join the Senator from Minnesota. If he is willing to put forward a 
program that is child centered, dedicated to academic achievement, 
giving the local schools accountability and flexibility, then we should 
talk about dramatic increases in funding because we would get something 
for the dollars that would be effectively used. But to simply put more 
money in here on top of money that has been already increased outside 
the budget priorities which we have already set--and remember there are 
other major budget priorities in this bill that have been paid for, 
such as special needs, special ed kids--it is just not appropriate. 
That is why I oppose this amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I 
always enjoy discussions with him on education. I don't want to try to 
score debate points. I cannot resist, though, saying to my colleague, 
on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, when he says that we 
pulled the bill because the minority wanted to impose a political 
agenda, it is interesting; a political agenda means the minority wanted 
to put some amendments on this bill that they, the majority, didn't 
want to have to vote on; therefore, it becomes a political agenda.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield, if the Senator will be 
brief. I will yield on my time because I know he has no time. But I 
want to reserve a little time.
  Mr. GREGG. I wonder if the Senator believes campaign finance and gun 
issues, which are not relevant to schools, are issues which we should 
have been debating on the ESEA bill or should we hold them for another 
agenda?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 9 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from New 
Hampshire, first of all, the campaign finance reform amendment of 
course was initiated by Senator McCain, a well-known Republican, and 
Senator Feingold, a well-known Democrat. I support the amendment. Do 
you want to know something. The more I think about it, the more I think 
it is very relevant to education, because I think if we don't clean up 
this sick system, the way in which big money dominates, then we are 
never going to have Senators voting for children and education. They 
are going to continue to vote for the big, huge, economic interests. So 
I say, actually I can't think of a more important amendment to an 
education bill.
  This is the debate we have been having. The Senate, over the years, 
has been a very special institution. Part of it is because of the 
Senators' right to debate and the Senators' right to introduce 
amendments. That is what the Senate is about. It is not a political 
agenda, I say to my colleague. It is just an agenda that makes my 
colleague from New Hampshire and other Republicans uncomfortable. They 
don't want to vote on campaign finance reform or sensible gun control 
measures. I would argue, in case anybody has taken a look at violence 
in the schools, that sensible gun control amendments are very relevant 
to the lives of children, very relevant to education.
  As to the title I program, I want to respond to my colleague's 
comments about the achievement of low-income children. Honest to 
goodness, first my colleague came out and said it has been a miserable 
failure; it hasn't work. Then I cited study after study showing title I 
has made a difference. Then my colleague retreats and comes back with 
another argument which is: Well, yes, low-income children are now doing 
better in some of the reading scores and mathematics scores, but they 
are only getting back to the 1993 level.
  The truth is, here you have a title I program that is vastly 
underfunded--30-percent level. Here you have a House of Representatives 
and Senate, too dominated by the way in which money dominates politics, 
that have been unwilling to make the investment in children, unwilling 
to make the investment in their skills and intellect and character and, 
I argue, the health of children, and therefore there are too many poor 
children. I think it is a scandal that the poorest group of citizens in 
America today is children. Too many children literally grow up under 
the most difficult circumstances. Therefore, is anybody surprised the 
title I program does not perform a miracle?

  The title I program does not mean those children succeed, I say to my 
colleague from Iowa, who come from poor communities, whose parents are 
not high income, who had none of the encouragement, none of the great 
preschool programs other children have, who live in families who have 
to move four times because they cannot afford the housing, who live in 
neighborhoods where there is too much violence, who don't have an 
adequate diet, who don't have adequate health care. Guess what, those 
children don't yet do as well in reading scores and mathematics scores. 
And you want to pin that on the title I program, even though the title 
I program has helped them do a little better?
  If any Senator wants to vote against this amendment on the basis of 
that kind of argument, so be it. But I certainly hope you will not.
  Finally, I get a little nervous with all this discussion about 
accountability and achievement because I think my good friend from New 
Hampshire has the causality backwards. He is putting the cart before 
the horse. Absolutely, let's put the focus on achievement. Let's put 
the focus on accountability. But this is my question. Don't you think, 
at the same time that we put the focus on the achievement, and the same 
time we put the focus on the accountability, we also need to make sure 
every child has the same opportunity to achieve? Why is it my 
colleagues are so silent on that point? They want to rush to vouchers, 
they want to rush to privatizing education, they want to rush to saying 
all these children have to achieve and we are going to hold everybody 
accountable if your children don't achieve. But they don't want to make 
sure every child has the same opportunity to achieve.
  Let's not hold our children responsible for our failure to invest in 
their achievement and their future. This title I program is but one 
small program that doesn't lead to heaven on Earth, but makes it a 
little bit better Earth on Earth for some of these children.
  I say to my colleagues, I think we ought to vote for this amendment. 
I think we ought to do better by these children. This amendment, in its 
own small way, just going from $8.3 billion to $10 billion, not even 
close to the $50 billion that the HELP Committee unanimously voted to 
authorize appropriations up to, at least makes a bit of a difference.
  Your school districts are for this, your principals and teachers in 
the

[[Page S5850]]

trenches are for this, and most importantly, we ought to provide these 
children with some additional help. They deserve it.
  I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from New Hampshire has 
1 minute remaining. The Senator from Minnesota has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the Senator from New Hampshire 30 seconds of 
my time.
  Mr. GREGG. That is very generous of the Senator from Minnesota. I 
appreciate it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the Senator from Iowa 1 minute of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, did I understand the Senator from Minnesota 
to say he would be willing, if I were to propound a unanimous consent 
request that we go to the ESEA bill with 5 amendments on both sides, 
that the amendments be relevant, and we have final passage--the Senator 
would agree to that?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is an easy question.
  Mr. REID. Was this a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. GREGG. I was asking if he was agreeing that would be an 
acceptable approach.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. My answer would certainly be no, since I talked about 
what the Senate was about and talked about those other amendments are 
terribly important amendments that affect the lives of children.
  Mr. GREGG. I simply state the reason we do not have the authorization 
levels we should have on the ESEA is that we have not passed ESEA, and 
the reason we have not passed ESEA is that we have been unable to 
debate on this floor the issue of education. We have had debate on the 
issue of campaign finance, on the issue of guns, on the issue of 
prescription drugs, but not on the issue of education, which is too 
bad, because the bill out of committee was a good bill and, by the way, 
it did not demand the States do anything. It set up a set of options 
for the States which the States could then follow. They could choose to 
use portability, they could choose to use Straight A's or they could 
choose the present law. It gave the States total flexibility. The goal 
was to get the academic achievement of low-income kids up. That should 
be our goal as a Senate, and that was our goal when we reported out the 
bill.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time is remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 2\1/2\ minutes. 
The Senator from New Hampshire has 16 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me a 
little bit of time. I appreciate what the Senator from Minnesota said a 
while ago. He is absolutely right. We are blaming these kids.
  Title I: Do my colleagues know how much each kid gets from title I? 
Somewhere between $400 and $600 a year. Go to the best schools in 
America in high-income areas where they have nice houses and high 
incomes. Do my colleagues know what they are spending on kids there? 
Six to eight thousand dollars. Yet we are going to put $400 to $600 
into some of the kids who have the poorest lives.
  As the Senator said, they move around a lot. They have been denied 
the opportunity since they have been born, and we expect all these 
great results from $400 to $600 per student.
  If the Senator from New Hampshire wants to propose we spend $6,000 on 
each one of those poor kids, then maybe we will see them start to 
advance more rapidly, but on $400 to $600 we are not going to do it. 
The Senator's amendment would only get that up just a little bit more. 
We are still way behind in what we ought to be doing in this country to 
help low-income students attain the same opportunity in education as 
kids from better, higher income areas are getting. The Senator from 
Minnesota is right on with this amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 30 seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. This abundance of generosity has carried me away. I yield 
my time back if the Senator wishes to yield his time back, even the 
additional time the Senator has yielded.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the remainder of my time. I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  Mr. GREGG. I raise a point of order against the pending Wellstone 
amendment No. 3631 in that it violates the Budget Act.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in 
relation to this motion occur at 5 p.m. and that there be 4 minutes 
equally divided for explanation prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to table the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire moves--
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we need to make sure we understand what is 
happening here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator raising an objection?
  Mr. REID. There is nothing pending.
  Mr. HARKIN. He asked unanimous consent to set the amendment aside.
  Mr. REID. I do not object to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment will be set aside.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object. The Senator from New 
Hampshire asked to set the amendment aside, and the time was set for a 
vote.
  Mr. GREGG. On the motion to waive the point of order.
  Mr. REID. He did not make his offer to table; is that right?
  Mr. GREGG. Correct.
  Mr. REID. We are soon going to proceed with an amendment by the 
Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to make sure everyone understands the 
challenge made by the Senator from New Hampshire. We, the minority, are 
willing to take that at any time. There was an education bill on the 
floor that we did not have anything to do with pulling. We are willing 
to start debating the education bill 10 minutes from now, 10 days from 
now. We have a lot of things about which we want to talk regarding 
education.
  The Senator says there is something keeping this education bill from 
going forward. It is not our fault. We are willing to spend whatever 
time is necessary to complete debate on the education bill that was 
before this body for a short time earlier this year. We want to debate 
the education issue.
  For people to say it got pulled because we wanted to talk about 
campaign finance reform, you bet we do. We still want to talk about 
campaign finance reform. But we want to talk about education issues 
also. The fact that we have an education bill on the floor does not 
mean we cannot talk about other issues. We would be willing to have the 
education bill come back, and we have a lot of education issues we 
would bring up immediately.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, did the unanimous consent request get 
approved and was the amendment laid aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Both unanimous consent requests have been 
approved. The amendment was laid aside, and the vote is scheduled for 5 
o'clock.
  Mr. GREGG. If I may engage the assistant leader from Nevada in a 
colloquy, I am interested in knowing

[[Page S5851]]

whether the assistant leader would agree to a unanimous consent request 
that would bring back the ESEA bill as reported out of committee with 
five relevant amendments on both sides, with a vote on final passage. 
If the Senator is agreeable to that, I am willing to walk down the 
hallway and probably get it signed onto by the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is interesting, I say to my friend from 
New Hampshire. We are in the Senate. My friend from New Hampshire has 
had wide experience in government. He served in the House of 
Representatives. We had the pleasure of serving together. He was 
Governor of the State of New Hampshire and has been a Senator for many 
years. He understands what the Senate is about as well as anybody in 
this Chamber. That is, we have had rules which have engaged this Senate 
for over 200 years, and they have worked well. We are the envy of the 
world, how our legislative body has worked for more than 200 years.
  What I am saying to my friend from New Hampshire is, yes, we are 
willing to bring the education bill back today, tomorrow, any other 
time, but we do not need these self-imposed constraints. We are not the 
House of Representatives. We are the Senate. We have the ability to 
amend bills that come before this body. Had we been allowed the 
opportunity to treat the elementary and secondary education bill as 
legislation has been treated for two centuries in this body, we would 
have been long since completed with that and would have been on to 
other issues.
  No one should think we are afraid to debate education issues. We have 
a lot of education issues to debate. The Senator from New Mexico and I 
have worked for 3 years on high school dropouts. I am not proud of the 
fact that the State of Nevada leads the Nation in high school dropouts. 
We lead the Nation. But we are not the only State that has a problem. 
Every State in this Union has a problem with high school dropouts.
  In the United States, 3,000 children drop out of high school every 
day; 500,000 a year. I want to talk on the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act about what we can do to keep kids in school.
  The Senator from New Mexico will have an amendment that passed the 
Senate 3 years ago. Last year, on a strictly partisan vote, our 
amendment was killed in the Senate. Democrats voted for it. Republicans 
voted against our dropout amendment. It is really ``radical.'' I am 
saying that facetiously. What it would do is create, in the Department 
of Education, a dropout czar, someone who could look at programs that 
are working around the country and have challenge grants in various 
States, if they were interested in the program. We would not jam 
anything down anyone's throat. A simple program such as that was 
defeated.
  We would be happy to ask unanimous consent--as Senator Daschle has 
done on other occasions--to resume consideration of the elementary and 
secondary education bill, and that following the two amendments 
previously ordered, the Senate consider the following first-degree 
amendments, subject to relevant second-degree amendments, and that they 
may be considered in an alternating fashion as the sponsors become 
available, and that they all be limited to 1 hour each equally divided 
in the usual form----
  Mr. GREGG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection----
  Mr. REID. I have not propounded my request yet, Mr. President.
  We would have Senator Santorum offer an amendment dealing with IDEA 
funding; Senator Bingaman, one on accountability; Senator Hutchison, 
one on same-sex schools; Senator Dodd, afterschool programs; Senator 
Gregg, afterschool programs; Senator Harkin, school modernization; 
Senator Voinovich, IDEA funding; Senator Mikulski, dealing with 
technology; Senator Stevens, physical education; Senator Wellstone, 
educational testing; Senator Grams, educational testing; Senator Reed 
of Rhode Island, dealing with parents; Senator Kyl, bilingual 
education; Senator Lautenberg, school safety, dealing with guns. We 
would be willing to do this right now. It would take about 10 or 12 
hours. And I say----
  Mr. GREGG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. There are Republicans and Democrats on this list. We would 
do it in alternating fashion. They believe strongly in their education 
issues. We believe strongly in our education issues.
  I say that is what we should do. That would bring the education issue 
to the forefront of this body, as it should have been brought to the 
forefront of this body a long time ago.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire
  Mr. GREGG. If we are going to propound unanimous-consent requests, I 
propound a unanimous consent request as follows: That we proceed to the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as reported out of the HELP 
Committee, at such time as the leader shall determine is appropriate, 
in consultation with the Democratic leader; that both sides be allowed 
to offer, I will make it seven amendments to the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act; that the amendments shall be relevant, and 
that there shall be a vote on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well now, the Senator from New Hampshire said that he 
wanted a unanimous-consent request that we would go to ESEA, at a time 
to be determined by the majority leader----

  Mr. GREGG. In consultation----
  Mr. HARKIN. In consultation with the minority leader.
  Well, we have asked the majority leader. The minority leader has 
propounded this unanimous consent request in the past. We are not 
running the floor. The Republicans are running the floor, not the 
Democrats.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, is debate appropriate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire, having 
propounded the unanimous consent request, has the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. It is the Republican side that is running the floor that 
schedules the bills, not the Democrats.
  My friend from New Hampshire just said he would be willing to have 
seven amendments on either side.
  Mr. GREGG. Relevant.
  Mr. HARKIN. Oh, relevant amendments. See, there you go.
  The last ESEA bill we had up was 4 years ago. We had amendments 
offered on the Republican side that were not relevant. We didn't say 
anything. We debated them. We debated them and we voted on them. Oh, 
but now they don't want to do that. The Republicans say: It has to be 
relevant. And they will preclude us from offering amendments on that 
bill that are relevant--maybe not to education but relevant to what is 
happening in America today. Yet they do not want to do that.
  We would agree to time limits. Senator Daschle has here: 1 hour each, 
equally divided. That is 14 hours. In 14 hours, we could be done with 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. I would be willing to agree to time limits also: 1 hour on 
each relevant amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. All amendments that are offered here, seven on each side?
  Mr. GREGG. In my unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. HARKIN. To these seven amendments?
  Mr. GREGG. It is my unanimous-consent request to which I am agreeing. 
You already have that in your request. I was just trying to be 
accommodating to your time constraints.
  Mr. HARKIN. You can have whatever seven you want, and we will take 
our seven amendments.
  Mr. GREGG. As long as they are relevant.
  Mr. HARKIN. I reclaim my time. The Senator says: Relevant.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield without losing his right to the 
floor?

[[Page S5852]]

  Mr. GREGG. I want to debate education, not national policy.
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I yield without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. REID. One of the amendments, the Senator is aware, the Lautenberg 
amendment, deals with gun safety.
  Are you aware there are precedents for gun control amendments to 
education bills? In fact, is the Senator aware that in 1994, Senator 
Gramm of Texas offered an amendment on mandatory sentences for 
criminals who use guns, and it was put to a vote on the education bill 
that year?

  Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, doesn't it seem logical and sensible to 
the Senator from Iowa that with all the deaths in schools related to 
guns, on an education bill we should have a conversation about gun 
safety in schools?
  Mr. HARKIN. To this Senator, it makes eminently good sense. We are 
talking about education and safety in education. Senator Lautenberg has 
an amendment on gun safety. That is what the Republicans do not want to 
vote on. Yet the Senator from New Hampshire said: Relevant amendments. 
I am looking at the list of amendments we have. They all deal with 
education in one form or another.
  Mr. GREGG. Then the Senator should have no objection to my offer.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator from New Hampshire would agree that school 
safety and guns is a relevant amendment, we can make an agreement right 
now. Will the Senator agree to that?
  Mr. GREGG. I do not make that ruling. It would be up to the 
Parliamentarian to determine what a relevant amendment is.
  Mr. HARKIN. No. A unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment is 
relevant.
  Mr. GREGG. I will not make that decision. The offer is very 
reasonable. We are willing to debate relevant amendments on education. 
There are a lot of relevant amendments on education that deal with 
guns. All you have to do is make it relevant and you can involve a gun 
issue. There is no question, for example, if you want to offer an 
amendment that deals with using title I money for the purposes of 
allowing people to put in some sort of screening system for going into 
a school relative to guns, that is a very relevant amendment, I would 
presume. But I am not the one who makes that decision. The 
Parliamentarian makes the decision.
  Mr. HARKIN. No. But a unanimous consent.
  Mr. GREGG. I am perfectly willing to make an adjustment, to give you 
a timeframe, so we can have a timeframe on the debate. We can have 
relevant amendments, 1 hour on each amendment. I have gone up to seven 
amendments now because the Senator from Nevada made a good case that we 
might not have gotten the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico into 
the mix. So that is seven amendments on each side and a vote on final 
passage--that is 14 hours--we vote on final passage, leaving it to the 
majority leader to call the issue to the floor. I think we could have a 
deal.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I find it interesting, my friend from New 
Hampshire making this argument. Four years ago, when the Senator from 
Texas offered a gun amendment on the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, I didn't hear a peep from my friend from New Hampshire, not a 
word. But now, when we want to address the issue of school violence and 
guns, the Senator from New Hampshire says: Oh, well, now we can't 
discuss that. It is not relevant.
  The Senator from New Hampshire knows, as well as I do, there is no 
rule in the Senate that demands relevancy. That is the House. That is 
why we are the great deliberative body that we are. We can debate and 
discuss things. If the Senator wants to go back to the House, where 
they have a Rules Committee, and they only discuss issues that the 
Rules Committee says are relevant--that is the House of 
Representatives. This is the Senate. We do not have such a rule. Thank 
God we do not because it allows us, as Senators, to have the kind of 
open and free debate and discussion that I think distinguishes the 
Senate from the House of Representatives. That allows us a time to cool 
things down, as Thomas Jefferson said.
  We are willing to bring up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
and agree to a time limit. We could be done in 1 day. But the 
Republicans do not want to vote on the gun issue.
  They don't want to have to belly up to the bar and vote to keep guns 
out of the hands of kids. They don't want to have that amendment. 
Therefore, all of the rest of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act is held hostage by the refusal on the Republican side to allow even 
1 hour of debate and an up-or-down vote on the Lautenberg amendment. 
That is the essence of it right now. As my friend from Nevada said, we 
are willing to go to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act right 
now with a time limit, debate them, vote them up or down. It is the 
other side that won't let that happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we know there are other things to do, but 
there is nothing more important to the American people--I know there is 
nothing more important to the people of the State of Nevada--than to do 
something about education. The Senator from Iowa talked about guns. Of 
course, they don't want to debate that issue, even though we did more 
than a year ago. Remember the clamor here that we had to do something 
as a result of the Columbine killings. Then we had a series of killings 
by guns in schools. We just recently had one in Florida where a boy was 
sent home because he was dropping water balloons. He came back and 
killed the teacher. There was no safety lock on that gun. It was laying 
around. Some felon had it. I don't know who had it. Anyway, the kid was 
able to get it.
  The majority's argument is simply a smokescreen. Of course, they 
don't want to talk about gun safety. They also don't want to vote on 
other priority issues such as modernizing schools. The average school 
in America is almost 50 years old. In Nevada, because we have to build 
one new school a month, we also need some help building schools, 
renovating schools. We have a tremendously difficult problem. People 
think of Nevada as the most rural place in America. It is the most 
urban place in America. Over 90 percent of the people live in two 
communities: Reno and Las Vegas. We have the seventh largest school 
district in America, with over 230,000 students. We need some help. The 
majority does not want to modernize the schools.
  Wouldn't it be great if we could do something about afterschool 
programs? That is where kids get in trouble, latchkey children, without 
sufficient supervision. We have amendments, some of which were read by 
the Senator and I, that deal with afterschool programs. We want to do 
something about having not only more teachers but better teachers. That 
is what we want to consider. That is why we want to talk about 
education.
  The Senator from New Mexico is shortly going to offer an amendment 
dealing with quality education. If not now, he will do it later. I know 
it is something he has talked about. Yes, Senator Lautenberg wants to 
offer an amendment joined by numerous others. He is the lead sponsor to 
deal with safety in schools, more accountability. If the majority 
doesn't think that guns in schools and school safety are priorities for 
the American people, then they have not been reading the papers. They 
have not been reading their own mail that comes from home. These are 
important issues.
  All we are asking is that the pending business, Order No. 491, a bill 
to extend programs and activities under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, be the order of the day; that it be called off the 
calendar and we get back to working on it. It is the pending business 
right now. It is here in the Senate calendar of business. We should get 
back to that. We offered strict time agreements on all amendments, and 
then we get the retort from our friend from New Hampshire: Relevant, 
relevant.

  We know what happens here. We know who controls what goes on. It is 
the majority. If they don't want something, it is not relevant. We are 
adults. We know how things work around here. We give them the title of 
the amendments; we tell them what they are about. We limit the time on 
them. I don't know what we could do that would be more fair and would 
allow this agenda to move along.

[[Page S5853]]

  We want the opportunity to vote. We don't want the opportunity to 
debate for more than a half hour. A half hour is all we get. We feel 
very confident that our priorities are the needs of the majority of the 
people of this country. We are not afraid to vote on them.
  The real reason the majority doesn't want to vote on these proposals 
is because we are going to win. People over there are going to vote 
with us. We are going to win. There are only 45 of us. We know we can't 
win unless we get support from the majority. We will get support from 
the majority. This is a procedural effort to block the education agenda 
of the minority from going forward. It is too bad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I don't want to prolong this ad nauseam 
because it is sort of an internal debate. I know the Senator from New 
Mexico has an amendment he wants to offer.
  I will make a couple of points in response to the Senator from 
Nevada, who always eloquently presents the minority's position.
  The fact is, all the amendments he talked about in the area of 
education are amendments which we are perfectly willing to get into. We 
got into them in committee, and we are happy to get into them on the 
floor. I suspect they would have no problem being found as relevant--
school construction, afterschool programs, safe schools. In fact, we 
have done a great deal in the area of all of these accounts. On the 
Safe Schools Program, aftershool programs, we have increased funding 
dramatically in both those proposals.
  We have brought forward an ESEA bill in a creative and imaginative 
way. I think it is being held because there are amendments people want 
to put on it which they know will cause it to not go any further than 
this body because the bill has so many imaginative and creative ideas 
in it which the Federal bureaucracy and the educational bureaucracy do 
not like because they return power to the States, power to parents, 
power to children, power to principals. They just don't like the fact 
that this bill is coming up for a vote with a whole cafeteria of ideas 
that threaten the present educational lobby here in Washington. 
Therefore, they have decided to gum it up with a bunch of amendments 
that have no relevance at all.
  ``Relevant'' is an important term for the education issue. The 
education debate should be on education. There are a lot of gun issues 
which are education related. We are perfectly happy to take those as 
relevant. But there are some that are not, and they know that. That is 
why they are throwing it on this bill, because they know it will stop 
the bill on the floor. They can use that as an excuse for stopping the 
bill rather than being the actual reason the bill is being stopped.

  As to gun amendments, we have voted on those enumerable times in this 
body. We have had amendments relative to abortion clinics, relative to 
gun-related debt. We have had them relative to gun violence crime 
protection, safe school new Federal restrictions on firearms, on 
education and violence protection. There have been votes on these. The 
list goes on and on. There have been gun amendments all through the 
process. There are gun amendments that can be made relevant. I would 
presume if they wanted to include those seven that I suggested, it 
would be easy enough to do it.
  I do think that the defense that they don't want relevant amendments, 
that they want to have the freedom to throw whatever amendment they 
want on this bill, is a puerile defense. ``Puerile'' is the wrong word. 
It is a sophomoric defense because basically what they are interested 
in is not having the ESEA bill come through this House in its present 
form because it is not a form that they liked when it was reported out 
of committee.
  Mr. HARKIN. We had seven amendments. That was all that was on the 
list.
  Mr. GREGG. All I am interested in is seven relevant amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, does the Senator from New Hampshire 
retain the floor or is it open?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the recognition of the 
Senator from New Mexico to offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3649

   (Purpose: To ensure accountability in programs for disadvantaged 
 students and to assist States in their efforts to turn around failing 
                                schools)

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Reed, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. 
     Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 3649.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 57, line 19, after ``year'' insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That in addition to any other funds 
     appropriated under this title, there are appropriated, under 
     the authority of section 1002(f) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, $250,000,000 to carry out 
     sections 1116 and 1117 of such Act''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have indicated to the majority that I 
would take a half hour to discuss the amendment on our side. I know 
Senator Reed also wishes to speak about the amendment, and perhaps 
others.
  If the Republican side will take the same limited amount of time, I 
believe that is the arrangement.
  This is an amendment to address the central issue that has been part 
of the education debate all along, and that is the issue of 
accountability. On the last amendment Senator Wellstone proposed, I 
know the discussion back and forth between Senator Wellstone and the 
Senator from New Hampshire. The position of the Senator from New 
Hampshire was that he could support increases in title I if there was 
proper accountability for how the money was spent, if we could be sure 
the money was spent for the purpose it was really needed.
  The amendment I am proposing would try to put into place the 
mechanisms to ensure that accountability. That, I believe, is a reason 
the amendment should be supported by everyone.
  Let me indicate what current law is. Current law says that of the 
title I funds a State receives, they can spend a maximum of one-half of 
1 percent of those title I funds in order to ensure accountability in 
the expenditure of those funds. That is, if you have a failing school--
for example, take my State. If one of our school districts in New 
Mexico has an elementary school that is not doing well and is not 
showing improvement in student performance, then the State has one-half 
of 1 percent of the title I funds it can spend in trying to assist that 
school to do better. That is all it can spend, and that is for the 
entire State.
  It is clear to anybody who has worked in education that this is an 
inadequate amount of money. I have here a letter that has been sent to 
me by the Council of Chief State School Officers. I want to read a 
section from that where they indicate their support for this Bingaman 
amendment to restore an increase in funding for title I accountability 
grants to assist low-performing schools:

       Last year, Congress appropriated $134 million in title I 
     accountability funds to help aid over 7,000 schools, to help 
     low-performing schools that were identified. The Council of 
     Chief State School Officers supports providing assistance to 
     low-performing schools through an increased State setaside. 
     The accountability grants are essential to help turn around 
     our Nation's most troubled schools. Several of our States 
     have already expressed reluctance to undertake the new grants 
     due to an certainty over future funding. It is critical that 
     the accountability grants be sustained and funded and funding 
     increased to the President's request of $250 million, so that 
     States and districts can continue to help improve these 
     schools. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this 
     letter, dated June 21, 2000, be printed in the Record 
     immediately after my remarks.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I believe that letter summarizes very well the thrust 
of my argument. We have the Federal Government now spending over $8 
billion this next year--almost $9 billion--to assist disadvantaged 
students through the title I program. But the accompanying 
accountability provisions in the law have not been fully implemented. 
That is, we have not seen the

[[Page S5854]]

results we would like to see in all cases--in the case of these failing 
schools in particular--due to a lack of dedicated funding that would be 
necessary to develop improved strategies and create rewards and 
penalties that hold schools accountable for continuous improvement in 
their student performance.
  The bill before us does not identify any specific funds for 
accountability enforcement efforts. We need to ensure that a 
significant funding stream is provided so that these accountability 
provisions are in fact enforced. The amendment I have offered seeks to 
ensure that $250 million, which is a small fraction of the total amount 
appropriated under title I, is directly spent on this objective. This 
money would be used to ensure that States and local school districts 
have the resources available to implement the corrective action 
provisions of title I by providing immediate and intensive 
interventions to turn around low-performing schools.
  What type of interventions am I talking about? What are we trying to 
ensure that States and school districts can do by providing these 
funds? Let me give you a list.
  First of all, ongoing and intensive teacher training. If you have a 
failing school where the students are not performing better than they 
did last year, it is likely that the problem comes back to the 
teachers. We need better training of some of our teachers in that 
school. These funds would make that possible.
  Second, extended learning time for students, afterschool programs, 
Saturday, and summer school to help students catch up. Again, a failing 
school, in many cases, needs those kinds of resources.
  Third, provision of rewards to low-performing schools that show 
significant progress, including cash awards and other incentives, such 
as release time for teachers.
  Fourth, restructuring of chronically failing schools. In many cases, 
you need a restructuring of a school. You need to replace some of the 
people in the administration. You need to have a restructuring so that 
the school can start off on another foot.

  Fifth, intensive technical assistance from teams of experts outside 
the school to help develop and implement school improvement plans in 
these failing schools. These are teams that go into the school and 
determine the causes of the low performance--for example, low 
expectations, outdated curriculum, poorly trained teachers, and unsafe 
conditions--and assist those schools in implementing research-based 
models for improvement.
  Here is one example of what I am talking about. A program with which 
many of us have become familiar--I certainly have in my State--is 
called Success for All. This is a program which is called a whole 
school reform program for the early grades, elementary schools. It was 
developed by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, and it has been 
implemented in over 2,000 elementary schools throughout the country. 
There were over 50 schools in my home State of New Mexico this last 
year that implemented the Success for All Program. The program is a 
proven early grade reading program which, if implemented properly, can 
ensure better results. All of the studies demonstrate that it can lead 
to better results.
  At the end of the first grade, Success for All schools have average 
reading scores almost 3 months ahead of those in matching control 
schools, and by the end of the fifth grade, students read more than 1 
year ahead of their peers in the controlled schools. So the program can 
reduce the need for special education placements by more than 50 
percent and virtually eliminate the problem of having to retain 
students in a grade more than a year.
  The funding contemplated in this amendment I am offering is 
authorized under both the old version of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act and the proposed new version, on which we just had a 
debate about how to get that back up for consideration in the Senate. 
Under section 1002(f) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
currently in effect, Congress is authorized to provide such sums as may 
be necessary to provide needed assistance for school improvement under 
sections 1116 and 1117 of the act. That is the current Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
  Last year, we did provide additional assistance in this bill--this 
exact appropriations bill we are debating today. We provided $134 
million for this purpose, and we need to follow through on that 
commitment this year.
  We also agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that these funds were 
necessary during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, the bill which was reported out of the committee. Under 
S. 2, the chairman's bill, there would be an automatic setaside of 
increased funds for title I for this purpose.
  Unfortunately, as has been discussed here at length, the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act appears to be in limbo, and we are having 
great difficulty getting back to it on the Senate floor. It is simply 
irresponsible for us to invest $9 billion--or nearly that--in the title 
I program and, at the same time, still fail to provide necessary 
resources to ensure that the States, districts, and schools are held 
accountable for how that $9 billion is spent.
  Title I requires the States and districts to implement accountability 
and assist failing schools. But we in the Congress have failed to give 
the States and districts the resources necessary to carry out those 
mandates.
  Title I authorizes State school support teams to provide support for 
schoolwide programs, to provide assistance to schools in need of 
improvement through activities such as professional development, 
identifying resources for changing and instruction, and changing the 
organization of the school.
  In 1998, only eight States reported that school support teams have 
been able to serve the majority of schools identified in need of 
improvement.
  Less than half of the schools identified as needing improvement in 
the 1997-1998 school year reported that this designation led to 
additional professional development or assistance.
  Schools and school districts that need this additional support and 
resources do five things: Address weaknesses quickly soon after they 
are identified; second, promote a progressively intensive range of 
interventions; third, continuously assess the results of those 
interventions and monitor whether progress is, in fact, being made; 
fourth, implement incentives for improvement; and, fifth, implement 
consequences for failure.
  I think many in this Senate would agree that a crucial step toward 
improving the public schools lies in holding the system accountable for 
student achievement and better outcomes.
  I hope everyone is able to demonstrate with their vote on this 
amendment that they support these positive initiatives toward 
establishing that type of accountability.
  Unfortunately, our debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act was prematurely ended. As I indicated, it is not clear when that 
will come back. I continue to hope it will come back to the Senate 
floor so we can complete that bill and send it to the President.
  I think that is a high priority that the American people want to see 
us accomplish before we leave this fall.
  When we resume consideration of that bill, I intend to offer an 
amendment that would address the area of accountability in all 
education programs.
  This amendment will enhance the existing accountability provisions in 
title I. As you know, this is the largest Federal program in the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and it has been discussed 
before as to the great good this program does.
  We made some important changes to title I. I indicated that the 
chairman's mark has some provision for a significant increase in the 
amount of funds that could be used for these accountability purposes. 
But under current law, States and the school districts are not able to 
spend the money they need in this area.
  That is why the amendment I am offering today is so important.
  I hope very much that Senators will support the amendment.
  In my home State of New Mexico the need is enormous.
  In 1994, fourth grade reading data showed that an average of 21 
percent of fourth graders in my State were reading at a level that was 
considered proficient.
  There is a tremendous need for additional resources in this area. The 
fact

[[Page S5855]]

is that many of these students are minority students, and many of these 
students require the assistance that title I was intended to provide. 
We need to be sure that the accountability is there so these funds are 
spent in an effective way.
  I know that Senator Reed is also here on the floor and is a cosponsor 
of this amendment. He would like to speak to it.
  Let me indicate also, if I failed to do so at the beginning of my 
comments, that the amendment is offered on behalf of myself, Senators 
Reed, Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, and Wellstone.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                  Council of Chief


                                        State School Officers,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2000.
     Member,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the state commissioners and 
     superintendents of education, I write to comment on the 
     FY2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education 
     Appropriations bill (S. 2553), which the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee passed last month. While the Council 
     is extremely pleased with the bipartisan effort to 
     significantly increase the overall funding level for 
     education programs, we have several concerns with education 
     policy issues reflected in the bill, as well as programs 
     which are underfunded.
       The Council applauds the Committee's decision to increase 
     funding for education by over $4.6 billion, which is higher 
     than the President's request. We are grateful that the Senate 
     recognizes the need to substantially invest in education, and 
     S. 2553 is responsive to recent polls that show 61% of the 
     public believe that the federal government does not invest 
     enough in education. Specifically, we are pleased that the 
     bill increases funding for programs such as Title I, IDEA, 
     and vocational education, although these programs still 
     remain critically underfunded.
       Despite the high total funding level, there are several 
     elementary and secondary education issues included in the 
     bill which greatly concern the Council. We urge adoption of 
     amendments to address these issues. Amendments are needed as 
     follows: (1) restore and increase resources to assist low-
     performing Title I schools; (2) continue development and 
     implementation of aligned state and local standards and 
     assessments; (3) provide separate, guaranteed funding streams 
     for class size reduction and school modernization; (4) 
     increase funding for teacher quality in Title II, ESEA and 
     Title II, HEA; (5) restore and increase funding for the 
     Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration program; and (6) 
     delete provisions that would allow community based 
     organizations to operate the 21st Century Community Schools 
     program. The Council urges adoption of the following 
     amendments to S. 2553:
       Support the Bingaman amendment to restore and increase 
     funding for Title I accountability grants to assist low-
     performing schools. Last year Congress appropriated $134 
     million in Title I accountability funds to help aid over 
     7,000 schools identified as low performing. While CCSSO 
     supports providing assistance to low-performing schools 
     through an increased state set-aside, the accountability 
     grants are essential to help turn around our nation's most 
     troubled schools. Several of our states have already 
     expressed reluctance to undertake the new grants due to 
     uncertainty over future funding. It is critical that the 
     accountability grants be sustained and funding increased to 
     the President's request of $250 million, so states and 
     districts can continue to help improve these schools.
       Provide guaranteed funding to allow SEAs to continue the 
     key functions of Goals 2000. This funding is necessary for 
     states and districts to continue development and 
     implementation of high standards for student achievement with 
     aligned assessments to measure progress of students, schools, 
     and systems. Goals 2000 has been the leading source of funds 
     for localities and states to develop standards and innovative 
     improvement strategies. Funding for continuing these purposes 
     must be included in Title II or Title VI, ESEA.
       Support the Murray and Harkin amendments to provide 
     separate, guaranteed funding streams for class size reduction 
     and school modernization. S. 2553 contains provisions for the 
     use of a $2.7 billion block grant within Title VI, ESEA to 
     allow funding for any programs that a LEA determines are ``. 
     . . part of a local strategy for improving academic 
     achievement''. While CCSSO strongly supports a substantial 
     increase in funding for Title VI, Innovative Strategies to 
     enable states and districts to continue development and 
     implementation of challenging standards and assessments, we 
     oppose block granting of education programs such as Class 
     Size Reduction and School Modernization. Block granting of 
     federal education programs leads to reduction of federal 
     funding, as evidenced by the 1981 consolidation of 26 federal 
     education programs with appropriations of $750 million. 
     Today, the appropriation for these programs is $375 million. 
     When adjusted for inflation, the current appropriation is 
     only one-fourth of the $1.5 billion value these programs 
     would have today if the programs prior to block granting were 
     kept at 1980 levels. To be sustained at effective levels, 
     federal education funds should be targeted to educational 
     priorities that serve America's neediest students.
       Separate programs for reducing class size and school 
     modernization are essential. We urge the Senate to guarantee 
     separate funding streams for these two critical programs and 
     to fund School Modernization at $1.3 billion and Class Size 
     Reduction at $1.75 billion in FY2001.
       Support the Kennedy amendment to increase funding for 
     Teacher quality by providing substantial new funds for Title 
     II, ESEA, and Title II, HEA. S. 2553 reduces funding for 
     teacher quality by over $500 million below the President's 
     request. This funding is necessary since schools will need 
     additional resources to recruit and train the 2.2 million new 
     teachers needed in the next decade, as well as to strengthen 
     the skills of current teachers.
       Restore and increase funding for the Comprehensive School 
     Reform Demonstration program. This highly successful program 
     has been in existence for 3 years and has provided critical 
     assistance to our nation's neediest schools and students. By 
     eliminating funding for CSRD, more than 3,000 schools in need 
     of improvement will be denied the opportunity to receive 
     funding for research-based models of schoolwide improvement.
       Delete the Gregg amendment adopted during Committee markup 
     to allow community-based organization (CBO's) to apply for 
     and operate the 21st Century Afterschool program. This 
     innovative program should be continued to be based at schools 
     with orientation toward academic success through after-school 
     enrichment program targeted to disadvantaged youth. Current 
     law has successfully promoted LEA-CBO partnerships to expand 
     learning opportunities for youth during non-school hours, 
     weekends, and summers. Authorizing CBO's to operate the 
     programs alone would completely alter this partnerships and 
     undermine the focus on academically-related extended 
     learning. Additionally, the funding level for this program is 
     $400 million below the President's request, which would 
     result in 1.6 million fewer children receiving services.
       We urge the Senate to address these issues during floor 
     action. These changes together with the commended strong 
     bipartisan increase in funding for education programs would 
     provide an important new appropriation for education. 
     However, if the above issues are not addressed, we cannot 
     support the bill.
       We look forward to working with Members of the Senate to 
     increase federal education support which connects with state 
     and local efforts to strengthen classroom quality and access 
     to education excellence for all students. If we can be of any 
     assistance to you or answer any questions, please call me or 
     Carnie Hayes, our Director of Federal State Relations, at 
     (202) 336-7009. As always, thank you for considering our 
     recommendations.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Gordon M. Ambach,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator be willing to enter into a 
unanimous consent that we vote on his amendment, if there is a vote, at 
5 o'clock?
  I withdraw my unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since the Senator has withdrawn his 
request, I don't agree to it.
  I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, the 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support of Senator 
Bingaman's amendment to provide additional resources to support State 
and local accountability efforts. Last year's budget included these 
funds, and this investment must be continued.
  I have worked long and hard on school accountability. But, frankly, 
the leader in this regard in this body is Senator Jeff Bingaman from 
New Mexico. He is a champion for ensuring that Federal resources go to 
schools. But we also provide incentives and opportunities for 
accountability and for improvement, along with Federal dollars. His 
efforts have been in the forefront of this great effort to improve the 
quality of our education and the quality of our schools.
  The Federal Government directs over $8 billion a year to provide 
critical support for disadvantaged students under title I. But even 
with this great amount of money--$8 billion--there are still 
insufficient resources to provide for the accountability provisions 
that are part of title I.
  We essentially face a situation, given the number of students who 
qualify for title I and the limited resources for the program, where 
most of the funds go simply to providing services and not the type of 
careful overview and thoughtful review that is necessary for program 
improvement.

[[Page S5856]]

  With the resources that are proposed by Senator Bingaman, we will be 
able to identify more closely and more accurately schools in need of 
improvement. We will be able to provide assistance for activities like 
professional development and technical assistance to schools so that 
they can in effect improve their performance and implement State 
corrective actions for schools that we should and must improve.
  Today, as I mentioned before, most of the dollars are simply going 
out to meet this overwhelming demand for services without the ability 
to review, evaluate, and correct programs. With this ability we would 
not only get the best results for our dollars, but we could materially 
improve the educational attainment of children throughout this country, 
and particularly disadvantaged children under title I.
  In 1994, much of the impetus for accountability began with the prior 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  The 1994 amendments allowed States to move forward and develop their 
own content performance standards and to develop their own assessment 
measures to provide the details for our direction to improve the 
accountability of title I money.
  But as I mentioned--this is a constant theme--because of limited 
resources, there is the difficult choice between providing the service 
and doing the accountability.
  On a day-to-day basis, States try to keep up. But over time, they are 
falling behind in terms of improved performance and improved quality of 
education for students. What results is States can't as effectively 
address weaknesses that they see. They can't invoke a progressively 
intensive range of interventions to improve schools. They can't do the 
continuous assessments that are necessary to keep these programs on 
target, focused, and provide quality education for all of our children.
  The amendment, which the Senator from New Mexico proposes, would 
provide resources for schools and school districts to enable them to 
address the challenges of helping low-performance students and low-
performance schools. In fact, we know those students in our lowest 
performance schools will immediately and directly benefit from the 
Bingaman amendment because studies clearly show that students in low-
performance schools are at least a year or two behind students in the 
high-performing schools within the title I universe.
  As we provide these resources, we need to focus them on the more 
problematic schools so we can help disadvantaged children to attain 
better educational achievement throughout our country.

  We are still in the midst of trying to reauthorize the ESEA. Within 
the context of that act, Senator Bingaman has other accountability 
language which I am proud to support with him.
  But we have a critical opportunity--and we are at a critical juncture 
today--to provide resources and directions so that the accountability 
issue at least will not have to wait upon final reauthorization of the 
ESEA if that final reauthorization is indeed forthcoming in this 
legislative session.
  I once again commend Senator Bingaman for his leadership.
  I conclude by simply saying that we have a situation where there is a 
great deal of knowledge and a great deal of intuition at the local 
level about how they can improve this program.
  These resources in the hands of local school authorities would make a 
real difference in the lives of disadvantaged children, and would 
ultimately go to the heart of, I believe, what our greatest challenge 
in this country is, which is to use education to provide all of us, but 
most particularly the most disadvantaged Americans, the opportunity to 
learn, to succeed and to contribute to this country and to our 
economy. I urge passage of the Bingaman amendment, and I yield to the 
Senator from New Mexico.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am informed there is no time 
agreement; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding that there is 
no time agreement.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we do have one other Senator who I 
believe is on his way to the floor and wishes to speak. If there are 
any Senators wishing to speak in opposition, we will be glad to hear 
from them.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from New Mexico for 
offering what I think is about as important an amendment as you can 
have, when it comes to the issue of education. Regrettably, we have 
abandoned--I hope only temporarily--the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, the authorization bill. That bill is only dealt with 
once every 6 years by the Congress. It is the bedrock piece of 
legislation that deals with the elementary and secondary educational 
needs of America's children; the some 50 million who attend our public 
schools every day of the school year. Of the 55 million or so children 
who go to elementary and secondary schools, roughly 50 million of them 
attend a public school.
  Despite the efforts of the committee of jurisdiction--we spent 2 or 3 
days discussing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--we have now 
decided we are no longer going to debate that or discuss that issue any 
longer. I think that is a tragedy when we consider how important to the 
American public is the issue of education, how important it is to 
strengthen our schools. Everyone knows so many of them are in desperate 
need of help. That we cannot find the time--only once every 6 years--to 
talk about this issue is deplorable.
  It was through the efforts of my colleague from New Mexico, in fact, 
that we were able to provide language in the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act to deal with the issue of accountability in our public 
schools. I regret this bill has been abandoned. I hope we will get back 
to it, although I am doubtful that will be the case. But, if we do, we 
will have a chance to further discuss it.
  The Senator from New Mexico has offered an amendment to set aside 
$250 million within title I to help States implement effective programs 
to turn around failing schools. Last year, $134 million was 
appropriated for this purpose, and the committee's appropriations bill 
does not include any funding for accountability grants. The President 
requested $250 million, and this amendment meets that request.
  The fact that the proposal coming out of the committee disregards 
accountability altogether is a stunning failure to recognize how 
important it is that we make a concerted effort to put these failing 
schools back on their feet.
  What is title I? We talk in terms of titles, dollar amounts, and 
alphabet soup when it comes to certain programs. Title I is the basic 
education program to provide assistance to the most disadvantaged 
students in the country, whether they live in urban, rural, or suburban 
areas.
  Roughly $8 billion, more than half the entire Federal budget's 
commitment on education, goes for title I, disadvantaged students. In 
fact, it is an indictment of the Federal Government that we only 
contribute less than one-half of 1 percent of our entire Federal budget 
to elementary and secondary education. Imagine, less than one-half of 1 
percent of the entire Federal budget goes to elementary and secondary 
education, despite the fact that most Americans say with a single voice 
that education is about as important an issue as this country has to 
address. Despite those feelings, we contribute a tiny fraction of the 
entire Federal budget to this most compelling need.
  Of the $15 billion we spend on education, half is spent on these 
disadvantaged children through title I. That is title I.
  Senator Bingaman has offered an amendment that provides that of the 
$8.3 billion, we are going to allocate $250 million, which is not 
included in the present bill. It provides $250 million to do something 
to get these failing schools back on track.
  It has been suggested that a failing school ought to be shut down. I 
understand the frustration that leads people

[[Page S5857]]

to that conclusion, but too often when we shut down one of these 
schools, there are no great alternatives around the corner for these 
children. There is not that well-run little parochial school or some 
private school to which these children can go. Too often these schools 
exist in the worst neighborhoods and worst areas of the country in 
terms of economics. We need to do something to get these schools back 
on track and functioning well so these children, who, through no fault 
of their own, are born into these circumstances in these neighborhoods 
and communities across the country, have a chance.
  It is one thing to talk about accountability, but the Senator from 
New Mexico has offered some strong, thoughtful language on how to 
achieve that accountability in our Nation's educational system. We have 
shifted our focus from what the Federal education dollar has bought to 
more on outcome: What do you get; what comes out of that school.
  It is a worthwhile shift to begin to determine what schools are 
producing, how well are these children prepared to move on to the next 
level of education to become productive citizens of our country, good 
citizens, and good parents. There are too often a staggering number of 
schools that fail when it comes to outputs.
  Effective accountability measures is what business leaders call 
quality control measures. They determine whether students are achieving 
to the high standards they ought to be, to make sure public dollars are 
being spent wisely. Accountability is especially important in schools 
with high concentrations of disadvantaged students to ensure all 
students have an opportunity to meet high standards of achievement.

  In our view, we must spur change and reform in these failing schools. 
Shutting them down is not the answer. Getting them to perform better 
is. Setting positive accountability standards is one of the ways to 
help achieve that goal. That is what the Senator from New Mexico is 
offering in this amendment: Some dollars allocated and setting 
accountability standards will help us achieve the desired results.
  As we all know, despite concerted efforts by States and school 
districts, accountability provisions in title I have not been 
adequately implemented due to insufficient resources. When we have a 
budget, such as this one, that does not allocate even a nickel for 
accountability, we cannot give a speech about accountability and then 
not provide any of the resources to see to it that accountability is 
achieved.
  In 1998, to make the point, only 8 States out of the 50 reported that 
school support teams were able to serve the majority of schools 
identified as being in need of improvement. Less than half of the 
schools identified as in need of improvement in the 1997-1998 period 
reported they received additional professional development or technical 
assistance.
  It seems quite obvious we need to strengthen title I with only 8 
States out of 50. Even among those States, the results are paltry when 
it comes to accountability. We clearly need to do a far better job if 
we are going to give these students and these families a chance to have 
a school to continue and provide the education these children ought to 
be receiving.
  We have to strengthen title I to make more schools more accountable 
for the academic success of all the children who attend them and to 
assure States and districts do all they can to turn around failing 
schools by using proven, effective strategies for reform.
  We must make all schools accountable for good teaching and improved 
student achievement. We cannot turn our backs on low-performing 
schools, as I said. We must do all we can to improve them. If all else 
fails and we have to close them down, that is one thing, but if we jump 
to close schools without trying to improve them, too often we abandon 
these young students.
  School districts and States need the additional support. Less than 
one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget is dedicated to 
education, and we are talking about $250 million out of the title I 
resources to improve the accountability standards. My view, and I think 
the view of most of us, is that we ought to act now and make these 
schools more accountable for these disadvantaged children. I am hopeful 
that will be the case.
  Again, I congratulate our colleague from New Mexico for offering this 
amendment. I mentioned one-half of 1 percent of the Federal budget is 
spent on elementary and secondary education. Out of 100 cents in the 
dollar we contribute, one-half of 1 percent represents 7 cents when it 
comes to an education dollar; 93 cents come from our States and mostly 
local governments who support the educational needs of the local 
communities. When we get to our poorest communities in rural America--I 
know the Presiding Officer can relate to this; he represents a very 
diverse State, one that has strong urban areas but strong rural areas 
as well--when we get to a poor rural community or poor urban area, the 
tax base, in many cases, does not exist to provide for the educational 
needs.

  My hope is in the coming years we are going to do a better job of 
being a better partner with local towns, a better partner with our 
States, so the Federal Government is contributing a greater share, 
about $1. Seven cents out of 100 cents toward the needs of America's 
children in the 21st century is an appalling indictment of failing to 
improve the quality of education.
  I do not know of a single Senator who dissents when it comes to the 
issue of accountability, making sure these students are coming out of 
educational institutions with the abilities, the talents, and the 
knowledge they need to move on. On this we can all agree. We have to 
not just talk about it, we have to invest in it.
  The Senator from New Mexico has offered a proposal that will at least 
put some dollars into the accountability standards, along with the 
language that tells how best to achieve accountability. I strongly 
endorse this amendment and hope our colleagues will support it.
  I thank the distinguished managers of this bill, Senator Specter and 
Senator Harkin, for their willingness to provide for a new and 
significant investment in child care. I have been critical about the 
accountability standards and the lack of funding. Before those remarks, 
I should have commended them for the work they have done on child care. 
As most of my colleagues know, I have spent a good part of my career in 
the Senate trying to improve the quality of child care in this country. 
This bill raises the level of the child care development block grant to 
a total funding of $2 billion which will allow an additional 220,000 
children across this country to be served in a child care setting.
  To put this investment in perspective, I note that this year's 
increase in funding of child care is double the program's growth in the 
previous 10 years of its existence. This funding represents the fruits 
of 2 years of bipartisan efforts.
  In addition to thanking the chairman and ranking member of this 
appropriations subcommittee, I want to recognize individuals who have 
fought long and hard to provide this assistance to America's working 
families.
  My colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, my colleagues from 
Maine, Senator Snowe and Senator Collins, and my colleague from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, who has been a stalwart in fighting for 
this issue for many years. There are a lot of other people here who 
have been involved.
  Senator John Chafee, who was a terrific fighter on many issues--by 
the way, Parade magazine, this past Sunday, had a wonderful story by 
Mr. Brady, who served with John Chafee in Korea. It was a wonderful 
piece about John Chafee's service in the Korean war, as we remembered 
the veterans of that conflict that began 50 years ago the day before 
yesterday.
  John Chafee was a tremendous fighter and great ally when it came to 
child care. I do not want to conclude these remarks without mentioning 
his wonderful contribution in this area.
  The funding allocation that is in this bill demonstrates that helping 
working families is not a partisan issue. I am glad to report that, in 
fact, in the last year, on four different occasions, we had votes on 
child care in the midst of some very tense and heated debates. In every 
single instance, this body--by a fairly significant margin--supported 
increasing the allocations for child care. It did not get done in 
conference reports, with the House of Representatives, in the first 
session of this Congress.

[[Page S5858]]

  But Senator Specter told me last year: I promise you this year we 
will put the dollars in to get that level up to $2 billion. He did so. 
I thank him for fulfilling that commitment, not to me so much but to 
the working families in this country, who need this help tremendously.
  So for 220,000 families who do not have the choice of staying at home 
or going to work but must work, either as single parents or two-income-
earning parents, who need the resources to provide for their families, 
decent child care is worthwhile.
  I note, just as an aside on this issue, we have a wonderful child 
care facility that serves the family of the Senate. One of our 
colleagues, John Edwards of North Carolina, is the proud father of a 
new baby, but also has another young child. He brought the child to the 
child care center in the last few days to receive the services of that 
setting.
  He was notified that in the 35-year existence of the child care 
center that serves the Senate family, he is the first Member of the 
Senate who actually has a child in that child care center. Certainly, 
we get some indication of maybe why we have not been as aggressive in 
pursuing the child care issues, when for obvious reasons--age and so 
forth--Members here are not likely to have children of child care age 
and needs.
  But most Americans who have young children and work have a need 
today. This appropriation will assist the neediest people in the 
country, the neediest who are out there working every day to provide 
for their families and also need to have a decent place, a safe place--
hopefully, a caring place--where they can leave their child in the care 
of others when they go off to work and provide for their economic 
needs.
  I applaud the committee for its efforts in that regard. But as I said 
at the outset, I am very disappointed we have not done more in the area 
of accountability when it comes to elementary and secondary education 
needs and our failing schools.
  In this context, I urge the adoption of the Bingaman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be set aside in order that the Senate may consider Senator 
Murray's amendment concerning class size.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 3604

  (Purpose: To provide for class-size reduction and other activities)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3604.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 29, line 12, before the period insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That $1,400,000,000 of such 
     $2,700,000,000 shall be available, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, to award funds and carry out activities in 
     the same manner as funds were awarded and activities were 
     carried out under section 310 of the Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 2000: Provided further, That an 
     additional $350,000,000 is appropriated to award funds and 
     carry out activities in the same such manner''.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
additional cosponsors Senators Biden, Dodd, Robb, Wellstone, Kennedy, 
Torricelli, Reed, Lautenberg, Reid, Levin, Akaka, and Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
argue, again, that no child should have to struggle for a teacher's 
attention in an overcrowded classroom. Every child deserves a classroom 
environment where they can learn and grow and get individual attention 
from a caring, qualified teacher. With the amendment I am offering this 
afternoon, we have an opportunity, again, to make that happen.
  I am proud to report that classrooms across America are less crowded 
this year than they were last year. In fact, this year, 1.7 million 
children benefited from less crowded classrooms. The reason those 
students are learning in smaller classes is because this Congress made 
a commitment to help local school districts hire 100,000 new fully 
qualified teachers. We are now about one-third of the way towards 
reaching that goal.
  By all measures, this has been a very successful program. Given the 
progress we have made, many parents and teachers would have a hard time 
believing that this Congress is about to abandon its commitment to 
reduce class size, but that is exactly what the bill before us would 
do. It would abandon our commitment to helping school districts reduce 
classroom overcrowding.
  This bill would take the promise of smaller classes and yank it away 
from students and parents and teachers. This underlying bill does not 
guarantee funding for the Class Size Reduction Program as it is 
currently written. If it is passed without the amendment I am offering, 
school districts across the country cannot rely on having the money 
available to hire new teachers or to pay the salaries of the teachers 
they have already hired.
  I have talked to hundreds of local educators, parents, and students. 
To them, that is unacceptable. That is why I have come to the floor 
today to offer my amendment that would continue our commitment to 
reducing class sizes.

  Under this successful program, we have hired 29,000 new teachers, and 
we have given 1.7 million students across the country less crowded 
classrooms. Clearly, we are making progress, but we can't be satisfied 
with the status quo. We need to bring the benefits of smaller classes 
to more students. It is clear that smaller classes help students learn 
the basics with fewer discipline problems. Parents know it. Teachers 
know it. Students know it.
  On the chart behind me, I have listed some of the benefits of smaller 
classes. They include better student achievement, something every 
Senator has come to the floor to speak for; fewer discipline problems, 
something about which we hear constantly; more individual attention; 
better parent-teacher communication; dramatic results for poor and 
minority students.
  As a former educator, I can tell the Senate, there is a difference 
between having 35 kids in your classroom and having 18 kids in your 
classroom. With 35 kids, you spend most of your time on crowd control. 
With 18 kids, you spend most of your time teaching. But it is not only 
my experience. National research proves that smaller class sizes help 
students learn the basics they need in a disciplined environment.
  A study that was conducted in Tennessee in 1989, which is known as 
the STAR study, compared the performance of students in grades K 
through 3 in small and regular size classes. That study found that 
students in small classes, those with 13 to 17 students, significantly 
outperformed other students in math and in reading. The STAR study 
found that students benefited from smaller classes at all grade levels 
and across all geographic areas. The study found that students in small 
classes have better high school graduation rates. These were kids who 
were in smaller classes in kindergarten through the third grade. They 
found, as they followed them through later on, they had better high 
school graduation rates, higher grade point averages, and were more 
inclined to pursue higher education. Certainly these are goals this 
Senate should be proud of helping to achieve.
  According to the research conducted by Princeton University 
economist, Dr. Alan Kruger, students who attended small classes were 
more likely to take ACT or SAT college entrance exams. That was 
particularly true for African Americans students. According to Dr. 
Kruger:

       Attendance in small classes appears to have cut the black-
     white gap in the probability of taking a college-entrance 
     exam by more than half.

  Three other researchers at two different institutions of higher 
education found that STAR students who attended small classes in the 
early K through 3 grades were between 6 and 13 months ahead of their 
regular class peers in math, reading, and science in

[[Page S5859]]

each of grades four, six, and eight, as they followed them through.
  In yet another part of the country, a different class size reduction 
study reached similar conclusions. The Wisconsin SAGE study, Student 
Achievement Guarantee in Education, findings from 1996 through 1999 
consistently proved that smaller classes result in significantly 
greater student achievement.
  Class size reduction programs in the State study resulted in 
increased attention to individual students. It produced three main 
benefits: Fewer discipline problems and more instruction; more 
knowledge of students; and more teacher enthusiasm for teaching.
  The Wisconsin study also found in smaller classes teachers were able 
to identify the learning problems of individual students more quickly. 
As one teacher participant in the State class size reduction study 
said, ``If a child is having problems, you can see it right away. You 
can take care of it right then. It works a lot better for children.''
  The data is conclusive. Smaller classes help kids learn the basics in 
a disciplined environment. I am also proud that the class size program 
is simple and efficient. The school districts simply fill out a one-
page form, which happens to be available online. Then the Department of 
Education sends them money to hire new teachers based on need and 
enrollment. The teachers have told me they have never seen money move 
so quickly from Congress to the classroom as under our class size bill.
  Linda McGeachy in the Vancouver school district in my State 
commented, ``The language is very clear, applying was very easy, and 
their funds really work to support classroom teachers.''
  The class size program is also flexible. Any school district that has 
already reduced class sizes in the early grades to 18 or fewer children 
may use the funds to further reduce class sizes in the other early 
grades. They can use it to reduce class sizes in kindergarten or they 
can carry out activities to improve teacher quality, including 
professional development.
  I am sure some Members are going to argue that schools could still 
hire teachers if they wanted to by using the title VI funding in this 
underlying bill. Now, that may sound good at first, but it doesn't 
recognize the reality of how school boards work. The language in the 
underlying bill won't work. Mr. President, I served on a local school 
board. Finding the money to hire and train new teachers requires a 
financial commitment over many years in the face of many competing 
priorities. That is one of the reasons why school districts have so 
much trouble reducing class size without our Federal partnership.
  Last year, we told school districts we would give them the money to 
hire teachers for 7 years. They heard our commitment and they hired 
more than 29,000 new teachers. Unfortunately, today, this underlying 
bill asks school districts to choose whether or not to keep those 
teachers, without any assurance that the money will still be there in 
the coming years.
  I can tell you, if I were still on a school board, I would find it 
very difficult to keep those teachers, not knowing if I would have the 
money for them in the future. That is why we need to protect that money 
and guarantee that it goes to reduce class sizes. Because this bill 
abandons our commitment as a Federal partner, it leaves school 
districts with a false choice, and it means our kids are going to lose 
out. We should keep our commitment to reducing class size.
  There is another reason why my amendment is so necessary, another 
critical reason why using the general title VI funding is not an 
adequate substitute. I have discussed this, as my colleagues know, many 
times on the floor of the Senate--why programs that are put into block 
grants with no specific purpose, such as title VI, are much less 
effective in targeting resources to our neediest students. Under the 
class size program, money is targeted to those needy students. For 
example, from the State level, funds are targeted 80 percent based on 
poverty and 20 percent based on student population. The program is 
designed to make sure economically disadvantaged students who benefit 
the most get smaller classes. We know poor and minority students can 
make dramatic gains in less crowded classrooms. And this amendment 
targets new teachers directly to those vulnerable students. Without my 
amendment, however, there is no guarantee those poor students will get 
the support they need.
  Let me be clear. A block grant that is not targeted toward a specific 
educational purpose fails to ensure that our most vulnerable students 
get the resources they need. We need to pass this amendment so we can 
guarantee those students can benefit from smaller class sizes.
  Before I close, I want to make one final point. We are going to 
continue this program sooner or later. The President has made it clear 
that he will veto this bill unless it funds the Class Size Reduction 
Program. His track record on this is pretty clear. He has stood up for 
the class size program time and again in the past. So the real question 
is, Are we going to vote to fund the program now, in June, or are we 
going to wait until the end of the fiscal year, sometime in October, 
when the clock is running and the congressional majority has to 
negotiate again with the President?
  We should do it now. We should pass this amendment now, early in the 
process, so that school boards across America will have a clear 
indication that money for their new teachers will be there.
  In closing, this amendment gives my colleagues the opportunity to 
support one of the most successful efforts we have ever seen in our 
schools in years. This amendment gives us a chance to fix the 
underlying Labor-HHS bill so that our students are not trapped in 
overcrowded classrooms. Let's invest in the things we know work. Let's 
support local school districts as they work to hire new teachers, and 
lets keep our commitment to America's schoolchildren so that they can 
learn the basics in a disciplined environment.
  This is an issue we have worked on for some time, and the underlying 
bill will not keep our commitment to class size that is so important, 
that so many parents, students and teachers are waiting for us to make. 
That is why this amendment is so important.
  I see that my colleague from Massachusetts is here.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I wonder if the Senator will be good enough to yield for 
a question or two.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have had the good opportunity to listen 
to the persuasive arguments of the Senator from Washington. Does the 
Senator from Washington agree with me that historically the Federal 
role of helping local schools assist the most economically 
disadvantaged and challenged children in this country has been very 
limited? This was basically the origin of the Title I program back in 
the mid-1960s. We have had some success and we have had some failures. 
But I think the successes have been in the most recent time.
  This is where we have been focusing our limited resources. However, 
the change in the formula in the underlying bill, which is in complete 
contrast to what the Senator from Washington has drafted, would target 
80 percent of the funds for the neediest children, and 20 percent for 
the population. Now we are finding out that there has been a dramatic 
shift and the guiding force is going to be the population. So this 
whole block grant which has been explained to be available for smaller 
class size really isn't going to be targeted or really available to the 
children who probably need it the most. Am I correct in my 
understanding that this is one of the concerns the Senator has pointed 
out?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
absolutely correct. There is a role for local school districts. There 
is a role for States, and there is a role for Federal Government, 
however small it is, in this country in terms of education.
  The public has told us overwhelmingly time and time again they want 
the Federal role to remain. The Federal role, historically, has been to 
make sure the most needy and disadvantaged students in the country, 
wherever they are, are not left behind.
  In the class size amendment, we target the funds directly to those 
kids because they need it the most and they are helped the most by it. 
The underlying bill, which I am amending, as the

[[Page S5860]]

Senator from Massachusetts stated, block grants the money to title VI 
funds and therefore is block granted to all students, and it is not 
what the Federal role has been or should continue to be. So the Senator 
from Massachusetts is absolutely correct that this amendment is 
important.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Further, there are no provisions to target these funds 
to the poverty districts, which runs in complete conflict as to what we 
understand. We are all for additional funding in terms of education, if 
the States want to do it. But the funding, historically, that we have 
provided has been targeted to those areas of special needs.
  I have been enormously impressed with Project STAR in Tennessee, 
which studied 7,000 students in 80 schools. It was initiated in 1985 
and has had extraordinarily positive and constructive results in terms 
of academic success for children.
  I was in Wausau, WI, and met with a number of people who are involved 
in the SAGE Program, which was developed in 1995. Again, it is a 
program for smaller class size.
  The SAGE program is intended to help raise student academic 
achievement by requiring that participating schools do the following: 
reduce the student-teacher ratio in class sizes from 15 to 1 in K 
through 3; stay open for extended hours; develop vigorous academic 
curriculums; and implement plans for staff development and professional 
accountability.
  I listened to the Senator speak about each of these issues. In 
Wisconsin, they had at least one school serving 50% or more children 
living in poverty was eligible to apply for participation in SAGE. One 
school, with an enrollment of at least 30% or more children living in 
poverty, in each eligible district could participate. Again, it is 
targeted among the most challenged children.
  The evaluation done on the 30 schools that implemented the program is 
absolutely remarkable.
  In the SAGE Program, from 1996 to 1997, and again in 1997 to 1998, 
first grade classrooms scored significantly higher in all areas tested.
  In 1997-1998, achievement advantage was maintained in the second 
grade classrooms.
  The achievement benefit of SAGE small class size was especially 
strong for African-American students. In 1997-1998, the SAGE first 
grade post-test results showed that African-American students were 
closing the achievement gap.
  Further, the analysis suggests that the teachers in these classrooms 
have greater knowledge, to which the Senator from Washington spoke. 
They spend less time managing their class and they have more time for 
individualize instruction emphasizing a primarily teacher-centered 
approach.
  This has had extraordinary success--it has been tried. When the 
Murray amendment was first accepted, it had broad bipartisan support. 
That is why many of us find it troubling. When we have something that 
we know has been successful, why are we moving in a different 
direction? Will the Senator help me understand that in some way?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
correct. There have been a number of studies that have followed class 
size reduction--from the Tennessee study in 1985 and 1990; the STAR 
study in 1996-1997; the SAGE Program that the Senator from 
Massachusetts mentioned in 1998-1999; the educational testing service 
study in 1997; New York City school study in April 2000; the Council 
for Greater City Schools in October of 1990.
  All of these studies have followed up on what we have been able to do 
in reducing class size and have shown the same benefits of better 
student achievement, fewer discipline problems, and better test scores 
for students as they moved into the upper grades.
  It is astounding to me that we had a bipartisan agreement 2 years ago 
to begin to reduce class size and every year, it seems, we have to come 
back and argue this again, debate it again, move on to a vote, then get 
to a point in October where we again amend the budget, and finally put 
it in the budget.
  It seems to me, and I assume to the Senator from Massachusetts, that 
we would be smarter to put it in the bill now so school districts that 
are trying to figure out what we are doing will have the knowledge that 
this program will continue; that they can begin to hire their teachers, 
as they do in the months of June and July, and be ready to move on 
without the question of being left out there.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one second 
without losing her right to the floor?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska 
without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that votes occur in stacked sequence following the 5 p.m. vote 
on the Wellstone amendment with 4 minutes equally divided prior to each 
vote for explanation on or in relation to the Bingaman and Murray 
amendments, in that order, and no second-degree amendments be in order 
prior to the votes on any of these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could just ask the Senator a 
question.
  My State of Massachusetts hires an average of about 500 teachers each 
year. That is certainly not going to solve all of the problems. But it 
is making an important difference in my State, particularly when we 
know we have hired qualified teachers, and particularly when we know 
that across the country we have hired 50,000 unqualified teachers. We 
are getting qualified teachers who are involved in these programs. The 
selection of these teachers are worked out through the local process. 
That is a decision, I understand, that is made locally.
  Unless the Senator's amendment is successful, what is going to happen 
to these teachers who have been effectively hired with the 
understanding that they are going to have the responsibility of 
teaching children in smaller class sizes?
  We are now in the summertime. What sort of message does this send to 
school boards, to teachers, and particularly to parents who may be 
looking forward to their child staying in a smaller class size in the 
next year, if the Murray amendment is not accepted?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I respond to the Senator from 
Massachusetts by reminding my colleagues that I formerly served on a 
school board. I can tell you what you do in the months of June and 
July. You hire teachers and renew contracts. School districts out there 
that have used the Federal dollars that we have provided them for the 
last 2 years have hired those teachers and they now have to make a 
commitment to continue.
  For example, the Takoma School District in my home State of 
Washington used the class size dollars to reduce class sizes of 58 
first grade classrooms. In that school district, they now have 15 
students in those classrooms. It has made a tremendous difference. But 
they have hired these additional teachers, and they are now looking at 
the underlying bill that we have which says to them that this is now 
going to be a block grant with no guarantee that this money will go to 
the most needy 80 percent of the schools. Under the block grant 
program, they are going to lose some of the money in their districts 
for these teachers. They, therefore, right now can't make a commitment 
to these teachers that they will be able to hire them again in 
September.
  This sends a very bad message to local school boards across the 
country that have hired teachers. And school boards are not going to be 
able to make the commitment that they need to make. That is why this 
amendment is so important. It will send a message today--right now, 
almost at the end of June--that they can make a commitment to those 
teachers.
  Being a teacher right now is extremely difficult, as the Senator from 
Massachusetts well knows. Most teachers aren't paid well. They have 
trouble staying in schools because of the many challenges that are 
there already with this kind of uncertainty: Well, we might be able to 
hire you. You have to wait and see what Congress does in a couple of 
months because they haven't given us a commitment. We are not sure you 
are going to be able to go back. If I were a teacher in those 
circumstances, I would be out finding another job immediately. These 
teachers have to put food on the table, pay their rent, and they have 
all the expenses

[[Page S5861]]

the rest of us have. They can't live in an uncertain job market such as 
this.
  We have a responsibility to tell them the truth and to tell them what 
we are doing. By passing the underlying amendment today, we will send a 
message to those school boards that they can give a commitment to those 
teachers, and those teachers will know where they will be in September. 
Without passage of this amendment, I guarantee you that we are going to 
be in a budget debate in October where we are going to be having the 
President say he will veto the budget without this. And we will be 
making a decision in October that we could very easily and simply make 
today.
  That is why this amendment is so important.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Who loses out, if that is the case?
  Mrs. MURRAY. First of all, our students, because they won't have the 
opportunity to be in a small class to which we committed.
  I know parents today with kids in kindergarten who maybe had an older 
child in first or second grade, because of reduced class sizes, have 
called, saying: Please, my second child is on the way. For my first 
child, it has made such a difference in their life, being in a smaller 
class size. Make sure my second child coming behind them has the same 
opportunity.
  That is what we are talking about today. So kids in these classrooms 
can read, learn, write, have an adult who has the time to pay attention 
to them. That is what this amendment guarantees to students in this 
country.
  I have taught before. I know what it is to have too many kids in your 
classroom, especially in today's overcrowded classrooms across this 
country. Kids come with all kinds of problems that many professionals 
did not experience when we were in classrooms many years ago. In my 
classroom, I had an experience sitting with 24 4-year-old kids talking 
about the ABCs. When I called on one child, he looked directly at me 
and said: My dad did not come home last night; the police arrested him.
  I didn't have the time to stop and deal with a child who certainly 
was in a traumatic situation because I was going to lose the attention 
and the ability to discipline 23 other kids immediately.
  With a class size of 15, and a child coming to the classroom with 
traumatic problems, the teacher will have the time to sit down and deal 
with that child.
  I wonder what happened to that 4-year-old. That was several years 
ago. I wonder what happened to him. If I had the time to deal with him, 
he would probably be doing better today.
  We have a responsibility, for so many reasons, to continue this 
funding. The most important reason is because of the kids.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have heard the Senator from Washington tell that story 
on other occasions, but I find it as powerful and as important hearing 
it again.
  Does the Senator remember the first time the Class Size Reduction 
Amendment was accepted, and later it was promoted as one of the major 
achievements by the Republican Policy Committee? It was achievement No. 
13: Teacher Quality Initiative. It mentions the $1.2 billion additional 
funds to school districts, returned to local schools for smaller class 
sizes. Then Mr. Goodling said:
  This is a real victory for the Republican Congress, but more 
importantly, it is a huge win for local educators and parents who are 
fed up with Washington mandates, red tape and regulation. We agree with 
the President's desire to help classroom teachers, but our proposal 
does not create big, new federal education programs. Rather our 
proposal will drive dollars directly to the classroom and gives local 
educators more options for spending federal funds to help disadvantaged 
children.
  Mr. Gingrich called it, ``a victory for the American people. There 
would be more teachers and that is good for Americans.'' Mr. Armey said 
the same.
  At one time, there was very strong support. The only thing that 
happened in the meantime is the record has demonstrated that it is even 
more effective than we could have imagined.
  I am hopeful this Senate will go on record in support of the Murray 
amendment. I am also hopeful it will support the Bingaman amendment on 
accountability. We spent a great deal of time on that issue. It is 
enormously compelling. The most recent GAO studies indicate the reasons 
that should be supported. I hope we will support the Wellstone 
amendment to make sure we provide resources. At a time when we have the 
record surpluses in this country, it seems to me we ought to be able to 
use some resources to reach out, help, and assist children who would 
otherwise be eligible if there were those resources, and give them a 
good start from an education point of view.

  I thank the Senator from Washington for bringing this matter before 
the Senate. I hope we will have a strong vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his 
questions, comments, and support. I, too, am surprised our Republican 
colleagues, who took full credit for this several years ago when we 
began it, sending out press releases touting it, don't understand this 
issue is still as powerful.
  I have talked to many of my colleagues who have gone home to their 
States and visited classrooms where Federal dollars were used to reduce 
class size. The accolades received from the kids, the parents, the 
teachers, the people who work with the kids are tremendous.
  I offer to my colleagues on the other side, who have consistently 
voted against this, if Members want to have a good experience, vote for 
this amendment, go home to a classroom and talk to the kids, the 
parents, and the teachers who have been directly impacted. You will see 
some of the good that comes from voting on an amendment such as this.
  I see the Senator from Minnesota is on the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  I ask one question so the Senator can finish a very moving 
presentation. When I am in schools, which is every 2 weeks, I always 
have a discussion with the students about education, and I ask them 
what makes for good education. They talk about good teachers, and they 
talk about smaller class size. I ask my colleague, Is that the 
experience the Senator has?
  This is an amendment for all Senators who spend time in schools with 
kids in their States because I deal with students over and over again. 
This is what we need; does the Senator hear the same thing?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely correct. We 
hear from teachers, students, and parents: Smaller class sizes are 
critical, schools need to be safe, up to date, up to code, and teachers 
who are trained and qualified and able to be in the classroom. Those 
are the top three changes parents request.
  Mr. President, I remind my colleagues how critical this issue is, and 
I ask for their help and support when this issue comes up.


                           Amendment No. 3631

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes of debate equally divided 
prior to the vote at 5 o'clock.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there are 4 minutes equally divided on 
the Wellstone amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my amendment simply says we take the 
title I and move the appropriation up from $8.36 billion to $10 
billion.
  Our committee, the HELP committee, authorized the full $15 million 
for the title I program. Title I money is used for additional help for 
kids in reading, for afterschool programs, for prekindergarten 
programs, for professional development. This is a program which helps 
especially low-income children throughout the country. This is a 
program in which the last half decade has made a difference.
  As I said earlier, it is not Heaven on Earth, but it is a better 
Earth on Earth. We provide more help for kids. This is a very important 
program. I say to my colleague from Washington, again, if you go to 
your school districts and schools and talk to teachers and parents, 
they all say they need more help right now. This program is funded at 
about a 30-percent level. Many more children all across the country 
could be helped by this program if we were willing to make this 
investment.
  I said it earlier; I will say it a final time. Vote for additional 
help for these

[[Page S5862]]

kids, mainly the younger children, not because it makes them more 
productive--it will; not because it prevents them from dropping out of 
school--it will help; not because it makes a difference in terms of not 
dropping out of school or winding up in prison--that is true. Vote for 
it because the vast majority of them are under 4 feet tall. They are 
all beautiful and we ought to be nice to them. We ought to be able to 
provide them with some more assistance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. A point of order has been raised against this amendment 
because the bill already contains an $8.3 billion increase for this 
function. The bill also increases the title 1 program by $394 million 
over the current fiscal year level.
  These provisions in the Senator's amendment are in violation of the 
Budget Act. We have raised a point of order reluctantly, but this bill 
is at its level under the budget resolution. We must object to the 
Senator's amendment on the basis that it does violate the Budget Act. I 
raise that point of order.
  Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act.
  The legislative clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.--
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--52

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). On this vote, the yeas 
are 47, the nays are 52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The 
point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the next 
two votes, if there are two votes, the time for each vote be 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3649

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, is the Bingaman amendment in order? What is 
the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bingaman amendment. There are 4 minutes 
equally divided.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am ready to yield back our time if 
Senator Bingaman is ready to yield back his time.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3649

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I understand the next order of business 
is the amendment I offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is a 
straightforward amendment to add $250 million to the title I part of 
the bill and provide that that funding has to be spent to ensure 
accountability in the expenditure of the remaining nearly $9 billion.
  One of the problems we have had in the past--and it has been referred 
to by many Senators--is that we haven't had funds available to States 
and local school districts to ensure that title I funds are spent to 
accomplish their purposes. We need to enable States to assist failing 
schools. They have not been doing that effectively. The Council of 
Chief State School Officers supports this. I have a letter from them 
that I have printed in the Record.
  Last year, we put $134 million into this effort on this exact bill. 
This year, the President has requested we put $250 million into it. 
That is what my amendment proposes to do. Otherwise, current law limits 
them to one-half of 1 percent of the title I funds. They cannot ensure 
accountability unless we add this amendment. For that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as the Senator has mentioned, this is $250 
million of additional funds that exceeds the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation.
  I yield back the remainder of our time, if the Senator from New 
Mexico is ready to yield back.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I make a point of order that under 
subsection 302(f) of the Budget Act, as amended, the effect of adopting 
the amendment provides budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's 
302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 2001 concurrent resolution on 
the budget and is not in order.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget 
Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act for 
consideration of the pending amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in 
relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 3649. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Will Senators please take their conversations out of the Chamber.

[[Page S5863]]

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that the well be cleared.
  That includes everyone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Everyone will clear the well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49; the nays are 
50. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.


                           Amendment No. 3604

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 4 minutes equally divided on the 
Murray amendment.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment we are now going to vote on 
simply continues our commitment to reduce class sizes for the first 
through the third grades across this country. Because of the work we 
have done in the past day, 1.7 million children are in smaller class 
sizes.
  We have a commitment. We should keep our commitment to continue to 
reduce class size. The underlying bill simply block grants the money. 
That will hurt our neediest and most disadvantaged students who will 
lose under that kind of proposal.
  School boards are meeting today to determine who they will keep as 
teachers and whether they will be able to make a commitment in the 
hiring of teachers.
  We should make this decision now so those school boards can make the 
decisions for the coming school year rather than once again negotiating 
this in October when the President has said he will veto a bill that 
does not keep the commitment to reduce class size.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment today and prevent 
school boards across the country from having to wonder all summer long 
if we are going to keep our commitment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this bill accommodates the President's 
request for $1.4 billion for class size reduction. It is joined with 
$1.3 billion for school construction, trying to structure a bill which 
could be signed. But we leave, in the final analysis, the judgment to 
the local boards as to whether the local boards decide that they do not 
need construction or if they do not need class size reduction.
  That is what is objected to by the Senator from Washington. We have 
gone more than halfway to meet the President in putting up this money.
  In addition, the Murray amendment would add $350 million, which 
exceeds our allocation. We think we are stretching and stretching and 
stretching. If the President is going to veto this bill, then let him 
do so. We expect to present this bill to him long before the end of the 
fiscal year, and then we will debate it before the American public.
  I make a point of order that the amendment violates section 302(f) of 
the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections 
of that act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in 
relation to the Murray amendment No. 3604. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is 
necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 44, the nays are 
55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
as in morning business for no longer than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I don't 
want to object to my friend doing his 10 minutes--I would like to know 
what we are doing on the bill. I hope we will have some information so 
Senators will know whether we are going to go ahead and debate this and 
have amendments tonight or not, on our bill.
  I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Shelby pertaining to the introduction of S. 2801 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the rejection of the last motion to waive, 
I think, was a wise action on the part of the Senate. I am here 
primarily to congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania for the way in 
which he has dealt with the challenge of education in this bill. More 
than $40 billion for education is a very substantial increase over the 
current year.
  That is more than a $1 billion increase in special education 
programs, at least moving us one step further toward the promise of 40-
percent funding of the cost of special education to the school 
districts of the United States.
  In my view, the centerpiece of this bill is in its expression of 
trust and confidence in our local school authorities, our parents, our 
teachers, our principals, our superintendents, our elected school board 
members, a trust and confidence expressed in a more than $3 billion 
appropriation for title VI, the innovative education program 
strategies.
  The last amendment would have taken roughly half of that amount of 
money and mandated that it go solely for additional teachers in the 
first three grades. Title VI, as it appears in this bill, says in 
effect our school districts--the men and women who know our children's 
names--are better suited to make the decisions in 17,000 separate 
school districts about what can most improve the quality of education 
for their children. As such, we are far better off passing the bill as 
the Senator from Pennsylvania has written it than we would be in 
including more mandates in this bill.
  There are at least two outside experts who agree with that 
proposition. One comes in an interesting paper by Andy Rotherham at the 
Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership 
Council. He now, incidentally, works for President Clinton. He wrote a 
little bit more than a year ago:

       President Clinton's $1.2 billion class-size reduction 
     initiative, passed in 1998, illustrates Washington's 
     obsession with means at the expense of results and also the 
     triumph of symbolism over sound policy. The goal of raising 
     student achievement is reasonable and essential; however, 
     mandating localities do it by reducing class sizes precludes 
     local decision-making and unnecessarily involves Washington 
     in local affairs.

  In my own State, the Legislative Audit and Review Committee came to 
this conclusion:


[[Page S5864]]


       An analysis of 60 well-designed studies found that 
     increased teacher education, teacher experience and teacher 
     salaries all had a greater impact on student test scores per 
     dollar spent than did lowering the student-teacher ratio. 
     According to one researcher, ``Teachers who know a lot about 
     teaching and learning and who work in settings that allow 
     them to know their students well are the critical elements of 
     successful learning.'' Given limited funds to invest, this 
     research suggests considering efforts to improve teacher 
     access to high quality professional development. A recent 
     national survey of teachers found that many do not feel well 
     prepared to face future teaching challenges, including 
     increasing technological changes and greater diversity in the 
     classroom.
       The legislature's--

  In this case, Washington--

       approach to funding K-12 education is consistent. . . . The 
     legislature has provided additional funding for teacher 
     salaries, staff development, and smaller classes, with more 
     funding going to support teachers and less for reducing the 
     student-teacher ratio.

  The point is that reducing class size is not a bad option. It is a 
good option. I think we can all agree that it is one good thing for 
students. It is best done, however, when the decision about whether or 
not to do it and how it is to be accomplished is made in local 
communities and not in Washington, DC.

  Even that proposal pales in comparison with the now platform of the 
Vice President of the United States. He calls for a massive Federal 
effort from recruiting to setting teaching standards in a sense that 
will make the Federal Government clearly a national school board. 
Teachers who please Washington, DC, bureaucrats will get bonuses. Those 
who do not do so will risk being fired.
  The only thing bold about that initiative is that he has no qualms in 
taking over each and every one of the 17,000 school districts in the 
United States. If he becomes our President, education policy will 
undergo a significant shift. Local community school boards and teachers 
will be shut out of the process.
  What we are doing in this bill is moving significantly in the right 
direction. There is little disagreement over the necessity of a 
significant Federal contribution to education. It is only about 7 
percent of the money we have spent, but it is the persistent drive of 
this administration and of this Department of Education to increase to 
well over 50 percent the rules and regulations governing our schools 
that accompany that 7 percent.
  This bill takes a dramatic step in a far better direction, a 
direction in which the support from the Congress is generous, but the 
trust of the Congress in the ability of school boards, teachers, 
principals, and superintendents to make decisions about our education 
is vastly increased all to the benefit of our children's education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, there are a couple of Senators who are 
reviewing language, and I hope we can enter into this unanimous consent 
agreement momentarily. While we are waiting on that, I will outline 
what we have worked out.
  We have an agreement that I believe will satisfy all the Senators 
involved.
  The Smith amendment will be modified with changes that are at the 
desk. Then it will be in order for Senators Hatch and Leahy to offer a 
second-degree amendment to the pending McCain amendment No. 3610. I 
believe Senator Specter will be prepared to do that on behalf of 
Senator Hatch. Then there will be 10 minutes equally divided for debate 
relative to the first- and second-degree amendments. I believe that 
will be McCain and Hatch. Then we will ask the amendments be laid 
aside, and the Santorum amendment will recur, with the time between 
that time, which will be about 6:30 p.m., I presume, and 7 o'clock to 
be equally divided between the Senators who are interested--Senator 
McCain and Senator Santorum--and we will have two voice votes on the 
Smith issue and then two votes back to back on McCain and then 
Santorum.
  That is the outline of what we will do. We will have two recorded 
votes then at 7 o'clock. I am prepared to offer that unanimous consent 
request at this time.
  I will read the unanimous consent request. I believe Senator Smith 
will be here in a moment.


                    Amendment No. 3628, As Modified

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Smith 
amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk and, 
further, the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3628), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:
       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     ``SEC.  . FETAL TISSUE.

       The General accounting Office shall conduct a comprehensive 
     study into Federal involvement in the use of fetal tissue, 
     for research purposes within the scope of this bill, be 
     completed by September 1, 2000. The study shall include but 
     not be limited to--
       (a) The annual number of orders for fetal tissue filed in 
     conjunction with Federally funded fetal tissue research or 
     programs over the last 3 years;
       (b) the costs associated with the procurement, 
     dissemination, and other use of fetal tissue, including but 
     not limited to the cots associated with the processing, 
     transportation, preservation, quality control, and storage, 
     of such tissue;
       (c) The manner in which Federal agencies ensure that 
     intramural and extramural research facilities and their 
     employees comply with Federal fetal tissue law;
       (d) The number of fetal tissue procurement contractors and 
     tissue resource sources, or other entities or individuals 
     that are used to obtain, transport, process, preserve, or 
     store fetal tissue, which receive Federal funds and the 
     quantity, form, and nature of the services provided, and the 
     amount of Federal funds received by such entities;
       (e) The number and identity of all Federal agencies, within 
     the scope of this bill, expending or exchanging Federal funds 
     in connection with obtaining or processing fetal tissue or 
     the conduct of research using such tissue;
       (f) The extent to which Federal fetal tissue procurement 
     policies and guidelines adhere to Federal law;
       (g) The criteria that Federal fetal tissue research 
     facilities use for selecting their fetal tissue sources, and 
     the manner in which the facilities ensure that such sources 
     comply with Federal law.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for Senators Hatch and Leahy to offer a second-degree amendment to the 
pending McCain amendment No. 3610; that there be 10 minutes equally 
divided for debate concurrently relative to the first- and second-
degree amendments. I further ask unanimous consent that the amendments 
then be laid aside and that the Santorum amendment recur, with the time 
between then and 7 p.m. equally divided, with no second-degree 
amendments in order prior to the vote in relation to that amendment.
  I also ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relation to the Hatch-Leahy second-degree amendment at 7 p.m. this 
evening, and following that vote, the Senate proceed to a vote in 
relation to the McCain amendment, as amended, if amended, to be 
followed by a vote relative to the Santorum amendment, with 4 minutes 
prior to each vote for explanation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, do 
I understand correctly, I ask my friend from Mississippi, that on the 
Hatch-Leahy amendment, somewhere within the agreement there is time on 
that?
  Mr. LOTT. Right.
  Mr. LEAHY. Some of that time is time for the Senator from Vermont?
  Mr. LOTT. I believe we have 10 minutes that would be equally divided 
on that.
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. So the Senator would have 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is fine. Plain enough.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection, and, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I believe we are ready to 
proceed.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if I might ask the leader, so everyone 
knows, what we are facing are three recorded votes beginning at 7 
o'clock; is that correct?
  Mr. McCAIN. Two.
  Mr. HARKIN. We have two recorded votes, one on McCain and one on 
Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Utah.


                Amendment No. 3653 To Amendment No. 3610

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S5865]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself and Mr. 
     Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 3653 to amendment 
     numbered 3610.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Insert at the end the following:

     SEC.   . PROVISION OF INTERNET FILTERING OR SCREENING 
                   SOFTWARE BY CERTAIN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.

       (a) Requirement To Provide.--Each Internet service provider 
     shall at the time of entering an agreement with a residential 
     customer for the provision of Internet access services, 
     provide to such customer, either at no fee or at a fee not in 
     excess of the amount specified in subsection (c), computer 
     software or other filtering or blocking system that allows 
     the customer to prevent the access of minors to material on 
     the Internet.
       (b) Surveys of Provision of Software or Systems.--
       (1) Surveys.--The Office of Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice and the 
     Federal Trade Commission shall jointly conduct surveys of the 
     extent to which Internet service providers are providing 
     computer software or systems described in subsection (a) to 
     their subscribers. In performing such surveys, neither the 
     Department nor the Commission shall collect personally 
     identifiable information of subscribers of the Internet 
     service providers.
       (2) Frequency.--The surveys required by paragraph (1) shall 
     be completed as follows:
       (A) One shall be completed not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) One shall be completed not later than two years after 
     that date.
       (C) One shall be completed not later than three years after 
     that date.
       (c) Fees.--The fee, if any, charged and collected by an 
     Internet service provider for providing computer software or 
     a system described in subsection (a) to a residential 
     customer shall not exceed the amount equal to the cost of the 
     provider in providing the software or system to the 
     subscriber, including the cost of the software or system and 
     of any license required with respect to the software or 
     system.
       (d) Applicability.--The requirement described in subsection 
     (a) shall become effective only if--
       (1) 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Office and the Commission determine as a result of the survey 
     completed by the deadline in subsection (b)(2)(A) that less 
     than 75 percent of the total number of residential 
     subscribers of Internet service providers as of such deadline 
     are provided computer software or systems described in 
     subsection (a) by such providers;
       (2) 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Office and the Commission determine as a result of the survey 
     completed by the deadline in subsection (b)(2)(B) that less 
     than 85 percent of the total number of residential 
     subscribers of Internet service providers as of such deadline 
     are provided such software or systems by such providers; or
       (3) 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, if 
     the Office and the Commission determine as a result of the 
     survey completed by the deadline in subsection (b)(2)(C) that 
     less than 100 percent of the total number of residential 
     subscribers of Internet service providers as of such deadline 
     are provided such software or systems by such providers.
       (e) Internet Service Provider Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``Internet servicer provider'' means a service 
     provider as defined in section 512(k)(1)(A) of title 17, 
     United States Code, which has more than 50,000 subscribers.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment on behalf of 
Senator Leahy and myself. I believe this amendment is going to be 
accepted because it clarifies some matters that are very good.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this Hatch-Leahy amendment 
which is aimed at limiting the negative impact violence and indecent 
material on the Internet have on children.
  This amendment does not regulate content. Instead it encourages the 
larger Internet service providers to provide, either for free or at a 
fee not exceeding the cost to the service providers, filtering 
technologies that would empower parents to limit or block access of 
minors to unsuitable material on the Internet.
  We simply can not ignore the fact that the Internet has the ability 
to expose children to violent, sexually explicit and other 
inappropriate materials with no limits.
  A recent Time/CNN poll found that 75 percent of teens aged 13 to 17 
believe the Internet is partly responsible for crimes like the 
Columbine High School shooting.
  Our amendment respects the First Amendment of the Constitution by not 
regulating content, but ensures that parents will have the adequate 
technological tools to control the access of their children to 
unsuitable material on the Internet.
  I honestly believe that the Internet service providers who do not 
already provide filtering software to their subscribers will do so 
voluntarily. They will know it is in their best interests and that the 
market will demand it.
  A recent survey reported in the New York Times yesterday, found that 
almost a third of online American households with children use blocking 
software.
  In a study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of 
Pennsylvania, 60 percent of parents said they disagreed with the 
statement that the Internet was a safe place for their children.
  And according to yesterday's New York Times, after the shootings in 
Colorado, the demand for filtering technologies has dramatically 
increased. This indicates that parents are taking an active role in 
safeguarding their children on the Internet.
  That is what this amendment is about: using technology to empower the 
parent. I urge my colleagues' approval of the amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Leahy, who would like to 
speak on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I described this amendment earlier this 
morning on the floor. But for those who came in late, this is an 
amendment that Senator Hatch and I offered on the juvenile justice 
bill. You may recall when we voted on that, the vote was 100-0.
  It is a filtering proposal that leaves the solution on how best to 
protect children from inappropriate online materials accessible on 
computers in schools and libraries to the local school boards and 
communities.
  Anybody who spends any time on the Internet knows that there is 
inappropriate material for children on there. And oftentimes you might 
hit it accidentally.
  Having said that, we also know that you should not block out certain 
online material because somebody thinks that Mark Twain is 
inappropriate or they may believe that James Joyce is inappropriate, or 
other such things, or it may be even the paintings on the Sistine 
Chapel that some may believe are inappropriate because there are nude 
figures in there. You have to have some kind of balance.
  I think that local communities can do that. I know of libraries, for 
example, that put computers monitors that have Internet access right 
out in the main reading room. This is one form of blocking because 
there are not too many children who are going to be downloading wild, 
offensive things when they know their parents, their teachers, and the 
librarians are going to be walking back and forth and seeing it.
  As I explained earlier today, I have serious concerns with the McCain 
proposal to require schools and libraries to send certifications to the 
FCC about their installation of certain blocking software and the risk 
that the FCC will become a national censorship office, with the 
responsibility of both policing local enforcement of the Internet 
access policy and exacting punishment in the form of ordering E-rate 
discounts to stop and carriers be reimbursed.
  The Hatch-Leahy amendment would require large Internet service 
providers with more than 50,000 subscribers to provide residential 
customers, either for free or at low cost, software or other filtering 
systems that can protect them. It is relatively easy to do this.
  I would encourage parents, if this passes, to get that software and 
also spend some time seeing what their children are looking at on the 
Internet. This requirement on large Internet Service Providers would 
only become effective if surveys conducted jointly by the FTC and the 
Department of Justice demonstrate that voluntary efforts are not 
working.
  Senator McCain has worked very hard on this. I commend him for it.
  Any one of us who has young children has to worry about this. We also 
have to worry about what they are reading in the library or what they 
pick up at the corner bookstore or anything else.

[[Page S5866]]

  But before we reach a point where we assume we can be the parent of 
every child in this country, I think we ought to give to the parents 
the tools to use, and let them make the kind of judgments and show the 
kind of observation of their children that parents should, and that my 
parents did and that I do with my children.
  I think the reason the Hatch-Leahy amendment passed 100-0 earlier in 
the juvenile justice bill is because it is a reasonable compromise. It 
is a reasonable compromise. I hope it will be added on to this bill. I 
look forward to working with Senator McCain as this bill moves to 
conference to address the serious concerns I and others have with his 
proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time we have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy 
for this amendment. I think it is a very positive contribution. I think 
it is one that will again empower parents to be able to screen and 
filter information that their children may be receiving. It is 
something that I think will be very helpful to this bill, and I 
strongly support it.
  I know we have spent some time working out the details of this 
amendment. I think it is a very good one. I thank Senator Leahy and 
Senator Hatch for their involvement in this very important issue.
  I will urge, at the appropriate time, a voice vote and adoption of 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                     amendments nos. 3635 and 3610

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, are we now on the time for the McCain 
and Santorum amendments to be debated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask the Senator from Arizona if he wants to divide 
the remaining time in half. I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
equally divided, and that I control the time in support of my amendment 
and Senator McCain control the other time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, as I discussed very briefly today, I 
rise in support of what the Senator from Arizona is trying to 
accomplish. I think he was the first to bring this issue to the floor 
of the Senate. He is to be congratulated for that.
  He has a piece of legislation that has been out there for a couple of 
years and has fostered a lot of good thought and a lot of discussion as 
to what the best Federal policy should be in dealing with the problem 
of inappropriate use of the Internet at schools and libraries. His 
legislation actually led me to look further into it as constituents 
contacted me with respect to it. So let me say, from the outset, I 
congratulate the Senator from Arizona for his work and for his effort 
in this area.
  I have a little different approach I want to talk about today that I 
believe improves upon the base bill that Senator McCain came up with a 
couple of years ago. I have been working with a group of people, from 
the left to the right, if you will--from the Catholic Conference to the 
National Education Association, from the American Libraries Association 
to Dr. Laura Schlessinger. So I think our effort here covers the 
ideological spectrum pretty well and is a consensus that is built 
around one thing--that while Internet filtering software is a good 
idea, generally speaking, it is an imperfect tool to meet the real 
complicated needs of teachers, administrators, and librarians who have 
to deal with the Internet on a daily basis in their schools.
  I think the Catholic Conference put it best in their letter, actually 
to Senator McCain, which says that his legislation ``fails to include 
one of the most effective tools utilized by the vast majority of 
Catholic schools throughout our Nation, the Ethical Internet Use 
Policy''--in other words, a comprehensive policy at the school level to 
deal with not only access to sites that may be inappropriate on the 
Internet, which is what filtering gets to, but a variety of different 
things that are very important.
  For example, electronic mail. Unfortunately, we hear so many stories 
about people being contacted through electronic mail, chatrooms, that 
are if not as dangerous in some cases even more dangerous than the 
sites that may be accessed on the World Wide Web, where you have 
predators who are out there trying to grab the mind of a young person.
  Again, the attempt to do filtering software is helpful. But we have 
to have a policy developed at the community level that deals with 
things that go beyond these dangerous Internet sites, such as the 
electronic mail and chatrooms, and other kinds of direct electronic 
communication.
  Under this legislation, we require that a policy be developed at the 
local level with respect to unauthorized use of minors, such as 
hacking, another area which is of grave concern not just for the minors 
themselves but for the user community at large, and a policy with 
respect to the dissemination of personal information of the minor. 
These minors log on. They have personal information in there. There 
needs to be a policy to take care of that.
  What our legislation simply does is--it would actually amend the 
McCain amendment, although not formally here in the Senate--say that 
you must have a local policy that includes, No. 1, at least, public 
hearing and notice requirements, a public hearing where the community 
gets together and, at the community level, we come up with an Internet 
policy that has to meet these certain criteria. In other words, we 
don't say how they do it, but that, in fact, they have policies that 
address these broader concerns than just eliminating one particular 
Internet site or Internet sites. So it is, in fact, a requirement to 
develop a local policy.
  If they choose not to do that, then the McCain language becomes 
operative. You must buy filtering software. We don't require filtering 
software. Even the Senator from Arizona has admitted there are 90-some 
titles out there--some are good; some are not. His legislation doesn't 
direct you to have buy a good one; you just have to buy one. It is 
certainly not the most comprehensive way of dealing with it. In fact, 
it may be a way that creates a false sense of security that you are 
dealing with problems, and it may actually reduce the amount of 
oversight that should be present in schools and at public libraries.
  Again, I compliment the Senator, but we need to take one step 
further. Given the problems we have seen develop through chatrooms, 
through e-mail, through hackers, and through dissemination of 
information about minors, to do it at the local level is the best way 
to accomplish this with the fallback hammer, if you will, of the McCain 
underlying requirement to buy filtering software.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. It does provide for schools and libraries to deploy 
blocking or filtering technology. The amendment provides what is 
essentially a status quo loophole.
  The Senator's amendment would allow schools and libraries the option 
of implementing an acceptable use policy. Schools and libraries are 
free to do this today. Papers are full of reports of young children 
surfing foreign libraries in school and being innocently exposed to 
pornography downloaded by adults and left on a computer screen for 
children to see.
  It is interesting to note that the American Library Association, an 
outspoken advocate for the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
is adamantly opposed to use of filters or any other type of protection 
for children.
  In 1997, the American Library Association passed a resolution against 
filtering Internet pornography out of public libraries. The ALA's 
interpretation of their resolution contained in their library bill of 
rights states that the rights of users who are minors shall in no way 
be abridged. According to Judith Krug, director of ALA's Office of 
Intellectual Freedom:

       Blocking material leads to censorship. That goes for 
     pornography and bestiality, too. If you don't like it, don't 
     look at it.

  Ms. Krug goes on to discuss the concerns of parents about their 
children viewing pornography on library computers:

       If you don't want your children to access information, you 
     had better be with your children when they use a computer.


[[Page S5867]]


  That would be very interesting information to working mothers all 
over America as well as working fathers. I guess this is the ALA's 
concept of an acceptable use policy: Parents beware.

  The Santorum amendment does nothing about adult computer use in 
libraries. This amendment would require libraries to block or filter 
access to child pornography. I want to describe what my bill does as 
far as local control is concerned. It requires that schools and 
libraries must block or filter children's access to child pornography 
and obscene material. Further, libraries must block adult access to 
child pornography on all computers. Why? Because we know that neither 
category, child pornography nor obscene material, enjoys protection 
under the first amendment. The Supreme Court has decided that on 
several occasions.
  Though the bill is clear on what sort of material must be blocked, 
local authorities are given complete authority to select the type of 
software they deem to be appropriate. Further, local authorities are 
given unfettered authority to determine what material can constitute 
child pornography and obscenity. Under this legislation, the Federal 
Government is expressly prohibited from interfering in the process of 
local control. Schools and libraries are simply required to certify to 
the FCC they have a technology in place and are using such technology 
in coordination with the locally developed policy designed to achieve 
the goals of the Children's Internet Protection Act. Schools and 
libraries are required to make their blocking and filtering policies 
publicly available so that parents, patrons, and citizens can 
scrutinize the policies and work with local authorities to ensure they 
reflect contemporary community standards.
  Again, parents beware of the status quo loophole contained in the 
Santorum amendment. It is big enough for every pornographer, pedophile, 
and hate group in America to drive a truck through.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania has criticized my amendment with the 
claim that my amendment does nothing to address chatrooms. The Senator 
is mistaken. First, schools and libraries are granted the unfettered 
authority to block access to any material they determine to be 
inappropriate for minors. Clearly, this would provide them with the 
ability to restrict kids' access to chatrooms or any other realm of the 
Internet. Despite claims to the contrary, blocking and filtering 
software does restrict such access. The state-of-the-art technology 
clearly is capable of blocking such access. Filtering software would 
restrict any communication based off keyword restrictions.
  I could go on, but I will wrap things up with a letter signed by 
virtually every major pro-family group. I ask unanimous consent this 
letter, dated June 22, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                  American Family Association,

                             Washington, DC Office, June 22, 2000.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Russell Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: We strongly oppose the Neighborhood 
     Children's Internet Protection Act, S. 1545, which we believe 
     would be an ineffective tool to protect children from 
     Internet pornography in schools and public libraries. The 
     bill offers schools and libraries the option of either 
     blocking pornography or implementing an Internet use policy. 
     It is this option that troubles us. Schools and libraries 
     have that option today and, sadly, most have chosen to allow 
     children access even to illegal pornography, such as 
     obscenity and child pornography. Under S. 1545, we presume 
     those schools and libraries would maintain the status quo.
       It also must be noted that the Neighborhood Children's 
     Internet Protection Act only addresses use of computers by 
     children. A major problem, particularly in libraries, is the 
     use of computers by adults to access illegal pornography. For 
     example, pedophiles are accessing child pornography on 
     library computers and some are even molesting children in 
     those libraries. Yet, S. 1545 does not address this matter.
       While we believe that the author of this bill, Senator Rick 
     Santorum (R-PA), has the best of intentions, his bill will 
     not provide an effective solution to the problem of 
     pornography in schools and public libraries.

     American Family Association
     Family Research Council
     National Law Cntr. for Children & Families
     Traditional Values Coalition
     Morality in Media
     Family Friendly Libraries
     Citizens for Community Values, OH
     Family Policy Network, VA
     Christian Action League, NC
     Family Association of Minnesota
     American Family Assoc., OH
     American Family Assoc., MI
     American Family Assoc., KY
     American Family Assoc., PA
     American Family Assoc., TX
     American Family Assoc., AR
     American Family Assoc., MS
     American Family Assoc., NJ
     American Family Assoc., AL
     American Family Assoc., GA
     American Family Assoc., MO
     American Family Assoc., CO
     American Family Assoc., OR
     American Family Assoc., IA
     American Family Assoc., IN
     American Family Assoc., NY

  Mr. McCAIN. Reading from the letter:

       Senator McCain: We strongly oppose the Neighborhood 
     Children's Internet Protection Act which we believe would be 
     an ineffective tool to protect children from Internet 
     pornography in schools and public libraries. The bill offers 
     schools and libraries the option of either blocking 
     pornography or implementing an Internet use policy. It is 
     this option that troubles us. Schools and libraries have that 
     option today and, sadly, most have chosen to allow children 
     access even to illegal pornography, such as obscenity and 
     child pornography. Under S. 1545, we presume these schools 
     and libraries would maintain the status quo.
       It also must be noted that the Children's Internet 
     Protection Act only addresses use of computers by children. A 
     major problem, particularly in libraries, is the use of 
     computers by adults to access illegal pornography. For 
     example, pedophiles are accessing child pornography on 
     library computers and some are even molesting children in 
     these libraries. Yet, S. 1545 does not address this matter.
       While we believe that the author of this bill, Senator Rick 
     Santorum (R-PA), has the best of intentions, his bill will 
     not provide an effective solution to the problem of 
     pornography in schools and public libraries.

  That is signed by a large group of people, including the American 
Family Association, Family Research Council, National Law Center for 
Children and Families, Traditional Values Coalition, et cetera.
  On the other side, the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
supported by the American Library Association. On that note, I will 
read very briefly from an editorial contained in the January 14, 2000, 
Wall Street Journal:

       Maybe blocking software is not the solution. We do know, 
     however, that there are answers for those interested in 
     finding them, answers that are technologically possible, 
     constitutionally sound and eminently sane. After all, when it 
     comes to print, librarians have no problem discriminating 
     against Hustler in favor of House & Garden. Indeed, to 
     dramatize the ALA's inconsistency regarding adult content in 
     print and online, blocking software advocate David Burt three 
     years ago announced ``The Hustler Challenge''--a standing 
     offer to pay for a year's subscription to Hustler for any 
     library that wanted one. Needless to say, there haven't been 
     any takers.
       Our guess is that this is precisely what Leonard Kniffel, 
     the editor of the ALA journal American Libraries, was getting 
     at last fall when he asked in an editorial: ``What is 
     preventing this Association . . . from coming out with a 
     public statement denouncing children's access to pornography 
     and offering 700+ ways to fight it?''
       Good question. And we'll learn this weekend whether the ALA 
     hierarchy believes it worthy of an answer.

  The ALA hierarchy met, and obviously they seemed to defend what I 
believe is an indefensible position.
  I hope we will defeat the Santorum amendment. I reserve the remainder 
of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in response to the critique of the 
Senator from Arizona who says ours is really status quo and this is a 
large loophole, it is not status quo. No. 1, it is not required under 
law today; we require a public notice and a public hearing and a policy 
to be formulated at the local level that addresses inappropriate matter 
on the Internet, the World Wide Web, electronic mail, chatrooms, and 
other forms of direct electronic communication, such as hacking and 
other unlawful activities by monitors, and any other kind of 
dissemination of personal identification information regarding minors.
  That is not current law. The review body is the same review body in 
his legislation, the FCC. He requires a filtering software to be 
purchased, and you have to certify that with the FCC. We say that you 
have to implement a

[[Page S5868]]

policy, have public hearings and meetings, and you have to submit that 
policy to the FCC for them to review to ensure that you have covered 
the areas that we require. That is not status quo.
  He may not agree that decision should be made at the local level, and 
I accept that. I think we have an honest philosophical disagreement on 
whether we should have a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate that you 
have to buy filtering software. By the way, that filtering software may 
cover chatrooms; it may not. That is called monitoring software. There 
is no requirement for monitoring software to be covered for this, just 
filtering software. Some filtering software is better than others; some 
is comprehensive, some is not, and some is older. There is no 
requirement as to what software and how good it is that needs to be 
purchased under the McCain legislation.
  What we say is that we believe this is best implemented at the local 
level. If you read from the Catholic Conference--and the Senator from 
Arizona suggested that all the profamily groups were supporting his 
legislation. I think the Catholic Conference can stand up as a 
profamily group, and they don't support the McCain legislation; they 
support ours. I think one of you who are Dr. Laura Schlessinger 
listeners know that she has been outspoken on the issue of Internet 
pornography and has been leading a campaign on that issue. She has been 
working with us and she supports the idea of having local communities 
have public hearings and notices so parents know they can have input so 
that we can raise the visibility of the issue at the local level in 
dealing with a variety of issues, not just a simple filtering software 
mandated by Washington, DC.
  So it is a one-size-fits-all, and I believe incomplete, solution. Do 
you trust the local schools and do you trust the local communities to 
come up with a standard that meets the needs of that community? That is 
much more comprehensive by definition--it has to be--than the filtering 
software alternative being offered by Senator McCain. I just suggest, 
and historically I have supported--particularly in the area of 
education--local communities making those decisions for themselves, as 
opposed to a Federal mandate from Washington, DC.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want the Record to be clear that the 
Catholic Conference is not in opposition to this legislation. Here is 
the problem contained in the report ``Filtering Facts,'' which is a 
very deep, detailed analysis of this problem that we are facing.
  On page 8 is a chapter entitled ``Adults Accessing Child Pornography: 
20 Incidents'':

       There were 20 incidents of adults accessing child 
     pornography in public libraries. Child pornography is 
     different from other forms of pornography in that it is 
     absolutely illegal and, like drugs, is treated as contraband 
     by Federal law. Of particular concern is that many public 
     libraries employ policies that would seem to encourage the 
     illegal transmission of child pornography. Many public 
     libraries not only have privacy screens, but also destroy 
     patron sign-up sheets after use, and employ computer programs 
     that delete any trace of user activity. These policies make 
     it almost impossible for law enforcement to catch pedophiles 
     using public library Internet stations to download child 
     pornography. At the Multnomah County, OR, Public Library, and 
     the Los Angeles, CA, Public Library, pedophiles have taken 
     advantage of the anonymity to actually run child pornography 
     businesses using library computers 34 and 35.
       The staff at Anderson, IN, Public Library observed a 
     pedophile accessing child pornography on three separate 
     occasions: ``A customer who is known to frequent Internet 
     sites containing sexually explicit pictures of nude boys . . 
     . This is the third time this customer has been observed 
     engaging in this activity.'' Yet, the only appropriate action 
     the library saw fit was to ``highly recommend that he be 
     restricted from the building for a period of not less than 2 
     months.''
       One of the two incidents where the library actually 
     notified police occurred at the Lakewood, OH, Public Library. 
     In an account from the Akron Beacon Journal, ``But it was the 
     library more than the police and prosecutor that alarmed 
     Chris Link, executive director of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union of Ohio. Traditionally, librarians have 
     protected their records of lending activity to the point of 
     being subpoenaed or going to jail,'' she said. But now, she 
     said, ``Librarians are scrutinizing what it is you look at 
     and reporting you to the police.'' In the case of kiddie 
     porn, Link said, such scrutiny ``would seem to make sense'' 
     until it is viewed in light of the Government's history of 
     searches for socialists and communists or members of certain 
     student movements.
       The Callaway County, MO, Public Library even actively 
     resisted police efforts to investigate a patron accessing 
     child pornography. Library staff refused to cooperate, even 
     when issued subpoenas.

  Mr. President, the list goes on and on. There is a need for this kind 
of legislation to make sure that child pornography and forms of 
obscenity, which are clearly delineated by the U.S. Supreme Court and 
are beyond any constitutional protection, are made unavailable to 
children.
  Mr. President, this Santorum amendment would remove that very 
important provision of this legislation. I reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, in response to the Senator, we do not 
remove the requirement. We say that we would like to see the local 
community participate and develop a comprehensive policy. If they fail 
to do so, then they have to buy the filtering system. I have visited 
160 schools since I have been in office. Over the last year and a half, 
in particular, I have talked to a lot of school librarians and 
administrators about the Internet and Internet pornography. All of the 
ones I have talked to, when I discussed the legislation and the ideas--
in fact, some of this has come from the schools themselves throughout 
Pennsylvania. The ones who glow about their policy are the ones who 
have comprehensive policies.
  Yes, they have filtering software, but that is just a piece of a 
bigger puzzle. If you just rely on that piece, I think what you can do 
is create a false sense of security that you have solved the problem, 
particularly in community libraries. I argue that in requiring public 
hearings and notice and input, that will put a chilling effect on some 
of the librarians who Senator McCain referred to, who maybe are not as 
concerned about pornography as they should be, or not as concerned 
about chatrooms as they should be, or not as concerned about e-mails as 
they should be. But a public consciousness and the public input that 
will result from a community standard being applied to those people who 
work at these facilities is the answer to that--not a filtering 
software which is imprecise and, in cases of chatrooms, hacking, e-
mail, and a variety of other things, ineffective. It is not 
comprehensive. And so I agree.
  There is nobody who would like to see more protection from that than 
me. I have five little kids under the age of 10. So I understand the 
need and the concern. I come here as a father who is very concerned 
about the ability of children to be able to access sites they should 
not get to or communicate with people with whom they have no business 
communicating. But it is up to the community to take an interest in 
their children, to design a policy that is comprehensive, and this 
requires a comprehensive policy. By the way, if the librarians and 
those who run the libraries or the schools say they don't want to deal 
with this, then you have the McCain mandate. You will have the mandate 
that you have to buy the filtering software. So they can't avoid doing 
something. Again, the body that will oversee this is going to be the 
FCC, the same body the Senator from Arizona puts in place to oversee 
his requirement.
  So I believe what we have done is tried to build upon a positive 
step. Again, I congratulate the Senator from Arizona. He has been a 
leader in this problem. He has blazed the trail. I believe what we have 
offered is a constructive addition to his policy.
  I will step back on this point. The Senator from Arizona said the 
Catholic Conference doesn't oppose his bill. As I read it again, they 
did not oppose it, but they listed two pages of concerns about his 
policy. Then they wrote to us recently and talked about how they liked 
what we did. But I understand they are not in the business of opposing 
and supporting. Let me just say their intentions are clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hatch-Leahy 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3653) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

[[Page S5869]]

  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 3628, As Modified

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
be recognized for 4 minutes for the debate on the Smith amendment, 
which was agreed to. I was detained unavoidably in the car coming over 
here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I appreciate that many of 
my colleagues, I am sure, as I, have been stuck in the tram coming over 
here.
  I thank the managers who have worked so hard to resolve the amendment 
that I had on fetal tissue research. I know Senator Specter is opposed 
to illegal trafficking of fetal tissue. This amendment, I hope, will 
get some information on the Federal Government's policies in this 
regard.
  I look forward to reviewing the study that we have set up in this 
amendment that was agreed to. It is my hope that we can ensure that the 
spirit of the law is being adhered to when it comes to fetal tissue 
research.
  This amendment will set up a GAO study of the practice of fetal 
tissue transfer to determine whether or not any fetal tissue is 
transferred illegally for research purposes. The GAO will conduct a 
comprehensive study of Federal involvement in the use of fetal tissue 
for research purposes.
  I am pleased that my colleagues have seen fit to work with me to 
agree to this amendment. I look forward to receiving a report from the 
General Accounting Office in the very near future as to how much, if 
any, illegal trafficking is occurring in the area of fetal tissue.
  I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 3610, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. President, the question is on agreeing to 
McCain amendment No. 3610, as amended. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Feingold
     Kerrey
     Lautenberg

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 3610), as amended, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3635

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). There are 4 minutes equally 
divided on the Santorum amendment. Who seeks recognition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a vote in favor of the Santorum amendment 
will basically negate the amendment we just adopted because it will 
allow schools and libraries the option of either blocking pornography 
or implementing an Internet use policy--an Internet use policy is what 
they have now--nor does it require the filtering of child pornography 
and obscenity.
  I have a letter signed by various organizations, including the 
American Families Association, Family Research Council, and many other 
organizations. The final paragraph says:

       We believe the author of the bill, Senator Santorum, has 
     the best of intentions. His bill will not provide an 
     effective solution to the problem of pornography in schools 
     and public libraries.

  I agree with them. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree. My amendment is 
supported by groups on the left and the right and the middle: the NEA, 
the American Library Association, and the Catholic Conference.
  Senator McCain started the ball rolling. I give him credit for 
requiring Internet software. The fact is, that is not comprehensive 
enough and not locally generated. My amendment says we have to have 
public notice and a public meeting by the community, involving the 
library or the school, to develop a comprehensive Internet policy.
  Blocking software does not deal with chatrooms, e-mails, hacking, and 
dissemination of minor information over the Internet. It is good as far 
as it goes, but we need a comprehensive policy that is locally 
developed with community standards. If they choose not to do that, then 
they have to buy the software.
  We require a policy that deals with all of these four things I just 
mentioned and have public meetings and public notice to get the 
community involved.
  One of the big problems with use of the Internet is that parents and 
community leaders do not know what is going on with this little black 
box in the library or school. This requires public comment, it requires 
public notification, and public input in a process that desperately 
needs to be a public one and community standards need to be set.
  It is supported by a wide variety of organizations. Those of my 
colleagues who voted for the McCain amendment can also vote for this 
amendment and walk out with a clear conscience and see a much more 
comprehensive policy put in place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3635.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Helms
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Abraham
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Nickles
     Smith (NH)
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 3635) was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S5870]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are 
pending amendments before the body that are going to be taken up as 
soon as the Members arrive to offer them.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3658

(Purpose: To fund a coordinated national effort to prevent, detect, and 
educate the public concerning Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol 
     Effect and to identify effective interventions for children, 
 adolescents, and adults with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol 
                                Effect)

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk on behalf 
of Senators Daschle, Murkowski, Johnson, Wyden, Murray, Harkin, and 
Reid of Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), for himself, and Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Murray, 
     and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3658.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 27, line 4, insert before the colon the following: 
     ``, and of which $10,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended to carry out the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention 
     and services program.
       On page 34, line 13, insert before the colon the following: 
     ``, of which $15,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended to carry out the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome prevention 
     and services program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 3619

 (Purpose: To clarify that funds appropriated under this Act to carry 
  out innovative programs under section 6301(b) of the Elementary and 
  Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be available for same gender 
                                schools)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3619.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), for herself and 
     Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 3619:
       On page 59, line 12, before the period insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That funds made available 
     under this heading to carry out section 6301(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall be 
     available for education reform projects that provide same 
     gender schools and classrooms, consistent with applicable 
     law''.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly because I 
think we have agreement in a bipartisan effort on this amendment. I am 
very pleased that we will be able to offer this amendment and hopefully 
clarify some of the issues that have surrounded single-sex classrooms 
in schools for public education.
  As most people know, title VI is the part of our education funding 
that allows for new and innovative and creative approaches to public 
education. We have set aside money so school districts can come forward 
and say that their school districts need this particular type of 
emphasis. If it is creative, and it serves the needs of that particular 
school district, they can get Federal funding for those kinds of 
programs.
  One of the types of education that has been proven in certain 
instances to help the girls or boys who have participated are single-
sex schools and single-sex classrooms. Many parochial schools and 
private schools are single sex. There are girl schools and boy schools. 
Some parents want to have their children in that atmosphere because 
they believe that sometimes girls can excel if they don't have boys in 
the class and they are more willing to speak up. This has been shown in 
many instances to be the case. And the same is true particularly with 
adolescent boys where they have single-sex schools, and they are not 
diverted by having girls in the class. They do better in some 
circumstances.
  We are not saying that we prefer this approach. We are not saying 
that we mandate it. We are not even suggesting that it be done. We are 
saying that we want to have as many options for public school districts 
and students as we can possibly give them so that the local community 
and the parents can make the decision for the boys and girls who are 
attending those schools about what will give them the best chance to 
get the best education that they can get. Allowing them to have title 
VI funding for a single-sex school or single-sex classroom is one way 
to put one more option out there. That is what this amendment does.
  I am very pleased to have worked with Members on both sides of the 
aisle to try to clarify this situation because, in fact, we have 
several public schools that are single sex.
  The Young Women's Leadership Academy in East Harlem is a girls 
school. California has three girls schools and three boys schools. 
Western High in Baltimore is over 100 years old. It is a girls school. 
Philadelphia has a girls school that has been quite successful for 
many, many years.
  We say if this is an option that parents want to pursue, we want to 
have that option on the table. Parents may not be able to afford a 
private school or maybe they prefer public education. Let's give them 
another option among the many that we are seeing now in creative 
learning and better opportunities for the young people in a particular 
school district. That is what the amendment does.
  I have worked with Members on both sides of the aisle. I believe 
there is no opposition to this amendment. I am very pleased that is the 
case because if we can clarify this and if we can open more options for 
school districts to have to meet specific needs of students and their 
individual school districts, why not?
  That is what our Federal dollars should do--allow the decisions to be 
made at the local level with as many options as we can possibly give 
them.
  I appreciate the support of everyone in the Senate. I have worked 
with many Members of the Senate. Senator Collins is a cosponsor of this 
amendment. Senator Collins has been one of the strongest supporters of 
girls schools and classrooms and boys schools and classrooms of any 
Member of the Senate.
  I look forward to having our vote tomorrow. I hope, frankly, that it 
is unanimous.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 2553, the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and 
Related Agencies Appropriations bill for FY 2001.
  The bill provides $272.6 billion in new budget authority and $221.9 
billion in new outlays for the operations of the Departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education and numerous related federal 
agencies.
  I have concerns about $6.1 billion in mandatory offsets in the bill. 
These offsets are likely to be challenged on the floor in a way that 
could put the bill over the allocation. I am also concerned about the 
advanced appropriation for 2003 in the SCHIP program.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $335.0 
billion in budget authority and $330.7 billion in outlays. The bill is 
exactly at the Subcommittee's revised 302(b) allocation for both budget 
authority and outlays. The scoring of the bill reflects the adjustments 
agreed to in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 for Continuing Disability 
Reviews (CDRs) and adoption assistance.
  I commend the managers of the bill for their diligent work.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Senate Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

H.R. 4577, LABOR-HHS APPROPRIATIONS, 2001--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
                              REPORTED BILL
              [By fiscal year 2001, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            General
                                            purpose  Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority.......................    97,820    237,142   334,962
  Outlays................................    93,074    237,578  330,652
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.......................    97,820    237,142   334,962
  Outlays................................    93,074    237,578   330,652
2000 level:
  Budget authority.......................    86,151    233,459   319,610
  Outlays................................    86,270    233,644   319,914
President's request:
  Budget authority.......................   105,947    237,142   343,089
  Outlays................................    96,561    237,578   334,139
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.......................    96,837    237,142   333,979
  Outlays................................    92,590    237,578   330,168
 

[[Page S5871]]

 
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority.......................  ........  .........  ........
  Outlays................................  ........  .........  ........
2000 level:
  Budget authority.......................    11,669      3,683    15,352
  Outlays................................     6,804      3,934    10,738
President's request: \1\
  Budget authority.......................    -8,127  .........    -8,127
  Outlays................................    -3,487  .........    -3,487
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority.......................       983  .........       983
  Outlays................................       484  .........       484
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because the Senate-reported bill includes $5.8 billion in BA savings
  that offset the gross levels in the bill but that are not included in
  the President's budget, the comparison of the bill to the President's
  request overstates the difference by that amount.
 
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

    Social Services Block Grant program and State Children's Health 
                           Insurance Program

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleagues in 
support of restoring funds to cuts made in the Senate Labor, Health and 
Human Services appropriations bill to the Social Services Block Grant 
program. This block grant program serves millions of older Americans, 
children and people with disabilities across the nation. The funding 
helps states provide services that no one else will provide. The money 
keeps people independent. It keeps them out of nursing homes. It keeps 
them employed. These are not frivolous services. They are critical to 
the well-being of thousands of people.
  In my state of Iowa, more than 100,000 Iowans receive services under 
this block grant Polk County, including the city of Des Moines, gets 
this funding to transport developmentally disabled residents to doctor 
visits, physical therapy, employment, and day treatment. The county 
provides 56,000 of these trips each year. Under a funding cut, these 
rides could stop. Polk County's developmentally disabled residents 
would be on their own for transportation.
  Polk County also funds residential treatment for developmentally 
disabled and mentally ill residents. The treatment costs $75 a day. 
That helps people avoid nursing home stays. It makes sense, because no 
one wants to go to a nursing home, and the expense is large. Under a 
funding cut, the county could eliminate residential treatment for 34 
residents.
  Clay County is already having trouble providing placements for 
clients with mental health problems and developmental disabilities. The 
county has a waiting list for placements. Providers' fees have been 
frozen for over three years.
  I hope to spare any Iowans from more worry about this funding. It's a 
relief to hear assurances of complete funding of social services.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the 
remarks of several of my colleagues who spoke previously on several 
issues of importance to me and my home state of Texas with regard to 
provisions in the fiscal year 2001 Labor, HHS, and Education 
Appropriations bill.
  The bill as presently drafted would rescind important welfare funding 
to states under the program known as ``TANF'' (Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families). It would also cut the Social Services Block Grant 
(SSBG) program by $1.1 billion. Finally, the bill would threaten 
funding under the Children's Health Insurance (or ``CHIP'') Program.
  I was very pleased to hear Senator Stevens, the distinguished 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Roth, the 
distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, confirm on the floor 
today that they are committed to resolve these issues in favor of the 
states during the conference. I look forward to working with both 
Senator Stevens and Senator Roth to ensure that these issues are 
adequately addressed in that process.
  It is my understanding that the rescissions in TANF, CHIP, and SSBG 
funding in the bill were, in effect, temporary measures included until 
the broader funding issues could be resolved in conference. 
Nevertheless, I am very pleased to hear a reaffirmation of their 
commitment to address this in conference.
  In particular, I am committed to ensuring that TANF funds totaling 
$240 million, including $39.5 million in Texas, are not jeopardized. 
These funds stem from a provision in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that I 
and others supported to provide additional funds to high-growth, high-
need states like Texas, Florida, California, and others. Under the 
revisions in federal welfare payments contained in that welfare reform 
bill, states like these stood to lose significant funds, and it was 
unclear whether they would be able to meet their legal obligations to 
low income families.
  To help ensure that states like these could continue to meet the 
needs of their residents while they transition to the new system of 
emphasizing work and self-sufficiency over dependence, I supported the 
inclusion of these so-called ``supplemental grants'' funds in the 
welfare reform law. Since then, these funds have been an important 
component of some 17 states welfare reform programs, programs that have 
been tremendously successful. For example, in my state of Texas, 
welfare rolls have been reduced by 63 percent.
  Texas and other states that have been so successful in helping people 
to become self-sufficient should not be penalized for that success. 
While some have argued that states have billions in unused welfare 
funds, it is my understanding that Texas, for one, has obligated to 
date all of its TANF funds. To rescind more than $39 million in funds 
from our state would disrupt not only the welfare program, but also the 
many other activities funded by TANF funds in the state, including 
worker training and child care. This disruption of fiscal year 2000 
funds would also affect the state legislative process, necessitating a 
retroactive budget adjustment during the next session of the Texas 
Legislature, which will not meet again until January of next year.
  The federal TANF program was also intended to allow states to develop 
funding reserves to utilize during times of economic downturn and/or 
higher than usual unemployment. For example, the Texas Workforce 
Commission was able to recently use TANF funds to respond to the more 
than 18,000 Texans who lost their jobs during the oil price crash of 
1997 to 1999.
  It is also fundamentally unfair to only cut TANF funds to the 17 
states that presently receive them, while not affecting the funding 
received by the other 33 states. These states, on average, use TANF 
funds at a higher rate than the national average, using 97 percent of 
their total allocations versus 93 percent for other states in fiscal 
year 1999. In short, they need the additional funds.
  Many states that receive these supplemental funds are presently 
planning to expand their welfare and related programs, to include a 
broader range of services to enable all welfare recipients to become 
self-sufficient. Many single mothers, for example, have child care and 
transportation needs that make it all but impossible to find and keep a 
job. Others simply lack basic education and job skills that preclude 
them from holding virtually any employment. Still others have chronic 
substance abuse and psychological problems that are complex and 
difficult to address. As states seek to bring these so-called ``hard 
core'' welfare recipients into the economic mainstream, they will need 
all the TANF and other forms of federal assistance they can get to 
break the cycle of poverty.
  Mr. President, I again want to thank the Senator from Alaska, Senator 
Stevens, the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and the 
Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth for their comments today and for 
their responsiveness on these issues.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, as it was reported out of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee, the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations bill reduced 
funding for two vitally important programs--the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program (S-CHIP) and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) 
program.
  When you look at the bill, there are major increases for other 
programs, which to me, suggests that the Subcommittee did not 
adequately prioritize what should be funded.
  The programs that these cuts would have affected--S-CHIP and SSBG--
are essential for welfare reform; helping to keep people off welfare 
and eliminating some of the reasons why people went on welfare in the 
first place.
  I support many of the programs and items that are funded by this 
bill, and

[[Page S5872]]

I commend the fine work of our federal agencies in carrying out these 
programs, but I am not convinced that we should provide huge increases 
in funding for some programs--like a 15 percent increase for NIH--at 
the expense of addressing basic human needs in other programs--such as 
S-CHIP and SSBG.
  Mr. President, I oppose the cuts to these programs that have been 
included in this bill. I know that the Senate Appropriations Committee 
Chairman, Senator Stevens, has indicated that he will work to ensure 
that full funding is restored in Conference. However, I want to be 
clear to my colleagues--these two programs must not return to the 
Senate floor with these cuts intact. Funds must be restored in 
Conference, and, in my view, the Conferees also need to take out some 
of the increases in the Labor-HHS bill in order to bring it within its 
302b allocation.
  Mr. President, as my colleagues know, when Congress passed the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, one of the provisions included in that 
landmark legislation called for the establishment of the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program--or S-CHIP as it is known.
  S-CHIP is the single largest federal investment in health insurance 
since the establishment of the Medicaid and Medicare programs in 1965. 
It is a partnership between the federal government and our states, 
enacted to improve access to health care for children.
  I lobbied for this program as Vice Chairman of the National 
Governors' Association. As the Governor of Ohio, I understood how 
important it would be to the children of this country and their 
parents. In particular, I saw what it would mean to parents who were 
moving off welfare as part of welfare reform but needed assurances that 
their kids would have health care.
  As most of my colleagues know, as people move off welfare, they lose 
their Medicaid insurance. However, even as individuals move towards 
picking up health insurance where Medicaid left-off, the biggest thing 
that parents are concerned about is being able to provide health care 
for their children. I am concerned that if the S-CHIP program is not 
funded appropriately, it will take a lot of people who have gone off 
welfare and force them to have to go back on.
  I remember speaking to mothers who were on welfare when I was 
Governor, at the time when we were going through welfare reform, and 
many of these individuals told me that the reason they went on welfare 
in the first place was to get health care coverage for their children.
  S-CHIP gives parents peace of mind that their children have access to 
quality health care if it is not available through their place of 
employment and they don't have enough money to afford health care 
coverage.
  S-CHIP is not a ``one size fits all'' sort of program. One of the 
more appealing aspects of S-CHIP is its flexibility. States have been 
able to design innovative new programs and methods of reaching out to 
help uninsured children.
  Some states are even looking at with ways in which they can provide 
family coverage for the same cost as covering a child.
  Thus far, S-CHIP has been able to help over 2 million children obtain 
health insurance, and the opportunities to expand the program through 
its flexibility seem limitless. It is a program that is universally 
supported in our states.
  Therefore, you can imagine my surprise to find that when the Senate 
Appropriations Committee reported out its version of the Labor, Health 
and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill last month, the 
bill contained a provision to rescind $1.9 billion from S-CHIP.
  The reason given for this S-CHIP rescission was a desire to free up 
$1.9 billion in budget authority to help finance discretionary programs 
in the Labor-HHS appropriation bill.
  Although the Senate appropriations bill restores the $1.9 billion to 
S-CHIP in 2003, the funds would be of little use to states and children 
in need of health insurance in the coming fiscal year.
  If the federal government is to be a true partner with the states, 
then the states must have the confidence that the federal government 
will not shrink from its commitment to S-CHIP and to children. Actions 
such as the proposed $1.9 billion rescission threaten the integrity of 
a critical program designed exclusively to help 2 million of our 
nation's children.
  I can understand why our nation's governors, Republicans and 
Democrats, have been united in their opposition to the proposed cut in 
S-CHIP--because the program works. We should not be in the position of 
reversing the federal-state partnership that makes this vital program 
function.
  In addition to the proposed cuts in S-CHIP, the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill had proposed another break in a commitment that 
Congress made with the states.
  In 1996, as part of welfare reform, Congress agreed to provide $2.38 
billion each year for the Social Services Block Grant, or SSBG.
  States and local communities have been able to target SSBG funds 
where they are most needed. For example, in my state of Ohio, funds 
have been used for such programs as adoption services in Washington 
County and foster care assistance in Montgomery County; home-based care 
for the elderly and the disabled such as home delivered meals in 
Franklin County; child and adult protective services in Cuyahoga and 
Allen Counties; and substance abuse treatment in Hamilton County--just 
to name a few.
  However, the funds for SSBG have been chipped away little by little. 
In fiscal year 2000, the program is funded at $1.7 billion, but the 
Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill, as reported, only proposed $600 
million for fiscal 2001--75 percent less than the amount promised to 
governors in 1996!
  A cut of this magnitude would be difficult, at best, for state and 
local governments to absorb, especially on top of the cuts over the 
past few years. Congress can't assume states will make up for the loss.
  As such, the lack of funding would have caused a disruption in 
critical services to individuals in need--many of whom are not covered 
by other federal programs.
  Many of the programs funded through SSBG prevent additional costs to 
the federal government in the long run. For example, SSBG helps provide 
in-home services to the elderly and the disabled, thereby eliminating 
the need to place them in a costly institutional setting. In addition, 
SSBG funds are used for family preservation and reunification efforts 
in order to cut down on the number of foster care placements.
  The notion that states can make up this $1.1 billion loss with TANF 
funds is false. Many of the populations served through SSBG, primarily 
the elderly and the disabled, have no connection to the traditional 
welfare system and cannot be served with TANF funds.
  That's why I am pleased that we have been able to reach an agreement 
with the Appropriations Committee to take these provisions from the 
Labor-HHS bill. In my view, these provisions would have had a 
devastating impact on our most vulnerable citizens: children, the poor 
and the elderly.
  Again, I would like to thank my colleagues for their hard work in 
getting these provisions removed from this bill. I believe their 
efforts will go a long way towards restoring the faith of our state and 
local leaders that the Senate is truly committed to giving them the 
opportunity to help all Americans.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President. I regret that I was unable to vote on 
Amendment 3625 to the Labor-Health Human Services appropriations bill. 
It was important for me to be in Montana for a conference I had 
organized on the future of our state's economic development.
  I would like to explain how I would have voted on this amendment, had 
I been present.
  In our current era of staggering scientific achievement--as 
demonstrated by yesterday's announcement of the mapping of the human 
genome--it is easy to become complacent with medical technology.
  However, we cannot afford the price of complacency. One of the 
greatest health threats our nation currently faces is antibiotic 
resistant infections. These infections are the result of abuse and 
misuse of antibiotics--the drugs which form the keystone of modern 
medicine. These drug resistant infections know no barriers and are a 
threat

[[Page S5873]]

to us all. The World Health Organization reports that antibiotic-
resistant infections acquired in hospitals kill over 14,000 people in 
the United States every year. Unless steps are taken to monitor and 
prevent antibiotic misuse, this number can only increase.
  Protecting our nation and our children from antibiotic resistant 
infections is vital. That is why I am pleased to support this 
amendment. This legislation increases the ability of public health 
agencies to monitor and fight antibiotic resistant infections. It also 
seeks to reduce the incidence of antibiotic resistance by educating 
doctors and patients about the proper use of antibiotics.
  This legislation will help protect the health of all Americans and I 
applaud my colleagues for their support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. MURKOWSKI pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2799 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________