[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for the quorum call be rescinded.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the quorum call be rescinded.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.'')
____________________