[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7119-7135]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT--Continued


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3126

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to vote in relation to 
amendment No. 3126. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3126. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), 
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth), and the Senator from Tennessee 
(Mr. Thompson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran

[[Page 7120]]


     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hagel
     Roth
     Thompson
  The amendment (No. 3126) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BREAUX. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3127

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe we have an agreement on the 
time on our side. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two and a half hours on the Lieberman 
amendment equally divided.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think we had an understanding with our colleagues that 
the distinguished Senator from Arkansas was going to be recognized to 
speak at this time for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. I also would like to thank 
all of my colleagues who have worked so diligently on these issues, and 
particularly Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh who I have been working 
alongside on the proposal that is before us right now. I also would 
like to compliment Senator Kennedy's staff for all the work they have 
put in, as well as the wonderful bipartisan spirit that has been shown 
by Senators Gregg, Collins, Gorton, and Hutchinson in trying to bring 
about this issue of great importance on behalf of our Nation and on 
behalf of our children.
  I am proud to join my colleagues on the floor today to talk about a 
bold, new education plan that we hope will provide a way out of the 
current stalemate over reauthorizing ESEA. I must admit that I am 
disappointed because so far we have turned one of the most important 
issues we will debate this year into yet another partisan standoff.
  I can't tell you how frustrated I am that we face the real 
possibility that our children will be forced once again to the back of 
the bus while partisan politics drive the legislative process off a 
cliff.
  I would like to focus on a comment that was made by one of my 
colleagues earlier in this debate. Senator Landrieu mentioned that we 
had one chance at reaching each of these individual children in our 
Nation who are the greatest blessings in this world.
  Each year we fall behind in making the revolutionary changes to move 
our educational system to where it needs to be in order to provide our 
children with the source of education they need in order to meet the 
challenges of the coming century. Each year that we fail to do that--if 
that happens this year--is one year in a child's life that we cannot 
replace; one year in a child's life that cannot be reproduced or given 
back to them in terms of what they need to know to be competitive.
  If I have learned one thing since my first campaign for Congress in 
1992, it is that when voters send you to Washington to represent them 
they mean business. They expect leadership and they want results, and 
rightly so because they deserve it.
  As parents, we certainly all understand one of the things that we 
will fight the hardest for, and that is benefits for our children.
  The American people want us to get serious about educating our 
children in new and innovative ways that will allow them to learn and 
meet the challenges of the future.
  I firmly believe we have a responsibility to pass a reauthorization 
bill this year that will improve public education for all children. 
That means working together until we reach an agreement a majority on 
both sides can support. Waiting to see what happens in the next 
election should not be an option.
  Last week, I supported one alternative to S. 2 offered by Senator 
Daschle. It didn't contain everything I wanted, but after I and other 
Members expressed some initial concerns, we reached an agreement that 
reflected my key priorities on accountability, public school choice and 
teacher quality. Every Senator on this side of the aisle supported that 
proposal, but we didn't get one Republican vote.
  At the same time, I don't know any Member on our side who is prepared 
to support the underlying bill that the President has indicated he will 
veto unless substantial changes are made. So it is clear that both 
sides have to give some ground in this debate if we have any chance of 
crafting a compromise proposal that the President will sign into law.
  The Three R's amendment we proposed today helps bridge the gap on 
both sides of the debate over the role of the federal government in 
public education. Our bill synthesizes the best ideas of both parties, 
I believe, into a whole new approach to national education policy.
  It contains three crucial elements to improve public education--tough 
accountability standards to ensure students are learning core academic 
subjects, a significant increase in federal resources to help schools 
meet new performance goals, and more flexibility at the local level to 
allow school districts to meet their most pressing needs.
  Essentially, under our proposal, the federal government would 
concentrate less on rules and requirements and focus instead, on what I 
know every Member of this body can and will support--higher academic 
achievement for every student.
  In addition to being smart national policy, the Three R's proposal 
would dramatically improve education in my home state of Arkansas.
  As I noted earlier, the RRR bill significantly increases the Federal 
investment in our public schools and carefully targets those additional 
dollars where they are needed the most. We, as a moderate group, find 
ourselves in an unusual position of trying to change the law to 
actually enforce the original intent of that law--title I funds 
actually being targeted to the schools and to the students who need 
those resources the most. There is no doubt that we can only be as 
strong as our weakest link. That is why it is essential that in those 
poor school districts we make sure title I dollars actually get to 
where they were intended to go.
  Statistics consistently demonstrate that, on average, children who 
attend low-income schools lag behind students from more affluent 
neighborhoods.
  This is certainly true in Arkansas where the most recent test results 
indicate that students in the economically prosperous northwest region 
of the state outperform students in the impoverished Delta. These 
results also indicate that the disparity in student achievement between 
minority and non-minority students in Arkansas continues. It proves 
that in the past several decades we have not been eliminating the gap 
and disparity between haves and have nots.
  I believe strongly that every child deserves a high-quality education 
and that the federal government has a right to expect more from our 
nation's schools. But we also have a responsibility to give public 
schools the resources they need to be successful.
  The ``Three R's'' acronym can also apply to our efforts to improve 
teacher quality. In fact, this plan can best be summed up by Four R's: 
recruiting, retention, resources, and above all, respecting our 
teachers.
  The difficulty schools experience today in recruiting and retaining 
quality teachers is one of the most enormous obstacles facing our 
education system.
  In my State of Arkansas, somewhere around 30 percent or more of our 
teachers are under the age of 40. We are

[[Page 7121]]

going to hit a brick wall eventually as our teachers begin to retire 
with no more younger teachers in our school systems.
  If we do not provide the funds in order to make sure that teacher 
improvement and quality and retention are there, we will not have the 
teachers. We cannot expect students to be successful if they don't work 
with quality teachers. We can't expect quality teachers to stay in the 
profession if they don't get adequate training, resources, or respect.
  In our bill, we include a 100-percent increase in funding for 
professional development for teachers. I think that is absolutely 
essential in supporting our educators for them to be able to provide 
for our students. That is why I believe we in Congress must do our best 
to help schools meet the challenges we are setting forth today.
  Most experts agree teacher quality is as important as any other 
factor in raising student achievement. The amendment we are debating 
would consolidate several teacher training initiatives into a single 
formula grant program for improving the quality of public school 
teachers, principals, and administrators. This proposal would increase 
professional development funding by more than 100 percent, to $1.6 
billion annually, and target that funding to the neediest school 
districts. In my home State of Arkansas, this will mean an additional 
$12 million for teacher quality initiatives. In my book, that is 
putting your money where your mouth is.
  In addition, the RRR would give State and school districts more 
flexibility to design effective teacher recruitment and professional 
development initiatives to meet their specific needs. No two school 
districts are alike, and there is no one size fits all for the school 
districts of this country.
  One overreaching goal we propose today is to require all teachers be 
fully qualified by 2005. Even the best teachers cannot teach what they 
don't know or haven't learned themselves. To be successful, we must 
work harder to reduce out-of-field teaching and require educators to 
pass rigorous, State-developed content assessments in the subject they 
teach, not a Federal test but those that are designed by the State.
  I have the highest respect for the teachers, principals, and 
superintendents who dedicate their talent and skills every day to 
prepare our children for tomorrow. I think they have some of the 
hardest and most important jobs in the world. Our Nation's future, in 
large part, depends on the work they do. We should be reinforcing them. 
Our teacher quality proposal is an example of how, by combining the 
concept of increased funding, targeting flexibility, and 
accountability, we can join with States and local educators to give our 
children a high-quality education.
  There is much more to say today about this approach of the amendment 
of Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh that Members such as myself have 
sponsored. I know there are others who want to speak.
  Before I close, I truly think this is the question we must ask 
ourselves: What, honestly, is the best thing for our children in this 
country? I say to my colleagues, if you want accountability from local 
schools, our proposal has it. If you want more targeted, effective 
national investment, take a look at the amendment that was produced by 
Senator Lieberman. Do we want more qualified, better trained teachers, 
investing in their professional development, with flexibility at the 
local level? Do you want higher minority student retention rates, which 
should be the objective of all Members? We have those answers in this 
amendment and in our bill.
  We have one chance at producing something on behalf of our most 
treasured blessing in all this world, our children. Please, colleagues, 
let's don't lose that chance. Let's not disappoint our children in this 
country and, more importantly, the future of this country. Let's put 
party politics aside. I think the RRR in the Lieberman-Bayh proposal is 
the right approach to improve student achievement in every classroom.
  I thank my colleagues for their involvement in this amendment and 
certainly in this debate. More importantly, I encourage all Members to 
remember what it is we are here to do and who, more importantly, we are 
here to do it on behalf of, our children.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself a moment.
  I commend my friend from Arkansas. The Senator from Arkansas has a 
varied and wide agenda of public policy issues. I think all Members in 
the Senate know the issue of teacher quality and recruitment and also 
how to get quality teachers in rural areas and underserved areas. That 
has been an area of great specialization. Those who had the alternative 
have benefited from her knowledge, including Senator Lieberman, as well 
from her energy in these particular needs and by the very sound 
judgment of her positive suggestions. I thank the Senator. She has 
placed the important aspect of education on her agenda and we have 
benefited from her interaction and her recommendations.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Bunning.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the principal author of the 
amendment be recognized for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  I thank my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, not 
only for a superb statement on behalf of this amendment but for the 
work the Senator has done as we developed the proposal, for the 
practical experience and common sense she brought, specifically for her 
genuine advocacy for children, particularly rural poor children.
  I thank the Senator for that and for her excellent statement.
  I ask that Senator Feinstein of California be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this brings to double figures the 
cosponsors. We now have 10 cosponsors. We are proud to have the Senator 
from California with us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, we have been debating the future of the 
Federal role in education. Specifically, we are looking at who will 
take the lead role in educating our children. Will it be the Federal 
bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or will it be the teachers and parents 
who are closer to the children and understand their needs better?
  Last week, President Clinton went on an education tour that I think 
can answer those questions. His tour took him to four cities: 
Davenport, IA; St. Paul, MN; Columbus, OH; and Owensboro, in my home 
State of Kentucky.
  That is, we think the President visited Owensboro. I am one 
Kentuckian who is not sure the President ever made it there. The 
President's web site has something of a travelogue on his trip, the 
supposed trip the President made, that says President Clinton's school 
reform tour started in Owensboro, KY. Look closer and one will notice 
something is wrong. Apparently, Owensboro is not in Kentucky anymore. 
In fact, it looks like Kentucky isn't Kentucky anymore; it has moved to 
Tennessee. I find this terribly interesting.
  We Kentuckians have nothing against Tennessee except, of course, when 
the Wildcats are playing the Volunteers. We like Owensboro in Kentucky, 
right where it is.
  While he was in Owensboro, if that is where he really was, the 
President spoke about his Federal programs that require States to spend 
Federal money on Washington's priorities. The President thinks this is 
a good approach. When I look at the President's map that approach 
troubles me, and it is not just because the White House cannot tell 
Kentucky from Tennessee. If you will notice, western Kentucky is no 
longer there; it has been annexed by Illinois: No more Paducah, no more 
Mayfield, no more Murray.
  I have some good news for my friends down there, and I have some good 
friends down there who have sent me

[[Page 7122]]

word that they want to stay in Kentucky. I wonder if they know this 
administration sold them off to Illinois. The truth is, some of us do 
not know where President Clinton was for sure. We know we have 
newspaper stories and video clips which report that he was seen in 
Owensboro plain as day.
  But, on the other hand, we have the Federal Government, the source of 
all wisdom, which the President would have us entrust with the 
education of our children, telling us the President and the entire city 
of Owensboro, KY, is actually in Tennessee.
  I trust the teachers and the parents in Owensboro, KY, with the 
education of their children. They know what is what.
  When presented with a choice between handing over control of their 
children's education to the Federal bureaucracy in Washington, DC, or 
letting those decisions be made by someone who personally knows the 
names of those children, I trust they will make the right choice.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BUNNING. I will, after I have finished.
  This administration says they care for the children in Owensboro, KY, 
but they do not even know their names. Parents and teachers know their 
names and the needs of their children and students. I trust them. As 
the Senate continues this debate on this education bill, I urge my 
colleagues to support education policies that truly return power to the 
people and away from the Federal bureaucracy.
  Of course, it is very obvious there is one new Federal program 
needed, a program that is desperately needed--a geography class for 
this White House--because, quite literally, this administration cannot 
quite find Owensboro, KY, on the map.
  Now I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will take 2 
minutes. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I had the pleasure of talking with the President of the United States 
on Wednesday evening after he came back from his trip. He told me about 
the school in Owensboro. I want to just give the assurance to the 
Senate that he told me it is one of the schools with the highest number 
of children receiving nutrition programs, which defines the 
disadvantaged children. They have a superb literacy program. They had 
small class size. They had a great emphasis on teacher training. It 
moved from one of the lower level schools, in terms of academic 
achievement, up to one of the top ones in Kentucky.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. BUNNING. That is very accurate. It is also accurate, there are 
very many other schools, not only in Owensboro but down along the 
border at Williamsburg and throughout many counties in Kentucky that 
have improved their educational facilities.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on my time, I welcome that fact. I think 
it is worthwhile to take note about what has been happening in 
Owensboro and to try to share that kind of success story, which the 
President of the United States was extremely impressed with and quite 
willing to talk about. I have the notes back in my office about the 
percentage of progress that was made.
  What he was talking about was well trained teachers, smaller class 
size, and support programs for children who are in need. Those are 
concepts we have tried to have in this program. I know we have some 
differences on that, but I wanted any reference to the President's trip 
to Owensboro also to relate the quality and very strong improvement in 
the education he witnessed down there. I think it is worthwhile taking 
note. We all ought to know what works and be encouraged by it.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BUNNING. I would like to conclude by saying a former colleague of 
the Senator from Massachusetts is a little struck also, Senator Wendell 
Ford, because Owensboro happens to be his hometown. It is definitely in 
Kentucky.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if there are no supporters of the bill, 
I would like to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I understood we would go back and forth.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I think I represent those in opposition. If the Senator 
is in support of the amendment, then I believe he is right.
  Mr. REED. I would like to speak about the amendment, not necessarily 
in support but speak about the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I want to object. I thought we might be going back and 
forth on this. If the Senator is on a particular schedule, I will ask 
the Senator from Rhode Island to withhold, but he indicated to me a 
preference.
  Mr. FRIST. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes on the other side's time 
and be happy to follow that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, then, the Senator from 
Rhode Island is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, and 
Senator Jeffords.
  I commend Senator Lieberman and his colleagues for presenting a very 
thoughtful and principled alternative to discuss today. There are 
elements in this legislation which I support enthusiastically, and then 
there are other elements I do not accept and have great questions 
about. But the proposal of Senator Lieberman along with colleagues 
underscores some critical points.
  First of all, they underscore that the approach of S. 2--simply 
transferring money with very limited and ambiguous accountability 
provisions of the State--is not the way to reform accountability. Also, 
they recognized there is a legitimate State and local partnership that 
could be maintained and should be maintained, particularly in the 
context of title I.
  They are also advocating a greater investment in education. That is 
something I know I agree with and I know many, if not all, of my 
colleagues on the Democratic side passionately agree with. Also, they 
advocate greater targeting of these funds into those low-income schools 
that need more assistance and, in fact, represent probably the best 
example why unconstrained State and local policy sometimes leads to bad 
outcomes.
  If you look at the funding and the performance of schools in urban 
areas and low-income rural areas, you will see the combination of the 
property tax and local policies will lead to results, to outcomes we do 
not want. We at the Federal level have the opportunity and the 
resources to help a bit, at least, to change that outcome. Also, it 
recognizes the importance of class size reduction and school choice. 
All of these are very important.
  In addition, it recognizes very strongly the notion and the need for 
accountability. Senator Bingaman has offered an amendment. He worked on 
this measure, not just in this Congress but in the preceding 
reauthorization. I joined him in that work as a Member of the other 
body. This provision is an important one. It is not part of the 
Lieberman proposal. I think it is something we should emphasize.
  I do, though, disagree with the approach they are taking to 
consolidate certain programs because one of the issues with 
consolidation is that you tend to lose both the focal point and also we 
typically design specific targeted programs to do those things which 
States are unwilling to do or are not doing at the same level of 
resources which are necessary to accomplish a national purpose.
  We can see examples throughout our policies. School libraries, I use, 
inevitably, to point out the fact that back in 1965 we did have direct 
Federal resources going to help collections of school libraries. In 
1981 we rolled them into a consolidated block grant approach, and, 
frankly, if you spoke to

[[Page 7123]]

school librarians, they would point out the status of their 
collections, which are very poor, with out-of-date books, and they 
would also say how difficult it is to get any real resources from the 
localities or States. Frankly, that is the type of acquisition they can 
always put off until next year and next year, and before you know it, 
it is 5 and 10 years and these books are out of date.
  I believe, too, the proposal the Senator from Connecticut and his 
colleagues are advancing does not recognize some of the other 
challenges facing our schools. The fact is, we do need to help the 
States and localities, apparently, to fix crumbling schools. One of the 
things I hear repeatedly from the other side is the wisdom of State and 
local Governors about public education. If that is the case, why are 
there so many decrepit school buildings throughout our country? Why are 
there so many children going to schools to which we would be, frankly, 
embarrassed to send children? It is not because people are either 
ignorant or evil at these local levels. It is because when you have a 
limited tax base, when you have many other priorities, when most of the 
local budgets are consumed by personnel costs, it is awfully difficult 
without some outside help--i.e., Federal help--to do certain things. 
One of them, apparently, is to ensure that school buildings are 
maintained at a level where we would not be embarrassed to send 
children.
  There are schools in Rhode Island that are over 100 years old. They 
are crumbling. They need help. Every time I go into these communities, 
I do not have local school committee people and mayors saying: Go away; 
take your terrible, terrible Federal rules and regulations away from 
us. I have them imploring me: Can you help us get some resources from 
the Federal Government to fix up our schools? That is the reality, not 
the rhetoric and mumbo jumbo about big education bureaucrats and 
everything else. There is potential in the Lieberman amendment. 
Unfortunately, this aspect of putting all these programs together 
defeats the purpose.
  I have two other quick points.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I request 1 more minute.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 1 minute.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and the 
Senator from Tennessee for their graciousness.
  I commend them particularly for bringing up the issue of increased 
resources and targeting. One of the ironies is, we who have been doing 
this over the last few years fought through the last reauthorization. 
Targeting of resources of title I programs is intensely divisive 
politically. Particularly Members of the other body do not want to see 
their allocation in title I funds decreased, even if they represent 
fairly affluent communities. It is one thing to talk about targeting, 
but it is something else to have the political will to engage in that. 
I tried it in 1994, along with others. We made moderate success. I 
would be happy to join the battle of targeting again, but I would be 
remiss if I did not point out the real challenges of getting a bill 
such as this through both Houses of the Congress.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his graciousness, and I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Tennessee 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lieberman 
amendment, although let me say right up front that there are several 
principles that are underscored in the amendment in which I believe 
wholeheartedly and that are reflected in the underlying bill to 
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The whole idea 
of being able to collapse programs into a manageable number and the 
emphasis on student achievement are two concepts which are very 
important as we look forward to how best to educate the current and 
future generations of children in areas in which we are failing.
  I remain very concerned, though, with the specifics of the Lieberman 
amendment in terms of the formula, the impact it has on a number of 
districts in Tennessee. The focus on teachers, which I believe is 
appropriate, in terms of it being critical that we develop an 
opportunity for every child to be in a classroom with an excellent 
quality teacher is an important one, although maintaining this whole 
approach of 100,000 teachers and dictating that from above is something 
I simply cannot support.
  We just voted on an amendment which I believe directs us in a much 
better, more optimistic, potentially more beneficial direction, and 
that is empowering teachers, attracting teachers, and recruiting 
teachers through the alternative certification process in that 
amendment. Careers to Classrooms is what it is called.
  We have not had the opportunity to adequately explain the importance 
of this now-accepted amendment, but it is important to understand and 
for us to spend a few minutes on it because it does underscore the 
importance of having high-quality teachers, attracting teachers, 
keeping them in that position because of the demographics and the shift 
we are going to see in teachers and retiring teachers.
  This careers-to-classrooms approach complements what is in the 
underlying bill, that part of the bill that applies to teachers and is 
called the Teacher Empowerment Act. I have worked carefully and closely 
with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas in crafting this careers-
to-classroom aspect of the bill.
  As we look forward, it is important to understand the importance of 
that high-quality person, not just a person at the head of the 
classroom, but that high-quality teacher.
  This aspect of the bill expands the national activities section of 
the underlying bill to allow additional funds for States that want, 
that wish, that choose to attract new people into the teaching 
profession through what is called an alternative certification process.
  We have all heard about the impending teacher shortage. It is 
something that has been discussed on the floor. It is something that 
Americans today do understand. The Department of Education estimates we 
will need about 2.2 million new teachers over the next decade. That 2.2 
million is necessary for two reasons: No. 1, because of enrollment 
increases and, No. 2, to offset the large number of teachers, the so-
called baby boomer teachers, who will be retiring over the next several 
years.
  It is interesting to note that the severe shortages tend to be in 
areas that are either the most urban or the most rural. Even more 
interesting is if you look at the alternative certification processes 
that have been in effect, for example, in New Jersey, where there has 
been such a program for 15 years, it is in those most urban areas and 
those most rural areas that the alternative certification process has 
had the most beneficial and the most powerful impact. The underlying 
focus in the bill, made stronger by this amendment, is that it is not 
only numbers of teachers but, indeed, it is the quality of those 
teachers we have in the classrooms.
  This amendment, and now the bill, directs resources to strengthen and 
improve teacher quality. There is a professor at the University of 
Tennessee whose name is William Sanders. He pioneered this concept of a 
value-added system of measuring the effectiveness of a teacher. His 
research clearly demonstrates that it is teacher quality more than any 
other variable that can be isolated, including class size, including 
demographics, that affects student achievement. He says the following:

       When kids have ineffective teachers, they never recover.

  At the University of Rochester, Eric Hanushek has said, and I begin 
the quotation:

       The difference between a good and a bad teacher can be a 
     full level of achievement in a single year.

  The research of the importance of the quality of the teacher goes on 
and on. Again, as the statistics have shown, we have 12th grade 
students in the United States ranking near the bottom of international 
comparisons in math and science; where today most companies that are 
looking for future employees

[[Page 7124]]

dismiss the value of a high school diploma; where we know that high 
school graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed as college 
graduates.
  The statistics go on and on. No longer can we afford as a society to 
have this increasingly illiterate population continue.
  It comes back to having a good quality teacher in the classroom, and 
today too many teachers in America lack proper preparation in the 
subjects they teach. Tennessee, my State, actually does a pretty good 
job overall, I believe, because they say a teacher has to have at least 
a major or a minor in the subject they are going to teach. Therefore, 
when we have these gradings of States on how well they do, we always 
get an A in this category of having a major or a minor.
  Even in Tennessee, 64 percent of teachers teaching physical science 
do not have a minor in the subject. Among history teachers, nearly 50 
percent did not major or minor in history. Other States do much worse.
  Mr. President, 56 percent of those teaching physics and chemistry, 53 
percent of those teaching history, 33 percent of those teaching math do 
not have a major or minor in the field they teach. We know this content 
is critically important to the quality of that teacher.
  In closing, let me again say what this amendment does. It seeks to 
position a State, if they so wish, to have as good an opportunity as 
possible to recruit teachers. It actually helps States to recruit 
students and professionals into the teaching profession if they have 
not been in the teaching profession--both top-quality students who have 
majored in academic subjects as well as midcareer professionals who 
have special expertise in core subject areas. We want teachers teaching 
math to have majored or have an understanding of the content of math. 
We want teachers teaching science who have majored in and truly love 
science. It makes for a better teacher.
  What this amendment does is help draw students and professionals into 
teaching, attracting a new group, a new pool of people into the field 
of teaching, different kinds of people, all through this alternative 
certification process.
  We all know it is hard today, among our graduates, to attract the 
very best into teaching, given the barriers that are there, given the 
traditional certification process. Through this amendment Senator 
Hutchison and I have drafted, we provide resources to States that wish 
to offer these alternative certification programs to help them 
establish such new programs to recruit students, professionals, and 
others, into the teaching profession.
  I am very excited that this amendment has strengthened the underlying 
bill. These alternative certification stipends will help provide a 
seamless transition for students and professionals who make that 
change, that movement from school or careers, and embark upon a new 
career in teaching.
  Shortly, this afternoon, Senator Hutchison will come down and 
elaborate on this particular program. Again, I am very proud to be a 
part of helping this new generation of teachers and future teachers 
address the problems we all know exist in our education system today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if we go into a quorum call, is the time 
equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent to equally 
divide it. Is the Senator requesting unanimous consent?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes under the time 
allotted to the manager of the bill on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am going to be opposing the amendment 
offered by my colleague, Senator Lieberman. He, I know, has thought a 
great deal about education issues. I admire his commitment to 
education. But we come at this from slightly different perspectives.
  I want to speak not so much about the amendment that is before us but 
a bit more about the underlying issue that brings us to this 
intersection of the debate on this bill.
  We know that in this country the education system needs some repair 
and adjustment. I happen to think many schools in this country perform 
very well. As I have said before on the floor of this Senate, I go into 
a lot of classrooms, as do many of my colleagues. I challenge anyone to 
go into these classrooms and come out of that classroom and say: Gee, 
that was not a good teacher. I have deep respect and high regard for 
most of the teachers I have had the opportunity to watch in the 
classrooms in this country.
  But there is almost a boast here in the Senate by some that we do not 
want to have any national aspirations or goals for our education 
system. I do not know why people do that. Our elementary and secondary 
education system is run by local school boards and the State 
legislatures. That is as it should be.
  No one is proposing that we transfer control of school systems to the 
federal government. But we are saying that, as a country, as taxpayers, 
as parents, as a nation, we ought to have some basic goals of what we 
expect to get out of these schools. Yet there are people who almost 
brag that we have no aspirations at all as a country with respect to 
our education system.
  I would like to aspire to certain goals of achievement by our schools 
and by our kids across this country, so I am going to later offer an 
amendment, part of which is embodied in the Bingaman amendment, dealing 
with accountability, saying that every parent, every taxpayer ought to 
get a report card on their local school. We get report cards on 
students, but we ought to get a report card on how our schools are 
doing. It is one thing to tell the parents the child is failing. We 
certainly ought to know that as parents. But what if the school is 
failing? Let's have a report card on schools, so parents, taxpayers, 
and people in every State around this country can understand how their 
school is doing compared to other schools, compared to other States.
  The issue of block granting, with all due respect, I think is ``block 
headed.'' Block granting is a way of deciding: Let's spend the money, 
but let's not choose. We know there are needs, for example, for school 
modernization.
  I heard a speaker the other day at an issues retreat I attended who 
made an appropriate point that I know has been made here before. Not 
many years ago, we had a debate in the Senate about prisons and jails. 
Some of the same folks who stand up in this Chamber and say, we cannot 
commit any Federal money to improve America's schools, were saying, we 
want to commit Federal money to help State and local governments 
improve their jails.
  Why is it the Federal Government's responsibility to help improve 
jails and prisons for local government, but when it comes to improving 
schools, we say that is not our responsibility? I do not understand 
that. Jails and prisons take priority over schools? I do not think so. 
It seems to me there is a contradiction here.
  All of us have been to school districts all over this country. We 
have seen young children walk into classrooms we know are in desperate 
need of remodeling and repair. Some of them are 40, 50, 60, 80 years 
old. I was in one the other day that was 90 years old. The school is in 
desperate disrepair, and the school district has no money with which to 
repair it. What are we going to do about that?
  Are we going to say those kids don't matter? Are we going to say that 
we are going to commit Federal dollars to

[[Page 7125]]

education, but we don't want to know where those dollars are going? Are 
we going to say we don't want to direct funding to deal with the issues 
we know are important, such as school renovation and repair or 
decreasing class size by adding more teachers? Are we going to say we 
don't want to reach some sort of national goals because we are worried 
someone will mistake that for Federal control of local schools?
  Hear it from me. I do not think we ought to try to have Federal 
control of local schools. The school boards and State legislatures do 
just fine, thank you; but there are areas where we can help, and school 
modernization is one of them. We were perfectly willing to jump in and 
renovate prisons and jails for State and local governments, but now it 
comes to schools and we say, no, that is not our job. It is our job.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. Schools are certainly more important than prisons and 
jails when it comes to the subject of renovation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. We are awaiting 
Senators either on that side or on this side. I will withhold when they 
arrive. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I have heard the Senator from North Dakota speak to this issue about 
the General Accounting Office report that estimates we have about $110 
billion worth of modernization or rehabilitation of schools. Is the 
Senator familiar with that report?
  Mr. DORGAN. I sure am. The GAO reported about the disrepair of 
schools, on Indian reservations, in inner cities, all across the 
country. You go to poor school districts that don't have a large tax 
base, and you find that we are sending kids into classrooms in poor 
shape. We can do better than that. The GAO documents that very 
carefully in study after study. We must, as a nation, begin to make 
investments in our schools.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator not agree with me that we tell 
children every single day that education is important, a high priority, 
the future of our country depends upon it, your future is essential to 
the meaning of this country and what this country is going to be 
throughout the world? What kind of message does the Senator think a 
child gets who goes to a school that has windows open in the 
wintertime, an insufficient heating system, or a dilapidated electrical 
system so they can't plug in computers? What kind of subtle message 
does the Senator think that sends to the child where, on the one hand, 
we say it is important to get a good education, but on the other hand 
the child goes to a crumbling school, whether it is in the urban or 
rural areas, or Indian reservations?
  Mr. DORGAN. The message is pretty clear. We talk about education, but 
then if the schools are in disrepair and adults do not seem to care 
about it, students feel that education and they themselves do not 
matter. I toured a school about a week ago with 150 kids. It had two 
bathrooms and one water fountain. It was in terrible disrepair.
  The teacher said, ``Children, is there anything you would like to ask 
Senator Dorgan?'' One of the little kids who was in about the third 
grade raised his hand and said, ``Yes. How many bathrooms does the 
White House have?'' Do you know why he asked that? I think it was 
because that is an issue in their school. They have long lines to wait 
to go to the bathroom--150 kids and two bathrooms. Why is that the 
case? Because these kids are sent to an old school. The school district 
has no tax base. When we send them through the classroom door, we 
cannot, as Americans, be proud of that school. We must do better than 
that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his comments. I agree with them 
100 percent. We will have an opportunity to consider this in amendment 
form. Senator Harkin intends to address this issue in an amendment 
later in this debate--hopefully soon, if we can move along on some of 
our votes.
  Again, as the good Senator has mentioned, what we are trying to do is 
target scarce resources on problems that we know exist, and with scarce 
resources we can make a difference that is going to enhance academic 
achievement. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending 
Lieberman amendment. Senator Lieberman is a friend of mine, and I know 
he has spent a lot of time with many colleagues trying to put together 
a substitute that could have bipartisan agreement. I think the 
Senator's amendment does make some good attempts, but there are 
concerns that will also force me to vote against his amendment.
  I think the amendment is overly prescriptive. The reason I feel so 
strongly about this is that the amendment we just passed--Senator 
Lott's amendment--which included my and Senator Frist's careers-to-
classroom provision--the whole purpose of that is to give more 
flexibility. I think what we are doing is drawing the bright red line 
between the philosophy of what the Democrats are hoping to do and what 
the Republicans are hoping to do. The Republicans are trying to 
withdraw a lot of the redtape that we hear complained about by teachers 
everywhere we go in our States. When I go to a town hall meeting, in an 
urban or rural area, they complain about the redtape and the 
regulations that keep them from being able to do the job they want to 
do, which is to teach children in the classroom.
  I think Senator Lieberman's amendment fails to provide the 
flexibility and the accountability for our States and public schools, 
which really is the hallmark of the bill that is before us today. I am 
concerned about the revised formula for title I. I am concerned because 
title I will take millions of dollars from many of the rural and other 
schools in Texas and across America.
  While I certainly understand the goal of providing money for low-
income schools, I don't think it should come at the expense of our 
Nation's rural schools. They also have a great need, and oftentimes 
they lack the resources to give the quality education they need and 
want for their children.
  I am also concerned about the provision in the Lieberman substitute 
that effectively requires certification for teachers' aides and other 
paraprofessionals. I think this is something best left to the States 
and the local districts. In fact, to go back to the amendment we just 
passed, Senator Frist and I have been working, along with Senator 
Graham from Florida, on a different concept that goes away from the 
overcertification issue and says we want professionals in the 
classroom, and we want to encourage school districts to put 
professionals in the classroom, even if they didn't major in education 
in college.
  Now, I have to take a step back and say that I am very proud that my 
alma mater, the University of Texas, is actually beginning to do some 
testing on education degrees to see if we can focus more on the area of 
expertise that is going to be taught in the classroom and less on the 
``how to make lesson plans'' part of the education degree. So far the 
tests have been very positive of the students who have gone more in the 
area of expertise for which they are going to be the teachers and less 
into the ``how to be a teacher''--not that you do away with that 
because it is important; but you lessen the focus on that and go more 
for the actual expertise that is going to be transferred to the 
children in the classroom. That is the exact concept of the careers-to-
classroom amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Frist and myself.
  It is very similar to what Senator Bob Graham and I had worked on as 
well. Basically, it says to the midlevel professional who may be 
looking for a career change or who may be retiring because they have 
done well in their field, we want you to come into the classroom and 
give the benefit of our knowledge and expertise to children who are in 
schools that have teacher shortages or are in rural areas.
  Here is an example. A friend of mine majored in French in college and

[[Page 7126]]

taught French in private schools. She moved to a small school district 
in Greenville, TX. They wanted to offer French in Greenville High 
School. She wanted to teach it, but she didn't have a teacher 
certification. So she was not able to be put into the classroom in 
Greenville High School, and the students in that high school were 
deprived of that option because she was not certified.
  Now, what she did--because she wanted to do this so much--she 
commuted 30 miles to the nearest teacher college and she eventually got 
her certification; but it took her several years because she was also 
raising children. During that period, those children who wanted to take 
French could not have that option at Greenville High School.
  I think that is wrong. I don't want her to have to jump through that 
many hoops in order to give a great opportunity to that school district 
that they otherwise would not have. So our careers-to-classroom 
provision takes rural schools and schools that have teacher shortages 
and matches them with people who have professional expertise--
especially in the fields of math, science, and languages. We can 
enhance education to a greater degree if we have qualified teachers.
  We give encouragement. We give authorization for funding for school 
districts that will give alternative certification, which is expedited 
certification to these teachers who want to go into the classroom and 
help enrich the experience that our children will have all over our 
country.
  We hear a lot on the Senate floor about the need to hire more 
teachers and reduce class size. There is a growing problem in America.
  It has been estimated by the National Council on Education Statistics 
that the United States will need an additional 2 million teachers in 
public schools over the next decade. During the 1970s and 1980s, the 
American school age population grew at a relatively slow rate. But 
increased immigration and the new baby boomers have turned these 
numbers around. In 1997, a record 52.2 million students entered our 
Nation's public schools. Between 1998 and 2008, the population of 
secondary schools is going to increase an additional 11 percent. This 
is most pressing in our inner cities and rural communities.
  We are trying to address these concerns by giving more flexibility 
and taking away some of these disincentives to get good professionals 
into the classrooms. I think our amendment, which has been agreed to by 
the Senate, is a better concept than the Lieberman approach, or Senator 
Kennedy's approach, which I think have the effect of putting more 
restrictions and more redtape in the system.
  I think we have tried the other way. While I believe Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Lieberman are very sincere in wanting better public 
education, I think we diverge on how we get there. I think we have 
tried the ``everything emanates from Washington'' approach to get 
Federal funding. I think now we ought to try something new. Let's try 
giving States flexibility by putting the money into the classroom where 
it does the most good rather than building up the Federal bureaucracy 
that has the effect of retarding the ability to be creative. Let's have 
the capability to put more teachers in to fill the teacher shortage 
with qualified teachers as well.
  I want to end by saying that I believe in public education. I am a 
total product of public education. I know that is what makes America 
different from other countries in the world because we don't say to 
certain people: you will get a good education but other people in 
society will not have the same opportunity.
  We have said in America that we want every child to reach his or her 
full potential with a public education. We want every child to have a 
choice. Many children choose private education. I support that, too. 
But it is our responsibility to have public education for children who 
cannot afford a private education or who do not want that kind of 
experience to be able to succeed and be the best with that public 
education.
  The underlying bill and the Lott-Gregg-Hutchison-Frist amendment 
gives the tools to our country to create the public education system of 
excellence that is required to keep America a meritocracy and not an 
aristocracy.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume from the amendment. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and 
colleague from Texas for her thoughtful statement. I would like to 
respond to it.
  It is interesting in this debate how common the usage of terms is on 
both sides. You have to really get down into the details.
  The Senator from Texas talked about her support of flexibility for 
school systems at the local level. That is a centerpiece of the 
amendment that is now before the Senate, which is to consolidate a 
whole series of current Federal categorical grant education programs 
and give the local school systems some flexibility in the use of that 
money. But I think the difference between our proposal, the proposal 
before the Senate now, and the underlying bill is the difference 
between flexibility with purpose and essentially a blank check.
  In our proposal, we have taken a series of categorical grant programs 
and put them together into four broad titles. We call them performance-
based partnership grants--not block grants. As I understand block 
grants, they are basically pooling money and sending it back to the 
States and localities to be spent for education as they would wish.
  As others have pointed out before, and Senator Kennedy particularly, 
at the outset of the ESEA program, the Federal Government essentially 
gave block grants to the communities and States. It was found that the 
money was being spent for what most in Congress at that time did not 
think were priority educational goals. They were not being spent for 
the focused purpose of the ESEA, which was to help disadvantaged 
children. Block grants don't target the disadvantaged children, and 
they don't have enough accountability for results that are ongoing. 
There is no guidance from the Federal Government. I think this is a 
broad category of how the money should be spent. This is the difference 
between the underlying bill and the amendment before us now.
  Yes, we believe that Washington doesn't have all the answers. Yes, we 
think that some of the current categorical grant programs are too 
focused with too much micromanagement. So we fold them together. But we 
feel very strongly that if we in Congress and the Federal Government 
are authorizing and appropriating literally billions of dollars to be 
spent by the States and localities on education, it is not just our 
right but our responsibility to set overall standards, categories, and 
goals for how that money should be spent.
  When we say we create performance-based partnership grants, that is 
what we mean. They are partnerships between the Federal, State, and 
local governments to achieve national educational goals.
  I will get to that in a minute.
  They are performance-based because there is an annual measurement of 
how students are doing. That is what this is all about. Is adequate 
yearly progress being made on these various proposals? If not, we ought 
to rush in with some extra help. If it continues to not be made, then 
we ought to impose some sanctions.
  We have taken these four titles and asked that the localities spend 
in areas that we think enjoy broad support in the Nation as priority 
educational areas.
  First and foremost, I think we granted title I for disadvantaged 
children. But of the other four, first and foremost, here is more money 
than the Federal Government has ever sent to the States and localities 
before for the purpose of improving teacher quality.
  Second, here again, it is more money than the Federal Government has 
ever sent back before for the purpose of improving programs in limited-
English proficiency, commonly known as bilingual education. It is a 
critical need. Too many children for whom English is not the first 
language are not getting the education they should get.

[[Page 7127]]

  Third, public school choice--a great concept that is being adopted at 
the local level; again, a new funding stream to create new charter 
schools and to create new experiments in public school choice. Let 
parents and children have some choice within the public school setting 
by creating competition and forces that will improve the overall 
quality of education.
  Finally, a broad category of what might be called public school 
innovation, including afterschool programs, summer school programs. 
Whatever the localities may decide is an innovative idea, we want them 
to be able to test.
  There is a big difference between sending a blank check from 
Washington back to the States and localities, saying here is a 
substantially increased check but we are asking that localities spend 
it in one of these four priority areas and we are going to hold 
localities accountable every year for the results of that spending.
  Ultimately, that is what matters. It is interesting and not 
unimportant to talk about performance-based partnership grants, but 
ultimately it is important to consolidate categorical grants. What is 
most important is, What is the result? Are our children being better 
educated? If not, we in Washington will set up a system that does not 
accept failure, that does not allow the Federal Government to sit back 
and accept failure, but pushes into the debate and the action to 
encourage success for our children.
  The second broad point of response is on the question of teacher 
quality. As we all know, we have a rising need for new teachers--2 
million over the next decade. We also want to make sure those teachers 
are the most able. There are a lot of ways to do this. In my State of 
Connecticut, the legislature adopted a program a decade or more ago 
that has worked. It begins with the State of Connecticut setting 
standards for paying teachers more money. It is true we get what we pay 
for. There are a certain number of people who have devoted themselves 
to teaching, regardless of salary, because they had a sense of mission. 
It is what gave them satisfaction. In an increasingly competitive 
economy, one of the ways we make it easier to attract the best people 
to teach is by paying more money.
  The second is to create opportunities in midcareer for people to come 
into teaching. I point out to my friend from Texas, title II of our 
proposal on teacher quality specifically urges the States to open up 
alternative paths for people. In our proposal, title II encourages the 
localities to do exactly what Senator Hutchison advocates, which is to 
create alternative paths to teacher certification for people in 
midcareers so we can get the best people to better educate our 
children.
  We think this is a balanced proposal. We ask our colleagues to 
consider it and hopefully support it as we come close to the time for 
voting.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Washington 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to be on the floor in the 
presence of my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, the primary 
sponsor of this proposal. For well over a year, the Senator has shared 
his thoughtful ideas with me and with other Members on this side of the 
aisle.
  While this is certainly not my proposal--it is not Straight A's by 
any stretch of the imagination--it does represent, in the view of this 
Senator, a genuine and thoughtful approach to the proposition that we 
haven't been doing everything right for the last 10, 20, 30, 35 years 
and that there is a newer and better way to provide education services 
to our children directed at seeing they get a better education and 
their achievement improves.
  The proposal the Senator from Connecticut has before the Senate is a 
thoughtful and imaginative approach to our innovation in education. 
There have been a number of comments during the course of the day and 
earlier that the Senator from Connecticut and some of his friends and 
allies have been working with this Senator and others to see if we 
could marry most or many of the propositions contained in the current 
amendment--relating to Straight A's, to the Teacher Empowerment Act, 
and to portability --in a way that would reach across the aisle not 
with a half a dozen Members on each side of the aisle supporting the 
proposition but perhaps with a majority of the Members of the Senate.
  While I can't say I am a supporter of the proposition exactly as it 
appears before the Senate, it does offer very real possibilities not 
only for a constructive debate on education policy but for a 
constructive resolution to the better education that every Member in 
this body, whatever his or her philosophy, seeks. I hope there may this 
afternoon even be a symbol of the fact we are beginning to work 
together.
  I must say, there are clear differences even in negotiations over a 
middle ground. It is certainly possible they will not be surmountable. 
This Senator, however, hopes they will be. I think the Senator from 
Connecticut does. At the same time, there may be Members who do not 
desire a partnership that has involved matters other than this from 
time to time in a way that has upset certain Members of this body.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his thoughtful and sincere 
efforts and express the hope publicly that they may lead to something 
which will unite, rather than divide, members of both parties.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague 
from the State of Washington for his gracious words and for the 
discussions we have been having for almost 2 years about this 
particular reauthorization, in which I have learned a lot. I appreciate 
his openmindedness.
  These discussions continue more broadly now. As he said, there are 
gaps remaining, but it has been a very good faith and worthwhile 
process. I look forward to continuing it with him and others in the 
days ahead toward the aim, which we hope is not going to elude us, of 
having a bipartisan reauthorization of ESEA.
  I am grateful that the Senator from Virginia has come to the floor to 
speak on behalf of the amendment that is before the Senate. Senator 
Robb is a cosponsor. He has been very active in our discussions of this 
proposal and, as always, he brings to these discussions the clear-
headed vision based on experience-- in this case, not only his 
experience as the Senator but valuable experience as the Governor of 
Virginia.
  I yield whatever time Senator Robb needs to discuss this proposal.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, so Members will know what is happening here, 
the minority and majority have agreed there will be a vote at 4:50, and 
on our side, the Senator from Virginia would have 20 minutes, Senator 
Edwards would have 10 minutes, Senator Kennedy 5 minutes, and the 
majority would have 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, we may not have any more important debate 
this session than the one we are having now on the reauthorization of 
the major piece of federal legislation affecting K-12 education, the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I was pleased to support the 
Democratic alternative last Thursday because it contained many of my 
highest priorities for education. It continues our commitment to class 
size reduction, an initiative that will give our children more 
individualized attention with a qualified teacher. It provides 
substantially more money for professional development for teachers and 
administrators, so we can help build our teachers up, rather than tear 
them down. It contains more money for schools to make urgently needed 
safety-related repairs to their facilities, so our children are not in 
schools with leaky roofs or fire code violations. It contains increased 
investments in equipping our schools with modern technology, so our 
children can learn the language of the new economy--the information 
technology language. It contains increased funding for school safety 
initiatives, because

[[Page 7128]]

we can't have good schools, unless we have safe schools. I am pleased 
that the New Democrats were able to work with our Democratic Caucus to 
significantly enhance and strengthen the accountability measures 
contained in the Democratic alternative. Although the amendment was 
defeated, I believe it contained a better approach, frankly, to the 
reauthorization of ESEA than that which has been offered by our 
distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  The Senate new Democrats under the leadership of the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and the Senator from 
Indiana, Senator Bayh, and others, as has already been stated, have 
been working for many months on a proposal to reauthorize the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act in a way that will truly help 
our Nation's students and improve our Nation's schools. We have offered 
this proposal as an alternative to the way we think about the Federal 
role in K-12 education. The goal of this alternative approach is the 
principle reason why we should have an Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act at all: to improve student academic performance and 
readiness. Two critical factors on the federal level in achieving this 
goal are investment and real accountability.
  In 1994, Congress took a monumental step toward encouraging 
standards-based reform across the states--a movement which really began 
in 1989 when President Bush convened a summit in Charlottesville, VA 
with our Nation's Governors to explore ways to improve our public 
education system. When we considered the Goals 2000 legislation in 
1994, we reiterated the principle of that summit: that education is 
primarily a State and local responsibility, but it is also a national 
priority. We recognized that if the Federal Government is to be a 
meaningful partner in education reform, we must give greater 
flexibility to States in the use of their funds in order to foster 
innovation and to help States design their own standards-based reform 
plans.
  During the floor consideration of Goals 2000, I voiced my support for 
Goals 2000 funding and said:

       [w]ith this new funding States can, if they choose, work to 
     establish tough academic standards, create a system of 
     assessments to put real accountability into our schools, and 
     expand efforts to better train teachers and give them the 
     tools they need to teach our kids.

  As a result a result of Goals 2000, 48 States have now developed 
standards and many are in the process of aligning their curricula and 
assessments to those standards. But we need to help even more than we 
are now, because only about half of the States this year will meet 
their student performance goals. And what is more troubling is that 
there continues to be a startling achievement gap between low-income 
students and more affluent students.
  Now that the vast majority of our States have standards in place, we 
need to help them meet those standards. Our Three R's amendment 
emphasizes the need to reinvest in our schools, to reinvent the way 
that we partner with States and localities, and to recognize that we, 
as a Nation, have a responsibility to ensure that our children are 
receiving the very best education that all levels of government can 
collectively provide. For the first time, this amendment attempts to 
hold States accountable not for filling out the right forms or for 
writing good grant proposals, but for actual increases in student 
achievement.
  The Three R's approach ensures that States are held accountable for 
yearly improvement in student academic performance. States will set 
their own yearly targets for improvement. Our hope is that these 
performance goals will help all children become proficient in reading, 
mathematics, and science. States will be required to take dramatic 
corrective action in the event that school districts in their States 
chronically fail to make the grade. Failing schools can be shut down. 
They can be reconstituted with new administrations. They can be turned 
into charter schools. There are a variety of options available, but the 
point is simple: failing schools are failing our children, and our 
children deserve more. States that meet or exceed their performance 
targets will be rewarded with even more flexibility in the use of their 
funds.
  But a demand for more accountability must be accompanied by increased 
investment--increased investment in our students, increased investment 
in our teachers, increased investment in our administrators, and 
increased investment in our schools themselves. This amendment calls 
for an unprecedented $35 billion increase in elementary and secondary 
education funding over the next 5 years. Currently, the Federal 
Government only spends $14.4 billion per year on K-12 education. To put 
that in some perspective, last year we spent $230 billion to pay 
interest on the national debt. The fact that we pay 15 times more money 
on debt that is akin to bad credit card debt, when we could be building 
schools, or training teachers, or hiring school safety officers, is 
shameful.
  Our amendment would increase our current spending by $7.2 billion 
next year alone. Instead of pumping this money into more programs, our 
amendment distributes most of the new Federal funds to States based 
upon a formula, rather than to those States and localities who can 
afford to hire savvy grant writers. The distribution of funds is 
targeted to where the funds are needed most--to our neediest schools 
and students, that are so often left behind. The Three R's approach 
increases teacher quality funding to $1.6 billion, which is a $1 
billion increase from our current spending. It substantially increases 
aid for economically disadvantaged students by 50 percent--from $8 
billion to $12 billion. We continue our commitment to reducing class 
size by providing a guaranteed stream of funding for this important 
initiative which has so far provided States with enough funding to hire 
over 29,000 new teachers. And we get serious about helping Limited 
English Proficient students not only master English, but achieve high 
levels in core subjects as well. Our funding for LEP students is 
increased from $380 million to $1 billion. Finally, we provide $2.7 
billion to expand after-school and summer-school opportunities, to 
enhance school safety, to improve the technological capabilities of our 
students, teachers, and schools, and to fund innovative school 
improvement initiatives designed at the local level.
  We need to invest in our teachers so they are the best in the world. 
We need to invest in our schools so they are safe and modern. We need 
to invest in our students so they will develop the skills they need to 
succeed. The Federal Government can provide these resources and we 
believe that it should. At the same time that we do this, we need to 
ensure that the Federal role in K-12 education is one that actually 
promotes improvement in academic achievement.
  That is accountability with real meaning.
  This amendment is also meant to provide a starting point for a 
bipartisan effort. Our education debate has a tendency to devolve into 
partisan battles with the extremes on both sides drawing hard and fast 
lines that either abandon public schools by promoting vouchers or 
continue the status quo by funding myriad small programs--programs 
which, however well intentioned, often dilute the effectiveness of the 
limited Federal dollars we have to spend on education. We have to get 
beyond these differences to better serve our children.
  There is more to the education debate than just these priorities. 
Last month, the Senate new Democrats held a hearing about the RRR 
approach. The panelists were former Reagan Education Secretary William 
Bennett; former Chief Domestic Policy Advisor to President Clinton, 
William Galston; Seattle Superintendent Joseph Olchefske; Amy Wilkins, 
principal partner of the Education Trust, an organization dedicated to 
the education of disadvantaged children; and Robert Schwartz, president 
of Achieve, Incorporated, an organization formed by the Nation's 
Governors and corporate leaders to improve public education.
  Despite the philosophical diversity among the panelists in many 
areas, all

[[Page 7129]]

of the panelists agreed that focus on increased investment in exchange 
for real accountability was necessary and prudent.
  Perhaps William Bennett summed it up best by saying:

       The Three R's has the potential to bring about a new era 
     for the Federal Government and education, an era that 
     actively emphasizes results over process and favors success 
     over failure.

  I believe our RRR amendment combines the principles upon which so 
many of us can and do agree. It is perhaps more aptly described as the 
``III''--investment, innovation, and improvement. This really should be 
the model for the Federal role in elementary and secondary education in 
our country. I hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will 
seriously consider this approach.
  I yield the floor and reserve any time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Carolina has 10 minutes.
  Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to speak to three subjects today: first, to the 
subject of education in general; second, to some of the things we have 
done in North Carolina in the area of education of which we are very 
proud, particularly in our public schools; and, third, to talk 
specifically about the Lieberman-Bayh amendment.
  First, the single test we should apply in determining what to do with 
our public school system is what is in the best interest of the kids--
not what is in the best interest of either political party, not what is 
in the best interest for either candidate for the President of the 
United States, but what is in the best interest in improving the lives 
and education of our young people.
  Anywhere one goes in North Carolina, if one were to ask folks what is 
the most important thing we do as a Government, they would tell you 
over and over: Educate our young people. If one were then to tell them 
the reality, which is that we spend less than 1 percent of the Federal 
budget on over 50 million school children in the United States, they 
would be absolutely flabbergasted. The single issue that the American 
people believe is the most important thing their Government does takes 
less than 1 percent of the Federal budget. They believe more needs to 
be done.
  I believe strongly that our school systems should be run at the local 
level, that people at the State and local level know much better than 
people in Washington how our school systems should be run. That does 
not mean, however, there are not things we can do as the Federal 
Government to partner with State and local government officials in 
educating young people. That is what we need to be doing.
  There is nothing in our Constitution that says we cannot devote more 
than 1 percent of the Federal budget to public education. We have to be 
willing to devote the resources to make education the priority it is 
for the American people, to put the resources into it, to put the 
effort into it, and to help State and local officials do the job they 
so desperately want to do.
  I will say a word about some of the things we have done in North 
Carolina. We believe North Carolina is, in fact, the education State. 
For example, we started a program in early childhood development called 
Smart Start. The basic idea of Smart Start, which now exists in every 
county in North Carolina, was to get all kids into an early childhood 
development program and to get them on the right track so they later 
could be kept on the right track. Smart Start got them at a time when 
it had the most influence over them, which is before they reach the age 
of 6 or 7 and begin elementary school.
  Smart Start has worked. It has had a dramatic effect in our State of 
North Carolina. Smart Start, most importantly, is an example of what 
happens when we are willing to think outside the box. We have to be 
willing to constantly examine whether what we are doing is working, 
whether there are new, innovative, more creative ways to educate our 
young people. Again, the test ought to always be the same: What is in 
the best interest of the kids? What is going to be most effective in 
giving our kids the best education we can possibly give them?
  Smart Start is a perfect example of that. It is new. It was 
innovative when it came into play. It has worked. We have to be willing 
to continue to think about programs such as Smart Start.
  The way we dealt with failing schools in North Carolina is another 
example. We went across the State and identified those schools that 
were failing; that is, they were not doing the job that needed to be 
done. Talk about accountability, this is accountability in its purest 
form. If a school was failing, we essentially replaced the 
administration of that school. In other words, we put people in charge 
of running the school for the purpose of turning it around.
  The results have been absolutely phenomenal. Almost without 
exception, those schools have been turned around, the kids' grades have 
improved, and their performance has improved. Again, this is another 
example of being willing to think outside the box, to think creatively 
and innovatively.
  Recently, I was in North Carolina meeting with some folks who were 
working on the cutting edge of public education. They showed an example 
of a computer program that can be used by kids in the early grades of 
elementary school.
  They can take kids, particularly disadvantaged kids, and put them in 
front of a computer in an environment where they feel safe, where they 
do not have to perform in front of the other children so they do not 
feel as if they are a failure from the very beginning. It gets them 
engaged. The single most important thing with young kids is to get them 
engaged, to make them believe they have some control over their own 
destiny; that they can, in fact, compete; that they can effectively 
compete against all the kids; and, more important, it gives them self-
esteem. It makes them feel as if they can actually do something about 
their lives.
  This computer program had a phenomenal effect on the performance of 
disadvantaged kids. Once again, the test remains the same: What is in 
the best interest of the children? Are we willing to constantly 
challenge our approaches, how they can be better molded to fit the 
needs of the children? The computer program I just described does that; 
Smart Start does that; that is what our mechanism for dealing with 
disadvantaged and failing schools did in North Carolina.
  That brings me to the Lieberman amendment, which is just another 
example on the national level of being willing to address issues 
creatively, innovatively, and to think outside the box, to think about 
what is in the best interest of the kids and what is the most effective 
way of addressing the needs of kids.
  I will freely admit there are some provisions in the Lieberman 
amendment which caused me some concern when I first saw them, but it 
does many positive, creative things. First and foremost for me is the 
willingness to invest in title I, to provide more resources and more 
funding and to target those funds to the kids who most need the help.
  If my colleagues do what I have done over the course of the last 2\1/
2\, 3 years and go to schools across my State of North Carolina, the 
one thing that becomes immediately apparent is our kids do not compete 
on a level playing field. That was the original idea behind title I: 
trying to create a level playing field so no matter where a kid went to 
school, no matter where they were enrolled in school, whether it was in 
the country in rural North Carolina or Charlotte, Raleigh, or 
Greensboro, they had an equal opportunity to achieve and equal 
opportunity to learn.
  I have to give tremendous credit to Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, 
and all the moderate Democrats who worked so hard on this amendment. 
What they have done is identified the kids who most need the help--the 
place where the achievement gap exists--and gone about thinking 
creatively how we can make these kids achieve, how we can give them the 
best possible chance to be able to perform because we have to be 
willing to do something.
  We have consistently underfunded title I in the past. There has been 
a lot

[[Page 7130]]

of rhetoric about our willingness and interest in helping disadvantaged 
kids. Now we get a chance to step up to the plate. That is exactly what 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh have done. They have said: We are 
willing to put our money where our mouth is. We are willing to put the 
resources in place that need to be there to help these kids, these 
disadvantaged kids, to give them a chance to compete.
  That is all they ask for. That is what the computer program is about. 
That is what reducing class size is about. We have to give these 
children, who have not been achieving, who have not been responding to 
the traditional ways of educating young people, a chance to compete. We 
have to be willing to think outside the box. We have to be willing to 
say to ourselves that maybe we have been wrong in the past, maybe there 
are new and better ways to do this.
  That is exactly what the Lieberman amendment is aimed at doing. That 
is the reason the Lieberman amendment is supported by the moderate 
Democrats. The Lieberman amendment is just another in a long line of 
examples--except in this case it is at the national level--of new and 
creative ways of addressing the needs of our young people.
  As we go forward with this debate, and as we go forward with 
addressing the needs in educating our young people, we have to be 
willing to do what has been done in my home State of North Carolina, 
what has worked so well--programs such as Smart Start, programs dealing 
with failing schools, these computer programs that have been so 
effective, and now, in this case, on a national level, the Lieberman 
amendment.
  We have to be willing to question ourselves. We have to be willing to 
put the money in place that is needed to educate our young people, 
which is more than 1 percent of the national budget, and that, 
ultimately, we are committed to making the first decade of this century 
the education decade, and that we are committed to making our schools 
the envy of the world. We have the best economy, the best roads, the 
best technology in the world; it is high time we be able to say to the 
world, our schools are the envy of the world.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the Senator from Arkansas 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I listened with great interest to my 
distinguished colleague from North Carolina. I applaud his willingness 
to look at new and innovative approaches. I think his embrace of the 
Lieberman amendment is reflective of that desire for change.
  I note, as I listened to the Senator's comments, he spoke of the 
North Carolina experience and some of the things they have done in 
North Carolina--some of the innovative, creative, and constructive 
programs in North Carolina.
  I applaud the State of North Carolina. And I think that makes our 
case for Straight A's. I think the idea of giving those kinds of States 
which are doing good and innovative things more flexibility in carrying 
out those programs is exactly the direction we ought to be moving.
  I believe the Lieberman proposal moves us in that direction, that it 
is a constructive effort, that it has been a positive effort, that 
there has been, on the part of the moderate Democrats who have spoken 
on behalf of the Lieberman amendment, a recognition of the need for 
change. There has been a candid recognition of the failure of the top-
down, one-size-fits-all approach that we have taken for 35 years to the 
Federal role in education.
  I must say that I still have a number of concerns and reservations, 
and have opposition to some of the provisions in the Lieberman 
proposal. I still think there is too much regulatory effort from 
Washington. I think there is a failure to embrace the kind of bold 
steps we need that are in the underlying Educational Opportunities Act 
and that it would be a shame for us, while recognizing the need for 
change, recognizing the need for adequate funding, to only take a half 
step or a baby step in the direction of reform. That is why I believe 
the underlying bill is far preferable.
  I am pleased, however, that there have been ongoing discussions among 
those who believe that we need change on both sides of the aisle, that 
we need to provide greater flexibility, that we need to consolidate 
programs, that we need to streamline programs, and that there has been 
an effort to accomplish that. But I am very concerned that we still 
centralize too much power in the name of accountability. We still give 
too much authority to the Department of Education.
  Members have been talking about the importance of accountability all 
week and last week. If we are to have accountability for Federal 
education funds, we must first ensure that accountability is occurring 
not only at the local level but at the Federal level as well.
  So when I heard Senator Lieberman earlier say these are billions of 
American taxpayers' dollars that we are sending back to the States and 
to the schools; therefore, we have a right and a responsibility to 
require specifics on how that money is spent, that sounds very good, 
but I say that we should require the same kind of accountability from 
the Department of Education which oversees these programs that it 
administers.
  For the second year in a row, the U.S. Department of Education has 
been unable to address its financial management problems. Those 
management problems are very serious. In its past two audits, the 
Department was unable to account for parts of its $32 billion program 
budget and the $175 billion owed in student loans. They were unable to 
account for parts of that budget. Before we entrust the Department with 
administering more funds and creating more new programs, we must ensure 
that they are properly accounting for the funding they already have.
  The Lieberman amendment, though a step in the right direction, still 
leaves more power in the hands of the Federal Department of Education 
and provides a modicum of improvement for State flexibility that, in my 
opinion, is not enough.
  The House Education Committee has been holding hearings on the 
financial problems at the Department of Education and has found 
instances of duplicate payments to grant winners and an $800 million 
college loan to a single student. That is rather amazing.
  In its 1998 audit, the Department blamed its problems on a faulty new 
accounting system that cost $5.1 million, in addition to the cost of 
manpower to try to fix the system. A new accounting system will be the 
third new accounting system in 5 years.
  The most recent 1999 audit showed the following: The Department's 
financial stewardship remains in the bottom quartile of all major 
Federal agencies. If you stack them all up, you find the Department of 
Education down toward the bottom in the job they are doing in fiscal 
responsibility. The Department sent duplicate payments to 52 schools in 
1999, at a cost of more than $6.5 million. And perhaps most 
significant, none of the material weaknesses cited in the 1998 audit 
were corrected when the Department was reaudited in 1999.
  So they have failed to take the kind of corrective measures that 
might reestablish confidence and faith in the Department of Education. 
These problems make the Department vulnerable to fraud, waste, and 
abuse. I have submitted an amendment to this bill that would require an 
investigative study by the GAO into the financial records of the 
Department of Education.
  No one is suggesting we should eliminate the Department. No one is 
suggesting that having a voice for education at the Cabinet table is 
not critically important. But it is equally important that we require 
high standards of fiscal responsibility for the Department that 
oversees billions of dollars in taxpayer money. We entrust them with 
funding. We expect local schools to handle their funds properly. We 
should have the same kind of demand on the Department of Education.

[[Page 7131]]

  In addition, I have an amendment to provide increased flexibility 
among Federal formula grant programs for States and local school 
districts. It is identical to language included in legislation in the 
House to reauthorize ESEA.
  One of my concerns about the Lieberman amendment, although I do 
believe it is a step in the right direction and will provide expanded 
flexibility, is that it does not provide the kind of flexibility the 
States and local school districts are crying out for.
  This amendment would give States and local school districts the 
authority to transfer funds among selected ESEA programs to address 
local needs as they see fit. Covered programs would include 
professional development for teachers, education technology, safe and 
drug-free schools, title VI innovative education block grants, and the 
Emergency Immigrant Education Program.
  In addition, States may transfer funds into, but not away from, title 
I funding for disadvantaged students. So they would have the ability to 
take funds from these other programs and move them into title I for the 
benefit of disadvantaged students, but not the other way around.
  It would not be only money flowing into the title I but would provide 
greater flexibility for the local school district to move money between 
programs--transferability. States may transfer all of the program funds 
for which they have authority, except for the administrative funds. 
Local school districts may transfer up to 35 percent of the funds they 
receive without obtaining State permission, and all other funds under 
these programs, if their State approves.
  So this would provide for all of those States that are not fortunate 
enough to be included in the Straight A's Program, which the Presiding 
Officer has authored and expended so much energy and resources in 
promoting, but we still know that we have only 15 States in the 
underlying bill that are going to be able to participate in that 
program. So for those States not fortunate to be in the Straight A's 
Program, this would give them the ability to have some increased 
flexibility in devoting funds to arising needs in their schools. Local 
school boards know that needs often change from year to year. This 
gives them the authority to flexibly use their Federal funds to address 
those changing needs. As we all know, these local school boards are 
elected by the people just as we are in the Senate. I trust them to 
know the specific needs of their schools from year to year.
  I believe that the debate for now more than a week has been very 
illuminating to the American people. The course of the debate has moved 
us a long way toward reaching, if not consensus, at least a strong 
majority of this body recognizes what we sought to do in the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in producing the Educational 
Opportunities Act, which is supported by the American people and what 
we need to do--greater flexibility, greater local control, more child 
centered in our effort, high-performance expectations, a determination 
to see the achievement gap close between advantaged and disadvantaged 
students. And while initially we heard many on the other side simply 
defend the status quo in very plain terms, saying that we had to stick 
with the tried, true, and tested programs that have ``worked so well'' 
during the past 35 years, though with the expenditure of $120 billion, 
we cannot show that the achievement gap is closed.
  I believe the debate has moved a long way, and I look forward to 
seeing the opportunity to pass the Educational Opportunities Act, 
including the Straight A's provision.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I have 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Lieberman amendment. I want to be sure that all my colleagues 
understand that what the amendment would do is wipe out everything in 
S. 2--the bill we have been debating for the past week. The amendment 
would put in the provisions of S. 2254, a bill which was introduced 
about two weeks after the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions completed its work on S. 2.
  I believe that my colleagues should also understand that, if the 
Lieberman amendment is adopted, all amendments which were approved over 
the past week will be discarded along with S. 2. Moreover, no further 
amendments would be in order. I know that many members have prepared 
amendments which they wish to see considered. Should a substitute 
amendment be adopted, this will simply not be possible.
  There may very well be ideas in the Lieberman amendment which are 
worth considering, but using it as the basis to scrap 18 months worth 
of hearings and other committee deliberations and to rewrite the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act on the floor of the United 
States Senate is hardly the way to pursue those ideas.
  A major function of the committee system in Congress is to assure 
that a bipartisan group of members have the opportunity to devote extra 
time and study to particular issues.
  There may be disagreements among committee members and Members who do 
not serve on the committee may disagree with some of the conclusions 
reached by those who present a bill for the consideration of the full 
Senate. Nevertheless, there is a clear understanding of the issues at 
hand--so that a rational debate of differences can be held.
  The danger in dismissing the work of a committee entirely in order to 
adopt something which may appear more appealing is that serious 
problems may well go unnoticed. I believe there are numerous aspects of 
the substitute amendment which illustrate this point.
  For example, the amendment makes significant changes to the title I 
formula. Proposals to alter the formula by which title I funds are 
distributed are among the most difficult to analyze.
  Changes which at first glance appear to represent sound policy often 
have unintended consequences that do not become evident until actual 
runs are performed.
  Senator Lieberman has proposed a significant change to the way that 
title I funds are to be distributed within states. Currently, the vast 
majority of funds are distributed through the Basic Grant Program 85%, 
and the Concentration Grant Program, 15%.
  No funds have been made available for either the Targeted Grant 
Program or the Education Finance Incentive Grant Program. Importantly, 
the amount received by each state is determined by totaling amount that 
each eligible school district within the state is eligible to receive.
  If the Lieberman amendment were adopted, the most dramatic changes 
would be experienced at the school district level. Under current law, 
the states distribute 85% the money to local educational agencies, 
LEAs, in accordance with the Basic grant formula and 15% of the money 
through the Concentration Grant formula. This structure is retained 
under the committee bill. Importantly, the amount of funding to each 
state is based upon the amount that eligible school districts within 
the state are entitled to receive.
  Under the Lieberman proposal, money would be received by the state on 
the basis of one formula and then distributed to LEAs on the basis of a 
modified version of the Targeted Grant Program. This establishes a new 
precedent and raises basic questions of fairness. For the first time, 
the amount that a state receives will be based upon the eligibility of 
school districts which shall not be given the funds. Let me state this 
again. States will receive money on the basis of the eligibility of 
certain school districts. These school districts will not, however, 
receive the money. The money that the state received on the basis of 
their eligibility will be diverted to other school districts within the 
state.
  It may be argued by some that this improves targeting by sending 
money to high-poverty school districts. An examination of the actual 
numbers reveals that the proposal would establish deep inequalities 
among school districts across the Nation. It turns out

[[Page 7132]]

that not all poverty is treated equally. In fact, it depends upon which 
state you happen to be fortunate enough to reside in and even which 
school district governs your school.
  Let me provide some examples. These examples were selected simply by 
going through the LEA lists in alphabetical order to select districts 
with comparable poverty rates.
  In Alabama the Thomasville City School District has a poverty rate of 
30.3% and would lose 21.6% of its title I funding. In California, Burnt 
Ranch with a poverty rate of 30.5% would only lose 16% of its funding. 
New London School District in Connecticut with a poverty rate of 30.6% 
would receive an increase of 11.9% while Bridgeport with a poverty rate 
of 35.5% would be cut by .5%. The disparity in the dollar amounts of 
the reductions is even greater.
  My point is this. Many school districts which currently receive 
funding under the Basic and Concentration Grant Programs would receive 
steady annual cuts in their title I funds under this proposal. These 
would not be potential cuts--these would be real cuts. Cuts that would 
have to be made up by raising property taxes or cutting services.
  The Congressional Research Service has done runs for each LEA in each 
state. These runs reflect annual projected increases or decreases for 
each of the next three years. There is nothing magic about three years. 
Districts which are gaining funds would presumably continue to gain 
them and districts which are losing funds would presumably continue to 
lose them until an equilibrium is established in the out years.
  Our goal during this reauthorization should be to strengthen 
educational opportunities for all students. This proposal pits poor 
children in one school against poor children in another and should be 
soundly rejected.
  Proponents of the Lieberman substitute have spoken to the need to 
increase accountability. I do not believe there is any disagreement at 
all in this body that recipients of federal education funds must be 
held accountable. As I noted in my opening remarks when we began floor 
consideration of this bill, through a bipartisanship effort in 1994, we 
in the Congress decided that title I should carry out its mission of 
improving learning by assisting state and local efforts in the 
development of standards and assessments.
  Congress completely rewrote title I in 1994 and made the program more 
rigorous--requiring States to develop both content and student 
performance standards and assessments.
  Congress gave the states seven years to complete this difficult task. 
We are mid-stream in this process.
  In the name of accountability, the Lieberman substitute rewrites many 
of the standards, assessment, and school improvement provisions that 
were included in the 1994 law. I fear that rewriting these sections 
will not lead States down the path toward greater accountability, but 
rather will create detours for the states and school districts that 
have already spent several years going in the right direction. 
Developing and implementing standards-based reform and assessments is 
not a simple task. It requires sustained and consistent effort. Loading 
up States and school districts with new regulations, new reporting 
requirements, and more mandates is a distraction at best and a step 
backward at worst.
  Finally, I believe it is important to point out that most of the 
individual programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act outside of title I are repealed by the Lieberman 
substitute. A notable exception is that the amendment does authorize 
the President's class-size reduction program as a separate activity. 
Apparently, some merit is seen for that separate program which is not 
seen for programs such as the Reading Excellence Act, Gifted and 
Talented Education, Reading is Fundamental, or Character Education--to 
name just a few of the programs which are repeal by the substitute 
amendment.
  It is my understanding that the funds from the various programs which 
are repealed are to be used within four general categories: school 
improvement, innovative reform, safe learning environments, and 
technology.
  For example, the substitute amendment would repeal title IV of ESEA , 
the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities program. title IV funds 
would be pooled with the other funds allocated to repealed programs, 
and 15% of the funds in the pool are to be used for safe learning 
environments. The substitute amendment completely tosses overboard the 
title IV reforms in S. 2 which were developed by a bipartisan group of 
members--spearheaded by Senators DeWine, Dodd, and Murray. These 
reforms were designed to assure that drug-free schools funds are used 
for proven, effective programs--rather than being used in some of the 
frivolous ways we have seen in the past. The Lieberman amendment sets 
back the clock on these important revisions to the bill.
  As I indicated at the outset, it is important that we take great care 
in crafting changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The 
programs in this Act represent virtually all the support provided by 
the Federal Government in support of elementary and secondary schools. 
Although the federal share is small relative to the contributions made 
by States and localities, it is a substantial investment--approaching 
$15 billion a year.
  I believe that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions has taken its responsibilities seriously in developing S. 2 
over the past 18 months. We held 25 hearings on all aspects of the Act 
and have spent considerable time discussing the issues it includes--
with much of this work being done on a bipartisan basis. I am pleased 
to have heard so much today about bipartisan cooperation with respect 
elementary and secondary education. Although the final vote out of 
committee was on a party-line basis, the fact of the matter is that 
much of the bill was developed through bipartisan discussions.
  I have spoken many times on this floor on behalf of bipartisan 
efforts to help our nation's school children, and I remain willing to 
engage in such efforts. I am not, however, willing to turn my back on 
the work the committee has put into S. 2 in order to embrace a proposal 
which reduces title I funding for many school districts throughout the 
country, imposes additional reporting burdens on States and localities, 
and repeals many programs which have been of value to our nation's 
schools and students.
  I want to say again that I strongly oppose the Lieberman amendment.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the 
Lieberman amendment, which is based on our bill ``The Public Education 
Reinvestment, Reinvention, and Responsibility Act of 2000''--better 
known as ``Three R's.'' I believe that this bill represents a 
realistic, effective approach to improving public education--where 90% 
of students are educated.
  For the past 35 years, when the time has come for the Senate to 
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it has done so 
with bipartisan support. However, over the past week, most of what 
we've seen on the Senate floor has been partisan wrangling--from both 
sides of the aisle--over how to reform education. I think that's 
tragic. Our nation's children deserve a serious debate and real 
reform--not partisan bickering and election-year gamesmanship.
  Mr. President, addressing problems in education is going to take more 
than cosmetic reform. It will require some tough decisions and a 
willingness to work together. We need to let go of the tired partisan 
fighting over more spending versus block grants, and take a middle 
ground approach that will truly help our States, school districts--and 
most importantly, our students.
  During the past several weeks, I am pleased to have been part of a 
bipartisan group of Senators who have put partisan politics aside and 
are seeking to find such a middle ground. Our group has been working to 
meld the best parts of all of our plans--in the hope that we can 
actually get a bill passed this year. In a short period of time, we 
have made tremendous progress and found more agreement between our two 
parties than the past

[[Page 7133]]

week's floor debate has shown. I am hopeful that we will soon reach 
agreement on a bipartisan compromise, but even if we do not, we have 
laid the groundwork for the future. At some point, the entire Senate 
will have to put politics aside and deal with education reform. Our 
plan can serve as the foundation for that compromise--and I look 
forward to working with our group to make that happen.
  Mr. President, I believe the Federal government must continue to be a 
partner with States, school districts, and educators to improve public 
education. But it is time to take a fresh look at the structure of 
Federal education programs--building upon past successes and putting an 
end to our past failures.
  The amendment before us now--our ``Three R's'' bill--does just that. 
Three R's makes raising student achievement for all students--and 
closing the achievement gap between low-income and more affluent 
students--our top priorities. To accomplish this, our bill centers 
around three principles.
  First, we believe that we must provide more funding for education--
and that Federal dollars must be targeted to disadvantaged students. 
Federal funds make up only 7% of all money spent on education, so it is 
essential that we target those funds on the students who need them the 
most.
  Second, we believe that States and local school districts are in the 
best position to know what their educational needs are. Three R's gives 
them more flexibility to determine how they will use Federal dollars to 
best meet those needs.
  Finally--and I believe this is the lynchpin of our approach--we 
believe that in exchange for this increased flexibility, there must 
also be accountability for results. These principles are a pyramid, 
with accountability being the base that supports the federal 
government's grant of flexibility and funds.
  For too long, we have seen a steady stream of Federal dollars flow to 
States and school districts--regardless of how well they educated their 
students. This has to stop. We need to reward schools that do a good 
job. We need to provide assistance and support to schools that are 
struggling to do a better job. And we must stop subsidizing failure. 
Our highest priority must be educating children--not perpetuating 
broken systems.
  Mr. President, the ``Three R's bill takes a fresh look at public 
education. I believe it represents a real middle ground, building upon 
all the progress we've made and tackling the problems we still face. 
This bill--by using the concepts of increased funding, targeting, 
flexibility--and most importantly, accountability--demonstrates how we 
can work with our State and local partners to make sure every child 
receives the highest quality education--and a chance to live a 
successful, productive life. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Lieberman-Bayh amendment.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the quality of education in this country is 
of enormous concern to the American people, and is a defining issue in 
Congress this year. I believe that few priorities are more important 
than the future of our Nation's youth. When Americans lack education 
and skills, demands on Government support rise, and the long-term 
financial costs to the Nation are enormous. Our primary goal during 
this debate is to find the best way to bring every one of our students 
up to a high level of academic performance, in order that they may be 
successful, contributing members of the national and global economy.
  As a former Governor of Nevada, I believe that education is first a 
State and local responsibility. Creative and innovative education 
programs have been initiated by many governors at the state level, and 
the local school districts who interact with students and families in 
their communities on a daily basis are better positioned than federal 
bureaucrats to identify their schools' specific needs, and to target 
the appropriate resources to meet these needs.
  The primary purpose of the New Democrat amendment to the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, introduced by Senators Lieberman and Bayh 
and of which I am a cosponsor, is to deliver better educational results 
by helping states and local school districts raise academic achievement 
for all children. The amendment recognizes that the Federal Government 
has an important role to play in working with states and localities on 
education. It also calls on the Federal Government to work with states 
to strengthen the standards by which states and local districts are 
held accountable for increased student achievement, and at the same 
time, to give states the flexibility to choose the programs that work 
best for their districts and schools.
  The Federal Government has assumed the specific responsibility of 
ensuring that all students, especially those students who face 
significant disadvantages, receive a quality education, thereby 
preparing them to function as successful adults and to lead fulfilling 
lives. The Lieberman/Bayh amendment fulfills this responsibility by 
setting clear national goals. These goals are to increase targeting to 
schools with highest poverty concentrations; to consolidate 
professional development and teacher training initiatives to improve 
teacher, principal and administrator quality; to help immigrant 
students become proficient in English and achieve high levels of 
learning in all subjects; and to stimulate ``High Performance 
Initiatives'' by giving states money to choose what programs work best 
for raising the academic achievement of their students. States can use 
this ``High Performance Initiatives'' money to focus on priorities they 
deem necessary to the education of their students; priorities such as 
innovative school improvement strategies, expanding after-school and 
summer school opportunities, improving school safety and discipline, 
and developing technological literacy. These are all important goals.
  More specifically, the Lieberman/Bayh amendment operates under the 
philosophy that getting money to those students who need it the most is 
crucial, and it strengthens our national commitment to targeting aid to 
disadvantaged students and schools. Under title I, the New Democrat 
alternative's formula sends 75 percent of new money to states and local 
districts with the highest concentrations of poverty. The amendment 
also distributes teacher quality money based on poverty and student 
population, and distributes money to help immigrant students become 
proficient in English and achieve high levels of learning by targeting 
aid to states with high concentrations of student with limited English 
proficiency.
  Within the parameters of the Lieberman/Bayh amendment, states and 
localities get flexibility to choose what programs and strategies work 
best to raise their students' achievement. The amendment strengthens 
the decisionmaking authority of state and local officials by 
eliminating some of the strings that come attached to federal dollars. 
Under this new approach, states develop their own academic standards, 
their own assessments for measuring annual progress in student 
achievement, and their own goals for improving school performance. 
States also choose which initiatives and programs are of priority, and 
which will work best to raise academic achievement.
  At the same time that states have this new flexibility, national 
interests and federal goals are protected and advanced, both fiscally 
and educationally. The new Democrat alternative does this by holding 
states accountable for meeting the standards they set. Money is not 
enough to raise student achievement. Along with the added money and 
flexibility in the amendment, states and districts are given the 
responsibility of setting performance goals for their students, and of 
demonstrating clear progress towards these goals.
  Not all currently funded educational programs produce the great 
results we are looking for. The Lieberman/Bayh amendment sets 
measurable standards so that states and local districts can evaluate 
the programs they are using, and see what is and what is not raising

[[Page 7134]]

their students' academic achievement. The states have the flexibility 
to choose the programs that work best for their student populations, 
but the Federal Government, under the Lieberman/Bayh amendment, holds 
them accountable for raising student achievement.
  Under the new Democrat alternative, there are real consequences for 
chronic failure. For the first time ever, states that fail to meet the 
performance objectives under any title would be penalized. After 3 
years of failure, a state's administrative funding would be cut by 50 
percent, and after 4 years of failure, programming funds to the state 
under the ``High Performance Initiatives'' title would be cut by 30 
percent. The Lieberman/Bayh amendment also requires states to impose 
sanctions on local school districts that fail to meet annual 
performance goals, and rewards states who exceed their goals by 
receiving even greater flexibility in using their program funding to 
meet their own specific priorities. In this way, Federal funding is 
directly linked to the performance of schools in meeting the goals the 
schools themselves have set.
  In summary, the new Democrat alternative was written with the 
underlying philosophy that state and local officials are better 
positioned than Federal bureaucrats to identify their specific needs, 
and to target the appropriate resources to meet these needs. At the 
same time, the amendment sets clear national goals and holds states 
responsible for producing progress toward these goals. The current 
system is far less fiscally responsible than the Lieberman/Bayh 
approach because it does nothing to ensure that taxpayer dollars are 
getting a real return on their investment. In the Lieberman/Bayh 
amendment, the Federal Government maintains control and plays a role in 
setting national priorities in education. It also strengthens our 
national commitment to target aid to disadvantaged students and 
schools, and holds states accountable for producing results in exchange 
for the flexibility. In conclusion, I would like to express my support 
for the new Democrat alternative amendment, introduced by Senators 
Lieberman and Bayh, because I believe it will significantly and 
positively reform the current education system, while successfully 
raising the academic achievement of all students.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Lieberman amendment 
to ESEA. I am very supportive of the efforts of the Senator from 
Connecticut and my other colleagues who have worked so diligently on 
this amendment. This amendment is based upon a theory that I am very 
supportive of: increased flexibility in exchange for increased 
accountability. This means that States and school districts should have 
more flexibility in using Federal funds, but they must meet certain 
achievement measures, and most important, those achievement gains must 
hold true for children of all races, all ethnicities, and regardless of 
gender. Therefore, I am sorry that I am not rising in support of this 
amendment, because it includes many components of education reform that 
I firmly believe are necessary to improving the public education system 
for all students.
  The Lieberman amendment would target the title I formula even more to 
the most highly disadvantaged students. This amendment would also 
dramatically increase our investment in the title I program. The 
Federal Government's number one priority should and must be to ensure 
that economically disadvantaged students are provided with 
supplementary educational resources, and I commend my colleagues for 
increasing this critical investment in this program.
  The Lieberman amendment would also increase the accountability of 
Federal dollars, a component of education reform that I know is 
critical to improving the public education system. The Federal 
Government has an obligation to ensure that we are getting the most 
from our investment in public education, by holding our teachers, our 
schools, and our students accountable to the highest standards. This 
amendment would make a great step toward increasing the Federal 
Government's investment in accountability. Accountability is the third 
side of an education triangle that also includes standards and 
assessments. Now that many states have adopted high standards and tests 
to measure students' progress toward those benchmarks, they have turned 
their attention to making sure that performance matters. Achieving real 
accountability in our schools is a large part of what this amendment is 
all about and I believe increased accountability is critically 
important for the state of public education in this country. Again I 
commend my colleagues for focusing their amendment on this important 
element of public school reform.
  The Lieberman approach focuses on public school choice, another 
element of public education reform that I support and know to be 
critical to improving educational attainment for all children. Public 
school choice is becoming more and more a part of the American 
educational system. In 1993, only 11% of students attended schools 
chosen by their parents. In 1999, 15% of students attended schools 
chosen by their parents. While still serving a relatively small 
percentage of students, charter schools and magnet schools are becoming 
an increasingly common tool to improve the education of our nation's 
children. In 1994, there were only 100 charter schools in this country. 
Today, there are 1,700. Currently there are over 5,200 magnet schools 
serving approximately 1.5 million students. Magnet schools foster 
diversity and promote academic excellence in math, science, performing 
arts and marketable vocational skills.
  Parents deserve more choice in their children's public schools. 
Increasing parental choice will allow healthy competition between 
public schools. Choice, of course, necessarily implies that one thing 
is being chosen over another. As a result, choice means competition 
which is a force that often hastens change and improvement in any 
organization or system. All schools, district and charter, are forced 
by competition to examine why parents, students, or prospective 
teachers might be choose to go to other schools. Even teachers' unions 
and school board associations are signing on to the concept of publicly 
funded schools that operate outside most state and district 
regulations. In early 1996, the National Education Association promised 
$1.5 million to help its affiliates start charter schools in five 
States and to study their progress. I am pleased that my esteemed 
colleagues have made public school choice a primary component of this 
amendment.
  This amendment also deals with an issue we have frequently discussed 
during this ESEA debate: the consolidation of many Federal programs. 
Let me say that I am not opposed to consolidating some Federal 
programs. I do believe that there are important programs that are not 
overly burdensome on states and schools and that have proven 
successful, and I believe that the success of these programs is due in 
part on the competitive grant process and Federal guidelines of the 
programs. I know the Federal Government does not have all the answers 
and that we cannot always anticipate the needs of states and local 
school districts throughout this country, and though I have some 
specific concerns about the level of consolidation in the Lieberman 
amendment, I support the streamlining of Federal programs and providing 
flexibility to states and school districts.
  Despite my support for so many things in this amendment, I am 
ultimately unable to support the Lieberman approach. The Federal 
Government is the only entity that ensures funding is provided to the 
most disadvantaged populations in this country, like migrant children, 
homeless and runaway youth, and immigrant children. I am greatly 
concerned about the loss of Federal support for these vulnerable youth. 
Therefore, I cannot support the Lieberman approach despite my 
commitment to so many of its provisions. The Federal Government's 
involvement in education has always been to ensure that vulnerable 
populations are provided the additional funds that are necessary to 
their educational success. And I have heard

[[Page 7135]]

from those people in Massachusetts who work with homeless young people 
and with troubled youth. And they have told me how incredibly important 
this Federal money is to these children. These children have so much 
going against their ability to succeed, I believe we must maintain our 
commitment to those children.
  I am encouraged by the work my colleagues have done on this 
amendment. I am supportive of their new approach to public education 
reform and their attempt to draft legislation that would attract the 
support of both Republicans and Democrats. I am frustrated and saddened 
by the very partisan nature of this year's ESEA debate, and commend my 
colleagues for their fresh approach to ESEA reauthorization and their 
attempts to attract support from both sides of the aisle.
  I regret that I cannot support this amendment, but I look forward to 
working with many my colleagues to address the concerns that I and 
other Senators have. I hope we can resolve these concerns and that we 
can bring this divided Senate together on the issue of public 
education. I look greatly forward to working with my colleagues in the 
future and deeply appreciate their hard work and new perspective on 
this critically important issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 5 minutes before the 
vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. President, first of all, I thank Senator Lieberman and his 
cosponsors for the focus and attention they have given to really the 
central priority for all families in this country in the area of 
education. The restlessness those Senators and others have with regard 
to making sure we are going to try to reach every needy child in this 
country is something we all should embrace and support.
  I am not sure at this hour of the day, so to speak, in terms of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, if it is possible to bring 
about the kind of change and focus that is desirable. But there are 
broad areas of support and agreement for that concept in terms of 
enhanced resources and enhanced accountability.
  I certainly look forward to working with him in the future on this 
whole area of education.
  I think the ideas that have been out there in terms of Safe and Drug-
Free Schools, which has been basically a bipartisan effort in giving 
national focus and attention to that, and a sense of urgency, are still 
important to preserve. Senator DeWine and Senator Dodd worked out an 
effort in that area in our committee. I think it is important to 
preserve it. The progress we have made in technology I think is worth 
preserving. The afterschool programs are really the most heavily 
subscribed programs. They also have bipartisan support and are a matter 
of national urgency. I don't think they have gotten the kind of 
attention they should have in the Lieberman amendment.
  Finally, there are several programs that are working very well in 
terms of being included in the consolidation program. One of them I 
have particular interest in is ``Ready to Learn.'' There is $11 million 
on ``Ready to Learn.'' It is done through the Public Broadcasting 
System. It reaches 94 percent of the country, 87 million homes, 37 
million children, and received 57 Emmys. If you ask any public 
broadcaster in the 130 stations nationwide what the best children's 
program is, they will mention this one. I don't want to see that lost 
and sent back to any State thinking that could be recomposed.
  The Star Schools Program works through nonprofits, again, led by 
strong bipartisan support, to try to reach out to schools that may not 
have a math and science teacher and up-to-date educational programs, 
and has been done through a number of States. It has been very 
effective through nonprofits. That is another program. It is a small 
program, but it has enormous educational values.
  With reluctance, because I have great friendship and affection for my 
friend from Connecticut, I will not vote in support of it. But I want 
to certainly guarantee to him and to all of those who have been 
uniformly strong sponsors in our committee that I want to work closely 
with our colleagues on the other side to try to give greater focus and 
attention to the problems of the neediest students in the country.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded.
  Do the Senators wish the vote to begin early?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed 
with the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3127. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth), 
the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Thompson), and the Senator from 
Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 13, nays 84, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

                                YEAS--13

     Bayh
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Moynihan
     Robb

                                NAYS--84

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Hagel
     Roth
     Thompson
  The amendment (No. 3127) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________