[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23158-23211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Also, under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed to the consideration of S. 1650 is agreed to.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1650) making appropriations for the Departments 
     of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2000, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to permit Dr. 
Jack Chow, Mr. Mark Laisch, and Jane MacDonald to be present in the 
Chamber during consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill on which we are now proceeding 
allocates some $91.7 billion for the three Departments--the Department 
of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 
Department of Labor. It is an increase of $4 billion over the program 
levels for fiscal year 1999. Most of that money is taken up by 
additional funding for the Department of Education, $2.3 billion, and 
an increase in the National Institutes of Health, $2 billion.
  This bill is very close to the President's mark. It is within $1.4 
billion of the President's mark. It contains advance funding for 
programs that are currently forward funded of some $16.46 billion.
  Last year, the advance funding was $8.5 billion. The advance funding, 
of course, is a consistent, customary practice for the appropriations 
process. It is worth noting that the President's suggested mark had 
advance funding, forward funding, in excess of some $20 billion.
  In reporting this bill out from the Appropriations Committee 
yesterday, I thanked our distinguished chairman, Senator Stevens, and 
our distinguished ranking member, Senator Byrd, for the allocations 
which have enabled us to reach the floor. This appropriations bill is 
within the caps. My distinguished colleague, Senator Tom Harkin, and I 
have cooperated on a partnership basis. Senator Harkin and I have 
worked for more than a decade as chairman or ranking member, depending 
on which party is in power.
  I learned a long time ago that if you want to get something done here 
in Washington, you have to be willing to cross party lines and work on 
a bipartisan basis. When we are dealing with the two top priorities of 
the country on the domestic scene--education and health care--in 
addition to the very important programs in the Department of Labor on 
worker safety and job training, a bipartisan approach is necessary. 
Senator Harkin and I do

[[Page 23159]]

present this budget in a bipartisan context.
  It is our projection, as we move down the line, to present a bill to 
the President which will be signed. That is not an easy matter, given 
the budget constraints, given the many different views in the Senate, 
and, quite candidly, given the differing views in the House of 
Representatives where we will have to go to conference. But it is our 
hope that we will present to the President a bill which will be signed. 
That has not been accomplished in recent years. In fact, last year we 
didn't even get to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate.
  I think it is generally recognized that the American people are fed 
up, really sick and tired of partisan political bickering in 
Washington. If we are able to have a bill which can be signed by 
President Clinton, who is a Democrat, presented to him by a Congress 
which is controlled, both Houses, by Republicans, it will be good for 
the country. It will be good for both parties. It will be good for 
everyone to be able to present a bill on these high priority items of 
education and health care which can be agreed to.
  Just a few of the highlights of this bill: The bill is more than $500 
million over the President's requests on education. We think that is a 
matter of great significance because education funding is a priority 
second to none. Head Start, which has been a very important program for 
everyone, but emphasized by the President--and I enumerate a number of 
items where we have acceded to the President's priority line but, in 
accordance with the constitutional authority to the Congress for 
appropriations, we have exercised our own judgments. Senator Harkin 
will comment on this, as we have had a bipartisan approach, which is an 
approach with Democrats--not necessarily the President's approach, but 
an approach by the Democrats--as we have put in some of our own 
priorities, as they have been reflected in requests we have received 
from 100 Senators and from many in the private sector.
  We have received over 1,000 letters from Senators requesting 2,188 
report, bill, or number item changes. In addition, the subcommittee 
received over 1,000 requests from outside individuals and 
organizations. Many of those requests have come in air travel from 
Washington to Chicago and Des Moines, where Senator Harkin has been 
importuned by his constituents, not only from Iowa but his constituents 
from the United States, because he is a United States Senator as well 
as a Senator from Iowa. Many of these requests have come on the 
Metroliner between Washington and Philadelphia, as people have 
approached me with their requests.
  So that in coming to this proposal, it is a matter of establishing 
priorities. That is not easy to do. With a budget of nearly $1.8 
trillion, the whole budget process is priorities. We have established 
what we think are appropriate lines of priorities. It is worthwhile to 
note that the President has emphasized Head Start; we have agreed with 
him. We have a Head Start Program in excess of $5 billion, with an 
increase of more than $600 million.
  We have had requests from the President on an important program 
called GEAR UP, which is designed to help low-income elementary and 
secondary school children prepare for college. My distinguished 
colleague, Chaka Fattah, a Member of the House of Representatives from 
Philadelphia, originated this program. The President has embraced it, 
and we have funded it this year for $120 million. The President asked 
for an increase. Senator Harkin and our subcommittee and the full 
committee have increased it by 50 percent to $180 million. I joined the 
President in one of his weekly radio announcements and talked to him 
afterward, as I listened to his interest in this on a priority basis. 
We have increased, as I say, funding there by some 50 percent.
  Special education has been a matter of high priority. Now we have 
more than $6 billion, an increase of more than $900 million this year. 
I could go over quite a number of the other lists, but the President's 
priorities have been accorded very substantial consideration and 
approval.
  The Ricky Ray Program now has $50 million to compensate hemophilia 
victims. On our Pell grants, in accordance, again, with the 
administration's request, we have put in an increase to bring them to 
$3,325 on the maximum Pell grant a year. Again, on an item of 
importance emphasized by the White House and many Senators, LIHEAP, 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance, has been funded for $1.1 billion.
  On the health line, the subcommittee included a mark of $2 billion, 
which was approved by the full committee. The National Institutes of 
Health, in my judgment, are the crown jewels of the Federal Government, 
perhaps the only jewels of the Federal Government. We are on the verge 
of phenomenal breakthroughs on many dreaded ailments.
  Yesterday, we had a hearing on Parkinson's disease with Michael J. 
Fox coming in, putting a face on that human tragedy, a person who is 
well known and loved by so many millions of Americans as a television 
personality. It happens to be a fact of life that when Michael J. Fox 
comes in and testifies about his own trauma, a young man at the age of 
39, with three children, facing a very uncertain medical future--
medical experts testify that we may well be within 5 years of a cure 
for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, heart ailments and a long list of 
very tragic ailments. One of the aspects of chairing the subcommittee 
has been to be the recipient of requests from people with strange and 
rare illnesses. We have tried to raise the level of funding at the 
National Institutes of Health so there can be maximum accommodation for 
research on so many lines. Even with this $2 billion increase, raising 
from $15.6 billion to $17.6 billion, there are many lines which we 
cannot fund totally.
  We still have, out of every 10 doors of research, the possibility 
that 7 will remain unopened.
  It is my personal view that with a national budget of $1.8 trillion 
we ought to fund all of the meritorious applications. That can't be 
done. Many people have looked at this $2 billion increase, and have 
said: How can we afford it? The response that Senator Harkin, our 
subcommittee, and the full committee have given us is: How can we not 
afford it?
  One item we ought to be mentioning is that the language on stem cell 
research, which would have eliminated certain restrictions from the 
National Institutes of Health, has been deleted. That was inserted on 
the initiative from the leadership of the subcommittee because the stem 
cell research has such enormous potential. The stem cell research can 
go forward now with private funding extracting the stem cells from 
embryos, and then the Federal funding coming in on the stem cells which 
have been extracted.
  It is my personal view--and the view which Senator Harkin expressed 
forcefully at the subcommittee yesterday--that some of the existing 
limitations ought to be eliminated from this bill. The embryos which 
are involved are not embryos which would create human life. They are 
embryos which have been discarded from in vitro fertilization. The 
bill's prohibition against research on embryos will stay intact.
  But what we had originally contemplated was to allow Federal funding 
to NIH on extracting stem cells from the embryos. But that has been 
eliminated at the request of the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Stevens. We have eliminated that 
because we never could have finished this bill by the close of business 
tomorrow had it remained.
  Senator Lott has made a commitment that he will take up a 
freestanding bill in February, and our subcommittee will move forward 
to extensive hearings so that everybody may be informed.
  There is a lack of information about the importance to medical 
research in these stem cells and the fact that does not really impinge 
upon embryos which could produce life.
  There are many similarities between this debate and the debate on 
fetal tissue where for a long time fetal tissue

[[Page 23160]]

could not be used in research because of a concern that it would 
promote abortions, and then the understanding was driven home that it 
would not promote abortions but would only use fetal tissues from 
abortions which had already been concluded.
  To repeat, this will be taken up in February.
  One other initiative which deserves attention is an initiative on 
school violence prevention. We have seen on a recurring basis the 
tragedies of school violence. The subcommittee undertook three active 
working sessions lasting about an hour and a half each where I presided 
in order to bring forward the experts on the working level. From that 
effort has come a program which is described on pages 6 to 14 of our 
report.
  We brought together ranking officials and people very knowledgeable 
from the field, including the Deputy Attorney General, the Surgeon 
General, representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, 
representatives from elementary and secondary education, from the 
Department's units administering safe and drug-free schools, from 
special education, from the Administration for Children and Families, 
from the National Institute of Mental Health, from Mental Health 
Services, Substance Abuse, from the Centers for Disease Control and the 
Division of Violence Prevention, from the Office of the Victims of 
Crime, from employment and training programs from the Department of 
Labor, and from the Association of School Psychologists--all who have 
put together a comprehensive bill which essentially involves the 
reallocation of some $851 million. Not pointing the finger of blame in 
any direction but recognizing school violence as a national health 
problem, as suggested years ago by the Surgeon General, and putting it 
under the Surgeon General where we are coordinating with Bruce Reed 
from the White House Domestic Council--a program has been created which 
we believe has long range potential. Included in the funding, in 
addition, are important programs on worker safety.
  In the interest of time, I will not delineate all of them. They have 
been set forth in some detail.
  On a personal note, I have recused myself on the funding for the 
National Constitution Center, since my wife, Joan Specter, is director 
of fundraising for the National Constitution Center. Senator Thad 
Cochran, the senior Republican on the committee, has taken over.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from me to Senator Cochran on 
this subject, dated September 17, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Thad: As a precautionary matter, I think it is 
     advisable for me to recuse myself on the issue of the 
     appropriation for the National Constitution Center since my 
     wife, Joan Specter, is director of fundraising.
       I would very much appreciate it if you would substitute for 
     me on that issue since you are the senior Republican on the 
     Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services and 
     Education.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an abbreviated statement of what 
the bill contains.
  In the interest of moving us promptly as possible to the amendment 
from the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, I am going to yield the 
floor at this time and yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator 
Harkin, whom I again thank for his total cooperation and partnership 
and bipartisan approach to this important bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, before beginning my comments, I ask 
unanimous consent that Jane Daye, a member of my staff on detail from 
HHS, be afforded floor privileges during consideration of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two of 
Senator Inouye's staff, Andrew Peters and Patricia Boyle, be given 
floor privileges during the consideration of the bill now before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I again thank Senator Specter and his 
staff for all of their hard work in putting this bill together. Senator 
Specter has done, indeed, a commendable job. He has done so in a 
professional and bipartisan fashion under very difficult and trying 
circumstances. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for his patience, his 
good work, and, above all, his persistence.
  Again, my good friend, Senator Specter, spoke of the bipartisan 
effort on this, and that he is hoping the President will sign this 
bill. I will have something to say about that in a moment. But I want 
to make it clear that in no way do we want to delay this bill. We ought 
to get it up and get it through. I am just sorry that we didn't get it 
up earlier this year. I still feel compelled to say that of the 13 
appropriations bills, this is the last one. That should not be our 
priority. Education and Health and Human Services should not be the 
last priority. It should not be the last bill up for the fiscal year. 
It should have been the first bill and not the last bill. But we are 
here. The fiscal year is drawing to a close, and hopefully we can get 
this through.
  But I want to point out that in my role as ranking member, while I 
will be supportive of Senator Specter in his efforts to get this bill 
through, I want to make sure that I protect the rights of Senators on 
this side of the aisle to offer amendments and to debate them in a 
timely fashion.
  Before I say a few more words about the contents of the bill, I think 
it is important that I briefly talk about the funding of the bill and 
how it plays into the overall budget situation.
  First, let me repeat what I said yesterday in our committee markup.
  I am very pleased that the chairman of the full Appropriations 
Committee has worked to restore a more reasonable level of funding for 
this bill. Investments in education and health, labor, and other areas 
are key to our Nation's quality of life, our future, and our next 
generation of children.
  I am concerned, however, that it now seems that the Republican 
leadership intends to simply shift the funds for the census and the 
Pentagon to our bill as emergency spending when clearly they are not 
emergencies. In other words, it looks as if the leadership is going to 
declare the funds for the census and the Pentagon--which have been 
shifted to fund our bill--as emergency spending--emergency for the 
census and emergency for the Pentagon. They are not emergencies. Even 
Thomas Jefferson could have told us there would be a census in the year 
2000. That is no emergency. The Republican leadership is playing a 
shell game, and the loser may be Social Security.
  Money is being moved from one bill to another to make it look as if 
we can fund all 13 appropriations bills with all their priorities and 
still stay within the budget caps.
  According to CBO, the Republican leadership has already spent the 
projected on-budget surplus for next year. About $14 billion of the 
non-Social Security budget surplus has already been spent. In addition, 
it looks as though there has already been about another $19 billion dig 
into Social Security.
  Declaring the census and the Pentagon--which are clearly nonemergency 
items--emergency spending doesn't mean anything. It means the 
Republican leadership will dig that much further into the Social 
Security surplus in fiscal year 2000. Stay tuned for the next chapter 
because it looks as though Social Security is going to have a big bite 
taken out. It shouldn't be that way.
  I have drafted legislation that imposes penalties on tobacco 
companies that fail to reduce teen smoking. CBO has scored my amendment 
as raising approximately $6 billion in fiscal year 2000. I think that 
is better than taking it out of Social Security.

[[Page 23161]]

  Before the whole process is completed--I don't mean this bill; I mean 
the whole process this year--we will be looking for new sources of 
revenue to offset the costs of appropriations without tapping into 
Social Security. I believe getting this money from the tobacco 
companies that have already set their targets for reducing teen smoking 
and having them pay penalties is a much fairer and better way of 
meeting our goals in our appropriations bills than tapping Social 
Security.
  Having said that, there are many excellent items in this bill. In 
particular, I commend the chairman for the $2 billion increase in NIH. 
Yesterday, as Senator Specter said, there was a hearing held on 
Parkinson's disease. This is a disease that causes untold human 
suffering, a disease that scientists believe may be cured within the 
next 10 years or drastically reduced and alleviated. Under Senator 
Specter's leadership, we are taking another step to realize that 
result.
  The morning shows today were talking about the hearing yesterday. 
Michael J. Fox, the famous movie actor who testified, showed his 
trembling hands and how Parkinson's disease was affecting him. It was 
quite a poignant representation of the ravages of Parkinson's disease. 
Of course, those who had the privilege of serving with Congressman Mo 
Udall from Arizona know how that affected him and the suffering it 
caused him in his later years.
  Most scientists believe one of the major steps that can be taken in 
finding the pathways to interventions and cures for Parkinson's disease 
is through adequate funding of stem cell research. We had it in this 
bill until it was taken out in committee yesterday on a split vote. I 
think it won by two votes, if I am not mistaken. It was a close vote.
  The provisions on stem cell research were removed. That is a shame. 
People suffering from Parkinson's disease or spinal cord injuries, 
neurological problems, neurological diseases, and neurological 
accidents could have hope. For example, I think of Christopher Reeves, 
who has been so diligent and energetic in his efforts to push for more 
research in finding how to repair damaged spinal cords. Here is an 
avenue of research that could collapse the timeframe and lead to major 
breakthroughs on repairing neurological damage through stem cell 
research. Yet because of a handful of people in the Senate or the 
House--I don't know where, but it comes from the Republican 
leadership--we couldn't bring this bill out with that stem cell 
research provision. That is a shame.
  I was talking to some Senators yesterday who started talking about 
partial-birth abortion and all that kind of stuff. I said, wait a 
minute. What does that have to do with stem cell research? Absolutely 
nothing. Again, as I stated in committee, and I will state again for 
the Record on the floor, we approve in this country--and I think all 
the major religions and ethicists all agree--in vitro fertilization is 
not only permissible and acceptable but a very good way for a woman who 
may have problems getting pregnant and bearing a child to do so. In 
vitro fertilization is a widely accepted practice where the egg is 
removed from the mother and mated to a sperm. These eggs are then 
frozen in nitrogen and one is implanted. If it takes, a baby results, a 
child results, and we have some very happy parents.
  However, there are a lot of fertilized eggs still frozen in liquid 
nitrogen. That is what we are talking about. That is where they want to 
get the stem cells. It has nothing to do with partial-birth abortion or 
anything else. The Cell Biology Association says there are probably 
about 100,000 frozen fertilized eggs in the country. That is where the 
scientists get the stem cells. These fertilized eggs will be destroyed 
anyway. They are not going to keep them forever in liquid nitrogen; 
they will be destroyed. Scientists say, why not let scientists take the 
stem cells out to do the kind of stem cell research we need to find the 
cures for Parkinson's and spinal cord injury.
  That is what was in our bill. Here are the restrictions we have 
placed in our bill. First, we say the stem cell research had to be 
conducted under ethical guidelines. Second, to use any of the 
fertilized eggs to extract the stem cells, scientists must have the 
informed consent of the donor. Third, we could only use stem cells from 
fertilized eggs that are the result of in vitro fertilization. We had 
all of these restrictions.
  Why would we want to take that out of the bill? I understand the 
leadership says they want to take it out because it couldn't pass with 
it. Why? Because there are two or three people who have some hangup 
about this. Perhaps they don't understand. If we could debate it and 
fully flesh it out and get it out, perhaps then people would understand 
what we are trying to do. I think there is a lot of information being 
promoted and bandied about on stem cell research that is totally false. 
It prohibits Congress from doing what I think is in the best interests 
of morality, ethics, and science. So we do not have it in the bill. Now 
I hear the leadership says they are going to have hearings next year 
and bring up a separate bill in February. I will believe it when I see 
it because we cannot get it on this bill, and this is where it 
logically belongs. This is the bill with all biomedical research funded 
by the Federal Government, with a couple of exceptions in the 
Department of Defense. This is the proper place for it.
  I cannot see why it is going to take a long time. We have had 
hearings on it. Senator Specter has had hearings on it. We have had 
hearings on it in other committees. How many more hearings do we need? 
How many more people have to come down with Parkinson's, die of 
Parkinson's? How many more people have to linger with spinal cord 
injuries and other neurological problems before we have the guts to do 
what is right around here and give the scientists the tools they need 
to do the research in stem cells?
  So I am very upset that this was taken out--and taken out, I might 
add, at the behest of the leadership, not the chairman of the 
subcommittee nor the chairman of the full committee, as I understand 
it, but of the leadership of the Senate. I think it is wrong to do 
that, coming on the heels of this very powerful hearing yesterday, with 
all the national publicity coming out, even yet today, on Parkinson's 
disease, to say: Yes, but I am sorry, we are not going to permit nor 
fund the kind of research that would lead to a possible cure.
  I want to make it clear, there is some stem cell research that will 
be conducted by NIH but only from two stem cell lines from the 
University of Wisconsin and Johns Hopkins. These are just from two 
sources. When you have 100,000 in the United States, you can get stem 
cell lines from a lot of different sources.
  I am trying to think of an analogy here. This is akin to doing 
research on cancer but saying: But you can only do research on 
pancreatic cancer. You cannot do research on prostate or breast cancer 
or thyroid cancer or anything else, but you can do it on pancreatic. 
That is all. That is all we are going to allow. That is basically what 
we are saying on stem cell research: You can do this little bit of 
research, but you can't do the kind of broad research with which you 
open the doors and find some of the answers.
  Again, I wanted to go on a bit on this because I think it is that 
vitally important. I think it is wrongheaded--I might even have 
stronger words than that but not appropriate for the Senate floor--for 
the Republican leadership to demand this be taken out of our bill. I 
believe the votes would be here if the Republican leadership would 
stand up for it. Oh, we would probably have a few people, misinformed, 
not understanding the situation, who might vote against it. But I 
believe the provisions we had in this bill, carefully crafted to 
provide all the protections, would have garnered an overwhelming vote 
in the Senate--were it not for the leadership's position.
  Again, I might add, as I said, there are a lot of good things in this 
bill for which Senator Specter has fought: A billion dollars for 
community health centers, a $100 million increase of vital importance 
for low-income people who do not have insurance coverage. In fact, it 
is probably the best bulwark we

[[Page 23162]]

have for preventive health care, keeping healthy low-income people who 
do not have health care insurance. We have $400 million for afterschool 
programs; that is a $200 million increase.
  Again, I compliment Senator Specter for the anti-school-violence bill 
he has put together, of which I am a cosponsor. As we pointed out, 
there is a lot of talk about school violence these days. The fact is, 
schools are the safest places for our kids. Less than 1 percent of the 
violence committed by or against kids is done in school--less than 1 
percent. Most of the violence happens after school. That is why we need 
strong afterschool programs. We have all these school buildings around 
this country, we have put a lot of money in them, and at 3 o'clock in 
the afternoon they lock the doors. What is inside? There are 
gymnasiums, there are swimming pools, there are art rooms, there are 
computer rooms, basketball courts, weight rooms, music rooms--all 
behind locked doors at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. You have these kids 
on the street looking for something to do, and that is when the 
violence happens; that is when the drugs happen. What Senator Specter 
and I and others have done is increased by $200 million last year, up 
to $400 million, afterschool programs.
  Obviously, if you are going to leave the doors of the school open, 
you have to pay. It costs money for heating, air conditioning; it costs 
money for supervision, for people to run the programs. If you have a 
music room, maybe kids want to take up music after school; maybe they 
want to take up theater. Maybe these young people would like to act a 
little bit, get into theater. You are going to have to have somebody 
there working with them. Better we pay the cost of an art teacher, a 
music teacher, a phys ed instructor or whatever for the 3 hours or 4 
hours from after school until the time for dinner at home--better we 
pay that than we pay for the violence and the drugs and stuff that is 
happening on the streets. I hope this marks a steady increase this 
year, next year, and the year after that in afterschool programs.
  We have $5.3 billion for Head Start, an increase of $608 million, 
again moving toward the target of making sure that, in America, every 
4-year-old who is eligible is covered for Head Start. I am told that 
with this increase we are getting close to 80-percent coverage of all 
eligible 4-year-olds, so hopefully next year we can close that gap and 
get 100-percent coverage. We have increased the maximum Pell grants to 
$3,325, a $200 increase for low-income students to go to college. So 
there are some good things.
  But there are some big holes in this bill that need to be filled. One 
of those, perhaps one of the most important--and it is critically 
important--is the provision the Senator from Washington State, Mrs. 
Murray, I am sure will shortly be talking about. That is the issue of 
class size reduction. Last year, we put in money for class size 
reduction. We put in $1.2 billion last year, and we hired 30,000 
teachers around the country to reduce class size. This was a high 
priority of everyone. When you talk about bipartisanship, let me read 
what former Speaker Newt Gingrich said of the class size reduction 
program:

       A great victory for the American people. There will be more 
     teachers, and that is good for all Americans.

  The former Speaker, Newt Gingrich--not a Democrat.
  House Majority Leader Dick Armey last year, on class size reduction, 
said:

       Good for America and good for the schoolchildren.

  Finally, Bill Goodling, chairman of the House Education Committee, 
said, referring, again, to the class size reduction program:

       It is a huge win for local educators and parents.

  This year, the Republican leadership is saying we have to cancel the 
program, cancel it--$1.2 billion. We hired 30,000 teachers, and they 
are saying this year: Fire them all.
  Oh, yes, they are going to say: We are going to put the $1.2 billion 
into some kind of block grant program, and then they can use it for 
this, use it for that, and all that stuff. The priority we have heard 
from teachers, principals, superintendents, and from parents around the 
country is that we need to reduce class size. I have heard, on the 
Republican side, talk that we need teacher qualification, teacher 
upgrading. I am all for that, but I do not care; you can give me the 
best qualified, best trained teacher in the world, and if he or she is 
teaching a second grade class that has 35 or 40 kids in it, I am sorry, 
they cannot handle it; I don't care how well trained they are.
  We had a priority last year on the course of hiring an additional 
100,000 teachers to reduce class size in this country, a goal that was 
shared by the former Speaker of the House, the House majority leader, 
and the Republican chairman of the House Education Committee.
  This year, the Republican leadership says no; because President 
Clinton wants it, we are going to cut it out. Talk about 
bipartisanship. This was a bill that had broad-based support. I do not 
see it as a Republican or Democratic provision at all.
  I have heard from parents in Iowa about reducing class size, and they 
did not say I am a Democrat or I am a Republican and here is what I 
want. They said: I am a parent and my kid is in a class with 30-some 
kids and it is too big.
  I hear from teachers. They did not tell me if they were Republican or 
Democrat. I don't know. I did not ask. They complained to me about what 
it is like as a young teacher just out of college. They have their 
teaching certificate, and they are on their way. They want to be a good 
teacher. They want to make a good profession out of it, and they get 
stuck in a second-grade class with, I heard one of them say, 38 kids. 
Talk about teacher burnout. You can handle that for about 2 years and 
then you are out the door. That is why we are losing so many young 
bright teachers. They want to teach. They want to get to know their 
kids and to work with those kids. They cannot do it when they have 30 
kids in a classroom.
  What we have is a bill that basically disinvests the investment we 
started last year in reducing class size. If this bill were to go 
through as it is, 30,000 teachers hired last year will have to be let 
go this year. They say: We are going to put money in block grants if 
they want to do it. I am sorry, we decided we needed to reduce class 
sizes. Let's keep our eye on the prize. Let's keep our eye on the goal. 
Let's at least accomplish one goal for our kids that we set out to do, 
and that is to reduce class size.
  They say they are going to provide $1.2 billion for a teacher 
assistance initiative. There are two problems with this approach. 
First, I do not know what the teacher assistance initiative is. Maybe 
someone can explain it. We have not had any hearings on it. We had lots 
of hearings on reducing class size. I do not know what a teacher 
assistance initiative is. Some fancy words.
  Secondly, when is it going to be authorized? I also serve on the 
authorizing committee, and the bill to reauthorize the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act has not even been written. We have had 
hearings. We are a long way from passing this major legislation. Under 
the existing law, even though the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act expires this fiscal year--tomorrow--under the law, we are given a 
1-year extension, a 1-year grace period. You know how the Congress is, 
Mr. President. If we get an extension, we will fill up the time. Quite 
frankly, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is not going to be 
passed this year; it is going to be passed next year.
  For some reason, the Republican leadership wants no part of the 
initiative to reduce class size, I guess because the President wants 
it. Well, big deal. Last year, the Speaker of the House, the majority 
leader and the Republican chairman of the Education Committee wanted 
it, too. Why is it just because President Clinton wants it they do not 
want to go along with it? I do not understand that. I simply do not 
understand that.
  Last night, President Clinton announced his intention to veto this 
bill

[[Page 23163]]

if it comes to him in its current form. He will veto the bill because 
it does not guarantee we can continue the class size reduction program 
that we initiated last year.
  I have a statement by the President. I will read it:

       Today the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education appropriations committee passed a spending bill 
     that fails to invest in key initiatives to raise student 
     achievement. While its funding levels are better than those 
     of the House version, the Senate bill still falls short of 
     what we need to strengthen America's schools. It does not 
     guarantee a single dollar for our efforts to hire quality 
     teachers and reduce class size in the early grades. It cuts 
     funding for education technology and underfunds such efforts 
     as GEAR UP and after-school programs. And it does not provide 
     funding to turn around failing schools.
       To develop world-class schools, we need to invest more and 
     demand more in return. We need accountability from our 
     schools--and from our Congress, too. . . .
       If this bill were to come to me in its current form I would 
     have to veto it. I believe, however, that we can avoid this 
     course. I sent the Congress a budget for the programs covered 
     by this bill that provided for essential investments in 
     America's needs, and that was fully paid for. I look forward 
     to working with Congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that 
     this bill strengthens public education and other important 
     national priorities.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President's statement 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  The White House,


                                Office of the Press Secretary,

                                               September 28, 1999.

                       Statement by the President

       Today the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education appropriations committee passed a spending bill 
     that fails to invest in key initiatives to raise student 
     achievement. While its funding levels are better than those 
     of the House version, the Senate bill still falls short of 
     what we need to strengthen America's schools. It does not 
     guarantee a single dollar for our efforts to hire quality 
     teachers and reduce class size in the early grades. It cuts 
     funding for education technology, and underfunds such efforts 
     as GEAR UP and after-school programs. And it does not provide 
     funding to turn around failing schools.
       To develop world-class schools, we need to invest more and 
     demand more in return. We need accountability from our 
     schools--and from our Congress too.
       In addition, the reduction in funding for the Social 
     Services Block Grant could severely undermine state and local 
     efforts to provide child care, child welfare programs, and 
     services for the disabled. By failing to fund the Family 
     Caregiver initiative, the bill also withholds critical aid to 
     families caring for elderly or ill relatives. The legislation 
     also shortchanges public health priorities in preventive and 
     mental health, and underfunds programs that would give 
     millions of Americans improved access to health care.
       If this bill were to come to me in its current form I would 
     have to veto it. I believe, however, that we can avoid this 
     course. I sent the Congress a budget for the programs covered 
     by this bill that provided for essential investments in 
     America's needs, and that was fully paid for. I look forward 
     to working with Congress on a bipartisan basis to ensure that 
     this bill strengthens public education and other important 
     national priorities.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, all I can say is, I wish they could put 
Senator Specter and me in a room. I think we would come up with a good 
bipartisan bill. We have already. Because of some outside influences, 
we are going to have some real problems. That is a shame.
  I believe my colleague, Senator Murray, will be offering an amendment 
to authorize and fund the program as we did last year to reduce class 
size. This amendment will ensure that school districts across the 
country will not have to lay off almost 30,000 new teachers hired this 
fall. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Murray's amendment.
  Again, before I close, I thank Senator Specter and his staff for all 
their work and their willingness to work together in a truly bipartisan 
fashion to get this bill to the floor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Harkin, for his generous remarks. There are one or two points 
about which I would like to comment.
  With respect to the stem cell issue, on the merits and on the 
substance, I agree with what Senator Harkin said, that ultimately we 
ought to reduce the limitations on the National Institutes of Health. I 
think it appropriate to say that I took the initiative in putting that 
language in the bill.
  I also agree with Senator Harkin that this is an issue which I think 
his position and mine can prevail when it is explained. But I disagree 
with him on one tiny point, and that is it would not take long to 
explain it. I think it is going to take a long time to explain it, and 
a lot of people are going to want to be heard on it.
  That is our only point of disagreement, that I don't think it 
realistic to conclude this bill by the end of business tomorrow. I do 
not blame him for a healthy share of skepticism, and he will believe it 
when he sees it. I predict he will see it. He and I have worked 
together, and our predictions to each other have been accurate right 
down the line without exception.
  Senator Harkin commented on the statement from the President which I 
had not seen when I started my comments. I will be responding to that 
when we have a break in the action. We just received the statement this 
morning, and he has made a comment that the President said he will veto 
the bill in its current form, which surprised me on that abrupt 
challenge. I am prepared to work through that.
  He also said in his statement--let me read the statement 
specifically:

       If this bill were to come to me in its current form I would 
     have to veto it.

  I was a little surprised to see that peremptory language without some 
preliminary consultation. But then he goes on to say:

       I look forward to working with Congress on a bipartisan 
     basis to ensure that this bill strengthens public education 
     and other important national priorities.

  Our objectives are the same on strengthening public education and 
other important national priorities. I am instructing my staff to start 
to work now with the Secretaries.
  We had a hearing. I have worked closely with Secretary Shalala, 
Health and Human Services; Secretary Riley, Education; and Secretary 
Herman, Labor. We are going to be working with them as this bill 
proceeds on the floor and also with the Office of Management and Budget 
to see if we cannot have a meeting of the minds as we work through the 
process.
  I know the Senator from Washington is ready to offer her amendment, 
so at this time I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. SPECTER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The legislative clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, after conferring with the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa and others on the Democratic side, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate now proceed to debate until 12 noon, at which 
point we will take up the first amendment to be decided at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Washington yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to the manager of the bill, so we 
don't have to wait around until 12, I would like the opportunity--
whenever it is--to offer my amendment, so people don't have to continue 
coming down here waiting to offer amendments. I am ready to offer mine 
at 12.
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, that is 
satisfactory with me. Senator Murray had

[[Page 23164]]

been on the floor earlier, and if she is prepared to defer----
  Mr. REID. If Senator Murray wants to offer hers at noon, that is fine 
with me, too.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill that is currently on the floor. Our colleagues, 
Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, have done a yeoman's job of trying 
to put together a bill under extremely difficult circumstances for 
sure. They have been left with their bill until last, and every other 
appropriations bill has taken funds from this appropriations item. We 
are now left with a bill that we actually don't know how it is going to 
be funded. I have heard a lot of funding schemes, from taking money 
from defense, forward funding, a 13th month, to declaring emergencies. 
Basically, we are left with funding education, funding health research 
with money that is not real, that we don't know from where it is 
coming.
  We don't know what budget it is coming from or whether it is actually 
there. So I have a great concern about the reality of the funds for the 
most important funding we do in this body, that of educating our 
children, that for health care.
  Again, we are debating the appropriations bill that funds some of the 
most important things in the lives of families across this country. 
Certainly education is a top priority of every family. They have said 
they want us to make sure the Federal Government does its part to 
assure that every child, no matter who they are or where they come 
from, what their background is, what school they are in, gets a good 
education.
  We have fought hard in this body on the issues that make a difference 
in a child's classroom. Last year, 1 year ago, this body, in a 
bipartisan way, with the House agreed in the final appropriations bill, 
the omnibus bill, to reduce class size. It is a major priority of this 
Congress and of this country. We appropriated $1.2 billion to reduce 
class sizes in first, second, and third grades. That decision was 
applauded across this country by parents, by teachers, by business 
leaders, and by communities.
  Today, those teachers, nearly 30,000 of them, are teaching in our 
public schools. I had the opportunity last Monday to visit one of the 
classrooms in Tacoma School District. Tacoma School District has taken 
the class size funds we allocated and, in 57 first grade classrooms, 
they have reduced the class size to 15. I had the opportunity to sit 
down with those 15 children in the first grade classroom and talk to 
their teacher. She was ecstatic. She said, compared to a class she had 
worked in before with 27 children: I didn't know all of the kids. I 
didn't have the opportunity on a daily basis to sit down with them to 
find out where they were. I didn't have the opportunity as I worked 
with them throughout the year to make sure every child was keeping up.
  She said: Today, with 15 kids in my classroom, and only 10 days of 
classroom time at the beginning of the year, I know where every child 
is. I know what their skills are. I know what they need to work on, and 
I can guarantee as a teacher that by the end of this year every child 
in my classroom will be reading, will have the basic skills, and will 
be able to move on to second grade ready to learn.
  That is the goal we set when we allocated those funds 1 year ago.
  That is why I was so saddened to see, in the bill that comes before 
us, no money allocated to continue that program to reduce class size in 
first, second, and third grades; no money; zeroed out; no money to 
continue those teachers.
  Essentially, this bill fires the nearly 30,000 teachers who have been 
hired since 1 year ago who work in our classrooms to educate our 
students. This is an incredible step backwards. We did agree 1 year ago 
that we need to focus on kids in the early grades, that we need to do 
what we can to make sure that they learn reading, that they learn math, 
that they learn those basic skills so they can be productive in the 
outyears.
  We know from the studies that have been done that reducing class size 
in the first, second, and third grades works. We know students from 
small class sizes have enrolled in more college-bound courses such as 
foreign languages and advanced math and science. We know students in 
smaller class sizes have higher grade point averages. We know students 
in small classes have fewer discipline problems. We know students in 
small classes have lower dropout rates. It makes sense for us to 
continue to make sure that class sizes in first, second, and third 
grades are reduced, and that we continue the commitment we began 1 year 
ago.
  Our initial commitment was $1.1 billion. We agreed that we would add 
$200 million to that--that is the President's request--so that we can 
continue to expand and hire 8,000 more teachers. But under the bill 
that is before us, there is no money to reduce class size. There is no 
commitment to continue to hire those teachers or to retain those 
teachers.
  Essentially, the language as written in this bill says we will fire 
30,000 teachers at the end of this school year. Not on my watch. Not on 
my watch are we going to go back on a commitment we made 1 year ago. 
Not on my watch are we going to send a message to young students that 
we no longer care about making sure they get the basic skills they 
need; that no longer is this Senate going to stand behind the dollars 
and the commitments we made 1 year ago; that no longer are we going to 
tell teachers they can count on us and they can count on our word when 
we tell them this is the commitment we are going to make to them.
  I have had the opportunity to talk with many teachers around my State 
and around my country. These teachers have been hired. They are in our 
classrooms. Forty-three percent of the teachers we have hired are 
teaching in first grade. Their class sizes are going to be reduced from 
an average of 22.9 to an average of 17.6 students--from 22 down to 17. 
And every teacher will tell you that for one less student they have in 
the classroom, the more time they have to spend with each individual 
student. Twenty-three percent of the teachers are teaching in second 
grade, and class sizes in second grades across this country are being 
reduced an average of 23.2 to an average of 18.1. Twenty-four percent 
of the teachers are teaching in third grade, and class sizes will be 
reduced from an average of 23.5 to an average of 18.3 for third graders 
in classrooms across the country.
  The money we allocated last year is being spent. We are getting 
overwhelming responses from teachers, parents, business leaders, and 
communities that have this class size money in place and are beginning 
to see the results of it. They are ecstatic. These teachers are in the 
classrooms. They are teaching. They are appalled that we are going to 
go back on our word; that this money is not going to continue to be 
there so that we continue the commitment we made 1 year ago.
  I have numbers from many of our States across the country where class 
size dollars have been put into place and where teachers are beginning 
to see the real results of what we did 1 year ago. I think one of the 
things we haven't talked about is the fact that when we put this 
program in place, we said--unlike the block grants, unlike many other 
programs--we want to make sure administration and paperwork are not 
going to hamper these dollars actually going into the classroom.
  The class size money that we put into place last year takes one form 
for a school district--one form, and a few minutes of an 
administrator's time. That is all it takes for the dollars we 
allocated, the $1.2 billion going directly to hire teachers. This is 
real money being used in real classrooms. Unlike block grants and other 
programs that we have, we can keep track of where this money is. We 
know the money is being used to hire teachers. We know that a portion 
of it is being used to train teachers to give them the

[[Page 23165]]

skills they need. We know the real money is being used in a way that we 
can come back and test it and hold it accountable and show that our 
kids are learning because of something we did in the Senate.
  As a result of the work we did a year ago, 1.7 million children are 
now benefiting from smaller class sizes this year. More than 29,000 
teachers have been hired with that money. Forty-three percent of them 
are teaching in the first grade, twenty-three percent are teaching in 
the second grade, and twenty-four percent are teaching in the third 
grade.
  In Anchorage, AK, very far from here, they received $1.8 million 
under our Class Size Reduction Program and lowered their average first 
grade class from 22 to 18 by hiring 40 new first grade teachers.
  If the District loses its funding under this bill, the 40 recently 
hired teachers will be laid off, and they will return their class sizes 
back to 22 students. And, more importantly, if it ends next year, 
little will have been gained.
  According to Bruce Johnson, Deputy Commissioner of the State 
Department of Education and Early Development in Anchorage, a 1-year 
project, he said, generally doesn't yield dramatic results. In Mesa, 
AR, the Mesa public schools serving 70,000 students received $1.1 
million in class size reduction funds. Half of it was used to hire new 
full-time teachers to reduce their class sizes, and the other half was 
used to provide reading instruction, an important goal for small groups 
of children.
  Without these continued funds, we are facing a real dilemma. 
Superintendents are under the gun to get their class sizes down. But at 
the same time they have this concern about what will happen if they 
hire new teachers and the Federal money runs out. That is a quota, 
according to the executive director of the Arizona school 
administrator.
  San Francisco, CA, has been working very hard to reduce class size in 
the early grades for many years, and they requested a waiver. I say 
that all the school districts that have requested a waiver have 
received one. Because they already focused their money on the early 
grades, they were allowed the flexibility under the dollars we spent 
last year, and want to continue to spend this year, to reduce class 
sizes up to the eighth grade.
  With these funds, San Francisco hired 37 teachers and reduced their 
class sizes from 33 to 22. In English and in math, they reduced their 
class sizes to 20, and they used the funds to provide training for 
teachers on how to work effectively in smaller classes.
  Whenever I talk to young students who are in a high school math 
class, they tell me the most frustrating thing they do in a day is have 
their hand raised for an entire 50-minute period and never get their 
question answered.
  California has already focused their class size reduction money on 
the early grades. They had the flexibility under our language to reduce 
class sizes to make gains in K through eighth. Now kids don't sit 
through a 50-minute period raising their hand, with no answer given, 
and they don't go home at the end of the day not understanding what 
happened that day. That is progress because of the work we did, because 
of the flexibility we offered in this bill, and because we said our 
national goal is to reduce class size because we know it works.
  In Boise, ID, they received $547,000 to hire 11 teachers as a result 
of the Class Size Reduction Program. Some of the teachers will 
circulate through 10 schools giving students extra help. We have heard 
from districts that it is a problem because they don't have the classes 
available to reduce class size. We have allowed them the flexibility, 
as in Boise, ID, having teachers circulate through the schools so the 
students get more one-on-one with an adult. Other teachers in Boise 
were placed in schools with high numbers of low-income students to 
reduce class size. Boise school administrators will have to lay off the 
newly hired teachers if they do not receive targeted funding next year. 
Idaho superintendent Marilyn Howard said this returning of some of our 
Federal tax dollars to our schools will help support districts' efforts 
to create smaller classes in the critical early grades.
  It is our hope this commitment will continue beyond the current year. 
These teachers are in place. They are working. They are looking to 
Congress to see whether what we did a year ago was just an empty 
promise or whether we really meant it when we said that in the United 
States of America we want our kids to get a better education and we 
believe an important role of the Federal Government is to provide the 
partnership and the dollars to reduce class size. It is a very 
important goal, one that is achievable, one in which we can help to 
make the commitment, and one to which we can be held accountable at the 
end of the day. We know where those funds go. We know they don't go to 
administration. We know they don't go to expensive bureaucratic work. 
We know they don't go to a lot of paperwork. We know they go to hire 
teachers to go directly into the classrooms.
  This money is helping. But in the bill before the Senate today, there 
is no money for class size reduction, no money whatever. Mr. President, 
30,000 teachers will be fired as a direct result of this bill now 
before the Senate. I cannot stand by and let that happen. I know a 
number of my colleagues will not stand by and let that happen.
  In Boston, MA, home of Senator Kennedy, the Boston public school 
district received $3.5 million in funding to reduce class size. In the 
first year, the school district has reduced class sizes in the first 
and second grades from 28 students to 25 by hiring 40 new teachers. If 
the Boston public schools were to lose funding targeted to class size 
reductions, they would not be able to further reduce class sizes to 18 
in the first and second grades and they would not be able to reduce 
class sizes in third and fourth grades, their objective. They would 
have to lay off all 40 teachers or make deep cuts in other areas of 
education.
  That is not a choice we ought to be giving them. We ought to fulfill 
the commitment we made 1 year ago: Put the money in class size 
reduction, make the commitment to continue to work to hire 100,000 
teachers across the country, and keep the promise everyone made that 
education is a No. 1 priority and we are not going to underfund it.
  I know there are other colleagues who want to do block grants. I 
commend them for their ideas, their passion, and their commitment. If 
there is a need for additional funds for schools in the form of block 
grants, I am happy to hear those proposals. Yes, let's provide that 
additional funding. However, let's not take away the commitment we have 
made to reduce class size in the first, second, and third grades. It is 
a national commitment on which we need to follow through.
  I think what we should recognize is that only 1.6 percent of the 
entire Federal budget goes to fund education. To take away this $1.2 
billion is not the right way to go. I know that my colleagues several 
years ago passed a sense of the Senate which said we would increase by 
1 percent a year the amount of money going to fund education. We have 
not done that.
  If some of my colleagues want to offer a block grant, offer 
additional funds to schools, that is great. However, let's not take 
away the commitment, let's not take away the promise, let's not take 
away the investment that is in place right now with teachers hired, 
with classes being reduced, with young students in early grades across 
our country now knowing they will be able to learn to read, write, and 
do math by the end of first and second grades because this Senate, this 
Congress, in a bipartisan manner, 1 year ago said: We are going to make 
this happen. Let's not renege on that promise.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am also a member of the Appropriations Committee, and, 
like the Senator, I was disappointed yesterday. We have a chance with 
this appropriations bill to define our priority and to say to the 
American people whether or not we think education is important. I was 
startled--I think

[[Page 23166]]

the Senator from Washington, as a former classroom teacher, was 
surprised as well--when a successful program to reduce class size that 
put thousands of teachers in classrooms across America was not funded 
in this legislation.
  In my home State of Illinois, we will lose up to 1,200 teachers; 
nationwide, 29,000 teachers. It strikes me as not only odd but maybe a 
little bit embarrassing that we are saying to the American people as we 
start this new century, the first thing we will do for education----
  Mr. GREGG. Regular order. I do not think the Senator may be yielded 
to for a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington may yield for a 
question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I was reaching the interrogatory phase of this statement, 
and it was just about to come to me when the Senator reminded me of the 
Senate rules. I thank him for that.
  Here is the question: Should we in the Senate be kicking off a new 
century by announcing to America, when it comes to education, we will 
lay off 1,200 teachers in Illinois?
  I will ask another question: Should we announce to America that in 
terms of education as a priority in the new century, we will kick it 
off by laying off 29,000 teachers? Would the Senator from Washington 
respond to that question.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is asking the question that 
every Member ought to be asking. Are we, by our votes on the floor of 
the Senate today, going to lay off nearly 30,000 teachers nationwide to 
whom we made a commitment 1 year ago to put into our classrooms, who 
are working today, who are making a difference today, who are 
connecting with young children one on one today? Are we going to turn 
around and say to them: Sorry, you no longer have a job?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator is a former classroom teacher and follows the 
trends in education. The question I will ask her: Is the enrollment in 
schools in America declining so that we can get by with fewer teachers, 
even if we accept larger classrooms?
  Mrs. MURRAY. To the contrary, in answer to the Senator from Illinois. 
In fact, projections say we will have 500,000 new students in our 
schools in the next year--500,000 new students. By firing 30,000 
teachers, we will increase the classes most dramatically.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Washington: We are struggling to 
encourage people to become teachers because so many of our current 
teachers are retiring. Would it not be a disincentive if there were 
uncertainty about the commitment by the Federal Government for a 
program to reduce class size?
  If the Republican appropriations bill on education passes and lays 
off 29,000 teachers, what kind of impact will that have on a young 
person who is trying to decide whether to take up teaching as a 
profession?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I think the Senator from Illinois raises a valid point. 
We have a lot of young students today who would make outstanding 
teachers, who would be able to contribute to the future of this country 
in a very positive way by getting a teaching degree and being a teacher 
in one of our schools.
  However, if we send the message today that teachers will be in an 
overcrowded classroom, they are not going to have the support, the 
backing of Congress and legislatures, and teachers will be sitting in 
overcrowded classrooms, my guess is, we will have a decreasing number 
of students willing to work in the public education system.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Washington yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. We are here now on the floor considering the Health-
Education-Labor appropriations bill, a very important bill. The 
question I have for the Senator from Washington is this. It is my 
understanding what she wants is a vote, up or down, on whether or not 
this bill is going to allow the termination of 29,000 teachers or 
whether those teachers will have jobs. Is that the question we want to 
put before the Senate?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes. The Senator from Nevada is absolutely correct. We 
want to be able to offer an amendment and have every Senator vote, up 
or down, whether or not they are going to continue to allow these 
teachers to be employed, to be working in our classrooms, or whether 
they are going to say: No, sorry; not on our watch.
  Mr. REID. I ask a further question of the Senator from Washington. It 
is my understanding the Senator from Washington and the Senator from 
Massachusetts, who knows every rule of the Senate, and others who are 
on this side of the aisle are going to do everything within the 
procedural possibilities of this Senate to have an up-or-down vote on 
this amendment on this bill; is that true?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Nevada, 
this issue is so important to me, it is so important to the children in 
our classrooms and the families of this country, that I will continue 
to offer this amendment every single hour until the Senate is out of 
session in November.
  Mr. REID. I ask an additional question to my friend from Washington. 
We have been told by the leadership on the other side of the aisle, it 
is very important to move this legislation. In fact, they have set the 
date they want to complete it--by tomorrow night. As I understand the 
Senator from Washington, this legislation would move along very quickly 
if we had an up-or-down vote on her amendment. If we had an up-or-down 
vote on her amendment, we could go on and complete the bill very 
quickly; is that true?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Nevada is correct. To our colleagues 
who are wondering why we are debating and not offering the amendment, 
if I offer the amendment, it will be second-degreed and our colleagues 
will never have an opportunity to vote or make a statement whether or 
not they want to continue the funds to reduce class sizes. We are here 
to continue to talk about the bill. I am happy to do that. I have a lot 
to say. I know a number of my colleagues do as well.
  Mr. REID. I have a last question to my friend from Washington. My 
friend from Washington speaks from her experience prior to coming to 
the Senate. It is true, is it not, she was a teacher?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Nevada is correct. I have been a 
preschool teacher. I have been a school board member. I have served in 
my State legislature, been on the education committee there, and I now 
serve on the Education Committee in the Senate. I have seen all sides 
of education. Probably most important, I have been a parent of two 
students in our public education system and participated in everything 
from PTA to all the activities that go along with being a parent.
  Mr. REID. The question I ask to the Senator from Washington--I want 
to make sure everyone understands: We, the minority, are not stalling 
this bill. All we want is a simple up-or-down vote on whether or not we 
are going to lay off 29,000 teachers. We believe those teachers should 
have their jobs, should be able to keep their jobs. Is that the matter 
before the Senate?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Nevada is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I wonder if the Senator will yield for an additional 
question. As I understand, in the Senator's presentation, this concept 
and commitment to the smaller class size is not only based upon her own 
experience as a teacher and as a school board member but upon very 
important results of studies and evaluations of what they call the 
STARS Program in Tennessee. The results of that study indicate the 
impact on those children was rather dramatic in math and science, in 
reading, in reduction of disciplinary problems, and also the benefits 
of that experience actually carried on through the later grades, 
through the eighth grade, and actually were reflected in the increasing 
number of students who attended college.
  The amendment of the Senator is based upon what I imagine is rather 
intuitive understanding of education, and

[[Page 23167]]

that is, a teacher understanding the students and knowing their needs 
in a small class. But also, am I correct, this has been really one of 
the most important new results of various experiments that have taken 
place in the several States? Am I correct with that conclusion?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. 
Every parent knows smaller class size is important. It is the question 
they ask their children when they come home on the first day of school: 
How many kids are in your classroom? They ask that question because 
every parent knows the smaller the class, the better chance at 
learning.
  But the fact is, we want our Federal dollars spent in areas that will 
really work. We have, as a Senate, looked at studies--the STARS study 
the Senator from Massachusetts just mentioned--and the fact is, when we 
spend Federal dollars and we are partners with our local districts in 
reducing class size, it makes a difference for our students.
  As the Senator from Massachusetts said, students in smaller classes 
have significantly higher grades, as found in a STARS study that 
followed these kids from the early grades all the way through senior 
year in high school. In fact, in English, smaller classes had a 76.1-
percent average--higher than these. In math it was higher, and in 
science it was higher. This is real. These dollars make a difference. 
It means students will learn the skills every one of us wants them to 
learn, and studies back them up. This money makes a difference.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Am I correct also, last year when Congress went on 
record committing itself to at least the first year of the hiring of 
additional teachers, it really was not a partisan issue? At that time, 
as I understand it--I am wondering whether the Senator remembers it--
the chairman of the House Education Committee said, essentially, on the 
proposal of the Senator from Washington:

       This is a real victory for the Republican Congress, but 
     more importantly a huge win for local educators, parents who 
     are fed up with Washington mandates, redtape, and regulation. 
     We agree with the President's desire to help classroom 
     teachers, but our proposal does not create a big new Federal 
     education program.

  This was said last year by the chairman of the House Education 
Committee, and similar words were used by House Majority Leader Dick 
Armey of the Republicans. Is the Senator aware that this concept was 
warmly embraced by Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Dick Armey, and 
Congressman Goodling in the final hours of the last Congress?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely correct. I 
remember the negotiations. I remember everyone coming out in a 
bipartisan manner, in fact struggling to get their press conferences 
before their counterparts in the other party, in order to take credit 
for the class size reduction.
  Senator Gorton here in the Senate was part of those negotiations. As 
the Senator mentioned, the House chairman, a Republican, as well as 
Dick Armey, came out and said: We have made progress. We have done 
something that is important. We are behind the class size reduction. 
This is a commitment we are going to make.
  So it is very surprising to me that the House has zeroed out money 
now and said it is no longer a priority, and here in the Senate bill we 
are doing the same thing.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is it the understanding of the Senator that the Federal 
participation is very limited, what we do in terms of our contribution 
to local school budgets--perhaps 7 cents, perhaps somewhat less than 
that if we consider actually the food? But it is a very small targeted 
amount; am I correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Therefore, what the Senator is driving at is to really 
target scarce resources in an area of education, as I understand it, 
that has demonstrated and proven to be, under every evaluation, 
effective in enhancing academic achievement; am I correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is absolutely correct. What we did with 
these dollars is, we focused them directly in an area where we know it 
makes a difference in the learning of children. In addition, unlike 
many other Federal programs, we made sure it was not spent on 
bureaucrats or paperwork or administration. These dollars are targeted 
directly to the classroom. That is why it has been so effective. That 
is why it is so well loved by so many districts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I want to ask the Senator whether she is aware of an 
editorial in today's St. Louis Post-Dispatch illustrating how important 
class size is to St. Louis families. This is basically Mid-America 
talking.
  I ask unanimous consent the whole editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 29, 1999]

                           Abandoning Schools

       First in the people's hearts, last in Congress' wallet. 
     That's education. Poll after poll has confirmed that 
     improving our schools is a top priority of Americans. The 
     message has been so relentless that even Republicans (ever 
     mindful of the 2000 elections) felt compelled to rethink 
     their long-standing aversion to involving the federal 
     government in local schools. ``It's time to quit playing 
     around the edges and dramatically increase the amount of 
     money that we put in public education,'' Sen. Pete Domenici, 
     chairman of the Budget Committee, vowed last spring.
       Translation: The check is in the mail. Reality: Uh, we 
     intended to pay for it, but now we don't have the money.
       Why don't they have the money? Because, as Congress 
     sheepishly waits until the final minutes of the fiscal year 
     to do the unpopular work of tackling the budget, the spending 
     bill that includes education, labor and health and human 
     services was stuck last in line, where money was taken from 
     it to fund other bills. ``We've used the health and human 
     services account as an ATM machine,'' fumed Senate Minority 
     Leader Tom Daschle.
       So many billions have been withdrawn from it that several 
     education programs are frozen and an especially important one 
     is in jeopardy.
       Remember class size reduction? Last year there was a 
     bipartisan commitment to spend $1.2 billion to hire 100,000 
     new teachers over a seven-year period, reducing average class 
     size to 18 in grades 1 through 3. St. Louis city and county 
     stood to gain 600 of those teachers. The current spending 
     bills being considered in both houses this week effectively 
     kill the program. So when Congress says ``seven years,'' the 
     education translation is ``until the ink on the headlines is 
     dry.'' It is, as Rep. William L. Clay of St. Louis says, ``a 
     shameful abandonment.'' Thirty thousand of those teachers 
     have been hired. Without the money that was promised, it 
     becomes questionable how many can return next year.
       The rap on public schools is, in most cases, a valid one: 
     If your child is either ahead of or behind his peers, he's 
     going to be lost in the shuffle of 25 to 30 children. If your 
     child has some kind of learning disability, it may take years 
     to zero in on it. And if your child doesn't learn to read and 
     do basic arithmetic by the fourth grade, he'll be playing a 
     losing game of catch-up for the rest of his academic life--
     which might not be very long.
       It's hard to think of anything more obvious or more 
     fundamental than the need for smaller classes in the early 
     years. It's even more difficult to think of anything more 
     unconscionable than bailing out a long-range commitment one 
     step into it. Members of Congress, keep your promise. Give 
     our children schools where teachers can teach and all 
     students can learn.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I would like to just ask the Senator to respond to this 
part of the editorial that says:

       Remember class size reduction? Last year there was a 
     bipartisan commitment to spend $1.2 billion to hire 100,000 
     new teachers over a seven-year period, reducing average class 
     size to 18 in grades 1 through 3. St. Louis city and county 
     stood to gain 600 of those teachers. The current spending 
     bills being considered in both houses this week effectively 
     kill the program.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The rap on public schools is, in most cases, a valid one: 
     If your child is either ahead of or behind his peers, he's 
     going to be lost in the shuffle of 25 to 30 children.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       It's hard to think of anything more obvious or more 
     fundamental than the need for smaller classes in the early 
     years. It's even more difficult to think of anything more 
     unconscionable than bailing out of a long-range commitment 
     one step into it. Members of Congress, keep your promise. 
     Give our children schools where teachers can teach and all 
     students can learn.

  Does the Senator find this kind of expression that comes from Middle 
America, the heartland of the Nation, is

[[Page 23168]]

really expressed in other parts of the country, western parts of the 
Nation, the great State of Washington which she represents, as well as 
in the other parts of the country?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct. I have not 
seen the editorial. It does not surprise me. I have seen similar 
editorials, like in Longview, WA, a very small rural community that 
understands the need to educate their kids because they can no longer 
rely on the timber jobs that were there maybe even a decade or two 
decades ago, and they know their kids need to know math and science so 
they can attract some of the high-tech industries that are coming in 
and seeing that those kids get the education they need.
  I have heard from schools in Yakima, WA, a farming community, 
Everett, a suburban district, right in the heartland of Seattle, 
Garfield High School, where teachers have said to me: This money is 
critical, it is targeted, it is used for what we need to do, you can be 
held accountable for it; don't renege on a promise.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We had some tragic experience in schools this last year, 
and all of us are trying to find ways of avoiding those circumstances. 
No one pretends the answers are going to be easy and are going to be 
solved virtually overnight. But is it the Senator's sense that by 
having the smaller class sizes that we not only are dealing with 
academic achievement, but we are also dealing with some disciplinary 
problems, and also since we are talking about K-3, we are also talking 
about the opportunities for teachers to interact with students and 
perhaps identify some of the younger children who may be faced with 
some tensions or some developmental difficulties early in the cycle and 
perhaps have some opportunities to address those particular children's 
needs?
  Does the Senator also think this smaller class size can have some 
impact in terms of discipline and also in terms of the climate and 
atmosphere which exists in schools in this country?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Massachusetts brings up another 
extremely important point. I do not think there is a parent in America 
whose heart does not stop when they see another television show about 
another shooting and they worry about their own child.
  The fact is, when kids are in smaller class sizes in the first, 
second, and third grades, their tendency toward discipline problems is 
reduced dramatically. It does make a difference.
  More important is what a policeman told me not long ago. He said: I 
watch these families today, and a lot of kids are home alone 
essentially in the evening. The parents may even be there, but they are 
essentially home alone. They walk to school in the morning in a 
neighborhood where the blinds are closed and the doors are closed and 
not one adult looks out to see if they are OK. They walk to school 
without anyone paying attention. They get to school, where it is 
overcrowded, where the only adult in that classroom never has time to 
look them in the eye or see that they are OK.
  This policeman said to me: These kids feel anonymous in today's 
world. It is no surprise they act out violently in order for someone to 
notice them.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, because there are other Senators who wish to 
speak, we will lose some 575 teachers in my State of Massachusetts. I 
have heard from the parents. I have heard from the school boards. I 
have heard from those communities that say this is certainly one of the 
highest priorities they have for this Congress.
  I thank the Senator from Washington for bringing this matter back to 
the attention of the Senate.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I remind my 
colleagues that we are here today because we believe this issue is 
extremely important; that firing nearly 30,000 teachers, that reneging 
on our promise to reduce class size is the wrong way to go. We want 
this Senate to be on record, we want an up-or-down vote on this 
amendment, and we want this country to know we stand behind the 
commitment we made 1 year ago.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Washington 
will yield for a question.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was in the appropriations markup 
yesterday when the Senator from Washington was preparing to offer the 
amendment she now describes on the floor of the Senate. I asked the 
question at that point during the discussion whether the product from 
the Appropriations Committee that was brought to the committee 
yesterday, and now to the floor, would, in fact, require or allow or 
cause the firing of up to 30,000 teachers that had been previously 
hired under this program. I asked the question, I think, a couple of 
times, trying to understand, is there a deliberate effort to say we 
don't want to have a program with national goals or aspirations to 
reduce class size by hiring more teachers; we don't want to have that 
program. Is that the goal, to not have that program any longer?
  I was not able to get an answer to that. But we now have the program. 
Is it not correct we have a program in which we in Congress said we 
will authorize and fund to try to reduce class size around this country 
in our public schools by adding some additional classroom teachers? We 
know that works. Study after study tells us that works, that it 
improves education. A teacher in a classroom with 30 students has 
substantially less time to devote to those students than a teacher in a 
classroom with 15. We know that. We know it works in every way to have 
smaller class sizes.
  This Government already decided it wanted to have a program of that 
type. We funded it and authorized it last year.
  Unless the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington is 
adopted, is it not correct that all across this country, we will see 
the dismissal of teachers who are now in the classroom helping reduce 
class sizes, improving education, because the resources will not be 
available any longer to fund that? And will that not be a significant 
step backward in our goal to improve public education in this country?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from North Dakota is correct. If my 
amendment is not adopted, the result will be nearly 30,000 teachers 
nationwide will lose their jobs at the end of this year.
  Mr. DORGAN. But is it not also correct--I continue to ask a question 
of the Senator from Washington, Mr. President--when we had this 
discussion yesterday, there was a proposal that perhaps a second-degree 
amendment would be offered, and they said: Well, we will offer some 
money that is in the form of kind of a block grant--they do not call it 
that--where they send some money back to the school districts and say: 
By the way, do what you want with this because we don't have any goals 
or aspirations with respect to how it ought to be used.
  In other words, they say: Let us retreat from this program of 
reducing class size by hiring more teachers and improving education 
that way; let's decide we will send money but have no national goals.
  Isn't that the case with respect to what was attempted yesterday 
before you decided to withhold your amendment for the floor of the 
Senate, that the second-degree amendment would have said: OK, we will 
provide some money, but we want to back away from the commitment of 
reducing class size as a part of solution to improve education?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely correct. 
What the other side wants to do is offer a second-degree amendment that 
offers Senators a false choice. We want to make sure we keep those 
teachers in place and continue our commitment to reduce class size.
  I say to my colleagues, if they want to create a block grant program 
that provides additional funds, go ahead and tell us what their goals 
are, tell us what the program is, tell us what the achievements are. 
But right now we have in place a program we know works, we know what 
the goals are, and we know it achieves what we want to see achieved in 
this country, which is increasing the basic skills of our

[[Page 23169]]

young students and giving them a chance at the economy when they 
graduate one day.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I may further ask the Senator from 
Washington, this issue is not new. Is it not the case that this issue 
has been debated for some long while? President Clinton proposed in a 
State of the Union Address some long while ago this national goal of 
improving our country's education system by reducing class size; that 
is, reducing the number of students each teacher would have in the 
classroom, and decided there are sort of niche funding areas where we 
can play a role.
  It is true that most education funding comes from State and local 
governments. It is the case, and always should be, that those who run 
America's schools are our local school boards and those that make 
education policy in our States are the State legislatures. That is the 
case. No one suggests that ought to be different.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. But it is also the case we can provide niche funding in 
certain areas through national goals we establish to dramatically 
improve education, and one of those methods is to say if we had more 
teachers, we could reduce the size of the classroom, the number of 
students per class. We know from study after study that dramatically 
improves the ability of students to learn in school.
  The recipe for a good education is not a mystery at all. You have to 
have a good teacher, you have to have a student willing to learn, and 
you have to have a parent willing to be involved in that student's 
education. Those are necessary ingredients for education to work.
  What about this notion of a good teacher? You have to have a good 
teacher and put that teacher in a position of teaching well in a school 
that is functional, not in a crumbling school or a crumbling building 
that is in desperate need of repair, and we know of plenty of those and 
are working on that, but also in a classroom that is not overcrowded.
  I know the Senator from the State of Washington----
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, regular order.
  Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is, the Senator from Washington has the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). If the Senator would withhold, the 
Senator from Washington has the floor, and she may only yield for a 
question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes. The Senator from North Dakota understands that. I 
have been in the process of asking a series of questions. I have asked 
the Senator from Washington several questions. I was in the middle of 
asking her another question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the----
  Mr. DORGAN. My understanding of the 12 o'clock issue is, there was to 
be no amendment offered prior to 12 o'clock; and it is now 12 noon. But 
that restriction has nothing to do with whether or not the Senator from 
Washington has and retains the floor of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator may finish his 
question.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is it----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. SPECTER. I am asking the Chair, isn't it correct----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, the Senator from Washington does have the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry. With 12 noon having passed----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Without losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry. Isn't it true that the hour of 12 
o'clock having passed, that prohibition against offering amendments has 
lapsed and amendments may now be offered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me just ask a final question of the Senator from 
Washington. I do this saying, first of all, that I have great respect 
for the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, and I watched what he did yesterday in the area of education 
and health care and a range of other areas, where he tried to take 
resources that were rather limited and make the right investments with 
them. There are many areas on which I applaud the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa. I think they deserve our 
accolades and applause for their work in a number of areas.
  The Senator from Washington, however----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair----
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me finish the question, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from North 
Dakota that the Senator from Washington cannot yield for a statement 
but a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand.
  I did not expect that the Chair or the Senator from Pennsylvania 
would have a problem with my complimenting the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. But I will cease and desist that.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have no problem with that.
  Mr. DORGAN. I have a question I want to propound to the Senator from 
Washington. Isn't it the case that while in some areas there has been 
adequate funding, in this area on the major initiative dealing with 
class size, we will have to fire classroom teachers around this country 
unless this resource is put back in the piece of legislation before the 
Senate?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. Unless we dedicate this money to 
the class size reduction bill we passed last year--that we continue 
it--those classroom teachers will be fired at the end of this year.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Washington the 
following question. It was my understanding it was the President's goal 
to try to recruit and train some 100,000 teachers across America in 
order to reduce the class size in virtually every community and school 
district in need of that. Is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding, because of bipartisan action last 
year--an agreement between Republicans and Democrats that this was a 
good goal--we appropriated $1 billion or slightly more----
  Mrs. MURRAY. It was $1.2 billion.
  Mr. DURBIN. And we went on to hire almost 30,000 teachers under the 
President's program. Is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Washington this 
question. Am I correct that the Republican leadership now is suggesting 
we abandon this program, we walk away from this program, and we lay off 
29,000 teachers across the country in terms of at the end of this 
school year and not being retained after that?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is absolutely correct. That is what the bill 
before us does.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Washington, is this 
not analogous or parallel to the same debate we had about 100,000 cops 
on the street, where the President proposed working with communities 
and police chiefs and sheriffs so we would be able to have safer 
neighborhoods and safer schools by putting 100,000 cops on the beat?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.

[[Page 23170]]


  Mr. DURBIN. If I recall correctly--I would like to ask the Senator 
from Washington--at one point, after many thousands of these policemen 
had been hired and crime rates were coming down, did not the same 
Republican Party object to extending the President's 100,000 COPS 
Program and say we should give this money to States and they could 
decide what to do with it?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I recall the same effort; correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask the Senator from Washington, there 
seems to be pattern: Instead of trying to meet the goals of 100,000 
cops to reduce crime or 100,000 teachers to reduce class size, is it 
not the case that the Republican majority, time and again, wants to 
stop the President's programs for more cops and more teachers?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is correct.
  I continue to add, what we have seen is what we call block grants 
proposed under the guise of: Well, we are letting the local people 
decide where the money is going to go. All of us want that to happen. 
All of us want local people involved in the decisionmaking. But what I 
have seen in the almost 8 years I have been here is that block grants 
are reduced dramatically. In fact, the title I funds, under the current 
bill--when we look in the block grants--are being reduced. So it is 
pretty easy to reduce a block grant. It is a lot harder to fire 29,000 
teachers.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to follow up on that with a question.
  The Senator from Washington is not only a leader in education but is 
a former classroom teacher. I don't know that many of us--I certainly 
cannot--in the Senate can claim to have that background when we address 
this important issue.
  So I would like to ask the Senator from Washington, as perhaps one of 
the few, if not the only, classroom teachers on the floor of the 
Senate, whether there is any importance to the President's priority of 
saying, we are going to try to fund 100,000 new teachers and reduce 
class size, as opposed to some other way this money might be spent?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I say to the Senator from Illinois, my experience not 
only as a teacher but as a parent and school board member and a State 
legislator working on education is that this initiative has made more 
of a difference in classrooms than anything I have seen in a number of 
years. Reality: New teachers hired; smaller class sizes; kids getting 
the attention they deserve. The reality is that our tax dollars--the 
moneys allocated under this program--are making a difference. They are 
making a difference for 1.7 million children right now.
  Mr. DURBIN. Is it not true--I would like to ask further of the 
Senator from Washington--that most, if not all, of us believe there 
should be accountability in education, accountability by students with 
their testing, by teachers in terms of the results, by parents in terms 
of their involvement, and that if we accept the Republican approach, 
which basically says, let's block grant the money, let's give it in 
large sums to the school districts, and not hold them accountable in 
terms of teachers and class size, we are not meeting this national 
goal?
  Mrs. MURRAY. We are not meeting the national goal. And we have no 
way, as people allocating this money, to know where it went, how it was 
spent, whether it is on paperwork or bureaucracy or administration. We 
will not have any way to show that it makes a difference in our kids' 
classrooms, whether it increases test grade scores--which is a goal for 
everyone--and we will not know whether this is going to make a 
difference in a child's learning.
  When we put these teachers in the classrooms, we can follow those 
kids in those classrooms, and we will know for sure, as the years go 
by, that these dollars make a difference. We will be able to look at 
those kids, and we will know.
  Mr. DURBIN. Further inquiring of the Senator from Washington, if we 
are going to talk about accountability and results in education--and we 
have a program where school districts will be held accountable, 
Senators will be held accountable in terms of reaching the goal of 
100,000 new teachers, and we can measure how many teachers are being 
hired, we can measure class size, and results--are we not going to lose 
accountability if we accept the Republican approach of basically just 
sending the money, with no strings attached, to the school districts?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from Illinois is correct; we will not be 
able to. If our proposal is second degreed, we will not be able to win 
my amendment and we will not have any accountability. We will not know 
a year from now how that money was used; we won't know if it made a 
difference. We will have no accountability; and, frankly, we will not 
see class sizes reduced in a way that we want them reduced. We know it 
is important.
  Mr. DURBIN. The last question which I will ask of the Senator from 
Washington: Is it true, you are on the floor leading this debate 
because of one simple request, and that is that the Senate go on 
record--yes or no--with a rollcall vote printed for the Record to see 
whether or not we are going to continue this program to move toward 
100,000 new teachers in America and lower class sizes, and at this 
point in time--I hope it changes--there is resistance to that up-or-
down vote from the Republican majority?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is absolutely correct. I want an up-or-down 
vote on this amendment. I want the Senate to be held accountable for 
their vote on this. I want to be assured that we actually have an 
opportunity to move to do this amendment without rule XVI applying.
  I went to the appropriations subcommittee hearing the night before 
last. We could not offer any amendments in committee yesterday, as the 
Senator from Illinois knows; he was there. We were unable to offer this 
amendment. It was going to be second degreed. The chairman of the 
committee pleaded and begged that no amendments be offered, that we do 
it on the floor. Now we get to the floor. I am going to be second 
degreed. We will never have a chance for an up-or-down vote and rule 
XVI may or may not apply. The Senate will never be on record.
  I want our colleagues to vote. I want us on record. I want the 
American public to know who wants to make sure that we continue the 
promise we made, the commitment we made 1 year ago, to reduce class 
sizes in first, second and third grades.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have one final question, if the Senator will yield for 
a question.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Correct me if I am wrong. The Department of Education 
has estimated that we are going to lose 2 million teachers over the 
next 10 years, which is 200,000 teachers a year. At the present time, 
we add 100,000 teachers a year. So we are basically in a 100,000 
deficit, as I understand it, at a time when we are seeing the total 
enrollment for students increase by half a million. Is that the 
Senator's understanding as well.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. So we are falling further and further behind at the 
start of this discussion and putting our children in jeopardy without 
the amendment of the Senator from Washington. It seems to me, for the 
excellent reasons she has outlined, in terms of quality of education 
enhancement for children in grades K through 3, that as a matter of 
national purpose and national priority, this has a sense of urgency.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is absolutely correct. In fact, we know 
there is going to be a teacher shortage. We need to make sure young 
people want to go into a career in education. If we are going to tell 
them they are going to be in a large class, in a crumbling school, and 
will not have the support at all levels--local, State, and Federal--we 
are going to have a hard time recruiting those teachers we drastically 
need.
  We do know if we tell our young people that we are going to reduce 
their class sizes so they can really do the professional job we have 
asked them to do, and we have a commitment that we

[[Page 23171]]

are not going to renege on every year, that we believe in this, I 
believe we will be able to recruit young, great students into the 
teaching profession, and I think we have a lot of work to do on that. 
Certainly this is a commitment we need to make.
  Mr. President, the majority leader has indicated that he is willing 
to discuss with us a way to move forward on this.
  At this time, I am happy to yield the floor in order to move to that.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Before I do, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
privilege of the floor be granted to Emma Harris, who is a 
congressional fellow in the office of Senator Edwards, during the 
pending Labor-HHS bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, we have heard a great deal of talk about 
class size. There has been an absence of recognition that the bill 
provides $1.2 billion for teacher initiatives, which may well be 
defined as class size, where the authorizing committee works. We have 
heard a castigation about failure to fulfill a promise for the 
discharge of teachers, which is factually untrue. There is currently 
$1.2 billion to fund class size reduction on an authorization which was 
contained in last year's appropriation bill.
  This year's appropriation bill includes $1.2 billion on what is 
called a teacher initiative. So when a number of Senators have talked 
about the desirability of reducing class size and what that does for 
education, that is something to which this Senator agrees. That is 
something the subcommittee agrees with, the full committee agrees with, 
and is not a partisan issue. It is not a matter that the Democrats say 
we ought to have small class sizes and the Republicans say there ought 
to be large class sizes. That is not an issue at all. There is not a 
controversy.
  It is not a controversy that there is any reneging on a promise to 
take out the $1.2 billion to discharge many teachers. That is simply 
not factually correct.
  The fact is, this appropriations bill contains $1.2 billion.
  Yesterday, the Senator from Washington, in the committee, offered an 
amendment for $1.4 billion. So there was an increase of $200 million, 
and the Senator from Washington offered that amendment without an 
offset. This bill is already at $91.7 billion, which is at the breaking 
point, maybe beyond the breaking point of what this body will enact or 
what may go through conference. In the absence of an offset, the 
priorities are not subject to be rearranged, at least in my opinion.
  There has been an objection made, understandably, by Senator 
Jeffords, who is the chairman of the authorizing committee. That is the 
role of the authorizing committee.
  Yesterday, there was talk about Senator Gorton. Senator Gorton 
introduced or was prepared to introduce a second-degree amendment, 
which would have appropriated the $1.2 billion, subject to 
authorization, and if the authorization did not occur, then the $1.2 
billion would be given to the States. They can make a determination as 
they see fit in a block grant concept, allocating it to class size or 
teacher initiative or whatever it is the States decided.
  My preference is to see that the $1.2 billion stays in the area of 
class size and teacher initiative, but that is a matter for the 
authorizers.
  I understand the Senator from Washington wants an up-or-down vote, 
but the rules of the Senate permit another Senator like Senator Gorton 
to offer a second-degree amendment. When the Senator from Washington 
says she is prepared to stay until the end of November to reoffer her 
amendment, she is entitled to do that. Senator Gorton is entitled to 
continue to offer a second-degree amendment, if he decides to do that. 
Those are the rules of the Senate. Nobody is entitled to an up-or-down 
vote if another Senator wants to offer a second-degree amendment.
  Now, it may be that Senator Gorton and others will yield and will 
allow an up-or-down vote. I am not sure how that will work out, but it 
is not a matter of right. No Senator has a right to an up-or-down vote. 
A Senator has a right to follow the rules. Senator Gorton has a right 
to the rules, just as Senator Murray has a right to the rules.
  It is simply not true that there is a reneging on the commitment for 
$1.2 billion. It is in the bill. It is categorized as a teacher 
initiative. That is another way of saying class size, or it is another 
way of saying what the authorizers may do by way of specifying how the 
$1.2 billion is to be spent.
  We have a deadline of September 30, the end of the fiscal year, to 
finish our work. We had the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, call 
for regular order. I called for regular order. You can articulate 
questions which are speeches, a lot of speeches that have consumed more 
than an hour. It is my hope that we can proceed with this bill, proceed 
with the rules of the Senate, and move to let the Senate work its will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, who has worked so hard to bring this bill to 
the floor. The bill has been so distorted in its presentation from the 
other side for the last hour and a half, and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, in fairly quick terms, disposed of that distortion. But 
let me reinforce the point that was made.
  There is $1.2 billion in this bill for teachers--teacher activity. It 
is not an authorized program in the bill because this is an 
Appropriations Committee, and it doesn't authorize.
  I find it a bit unique to hear the ranking member of the authorizing 
committee come to the floor and say that he wanted it as an 
authorization on this appropriations bill when 2 weeks ago--or 5 weeks 
ago now--we passed an amendment in this body which said we weren't 
going to authorize on appropriations bills.
  So the chairman of this subcommittee has appropriately put the money 
in for teacher assistance--$1.2 billion. And he has not authorized, 
which is the proper way to proceed.
  On the issue of class size itself, there are disagreements. Time and 
again, we heard in the speeches from the other side how they were going 
to tell the local school districts how to run their business. There is 
no longer any sugar-coating of this issue. The fact is that the 
proposal from the other side of the aisle, which originated with the 
White House, is a proposal specifically directed at telling local 
school districts how to run their local school districts. We heard 
terms such as: How can we pass the language in the appropriations bills 
when there are no strings attached? The Member from the other side said 
that. How are we going to know it works if we don't put strings on?
  Yesterday, in the committee, the junior Senator from Washington, Mrs. 
Murray, stated as a metaphor: Well, this is like a parent who gives a 
child an allowance. If you do not tell the child how to spend that 
allowance, how are you going to know how the child spends it? She might 
go out and buy candy instead of buying school lunches. That was the 
metaphor used in committee yesterday.
  I point out that the Federal Government is not the parent of the 
local school districts. The parent in this instance happens to be the 
parent of the kids. They are the parents. They are the ones who should 
be making the decision as to how the money gets spent. We are not the 
parents.
  We are not the local parents for every school district in the 
country, although that happens to be the view of the Democratic 
minority in this House and the White House. They are the great fathers 
from Washington who come down into the school districts, and say: Oh, 
school districts. Give us your money so we can take it to Washington, 
and, by the way, spread a little bit of it out among the bureaucracy in 
Washington. And then we will send you back some percentage of your 
money--

[[Page 23172]]

maybe 85 cents on the dollar, if you are lucky--and then we will tell 
you how to spend the money. That is the theory that comes from the 
other side of the aisle.
  This class size proposal is the ultimate example of that because 
where do they get the money for the class size proposal? They took it 
out of special education dollars, which essentially meant that local 
money which was supposed to be used for local decisions--whether it was 
to add a new teacher for a school or to add a new wing to the school or 
to add a new computer program to the school--that local money was lost 
because it had to go to support special education needs which were 
supposed to be supported by the Federal Government, while the Federal 
Government came and took the special education money and put it into a 
classroom program and said: Here, school district. In order to get your 
money, you have to take our program as it is presented to you, and in 
no other way. You must accept a class size program in order to get your 
money back, money which you were supposed to be getting to begin with 
to help you with special education dollars, for example.
  The whole theory of this class size proposal, as it comes from the 
White House and on the other side of the aisle, is flawed because it 
essentially is the theory that says Washington knows best. You either 
do what Washington says or else you are not going to get your money 
back from Washington--your hard-earned dollars you sent here.
  We, however, take a different approach on this. We suggest that when 
you send money to Washington--unfortunately it still goes through 
bureaucracy--when you get it back, especially in the area of education, 
the teachers, the parents, the principals, and the local school 
districts know best how to spend it.
  Yes, we are going to put in some very broad parameters that basically 
go to quality. But we are not going to exactly tell you that you must 
hire a new teacher. Rather, we have proposals such as the TEA bill, 
which passed the House, which I hope will pass here, which says for 
this money--$1.2 billion--if you want to hire a new teacher, fine, but 
if you want to train your present teachers to be better math teachers, 
you can do that, too. Or, for example, if you have a really good 
teacher, maybe in the sciences, and a lot of pressure is being put on 
that teacher to move out of the classroom and into the private sector 
because they can make so much more, you can use the money to give that 
teacher some sort of bonus in order to keep them in the classroom where 
they are doing such good.
  Give the local communities flexibility. Let's give some credibility 
to the idea that the teacher, the principal, and the parent actually 
know what is best for the kid; that maybe the President does not know 
what is best for every classroom in America; that maybe the Department 
of Education does not know what is best for every classroom in America. 
Maybe it is the people in the classroom and the parents, who have a 
huge interest in what is happening in this classroom, who know a little 
bit more about what is happening in that classroom and what the 
adequate allocation of resources should be.
  Our proposal is that we put this $1.2 billion in the context of 
flexibility. Make it applicable to teachers, make it available for 
teacher activity, but do not say you must hire a teacher.
  Remember that this is not a debate over money, although some will try 
to characterize it that way. In fact, this bill brought forward by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania exceeds the President's request in education 
by almost $.5 billion.
  In this account--the issue of the teachers account--the money is the 
exact same. What the President asked for and what we have in this bill 
is $1.2 billion.
  It is not an issue of money. It is an issue of power and who controls 
the dollars and who makes the decision over how those dollars are 
spent. We happen to think the parent, the teacher, the principal, and 
the school district should have the power. The other side thinks they 
should have the power--specifically right here in this Chamber, with no 
strings. They have to have strings attached--from that desk right over 
there; that desk three rows up and two desks over--running from that 
desk out to every school district in the country; thousands of strings 
all over the country running out of that desk telling Americans how to 
spend that money and how to control the classroom. Then we are going to 
reel in those strings. And when we find at the end of the string that 
somebody did something we don't like, somebody from that desk three 
rows up and two desks over will say: You are not educating your kids 
correctly, and we know how to do it better. So we are going to take 
your money away. Here, we are cutting this string right here.
  That is not right. Let's send the money out to the schools. Let's let 
the parents make the decisions. Let's let the teachers make the 
decisions. Let's let the principal make the decisions within the 
context of requiring quality.
  While we are on the subject, let's talk a little bit about this 
mythology--that is what it is, mythology--that class size isn't the 
issue. This has been polled. That is the reason this is being put 
forward. This is a polling event. It has nothing to do with the 
substance of the studies that have been done on the education.
  They keep quoting the STAR study out in Tennessee. The STAR study has 
been reviewed by a lot of other studies, including the STAR study 
itself. The conclusion has been that it isn't so much class size that 
is important, but it is quality of the teacher that is important. One 
of the conclusions in the Tennessee study was that if you had first-
class teachers for 2 or 3 years, then those students' ability to do the 
work was improved dramatically. It not only was improved dramatically 
for the years they had first-class teachers, but it carried forward for 
3 or 4 years after they got a really good teacher. That ability of that 
student went up. It wasn't size of classrooms so much as quality of 
teachers.
  That is what our proposal does, the TEA proposal that goes to the 
issue of quality teachers and trying to keep quality teachers in the 
classroom, and letting the local school districts decide who is the 
quality teacher and who isn't.
  It does no good to put a child in a classroom--whether it is 18-to-1, 
15-to-1, 10-to-1 or 25-to-1--if that kid is being taught by a teacher 
who does not know anything about the subject they are teaching or who 
is an incompetent teacher. It simply doesn't do any good. The child 
doesn't learn anything because the teacher doesn't know the subject or 
the child isn't able to communicate with the teacher because the 
teacher doesn't have the ability to communicate effectively with 
children.
  Class size is not the critical function. It is whether or not that 
teacher knows the subject and knows how to communicate it and deal with 
the children. That has been the conclusion of study after study. If we 
are citing studies, there was an excellent study done by the University 
of Rochester which has led the subject for years. They looked at over 
300 other studies on the question of class size and teacher quality. 
The first conclusion of that study by Professor Hanushek was that class 
size reduction has not worked. The second conclusion was that Project 
STAR in Tennessee does not support overall reduction in class size 
except perhaps in kindergarten. Remember, this study looked at 300 
other studies. Third, the quality of teacher is much more important 
than the size of the classroom.
  That study is not unique. He looked at 300 different studies.
  In the State of Washington, there was also a study which came to the 
exact, same conclusion. In my own State of New Hampshire we did a 
study. The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies did the same 
study and came to the same conclusion. A study in Boston dealt with a 
charter school and found the same. Studies have been done. The evidence 
is absolutely clear. It is not size of the classroom; it is quality of 
teacher.
  Yes, size may play a marginal function. So we may ask, isn't it 
obvious

[[Page 23173]]

size has an impact? We all can agree that size has a small impact but 
size has been addressed in most States. The President's initiative said 
we had to have an 18-1 ratio in class size. That is what his goal was. 
Maybe Members haven't been out of Washington to look at the school 
systems; maybe they are getting their information from the Education 
Department or their teacher union friends. But the fact is 42 States 
have an 18-1 ratio in class size; 42 States already meet the class size 
requirements. What those 42 States need is a better effort in producing 
high-quality teachers. What we have in this country is a severe lack of 
well-trained teachers, teachers in the classroom who are not capable 
and not doing the job in core disciplines and in areas of education 
communication. That is where we need help. That is where our teachers 
need help.
  More than 25 percent of the new teachers entering our schools are 
poorly qualified to teach; 1 out of every 4. Mr. President, 12 percent 
of the teachers entered without any prior classroom experience; 14 
percent of the teachers entered our Nation's schools having not fully 
met the State standards. In Massachusetts alone, 59 percent of the 
incoming teachers failed the basic licensing exam; 96 percent of those 
who retook the exam failed again.
  The issue is not numbers in the classroom. The issue is quality of 
the teacher, how to get a good teacher into the classroom. This is 
especially true in mathematics and science where we have a dearth of 
the talent we need because the teachers are not being adequately 
trained and science moves so quickly they can't stay up with the 
science. Forty percent of the math teachers in this country do not have 
a major or a minor in the field in which they teach.
  Tell me how it will help a student to be in a classroom with a 
teacher who has not had algebra, who has no major in algebra, maybe 
didn't even take algebra? How does it help a student, whether there are 
10, 15, or 20 students in the classroom, if the teacher doesn't 
understand the subject matter? Clearly, we are not going to help the 
student no matter how many kids are in the class.
  The issue is not class size. The statistics prove it is not class 
size. Studies show it is not class size. Even the Tennessee study 
referred to by the Senator from Massachusetts shows it is not class 
size. The issue is quality. Yet the President's program and the program 
of the junior Senator from Washington says to the States: States must 
reach this ratio, and if they don't reach this ratio, we will take your 
money away to some other account. And you must hire a teacher to get 
your money back--the money you sent to begin with.
  We say that is foolish. It is intuitive. It is obvious if you have a 
school district with parents involved, teachers involved, principals, 
and school boards involved, they will know whether they need another 
teacher or they will know whether they need another classroom or they 
will know whether they need another computer science lab or they will 
know whether they have to send some of their teachers to educational 
classes that might help them in their capacity to handle certain 
subjects, or they will know if they have a teacher about to leave whom 
they think is good and they want to teach. The local school district 
will know these things. These people are not out there committing their 
lives to education in order to bring down education. These people are 
well-intentioned, well-purposed, well-meaning, sincere, hard-working 
individuals who work in our schools. Yet we treat them, as the Senator 
from Washington described yesterday in committee, as if they were 
children getting an allowance.
  It is insulting to them, No. 1. No. 2, it doesn't work. Obviously, 
these folks who are running our schools should be given the flexibility 
to make the decisions within certain parameters so they can do what 
they think is best for the school district. The parameters we laid out 
are quality parameters set not by the Federal Government but set by the 
States. We say: State, you can have this money, but you have to meet 
certain quality standards and you set those quality standards and test 
for the quality standards. When you fail to meet the quality standards, 
you have to take action to correct it. If you don't correct it, then 
action can be taken by the Federal Government, but not until the local 
community has had a chance to meet its decisions in the context as to 
what it sees as its problems. That is a much more logical approach to 
all of this.
  I know the Senator from Arkansas is one of the leaders on this 
subject and wants to speak. I could go on for quite a while because I 
find the arguments on the other side to be so outrageous and so 
arrogant in their viewpoint which is: We know best for school districts 
of America. We know best because we happen to be elected to the Senate 
or elected President of the United States. We know what is best at the 
local school districts.
  That is outrageous. This is not about money. The money is in the 
bill, $1.2 billion. It is there. The Senator from Pennsylvania has been 
extremely aggressive in funding education. We have on all sorts of 
accounts exceeded what the President requested. This is about power and 
the fact there are interest groups in Washington, specifically major 
labor unions and the education bureaucracy, who want to control the 
curriculum and the school activities and the educational structure of 
our elementary schools across this country. They don't want to give up 
that control. Every time they create a new program, it is directed at 
control from Washington, telling the local districts how to spend their 
money. That is what it is about.
  We put forth proposals which are aggressively funded which do the 
opposite: We empower the parent; we empower the teacher; we empower the 
principal; we empower the local school district. That is the way it 
should be done and that is the way we improve education.
  This is a debate which I enjoy engaging in because I believe it is 
fairly obvious that proposals from the other side are misdirected and 
do little to improve education--maybe a lot to improve the power of the 
local unions, the national unions, and the national education lobby, 
but they do nothing for local education, whereas our proposal does a 
great deal to help the local school districts help their kids get a 
better life, a better education.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I certainly associate my remarks with 
those of the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire who truly has 
displayed not only great leadership but great expertise on this whole 
subject area, and who, I think, very eloquently and very articulately 
explained the differences in philosophy and approach, and while 
sincere, the misguided efforts of the proponents of this amendment.
  I take a few minutes to make a couple of observations about what the 
other side said about their amendment and then will outline my 
objections and what I think are the flaws in the approach advanced by 
the Senator from Washington. Certainly, I think Senator Gregg was 
right. The Republican approach is superior because it emphasizes the 
qualities of the teacher, not simply putting more teachers out there.
  I recall very well, in the third grade, when there was an 
overabundance of third graders in a small rural school in Arkansas that 
I attended, we were placed in the second grade class. There were 7 
third graders placed in the second grade class. Our teacher, Mrs. 
Hare--I remember her well--had 30 students in her class: 23 second 
graders and seven third graders. It was not an ideal situation by any 
means. It was not what anybody desired. We would have liked it if they 
had smaller classes. But I will tell you this: I am glad I had a 
quality teacher and that quality teacher was able to turn what would 
have been a disadvantage in having a combined class into an advantage 
for every student in that classroom. It is far more important that we 
have good teachers, qualified teachers, and teachers who have a heart 
for those students than it is for us, with a command-and-

[[Page 23174]]

control approach from Washington, DC, to simply put more teachers out 
there and hire more teachers at the Federal level.
  It struck me that the Senator from Washington, in her arguments on 
behalf of her amendment, wanted to have it both ways. In one breath she 
said: The Class Size Reduction Program was dramatically effective, so 
effective that we had to continue it. In virtually the next breath she 
said: Yes, it is impossible in 1 year to judge the effects of the 
program; therefore, we need to fund it again so we can give it time to 
judge its effectiveness.
  You cannot have it both ways. So I think, as in many of the sincere 
arguments from the other side, they are, in fact, quite misguided.
  Let me outline a few of my concerns. Senator Gregg rightly pointed 
out it is a one-size-fits-all approach; it is a command-and-control 
educational system in which the Federal Government micromanages what 
the local school districts can and should be doing. It is highly 
inflexible.
  Lisa Graham Keegan, from the State of Arizona, who is one of the 
great education reformers in this country, stated recently that:

       President Clinton made it abundantly clear that he decided 
     smaller class sizes are a good thing, even though research 
     has provided no clear indicators of the impact that class 
     size has on a child's ability to learn.

  Time and time again, I heard the other side say they have lots of 
conclusive studies, that reduction of class size inevitably improves 
educational achievement. But I have heard very few studies cited, other 
than one, in fact, from the State of Tennessee.
  She continued:

       Nevertheless, because [smaller] class size had been a good 
     thing in some of the classrooms the President had visited, 
     then smaller class sizes had to be a good thing for every 
     classroom in America.

  There, I think, is the flaw in the argument. Because it helps in some 
situations does not necessarily mean it is the panacea for educational 
reform across this country.
  Second, I believe the approach cited by the Senator from Washington 
will reward States that have failed to address this issue. Education is 
primarily a State and local issue. Most States now address class size. 
In fact, 25 States have had class size reduction initiatives: 
California, Virginia, Florida, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and on and on. 
Twenty-five States have already addressed this. Yet this Federal 
program, in which we fund from the Federal level 100,000 new teachers, 
basically says that failure to act will be rewarded by the Federal 
Government stepping in and assisting States. So it has a negative 
incentive. It rewards States that have failed to address this issue.
  Third, it creates either a new entitlement program or an annual 
battle such as we have now had for two successive years in the 
appropriations process, pulling the rug out from under school districts 
that have hired teachers based upon this Federal program. It is a Band-
Aid approach to a more systemic problem. It will either create a new 
entitlement which we feel obligated to keep funding year after year 
after year because school districts have acted on the basis of this 
Federal program, or we will go through this annual exercise, the 
schools never knowing for sure whether or not there is going to be this 
Federal program, and therefore we would be accused of pulling the rug 
out from under them.
  The Democrats keep mentioning we need to fulfill the promise we made 
last fall in the omnibus appropriations bill, which funded the Class 
Size Reduction Program at $1.2 billion. I simply ask the question: What 
happens if we do it this year and next year? At the end of the 7 years, 
what happens?
  I will tell you what will happen. Every school district that has 
acted on the basis of this program will be saying: Reenact it, keep on 
because we are now dependent on this Federal program for the hiring of 
teachers.
  As usual, in Federal education programs, it will continue to grow 
from year to year. It will become a new restrictive program that places 
more regulations on the localities and further contributes to Federal 
oversight of a local issue. Many school districts in Arkansas have 
declined to participate simply because of the amount of red tape and 
bureaucracy involved in the program. In fact, it feeds Federal 
dependence. It encourages those schools to look to Washington for 
funding. It encourages schools into a kind of Federal dependency.
  No. 5, needy, small districts oftentimes do not even qualify for one 
single teacher. I think one of the saddest results of this legislation 
was that some of the neediest school districts, because of their size, 
were unable to qualify for even one. They were unable to form the 
consortia required to allow them to receive even partial funding for 
additional teachers. So in a State like Arkansas those schools that are 
the neediest are those that are least able to avail themselves of this 
program.
  I might add, we have heard time and time again from the other side 
that failure to pass the Murray amendment will result in the firing of 
thousands of teachers across this country. That is not the case. Funds 
are only now flowing into the school districts from last year's Omnibus 
Appropriations bill. It is for this school year the teachers who have 
been hired are already funded, all the way through to the end of this 
school year. The way this should be addressed is through the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, which the education committee is 
addressing, and they will be bringing forth a reauthorization bill. 
That is the proper way for this issue to be addressed. But the issue of 
firing teachers, that is an absolute red herring; no teacher will be 
fired by the passage or failure of the amendment before us today.
  I might add also, listening to the other side, you would think when 
the $1.2 billion, 1-year appropriation for this program was enacted 
last year, that there was bipartisan, universal consensus that this was 
what we ought to do. That was far from the case. It is a revision of 
history. The fact is, when the Murray amendment was offered last year, 
it was defeated on the floor of the Senate, and it was only in the huge 
omnibus appropriations bill at the end of the session that, in order to 
reach an agreement with the President to prevent a Government shutdown, 
there was a resolution of the issue by a 1-year funding of the program. 
But there was not a 7-year authorization under ESEA, nor was there ever 
any consensus of this body that this was a proper Federal approach.
  The sixth reason I think this is a flawed approach is, while it is 
very expensive, it will make minimal difference in academic 
achievement. We have already discovered decreased class size oftentimes 
does not result in any marked improvement in achievement. Between 1955 
and 1997, school class size has dropped from 27.4 students per 
classroom to 17 students per classroom, according to the National 
Center for Education Statistics. The number of teachers has grown at a 
far faster rate than the number of students.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the distinguished Senator from Arkansas yield for a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that at 1 p.m. Senator Murray be recognized to offer an 
amendment relevant to additional teachers, and following reporting by 
the clerk, the amendment be laid aside, and Senator Gorton be 
recognized to offer a first-degree amendment.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the time between 1 p.m. and 4 
p.m. today be divided equally for debate on both amendments, and the 
vote occur on or in relation to the Gorton amendment, to be followed by 
a vote on or in relation to the Murray amendment, at 4 p.m., and any 
rule XVI point of order be waived with respect to these two amendments 
only.
  I also ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in 
order to either amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when Senator

[[Page 23175]]

Hutchinson concludes, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I only have a few more remarks.
  The point I was making, my sixth point, is why I think theirs is a 
flawed approach. The evidence is very clear that a simple reduction in 
class size does not improve academic achievement. In Arkansas, we have 
seen enrollment decrease from 1970 to 1996 by only 1.3 percent, but 
there has been a reduction in the number of students.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to yield, but I have a number of points 
I want to make before I wrap this up.
  Mr. REID. We want to clear up who controls the time on this side so 
there is no confusion later. Can we do that quickly?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Sure.
  Mr. REID. Time will be controlled by Senator Murray on this side.
  Mr. SPECTER. Acceptable.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, if I may return to the State of 
Arkansas where we had a reduction in the number of students by 1.3 
percent over the 25 years from 1970 on; the number of teachers grew by 
17,407 in 1965 to almost 30,000 in 1997. That is an increase of 70 
percent in the number of teachers, while we saw a decrease in the 
number of students. That is dramatic class size reduction.
  Unfortunately, we have not seen a comparable increase in academic 
achievement. I believe, if you look nationwide, that will be the story 
in State after State. While student-teacher ratios have decreased, we 
have not seen a comparable increase in academic achievement. Why would 
we then put this huge investment, dictating from Washington what the 
solution should be?
  If I were to make no other point in these remarks, it would be this 
seventh concern, that a one-size-fits-all approach from Washington will 
actually have a negative impact on the poorest students in this 
country. It will actually penalize poor children in districts across 
this country.
  The L.A. Times, in an editorial entitled ``Class-size Reduction 
Doesn't Benefit All; Quality Teachers Gravitate to Upper-Income School 
Districts, While Inner-City Students Lose Out''--it is an interesting 
phenomenon. Because of the influx of Federal funds to hire teachers, 
the result has been inner-city schools and poor school districts that 
can compete less effectively with larger and more affluent schools are 
actually penalized under this proposal.
  The L.A. Times editorial said it very well:

       A substantive reduction in the size of classes in the lower 
     grades for virtually every one of California's public 
     elementary schools triggers a frenetic stirring among the 
     existing teacher force. Schools post job openings for the 
     newly created classrooms. Teachers apply to multiple sites, 
     some more attractive than others. The more attractive 
     schools--those in middle to high-income communities--receive 
     stacks of applications along with well-honed cover letters. 
     The least attractive schools--poorly performing schools in 
     high poverty areas--scrape far fewer applications from their 
     mailboxes.

  That is the phenomenon. As so often is the case when we have a 
federally initiated program trying to decide in Washington, DC, what is 
best for local school districts all across this country, we have 
unintended consequences, and the tragic unintended consequence of this 
program has been that the poor school districts, the inner-city school 
districts, are those that have been penalized while the more affluent 
and middle-class communities have prospered under this program.
  Randy Ross, vice president of the Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan 
Project, in testifying before our health committee in the Senate, noted 
this phenomenon. He said:

       One would think [that] . . . a policy that benefits all 
     teachers would benefit all children--rich and poor. But for 
     reasons that are all too clear, such is not the case with the 
     wholesale reduction in class size. . . . I believe the 
     federal government ought to take the moral high ground to 
     insure that government spending helps poor children, and 
     never, ever hurts them.

  That has been the tragic result of this program, that poor children 
are the ones, in fact, who are penalized.
  Senator Gregg rightly said the issue is not money. There is $1.2 
billion set aside in this bill for teacher initiatives, including the 
hiring of additional teachers, if that is what is necessary. That is 
the better approach, where the local authorities have an option as to 
how those Federal funds should be spent.
  Frankly, in the area of IDEA, we have made an enormous commitment, 
but we have failed to meet that commitment with adequate funding. My 
sister Jeri who teaches in Reagan Elementary School in Rogers, AK, 
knows very well that if the local needs were best met, it would be in 
providing additional help in special education.
  Why shouldn't the local authorities have the right and have the 
option of determining whether or not hiring more classroom teachers 
fills the greatest need or whether spending that money to better meet 
the needs of special ed students would be the better use of local 
money?
  I suggest our approach is far superior, that while very sincere, 
Senator Murray has brought forth, once again, a flawed approach in the 
area of this Class Size Reduction Initiative. I think we should meet 
the responsibilities that we have already assumed in the area of IDEA 
before we create a new commitment and new responsibility that we are 
unprepared and unable to meet.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been in conference this morning on 
other matters, but I did hear the distinguished Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray, discuss the situation in Alaska and 
particularly Anchorage.
  Anchorage did receive $1.8 million last year and reduced class size 
from 22 to 18. The Senator from Washington indicated if her amendment 
is not adopted that the Anchorage School District would lay off those 
new teachers.
  I asked my staff to get in touch with the school district. I have to 
point out it is 4 hours earlier in Alaska, and we had to wait a little 
while. I have come now to report the conversations that have taken 
place with the Anchorage and Alaska entities that would receive moneys 
under this bill.
  I want to make it very plain that the Alaska position is, we want no 
strings on these block grants. We contacted the Anchorage School 
District superintendent, for instance, Bob Christal. He told my staff 
to tell me, without any question, they prefer this block grant money 
without any strings. But he said if Anchorage did receive the block 
grant, they would use the money to keep the teachers who were hired and 
for other purposes.
  We also contacted the Deputy Commissioner of Education, Bruce 
Johnson. He said the Alaska Department of Education encourages the 
greatest amount of flexibility for small districts. There is no 
question that Alaska wants flexibility in this money. He also indicated 
there has been no contact with him about this prior to our call this 
morning.
  The superintendent of the Fairbanks School District, Alaska's second 
largest city, Stewart Weinberg, said he much prefers the flexibility of 
a block grant. He would like to use a portion of the money that would 
be received for staff development by hiring mentor teachers to help 
other new teachers.
  There is no question that is the Alaska situation. I know of schools 
in our State where the school population is going down so far that they 
are in the situation of maybe having to close schools. We are not 
talking about an across-the-board concept of money to reduce class 
size. We want money that can be used to meet the needs of the 
particular school district.
  In some school districts, because of the very unfortunate 
circumstance of fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal alcohol effect in Alaska, 
we need teachers' assistants. There ought to be flexibility to use this 
money so it can meet the needs of the particular school district.
  I want to make it very plain in voting, and I intend to vote on the 
Murray

[[Page 23176]]

amendment, I will vote to support the position of the educators in 
Alaska who want this money without strings attached. They want to meet 
the needs of their districts and they do not want the Federal 
Government dictating how the money must be spent.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, under the previous order, we are now in 
3 hours of debate, equally divided, beginning with the presentation by 
the Senator from Washington?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Washington is now recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 1804

(Purpose: To specify that $1.4 billion be made available for class size 
  reduction programs consistent with the provisions of Section 307 of 
                                105-277)

  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 legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Mr. 
     Daschle and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 1804.

  Mrs. MURRAY. 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:

       On page 54 strike all after ``Act'' in line 18 through page 
     55 line 5 and insert the following: ``$3,086,634.000, of 
     which $1,151,550,000 shall become available on July 1, 2000, 
     and remain available through September 30, 2001, and of which 
     $1,439,750,000 shall become available on October 1, 2000 and 
     shall remain available through September 30, 2001 for 
     academic year 2000-2001: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriaed, $335,000,000 shall be for Eisenhower 
     professional development State grants under title II-B and up 
     to $750,000 shall be for an evaluation of comprehensive 
     regional assistance centers under title XIII of ESEA: 
     Provided further, That $1,400,000,000 shall be available, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of federal law, to carry 
     out programs in accordance with Section 307 of 105-277, the 
     class size reduction program.
       ``Further, a local education agency that has already 
     reduced class size in the early grades to 18 or fewer 
     children can choose to use the funds received under this 
     section for locally designated programs--
       ``(1) to make further class-size reductions in grades 1 
     through 3, including special education classes:
       ``(ii) to reduce class size in kindergarten or other 
     grades, including special education classes; or
       ``(iii) to carry out activities to improve teacher quality, 
     including recruiting, mentoring and professional 
     development.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if my colleague desires to speak and use 
some of her time before I actually offer my amendment, I will let her 
do so. I will seek recognition when she has completed her statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk 
corrects a major flaw in the appropriations bill that is currently 
before the Senate.
  Last year--1 year ago--in a bipartisan way, Members of the Senate, 
from both parties, and Members of the House, from both parties, agreed 
to fund an initiative called Reducing Class Size in the first, second 
and third grades. This is a commitment we made to hire 30,000 new 
teachers across the country in the early grades to make sure that these 
kids learn the basic skills that are so important to them as they begin 
their education.
  We did this as a national commitment because we understand that the 
funds that are directly targeted to the classroom, directly to hire new 
teachers, directly makes a difference in children's lives, and will 
mean that we, as Federal partners in providing funds for education will 
be doing something concrete to make the education of every child in 
this country better off. It was a bipartisan commitment by both 
parties.
  Unfortunately, in the bill that is currently before us, the money 
that was to be allocated for class size reduction has been put into 
something called a teacher assistance program that has not been 
authorized. Unless it has been authorized, the $1.2 billion will be 
lost. Essentially, what that means is that the newly hired 30,000 
teachers who are in their classrooms--one on one, working with young 
students--at the end of this year will be laid off, if the current bill 
moves forward as we now have it in front of us.
  My amendment corrects that flaw. It recommits the Senate, it 
recommits the Congress to doing what we said was the right thing to do 
a year ago, and that is reducing class sizes in first, second, and 
third grades.
  This idea of reducing class sizes did not come from some bureaucrat 
in Washington, DC. It came from grassroots organizations across the 
country, from parents who know that if their child is in a classroom 
with 30 students throughout the year, they are not going to get the 
attention they need to have a good education.
  It came from teachers who told us they were teaching in overcrowded 
classrooms, with young students coming to them with problems that none 
of us probably have experienced in our lives but who are in their 
classrooms, and the teachers do not have the time to deal with those 
problems when there are 25 or 30 students.
  As professionals and as educators, they told us that what we could do 
that would make a difference would be to target money across the 
country, to add new teachers to lower class sizes which would give them 
the opportunity to do what they have been educated to do--to teach our 
young children.
  This came to us from community leaders who saw the increasing 
occurrences of violence in youth across their communities, who are 
saying to us: We want you to do something that makes a difference, that 
is a reality, where our tax dollars can be held accountable, where we 
can see a real difference occur because we see too many young people 
who do not receive any adult attention, who are in overcrowded 
classrooms, in neighborhoods where no one pays attention to them. They 
come from families that, for many varied reasons, do not give them the 
attention they deserve. Reduce class sizes so there is one adult in 
their lives, in those early grades, who pays attention to them, works 
with them one on one, and makes a difference.
  This idea of reducing class sizes came to us from parents and 
teachers and community leaders who knew that the role of the Federal 
Government was to be a partner with their State legislature and their 
local school district to do the right thing for our young students.
  We did not just pull this out because we imagined it may make a 
difference. We knew from the studies that have been conducted that 
reducing class sizes in first, second, and third grades makes a 
difference. It makes a difference in the learning of our young 
children.
  We knew, in fact, that students in smaller classes had significantly 
higher grades in English, math, and science. This came from a STAR 
study, a scientific study that took young kids in first, second, and 
third grades, put them in smaller classes, and then followed them 
throughout the next 10 years of their education. As they went on, these 
students, who had been in smaller class sizes to begin with, had 
significantly higher grades in English, math, and science. They were 
able to do what all of us want them to do, and that is to learn.
  So this idea to reduce class size was backed up by science. It was 
because of studies similar to the STAR study that we knew that putting 
our Federal resources into hiring teachers was going to have an outcome 
that actually made a difference in the education and learning of 
students across this country. It is real and it is there.
  This is the result of the work we did a year ago. We currently have 
almost 30,000 teachers now teaching in our classrooms that would not be 
there if we had not begun this approach a year ago. We need to make 
sure we follow up on that commitment.
  How can anyone turn around and now say: Well, what we did a year ago 
was

[[Page 23177]]

an empty promise at the end of the year. We got tied up in a budget 
negotiation. We did not mean it.
  How do you say to the teacher that I met in Tacoma a week ago--with a 
class of 15 first graders as a result of what we did--that it was just 
an empty promise, that we did it on a whim, that we had to do it? We 
need to say to that teacher: We meant it then and we mean it now. We 
know that having 15 first graders in your classroom is going to make a 
difference. We agree with you as a professional, with you as a teacher, 
when you look me in the eye as a legislator and say: These kids are 
going to get an education this year.
  She said to me: I want you to make sure you continue this program so 
it isn't just a 1-year program, that every child in the first grade in 
the United States of America knows that they are going to learn to 
read, that every parent who sends their child to a first grade 
classroom will have the commitment from us that we are doing something 
in reality that makes a difference for their classrooms.
  I know that we are going to be second-degreed. I know another 
amendment is coming that will block grant these funds and say: Sure, 
this money is still going to go out to the districts, but that does not 
touch what parents are asking us to do, that does not touch what 
teachers are asking us to do.
  They said: You as a Federal Government, you as our national leaders, 
have said that reducing class size is a priority and you are behind it. 
Tell us that is true, and follow through on that commitment. Don't let 
it get lost in the bureaucracies of block grants. Don't let it get lost 
in the politics that happen between where you are and where we are. 
Please make sure that the money stays there for our teachers.
  This is a program we know works. We know that in a lot of block 
grants the money gets lost in administration and bureaucracy and 
paperwork. When we passed this legislation to reduce class size, we did 
it in a way that makes sure the paperwork is minimal. In fact, it is a 
one-page form that school districts fill out. It takes an administrator 
10 minutes--no bureaucracy involved. That class-size money that we 
began a year ago--$1.2 billion--gets directed all the way into a 
classroom.
  The money doesn't go to bureaucracy and paperwork. It goes to a 
teacher in a classroom with young kids, giving them time, one on one, 
to be together and to learn and to be educated.
  That is what we all want. That is what is important for our country's 
future. That is what is going to make a difference 15 years from now 
when those young kids graduate. Instead of being a dropout, instead of 
having discipline problems, instead of not going on to college, we know 
from studies we have seen that these children have a much higher rate 
of being successful.
  Our economy will be better because these children have had that kind 
of attention. Our education system will be finally working, and we can 
sit back--15 years from now, 12 years from now--and take credit for 
doing something that is real. If we block grant this money and send it 
out there, none of us can say we made a difference. We won't know. But 
we do know because it is something that is wanted by parents; it is 
wanted by teachers; it is wanted by community leaders; it is wanted by 
grassroots people who are in the classroom working with our young 
children, and it is part of what we have a responsibility to do at the 
Federal level.
  We spend only 1.6 percent of the Federal budget on education. That is 
appalling. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to add 
a block grant fund that adds to what we have done in the past, I am all 
for it. I want to hear about it. I want to hear what it is targeted 
for. I want to hear what its purpose is. I want to know it is going to 
make a difference in education. I am delighted to join in that 
discussion.
  But to rob from the Class Size Initiative to add a new program they 
have developed, I say that is wrong. We know the class size money we 
put into effect a year ago is in the classrooms and working. We know a 
year from now we can be held accountable for that. We know there are 
1.7 million children today who are in a smaller class size, getting the 
skills they need and being taught what they need, having an adult pay 
attention to them and whom we won't be able to look at if this bill 
follows through and takes away the Class Size Reduction Initiative we 
began 1 year ago.
  This is an important commitment. It was an important promise a year 
ago. It is an important promise today. I hope this Senate will step 
back and say we have a responsibility as Federal legislators to work 
with our States, to work with our local governments, to reduce class 
size, and we are going to ante up our part. We are going to put the 
resources behind our rhetoric. We are going to put $1.4 billion into 
class size reduction, keep those 30,000 teachers we have hired, add 
8,000 new ones, and, a year from now, know we can look back and say we 
have made a difference--we have made a tremendous difference. We have 
told a lot of kids, probably more than 2 million, a year from now, if 
we do this right, that we care about them; that we want them to have 
the attention they deserve; we believe their education is important; we 
believe it is more important than just words and rhetoric and empty 
promises; we are going to live up to the commitments we have given. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment before us.
  We have a number of Senators who are going to come and debate this 
amendment. We will be talking about this for the next several hours. I 
will retain the remainder of my time at this point and allow the 
Senator from Washington to send his amendment forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 1805

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1805.

  Mr. GORTON. 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 55, line 2, strike all after ``Provided further,'' 
     to the period on line 5 and insert the following: 
     ``$1,200,000,000 is appropriated for a teacher assistance 
     initiative pending authorization of that initiative. If the 
     teacher assistance initiative is not authorized by July 1, 
     2000, the 1,200,000,000 shall be distributed as described in 
     Sec. 307(b)(1) (A and B) of the Department of Education 
     Appropriation Act of 1999. School districts may use the funds 
     for class size reduction activities as described in Sec. 
     307(c)(2)(A)(i-iii) of the Department of Education 
     Appropriation Act of 1999 or any activity authorized in Sec. 
     6301 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1999 or 
     any activity authorized in Sec. 6301 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act that will improve the academic 
     achievement of all students. Each such agency shall use funds 
     under this section only to supplement, and not to supplant, 
     State and local funds that, in the absence of such funds, 
     would otherwise be spent for activities under this section.''

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the bill that is before us today, an 
appropriations bill for a wide range of subjects, including education, 
includes just four lines on this subject:

       $1,200,000,000 shall be for teacher assistance to local 
     educational agencies only if specifically authorized by 
     subsequent legislation.

  Now, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, described this money in this fashion because the chairman 
of the HELP Committee, the committee in charge of education in this 
body, has conducted a long series of detailed hearings on education in 
the United States toward the goal of renewing the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act.
  Sometime next month or, at the latest, in January or February, the 
committee chaired by Senator Jeffords will report that Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act to the floor for debate. I will be surprised if 
the debate on renewing our most fundamental educational bill does not 
last at least a week. But it is simply because these issues are so 
vitally important and so key to the future of educational quality, so 
key to the achievement of our

[[Page 23178]]

students, so key to their performance in a 21st century world, that it 
is not a debate that should be conducted on an appropriations bill in a 
3-hour period.
  I must, incidentally, say that this is 3 hours more than was devoted 
to the subject last year, when the first installment of this 100,000 
teachers program was authorized. It was authorized as a part of that 
massive, overweight, end-of-session proposal that included at least 
half a dozen appropriations bills and hundreds of pages of authorizing 
language, the content of which most Members were entirely unaware when 
they voted on it.
  The amendment of my colleague from the State of Washington is, at the 
very least, premature. She presents issues that are significant and 
important. They do deserve debate. I think there is a considerably 
better way. The way we wrote it last year created some overwhelmingly 
significant problems. It created, first and foremost, in the State of 
Washington, our own State--and I suspect in every other State in the 
United States--a situation in which a very large number of school 
districts got too little money to hire a single teacher. Slightly over 
50 percent, slightly over half, 154 of the school districts in 
Washington State, didn't get enough money out of this program to hire 
one teacher, already distorting the priorities set forth in the bill.
  Interestingly enough, I don't think this is a debate that ought to 
divide liberals from conservatives, much less those who believe in a 
Federal role in education from some, though I know of very few, who do 
not.
  In the course of the last year, after the passage of that bill, I 
have been working with some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and with many on my own side of the aisle to come up with a set 
of ideas as to how we provide more trust in the people who have devoted 
their entire lives to education as teachers and principals and school 
board members and, for that matter, parents. We have heard from various 
of the academic organizations and think tanks, both on the liberal side 
of this spectrum and on the conservative side of the spectrum.
  Interestingly enough, a paper was recently published on this field, 
authored by Andrew Rotherham of the then Public Policy Institute, a 
very liberal think tank. Here is what he said in the section of his 
paper on the subject of teacher quality, class size, and student 
achievement:

       Now a part of Title VI of ESEA, 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.

  That describes perfectly the proposal before us right now: 
Washington, DC, knows best. This criticism was written by a scholar at 
a liberal think tank on education. But, interestingly enough, that 
scholar has now left the Public Policy Institute and works as President 
Clinton's Special Assistant for Education Policy today. His study is on 
our side of this issue, not on the side of this issue presented by the 
previous amendment.
  I was disturbed by the way in which the bill came before us because 
essentially the bill says that if we don't pass authorizing legislation 
for this particular program, the schools lose the $1.2 billion. I 
believe, as does the committee that reported this bill, we should be 
providing our schools all across the United States with more means to 
provide quality education for their students.
  So I really think in the debate over my amendment that at least we 
ought to secure a unanimous vote, whatever the views of Members on the 
amendment by my colleague from the State of Washington, because the 
amendment that is now before you, which I have offered, simply says 
that if Congress does not authorize this program by June 30 of next 
year, the schools will get the money anyway for any valid educational 
purpose, and they will get it in exactly the same dollar amount in 
every single school district in the country that they would have gotten 
had the Murray amendment passed and had we authorized the program she 
proposes.
  But what is the big difference? The big difference is that in the 
Murray amendment we are telling every one of 17,000 school districts in 
the United States that we know better than they do what they need in 
order to provide education for their students. Somehow or another, an 
immense ray of wisdom has descended on 100 Members of this body who 
know more about the needs of a rural district in North Carolina, more 
about the needs of New York City, more about the needs of 256, I 
believe it is, school districts in my own State, more than the men and 
women who have been elected school board members in each one of those 
school districts, more than the superintendents they have hired to run 
their schools, and more than the principals who preside over each of 
their schools or the teachers in those schools or the parents in those 
districts.
  That is not a supportable proposition. That is not a supportable 
proposition.
  Obviously, the needs of school districts vary from place to place 
across the country. Obviously, there are thousands of school districts 
that already have ideally low class sizes and have other urgent needs 
for the improvement of the performance of their students.
  I am convinced that when we get to the debate over the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, we are going to make profound changes in an 
act that has had wonderful goals for decades and has largely failed to 
meet those goals. I am convinced that one of the principal reasons 
those goals have not been met to anything like the extent we would wish 
is the fact that we are telling all of the school districts how to 
spend the money on literally hundreds of different programs.
  I have a better idea, I am convinced, than even this amendment I 
proposed here today--the idea that we allow States to take a large 
number of these Federal programs and spend the money as they deem fit, 
with just one condition, that one condition being that the quality of 
education be improved as shown by testing students by their actual 
performance.
  Let me go back again to this critique by Mr. Rotherham: ``Illustrates 
Washington's obsession with means at the expense of results''--``means 
at the expense of results.''
  In one amendment here today, we are saying to every school district 
in the United States: Here is what you have to do with respect to the 
structure of your schools. We are telling them nothing about what they 
have to do from the point of view of the performance of their students. 
But when we get to the debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, we will have that opportunity to go from a set of Federal programs 
for which the school district becomes eligible by filling out forms and 
meeting requirements set out here by the Congress of the United States 
or the U.S. Department of Education to one that says: Use your money to 
improve student performance, and if you do, if you keep on using it 
that way, you can keep on using it that way, but that is the only 
condition--provide a better education.
  As an interim step, my proposal says if we don't agree on some of the 
proposals here, we are still going to trust you, Mr. and Mrs. member of 
the school district boards, and all of the professional educators, all 
of the men and women, the hundreds of thousands, millions of men and 
women in the United States who are dedicating their entire careers to 
education to being able to do the job.
  Earlier this spring, when we came up with the proposition--that we 
passed last year without debating it--of a program that created a 
tremendous amount of awkwardness in half of our school districts 
because they couldn't hire a single teacher with the money, the 
associate executive director of the State school directors association 
in my State of Washington wrote this to us:

       At some point elected officials in Washington, DC, simply 
     must trust local education officials to do what is in the 
     best interests of the kids in their community. We all have 
     their best interests at heart.


[[Page 23179]]


  Yesterday and this morning, all we heard from the other side of the 
aisle was that if we don't pass that previous amendment from my 
colleague, the 30,000 teachers who have been hired in the last year 
will all be fired and they will all be out on the street. We heard that 
from Member after Member on the other side.
  If we do it my way, each of these schools districts will have the 
same number of dollars. Are they going to hire teachers with it? Do we 
have so little confidence in the ability of our schools to set their 
own priorities that 30,000 teachers will be out on the street? If we 
did, it would be because it was the unanimous opinion of school 
districts across the country that this wasn't the right way to spend 
money on improving education.
  I expect that most of the money will continue to be spent on 
teachers--a very large amount. But it will be a little more in one 
district and a little less in another because each one of them will 
have different needs and different priorities.
  No. Between these two ideas this is a great gulf. Each of us, I 
guess, has a strong ego, and humility is not a virtue widely practiced 
in the Congress of the United States. However, it doesn't take a great 
deal of humility to say maybe the teachers in my State know more about 
education than I do; maybe our principals and superintendents know more 
about running their school districts than we do; maybe the elected 
school board members who run for just that office and are in the 
communities and are working with the parents know a little bit more 
about what their schools need in 17,000 different school districts 
across this country than do 100 Members of the Senate.
  Members who vote for that other amendment will be saying: We know 
what's best; you don't. We know what's best. Do it our way. It's the 
only way to do it.
  Those who take a different philosophical point of view will say: 
Let's provide our schools with the tools to do the job, but let's let 
them determine how to do the job.
  Beyond that, my own amendment ought to unite us. We certainly ought 
to assure the money goes to the schools, and then when we have that 
week-long or 2-week-long debate this winter and decide how much Federal 
control we are going to impose, whether we are going to begin to 
provide more trust, the money will be there; it will be guaranteed to 
each of the school districts. But we don't need to do it here and now 
in a relatively brief debate. We do not need to say we know better than 
they do what their students need.
  Guarantee the money for our schools through this amendment, guarantee 
our schools can set their priorities through their own professional 
educators, through their own parents, their own often amateur members 
of the school board, without our having to tell them how to spend every 
dollar.
  I believe we should vote in favor of this amendment and against the 
other.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
California, Mrs. Feinstein, be added as a cosponsor, and I yield 10 
minutes to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, is a no-brainer. I want to say 
why I believe it is a no-brainer and why I believe it is prudent for 
the Senate to move ahead with it and approve it today.
  The Federal share of elementary and secondary education in this 
country has declined from 14 percent in 1980 to 6 percent of the share 
going to schools in 1998. Let me say this another way. Back in 1980, we 
funded 14 percent of elementary and secondary education needs; in 1998, 
we funded 6 percent of those needs.
  Essentially what Senator Murray is trying to do is raise the 
appropriation level by $200 million and say let's go do it.
  What does she want to do? She says, let's reduce class size. What 
does that mean? In 1999, we spent $1.2 billion on the first installment 
of hiring 100,000 new teachers all across this great country. The 
United States could hire 30,000 teachers under that appropriation; my 
State, California, could hire 3,322 teachers. President Clinton's 
request for this year, FY 2000, was $1.4 billion. That meant the United 
States could hire 8,000 teachers to continue that and California could 
hire an additional 1,100 teachers.
  The recommendation of the Appropriations Committee, of which I am a 
member, is $1.2 billion. How the money would be used is not specified. 
The legislation reads that it is for ``teacher assistance'' and that it 
can only be appropriated if it receives the authorizing legislation.
  Senator Murray's amendment adds $200 million and deletes the 
contingency language. Therefore, with the passage of this amendment, 
the United States could hire 8,000 new teachers all across this great 
land. For my State, California, that means 1,100 additional teachers. 
That is important. Class size reduction is important.
  I think there are three things that can be done to improve education:
  One, elimination of the practice of social promotion, under which 
youngsters are promoted from grade to grade even when they fail, even 
when they don't show up in class, even when there are major 
disciplinary problems and youngsters are not learning. But they are 
still promoted. This has come to denigrate the value of a high school 
diploma all across this great land.
  We also have large class sizes. California has some of the largest 
classes in the Union. I have been in elementary schools, K through 6, 
with 5,000 students in the school. In California, in some schools, 
students speak 50 different languages, which adds additional burdens on 
the teachers. No one can learn adequately in overcrowded classes with 
overburdened teachers.
  Because of the challenge of diversity, of the need for additional 
English training, of the challenge of tightened core curriculum 
standards, smaller class sizes across this land makes sense. I don't 
think there is anyone in the Nation who has a youngster in public 
school who wouldn't say: My youngster can learn better in a class size 
that is smaller.
  That is what this money will go to--reducing class size. Class size 
reduction, school size reduction, elimination of social promotion, and 
more qualified teachers across this land can make a huge difference in 
the accountability and excellence of education for our youngsters.
  My State has 6 million students, more students than 36 States have in 
total population. We have one of the highest projected enrollments in 
the United States. California will need 210,000 new teachers by 2008--
210,000 new teachers. How could I say, let's wait and authorize this 
some other time? We don't even know whether there will be an elementary 
and secondary education bill this session. We have an opportunity to 
address a big problem in education right now. I would hazard a guess 
that States such as that of the Presiding Officer, Ohio, could also 
benefit from small class size reduction.
  The Murray amendment essentially provides $200 million in additional 
funds and specifically says the funds will go for class size reduction 
and the hiring of this additional increment of teachers. That is why I 
say it is a no-brainer. The need is there; the need is clear. Every 
parent knows their child is better educated in a smaller setting than a 
larger setting in elementary school. Why not do it?
  California needs to build six new classrooms a day--$809 million a 
year just in our State--to be able to meet demand. It is a huge 
obligation. Our teachers are actually spending $1,000 a year out of 
their own pockets to pay for books, Magic Markers, scissors, and other 
school supplies. Our needs are huge.
  I think reducing class size, increasing the amount of Federal dollars 
that go to the schools for education, is something we should do, and 
something we should do forthwith. We should do it because we face an 
emergency in our schools.

[[Page 23180]]

  I commend Senator Murray for her effort in this. Mr. President, $200 
million more dollars can help get the job done. We have an opportunity, 
and we should use it.
  I also take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee, as well as the 
chairman of the full committee and the ranking member. I actually think 
this is a good bill in terms of dollars. It has at least $2 billion 
more for health research. This bill probably includes the largest 
single priority bill of the American people. I compliment the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the 
subcommittee. I compliment the ranking member, the Senator from Iowa. 
We may have some differences over how the money should be spent, we may 
have some differences over stem cell research or some of the specific 
wording of the bill, but the bill does provide many of the necessary 
dollars.
  I will speak at a later time on the health aspects of the bill. I ask 
unanimous consent I be afforded 15 minutes after this vote on the 
amendment to be able to speak on the health aspects of this bill.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have a 
time agreement now until 4 o'clock, where we have two votes. After that 
time, we are going to be moving on to another amendment, I think, of 
the Senator from Nevada. But I expect at some point we could 
accommodate the request by the distinguished Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, technically I do object, not knowing 
where it is going to come. Let us see if we cannot work it out. Let us 
not have an agreement at this moment as to time, and I will consult 
with Senator Reid, who is managing the time for that side, and we will 
try to find the time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate that. I withdraw the request.
  How much more time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes requested by the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I wanted to 
take a few minutes to share with my colleagues the very clear, 
overwhelming message I received as I traveled over the State of 
Missouri and met with teachers, parents, principals, superintendents, 
and school board members. They asked me a very simple question: Why is 
it the people in Washington know so much more about our needs than we 
do? How are you, in Washington, DC, so smart, to know that what we 
really need is more teachers?
  I can tell you instance after instance where, for example, they say: 
Look, we are in a small school. We only have so many classrooms. We 
cannot put another teacher in those classrooms. What we need is more 
equipment. Do not give us the money for a teacher for whom we do not 
have a classroom, or do not give us more money for another teacher when 
our salaries are so low we have to raise all the teachers' salaries in 
order to make sure we keep good people in teaching. It is not just 
quantity. In a lot of these areas it is getting the money to pay for 
quality teachers. That is why I believe the Gorton proposal is the way 
to go.
  I have talked to those in small school districts who say: Do you know 
what we would get? We would get .17 of a teacher, 17 percent of a 
teacher. That makes a pretty poor teacher, when you have only 17 
percent of the teacher. They have not quite figured out how to usefully 
employ seventeen one-hundredths of a teacher.
  But that is the extreme case. The real case, time and time again, is 
that this is viewed in school districts around my State, and I suggest 
it would be viewed that way in your own States if you asked them, that 
Washington is not so smart as to know what each district--whether it is 
North Callaway or the Scotts Corner or the Martinsburg-Wellsville-
Middletown School District needs another half a teacher, or a teacher-
and-a-half. Those decisions should be made by the school boards that 
represent and serve the parents of the district who employ the 
superintendents and the principals and the teachers.
  I proposed something called a direct check for education, which is 
molded on the work of my colleague, Senator Gorton. That has had 
overwhelming support from people who actually do the job of teaching 
our students. We entrust the future of our students to these people. 
Then we come in from Washington, DC, and say: We are a lot smarter; we 
know what you need in the school district. One size does not fit all. 
Washington's solution is not right in every school district. I can 
assure you of that. I can assure you the people who are responsible, 
the people who are elected--usually by the constituents in that 
district, the patrons of the school district--want to see the best for 
their children.
  Do you know what bugs them? Do you know what is causing them 
problems? It is all the time and energy they waste in filling out the 
forms on how they used that 17 percent of a teacher. Filling out those 
reports, sending them to Washington to keep more bureaucrats busy, does 
not educate a child or teach the child to read. It doesn't help that 
child figure out multiplication or division or even to learn about 
science and history. We need to get the Federal redtape and regulations 
and misdirected priorities off the backs of the schools that are 
laboring to teach our kids.
  If you have any confidence at all in public education, public 
education in America today is, and must be, controlled at the local 
level. Yes, it is a national priority. It must be a national priority.
  I commended President Bush when he set out to start the work of 
raising the standards and the expectations for everybody in America to 
improve our education system. That is a national priority. But it is a 
local responsibility. Let us not impose our will on local officials, 
school board officials, parents, principals, and the teachers on how to 
spend that money.
  I think this is a clear-cut case where we want to trust the people 
who teach our kids. They know the kids' names, they know the kids' 
problems, and they know the kids' opportunities.
  I urge support of the Gorton amendment. I reserve the remainder of 
the time and yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Levin be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield such time as he may use to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will use 10 minutes, Mr. President.
  What we have heard from the other side in this debate today is a 
technique which is sometimes used in this body. But the people who are 
watching this debate ought to understand it. Those listening to it 
ought to understand it. It is a familiar technique; that is, not to 
describe what the amendment is and then to differ with it. That is what 
we have seen.
  With all respect to the Senator who recently spoke about all the time 
that is necessary in order to make the application--here it is: One 
page, to make an application. One page for the local school community 
to make the application.
  Let's come back a step and understand the Federal role in education 
and what this program is basically all about. There is not anyone who 
is serious about education policy who believes with the 6 or 7 cents 
out of every Federal dollar that the Federal Government is going to 
control local decisions on education, not a serious educator. There may 
be Senators who would like to misrepresent what they

[[Page 23181]]

understand would be the results of any particular amendment, but that 
does not stand. I think it is basically intuitive to understand when we 
are only providing the 6 or 7 cents out of every dollar, basically it 
is a modest opportunity for local communities to take advantage of 
these programs.
  Second, so we have made a commitment to what? Smaller class size, 
which is the debate now, ensuring we are going to have a quality 
teacher in every classroom, that we are going to take advantage, later 
on in these debates, of afterschool programs which have proven 
effective and which people desire. We are going to have an opportunity 
to address those issues. But it is all within that 7 cents.
  To listen to our friends on the other side, you would think this is 
being jammed down the throats of the various school districts. What is 
in this amendment of the Senator from Washington? It is $1.4 billion to 
provide for the hiring of various teachers. I have listened to the 
other side, the Senator from New Hampshire and other Senators, talking 
about how this is going to threaten local education, how the heavy hand 
of the Federal Government is going to come down and dictate to every 
local school community.
  This is what it says. Section 304:

       Each local education agency that desires to receive the 
     funds under this section shall include in the application 
     required. . . .

  If they so desire to participate--completely voluntary. Do we 
understand that on the other side? This is voluntary. This says, if 
your parents, your local teachers, the local school boards, want to 
participate under this, if there is enough resources and the Murray 
amendment is accepted, then they can voluntarily participate. Do we 
understand that on the other side? Voluntary.
  Then the question is, all of this Federal bureaucracy, here it is--
one page. I wish those who comment on the Murray amendment would at 
least extend the courtesy to the Senator from Washington to actually 
understand, to read the amendment and understand what it does. Here it 
is.
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record, the one-page 
application for local communities to apply for these teachers.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                             iii. budget plan

       1. Indicate the plan for the amount and percentage to be 
     spent per budget category.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 (b) Teacher Salary/            (c) Professional
   (a) Administration                Recruitment                  Development                     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$___________               +  $___________               +  $___________              =  $___________
 
___________%               +  ___________%               +  ___________%              =  100%
 
Allowable maximum (3%)     +  Minimum (82%)              +  See directions            =  100%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       2. If the district or consortium will use a portion of the 
     grant funds for recruitment purpose(s), list the amount and 
     describe the activity.
       Amount: $______________________
       Describe: ______________________


                             iv. hiring plan

           (Proposed use of funds listed under Part III 1.b.)

       Report the number of additional teachers to be hired using 
     these funds, by teacher type and grade (write in ``0'' for 
     teacher types/grades where no teacher will be hired using 
     these funds)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Teacher Type                       1st grade                     2nd grade                    3rd grade                   Other grades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular...........................  ___________                   ___________                   ___________                  ___________
 
Special Education.................  ___________                   ___________                   ___________                  ___________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       For grades with hires planned using these funds:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Estimate the average number of students per class expected in 1999-2000      Estimate the average number of students per class expected in 1999-2000
                           without CSR Fund hires                                                         with CSR Fund hires
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        1st grade                 2nd grade                 3rd grade                 1st grade                2nd grade                3rd grade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
___________               ___________               ___________               ___________               ___________              ___________
 
___________               ___________               ___________               ___________               ___________              ___________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           v. description of proposed professional development 
                               activities

           (Proposed use of funds listed under Part III 1.c.)

       Describe: _____________________


                        vi. additional assurances

           (Proposed use of funds listed under Part III 1.c.)

       {time}  1. District will hire only certificated teachers.
       {time}  2. District will produce an annual report card for 
     public issue that describes the use and effect of class size 
     reduction funding.
       {time}  3. District will provide data on class size 
     reduction for state and/or national reporting.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with all respect to the Senator from the 
State of Washington, Mr. Gorton, under his particular provisions it 
would put $1.2 billion in a title VI block grant program that allows 15 
percent to be used for administration, reducing the funds to schools.
  How hollow it is for those on the other side to talk about how we are 
not getting the bang for the buck when virtually 100 percent of this 
goes to the local school boards for them to make the judgment in hiring 
those teachers. Our Republican friends, under title VI, spend 15 
percent in administration of it.
  Let's get real about this. Please, let's get real on it. Let's debate 
it on the merits. I would be tempted, if the Senator from Washington, 
Mr. Gorton, wants to put this as an add-on, to perhaps support it. But 
that is not what we have here. It is a substitute saying that their 
program is better than this particular program that has been tried, 
tested, accepted, and working, and improving the quality of education 
for children and, importantly, there is a desire for it to be 
continued.
  We have heard again from our good friend from New Hampshire about how 
this is basically robbing the funding for IDEA, the disability program 
in education. We should not hear that anymore from that side of the 
aisle, and I am going to tell you why. When we had the major tax 
proposal under the Republicans, we had an amendment on the floor of the 
Senate that the Senator from Washington supported and which I 
supported, the Senator from Minnesota supported, and others supported, 
that said: Let's take the full funding of IDEA for 10 years and carve

[[Page 23182]]

that out of the tax bill; let's carve it out and fully fund it for 10 
years.
  It would have amounted to a one-fifth reduction in taxes. That was 
the key vote in terms of IDEA. That was the key vote in terms of 
priorities for disabilities. Every single Member of the other side of 
the aisle voted against it--every single one of them.
  Let's not come to this Chamber in the afternoon and say: Look what is 
happening with the Murray amendment; they are trying to take the money 
from scarce resources.
  We had the opportunity to do that, and they said no. That was a 
serious debate at that particular time. Perhaps maybe even the 
President's position on the tax bill might have altered or changed--
might have, maybe not--if we were going to have full funding of IDEA. 
But absolutely not and not a single one supported that particular 
proposal.
  I do not often differ with the chairman of our Appropriations 
Committee, but he suggests we reserve $1.2 billion subject to 
authorization, and if the authorizers choose to authorize class size, 
fine, and if not, it can be a block grant for the States to choose. 
That is the whole problem. We have not been given the opportunity to 
authorize that. We have been denied, on each and every opportunity, as 
the Senator from Washington has pointed out, doing that.
  The fact is, last year on the appropriations bill, they in effect 
authorized it and Republicans supported it. All we are asking is to 
extend it, like we did last year.
  I mentioned earlier, and it continues to echo in my ears, what the 
Republicans said about this very program. It is a shame this issue has 
somehow developed into a partisan issue because last year, with the 
Murray amendment, it was widely embraced by the Republicans.
  Listen to what Congressman Goodling, the chairman of the Education 
and Workforce Committee, declared about this program, the Murray 
amendment:

       . . . a real victory for the Republican Congress . . .

  That is fine with us. As long as we can get the substance, as long as 
we get teachers, if Congressman Goodling wants to declare that, fine.

       . . .but more importantly--

  Thank you--

       . . . 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.

  Mr. Armey:

       We were very pleased to receive the President's request for 
     more teachers, especially since he offered to provide a way 
     to pay for them. And when the President's people were willing 
     to work with us so we could let the state and local 
     communities use this money--

  That was always the intent, and not only the intent, but specifically 
the language of the Murray amendment.
  He continues:

       . . . make these decisions, manage the money, spend the 
     money on teachers where they saw the need, whether it be for 
     special education or for regular teaching, with freedom of 
     choice and management and control at the local level, we 
     thought this was good for America and good for 
     schoolchildren. We were excited to move forward on that.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for 2 more minutes.
  Senator Gorton said this about the class size:

       On education, there's been a genuine meeting of the minds 
     involving the President and the Democrats and Republicans 
     here in Congress. . . . It will go directly through to each 
     of the 14,000 school districts. . .and each of those school 
     districts will make its own determination as to what kind of 
     new teachers that district needs most, which kind should be 
     hired. We never were arguing over the amount of money that 
     ought to go into education. And so this is a case in which 
     both sides genuinely can claim a triumph.

  What in the world has happened in the last 10 months to those 
Republican leaders who were enthusiastic about this program 10 months 
ago and now discard it? What is it? We have not heard it in the Senate; 
we have not heard it from one single speaker. We hear generalities; we 
have rhetoric, but there has not been a specific reason for opposition.
  In conclusion, the results of that investment show the children are 
benefiting from the Murray amendment every single day they are in those 
smaller class sizes.
  I hope this body will accept the Murray amendment and do something 
that is important for local schoolchildren all across this Nation.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in the beginning of his remarks, the 
Senator from Massachusetts said the Senator from Missouri, not having 
read the Murray amendment, made a factual error. I regret to say the 
Senator from Massachusetts, obviously, has not read my amendment when 
he stated it allows 15 percent to be used for administration and not go 
to teachers. In fact, the distribution formula under the Gorton 
amendment is identical to the distribution formula under the Murray 
amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. I also note the Senator from Massachusetts must not have 
heard my speech because I outlined specific reasons why class size is 
not as important as quality of education and quality of teachers. Isn't 
it true the quality of the teachers is what is the key here, and the 
amendment of the Senator from Washington will go to allowing schools to 
improve quality of education and quality of teachers?
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from New Hampshire, in 30 seconds, is 
precisely correct. He summed up the entire debate. I yield 5 minutes, 
or such time as he may use, to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we should step back from the rhetoric for a 
moment and calmly ask the question: What is this debate all about? It 
is about two simple ideas. They are competing ideas, and neither one is 
necessarily a bad idea. The question is which one is better.
  On the one hand, we have an idea that comes from Washington, DC. It 
is not a bad idea. It comes from very smart people. The idea is that a 
lot of school districts in this country could benefit by having the 
money to hire more teachers. There is nothing wrong with that. 
Washington, DC, has a lot of bright people, and sometimes some good 
ideas come from them.
  But every school district in this country is different. What the 
Kennedy-Murray amendment will provide for is only one program, only one 
idea, and that is that Federal money would be available for one purpose 
and one purpose only: the hiring of more teachers.
  As I said, it is a fine idea; it is good for many but not all. That 
is where the other idea comes into play. The other idea is that the 
same amount of money should be made available to the local school 
districts to be used not just to hire more teachers but for any other 
legitimate purpose which they believe would best meet the needs of 
their students based upon their circumstances.
  It is a matter of choice. A school district may well decide that what 
they need more than anything else is to get new books for their library 
or new computers for the kids or to develop a new reading program; 
maybe, in view of what is happening to some schools around the country 
today, to make sure their schools are safer, to provide new antidrug or 
drug education programs in the schools.
  We believe strongly that every parent and child in this country 
should be guaranteed a safe and drug-free, quality education for 
themselves or their children. What that means in a school district in 
Brooklyn, NY, may be very different from what it means in a school 
district in rural Arizona, for example.
  So what the amendment propounded by Senator Gorton says is: Let's let 
the local school districts decide what to do with this money. The 
people in Washington may well be right that it ought to be used to hire 
teachers, but maybe the local folks have a better

[[Page 23183]]

idea for their school district as to what they think that money should 
be used for.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side, what is the matter with 
choice? Why wouldn't you want to give the local school districts the 
choice over how to use that money? I think the answer is: Well, because 
that is not our idea. We in Washington have a better idea. We know 
what's best.
  The presumption is, we know what is best for every school district in 
the country. But that isn't true. It is the folks who know the kids' 
names, who are right there in the local community, who understand what 
they need most. If they could use that money for purposes other than 
hiring a new teacher or to better the education of their kids--because 
maybe they have enough teachers--then why shouldn't we give them that 
choice? It is a very simple proposition--two competing ideas: 
Washington knows best or letting the school district decide.
  There is another potential problem with the Murray amendment. Perhaps 
those more familiar with the funding could speak to this issue, but I 
think there is a significant likelihood that with $200 million more in 
money under the Murray amendment, the forward funding concept being 
proposed here would result in that money coming from the Social 
Security trust fund. If there is any chance of that happening, I must 
say, we should be firmly and unequivocally in opposition.
  We should not be here today making decisions which--maybe not next 
year but the year after--could result in taking money from the Social 
Security trust fund, even to fund something as beneficial as education. 
There is plenty of room in the non-Social Security budget for all of 
the things we need to do. Remember, this year we have a surplus. The 
President just announced the size of that surplus--well over $100 
billion. Much of that is in the non-Social Security side of the budget.
  A surplus, by definition, means that after we have paid for 
everything else we need, we have money left over. So we are not talking 
about not being able to fund what we need to fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KYL. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. May I ask my colleague from Pennsylvania, is there another 
speaker on our side who wishes to speak next or would we go to the 
other side?
  Mr. SPECTER. We should alternate to the other side of the aisle. Then 
we have Senator Jeffords after that.
  Mr. KYL. Fine. I will take just another minute and a half of the 2 
minutes of which I asked.
  Just to summarize the point here, there are a lot of good ideas that 
come out of Washington, DC. We provide money for them. But we should 
not presume that everything we come up with here fits every single 
school district in the country. There may be needs in one area that are 
not shared in another area; whereas one school district may need 
teachers, another school district may say, down the road we may need to 
hire more teachers, but what is more needed is a better math program or 
a better history program or whatever it might be.
  We ought to give them that chance--that is all the Gorton amendment 
says--instead of saying they can only spend the money on one thing. The 
Gorton amendment provides that they can spend the money on a variety of 
things. The application is simple. They simply set their goals, and a 
year later they demonstrate whether they have met their goals. If they 
have, they can re-up for the money. If they have not, they cannot. So 
it is a very goal-oriented program, and they are the ones who set the 
goals.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton amendment to the Murray 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that Ann Ifekwunigwe, a fellow 
in my office, be given floor privileges during the consideration of 
this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be added 
as a cosponsor to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to Senator Wellstone 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that an intern, 
Jonathan Wettstein, be granted floor privileges during the duration of 
this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just say to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, and, for that matter, to the people in our 
country who are watching the debate or those who are writing about this 
debate, that if Republicans want to block grant an additional $1 
billion or so, having some sense of what it will be for, above and 
beyond the commitment we have made to our school districts--which has 
everything in the world to do with not only what teachers but students 
tell me they really need, namely, more teachers for smaller class 
sizes--we might be for it.
  But that is not what this is about. I have been in a Minnesota school 
about every 2 weeks for the last 9 years. I was at Centennial High 
School just 2 days ago--on Monday. We were talking about education, I 
say to my colleague from Washington.
  I always say to students: You are the experts. Tell me, given your 
experience--they were juniors and seniors, from a very good school--
what works? What are the things you think work best? Also, tell me 
where you think the gaps are, where you think the weaknesses are. The 
first thing students talk about is smaller class size. That is the 
first thing they talk about.
  We have used this commitment from the President and what Democrats 
have pushed through for this last year to hire an additional 519 
teachers in the State of Minnesota. That makes a difference to our 
State. I do not want to see these 519 teachers who are adding--not 
subtracting, but adding--to the education of young people in our 
schools in Minnesota receive pink slips, to be without work. I do not 
want to see that happen. I do not want to see us retreat from the 
commitment we have made.
  A lot of people back in our States are fairly cynical about what we 
are doing or what we are not doing in the Nation's Capital, what we are 
doing or not doing in the Congress.
  One of the programs that people really respond to is sort of the way 
people view the Cox program, this initiative we have taken, which is 
working. What infuriates school districts, what infuriates the 
education people, who we should be supporting in all our States, is 
when we go down the road of a commitment, we come up with something 
that is not bureaucratized, we come up with an initiative that makes 
all the sense in the world, that speaks directly to the challenges we 
are faced with in our schools, that provides the funding for school 
districts to hire more teachers so they can reduce class size, which is 
really appreciated, which really makes a difference, all of a sudden we 
go back on that commitment. That is what this is all about.
  This amendment, on the part of Senator Gorton from Washington, is an 
effort to essentially negate the commitment we have made, which is what 
Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy and all of us are speaking for.
  As I listened to my colleagues on the other side speak, I think there 
is also a philosophical difference. It is not true that we in the 
Congress do not or should not think of our country as a national 
community. We should. We are a national community. There are certain 
kinds of values that inform us.
  Sometimes we come to the floor and support legislation, and hopefully 
pass legislation, that says to every child in

[[Page 23184]]

America, no matter where he or she lives, no matter what State, no 
matter what district, no matter rural or urban or wealthy school 
district or low-income school district, we are going to do everything 
we can to make sure that child has an opportunity to do well. That is a 
commitment we make for our national community. We are going to say this 
is a priority. We are going to focus on this priority. We are going to 
fund this priority.
  What Senator Murray has said is, we have made that commitment. The 
priority that we have outlined is that we make the commitment to 
provide the funding for the school districts, if they want, so they can 
use that funding to hire more teachers to reduce class size. We know 
this is important, important to the students in this country, important 
to the students in Minnesota, important to the students of Illinois or 
Washington or Massachusetts. That is what we have done. That is what 
this debate is all about.
  The Republicans on the other side of the aisle want to basically go 
back on this commitment. They want to say no, we don't want to do that. 
We are simply going to undercut the commitment. They haven't authorized 
it yet.
  Let me tell Senators, there are a lot of us who would like to have a 
lot of substantive debate about education, including authorizing this 
bill in committee, getting it out on the floor. That can't be used as 
an excuse.
  What we have from Republicans is a counterproposal which essentially 
means that we go back on this commitment and we block grant this money. 
We wipe out this program. We wipe out this commitment. We wipe out this 
priority. We no longer say that as a Federal Government, as a Congress, 
as a national community, we are committed to getting more resources to 
school districts so they can hire more teachers and reduce class size.
  If my colleagues on the other side think there isn't a lot of support 
in their States for this initiative, they are making a big mistake.
  What my Republican colleagues want to do is say: We will just block 
grant this. The money can be spent however it can be spent. We don't 
establish the priorities. We don't think of this as a national 
community. We don't think of this effort to reduce class size as an 
important enough priority that we should continue to fund it.
  That is an outrageous proposition. All of us will be held accountable 
for our vote.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will make one more point, unless there are any 
colleagues on the floor who need to speak right away.
  I think there is a kind of difference between Democrats and 
Republicans, a difference above and beyond a philosophical question, 
which is that we are prepared to say this is a priority and stand by 
this priority, and we are not prepared to walk away from the commitment 
we have made to school districts or a commitment we made to children or 
a commitment we made to teachers or a commitment we made to education. 
We are not going to walk away from that commitment. Our Republican 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to.
  The other problem is this pattern of funding. Here is a Republican 5-
year history of cutting education funding: I remember the 1995 
rescission, a cut of $1.7 billion. That was a House bill. Fiscal year 
1996, $3.9 billion below 1995, House bill; fiscal year 1997, a cut of 
$3.1 billion; fiscal year 1998, $200 million less than the President's 
proposal; fiscal year 1999, $2 billion below the President's proposal.
  It is incredible to me. I was on the floor with Senator Boxer, 
Senator Feingold, Senator Durbin--there were a number of Senators 
involved. We were saying: Wait a minute; we now see an effort on the 
floor of the Senate to feel so sorry for these big oil companies that 
have been caught cheating; they ought to pay their fair share of taxes, 
but some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were right 
there for these oil companies. They wanted to make sure they got their 
breaks, wanted to make sure they didn't have to pay their fair share, 
wanted to make sure they got this benefit. That is a priority. You can 
be for big oil companies or you can try to work out deals for this 
special interest or that special interest.
  We are arguing that children and education is a special interest. We 
are arguing that this is a special program. We are arguing this is a 
special program that has worked very well. We are arguing that we made 
a commitment to our school districts to continue this funding. We are 
arguing that it would be simply unconscionable, indeed, unacceptable, 
for this Senate to now abandon that commitment after 1 year of a 
successful program.
  We speak against it. We fight against it. We are proud to vote for 
the Murray amendment. All of us will be held accountable.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority 
leader, Senator Lott, be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Washington. I appreciate his 
leadership and commitment to education. He is an excellent spokesman on 
this issue.
  Mr. President, my daughters have graduated from public schools. My 
wife and I have graduated from public schools. We want to strengthen 
our public schools. We want to improve schools; certainly, we do.
  What we really want to do is improve public education. We want to 
make it better. I believe that so strongly. It is curious to me that 
there are some in this body who think there is only one way to do it--
to spend an extra billion or so--and that is to spend it on 100,000 
teachers, which I suppose is an issue that somebody poll tested and ran 
surveys on and thought that sounded like a good political way to fix 
education. We have to be responsible. We have to think these thing 
through.
  The Gorton amendment says, OK, we want to do more than we have done. 
The Senator from Washington says, I will sponsor an amendment that 
spends more for education than the President has requested. But he 
wants to give the local school systems the ability to decide how to use 
that money.
  As I travel around my State having town meetings in every county in 
my State, almost every meeting I have the local superintendent of 
education comes up and we talk about education. I am not hearing them 
tell me they want more micro-managed, targeted assistance from 
Washington, more regulations, more paperwork to fill out, and more 
controls on how they are operating to improve their education. They are 
not asking for that.
  What they are saying is--and this is happening all over America; 
school systems are in intense self-study; Governors are in intense 
study of their education situation--we have to do better about how we 
do education. Just to say we need more teachers and that is all you can 
spend this money for does make good sense.
  It is not being against education; it is not being against learning; 
it is not being against schools, to say we ought not to target this 
money for one use only. We need to be flexible.
  What we do know is this: Class size in America is down. As a matter 
of fact, it has been reported that 42 States already meet the goal of 
18 students per teacher; 42 States are already doing that. What is 
troubling--and I know the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New 
Hampshire, has talked passionately about this so often--is our 
achievement numbers are still going down.
  When you get at the level of 16, 17, 18, 19 students per teacher, 
what do we know from scientific study and analysis? It is not whether 
it is 19 or 17 in a classroom that is key. It is the quality of the 
teacher, the learning environment that occurs there. Do they

[[Page 23185]]

have the kind of textbooks and equipment needed? Do they have the 
resources from which that teacher can draw? Is there discipline there, 
or are there Federal rules and regulations hampering a teacher's 
ability to maintain discipline and to remove students who are 
disruptive from the classroom?
  Aren't those the things my colleagues hear when they talk to 
teachers? That is what they are telling me.
  I agree with the Gorton amendment, to allow the school systems to use 
this money--more money in this amendment than asked for by the 
President for education--as they see fit but without the restrictive 
rules and regulations and controls.
  Why isn't that what we ought to be doing? Why is it that some people 
in this body have their own idea about how they have to improve 
education and only their way is the way to have it done? I would just 
say that this is a mistake. I believe it very strongly. We are all 
united together in our concern to improve education. But how we do it 
is the question.
  My wife taught for a number of years. I taught for a year. We both 
were in the PTA. She was a volunteer teacher in the classroom to help 
teachers teach on a daily basis. I think that helps. Perhaps a program 
that will allow local schools to help parents to participate more 
directly as aides to teachers on a volunteer basis may be of far more 
benefit than adding 1 more teacher to a classroom and getting that 
number down from 19 to 18. Who knows for sure?
  We know this: There is an intense reevaluation of education in 
America today. There are a lot of things we don't know. But our 
superintendents, our principals, our State school boards, and our 
Governors are having to answer to the American people about why they 
should continue to give more and more money to the system when progress 
is not occurring and in fact we are showing a decline in so many 
different areas in our education achievement.
  We know that among the industrialized nations, the United States 
finished 19th recently out of 21 countries in mathematics and lower in 
science and technology. Something is afoot here. Mandating teachers 
without giving school systems a choice to improve education and 
learning is a big mistake. I certainly share that.
  I would like to mention a few other things we ought to think about as 
we go through this debate.
  The ``Washington knows best'' attitude is wrong. The federal 
government funds 7 percent of the money for education in America. While 
93 percent comes from the States and local governments. That is what we 
have always believed was correct. We have always believed that we don't 
want a central state government educating all our children. We want our 
children to be educated by people we know, people who know our 
children's names. For the most part, that happens in America today. And 
we ought to enhance that.
  But what we have found is that there are 778--get this--778 Federal 
education programs in existence today. That is a lot of programs. That 
is why the education systems are telling me: Jeff, we have to have a 
full-time person just to fill out the paperwork in order to comply with 
the federal regulations. This amendment by Senator Murray would add 
number 779, I suppose. And before the education bill goes through, we 
may even try to add a bunch more in addition to that. But we never go 
back and eliminate those that are not proving to be effective.
  We have also found that today only 65 cents out of every dollar we 
dedicate to education from Washington actually gets to the classrooms 
where the kids are and the teachers are. To me, that is not acceptable. 
It is simply not acceptable. Too much of it is kept in Washington. That 
which gets down to the schools and the classrooms has so many strings 
on it and regulations and so much paperwork that it is not as effective 
as it ought to be.
  I just say this: We have 50 States in this Nation that fund 93 
percent of the cost of education in their States. Most of these 
Governors have made education a top priority. More and more, are doing 
everything possible to fix education in their states. We ought to give 
them some freedom and flexibility to be innovative, creative, to fix 
and improve education, and not try to run it from up here. There is 
just no doubt about that in my mind.
  I know we can do a better job with education. I know we can improve 
the quality of American life. I know this for a fact: We would have 
better education if the Federal Government gave more money to the 
school systems with fewer strings, fewer regulations, less redtape, and 
less bureaucracy.
  Somewhere, some way, we need to enhance that magic moment that occurs 
in a classroom, that sublime moment when a child learns, when that 
teacher and child communicate and good things happen. Just having 789 
programs instead of 788 I don't believe is the right direction.
  Slade Gorton's amendment would allow the school system to use it for 
teachers, computers, textbooks, or whatever they need. It would be 
available for that in the same proportion the proponents of the 
amendment would require. It would go to schools in the same fashion. 
But they would be able to use it for teachers or any of the other 
things you can imagine that would be necessary.
  I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Gorton for his dedication and his 
leadership on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I think one of the great things about the class size initiative that 
is so important to remember is that this money goes directly to the 
classrooms, with no bureaucracy and one piece of paper. There is 
essentially no paperwork. This money is allocated directly. There is no 
bureaucracy and no administration cost. This money goes to the teachers 
in our classrooms. That is what so many of us believe is the right way 
to spend our Federal dollars.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Durbin, 
Torricelli, Mikulski, John Kerry, Boxer, Sarbanes, and Johnson be added 
as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for 10 minutes for the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, for her very strong 
leadership on this important issue.
  We just heard the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, talk about 779 
different programs. My friends in the Senate, we are not talking about 
779 different programs. We are talking right now about a very important 
issue. It is one issue. It is one program. It is a program that has 
placed 29,000 teachers across this country in schools.
  We have a bill before us that would end that program. That is what 
the Senator from Washington State is doing. It is bad. It is bad on the 
merits. It is bad in terms of the whole issue that has been raised here 
about us moving forward and then turning our back on a program we just 
began. It is bad for the children. It is bad for these teachers.
  If I were the Senator from Alabama, I wouldn't feel so good about 
having a vote that is going to result in teachers getting their pink 
slips in his State and in every State in the Union. In my particular 
State, we are talking about 4,000 teachers being given pink slips.
  A lot of us like surprises. We like nice surprises. We don't like bad 
surprises. This Republican bill has a surprise for the children of this 
country. Surprise: Many of you are going back into large classes after 
you have spent a year getting the attention you deserve, because that 
is the impact of the Gorton amendment, and everybody on the other side 
tries to cover it up by saying: Oh, no; Senator Gorton is merely trying 
to make this thing a block grant package. It doesn't matter.
  The Murray amendment is a fight with Senator Gorton about whether or

[[Page 23186]]

not we are going to live up to our promise. The Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray, said it is a very simple form to fill out. I 
have the form here. You have seen it before. It is a one-page form.
  I hope no one on the other side of the aisle gets up and says what 
bureaucracy this is. They talk about 779 programs. But this is one 
program, one sheet of paper, a program that was praised by Republican 
Dick Armey, the Majority Leader over in the House. It was praised by 
the Republican chairman of that committee. They took all kinds of 
credit for it. We said: Great; take credit for it. Now they are going 
to end it right here in the Senate. I have a problem with that.
  I also have a problem with the way the bill was put together. I have 
a chart. I am going to try to explain what has happened with this bill.
  The Republicans promised to have their appropriations bills ready in 
time. Wrong. What do they do? They left Health and Human Services, 
which includes education, for the last appropriations bill. I find that 
interesting since they often say education is the highest priority. 
When they wrote this bill, they were short $11 billion for education.
  We had been saying on the floor we need to make education a priority. 
Desperately, they looked around and came up with the all-time gimmick 
of the year. They said: Let's take two issues which we can argue later 
are emergency issues.
  One is the census. I find it interesting to declare that an emergency 
since we have known it was coming since the founding of the 
Constitution. Be that as it may, they called it an emergency. Then they 
said: We can say the defense budget is an emergency even though we have 
already funded it as a nonemergency.
  So they took the $11 billion from defense and they put it over to 
education. Now they had a bit of a problem. They were short $11 billion 
on this side of the chart. How would they replace it? Guess what, 
folks. Social Security--Social Security had that $11 billion. They 
decided to declare defense and the census emergencies; they took the 
money, by declaring them an emergency, out of Social Security and put 
it in defense. Then, something they promised they would never do 
because this was supposed to be locked up, we have an $11 billion IOU 
in the Social Security trust fund.
  This was quite a maneuver, going against what the Republicans said 
they would not do. In order to get this money, they steal from here; in 
order to get this money, they steal from there; and Social Security, 
which they were not going to touch, will now be owed $11 billion 
because that is where the emergency spending comes from. I think it is 
time we used a little fiscal discipline and paid for things as we go. I 
think that is the right way to go.
  Some Members say one good thing about this, they do have $11 billion 
for education. I say right, but even within that, they zero out the 
teachers in the school program. They have the money now, but they take 
it away, and in their appropriations bill they set up a whole new 
program that no one has ever heard of called teachers assistance. We 
don't know what it is or what form it will take. We don't know if it 
will be authorized.
  The Senator from Washington says if it isn't authorized, we will 
figure a way to give the schools a block grant. This is an important 
issue. The Senator from Alabama gets up and says: I don't understand 
how we in the Federal Government know what people want.
  Maybe he doesn't know what his people want, but I know what my people 
want. I ran two tough elections for the Senate. One of the biggest 
issues was education; within that, putting more teachers in the 
schools, afterschool programs, and school construction. My Republican 
opponent was against me on every single issue. My election was based on 
issues.
  I say to my friend from Alabama, yes, I know what the people in my 
State want. I am proud to know that. I didn't come here to give my 
responsibility to someone else.
  Today, in the Public Works Committee we honored a great President, 
Dwight Eisenhower. We named a building after him. I was thrilled to 
vote for it. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican President, the first 
President to say there is a function and a role for the Federal 
Government in public education. He outlined it in the National Defense 
Education Act. It amazes me when Republicans stand up and say this is 
some radical idea. It came from one of their leaders whom I greatly 
admire. We are doing too little for the schools, not too much.
  I don't want to be a party to children in school being told they have 
to leave a class of 15 or 20 and return to a class of 35 or 40. That is 
what will happen with the Gorton amendment. Senator Murray is right on 
target in her fight. It stuns me that we are dealing with this 
situation. As Senator Kennedy said, all the Republicans, a year ago 
when we funded this program, not only praised it but took credit for 
it.
  I ask, is anyone writing to complain about this program? No. The 
local districts want this program to continue. They want the certainty 
of this program to continue. They want the smaller class sizes to 
continue. Even with this $11 billion that they will eventually take out 
of Social Security and place in here, they ignore teachers in the 
classroom. They underfund afterschool programs by $200 million under 
the President's proposal. That will leave a lot of children out in the 
cold, tens and tens of thousands. I will have an amendment on that.
  The crumbling schools initiative is as if every school is beautiful. 
I have been to schools where the tiles are falling off the ceilings. 
Yes, they put in the $11 billion, but they are not spending it in ways 
that the people in our country want Congress to spend it. Education is 
a priority. We all say it; we ought to mean it.
  In conclusion, my friends talk as if the schools are forced to apply 
for this program. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not 
a mandate to put teachers in the school. This is Congress responding to 
a request to help put more teachers in the school. It is a one-page 
form. With one vote, we can do away with a great program. I hope we 
will follow the leadership of Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont, Mr. Jeffords.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Gorton amendment 
No. 1805; there is also pending the Murray amendment. There are two 
amendments pending.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first of all, everyone should realize 
this is the year we start reevaluating the educational programs of this 
country. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is up for 
reauthorization. This is most comprehensive. It is the one bill we look 
at to try and get guidance from the Federal Government in the area of 
elementary and secondary education.
  There are many things we must be concerned about. One of those has 
been raised by the Senator from Washington--class size. There are many 
other issues to be involved. In addition, this is an attempt to 
authorize on an appropriations bill. It is not the time. The time is 
when we take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We have 
begun doing that. The committee has been very active. We held over 20 
hearings on what should be done to make the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act more successful.
  This Nation, as everyone has articulated, is in an educational crisis 
situation. We have many wonderful schools and many wonderful teachers, 
but relative to our competition in other areas of the world, we could 
be doing much better. The question is, What do we do and how do we do 
it? On the 23rd of June this year, the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee held a hearing on the class size proposal. We have 
had this under review. Statements were heard from an expert panel of 
witnesses who offered an array of views on the merits of creating a 
Federal program that mandated local communities use funds to lower 
class sizes.

[[Page 23187]]

  We examined important issues, including the impact of reducing class 
size on student achievement and other factors impacting student 
achievement; the tension between quantity and quality with respect to 
hiring teachers; whether large class sizes are the biggest obstacle to 
improving student achievement; and the value and role of schoolteachers 
in making decisions for providing the best education to young people in 
their schools.
  What did the witnesses who came before the Committee have to say? Dr. 
Eric Hanushek, a respected professor at the University of Rochester 
stated, for the record:

       a move to mandate smaller classes . . .  is misguided and 
     could even hurt students and student achievement; . . .  the 
     accumulated evidence on the impact of reduced class size on 
     student performance gives no reason to expect that the 
     current wave of class size reduction will have an overall 
     effect on student achievement; and that class size is very 
     expensive and takes resource and attention away from 
     potentially more productive reform efforts.

  He based his views on extensive research and historical evidence. In 
U.S. history, between 1965 and 1995, pupil-teacher ratios have fallen 
from 25:1 to 17:1 yet performance on the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress (NAEP) has remained roughly constant. That 
produces no evidence that class size makes a difference. He noted that 
while pupil-teacher ratios are defined somewhat differently than class-
size, the two measures do move together. International comparisons 
suggest no relationship between pupil-teacher ratios and student 
performance. So in Europe their studies show the same as reported in 
ours: It doesn't make a difference. In looking at some 300 advanced 
statistical studies, the studies show an equal number of studies that 
suggest positive improvements as suggest negative effects.
  We also heard from Dr. Randy Ross, who spoke not from a research-
based perspective but from the heart and common sense. He has witnessed 
the results of class size reduction efforts in California first hand 
and is concerned about what he saw. He stated:

       A wholesale reduction in the sizes of classes in schools 
     throughout a state predictably nibbles away at the chances 
     that students in poor, inner city neighborhoods will get a 
     better education.

  He watched the better teachers in low-income neighborhoods be lured 
away to higher paying suburban schools, leaving the inner-city schools 
to fill vacancies which those individuals that did not make the cut in 
other school districts. It is a policy that has hurt students, not 
helped them.
  At this same hearing, we talked at length about the Innovative 
Education Program Strategies, or title VI of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. Witnesses on that panel told us how states and 
local education agencies are improving student achievement by investing 
in reform efforts, education technology, professional development, 
school library activities, and support for at-risk students. I would 
argue that investing in any one of these activities may have a more 
profound and significant impact on helping students achieve at higher 
levels than mandating that a local school hire one more ``teacher''--
qualified or not.
  Let's not forget our common sense in this debate. My common sense 
says the quality of the teacher does matter. Common sense tells me that 
local leaders in schools across the country have the student's best 
interest at heart and must have a say in implementing programs that 
will provide the greatest benefit to their students. If class size 
reduction is the greatest need in a community, we can all rest assured 
that local leaders throughout the country will direct their portion of 
the $1.2 billion made available in this bill to that effort. There is 
no need for my colleagues to worry.
  If on the other hand, local leaders have other ideas for ways to 
vastly improve the educational opportunities of young people in their 
communities, in their classrooms, I think we should provide them with 
some flexibility to do what is best for the student, and what is best 
in accordance with that community.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dodd 
and Senator Harkin be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kelly Green 
Kahn, a fellow in my office, be given the privilege of the floor during 
the remainder of this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin my brief remarks by commending 
our colleague from the State of Washington for her leadership on this 
issue once again. She has, on numerous occasions over the last few 
years, raised the issue of class size as one critical to improving the 
quality of public education in the country, and she is doing so again 
this afternoon with the introduction of this amendment. I am pleased to 
be a cosponsor and hope we can build strong bipartisan support for it.
  There is no question that the size of a class, the number of students 
in a classroom, and academic performance bear a correlation. My State 
of Connecticut has one of the lowest ratios between teachers and 
students in the United States. The most recent statistics indicate that 
class size in Connecticut hovers just over 20 students per class. A 
couple of States actually are lower, but the national average is around 
25--about 5 additional students per class.
  Also, we in Connecticut make other investments in education. We pay 
our teachers well. We also have led the nation in the adoption of high 
standards for student performance measured with the Connecticut Mastery 
Test and with support for whole school reform. I note this, because it 
is these investments that have shown such dividends in Connecticut. It 
is no mystery that we end up, in national surveys, at the top in the 
country in academic performance.
  I do not know how many of my colleagues this morning noted in the 
Washington Post an article entitled ``Students Weak In Essay Skills.'' 
The top State in performance was Connecticut, by a margin of some 12 
percentage points, in essays by 4th graders, 8th graders, and 12th 
graders.
  I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 29, 1999]

                     Students Weak in Essay Skills

                         (By Kenneth J. Cooper)

       Three-quarters of the nation's school-children are unable 
     to compose a well-organized, coherent essay, a skill 
     frequently demanded in the modern workplace, according to 
     results of a federally sponsored writing test released 
     yesterday.
       Most students tested last year managed to get across their 
     main, simple points in the short essays they were asked to 
     write, but their writing did not have the sophistication to 
     meet the standard for proficiency set by a national board of 
     educators, state officials and business leaders.
       The test results from a representative sample of 60,000 
     students in the fourth, eighth and 12th grades provided 
     another source of concern about the condition of the nation's 
     schools and follows similar results showing students falling 
     short of new academic standards in the states.
       ``The average, or typical, American student is not a 
     proficient writer. Instead, students show only partial 
     mastery of the knowledge and skills needed for a solid 
     academic performance in writing,'' said Gary W. Phillips, 
     acting commissioner of education statistics.
       The testing found that girls wrote better than boys in each 
     grade, in keeping with the outcome of earlier, less demanding 
     versions of the test. The gender gap in writing skill was 
     large: Twice as many girls reached or exceeded the standard 
     for proficient writing.
       There was also a gap in the performance of different racial 
     and ethnic groups, with white and Asian students writing 
     better than African Americans, Hispanics and Native 
     Americans. That gap was narrower in schools on military 
     bases, where African American and Hispanic students scored 
     higher than their counterparts elsewhere. Analysts suggested 
     minority students benefited

[[Page 23188]]

     from an equitable distribution of resources at the Defense 
     Department schools and the financial security of military 
     families.
       For the first time, it was possible to make comparisons of 
     writing skill in the states. Of 35 states where 100,000 
     additional eighth-graders were tested, Connecticut led the 
     nation, followed by Massachusetts, Maine and Texas. Virginia 
     was one of eight states above the national average, while 
     Maryland fell slightly below average. The District had the 
     lowest score of any jurisdiction except the Virgin Islands.
       Mark Musick, president of the Southern Regional Education 
     Board, suggested that Virginia did well in writing because a 
     large percentage of the state's students attend solid 
     suburban schools in Northern Virginia, and state residents 
     have above-average income, an advantage shared by many high 
     scorers.
       Top scorer Connecticut has the highest per capita income in 
     the nation and has tested students in four grades in writing 
     since 1985. ``What you test is what you get,'' said Marilyn 
     Whirry, a high school English teacher in California.
       Musick and Whirry are members of the board that governs the 
     National Assessment of Educational Progress, a 
     congressionally mandated series of tests that provides the 
     best measure of student achievement in the country. Last 
     year's writing test had a higher standard than one 
     administered in 1992, making comparisons between them 
     unreliable, testing officials warned.
       Students had 25 minutes to compose one of three different 
     types of essays--narrative, informative, persuasive. The 
     expected standard of proficiency was reached by 22 percent of 
     fourth-graders, 26 percent of eighth-graders and 21 percent 
     of high school seniors.
       In an example of proficient writing by a senior, a girl 
     told an imaginative story about falling in love and marrying 
     another Italian immigrant who died after the birth of their 
     four children. ``As I gaze out my window, I turn look at my 
     hand still wearing that same gold ring from so many years 
     ago. I smile because I know I don't need to bring him back. . 
     . . I never really lost him,'' the girl concluded the five-
     paragraph essay.
       The National Center of Education Statistics said her essay 
     was well-organized ``and shows good command of stylistic 
     elements and control of language.''
       Whirry said seniors ``had the most trouble with persuasive 
     writing . . . a serious problem because persuading a reader 
     to take a course of action or bring about a certain change is 
     enormously important, not just to get ahead on the job, but 
     also to make sound decisions in our democratic society.''
       Most students demonstrated basic writing skills--able to 
     make simple points but not put together sophisticated 
     sentences. Writing at this level were 61 percent of fourth-
     graders, 57 percent of eighth-graders and 56 percent of 
     seniors.
       Incomprehensible essays were produced by 16 percent of 
     fourth- and eighth-graders and 22 percent of seniors.
       In each grade, 1 percent of the students were writing at 
     the highest level.

  Mr. DODD. This news follows on reports earlier this year that 
indicate Connecticut students lead the nation in reading performance 
and in math and science.
  In my state, we have invested in class size, we have invested in 
teachers. As a result of that, we are getting this kind of academic 
performance. Not everywhere in the state, performs at these high levels 
and frankly even in the most affluent parts of my state, too many 
children fail to reach the advanced levels of performance that we know 
will be needed to succeed in the next century.
  What we are suggesting today is, if this works for children, and all 
the studies as well as the experiences of states like mine suggest, 
then we should be helping all communities to achieve these smaller 
class sizes that will help their children succeed.
  If this amendment is defeated and this appropriations bill is passed 
without the inclusion of the Murray amendment, it is tantamount to this 
body giving a pink slip to 29,000 teachers in America. Pay attention to 
this debate today. We will vote at about 4 p.m. If this body rejects 
this amendment, then 29,000 teachers will know, as of this date in 
September, their services are no longer needed in the classrooms of 
America.
  If anyone believes that by having more students and fewer teachers, 
we are going to improve the quality of public education in this 
country, they are living in a dream world. That is not the way we are 
going to raise the level of excellence, whether it is essay writing, 
math performance--all the academic criteria we seek to improve.
  One thing is for certain. If we continue to have fewer teachers and 
larger classes, we can almost guarantee the results. We will have 
declining academic performance.
  Clearly, there are other important issues in education. We are not 
arguing that we do not need high quality teachers--in fact, this is 
what this amendment supports, or that after school and other efforts 
are not needed. But the central component of education is what happens 
in the classroom. And any teacher in any school in this country will 
tell you that if they have to manage 20, 23, 25, 30, 35 students in a 
classroom, they cannot teach. I don't care how good you are, you cannot 
manage 25 or 30 students in a classroom. You cannot teach young 
children the fundamentals of reading, math and science if forced to 
deal with this number of children.
  So this amendment, the Murray amendment, is critically important if 
you care about this issue. You cannot go around and say, I care about 
education, I am a strong supporter of it, and then walk away from class 
size as an issue. I hope when this amendment comes for a vote, people 
will get behind it.
  By the way, about block grants, we have been down this road in the 
past. Suggesting somehow if we throw it in a block grant program, it 
would suddenly all work. I hoped we would have learned the lesson by 
now. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. There is no 
accountability for how federal dollars are spent; too often in the 
past, we have found these dollars ending up in athletic programs, in 
administrative accounts and in other such expenditures. State and local 
dollars are not targeted to areas with great need unlike federal 
dollars. Block grants don't work because the politics are not there for 
it at the state and local level or else the states would already be 
spending their dollars this way.
  So, yes, we bear a national responsibility. We are a national 
legislature. We try to speak for our country on these issues. I am from 
Connecticut. Maybe I should not care what happens in Mississippi, 
Alabama, or New Mexico, but I do. I do not think I am wrong because I 
do care. I think if a child in Mississippi or Alabama is in too large a 
class, I suffer, my constituents in Connecticut suffer.
  The idea that somehow we are 50 disparate States and we do not have 
to worry about it, we hope each State chooses the right priorities, is 
ducking our responsibility as a national legislature. When a crying gap 
exists in an area such as this, we bear a collective responsibility to 
address it and a block grant program just does not do it.
  So I hope that we can all join together to support the Murray 
amendment and this flexible program that supports high quality 
teachers, targets lowest income areas and sends all the money down to 
the local level. It is what parents across the country are calling for 
and voters support and I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  This amendment is just the first of several efforts we will have 
during the next hours and days to improve the quality of the bill 
before us. While there are certainly things to be praised in the 
efforts of Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, this bill falls short in 
other ways. Even as we debate it, I understand that exactly how it is 
paid for is still unclear--we know there will be significant advance 
funding, potentially additional Defense items will be declared 
emergencies freeing up more budget authority and outlays.
  One of the most disturbing offsets contained in the bill is the 
reduction in the Social Services Block Grant, Title XX, which is 
slashed almost in half. This flexible program supports local efforts 
like meals on wheels, child care, adult day care, foster care, child 
abuse protection, programs for those with disabilities and other local 
efforts to respond to the neediest in our communities. How does it make 
sense to cut this program to pay for other programs for those in need?
  I believe we should also do better by way of funding for afterschool, 
literacy training, school construction and child care. On this last 
item, later in the day, Senator Jeffords and I will be offering an 
amendment on the Child Care Development Block Grant Program to

[[Page 23189]]

increase funding for this critical program funding to $2 billion. My 
colleagues have been so good on this issue over the last year. We have 
had overwhelming votes on this question over and over again this year.
  Clearly we know child care is grossly underfunded. Many States have 
responded to this underfunding and set very low income eligibility 
levels: Two-thirds of the States have income levels of $25,000 or less; 
14 States, $20,000; 8 States are even more stringent. Wyoming, Alabama, 
Missouri, Kentucky, Iowa, South Carolina, and West Virginia cut off 
subsidies for child care for families earning more than $17,000. I do 
not know how a family earning $17,000 a year can afford child care, 
which for an infant or toddler can run nearly half of that amount. And 
this program is not just about child care for young children; nearly 30 
percent of these funds go to support afterschool programs.
  I am hopeful my colleagues, when that amendment is raised, will be 
supportive of it. They have been helpful in the past. I apologize for 
coming back to the issue. We had a good provision adopted in the tax 
bill, but it was dropped in conference, and the bill was vetoed. I 
apologize for coming back to child care over and over, but we have as 
yet been able to adopt the provisions my colleagues voted for on 
numerous occasions. I hope they do so again when Senator Jeffords and I 
offer the amendment.
  But let's move forward, Mr. President. Let's consider and adopt the 
Murray amendment. Let's move on to hopefully improve this bill. But 
let's get on with the people's business.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for 1 additional minute and yield to my colleague 
from New Jersey for any comments he may have.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I will be happy to yield 1 minute.
  Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator 3 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  On the question of education in America, there are both those 
exhilarated by our progress and those who are frustrated by our 
failures. It really is a tale of two cities: America has the finest 
universities in the world, the best colleges, proof that we know how to 
educate and build institutions. However, we have secondary and grade 
schools which simply, by any accounting, are not making the grade.
  Forty percent of our fourth graders failed to attain basic levels of 
reading; 40 percent of eighth graders could not attain basic levels of 
math; and 76 percent do not even reach proficiency levels.
  The fact is, we are not meeting an international standard. We are 
debating the fact that there is an educational crisis, but, if 
unaddressed, it will in our own generation become an economic crisis.
  The Senator from Connecticut is correct: There are schools in my 
State of New Jersey for which I have enormous pride. Many are 
succeeding. But in the world in which we live today and our economy, if 
schools are failing in Alabama or California or New York or some 
distant community in New Jersey, it is as much your problem as it is 
mine. It is an economic difficulty, a social difficulty, at some point 
in our country's history, even a political difficulty if unaddressed.
  The truth of the matter is, our country suffers some from a false 
sense of complacency. Parents come to me and say: Senator, I don't 
understand your concern. The schools are as good as I remember them 40 
years ago. Or, I think the schools in my community are as good as the 
schools in the community that is next to us.
  That, I say to my friends, is not the point. The point is whether our 
schools are as good as countries halfway around the world.
  A national education testing service recently concluded that in math 
and science our students were 19 out of 21. We do not need to compare 
our schools with ones we remember as children. We need to compare them 
with schools in Germany and Japan, and we are not meeting that 
standard.
  I know every Senator has a different idea about what we should do 
about American education, and the truth is, they are all right. There 
is no one answer. Senator Coverdell and I had an innovative program to 
bring private money to help private and public schools. There are 
others who have a variety of different answers. They are all part of 
the solution. But no one can construct a solution that does not involve 
the hiring of teachers. Your ideas may be right, but this idea is 
central.
  The Department of Education estimates we will need 2 million new 
teachers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield an additional 5 minutes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I am happy to yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. The Department of Education estimates we will need 2 
million new teachers in the next decade. In my State of New Jersey, 
that is 109,000 teachers currently in shortage. When schools started 
this year in the city of Newark, there were 200 classrooms without 
teachers available. You can have your idea about American education, 
but the debate starts here. Empty classrooms, overcrowded classrooms, 
retiring teachers are not part of the formula for American educational 
or economic success.
  The fact is, if we did not have massive retirements, if there were 
not already shortages, we would still need Senator Murray's amendment.
  The Department of Education in May 1998 also concluded that the one 
principal variable that we know in improving education in America is 
class size. Educational Testing Services found that smaller class sizes 
raised achievement from fourth to eighth grade students, it reduced 
drop-out rates, and increased performance. It is the one variable we 
know that works.
  The strange thing about this debate, as the Senator from Connecticut 
has pointed out, is that a year ago, as Democrats and Republicans on 
this Senate floor, we accepted these arguments and we endorsed this 
program. For the last year, Democrats and Republicans, with pride, have 
noted that we spent $1.2 billion hiring 29,000 teachers to begin 
dealing with this educational crisis. You were proud of it, and we were 
proud of it.
  I have not heard a single Senator come to this floor and say: You 
know those 29,000 teachers, they failed. They did not show up to work, 
they were not trained, the teachers did not perform, the students did 
not perform. No evidence, no argument, not even a contention, because 
it was not a failure. It worked.
  But is this the extent of our national commitment? We deal with an 
educational crisis, and every Member of the Senate knows the greatest 
variable in America's economic future is the quality of education, and 
the sum total of our commitment as a Senate is 1 year for 29,000 
teachers in a nation of a quarter of a billion people. That is quite a 
commitment, and now we are going to abandon the effort.
  The strange thing about this is, this is not the first time the 
United States has had an educational crisis. One of the proudest things 
I know in the 20th century history of this country is that between 1890 
and 1920, the United States of America opened a new high school every 
single day. That is a commitment. We did it through war, depression, 
recession, and stagnant economic growth.
  Now the United States is experiencing the greatest economic growth in 
our Nation's history, nearly full employment and a budget surplus, and 
the response of this Congress is a 1-year program of $1.2 billion to 
hire 29,000 teachers, and a year later we are going to fire them. Quite 
a commitment; quite a source of pride.
  I know the alternative program is to return, instead, to block 
grants. Never in my experience has so much authority been given to 
people. I came to the Senate to deal with issues and national problems, 
not to give that authority to somebody else.
  There is a national educational crisis. It requires the hiring of 
teachers

[[Page 23190]]

on a national scale, and that is our responsibility. If the judgment of 
this Senate is simply to send money to the States and let them decide 
whether they want new football teams, more buses, athletic fields, or 
science teachers, hire an accounting firm and get rid of the Congress, 
not the teachers. That is not why I came to the Senate.
  Senator Murray's amendment is not the end of the debate on education 
quality in America. It is not the completion of a national program, it 
is the defense of a national program that started last year. It should 
be continued. And for her leadership on this issue, the Senator from 
Washington has both my respect and admiration. I urge the Members of 
the Senate to follow her lead.
  Education should not be a partisan issue in the United States. Every 
schoolchild in America would benefit in a competition between Democrats 
and Republicans for educational leadership. I do not want to see that 
ceded to my party. Indeed, I hope we can all join in it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Maine, Ms. Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, those of us who strongly supported an 
increased Federal investment in education should be celebrating this 
legislation, not criticizing it. Let's look at the numbers.
  The committee's appropriation for total education spending is $1.9 
billion more than for fiscal year 1999. It is a half billion dollars 
more than the President's request. Let me repeat that because I think 
that has been lost in this debate. The fact is, the Appropriations 
Committee has increased total education funding in this bill by a half 
billion dollars more than President Clinton requested.
  Similarly, the committee has increased spending for Pell grants--an 
essential program that I strongly support--for title I, for special 
education--I could go on and on.
  So it is clear that this debate is not about money. What is it about? 
It is about power. It is about command and control. It is about who 
will be making the decisions and where they will be made.
  Let's look at the language of the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Washington, Mr. Gorton. It says: School districts may use the 
funds for class size reductions or for any other authorized activity in 
the ESEA that will improve the academic achievement of our students.
  Who could be opposed to that? Isn't that the bottom line? Isn't that 
what we want--improved academic achievement, better results for our 
students?
  So the question before the Senate is whether we should continue with 
the Washington-knows-best, arrogant attitude or whether we should 
recognize that our local school boards, our principals, our teachers, 
and our parents are best able to determine what local students need to 
improve their performance.
  The question--the bottom line--should be: What have our students 
learned? Have they improved? It should not be: How did you spend your 
Federal grant? Did you fill out the paperwork correctly?
  In some school districts, smaller class size may be what is needed. 
But in others, we may need to upgrade the science lab or institute a 
program for gifted and talented students or hire more teachers. The 
needs vary as much as our schools vary. A one-size-fits-all approach 
simply does not work.
  The Senator from Connecticut mentioned an article in today's 
newspaper which has the startling results that nationally three-fourths 
of the students cannot compose an organized essay. I am pleased to note 
that my State of Maine ranks near the top--No. 2 only to Connecticut--
in performance on this test. But nationwide, three-quarters of the 
students failed this simple test.
  Is the answer the same in every State? I do not think so. In some 
States, improved professional development for the teachers may be the 
key to reversing these test results. In other States, it may be smaller 
classes. Yet in another State it may be another technique or method or 
solution that is required.
  The point is that we do not know here in Washington what the best 
approach is in the thousands of school districts across this country. 
All we are saying is, let the local school districts decide what they 
need to do to improve student achievement.
  There is nothing in Senator Gorton's amendment that prohibits the 
school district from using the money to reduce class size if that is 
what is needed. But that may not be what is needed. Indeed, 41 States 
already exceed the ideal teacher-student ratio.
  What we need to do is to trust local people to make the decisions 
that are going to help bring out the best in the students in our 
communities across the United States. That is exactly what Senator 
Gorton's amendment would do.
  This is not a debate about money. All of us agree that we want to 
increase the Federal investment in education. It is the best investment 
of our money we can make. The issue is about who is making the 
decision.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield me 5 minutes?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we pointed out earlier, this 
legislation is a voluntary program. Each local education agency that 
desires to receive the funds shall include the application. So it is 
completely voluntary. I know it has been repeated time and time again 
that the Federal Government is imposing this on the local school 
districts. But it is the local school district who has to make the 
judgment, who has to fill out the application. All the money goes to 
the local school district. Under the Gorton amendment, 15 percent goes 
to the bureaucracy. So let's be accurate in our description of this 
proposal.
  Then let's also be accurate that this concept was basically endorsed 
by all the Republican leadership in the last Congress. Congressman 
Goodling, Congressman Dick Armey, and Senator Gorton claimed credit for 
this proposal. We understand that. They claimed credit for the Murray 
amendment when it was accepted in the last Congress.
  Just a final point I want to make. I think it is fair to say: One, if 
they want to do all the things the Senator from Maine has pointed out 
and you want an additional block grant, I agree with the Senator from 
Minnesota, if they want to get additional funds, I will vote for it. If 
the State of Maine wants to do it, that is all well and good. We are 
talking about limited resources targeted on national needs.
  The question is whether this program works. The Senator from 
Washington has said time and time again that it does. And with all the 
responses on the other side, no one has questioned the various reports 
that demonstrate that children have made progress--no one, none; 
silence.
  You can give all the cliches about one size fits all and all the 
rest, but just respond to the various STAR report conclusions, such as: 
7,000 students in 80 Tennessee schools. Students in small classes 
performed better than students in large classes in each grade from 
kindergarten through third grade.
  Talk to Maria Caruso, an elementary school teacher in Lawrenceburg 
Elementary School in Lawrenceburg, TN, who talks about what a 
difference it makes in all the years that she has been teaching, having 
the smaller class size, what a difference it has made in the quality of 
the education for the children in the Lawrenceburg Elementary School. 
Or talk to Jacqueline van Wulven a veteran teacher from the Cole 
Elementary School in Nashville, TN, who said:

       These students come into third grade far more advanced 
     academically than any other

[[Page 23191]]

     third grade class I have taught. There were very few behavior 
     problems with a small class. The students worked well 
     together, and I was able to provide many different learning 
     experiences because I did not have to spend so much time 
     disciplining the class.

  Sandy Heinrich from Granbery Elementary School in Davidson County, 
TN: ``I have been a teacher for 29 years and have never had an 
experience like I have had with the smaller class size.'' These are the 
teachers. Respond to these teachers.
  All we are saying is, if the local community wants to try and 
replicate what has been tried and tested and demonstrated to produce 
enhanced academic achievement and accomplishment, that is the Murray 
amendment. They are already doing it in communities across the country, 
based upon last year's commitment. All we are saying is, let's continue 
it.
  Two million teachers will be needed over the next 10 years. We are 
getting 100,000 teachers a year normally. We need to recruit an 
additional 100,000, to handle rising enrollments. The Republicans say, 
no, no, to the additional teachers. With their proposal, they will 
eliminate close to 30,000 school teachers across this country. Does 
that make any sense at all? It does not.
  In Wisconsin, the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education program 
is helping to reduce class size in grades K to 3 in low-income. A study 
found that the students in smaller classes had significantly greater 
improvements in reading and math and language than students in bigger 
classes.
  In Flint, MI, efforts over the last three years to reduce class size 
in K-3 have produced a 44 percent increase in reading scores, an 18 
percent increase in math scores.
  This issue is not about power. It is about partnership, partnership 
between the local communities, the States, and the Federal Government. 
We should insist on the Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields 
time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Tennessee, Mr. Frist.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am delighted with the debate thus far because it 
really does come down to some pretty important concepts as to how we 
best approach a problem that I believe is the most threatening we have 
today, as we look into the decade, the next century; that is, the 
education of our children.
  As has been said again and again, we are failing. We are absolutely 
failing today. If we look at our education for kindergarten through the 
twelfth grade, statistics have been given. Let me review those. This is 
the fourth grade. This is the eighth grade. This is the twelfth. This 
looks at just mathematics. We could put science, math, reading, 
English, any number of things in these columns.
  Each of these green bars--it is hard to read--is a country. The red 
bar is the United States of America. That is our performance in the 
fourth grade in mathematics compared to Singapore, South Korea, Hong 
Kong, Austria, Slovenia, Ireland, Australia. You can see in the fourth 
grade, we are at about that level, about seventh or eighth.
  In the eighth grade--the longer you stay in school--in mathematics, 
we drop further. And by the time you get to the twelfth grade--the 
black line is the average--you can see we fall below the average in the 
eighth grade. In the twelfth grade, we are down further.
  People agree with the data. That is the good thing about this debate. 
On both sides of the aisle we have come forward and said we have to 
act. Indeed, there are things we do have a Federal responsibility to do 
in education; that is, to reverse these trends in this global 
marketplace. These are our children; these are our investment in the 
future.
  The difference is in approach. It is very important the American 
people understand the difference in approach. It boils down to these 
two amendments. On the one hand, we have an amendment which says we 
have a new program, a new answer, a program we need to grow that will 
make a big difference with the resources we provide.
  On our side of the aisle, Senator Gorton has basically said, that is 
one approach, but why not take essentially the same resources and 
recognize that every school is going to have a different problem, maybe 
even every classroom a different problem. It is absurd for us to think 
that in Washington, DC, we can dictate what is needed in a rural school 
in Alamo, TN, or an urban school in Memphis or in Nashville.
  Let's take the same resources and instead of telling them they need 
more teachers, say take those same resources; maybe you need better 
trained teachers or maybe you need to hook a computer up to the T-1 
line outside or maybe you need to buy computers or more textbooks. You 
decide. Maybe you need more teachers. Use the money for that. Two 
different approaches.
  This is what we have today, and it is failing. We all recognize it is 
failing. These are the Government programs, the Federal Government 
programs on the outside. The Department of Health and Human Services 
has education programs aimed at the beneficiaries of our school system 
today--at-risk and delinquent youth is one group; young children is 
another group; teachers. You could put any number of groups. The school 
is down here. Any number.
  The point is, we have heard the figure 480. It might be 250; it might 
be 300. The point is, we have hundreds of these Federal programs all 
aimed at different populations, and it is not working. It is failing.
  What our side of the aisle says is that we can identify the problems, 
but with 87,000 different schools out there, let's let that school, 
that schoolteacher, that superintendent, that principal, those parents 
come to the table and say this is what we need and, with the resources 
we make available through the Gorton amendment, use those resources. It 
might be more teachers. It might be better prepared teachers. It might 
be an afterschool program. It might be hooking up a computer or it 
might be better textbooks. They decide at the local level. That is the 
difference between our side of the aisle and the other side. The 
Republican, the Gorton approach is basically saying, identify the needs 
locally and come together and decide.
  The Murray amendment says more teachers. Indeed, we have made 
progress. In 1970, we had 22 pupils per teacher. In 1997, it is 17 
pupils per teacher nationwide. That is some progress. Again, I am not 
going to diminish the importance of that. What I do want to say is that 
local identification of needs, that local flexibility is more likely to 
give you the answer to better education than us telling a community 
whether or not they may need a teacher.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FRIST. I urge my colleagues to support the Gorton amendment and 
defeat the Murray amendment for the reasons of flexibility and 
accountability at the local level.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Washington 
has 13 minutes 49 seconds. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 30 minutes 
44 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend our colleagues who are 
concerned about bureaucracy. That is one of the great things about the 
class size initiative. It was passed in a bipartisan manner last year. 
One form, one page takes one administrator a few minutes to fill out, 
and the class size money goes directly to hire teachers. Our Federal 
tax dollars go to pay for the teacher in the classroom--no bureaucracy, 
no big charts. The money goes to make a difference. That is why we 
believe it is the right way to go.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington, 
Senator Murray, who has done such a great job on this issue, for 
yielding time. I rise in strong support of her amendment.
  My State and our Nation are on the verge of an education crisis. At 
the end

[[Page 23192]]

of the last school year, test scores showed that half of New York's 
fourth grade students could barely handle basic written and oral work.
  If you look at the studies, what is one of the best ways to remedy 
that? It is the method of the Murray amendment--to reduce class size. 
If her amendment is not passed, in New York State, 3,497 teachers in 
the next fiscal year will get pink slips. Why are we doing that?
  We have a program that works. It is reducing class size. The same 
things were said about the Cops on the Beat Program, the 100,000 
police, that it wouldn't work or needed targets or would create 
bureaucracy. It has helped bring crime rates way down.
  Now we have a chance to do the same thing for education. It makes 
such eminent sense to support a proposal that is aimed at the heart of 
the problem: too many students; not enough teachers.
  Instead, what the alternative amendment proposes, the Republican 
amendment, is a block grant. Instead of saying make sure the money goes 
into the classroom, it says, if the local school board wants to fritter 
it away on something that is much less necessary than good, new 
teachers, let them do it.
  I have never understood the zealotry on behalf of block grant 
proposals.
  It is classic good sense to say when you take the people who tax you 
and the people who spend the money and separate them, money is going to 
be wasted. When the taxing authority is separated from the spending 
authority, the people spending it didn't have to go through the sweat 
of bringing those dollars in, and they waste it. Every block grant 
program we have seen, when audited, shows huge amounts of waste. 
Certain school districts will use that money for all sorts of programs 
that are not necessary. Some, I argue, would be laughed at.
  Then we will hear people from both sides of the aisle come back and 
say: Oh, we should cut this program because it is wasteful. To start 
out with, let's make it work. If you ask educators what is the No. 1 
place to put dollars, it is teachers.
  I would like anyone on the other side to tell me what is more 
important than teachers. Why give the local authority the ability to 
take money away from teachers and give it somewhere else--to 
bureaucracy, or to waste, or to things that might be necessary but not 
as necessary as teachers?
  There will be 3,497 teachers in New York State who will get pink 
slips if the Murray amendment does not pass. The number is 
proportionate in your own States.
  How are you going to look teachers and, more importantly, young 
students in the eye and say, ``Well, I had this ideological concept, 
and the teacher is going to be fired?''
  Yes, we must spend more on education. I am completely sure of that 
view. But we must spend it intelligently. We must spend it rigorously. 
We must spend it with standards. To just throw money at the problem, as 
we have learned in school district after school district, will not 
solve the problem.
  The wisdom we have accumulated about education goes into the Murray 
amendment because we know that smaller class size increases reading 
scores and increases math scores.
  We hear a lot of criticism. I heard my good friend from Tennessee 
criticize the education system. Then he is giving money to the same 
people who are being criticized for not doing a good enough job.
  Are we going to have leadership? Are we going to show America that we 
know what needs to be done, or are we going to hide behind the 
defensive measure that nobody really has any heart for, which will not 
maximize our bang for the buck?
  There is, indeed, an educational crisis in America. There is, indeed, 
an anxiety among the people of our great land that our educational 
system doesn't measure up to the 21st century. Last year, in a 
bipartisan way this Congress had the courage to begin to address that 
issue at its core: Too few teachers for a growing number of students. 
Let us not take a step backward and reverse that. Let us support the 
Murray amendment.
  I thank the President.
  I yield the time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and fellow Senators, some of you will not 
think what I am going to tell you is even possible. But, believe it or 
not, before I went to law school, I was a schoolteacher. I taught 
mathematics in junior high school in the public school system. I loved 
it. I had a class in the morning that was made up of half the students 
who didn't know how to add 6 and 6--they were in the eighth grade--and 
half the students who were ready for geometry.
  I guarantee that if the U.S. Government, back when we were trying to 
teach in Albuquerque, NM, in Garfield Junior High, said, We want to 
give you the same program as we give a junior high school in New York 
City, do you think I would have jumped to it and said, Give it to me? 
Of course I would not have. I would have said, What is it for? Then I 
would have said, Won't you let me use it for what I know the kids need 
or are you going to tell me what they need?
  In essence, that little classroom and that little example is a 
microcosm of this issue. This issue across this land is whether or not 
the U.S. Government can help a failing education system with more 
targeted programs--more programs that say, use it our way in every way 
or you don't use it. It is a presumption on our part that it is the 
very best way to use the money and it is the best way to make our 
students achieve more--none of which is true and none of which will 
bear out in the marketplace of educating young people.
  What we have today is an effort to use $1.2 billion of education 
funding by authorizing on an appropriations bill a way of spending that 
is not now authorized in the law. We will not even wait for a couple of 
months for the committee that has been having hearing upon hearing to 
come forth with a bill that puts everything into some perspective as to 
the small Federal Government's share--and small it is; 7 percent of 
public education is the U.S. Government. And that is found in this 
bill, 7 percent.
  Some people talk as if we are the driving force of education. We 
would have to be miracle workers for our 7 percent to really make 
schools get significantly better. But they would take $1.2 billion that 
is here to be used in a new way under a new law, and they would say: We 
know best; spend it for more teachers in every school in America.
  Frankly, it was also said on the floor that every superintendent 
wanted it that way. I only had a chance to call four--Belen, Artesia, 
Cloudcroft, Capitan. None of them thought that more teachers was the 
biggest priority for their school systems and their problems. Some said 
they would improve themselves with alternative learning. Some said they 
would improve themselves with math and science. One said they would 
dramatically improve themselves in science.
  Frankly, that is what this is all about. Under the guise of saying we 
know best and, please, under the guise of saying more teachers must be 
met for everybody, we are going to spend $1.2 billion of hard-earned 
taxpayers' money by mandating that you use it for more teachers or you 
can't use it.
  I would just suggest that in my home city school district--where I 
taught school years ago when I taught mathematics in the junior high--I 
am not at all sure they would take this money and put it in more 
teachers if you gave them the option. They are having a crisis in the 
school system there. But I don't believe they would be saying the thing 
they need the most is more teachers. They might need bonuses for good 
teachers. They might need some bonuses for teachers who are indeed 
excellent and can't make ends meet because we can't pay enough. They 
would find all kinds of things and put them on the table. Ask them.

[[Page 23193]]

  If you really said--let's just pick a number, the $20 million you 
will get, or the $50 million you will get--Albuquerque, you can use it 
all for teachers or in enhancing the opportunity for achievement, which 
is our goal, you can use it in other ways and be accountable for it, I 
doubt very much if they would in my home State all choose more 
teachers.
  Don't anybody miss the point. If you vote against Senator Murray's 
amendment, you still vote for the $1.2 billion to go to our States in 
the appropriate formula, which nobody is arguing about, to be used 
where they think it is best to enhance the achievement level of our 
public school students.
  There is much that could be said. When the debate ensues on the major 
American overhaul of education, we will all be here talking about some 
new reform. But for now, I think in my 5 minutes I have expressed my 
views as best I can.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, our side yields up to 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is remarkable how a relatively short 
amendment and even debate can be misconstrued.
  The amendment we have before us that will be voted on in about 30 
minutes is less than 10 full lines long. Twice, the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts has said that it authorizes the States to take 15 percent 
of the money for administrative purposes, in spite of having been 
corrected after the first mistake.
  In fact, in clear English, it states that the distribution will be 
for school districts in exactly the same form as would be the 
distribution under Senator Murray's amendment. I don't believe Senator 
Murray's amendment allows 15 percent to be taken out by the States for 
administrative expenses. Neither does mine. That is one point that has 
been made on the other side during the course of the debate.
  Another--very recently by the junior Senator from New York, and by 
others--speaks of the tremendous waste and abuse in the use of this 
money for football teams and the like, which seems to be the inevitable 
consequence of trusting elected school board members to manage their 
own schools.
  A few years ago when we began this debate I made a remark that I 
repeat now. How is it that voters who are so wise as to choose us to 
represent them in the Senate will be so foolish and so stupid as to 
choose school board members in their own communities who will take any 
money we give them and throw it away on frivolous, noneducational 
purposes if we allow them to run their own schools?
  No one has answered that question. Yet this entire debate on the 
other side of the aisle has been taken up by Members who either 
implicitly or often explicitly, as is the case with New York, are 
willing to state that they know more not only about the schools in 
their own States but the schools in the other 49 States as well, and 
unless we tell every one of the 17,000 school districts in the United 
States of America precisely how to spend their money, they will waste 
that money.
  More than 90 percent of the money spent on schools in the United 
States is spent by States and local school districts. Unless the 
proposition is that all of that money is wasted, that our whole system 
is so dysfunctional that we should abolish school districts, abolish 
elected school board members and simply run all of our schools from 
Washington, DC, unless that is the argument, the proposition on the 
other side arguing against my amendment simply falls by its own weight.
  As I said earlier, I think the proposition proposed in the Murray 
amendment is clearly debatable. It wasn't debated last year. It was 
poked in a huge omnibus bill at the end of the session, unknown to most 
of the Members of both Houses of Congress. It has been debated for a 
total of 3 hours today. It needs to be debated against other competing 
ideas of at least equal and I think greater merit when we debate 
renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act sometime during 
the winter of next year. Perhaps by that time, with various ideas 
spread out, we can do a better job.
  The Murray amendment, in order to breach one of our rules, has had to 
be written in an awkward fashion. It is an authorization but it is an 
indirect authorization. It deserves much more serious consideration 
than we are giving it this afternoon. It deserves debate against much 
more serious and broad ranging ideas.
  It does seem to me, however Members vote on it--and Members who don't 
trust local school districts and think superintendents are incompetent, 
who believe that principals and teachers don't have the interests of 
the kids they are educating in mind, can certainly vote to tell them 
exactly how to spend this money by voting for the Murray amendment--
even those Members ought to vote for my amendment because mine simply 
says if we don't adopt the Murray amendment or don't adopt something 
similar to the Murray amendment between now and the 30th of June of 
next year, the school districts will get the money in any event, and it 
is only in that ``any event'' they will be able to use it for any 
educational purpose they deem appropriate for the improvement of their 
students. If both amendments are defeated, the schools may forfeit the 
money entirely.
  I trust Members on the other side will at least be objective enough 
to agree to the proposition that we ought to adopt my amendment 
unanimously and then determine whether or not this is the time, without 
any real debate, to say we have to have one more program added to the 
literally hundreds we already have on the statute books of the United 
States, all of which are for precise, single purposes, each of which 
implicitly or explicitly says we don't trust our professional educators 
and our parents to know how to set the priorities for their own 
schools.
  I firmly believe in the proposition we should provide that trust 
permanently through the amendment I offer. My amendment doesn't do that 
permanently; it only uses it as a backup. We will debate a more 
sophisticated version of it later this year or early next year. Between 
sides, there is a great gulf. That gulf is between those who believe 
people at home are professional educators, are elected school board 
members who do care about the kids they are teaching and do know what 
those kids need, and those who believe, unless we operate as a super 
school board, unless we adopt the assumption we know far more than they 
do about education, that education will not be provided.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent Senators Landrieu and Reed from 
Rhode Island be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Washington. I support her 
amendment.
  The basic issue is this: Will we give the pink slip to 29,000 
teachers at the end of this school year, teachers who were hired to use 
their professional skills, to have reduced class size which helps kids 
along in kindergarten, first, and second grades?
  The Republicans say yes; the Democrats say no. The Republicans say: 
Give them the pink slips. Give the money to the school districts. Let 
them do with it what they like.
  I think Senator Murray, in supporting this amendment which I support 
as well, is supporting a concept that is tested and proven.
  During the course of this debate, we have been visited in the 
galleries by many students--hundreds of them, perhaps. I think if you 
ask each of them whether it was a better classroom experience when they 
were in a small class where they got to know the teacher and worked 
with them or in some large study hall with 200 or 300 students, the 
answer is obvious. It is obvious on this side of the aisle but, 
unfortunately, not on the other side of the aisle.

[[Page 23194]]

  The chart the Senator from Tennessee brought up must be passed to 
every Senator when they are elected. It shows how bad America's schools 
are and compares various grade levels of different nations and the 
United States. I have seen the chart over and over again. It is a chart 
they use to rationalize vouchers, taking money out of public schools 
and giving it to a few kids to go to private schools. It is a chart 
they use to say public education doesn't work in America today.
  There is something fundamentally flawed in that presentation. 
Virtually every other country we are compared to uses a selective 
system of bringing kids to school. But not in America. Our schools are 
open to everybody regardless of color, regardless of economic 
circumstance, regardless of whether you are gifted or have a learning 
disability. Yes, some of our test scores are lower because our school 
doors are open to everyone. Some of the other countries, which the 
Republicans point to with pride, are very selective. There is the class 
that will become the leaders and the class that will always be the 
lower-class workers. That is not America. I hope it never is.
  This commitment to this amendment is a commitment to public 
education, to 90 percent of the kids in America who go to public 
schools. I went to private schools, parochial schools, as did my kids, 
but I believed my first obligation in my community and in the Senate 
was to public education. That is why I support Senator Murray.
  For those who say we don't care about or don't trust local 
educational officials, nothing could be further from the truth. Despite 
everything we do in this appropriations bill, 93 percent of the funds 
spent on local schools will come from local sources and will be 
administered by local officials, as it should be. The question that 
Senator Murray poses with this amendment is whether the Federal 
Government will continue to show leadership in certain areas where we 
have had proven success.
  Looking back we can see it: vocational education, the School Lunch 
Program, title I for kids falling behind, the IDEA program for kids 
with disabilities, the National Defense Education Act, the Pell grants 
and others for higher education. We pick and choose those things that 
work at the Federal level and do our level best to work with local 
school districts to use them at the local level. That is what the 
Murray amendment is all about.
  Yes, we trust local officials, but we want to make certain they are 
held accountable to produce the teachers and reduce the class sizes 
that we know has proven results.
  I say to the Senator from Washington, who offers an alternative: Have 
faith in the public school system, please. Have faith, if teachers are 
in the classroom with a smaller number of students they can succeed; 
kids that might otherwise fall behind have a fighting chance.
  I close by saying it is sad, in one respect, that this is what the 
educational debate in Washington, DC, comes down to, a matter of 29,000 
teachers. The No. 1 issue for families across America deserves a bigger 
debate and a lot more attention from the Federal Government. So far, 
this Congress, as we have seen in previous Congresses under Republican 
control, has continued to shortchange education. We cannot do that 
except at our own national peril. I support the Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think we have had a very solid, 
constructive debate this afternoon. The Murray amendment seeks to deal 
with class size, which I believe is a very laudable and praiseworthy 
objective. A difficulty I have with the amendment of the Senator from 
Washington is that it adds some $200 million to the bill, which is 
already, in my judgment, at the maximum level. It now calls for $91.7 
billion; $16 billion is forward funded. Last year $8 billion had been 
forward funded. This bill has been crafted by the subcommittee, then 
accepted by the full committee, after 17 hearings, after having more 
than 2,000 requests from Members, more than 1,000 letters, 1,000 inputs 
from the citizenry. Our subcommittee, a group of experts on staff, sat 
down and crafted this bill which was then approved by Senator Harkin, 
the ranking Democrat, and myself. We have some 300 items which we have 
weighed and evaluated. We have allocated $1.2 billion to the 
generalized subject of teacher initiative, which is perhaps the same as 
class size. When I say perhaps the same as class size, I say that 
because the determination of precisely how that money is to be used is 
up to the authorizing committee.
  For those watching on C-SPAN II, if anyone, a word of explanation 
might be in order; that is, we appropriate. We put up the money. But we 
have another committee, headed by Senator Jeffords, which decides 
authorization, as to how the money is to be spent. That is the way we 
do business in the Senate.
  Last year, in order to move through the process--and occasionally we 
do legislate on an appropriations bill--we did legislate, for 1 year, 
on class size. The amendment offered by the Senator from Washington was 
subject to challenge under rule XVI and could have been defeated 
because it is legislation. We decided not to do that in order to give 
this issue a thorough airing on the merits.
  Frankly, I would like to add $200 billion--million--maybe Freud would 
say I would like to add $200 billion. I am not sure. But we have a 
couple of problems. One problem is we have to pass this bill. On my 
side of the aisle, we are at the breaking point. I may be wrong about 
that, we may be beyond the breaking point. I am lobbying my colleagues 
in the Cloakroom that $91.7 billion ought to get their affirmative 
vote. They raised questions about the size of the amount. Then we have 
to go to conference and we have to produce a bill which will be 
accepted by our House colleagues, who have a little different view. 
They want to spend substantially less money.
  I am aware the object, the end process is to get the bill signed. 
Under our Constitution, it is not enough for the Senate to vote, for 
the House to vote, for the conference committee to vote. It has to be 
submitted to the President. He has to agree with it. We are very close 
to the President's figure.
  He asked for $1.4 billion for class size, and I am not saying in the 
end we might not be there on a compromise, at the very end of the 
process, if we make some other adjustments. But there is a limit as to 
how much I can get my Republican colleagues to vote for.
  One of my colleagues just entered, came to the floor, and said, 
``That's right.'' I have been lobbying him very hard in the Cloakroom. 
We have to get 51 votes for this bill; that is not easy to do, at $91.7 
billion.
  So as we look at the overall structure, and we have 300 programs--the 
Senator from Washington did not make a suggestion as to where she would 
like to cut $200 million. We have a structure that is not subject to 
the Budget Act because it is advanced funding.
  I believe our bill, at $91.7 billion, is within the caps, and I am 
confident it does not touch Social Security. But that is a complicated 
subject because some of the money has been borrowed from defense. There 
are a lot of factors at play here. Senator Domenici and Senator Stevens 
and I and others have been working to be sure we are within the caps 
and we do not cut Social Security. I have been told if we spend $200 
million more on the amendment of the Senator from Washington, we may 
invade Social Security--that we will invade Social Security. I am not 
prepared to make that argument because I do not know whether it is true 
or not. But I do know every time we add money, we come very close to 
that and there is, not a consensus--there is unanimity not to touch 
Social Security, not to do that, and to allow room for Medicare.
  In the debate earlier, I heard the Senator from Connecticut talk 
about adding $2 billion to another program that I like very much, but I 
am not prepared to spend $2 billion more on this bill and eliminate any 
chance at all I can get 51 votes on this side of the aisle.
  So it was with great reluctance that I am constrained--and I voted 
against

[[Page 23195]]

very little, in the 19 years I have been here, against increased 
education funding. If somebody wants to spend more money on education, 
almost always I have said yes. The authorizers may come back and may do 
exactly what the Senator from Washington wants, put it on class size. 
That is a laudable, praiseworthy objective. But there are other 
objectives as well. That has to be decided by our authorizing 
committee, under our rules.
  So it is with reluctance that I vote against the Senator from 
Washington because I do not like to vote against money for education. 
But we have not just been fair; we have been very generous. This bill 
is an increase of $2.3 billion over last year. It is more than $500 
million more than the President wanted. We have worked hard to craft 
this, among 300 programs. Agreeing to the amendment offered by Senator 
Gorton does not rule out class size on two grounds: One is, it could be 
class size if the local districts say so, or it could be class size if 
the authorizers say so.
  So Senator Gorton's amendment is not inconsistent with the objectives 
of the Senator from Washington.
  Chairing this subcommittee has been fascinating, and trying to put 
all the pieces together is really a challenge. Voting against education 
is something I do not like to do, to be misconstrued in a 30-second 
commercial, but I think the interests of American children and public 
education, of which I am a product, are best served by keeping the bill 
as it is.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to say by voting for the Gorton 
amendment we are voting for education. In voting against the Murray 
amendment you are not voting against education, you are voting for 
allowing--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 4 minutes off 
the time of the proponents of the Gorton amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I will yield him that time. That is the 
way we do it, as opposed to unanimous consent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, the Gorton amendment is a pro-education amendment, if 
you believe people in the local school districts know what they need. 
Maybe they need more teachers. Maybe they need more computers. Maybe 
they need to enhance the benefits for teachers that are there so they 
can keep them there.
  Maybe they need it for recruitment. Let's give them the flexibility.
  I, along with several other Senators, met with some Governors and 
asked them what they wanted, and they said they wanted flexibility and 
they wanted Congress to help them meet the unfunded obligations of 
IDEA. I said: What about this proposal that some people have made that 
says let's have 100,000 new teachers paid for by the Federal 
Government? That was not their request.
  They said: No, just give us flexibility; there are hundreds of 
Federal programs, some of which work, some of which do not work, a lot 
have mandates; give us the flexibility to work on those programs; give 
us some of the money without the strings attached; you do not need to 
tell us we have to hire so many teachers.
  Frankly, they do not have to hire teachers and have them paid for by 
the Federal Government. Some States have already taken significant 
action to reduce class size. I compliment them for it. Some are way 
ahead of others. Should we punish those States that have moved ahead 
earlier than other States? I don't think so.
  How in the world do we in the Federal Government have that kind of 
knowledge that allows us to dictate, to mandate that we need 30,000 
teachers, or 100,000 teachers? In my State, it comes to 348 teachers. 
We have 605 school districts, so each school district gets half a 
teacher. Nationwide, there are 14,000 school districts, so I guess we 
get 2 teachers for each school district. Some people are saying that is 
the solution for better education, for the Federal Government to hire 
two teachers for each school district? That is ridiculous.
  We have a lot of programs. The Senator from Pennsylvania has already 
mentioned there is a significant increase for education. Let's allow 
some flexibility, as proposed by the Gorton amendment, by people who 
run the schools who know--the local school boards and the States--what 
they need most. Let them make that decision. Maybe it is four more 
teachers. Great, I am all for it. Maybe it is for retention of 
teachers. That is fantastic. Maybe it is for computers. Let's have them 
make the decisions and not dictate that Washington, DC, knows best.
  I reiterate, a vote for the Gorton amendment is pro-education, and a 
vote against the Murray amendment, in my opinion, is pro-education if 
you happen to believe people on the local school boards and the PTAs 
within the States have an interest in improving the quality of 
education and might know better than some bureaucrat in the Department 
of Education.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Three minutes 30 seconds for 
the proponents of the amendment, and 5 minutes 36 seconds for the 
opponents.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Murray's 
amendment to provide funding for the class size reduction initiative.
  Last year, the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, made a down payment 
to help communities hire 100,000 teachers so they could reduce class 
sizes to an average of 18.
  As Tennessee's efforts with class size reduction show, qualified 
teachers in small classes can provide students with more individualized 
attention, spend more time on instruction and less on other tasks, and 
cover more material effectively, and are better able to work with 
parents to further their children's education.
  The class size reduction initiative is flexible, and communities are 
using innovative locally-designed approaches to give children the 
individual attention they need.
  Every state is using the funds, and every state that needed a waiver 
to tailor the class size reduction program to its specific needs or to 
expand class size reduction to other grades, received one.
  1.7 million children are benefitting from smaller classes this year.
  29,000 teachers have been hired with FY99 Class Size Reduction funds.
  1,247 (43 percent) are teaching in the first grade, reducing class 
sizes from 23 to 17.
  6,670 (23 percent) are teaching in the second grade, reducing class 
size from 23 to 18.
  6,960 (24 percent) are teaching in the third grade, reducing class 
size from 24 to 18.
  2,900 (10 percent) are in kindergarten and grades 4-12.
  290 special education teachers were hired.
  On average, 7 percent of the funds are being used for professional 
development.
  Mr. President, the debate is not a simple either/or proposition on 
class size versus teacher quality. We need to do both. That is why last 
year on an overwhelming bipartisan vote we passed a new teacher quality 
grants program as part of the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. 
Indeed, those who claim they support improvements in teacher quality 
have a clear chance to do so when Senator Kennedy and I offer an 
amendment to fully fund the teacher quality grants at $300 million.
  We must continue to meet the bipartisan commitment we made on class 
size reduction.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment to do just that 
and reject the Gorton amendment which could result in children being 
forced to return to larger classes and the firing of 29,000 newly hired 
teachers.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are coming to the end of this debate. 
Everybody needs to step back and remember why we are here, and that is 
that 1 year ago, in a bipartisan manner, both Houses--the Senate and 
the House--agreed to work toward funding 100,000 new teachers in the 
early grades, first through third grades.

[[Page 23196]]

  Everybody took credit a year ago. In fact, I have a copy of the 
Republican Policy Committee, ``Accomplishments During the 105th 
Congress.'' This is what they put out, and right on the second page, 
they take credit for the 30,000 new teachers we funded with the $1.2 
billion. They take credit and say: This is one of their 
accomplishments. They say:

       This omnibus FY 1999 funding bill provides $1.2 billion in 
     additional educational funds, funds controlled 100 percent at 
     the local level--

  Despite the rhetoric you have heard today--

     to recruit, hire, train, and test teachers. This provision--

  They said a year ago--

     is a major first step toward returning to local school 
     officials the ability to make the educational decisions for 
     our children, rather than the bureaucrats in Washington.

  I did not say that; our Republican colleagues said that a year ago 
when they passed the $1.2 billion with us to reduce class sizes.
  In the past year, we have put 30,000 new teachers into our 
classrooms. Why was that an initiative that we all felt was important? 
Because we know it makes a difference. We know that students in smaller 
class sizes enroll in more college-bound courses, they have higher 
grade point averages, they have fewer discipline problems, and they 
have lower drop-out rates.
  The commitment we began last year is making a difference for our 
students, it is making a difference in our classrooms, and it will make 
a difference for our economy and for this country's future. It is a 
program that is working.
  I ask my colleagues: Why have so many people opposed it today when 1 
year ago they said it was a major accomplishment in turning money back 
to local school districts? Why are they opposing it?
  Perhaps they do not want any Federal involvement in our education. I 
disagree. The Federal Government is a partner. They are a partner with 
our State and local governments, with our teachers, our students, our 
families. We made a commitment a year ago, and we are about to renege 
on that right now. If my amendment is not agreed to, and a year from 
now 30,000 teachers get their pink slips and we have students, 1.7 
million children, who are returned to larger classrooms, everyone in 
this Congress will have failed to do the right thing for our children.
  The Class Size Reduction Initiative was the right thing to do a year 
ago. Everyone said so. It is still the right thing to do today. It is a 
commitment we have made to the families in this country that, yes, we 
will live up to what their expectations are of us, that education is a 
priority, that we are willing to put our money behind our rhetoric.
  My colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, has offered an 
alternative, and I say to my Republican colleagues, if they want to 
introduce a new block grant program and tell us what it is, perhaps we 
will be willing to help them. But we are not willing to take 30,000 
teachers out of our classrooms, and we are not willing to say to the 
families in this country that we are not with you in making sure that 
every child in this country, no matter who they are or where they come 
from, will learn. We are willing to do our part.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment and oppose the 
Gorton amendment and do the right thing for children and families in 
this country.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 5 minutes 36 seconds to the distinguished 
Senator from Washington so he can conclude the debate in support of his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the amendment that I have before you and 
which will be voted on in a few minutes is extraordinarily simple both 
to understand and in its undertaking. It says that the $1.2 billion the 
chairman of the subcommittee and his ranking member have generously put 
in this bill, subject to the authorization of a specific teachers 
program, will nonetheless be available to the school districts of the 
country if we do not come up with a specific authorization of that very 
specific and prescriptive program, one, the merits of which as against 
trusting school districts, I find somewhat dubious.
  It should be a slam-dunk vote for every Member of this body, and yet 
immediately after I last spoke on this issue, the senior Senator from 
Illinois said if we do not adopt the Murray amendment, 27,000, 29,000, 
32,000 teachers who have been hired under the teachers program in the 
last year will all get pink slips. It is hard to think of a more 
bizarre argument.
  Under my amendment, every school district will get every dollar it 
has gotten in the present year that is used to hire teachers. The only 
rationale for firing a single one of those teachers would be that the 
teacher was unneeded but that the school district had the money, could 
not use it for any other purpose because of the wisdom of the Members 
of the Congress of the United States and felt that there was an 
infinitely more important use for that money.
  If that is the case, if thousands of teachers are going to be fired, 
it shows that the program was the wrong program in the first place and 
should never have been passed.
  If the teachers program is justified, the teachers will stay on the 
payroll whether Senator Murray's amendment is adopted or not as long as 
my amendment is adopted.
  They are on the horns of a dilemma: either they pass a foolish and 
unneeded program that would otherwise be rejected by every school 
district in the country, or they can reach their goals through my 
amendment, as well as through their own, and then debate at a later 
time under more thoughtful circumstances, as both the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and the Senator from Vermont pointed out, the whole idea 
of how much direction we must impose on our school districts when we 
deal with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 2, 3, or 4 months 
from now.
  But the fundamental difference between these two approaches is very 
simple. Their approach is: The people who run our schools don't know 
what they are doing and will waste money and will do it wrong unless we 
tell them, down to the last detail, how to set their own priorities. 
Their belief is that parents and teachers and principals and 
superintendents--those three sets of professionals who have devoted 
their entire lives to the education of our kids--and elected school 
board members, who go through campaigns, the way we do, because they 
care about their schools, do not really care or are too stupid to know 
what their students need and that one set of rules, applicable to New 
York City and the most rural district in South Carolina, is the only 
way we can provide appropriately for the education of our children. 
That is an argument that is not only perverse; it is false and 
erroneous on its face.
  Let us admit that there may be people in the United States who know 
more about the education of their own children in their own communities 
than do 100 Senators. We should adopt the amendment that I have 
proposed. We should defeat the Murray amendment.
  We should have the debate on a broader scale at a later, more 
appropriate time, not in connection with an appropriations bill that 
urgently needs to be passed by tomorrow so we can actually get this 
money to the schools so they can educate our children and do a better 
job in the future even than they have done in the past.
  I guess I cannot yield back the remainder of our time. It is 
controlled by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Akaka as a cosponsor to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Are the yeas and nays ordered on my amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They are not.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page 23197]]

  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to table the amendment by the Senator from 
Washington, Mrs. Murray, and ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Murray amendment is not pending. The 
Gorton amendment is the pending amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I withdraw the motion and will renew it at the 
appropriate time.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 1805

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Gorton 
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 297 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     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
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Levin
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 1805) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 1804

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Murray 
amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Murray amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     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
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Levin
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1807

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations to 
  eliminate or minimize the significant risk of needlestick injury to 
                          health care workers)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself, Mrs. 
     Boxer, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 1807.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of the 
Senator from Nevada, Mrs. Boxer, and Senator Kennedy.
  A woman by the name of Karen Daly was stuck by a contaminated needle 
while working as an emergency room nurse in Massachusetts. As a result 
of her being inadvertently, accidentally stuck with a needle she was 
using on a patient, she was infected with both HIV and hepatitis C. She 
had worked as a nurse for 25 years. She, of course, can no longer work 
as a nurse. She loved her job. She has become, I believe, the Nation's 
most powerful advocate for our need to do something to prevent people 
from being accidentally stuck with needles from which they become sick.
  Her story is really heart-rending. She says:

       I can't describe for you how that one moment--the moment 
     when I reached my gloved hand over a needle box to dispose of 
     the needle I had used to draw blood--has drastically changed 
     my life. Since January of this year, I have had to come to 
     terms with the fact that I am infected with not one but two 
     life-threatening diseases.

  The tragic part of this story is, like Karen, so many other people 
could have had this accidental stick prevented. Karen Daly is one of 
800,000 accidental sticks every year.
  In Reno, NV, there is a woman by the name of Lisa Black, a 21-year-
old registered nurse, a single mother of two, who has also learned the 
devastating impact of a needle stick. In October of 1997, 2 years ago, 
she was nursing a man who was in the terminal stages of AIDS when a 
needle containing his blood punctured her skin. Today, she is infected 
with hepatitis C and HIV. She takes 22 pills a day to keep her HIV 
infection from progressing to full-blown AIDS and to delay the effects 
of hepatitis C which is an incurable liver disease.
  Lisa Black's needle stick could have been prevented if hospitals had 
widespread use of safe needles and needleless devices. I repeat, 
800,000 needlesticks and sharps injuries each year. That is more than 
is really imaginable, but it is true.
  There are pages and pages of incidents I could report of people who 
are stuck with these needles. The nursing profession is mostly women, 
so most of the people who are injured are women.

[[Page 23198]]

  I will talk about a couple of others.
  Beth Anne. She graduated with a nursing degree less than a year 
before she got hurt. She says:

       Life for me was just starting. Having graduated from 
     college that year, I had planned to specialize in critical 
     care, emergency services, and flight nursing. I was engaged 
     to a wonderful and supportive engineer whom I had met when we 
     were students on the same university campus. We were planning 
     our wedding. Suddenly, everything seemed uncontrollable. The 
     illness and the response from my employer seemed out of my 
     control. . . . The severity of the illness threatened my 
     life. . . . Wedding plans were postponed indefinitely.

  Here is how she describes her injury:

       I pulled the needle out. As the needle tip cleared the 
     skin, the patient swiped at my right arm, sending the needle 
     into my left hand. ``I forgot about the shot,'' the patient 
     said. ``I thought it was a mosquito biting at my hip.''

  Beth Anne says:

       The injury I sustained is now preventable. . . . I injected 
     the needle into her hip with my right hand, aspirated to 
     assure placement, and pushed the plunger. The patient did not 
     flinch. I pulled the needle out. As the needle tip cleared 
     the skin, the patient swiped at my right arm, sending the 
     needle into my left hand. ``I forgot about the shot,'' the 
     patient said. ``I thought it was a mosquito biting at my 
     hip.'' There [are] now syringes that automatically retract 
     the needle into the syringe before the syringe is pulled away 
     from the patient's skin. . . . The cost difference between 
     this safe syringe and the one that infected [this lady] is 
     less than the cost of a postage stamp. The cheaper syringe 
     has cost [this woman and her employer] much more than this, 
     in many ways.

  She has been very sick and has been in and out of hospitals. Hundreds 
of these patients die each year from these injuries. Moreover, these 
statistics account for only reported injuries. The 800,000 are only 
those that are reported. There are a lot more that are not reported.
  Lynda.

       On September 9, . . . I sustained a needlestick while 
     starting an intravenous line at a small community hospital in 
     Lancaster, Pa. I was a 23-year-old registered nurse working 
     in the ICU.

  The reason I go over these stories is these are not negligent nurses. 
They have not done anything wrong.
  What happened is on one occasion there was a needle in a wastepaper 
basket. She stuck her hand in it. Needles are not supposed to be put 
there.
  On another occasion, a patient, very sick, not thinking well--
senile--swiped at a person's hand, thinking it was a mosquito.
  In this instance, I repeat, she was a 23-year-old registered nurse.

       At my hospital I had received in-depth training and had 
     attended in-service sessions about safety and technique. 
     Although I was complying with all recommended precautions at 
     the time my needlestick occurred, these precautions were not 
     enough to prevent the injury. While removing the needle from 
     the patient's vein, he suddenly moved his arm and knocked 
     mine. The motion forced the bloody exposed needle directly 
     into my left palm. It punctured my latex gloves. . . .
       It was here that my worst fears were confirmed. The patient 
     had AIDS and was in the final stage of the disease.

  She said:

       I began the 1-year wait to discover if I had become 
     infected. At 3 weeks after my needlestick I was sent to a 
     family practitioner because of a rash, sore throat, and 
     fever; I was prescribed some topical ointment for the rash 
     and sent home.
       . . . I received the results of my 6-month antibody test 
     and got the most devastating news of my life: I was HIV 
     positive. I do not think that words can accurately describe 
     my emotions at this time. I felt suffocated, desperate, 
     fearful, dirty, contaminated, and confused. Nothing in my 
     education, on-the-job training, or critical care course could 
     have prepared me for the experiences and emotion that lay 
     ahead.

  I have only recounted a few of these. Nurses badly need this 
legislation. There are all kinds of things that can be done to protect 
these people who are being stabbed inadvertently. There are needles 
that retract. Too many of our front-line health care workers contract, 
as I have indicated, these debilitating and often deadly diseases as a 
result of these on-the-job needlestick injuries.
  Those at risk for needlestick or sharp injuries include anyone who 
handles blood, blood products, and biological samples, as well as 
housekeeping staff and those responsible for the disposal of 
contaminated materials.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control, we have only a few of 
the reported sticks each year; 800,000 people have reported 
needlesticks and sharps injuries. There are many more who do not 
report.
  We do not actually know the number of needlestick injuries.
  Over 20 different diseases--including HIV, hepatitis B and C, and 
malaria--may be transmitted from just a speck of blood.
  This amendment that has been offered would ensure that necessary 
tools--better information and better medical devices--are made 
available to front-line health care workers in order to reduce injuries 
and deaths that result from these needlesticks.
  What would my amendment do?
  It would amend OSHA's--that is the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration--blood-borne pathogens standard to require that 
employees use needleless systems and sharps with engineered sharps 
protections to prevent the spread of blood-borne pathogens in the 
workplace.
  Second, create a sharps injury log that employers would keep 
containing detailed formation about these injuries that occur.
  And finally, it would establish a new clearinghouse within the 
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, to collect 
data on engineered safety technology designed to help prevent the risk 
of needlesticks.
  In the House of Representatives, this legislation is sponsored by 136 
of their Members. Protecting the health and safety of our front-line 
health care workers should not be a partisan or political issue. We 
need something done.
  I have been told that the chairman of the committee, the junior 
Senator from Vermont, is aware of the problem in this area and has 
indicated a willingness to work to come up with regulations that we can 
work with the administration on or legislation, if in fact that is 
necessary--which I think it is--to prevent these needlestick injuries--
and they are preventable, and we as a body need to do something about 
it.
  Mr. SPECTER. If the distinguished Senator would yield on that point?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SPECTER. Senator Jeffords would be willing to work with the 
Senator from Nevada on a bipartisan approach to needlestick prevention. 
I have not heard the issue broached at the hearings, but I will urge 
Senator Jeffords to include that in working with the Senator from 
Nevada. The issue poses a problem on the appropriations bill. This is 
authorization on an appropriations bill, and it is subject to our rule 
XVI which precludes that. But more fundamentally, it has not been aired 
with many of the interested parties. I am sympathetic to what the 
Senator from Nevada seeks to accomplish. I think there are problems. I 
found out about it for the first time yesterday, and I say that in no 
way to be critical. That is what happens here. When we take it up, we 
have heard rural hospitals would find it difficult in its present 
posture. I am told by CBO that there is a substantial cost figure 
involved. I don't cite it with any authority, but they are talking 
about $50 million. I don't quite see that, but that has been reported 
to me.
  I compliment Senator Reid for calling attention to the issue, for 
focusing on it, for raising it and taking a big step in having 
consideration by the authorizing committee. I will urge Senator 
Jeffords to include hearings as well as a cooperative approach to try 
to work it out.
  Mr. REID. I say to the manager of the bill, I appreciate his 
statement. I understand rule XVI. It was my initial idea because I 
think this is so important. Every nurse in America, every day they go 
to work, is concerned about whether or not they have a needlestick. 
Nurses all over America favor this. It was my original intention to 
move forward and see if we could get enough votes to surmount the 
problem with rule XVI.
  I think we have the opportunity to do something on a bipartisan 
basis. I do not believe something this important should be done on a 
partisan basis. I think we should make this a bill both Democrats and 
Republicans support. I

[[Page 23199]]

have spoken to the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who has worked 
on this with me from the very beginning. She is someone who feels very 
strongly about this issue. I have spoken to the other sponsor of the 
legislation, Senator Kennedy. They acknowledge the need for this and 
also the fact technology now exists to protect health care workers from 
needlesticks, but only 15 percent of those hospitals are using safer 
needle devices such as retractable needles.
  Having said that, I am not going to call for a vote at this time. It 
is my understanding Senator Jeffords has agreed to do hearings. I am 
sure I can confirm that with a phone call with him. At this stage, what 
I am going to do is speak no more, talk to Senator Jeffords, and then I 
will withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for both 
focusing the attention of the Senate on this issue and for agreeing to 
an orderly process, which has been outlined, for expediting the 
processing of the bill by, as he says, withdrawing the amendment.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend in closing, I understand there might be 
a cost involved. CBO has indicated to the manager of the bill $50 
million. I think it would be a fraction of that, but we need not get 
into that today. For any one of these women I talked about today who 
have been inadvertently stabbed with one of these needles, their 
medical bills are huge. There isn't a single one of these women who 
doesn't have medical expenses less than $100,000. When added up, it 
comes out to a tremendous amount of money that could be saved, 
notwithstanding the pain and suffering of these individuals and their 
families.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. REID. I am not going to withdraw the amendment at this time. I am 
going to talk to Senator Jeffords, make sure we will have a hearing 
sometime within the reasonable future. I have been advised by staff he 
has agreed to that, so I am sure there will be no problem.
  I say to the Chair, I have no objection to my amendment being set 
aside and moving on to other business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be set 
aside.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on our sequencing, the distinguished 
Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, has an amendment to offer at 
this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1808

  (Purpose: Sense of the Senate regarding the Brooklyn Museum of Art)

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1808.

  The amendment is as follows:
       Sec.   . It is the sense of the Senate that the Conferees 
     on H.R. 2466, the Department of Interior and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, shall include language prohibiting funds 
     from being used for the Brooklyn Museum of Art unless the 
     Museum immediately cancels the exhibit `Sensation,' which 
     contains obscene and pornographic pictures, a picture of the 
     Virgin Mary desecrated with animal feces, and other examples 
     of religious bigotry.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, first, I thank my 
colleague, the manager, Senator Specter, and the Democratic side for 
agreeing to my amendment. It is my understanding there is no 
opposition. I will be very brief in my remarks.
  The amendment is very simple, as was read by the clerk. It says that 
unless the Brooklyn Museum of Art, about which we have been reading, 
cancels the exhibit Sensation, it will no longer receive Federal funds 
through the National Endowment of the Arts. An article in today's 
Washington Times describes this exhibit ``called art''--I use that term 
loosely--as including a picture of the Virgin Mary decorated with 
elephant feces and pornographic pictures. It also contains a picture, a 
photograph of the Last Supper with a naked woman presiding, presumably, 
as Christ. It also depicts a sculpture of a man's head filled with the 
artist's frozen blood.
  As I say, I use the term ``artist'' loosely. I am reading from the 
article. This is called ``art.''
  Mr. President, we do live in troubled times. You would think with the 
constant barrage of violence and sex and death and blasphemy that maybe 
somehow everybody would get to the point where enough is enough. I 
think that is where I am with this particular piece of art, so-called. 
Yet this painting of the Virgin Mary covered in feces and surrounded by 
pornographic pictures is particularly shocking. It is irreverent; it is 
sacrilegious; and it is disgusting; but it is not art, for goodness' 
sake. People can do what they want to do. We do have the first 
amendment. They can draw what they want to draw.
  But I will say one thing: The taxpayers of the United States 
shouldn't fund this garbage. Everyone here knows how I feel about the 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. I had an amendment 
recently that lost overwhelmingly to defund the National Endowment for 
the Arts.
  At that time, we were told all of these things were in the past. 
There were no more Mapplethorpes. And as someone spoke to me on the way 
in, we went from Christ on the crucifix immersed in urine to the Virgin 
Mary now with animal feces. That is where we have gone with the 
National Endowment for the Arts.
  I think it is time we dismantled the National Endowment for the Arts 
because I am sick and tired of hearing about these so-called art 
projects. How many times do we have to hear the NEA has cleaned up its 
act, and how many times do we have to hear that it has not? That is the 
bottom line.
  This amendment doesn't defund the National Endowment for the Arts. It 
says, very simply and very clearly, it is the sense of the Senate that 
the conferees on the Department of the Interior, where NEA is funded, 
shall include language prohibiting funds from being used for the 
Brooklyn Museum of Art, unless the museum immediately cancels the 
exhibit Sensation, which contains obscene and pornographic pictures, a 
picture of the Virgin Mary desecrated with animal feces, and other 
examples of religious bigotry.
  Basically, Mayor Giuliani has said the same thing, that he doesn't 
want any of these funds going to the museum for it either. I think if 
we are going to fund the arts, we owe it to the taxpayers to exercise 
discretion. The Brooklyn Museum of Art is upset that Mayor Giuliani is 
threatening to withdraw the $7 million subsidy the museum gets from the 
city, but the mayor is right.
  The people of New York City shouldn't have to spend their hard-earned 
tax dollars to pay for this trash, nor should the people of New 
Hampshire, or California, or Iowa, or Idaho, or any place else. 
Defenders of the NEA always say this is creativity. According to the 
promotions for this exhibit in New York, they have a warning poster 
outside the display in the museum that says: This exhibit causes 
``shock, vomiting, confusion, panic, and anxiety.''
  The Brooklyn Museum of Art has received just over the last 3 years at 
least $500,000 worth of taxpayer dollars--at least. You could employ a 
lot of homeless veterans for $500,000. You could take a lot of them off 
the streets for $500,000.
  If we are going to give money to museums, we ought not to include 
those that are this irresponsible. Give me that $500,000, and I will 
find homeless veterans in San Francisco, in Los Angeles, and 
Washington. Every day when I come to work, I see homeless veterans on 
grates in this city. Let me have that money, and I will get them off 
the grates. But I will be doggone if I am going to give it to the 
Brooklyn Museum of Art or any other museum with this kind of trash 
called ``art.'' It is wrong.
  Every time I take the floor and talk about it--and others before me, 
and Senator Helms who is a leader on

[[Page 23200]]

this--we always hear that they have cleaned up their act, it is not 
going to happen anymore, and we are not going to hear any more about 
these horror stories. But here we are with this money. We just passed 
it--$99 million worth for the National Endowment for the Arts. I lost 
my amendment, and here goes some of that money right smack into the 
Museum of Art in Brooklyn.
  If a student wants to say a prayer over his lunch or if a teacher 
holds a moment of silence, it is Government sponsorship of religion. 
Judge Roy Moore of Alabama could go to jail for putting the Ten 
Commandants on his wall because somehow we are afraid of the separation 
of church and state. But this kind of stuff can go on, and nobody stops 
it.
  The ACLU liberals are all too willing to persecute people for 
legitimate religious expression if it takes place in a public building. 
Then they defend the desecration of the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ 
and call it art? What is happening to this world? Can somebody figure 
this out?
  We have a public museum, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars 
of Federal taxpayer dollars, spending these dollars on religious 
bigotry. So the American taxpayer has to pay for art that degrades and 
blasphemes against their own religion. But if their child wants to say 
a prayer over lunch, we have to get the lawyers out. Welcome to 
America. It seems that anti-Catholic bigotry is coming back into vogue. 
Not only that, it is celebrated as art, and it gets Federal dollars to 
do it.
  This guy needs a psychiatrist for putting this thing together. He 
doesn't need Federal money. You get publicity-craving artists who go to 
any length to create controversy. And he has it. I am giving him plenty 
of publicity. He is probably very happy. I will give him the publicity, 
but let's not give him the money. I imagine those who created this 
monstrosity are watching right now on C-SPAN and are cheering away: 
``There is Smith out there giving us all this attention.'' Give him the 
attention, but let's take the money away.
  It is not the so-called ``artists'' who are responsible. They are 
doing their job as they see fit. They should not do it at taxpayer 
expense. Those who run public museums ought to know better. We 
shouldn't have to hang parental warning signs on public art museums 
saying that children under 17 shouldn't come in.
  Mayor Giuliani gave the museum an opportunity to end this controversy 
by removing certain exhibits, and the museum rejected his offer. Let's 
reject the money. As far as I am concerned, this was a statement by the 
Brooklyn Museum that this is the kind of art they think is appropriate 
to fund with taxpayer dollars. Until they change their mind, I think 
the taxpayers' money would be better spent elsewhere. I would be happy 
to pick homeless veterans if somebody wants to give me the $500,000 to 
do it.
  Mr. President, I believe it is appropriate to ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  We have an agreement on the amendment. So we don't need the yeas and 
nays. Is that correct?
  Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I 
appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire has 
broached a great many complex issues in his presentation. The question 
on school prayer is one of the most complex constitutional issues the 
Supreme Court has faced. And I do not believe those analogies are 
particularly apt here. I am certainly opposed to religious bigotry in 
any form whatsoever. When you deal with the issue of restraints on art, 
again, there are complex first amendment questions.
  I learned of the amendment earlier this afternoon and do not have a 
total grasp of the issues on this particular display at this particular 
museum.
  This amendment, while it may be offered on this bill, under our rules 
is not germane to the bill on Labor-HHS. We have decided to accept the 
matter with no assurance as to how hard we will pursue it in the 
conference, to put it mildly. But in the interest of moving the bill 
along, I think the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire has made 
his point. I do not think it has become the law of the land. In the 
interest of moving this bill, not contesting it in a long debate and 
having a rollcall vote, which takes time, we will simply let the matter 
go through on a voice vote, as Senator Smith suggested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1808) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to send 
to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I understand we 
may be in virtual agreement on it. I will call for the question after 
the amendment is read.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I sent the amendment to the desk and asked 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is an objection until we see the 
amendment by the Senator from California. The issue is now on whether 
we are going to agree to set aside. I am not prepared to agree to that 
until we have had an opportunity to study the amendment. We have not 
seen it until this moment. We need to see what the amendment says. We 
have no objection to having the clerk report the amendment, but we are 
not prepared to set aside anything to take up the amendment at this 
time, but we will do so promptly after we have a chance to look at it.
  Mrs. BOXER. It is my understanding that happened an hour ago. We have 
been waiting to offer it.
  Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from California saying she thinks we had 
it an hour ago?
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. As of 5 minutes ago, I was told we didn't have it. We 
can straighten this out in the course of a few minutes.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant 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. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of Senator Reid from Nevada.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the Reid amendment be set aside.
  Mrs. BOXER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. 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. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might 
speak for up to 3 minutes as in morning business, and that at the 
conclusion of my remarks the quorum call be reinstated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to the most urgent of matters 
about which I can be succinct. There has arisen in New York City the 
question of the propriety of a museum exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum. 
The city government has contested this, and the museums of the city 
have, in turn, raised objections.
  Floyd Abrams, who is perhaps the most significant first amendment 
lawyer of our age--I should correct myself

[[Page 23201]]

to say he is the most significant first amendment lawyer of our age--is 
taking this case to a Federal district court, urging that a first 
amendment issue is involved and that the proposed measures of the City 
of New York are in violation of the first amendment and cannot be 
allowed to stand.
  In that circumstance, I should think any Member of this body ought to 
defer to the courts before which this issue is now being placed. 
Clearly this amendment by Senator Smith will not become law.
  In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial which 
appeared this morning in the New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 29, 1999]

                     The Museum's Courageous Stand

       The Brooklyn Museum of Art announced yesterday that it will 
     stand by its plans to open the exhibition called 
     ``Sensation.'' It also began litigation to prevent Mayor 
     Rudolph Giuliani from fulfilling his threat to withhold 
     financing and possibly take over the museum board. This is 
     unequivocally the right action, one that deserves the support 
     of all of New York's cultural institutions. The Mayor's 
     retaliatory announcement that the city will immediately end 
     its subsidy of the museum is an authoritarian overreaction 
     that deserves a swift hearing and repudiation by the courts.
       Meanwhile, the heads of many of New York City's most 
     important cultural institutions, public and private, have 
     also released a joint letter to Mayor Giuliani. The letter, 
     which ``respectfully'' urges the Mayor to reconsider his 
     threat, is signed by people whose respect, in this instance, 
     seems partly forced by the financial hammer the Mayor wields 
     and by the aggressive personality that leads them to believe 
     he might use it, on the Brooklyn Museum if not necessarily on 
     their own institutions.
       The joint letter makes all the right points. The Mayor's 
     threatened actions, including taking over the board of the 
     Brooklyn Museum, would indeed be a dangerous precedent. Even 
     a mayor who is not busy playing constituent politics in a 
     Senate race, the way Mayor Giuliani is, might find it 
     tempting to intervene in cultural policy from time to time. 
     But one of the cardinal realities of New York City is that 
     this is a place where artistic freedom thrives, where 
     cultural experimentation and transgression are not threats to 
     civility but part of the texture and meaning of daily life. 
     The letter to the Mayor speaks of the chilling effect his 
     actions against the Brooklyn Museum might have. That is an 
     understatement. A threat as blunt and unreasoned as the one 
     the Mayor has leveled at the Brooklyn Museum promises to 
     begin a new Ice Age in New York's cultural affairs, at least 
     until Mr. Giuliani leaves office.
       The museum directors who have signed the joint letter have 
     made a politic appeal to Mr. Giuliani. It was not the forum 
     in which to lecture him on the nature of artistic freedom and 
     the subtleties of public financing of the arts. But no matter 
     how you assess the art in ``Sensation'' or the motives of the 
     Brooklyn Museum or even the fatigue that the thought of 
     another skirmish in the culture war engenders--a rock-hard 
     principle remains. Public financing of the arts cannot be a 
     pretext for government censorship, not on behalf of Roman 
     Catholics or anyone else. The Brooklyn Museum and its lawyer, 
     Floyd Abrams, have found a fittingly aggressive way to make 
     this point in the face of Mr. Giuliani's unremitting attack. 
     Their suit argues that no one can be punished for exercising 
     First Amendment rights. The courts should respond by 
     affirming that those rights belong to the museum and the 
     people of New York no matter how deeply the Mayor is mired in 
     constitutional error.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Now I request, as I believe I said, the quorum call be 
reinstated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has suggested the absence of a 
quorum. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Reid amendment 
be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1809

  (Purpose: To increase funds for the 21st century community learning 
                            centers program)

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

       The Senator from California [Mrs. BOXER], for herself, Mr. 
     Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Johnson, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1809.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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:
       At the end of title III, add the following:


                21st century community learning centers

       Sec.   . In addition to amounts otherwise appropriated 
     under this title to carry out part I of title X of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8241 et 
     seq.), $200,000,000 which shall become available on October 
     1, 2000 and shall remain available through September 30, 2001 
     for academic year 2000-2001.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, simply put, what we do is we add another 
$200 million to afterschool programs. We believe it is very important 
to do this. I have a number of cosponsors.
  This would take the funding to the President's requested level of 
$600 million. It would enable us to take care of another 370,000 
children.
  I ask that the Senate support this.


                Amendment No. 1810 To Amendment No. 1809

 (Purpose: To require that certain appropriated funds be used to carry 
     out part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

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

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1810 to Amendment No. 1809.

  Mr. GREGG. 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:

       At the end of the amendment proposed strike the ``.'' and 
     insert the following: ``(which funds shall, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this title, be used to carry out 
     activities under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) in accordance with the 
     requirements of such part, in lieu of being used to carry out 
     part I of title X)''.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from California. What this amendment 
says is, rather than taking the $200 million, which is new money, brand 
new money, to be advance funded into next year, and therefore it would 
be a credit against the 2001 budget--rather than taking that money and 
putting it into a program which the Senator from Pennsylvania has 
already increased by $200 million, and which has been aggressively 
funded, before we start out with an additional doubling of that amount, 
$200 million, that we begin the process of fulfilling our commitment to 
the special ed funds.
  As I have said almost ad nauseam now on this floor, the Federal 
Government agreed to fund special education, when the bill was 
originally passed, at 40 percent of the cost of special ed. 
Unfortunately, as of about 4 years ago, the percentage of the cost of 
special ed which the Federal Government paid was only 6 percent. Over 
the last 3 years, as a result of the efforts of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, the majority leader, and a number of other Senators, that 
funding has increased dramatically. In fact, the funding for special 
education in this bill is up by almost $700 million over the last 4 
years. If you include this bill, the funding will be up more than 100 
percent over that time period.
  But there is still a huge gap between what the Federal Government 
committed to do in the area of special education and what we are 
presently doing. Thus, before we begin down the road of a dramatic 
increase on top of another dramatic increase in funding for the 
afterschool programs, recognizing there is already $200 million in

[[Page 23202]]

this bill for afterschool programs, an extremely generous commitment 
made by the Senator from Pennsylvania and by the majority party, I 
believe we should take any additional funds that are going to go on top 
of that $200 million and put them into the special ed accounts, which 
is where the local schools really need the support.
  It may be when the local school districts get this additional $200 
million for special ed, which will free up $200 million at the local 
district, that the local school district may make the decision with 
their freed up money, which was local tax dollars, to do an afterschool 
program. That may be very well what they decide to do with that. They 
also may decide to add a new teacher so they can address the class size 
issue. Or they may decide to put in a computer lab. Or they may decide 
to put in a foreign language program. Or they may decide to buy books 
for the library. But it will be the local school district which will 
have that flexibility, because they will have had the Federal 
Government at least add $200 million more into the effort to fulfill 
the Federal Government's role in special ed.
  This is a very important issue. It is one which I have talked about, 
as I said, innumerable times on this floor and raise again with this 
second-degree amendment. I think the issue is prioritization.
  If we are going to start throwing money or putting a great deal of 
additional money into the Federal effort in education, my view is the 
first effort, the first priority is that we fulfill the obligations and 
commitments which are already on the books which the Federal Government 
has made to the local school districts. The biggest commitment we made 
to the local school districts which we presently do not fund is the 
commitment in special education.
  One can go to almost any school district in this country and ask them 
what the biggest problem is they have in the Federal Government's role 
in education, and they will tell you the Federal Government refuses to 
fund its fair share of the cost of the special education child.
  The effect of that, of course, is we pit the special education child 
against parents of children who do not have special education children 
in an unfair way. It has disadvantaged the parents and the special ed 
child because they are now competing for local resources which should 
be used for general education activities because those local resources 
have to be used to replace the Federal obligation which is not being 
fulfilled.
  This amendment is very simple. It says before we start another $200 
million on top of $200 million for a new program, a program which is 
aggressively funded already under this bill, let's do what we have 
already put on the books as our commitment, which is fund special ed 
with any additional money.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Gregg 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I commend our friend 
and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for advancing this very 
important amendment. It is obviously an improvement over what the House 
of Representatives did, and it is an improvement over the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill falls short in some important areas in which I 
believe we should address if we are going to advance academic 
achievement and accomplishment. We attempted, under the outstanding 
leadership of Senator Murray, to help communities reduce class size and 
now with Senator Boxer's amendment, we want to help communities expand 
afterschool programs.
  Tomorrow, there will be an effort by Senator Harkin and Senator Robb 
to address school modernization and construction, and to help more 
communities improve the quality of teachers entering the classroom.
  I commend Senator Boxer for her leadership of the issue of after-
school programs. The 21st Century Community Learning Center program has 
been vastly popular. Over 2,000 communities applied, but there was only 
enough funding to grant 184 awards.
  We all have our own experiences with afterschool programs. We have an 
excellent program in the city of Boston under the leadership of Mayor 
Menino. It is not only an afterschool program, it is also a tutorial 
program for children. Most of the afterschool programs have tutors 
working with children to help them do their homework in the afternoon, 
so that in the evening time, the children can spend quality time with 
their parents. That has been enormously important.
  Secondly, there have been other programs initiated outside the direct 
academic programs involved in school such as photography programs and 
graphic art programs where members of the business community work with 
children to enhance their interests in a variety of subject matters 
they might not be exposed to and provide training in specific skills.
  What every educator involved in afterschool programs will tell you 
is, with an effective afterschool program, we find a substantial 
improvement in the academic achievement and accomplishment of these 
students.
  In Georgia, over 70 percent of students, parents, and teachers agree 
that children receive helpful tutoring through what they call the 3 
o'clock Project, a statewide network of afterschool programs. Over 60 
percent of the students, parents, and teachers agree that children 
completed more of their homework and homework was better prepared 
because of their participation in the program, and academic achievement 
and accomplishments have been enhanced.
  What we have seen over the course of the day under Senator Murray and 
now under Senator Boxer are amendments to support proven effective 
programs, programs which have demonstrated that they improve academic 
achievement and accomplishment. We simply want to target resources to 
these successful programs. In Manchester, NH, at the Beach Street 
School, the afterschool program improved reading and math scores of the 
students. In reading, the percentage of students scoring at or above 
the basic level increased from 4 percent in 1994 to one-third, 33 
percent, in 1997. In math, the percentage of students scoring at the 
basic level increased from 29 percent to 60 percent. In addition, 
students participating in the afterschool program avoid retention in 
grade or being placed in special education.
  There will be those who will say: That is interesting, but they made 
that decision at the local level to do that. The federal government 
didn't decide that.
  If communities want to take advantage of this program, they can apply 
and compete for funding. No one is forcing any particular community to 
take part in this program. No one is demanding that every school 
district in America accept it. But what we are saying is that there 
will be additional resources for communities across this country to 
invest in after-school programs that are improving students' academic 
achievement and accomplishment.
  Afterschool programs also help reduce juvenile crime, juvenile 
violence, and gang activity, generally preventing adverse behavior of 
students.
  What we see in this chart is that juveniles are most likely to commit 
violent crimes after school. As this chart shows, which is a Department 
of Justice chart, the time after school, between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., is 
when youth are most likely to commit or be victims of juvenile crime.
  If you talk to our Police Commissioner Evans in Massachusetts, he 
will tell you one of the best ways of dealing with violent juveniles 
and with the gang problems we have in my city of Boston is effective 
afterschool programs. We know anywhere between 6 and 9 million children 
are at home unsupervised every single day, every afternoon between the 
ages of 9 and 15.

[[Page 23203]]

  We are trying to offer children opportunities for gainful activities 
to, one, enhance their academic achievement and accomplishment; and, 
two, reduce the pressures that so many young people are under that lead 
to bad and negative behavior.
  This amendment, again, is talking about an additional $200 million in 
a total budget of $1.700 trillion--$1.700 trillion, and we are talking 
about adding just $200 million. A nation's budget is a reflection of 
its priorities, and we believe that in after-school programs should get 
high priority.
  Finally, we must do far better than the House bill in after-school 
programs, where they came in $300 million below the President's 
request, and in many other education priorities that the House 
drastically cut. We want to raise the funding levels of the Senate bill 
so that Members going to conference will be able to report out a strong 
after school program.
  I thank the Senator from California, again, for making such a 
compelling case for increased investments in afterschool programs. She 
has been involved in this issue for years, and she is our real leader 
in the Senate on this question. It is a pleasure to be a cosponsor of 
the amendment. I thank her for her courtesy in permitting me to speak 
at this time.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after consulting with the majority 
leader, if we could come to an agreement on our proceedings for the 
remainder of the evening and tomorrow morning, I would be in a position 
to announce, on behalf of the majority leader, that there would be no 
more votes tonight.
  Would the Senator from California and the Senator from New Hampshire 
be willing to enter into a time agreement to conclude this evening and 
to have two votes scheduled tomorrow morning, first on the Gregg 
amendment and then on the Boxer amendment?
  If I could have the attention of the Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was trying to get a full and complete answer for you, I 
say to my friend. We are hopeful we will have an agreement. We are 
waiting to see the final form of that agreement.
  I would recommend that perhaps the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kerry, could make some comments. And then I have a feeling we will then 
have reached an agreement. I am sure he would pause in his remarks to 
accommodate our making such an announcement. I do not think we have a 
problem. I think we are going to resolve this very well.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, so if I may direct the question through 
the Chair to the Senator from California, the Senator is not prepared 
now to enter into a time agreement?
  Mrs. BOXER. Correct, because I have not seen the actual time 
agreement. I am waiting to see it.
  Mr. SPECTER. We have not drafted it yet. It is my suggestion we agree 
to, say, 45 minutes equally divided to conclude the debate on the Gregg 
amendment and on the Boxer amendment, and to agree to a half hour 
tomorrow morning, again equally divided, and to vote at 10 o'clock on 
the Gregg amendment and then on the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator would yield, I am not sure why we would 
vote on the Boxer amendment if the Gregg amendment survived.
  Mrs. BOXER. A Boxer second degree. So we can have a straight up-or-
down vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. We understand if the Gregg amendment prevails, there 
would be a second-degree amendment by the Senator from California--
another Boxer amendment; the same amendment--with a 2-minute speech, 
and then have a second vote tomorrow morning shortly after 10, giving 
the Senator from California a vote on her issue.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I would say, with the clear understanding it is a 
Boxer second degree to Gregg, that is quite acceptable. Two minutes to 
a side would be good.
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may propound the unanimous consent agreement.
  I ask unanimous consent that the debate this evening on the Boxer 
amendment and on the Gregg amendment be concluded in 45 minutes, with 
the time equally divided, and that tomorrow morning the debate resume 
at 9:30, again equally divided, until 10 o'clock, when there is to be a 
vote on the Gregg amendment; and if the Gregg amendment prevails, then 
the Senator from California can offer a second second-degree 
amendment--which is her current amendment--with 2 minutes of debate, 
and the vote to follow shortly after 10 o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object. In fact, I would object to 
that. I am not sure who else may want to second degree my amendment. I 
am not sure what the proper order will be for recognition relative to 
second degreeing my amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. What the Senator is trying to do is reach an agreement. I 
would reach an agreement if I knew we would have a vote on my second 
degree. If you object to Senator Specter trying to be accommodating, 
that is your choice.
  Mr. GREGG. That is exactly what I am doing at this time. So I suggest 
we go forward with Senator Kerry and discuss this further.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Would the Senator from New Hampshire repeat the last 
statement?
  Mr. GREGG. I would suggest that we allow Senator Kerry to speak and 
then we can discuss this.
  Mr. SPECTER. Let me make one more effort.
  I have since been handed a document in writing. On behalf of the 
leader, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on or in relation to 
the pending Gregg amendment at 10 a.m. on Thursday, and immediately 
following that vote, if agreed to, Senator Boxer be recognized to offer 
a second degree, the text of which is amendment No. 1809, and there be 
2 minutes for debate to be equally divided prior to a vote in relation 
to the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. I object to that at this time, until I have a chance to 
talk to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KERRY. I will yield.
  Mr. SPECTER. For purposes of a unanimous consent request, so we can 
allow Senators to go home, I think we have a formula worked out.
  On behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on 
or in relation to the pending Gregg amendment at 10 a.m. on Thursday; 
that immediately following that vote, if agreed to, Senator Boxer be 
recognized to offer a second degree, the text of which is amendment No. 
1809, and there be 2 minutes for debate to be equally divided prior to 
a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the 
pending Gregg and Boxer amendments be concluded within 45 minutes 
equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to ask my friend how much more time he will take 
so I will know how much time I have to speak on this.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I didn't understand there was a time 
limitation on this component.
  Mrs. BOXER. Forty-five minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I reserved the right to 
object previously when the time limit was in. I had understood with the 
second offering there was no time limit. I will object to a restraint 
at this time on the time.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I ask my colleague, tell us how much time you

[[Page 23204]]

need, and then we will adjust accordingly.
  Mr. KERRY. If I could say to my good friend from California, I am not 
speaking from prepared text. I would like to just speak my mind.
  Mrs. BOXER. Do you think about 15 minutes would do it?
  Mr. KERRY. I am sure I could complete it in that period of time, and 
I don't want to shortchange the Senator because it is her amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. If I could ask my friend if he will allow us to add a 
little bit more time and have an hour equally divided, after the 
Senator finishes?
  Mr. SPECTER. I will accept that.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in light of that agreement, I am 
authorized to say on behalf of the majority leader that there will be 
no further votes this evening. The next votes will occur in back-to-
back sequence at 10 a.m. on Thursday. The Senate will reconvene at 9:30 
a.m. on Thursday, with an additional 30 minutes for closing debate.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment from the 
Senator from California. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania that 
if at some point in time he needs to proceed forward on a unanimous 
consent request, I would be happy to accommodate.
  Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from California is an 
extraordinarily important amendment for a lot of different reasons. I 
should like to share some thoughts about that with my colleagues in the 
Senate.
  It is perhaps a propitious moment for the Senator from Oregon to 
assume the chair because he has joined me in an effort to try to change 
this very debate that we are having right now on the floor of the 
Senate, where we have already had one series of votes that have been 
predicated essentially on the same old breakdown of communication with 
respect to how we are going to deal with education. It was a pretty 
much party-line vote. It was a vote that reflected an effort to try to 
block grant money so States could have adequate flexibility to be able 
to make choices, but on the other hand it did not target it 
sufficiently and clearly enough for those on the Democrat side, and 
there was no real meeting of the minds.
  So once again, the Senate--on the subject most important to 
Americans--talked past each other, and we wound up with a fairly rote, 
very clearly partisan vote that takes us nowhere.
  The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Oregon, and I have obviously 
tried to suggest to our colleagues that there is a different way to 
approach this question of education, and that, in fact, most of us are 
not that far off. We are sort of fighting at the margins, when the real 
fight is in the center over how best our children can be educated.
  I do not believe that it is impossible for us, as Members of this 
great deliberative institution, to be able to come to agreement on 
things that are best for children.
  We are not trying to build a system for adults. We are not trying to 
perpetuate a system that serves the administrators or just the teachers 
or just the principals; it is the children this is about. It seems to a 
lot of us here in the Senate that there are some better ways to come at 
that.
  The specific amendment of the Senator from California is to fund the 
afterschool programs to the level that the President requested.
  I find that there is a great circularity in the arguments of our 
colleagues on the Senate floor that somehow misses the mark, even when 
you are talking about this amendment of the Senator from California.
  We often hear from colleagues: Well, we want the local communities to 
be able to do these things and make up their minds about them. The fact 
is, local communities all across this country have made up their minds 
about afterschool programs.
  I think it is about 95 percent of the local communities in this 
country that would like to put an afternoon program into their school 
structures, but they cannot. Here it is: 92 percent of Americans favor 
afterschool programs. I am saying that I believe if you ask the 
administrators in any particular school district, they will leap at an 
afterschool program. Give us an afterschool program. They plead for it. 
Their teachers plead for it. Why? Because kids are going home from 
school to apartments or houses where there is no adult. As an 
alternative to the afterschool program, they turn on the TV, if they 
are lucky, if they have a TV. Other kids are hanging around in a 
courtyard with other kids playing various kinds of games, often getting 
into trouble, sometimes being sucked into gangs or other kinds of 
activities.
  The fact is, most mayors in the country, most school boards in the 
country are trying to put together afterschool programs. So what is the 
hangup? The hangup is, far too many urban centers and rural settings in 
America simply can't afford to put in the programs because their 
schools are paid for from the property tax. The schools are set up, as 
schools were originally designed, to essentially follow the old 
agrarian pattern. You go to school early in the morning; you get out in 
the afternoon; you work in the fields. That was the original concept.
  That is not what happens in America anymore. Every day we turn out 5 
million of our children who go back to homes and apartments where there 
is no adult, sometimes until 6 or 7 in the evening. About 8 or 10 years 
ago, the Carnegie Foundation told us the hours of 2 to 6 in the evening 
are the hours when most children get into trouble. They get into 
trouble with the law or they get into trouble with value systems, when 
they do things such as having children that children are not supposed 
to have, age 13, 14, 15. Most of the unwanted pregnancies in this 
country, according to the Carnegie Foundation study, occur during those 
hours when parents aren't there. Then we wind up with a whole host of 
subsidiary problems as a consequence of that.
  Our colleagues are absolutely correct, at least in this Senator's 
judgment. We don't want the Federal Government telling us precisely 
what to do. We don't need the Federal Government telling us what kind 
of afterschool program works best. But if in countless numbers of 
communities they simply can't afford to even do what they want to do, 
what they think is best, do we not have a fundamental responsibility to 
try to step up and help to bridge that gap? Hasn't that been a 
traditional effort of the Federal Government throughout the years in 
the Federal, State, and local partnership? The answer is resoundingly, 
yes.
  For years, countless lives in the United States of America have been 
made different and better, and we have fulfilled the promise of 
opportunity in this country because the Federal Government was prepared 
to help local communities be able to make ends meet. Countless 
communities in this country can't do it. Every one of us has a 
community like that in our State.
  We have too many of them in Massachusetts. You can go to Lowell, 
Lawrence, New Bedford, Fall River, Holyoke, Springfield, countless 
other cities, old urban centers; they don't have the tax base. They 
can't raise the property tax. They can't and don't want to properly 
raise taxes on their citizens. Yet here we are with a surplus, with a 
$1.7 trillion budget, with no greater priority in our country than 
raising the standards of education, and we are struggling over $200 
million.
  Again, we hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle: 
Well, a lot of these problems that the Democrats want to try to cure 
are problems that families ought to take care of or that responsible 
children ought to somehow be able to solve by themselves. Once again, 
that is a circular argument. Every single one of us in this Chamber 
knows that almost 50 percent of the children of this Nation are being 
raised in single parent situations. Because we properly passed a tough 
welfare bill a few years ago that changes the culture in this country 
about work, we now require parents, single parents, to be working, and 
we

[[Page 23205]]

should. But we have to understand the consequences of that.
  The other part of the circular argument is that we are always hearing 
from people on the Senate floor about personal responsibility and the 
capacity of local communities to solve these problems. If you analyze 
the reality of that situation, based on what I said about the change in 
the American family, the requirements of a single parent to be working 
and the lack of adequate child care, the lack of adequate safety places 
for children, the fact is the absence of afterschool programs, in fact, 
winds up costing us a huge amount of money. Children who are 
unsupervised wind up not having their homework done, getting into 
trouble, being less capable of learning, maybe repeating grades, 
certainly some of them entering that zone of chronic capacity for 
unemployment. In fact, we wind up raising the cost to the taxpayer in 
the long run for the lack of willingness to invest in the short run.
  I guarantee my colleagues that what I said is not rhetoric. We can go 
to countless afterschool programs in this country and talk to the 
students who are in those programs. They will tell us the difference it 
makes in their lives.
  Two weeks ago I went to Lawrence, MA, to a program called Accept the 
Challenge. This is an afterschool program where they go into the high 
school and interview kids. They find kids who want to accept the 
challenge of going into this afterschool program, which is tough. It is 
rigorous.
  I will tell you something. I met the brightest group of kids who want 
to achieve, who want to go to college, who want to live by rules, who 
are gaining enormously in their educational capacity as a result of 
their participation in the program.
  What was interesting is, I even heard from one kid--a Hispanic 
child--who said he was always talking Spanish in school because they 
had a bilingual program. He hung around with his friends, he then went 
home, they spoke Spanish at home, and he wasn't learning English. But 
he went into the Accept the Challenge Program, an afterschool program. 
It required that he speak English, interacting with the other students, 
learning in English. The result was that he himself said: I am proud 
now, the way I can speak English, and I am far better equipped in my 
capacity to go beyond, to college, to take the SATs, and to get a good 
job.
  So there you are--an afterschool program providing the kind of 
structure that kids need. Ask any child psychologist, or any 
psychiatrist, or any child interventionist. Every single one of them 
will tell you, as most wise parents will tell you, children need 
structure, children need a certain amount of guidance.
  We historically have always looked to college as the first moment 
when kids kind of break away and begin to learn how to live without 
their kind of structure. Some kids can make it sooner. Some kids can go 
to college. It is extraordinarily hard in the first moments of college, 
without the structure, to be able to make ends meet. Some kids flounder 
in that atmosphere. Some kids go to college with more structure, or 
less structure.
  Why is it, when we know this so well, that we adults allow our school 
system to institutionalize the lack of structure in children's lives by 
letting them go home and letting them out of school knowing they are 
going to come to school the next day without their homework done and 
without the capacity to be able to meet the standards of the school? I 
don't understand it. I don't think most Americans understand the 
reluctance for accountability.
  Here we are debating whether or not we are going to put $200 million 
into afterschool programs that provide structure and guidance and 
safety for children--safety; I underscore that. An awful lot of kids in 
this country go back to situations after school where it is chaos; you 
couldn't do your homework if you were trying to.
  We ought to be more concerned about that. We have an opportunity to 
be. General Colin Powell--there is not a more respected figure in the 
United States--is struggling trying to make what is called ``America's 
promise'' a reality, struggling to try to leverage the private sector's 
capacity to help make a difference in the lives of our children.
  You can go into countless numbers of those efforts, whether it is a 
boys and girls club, Big Brother, Big Sister, YMCA, YWCA, the City Year 
programs, or countless numbers of programs, and you will find the kids 
who are in them are thriving and the kids who are outside of them are 
generally challenged and having difficulties or where you find the kids 
who are having difficulties, they tend to be the kids who are outside 
of it.
  In countless numbers of these programs, there are waiting lists that 
are absolutely mind-boggling, with hundreds of kids waiting to get in 
with the few kids who are on the inside. And the question is, Why? Are 
we such a poor country that we don't have the ability to offer 
sanctuary in afterschool programs to every child who needs it or 
deserves it?
  That ought to be the goal of the Senate. We ought to declare that 
every single community in this country, with a combination of 
corporate, local, State, and Federal effort, is going to be able to 
provide sanctuary, safety, and structure for children in an afterschool 
setting. That is the great challenge of the Nation.
  We are going to have a vote tomorrow morning where we are going to 
have people come to the floor and kind of play a game. They are going 
to suggest, gee, we ought to really fully fund IDEA so we take care of 
that program the Federal Government already mandated, and we are going 
to strip it away from here.
  I agree. We ought to fully fund IDEA. We ought to vote if we are 
really going to have a first-class education system in this Nation. 
Frankly, I think we can do both. But the question will be put to the 
Senate ultimately at some point in time as to whether or not we are 
prepared to do that or whether we just want to play these games that go 
back and forth and in the end do not ultimately reform our education 
system.
  Mr. President, in closing, let me say I am convinced there is a 
capacity to build a bipartisan compromise on education. I think we all 
have to begin to look for a different way of doing that from that which 
we have allowed ourselves to embrace over the course of these past 
years. If all we do is come to the Senate floor and debate whether or 
not we are going to have vouchers versus school construction or one 
particular program versus another, then I think we are going to be 
guilty of perpetuating the crisis of education in America.
  If, on the other hand, we try to be holistic--looking at the whole 
question of the education system, respecting the capacity and desire of 
local communities to be able to make their decisions, but empowering 
them to be able to do so by leveraging the specific kinds of things 
they would like to do by placing large sums of money at their disposal 
to be able to do it with a strict accountability for the back end--not 
for the micromanagement of how they go about doing it but to the back 
end--that we measure at the end whether or not whatever route they 
choose to undertake is in fact educating their children when measured 
against the rest of the children in the country, that then we could 
begin to have accountability in those schools that are failing, I 
believe we could marry the best programs of what the Republican Party 
has offered in their ``Straight A's'' and the business of what the 
Democrats are trying to achieve in the various proposals we have put 
forward.
  I hope that ultimately the Senate is going to come to recognize that 
that is the only way we are going to solve this problem.
  You could give a voucher to every kid in America. But the bottom line 
is, they have nowhere to go. Take that voucher. Where are you going to 
go? There are limited seats at the parochial table. There are limited 
charter seats. There are clearly limited private seats because a lot of 
private schools don't want 90 percent of the kids who go to the public 
school system.
  Ultimately, there is only one way to fix the education system of 
America.

[[Page 23206]]

That is to fix the place where 90 percent of America's children go to 
school; that is, the public school system.
  Every time we have something like a voucher program come along, we 
are basically offering America a kind of ``Schindler's List'' for 
schoolchildren. We are saying to them: If you have money, you can buy 
your way out of your predicament, but we are only going to take so many 
of you. For the rest of you, you are stuck.
  That is what happened. Some may not think the analogy is accurate. 
But I will tell you, for those kids stuck in some of those schools 
where they don't have opportunity and they don't have progress, it is a 
kind of living death because they are condemned to the lower standards 
of our economy, to the lower opportunities, to the lower pay scales, 
and in many cases, unfortunately, because of other things that happen 
to them, to prisons or even sometimes to violent death in the streets 
of this country.
  We can do a lot better than that. It is very clear to me that a 
country that produced generations that won World War I and World War 
II, that took us through the remarkable transition of the cold war--
most of those leaders coming out of public schools and most of this 
country's core citizenry coming out of public schools is evidence of 
what those schools can be. That evidence is everywhere in this Nation. 
We have great public schools in places where people are lucky enough to 
have broken out or to have put together the ingredients of that great 
school.
  The Senate needs to embrace those things that have allowed those 
schools to be what they wanted to be, to adopt the best practices of 
any other school in the country and to allow them to have the kinds of 
accountability that will lift the entire system. That is the only 
debate we ought to be having--not saving part of it but saving all of 
it.
  What the Senator from California is trying to do with this amendment 
is to recognize one critical component of that, one of the most 
important components. It is absolutely vital.
  There are four critical ingredients of educating. One, we continue to 
have standards. Mr. President, 49 States have now adopted standards or 
are about to adopt standards. Those standards will make a difference.
  Two, we have to permit our teachers to teach to the standards which 
require quality of teaching, ongoing teacher professional development, 
mentoring, higher pay, more teachers, less class size, all of the 
ingredients of being able to teach to the standards.
  Three, we need to provide an opportunity for the children to learn to 
the standards. That means afterschool programs, the opportunity for 
remedial work, the opportunity for the kind of teachers and other 
efforts that make a difference in their education.
  Four, we need strict accountability. That means the capacity to be 
able to fire people who don't perform, to be able to help people to 
perform, the capacity to be able to improve our ability to attract a 
broader cross section of people into the great challenge of teaching, 
and to respect those who are there doing the enormous job they are 
doing.
  I hope we can engage in that larger and real debate sometime over the 
course of the next few days. I congratulate the Senator from 
California. This amendment embraces one of the single most important 
considerations of how we will protect our children to learn and how we 
will provide schools with the capacity to be able to live up to the 
standards we all want.
  I congratulate the Senator for this fight. I hope our colleagues will 
join in a vote for the protection of the children of this country.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee and I have discussed the progress of the bill. It is our 
hope, perhaps our expectation, that we can finish this bill tomorrow. 
We have a fair number of amendments listed so far. We think some can be 
worked out. Others may evaporate, requiring relatively few roll call 
votes.
  After consulting with Senator Harkin, I ask unanimous consent all 
amendments be filed no later than 12 noon tomorrow.
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.
  Mrs. BOXER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in light of the objection which has been 
raised, we will renew this request when the Senate reconvenes tomorrow 
morning at 9:30 when Senators have an opportunity to consider it. If we 
are able to proceed to complete the bill by the close of business 
tomorrow, there are substantial benefits for all Senators--although I 
can't make any commitment as to what will be scheduled on Friday. We 
will renew the request tomorrow morning at the start of the 
consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I support the chairman in 
that.
  I understand now because it is late in the day, and evidently it has 
been hotlined there are no more votes today, Senators have taken off, 
without knowing that we have a deadline at noon tomorrow. They may not 
know until tomorrow morning.
  Now that I understand that, I guess it is reasonable we hold off 
until tomorrow when we come in. I think tomorrow when we come back, the 
chairman is right, that would be the time to again make that motion to 
have a time certain when we will have all the amendments in.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains under the 
agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 30 minutes and the 
proponents, 30 minutes; 30 minutes for each side.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Did the unanimous 
consent agreement start to run at the time it was entered into?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It started after the Senator from 
Massachusetts completed his remarks.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield such time as the Senator from Georgia desires.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the Gregg 
of New Hampshire amendment, the second-degree amendment to the 
amendment of the distinguished Senator from California.
  To put this in context, in 1975, the Congress embraced a very 
laudable idea to assure the appropriate education of students who had 
special education needs. It was recognized at the time that this would 
be a very costly proposal, so the Federal Government agreed to pay 40 
percent of the costs, the States were to pay 40 percent, and local 
jurisdictions were to pay 20 percent.
  Guess what. From 1975 to 1999, the Federal Government has essentially 
reneged on the deal and has forced the local governments to bear the 
entire costs. Visit any school superintendent, any school board 
education member, and the first thing they will talk about is the 
effect of this mandate. It is a handcuff on them in terms of dealing 
with the multiple requirements of funding education in their local 
district. They resent, rightfully so, the fact the Federal Government 
has not fulfilled its promise.
  Right now the Federal Government provides 11.7 percent of the 
Nation's special education costs. That is about 29 percent less than 
the original deal. It amounts to an impact on local schools of about 
$10 billion a year.
  The essence of the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire--and 
he has said this since he has been in the Senate--is that we have to 
correct this problem and that the funding should have a priority over 
virtually all new programs. Until we fulfill this agreement, we should 
not be imposing new program after new program after new program on 
local governments.
  When I visit with my superintendents, they don't ask for new 
programs. They ask for relief from this huge financial burden that has 
been impounded upon them by the Federal Government so they can free up 
resources to do the things they think are important in their school 
district. They don't call for a new master principal in Washington to 
tell them what they need to do in their school district. They are 
saying, do what we promised to do, which will allow them to do the 
things they need to do.
  Since President Clinton came to office in 1993, he has never made 
this special education funding one of his top

[[Page 23207]]

priorities. Since the Republicans have been in the majority, we have 
more than doubled the President's request each year to fulfill this 
promise. In many years he has not requested any increases that would 
keep the program in line, even with inflation. Most years, the 
President has asked for no more than a 5-percent increase. This year, 
in this budget, he asked for less than 1 percent.
  Meanwhile, from the other side, for laudable reasons, it is: Let's 
add another program. We will just slip that check over on the side and 
put it in the desk and come with another program. We will just let the 
local governments work it out on their own.
  The real philosophical divide here is that we are saying let's 
fulfill the Federal promise. It is a huge obligation. If we fulfilled 
it in its entirety, we would free up $10 billion locally to allow those 
local school boards and local communities to do the things, as I said a 
moment ago, they believe are important.
  Right now, what we have done is reneged on the promise, choked the 
funds at the local level, and have just come on, year after year, with 
either another mandate or another idea from Washington about what is 
best in a local community. So this debate we are having on the 
amendment of Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, as a second-degree 
amendment to that of Senator Boxer from California, is a very crucial 
and symbolic example of the differences we have been debating here all 
day.
  Earlier it was the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, who was 
going to mandate that a certain amount of funds be used to hire x 
number of teachers, and Senator Gorton from Washington was saying no, 
the funds should be flexible so the local community could decide what 
is best. It is the same issue on these amendments. We are voting on 
exactly the same kind of question here.
  So I speak loudly as a proponent for Senator Gregg's second-degree 
amendment, which I expect to prevail. And then I will oppose the 
forthcoming amendment from Senator Boxer on the grounds we need to free 
resources at the local level and let local board members decide what is 
needed in those local districts.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I assure my friends I do not intend to 
take the full time I have allotted to me. That will make the Senator 
from Pennsylvania very happy. Maybe he might even vote for this 
amendment if I keep it very brief.
  I do thank my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter. I may 
disagree, we did not get enough for after school, but I have to 
acknowledge, we did get an increase in after school. For that, I am 
very pleased. But I really do think we need to do more.
  I think this chart explains it all. You could not find a simpler 
chart. All it says is ``370,000.'' I say to my friend, Senator Specter 
from Pennsylvania, and my friends on the other side of the aisle, this 
represents the number of children who would be served if my amendment 
were to pass, an additional $200 million which we forward fund in the 
bill.
  I think this is a very important number when you stop and think about 
what it would mean if 370,000 additional children had the opportunities 
we are giving at this point to about 1 million--an additional 370,000. 
That is 370,000 kids who are going to get help with their homework. 
That is 370,000 kids who will stay out of trouble. That is 370,000 
children who may just get really excited about something such as 
computers because they have them in this afterschool program. That is 
370,000 kids who may get excited about becoming a policeman, a fireman, 
or doctor because the community comes into these programs.
  I know the Senator from Pennsylvania agrees that these programs are 
very laudable. I just hope at the end of the day, tomorrow at least, by 
10, we could agree to add this $200 million, forward fund it, and it 
would bring it up to the level President Clinton requested for this 
program.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from California yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Of course. I will be happy to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Following the practice I have heard earlier today, I 
will preface my question with a statement. I do not think anybody will 
call for regular order.
  When the distinguished Senator from California says perhaps if her 
speech is short enough, I might vote for her amendment, that is 
entirely possible. If the speech did not exist, which would imply the 
withdrawal of the amendment, I would support her position.
  But the question I have is: We have added $200 million in this bill 
to afterschool programs.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Senator Harkin, the distinguished ranking member, has 
been very supportive of that. We added that money in on the Juvenile 
Violence Prevention Program because, as Senator Harkin has said, the 
safest place for children is in school. This is one facet on the 
direction of $851 million to prevent school violence, so we added the 
$200 million.
  The question arises, after we have stretched on this budget to $91.7 
billion, which has gotten the concurrence of a very strong pro-
education, pro-health care, pro-worker-safety Senator --the ranking 
member has accepted that as the maximum amount we could get.
  When I went to law school, there was a course in legislative process. 
That course ``ain't learning nothing yet'' compared to what it is in 
real life to find a bill that Republicans in the Senate will vote for, 
that can pass conference, and be acceptable to the President.
  I have a feeling, regardless of how much money would have been added, 
Senator Dodd would have come forward with a request for $2 billion 
more, Senator Murray with a request for $200 million more.
  The question I have for the Senator from California: If we had 
included $400 million more for afterschool programs, would the Senator 
from California have offered an amendment to increase it even more?
  Mrs. BOXER. I have strongly supported, for a very long time, the 
President's request--$600 million--I say to my friend. Not only that, 
he did join me in an amendment I offered earlier on that point. Six 
hundred million dollars is where we ought to be now. To answer my 
friend, this is not a frivolous amendment by any stretch. The $600 
million is the amount we believe we need. There is a backlog existing. 
These are real children waiting in lines to come in.
  Let me assure my friend, I do appreciate the fact that we have gone 
up to $400 million for after school. Believe me, I am very pleased 
about that. But I do believe, since we all know this is a proven 
program, and my friend shares enthusiasm for it, since we know 92 
percent of the people in the community support it, since we know the 
crime rate goes up exponentially at 3 o'clock--and the Police Athletic 
League has told us how important this is; this is just a list of some 
of the law enforcement organizations that support this--we ought to go 
to the $600 million level.
  That is the reason I am offering this amendment. It is not to be 
difficult. It is not to be ungrateful.
  I want to make a point to my friend. The committee worked very hard. 
The Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa did. They added 
$700 million, is my understanding, for IDEA. That is the additional for 
IDEA--$700 million additional.
  Senator Gregg is just putting another $200 million in. It may pass. 
That would be an additional $900 million for IDEA. I am for it. I am 
for it. It is important to take care of kids with disabilities who need 
the help. We promised the local districts. I am for it. We are also for 
this.
  I think it is not out of the question, when we support the money for 
IDEA, we also support the funding for afterschool programs.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from California yield for one more 
question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
  Mr. SPECTER. When Senator Harkin and I have taken the principal lead 
in

[[Page 23208]]

crafting this bill, 300 programs, making allocations as we have, after 
a lot of hard staff work and a lot of hard thinking, the Senator from 
California says if we had added $400 million, she would not have 
offered this amendment. What is the reason, what is the rationale, for 
$400 million extra being sufficient?
  The Senator from California says there are these children waiting. 
But even after the $400 million would be added, had we done so, would 
there not be other children waiting? And wouldn't the nature of the 
add-on process have led to more?
  Essentially, my question is, to focus it specifically, what are the 
facts that say $400 million will be sufficient to solve the problem----
  Mrs. BOXER. Four hundred additional.
  Mr. SPECTER. Four hundred additional.
  Mrs. BOXER. As I repeat to my friend and colleague, a real leader in 
this area, this number was not pulled out of a hat. This number comes 
from the President's request. The President's request has a 
rationality.
  Mr. SPECTER. Where did----
  Mrs. BOXER. If I can make my point. I am happy to yield to my friend, 
noting I am using my valuable time which I promised I would not use up. 
The fact is, the President, in his budget request, studied the number 
of applications that were coming in from the districts all across this 
Nation and looked at the backlog.
  It is amazing what we have done. Since my friend has been chairman--I 
need to compliment him--we went from $40 million for afterschool 
programs under his leadership and the leadership of the Senator from 
Iowa and the President to $200 million. Together we went from $40 
million to $200 million, and now my friend is suggesting we go to $400 
million.
  What I am suggesting to my friend is there are culled applications 
sitting at the Department of Education--Senator Kennedy pointed them 
out in his remarks; I refer my friend to his remarks--so we know what 
the backlog is.
  We know that 184 afterschool applications were funded and 2,000 
applied. I am not suggesting that every one of those 2,000 is 
meritorious, but I say to my friend, out of the 2,000 that applied and 
only 184 were funded, we know there are a lot of good schools in 
Pennsylvania and California and Iowa and all over the country. What we 
are saying is, we could probably fund far more than the $600 million, 
but we believe to ratchet up the program in the right fashion, to get 
it done right that $600 million would be appropriate. It is supported 
by Secretary Riley; it is supported by the Clinton administration, in 
addition to the President himself. I say to my friend, 370,000 more 
children would have the opportunity to participate in afterschool 
programs.
  Let me one more time show a chart which I showed previously. We see 
what happens after school. We see exactly what happens after school 
when kids have no place to go: The crime rate goes through the roof. It 
is only as the children return home that the crime rate dissipates. 
That is why the Police Athletic League is one of the strongest 
supporters of this amendment. We have a letter from them. It is very 
clear. They say they are working on behalf of the Police Athletic 
League to endorse and express our support for the afterschool education 
and anticrime amendment. This one was written when we offered it to the 
Ed-Flex bill.
  I do not need to prolong this debate. Members want to either come to 
the floor and talk about something else or conclude tonight. I want to 
close by saying this: I appreciate the fact that the committee, with 
all the demands on it, did increase this program. I am very pleased to 
see it at $400 million. However, I truly believe if we are to do right 
by our children, funding 184 afterschool programs, when 2,000 applied, 
is not meeting a need.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle are continually making the 
point that we do not want to force this on our local communities. 
Believe me, we are not forcing this on them at all. What we are 
essentially saying is it is here for you, and they have overwhelmingly 
applied for these funds.
  When I make my closing argument--I will have 60 seconds tomorrow 
morning--I am going to show one of my favorite charts, and that is a 
picture of children, an actual photograph of children in an afterschool 
situation--the look on their faces, the excitement.
  What an incredible thing for them rather than, A, going into an empty 
house and being alone, not being safe; and, B, going out on the corner 
to find out who else is standing on the corner. In the old days, kids 
stood on the corner, and it was not that bad. Today, unfortunately, 
they get into worse trouble. In the old days, the trouble they got into 
was not as bad as today.
  We do not want our children to have nothing to do after school. We 
know when they are idle, bad things can happen, such as getting into 
alcohol problems, getting into drug problems, joining a gang, just 
because they are lonely.
  I look at some of our pages who work so hard and what a good job they 
do. They sit here, and sometimes it is hard. They are occupied, and 
they are learning. They listen when we speak. They are picking up 
things. They are kept busy. Their minds are working.
  Every child deserves a chance to get that mind going and keep that 
mind going in a positive way. Our children are our future. Every one of 
us gets up and says that day after day. If you mean it, I am giving you 
an opportunity to vote for an amendment that will allow 370,000 kids--
and let's hold that number up one more time--370,000 kids, and I put 
that number up because it is a huge number--370,000 more kids under the 
Boxer amendment, under the Clinton administration request, will be 
taken care of. Think about the range of that number. Think about how 
many moms and dads will be relieved to know their children were being 
taken care of.
  My hat is off to the ranking member, Senator Harkin, and the 
chairman, Senator Specter, but I still believe in my heart of hearts 
that we should move up to the President's request. It is the right 
thing to do. If Senator Judd Gregg can find another $200 million for 
IDEA--terrific--using the same forward-funding approach we are using, 
then Senator Gregg ought to also support this afterschool amendment. We 
did a good thing. We want to make it even better.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and allow the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, without interruption, to wind up his 
argument, and I will see him back on the floor tomorrow morning at 10 
o'clock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did I understand the Senator wanted to reserve 
1 minute of her time for tomorrow?
  Mrs. BOXER. No, just 1 minute in the morning, which I already have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I shall not ask unanimous consent so the 
Senator from California will not interrupt me. The rules permit her to 
do so, and I do not want to deprive her of that opportunity.
  I had posed a question to the Senator from California as to whether 
any amount would be enough. When the Senator from California cites the 
statistics of 2,000 applications and 184 were granted, and it may be 
that some were not meritorious, but in order to have funding of all the 
applications or most of the applications, all of them would be 11 times 
the amount. So from $200 million, say, 10 times the amount would be $2 
billion.
  Mrs. BOXER. I did not say that.
  Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from California is saying she did not say 
that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I should have yielded him an opportunity to ask a 
question. My friend did not hear me finish my point.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I did not yield for a question, but I 
will.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. He is so kind to me. What I said 
was, there are many more applications than were funded. I did not 
suggest that we fund all 2,000.
  Mr. SPECTER. Why not?
  Mrs. BOXER. What I said was I felt the program should be ratcheted up 
in a logical fashion, and that we are at

[[Page 23209]]

the point where the Department of Education, Secretary Riley, has 
stated that $600 million is what he needs and what he can now handle to 
ratchet up the program.
  Eventually, I hope my friend shares the view that this ought to be a 
much bigger program than it is now. But we cannot go 1 day from $200 
million to $2 billion. No, I do not support that, and I think my 
friend's attempt to make it look as if I do is simply not correct.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from California for that comment. I 
do understand her point of saying that you cannot go that far, but in 
extrapolating and projecting where we would be on the total number of 
applications--as I say, some are not meritorious--one could come up 10 
times the figure of $200 million, which we had. Ten times would be $2 
billion, or if you project it a little differently on $200 million and 
$900 million worth of applications were filed, it would be 4\1/2\ times 
that, which would be $900 million.
  The point I am making is that regardless of what the committee comes 
up with, there is going to be an add-on. When this program was started 
back in 1994, the last year when the Democrats controlled the Congress, 
and there was an extraordinarily competent chairman of this 
subcommittee, the figure was $750,000 for afterschool programs.
  It could be said that the social climate of the country disintegrated 
in the intervening time--which was a jocular comment made while we were 
chatting about this. But from $750,000--the last year the Congress was 
controlled by the Democrats--the figure then moved to $1 million in 
1997, and then to $40 million in 1998, and to $200 million in 1999, and 
then doubled for the next fiscal year to $400 million.
  When the Senator from California said that I had supported her in the 
past on afterschool programs, she is correct, I have. I think 
afterschool programs are vital and necessary. But when Senator Harkin 
and I constructed a budget of some 300 items--and figured that $91.7 
billion was the maximum we could stretch it--we left some money for the 
National Institutes of Health, for drug-free schools, for worker 
safety, and for many other programs.
  That is why, much as I dislike doing so, I have to oppose the 
additional $200 million. In the 19 years I have been here, when 
programs such as this have been offered, by and large, I have supported 
them. But when this kind of an enormous effort is made to accommodate 
to the maximum extent possible this important objective of afterschool 
programs--and it is not enough--I come back to the suggestion I made 
that no figure we would have reached would have been enough.
  I think we are about to see that with the balance of the amendments 
which are going to be offered, notwithstanding the very large figure 
Senator Harkin and I have come up with, more funds will be added in 
many lines, which will require a lot of very tough votes that I do not 
like to cast to oppose those amendments.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 18 minutes 
15 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. How much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator is yielding the floor----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 15 minutes 20 
seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Who is controlling the time?
  I don't know who is controlling the time. If I am on my side, I will 
yield myself a couple minutes.
  Parliamentary inquiry. Is there time on this side remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is time on the amendment. The Senator 
from California was controlling the 15 minutes 20 seconds remaining. 
The Senator from Pennsylvania is controlling 18 minutes 2 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry. Didn't the Senator from 
California yield back her time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. When she concluded, yes, she did yield back 
the remainder of her time.
  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Then are we under a time constraint right now? The 
Senator from Pennsylvania has some time left on this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning 
business for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Iowa 5 minutes 
of my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Whatever it takes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized on the 
time of the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.
  I want to take a few minutes, as I do every year when the debate 
comes up on IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to 
set the record straight.
  There is hardly anyone left on the floor but my two good friends, the 
Senator from California and the distinguished chairman, the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. But I want to make clear that IDEA, the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act, is not a Federal mandate. The Senator 
from New Hampshire keeps talking about it as a Federal mandate. But 
saying it does not make it so.
  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a civil rights 
bill. It is a bill that basically helps the States meet their 
constitutional obligation. In the early 1970s, there were two court 
cases in which the courts said that if a State chooses to fund public 
education, then children with disabilities enjoy a constitutional right 
to a free and appropriate public education. A State, if it wanted to, 
could say: We are not going to fund any public education, and they 
could do so.
  But if a State provides a free public education to its children, it 
cannot discriminate on the basis of race or sex or national origin. And 
as a result of these two cases that came up in the early 1970s, they 
cannot discriminate on the basis of disability, either.
  So as long as a State provides a free public education to its 
children, it cannot say, yes, for non-disabled students; but no to kids 
with disabilities. Constitutionally, they have to provide that free, 
appropriate public education to all kids.
  In 1975, the Congress said: Look, this is going to be a burden on the 
States, so we will help. We will help the States with some funding to 
meet their constitutional obligations. It is not a Federal mandate. So 
we set up this law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 
and we said: OK, we will provide you some funds to help you out if you 
do these certain things, meet these certain guidelines.
  No State has to take one penny of IDEA money. We do not force it on 
them. We do not say: You have to take it. We say: Look, because of the 
court cases, you have to provide a free, appropriate public education 
to every child with a disability. What we are saying at the Federal 
level is: We are going to help you do that. But, if you want our help 
here are the guidelines. Follow them and you get the money. That is the 
basis of IDEA. It is not a Federal mandate.
  We also keep hearing that somehow we guaranteed to help the States 
meet 40 percent of the cost of educating the kids with disabilities. 
That is not so.
  The maximum award to any State under IDEA would be 40 percent of the 
national per-pupil expenditure per year for education, not 40 percent 
of the cost of educating the kids in their State with disabilities. We 
said the maximum grant would be 40 percent of the national average cost 
of educating every child. That, right now, if I am not mistaken, is 
around $6,850. So $6,850 is the national per pupil average that we 
funded out of the Federal Government in 1998. The IDEA funding formula 
is 40 percent of the per pupil average or $2,750, give or take a few 
dollars. I am not going to figure it to the exact dollar. Under the 
legislation we have right now, it is about 11.7 percent. With the 
increase, it gets it up to about 15 percent. So we do have a ways to go 
before we reach the maximum of 40 percent.

[[Page 23210]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for a couple more minutes, and then 
I will wrap it up.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield 2 more minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I want to make it clear, do I support the goal of getting 
up to 40 percent of the national per pupil expenditure up to $2,750 per 
student? I do. But I don't believe we ought to do it at the expense of 
afterschool programs or out of Head Start or anything else. That is 
what I dislike about the Gregg amendment. If he wants to come up with 
more money for IDEA, fine. I will be glad to support him. But to take 
it away from other kids who have needs, I think, is not the way that we 
ought to proceed. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone in the disability 
community who would say, yes, take it away from those kids and give it 
to ours. They would say, look, fund the disability programs, fund IDEA, 
but fund afterschool programs, fund breakfast programs, fund Head Start 
programs, because these are all our kids and they all have needs. We 
ought to appropriately fund all of education.
  If this Congress gave the same priority to education as it does for 
the Pentagon, we wouldn't have to make these types of choices. There 
would be enough for both.
  We added $4 billion to the Pentagon's budget over what they asked 
for. When will we ever see the day when we would add $4 billion over 
what the Department of Education requested?
  Those were the basic points I wanted to make. IDEA is not a funding 
mandate. We need afterschool programs. We need IDEA also. I don't agree 
with stripping funds from one important program to fund another. That 
is why I believe Senator Gregg's amendment has deficiencies.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it has been a good debate, I think.
  I now ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the pendency of the 
Smith amendment No. 1808, the vote on the amendment be reconsidered and 
tabled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
dated September 17, 1999, from me to Senator Cochran be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Appropriations,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 1999.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Thad: As a precautionary matter, I think it is 
     advisable for me to recuse myself on the issue of the 
     appropriation for the National Constitution Center since my 
     wife, Joan Specter, is director of fundraising.
       I would very much appreciate it if you would substitute for 
     me on that issue since you are the senior Republican on the 
     Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services and 
     Education.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, let me begin by commending Senator 
Specter and Senator Harkin for their hard work on this bill. Although 
it's far from perfect, it's a big improvement over the House version, 
and I know Senators Specter and Harkin have worked diligently to fund 
critical education and health priorities within the constraints they 
have faced.
  I intend to support this bill, Mr. President. But I also need to 
point out that it's apparently part of a broader plan that would lead 
to using Social Security surpluses. And I think that would be a 
mistake.
  The additional money for this bill has come by shifting allocated 
funds from the Defense Appropriations bill. But rather than finding 
savings in military spending, the leadership intends to declare much of 
the extra spending as an emergency.
  What we have here, Mr. President, is a shell game. The Republican 
plan may succeed in circumventing the discretionary spending caps, as 
they are trying to do. But it doesn't get around another critical 
problem. It still leaves us on course toward using Social Security 
funds to run the government.
  Mr. President, for many months now, we've heard our Republican 
friends declare their commitment to protecting Social Security funds. 
They've put together a Social Security lock box in an effort to appear 
committed toward that goal--though, I must add, it's a lock box with a 
huge loophole, and one that does nothing for Medicare.
  But while declaring their commitment to protecting Social Security, 
Mr. President, the Republicans are actually moving to spend Social 
Security surpluses. At their current rate, they're going to spend 
roughly $20 billion in Social Security surpluses. And that total could 
well go higher.
  Mr. President, I know that many people around here privately believe 
that there's no alternative to spending Social Security surpluses, and 
we need that money to fund government adequately. But that's just 
wrong.
  There's a better alternative. If we simply ask the tobacco industry 
to fully compensate taxpayers for the costs of tobacco-related 
diseases, we almost certainly could avoid spending Social Security 
surpluses.
  Every year, Mr. President, tobacco costs taxpayers more than $20 
billion. To its credit, the Justice Department is trying to recoup 
these costs through civil litigation. But that could take years. 
Meanwhile, Congress can act now to make taxpayers whole. And we should.
  Mr. President, I've heard Republicans argue for months that pursuing 
more tobacco revenues is just, and the word they usually use is, 
``unrealistic.'' It's a clever way to avoid responsibility. It's as if 
some force outside themselves is preventing Congress from asking 
anything of the tobacco industry. But that's obviously wrong.
  If the Republican leadership simply decided to ask Big Tobacco to 
compensate taxpayers, they could do it. It's completely realistic, if 
they just summon the will to do it.
  Now, given the close relationship between the Republican Party and 
the tobacco industry, I realize that's not a politically easy decision 
for them.
  But this is a different world than last year, when the tobacco 
legislation went down.
  Now we have a Republican Congress about to embark on a money grab of 
Social Security funds. Compared to that, asking the tobacco industry to 
pay their fair share should be less difficult.
  In any case, Mr. President, it seems clear that the real debate this 
fall is going to be between tobacco and Social Security.
  And if we end up using Social Security funds to run the government, 
it will because the Republican Congress put Big Tobacco first, not 
Social Security. I think the American people would be outraged at that. 
And that's why I'm hopeful it won't happen.
  So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, and 
choose Social Security over Big Tobacco. Let's end this money grab, 
reduce youth smoking, and protect Social Security.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, each year, up to 1 million nurses and 
other health care workers are accidentally stuck by needles or other 
sharp instruments contaminated by the blood of the patients they care 
for. More than 1,000 of these health care workers will contract 
dangerous and potentially fatal diseases as a result of their injuries. 
The Reid amendment is very important--it will require hospitals to use 
safer devices, and it will provide more effective monitoring of 
needlestick injuries, so that we can take additional steps to deal with 
this danger.
  Karen Daley, of Stoughton, MA, is one of those whose lives have been 
forever changed by disposing of a used needle.
  Karen is a registered nurse and president of the Massachusetts Nurses 
Association. In July 1998, as an emergency room nurse at the Brigham 
and Women's Hospital in Boston, she reached into the box used to 
dispose of a needle, and felt a sharp cut. By the end of the year, 
Karen had been diagnosed with HIV and Hepatitis C. I would like to read 
from a statement she recently delivered at the Massachusetts State 
House, where a bill has been recommended by the relevant committees:


[[Page 23211]]

       I have been a practicing nurse for over 25 years. I love 
     clinical nursing and have felt privileged to care directly 
     for thousands of patients over the years. . . . I have 
     developed expertise in my practice over the years that has 
     allowed me to have a significant impact not only on the 
     quality of care my patients receive, but also in the growth 
     and professional development of less experienced colleagues . 
     . . Since January of this year, I have come to terms with the 
     fact that I am infected with not one, but two potentially 
     life-threatening diseases. . . . I have had to have weekly 
     blood tests drawn--over 90 tubes of blood since January. . . 
     . Experience to date is that treating a person infected with 
     both HIV and Hepatitis C is extremely difficult and that each 
     infection makes it more difficult to successfully treat the 
     other.
       That one moment in time changed many other things. In 
     addition to the emotional turmoil that it has created for 
     myself, my family, my friends, my peers--it has cost me much 
     more than I can ever describe in words. I am no longer a 
     practicing health care provider--I made the decision to not 
     return to my clinical practice setting where I have worked 
     for over 20 years. In the process, I have abruptly been 
     forced to leave many colleagues with whom I've worked for 
     many years and who are as much family as peers to me. The 
     harder decision for me has been the decision I've made not to 
     return to clinical nursing.
       This injury didn't occur because I wasn't observing 
     universal precautions that are designed to reduce health care 
     workers' exposure to blood-borne pathogens. This injury 
     didn't occur because I was careless or distracted or not 
     paying attention to what I was doing. This injury and the 
     life-altering consequences I am now suffering should not have 
     happened . . . and would not have happened if a safer 
     needlebox system had been in place in my work setting.

  Karen Daley is now battling against two devastating diseases. And it 
didn't have to happen. Unfortunately, this scene is repeated more than 
1,000 times a year--in communities across the country.
  Lynda Arnold, a 30-year-old registered nurse and mother of two 
adopted children, is now HIV-positive as a result of a needlestick 
injury she received in an intensive care unit in Lancaster, PA, in 
1992. She has started the Campaign for Health Care Worker Safety. Lynda 
writes,

       I no longer work in a hospital. I no longer involve myself 
     in direct patient care. I do not dream of growing old with my 
     30-year-old husband or dancing with my son at his wedding.

  These cases are tragedies, and there are many more. At least 20 
different bloodborne pathogens can be transmitted by needlestick 
injuries, including HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C.
  The average cost of followup for a high-risk exposure is almost 
$3,000 per incident--even when no infection occurs. The American 
Hospital Association estimates that a case can eventually cost more 
than $1 million for testing, medical care, lost time, and disability 
payments.
  Up to 80 percent of needlestick injuries could be prevented with the 
use of safer needle devices currently available. However, fewer than 15 
percent of American hospitals use these products. The primary reason 
for not adopting steps to create a safer workplace is the cost. But the 
consequences are severe.
  Safer needle devices do cost approximately 25 cents more than a 
conventional syringe. But the net savings from avoiding the excessive 
costs associated with workplace injuries are also significant. 
Hospitals and health care facilities in California are expected to 
achieve annual net savings of more than $100 million after implementing 
a proposal similar to the one now under consideration.
  This is not a partisan issue. The companion bill in the House has 
almost 140 cosponsors--including more than 20 Republicans from across 
the political spectrum.
  Similar bills have recently passed in California, Texas, Tennessee, 
and Maryland, and have been introduced in more than 20 other States.
  These protections have the strong support of the American Nurses 
Association, Kaiser Permanente, the American Public Health Association, 
the Consumer Federation of America, and many, many other groups that 
represent nurses, doctors, and other health care workers. In addition, 
the Massachusetts Hospital Association and other State level 
associations have supported these bills at the State level.
  There is no excuse for inaction. Time is of the essence. Every day 
3,000 more accidental needlesticks occur. We need to act as soon as 
possible. We owe prompt action and greater protection to those who 
devote their careers to caring for others.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in my 11 years in the U.S. Senate I have 
rarely seen such an opportunity to fight against big Government and 
defend local decisionmakers like parents and teachers.
  The Democrats are signaling their intent to hamstring local schools 
by commanding them to focus their efforts on issues which are deemed 
important inside the Capital Beltway, not within their homes and 
communities. I feel Montanans know what is best for Montana; we don't 
need Washington to tell us how to teach our children.
  Congress should reject a one-size-fits-all approach to education and 
local schools should have the freedom to prioritize their spending and 
tailor their curriculum according to the unique educational needs of 
their children.
  For too long, Washington has been part of the problem with education, 
enacting many well-intentioned programs that result in more redtape and 
regulation. Though Washington accounts for only seven percent of 
education funding, it accounts for 50 percent of the paperwork for our 
teachers and principles. It is time for Washington to lend a helping 
hand to our states.
  Unfortunately, right now many of our Federal education programs are 
overloaded with so many rules and regulations that states and local 
schools waste precious time and resources to stay in compliance with 
the Federal programs. It is obvious that states and local school 
districts need relief from the administrative bourdons that many 
federally designated education programs put on States, schools, and 
educational administrators.
  I feel strongly and deeply that Montanans need to be in control of 
Montana's classrooms. I can not vote for anything that does not have 
local school control. I will continue to resist the attempts to take 
away your control of your child's schools.
  Our goal on the Federal level is to help States and local school 
districts provide the best possible first-class education for our 
children that they can. We need to get the bureaucratic excess out of 
the face of the local educators so that they can do their jobs more 
efficiently and effectively.
  Mr. President, we need to fix the problem of Federal controls in 
education. We need to allow the decisionmaking to be made by the people 
that we trust to educate our children. That is what really counts.

                          ____________________