[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12793-12806]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4577 which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4577) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Harkin (for Daschle) amendment No. 3658, to fund a 
     coordinated national effort to prevent, detect, and educate 
     the public concerning Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal 
     Alcohol Effect and to identify effective interventions for 
     children, adolescents, and adults with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome 
     and Fetal Alcohol Effect.
       Hutchison/Collins amendment No. 3619, to clarify that funds 
     appropriated under this Act to carry out innovative programs 
     under section 6301(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 shall be available for same gender 
     schools.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Hutchison 
amendment, which would allow local school districts to use Title VI 
funds to establish same-gender schools if they so choose. I have 
opposed a similar amendment in the past because I have been concerned 
that many of these ``separate but equal'' programs are sometimes not 
equal in reality. I am pleased that the Senator from Texas has made 
modifications to her amendment that deal with these concerns, and 
ensures that single-gender schools will not result in a system where 
one gender is educationally disadvantaged.
  I believe this amendment is another important step in our drive 
toward more flexibility and local control in education. I am pleased to 
be an original cosponsor of the Public Education Reinvestment, 
Reinvention and Responsibility Act--better known as ``Three R's''--
which would also provide school districts with the flexibility to 
design programs that best meets their needs. The Hutchison amendment, 
which allows local officials to make the decision to set up a single-
gender school, is consistent with the ``Three R's'' philosophy. We must 
continue to move toward a public education system that gives States and 
local school districts--who are in the best position to know what their 
educational needs are--the ability to create innovative programs that 
allow all students to achieve to high standards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:40 
a.m. having arrived, there will be 4 minutes of debate prior to the 
vote on or in relation to the Hutchison amendment No. 3619.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if there is no one on the other side, 
which

[[Page 12794]]

I believe is the case, I ask unanimous consent to give 2 minutes to 
Senator Collins, and then 2 minutes to myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Texas for her 
extraordinary leadership on this issue. She has been an advocate for 
girls and women in so many different ways, and she truly is committed 
to ensuring that young girls growing up get the very best education 
they deserve, and that they have every opportunity available to them. 
The amendment that she has proposed, which I am proud to cosponsor, is 
in keeping with that commitment.
  I commend her for her leadership on this very important issue.
  I first became very interested in the issue of having same-gender 
classrooms because of an experience of a high school all-girls math 
class in northern Maine. This math class, which is an advanced math 
class taught at Presque Isle High School, has been proven to be of 
enormous benefit to the young women who are enrolled in it. They do 
very advanced math. It has been shown that their SAT scores soared.
  Moreover, it gives them the confidence that they can handle advanced 
math and science and other subjects that unfortunately women sometimes 
have felt uneasy about, even though obviously girls and women have 
every ability in the world to handle such subjects. This class has been 
an enormous success for the girls at Presque Isle High School.
  Unfortunately, a few years ago, the Department of Education objected 
to this class despite the fact that it was showing such enormous 
results for the young women who were enrolled in it. They were taught 
by a very gifted teacher, Donna Lisnik, who has subsequently gone on to 
be the principal of a school in Aroostook County. But she was the one 
who originated this course.
  The Department of Education objected because it was a same-sex class. 
They have been able to get around that. But that shouldn't require a 
waiver or a circumvention of the law.
  The amendment of the Senator from Texas would cure this situation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins, the cosponsor 
of this amendment, who has worked with me because of the very example 
that she just gave.
  She has the situation in her State where this actually has curbed the 
creativity of public schools in offering more options for parents who 
believe their adolescent boys or their young girls would do better in a 
single-sex setting. In fact, in Detroit, MI, there is a boys school 
that has the same success that Senator Collins has just mentioned about 
a girls class in Maine; the boys are able to have a single-sex 
atmosphere. And sometimes it is shown by studies that adolescent boys 
do better in that atmosphere.
  We want public schools to have the same options and the Federal help 
that are available in parochial and private schools for creative 
approaches and solutions to our education problems. We want options, 
not mandates. But we want every child in this country to reach his or 
her full potential. We want that child to be given opportunities in a 
way that best fit that child's needs.
  That is why I think this amendment is going to be overwhelmingly 
accepted in the Senate--just as these amendments have been in the past. 
It will give the guidance to the Department of Education that will 
clarify the issue once and for all; that we want absolutely every 
option available in our public schools that will give every child in 
this country the ability to succeed.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor and ask my colleagues for their support of the 
Hutchison-Collins amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Hutchison 
amendment numbered 3619.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     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
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 3619) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3658

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 4 minutes for debate on the 
Daschle amendment No. 3658.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of the 
thousands of individuals who have been impacted by prenatal exposure to 
alcohol, their families, and the estimated 12,000 children who will be 
born with fetal alcohol syndrome, FAS, or fetal alcohol effects, FAE, 
during the next year.
  My amendment will provide $25 million to establish a competitive 
grant program to fund prevention and treatment services to individuals 
with FAS and FAE and their families. This grant program is absolutely 
critical for several reasons.
  FAS and FAE are 100 percent preventable. Despite this fact, the 
Centers for Disease Control have reported a six-fold increase in the 
incidence of babies born with FAS between 1960 and 1995. One in five 
women still drink during pregnancy.
  Once a child has been born with FAS or FAE, there is still much we 
can do to help prevent the secondary disabilities that often accompany 
the disease.
  For too long, we have treated the birth of an FAS or FAE child as the 
losing end of a battle, rather than the beginning of one we can win. We 
have neglected children with FAS and FAE at the peril of those 
individuals, their families and their communities.
  Let me illustrate this point with two real life examples--Karli 
Schrider and Lucy Klene.
  Twenty-eight years ago, when Karli's mother, Kathy, was pregnant with 
Karli, it was not uncommon for expectant mothers to be told to ``drink 
a beer a day for a fat, healthy baby.'' Women who were in danger of 
miscarrying were sometimes hospitalized and given alcohol intravenously 
for five or six hours in the mistaken belief it would prevent 
miscarriage.
  Back then, it never crossed Kathy's mind that her occasional glasses 
of wine might be harming her unborn child. Besides, just the year 
before, Kathy had had another baby who was perfectly healthy, and she 
drank during that pregnancy too.
  The first time Karli was misdiagnosed, she was an infant. A doctor 
attributed her developmental

[[Page 12795]]

delays to chronic ear infections. When she was 4 years old, a 
psychologist offered another explanation for Karli's difficulties. He 
said she was being ``willfully disobedient.''
  When Karli was 8, a team of specialists misdiagnosed her again--with 
cerebral palsy.
  Eight years later, when Karli was 16, Kathy was training to be a 
substance abuse counselor. As part of her training, she attended a 
conference on ``crack babies.'' Sitting in the audience, she was 
stunned. Every characteristic of ``crack babies'' the lecturer 
described, Karli had. But Kathy had never used crack.
  She tracked down the few studies that had been done at that time on 
the effects of alcohol on fetuses. Again, she saw the same list of 
symptoms.
  Years later, researchers would announce that most of the symptoms 
they originally thought were the result of fetal exposure to crack were 
actually the result of fetal alcohol exposure, and that alcohol is much 
more devastating to fetuses than crack--or any other drug.
  Learning the real cause of Karli's special challenges has not 
lessened them. FAS and FAE are lifelong conditions. But, knowing the 
truth has enabled Kathy--and others in Karli's life --to focus less on 
Karli's deficits, and more on her strengths.
  One of those strengths is Karli's extraordinary kindness and empathy. 
In addition to her volunteer work at NOFAS, Karli also volunteers to 
help people with cerebral palsy, and the elderly. Two years ago, she 
was named one of America's ``Thousand Points of Light'' by former 
President Bush. She is an inspiration to everyone who meets her, and 
one of the reasons I believe so deeply in advocating for children with 
FAS and FAE.
  Another reason is a pint-sized girl named Lucy Klene. Lucy is 4 years 
old. She spent the first two years of her life in an orphanage in 
Russia. When she was 2, she was adopted by Stephan and Lydia Klene, of 
Herndon, Virginia. The Klenes also adopted a son from Russia, Paul, who 
is 3 years old and has no apparent fetal alcohol effects.
  Within a month after bringing Lucy and Paul home, Stephan and Lydia 
began to suspect that Lucy had special challenges. Over the next 16 
months, Lucy was evaluated eight times by pediatricians and other 
specialists.
  Not one of them recognized the symptoms of Lucy's fetal alcohol 
effects. Finally, scouring the Internet, Stephan stumbled on the truth. 
He and Lydia took their research to Lucy's pediatrician, who read it 
and confirmed their hunch.
  Today, Lucy is a talented little gymnast who attends special 
education pre-school. And while it's still too early to know for sure, 
her doctor and parents think there is a good chance she will be able to 
live an independent and productive life when she grows up.
  Together, Karli and Lucy illustrate the challenges that families with 
FAS and FAE face and the need for expanded prevention, early detection 
and real support for FAS/FAE families. While we have certainly seen 
progress--it took Karli's family 16 years to get a correct diagnosis 
and Lucy's family about 16 months--there is still much more that needs 
to be done.
  A study recently released by Anne Streissguth at the University of 
Washington illustrates the importance of early intervention with 
individuals with FAS and FAE:
  94 percent of children and adults with FAS experience mental health 
problems;
  45 percent exhibit inappropriate sexual behavior;
  43 percent have a disrupted school experience;
  42 percent have trouble with the law;
  Of the 90 adults studied, 83 percent do not live independently and 79 
percent have problems with employment; and,
  72 percent have been victims of physical or sexual abuse or domestic 
violence.
  This study also showed that the presence of protective factors such 
as an early diagnosis and a stable and nurturing home reduce secondary 
disabilities. Even though early diagnosis is critical for preventing 
secondary disabilities, only 11 percent of kids and adults studied were 
diagnosed by age 6.
  While intensive intervention is critical to enabling individuals with 
FAS and FAE to live productive, safe lives, there is still widespread 
ignorance about this disease in the health care, scientific and 
educational communities. There is little advice available to families 
on parenting skills or how to utilize outside resources.
  Even when parents seek help from professionals, those teachers, 
counselors or health care providers may not have the training to 
provide necessary assistance or offer the right information.
  Teachers often do not have the tools they need to serve these 
special-need students. Physicians frequently do not know which 
medications to provide, if any. And, like Karli, many individuals with 
FAS and FAE still remain unidentified and mislabeled as noncompliant or 
delinquent.
  This amendment will fund a grant program within HHS to develop FAS 
training and treatment models that can be replicated around the 
country. The grant program was authorized by Congress in the fiscal 
year 1999 appropriations bill. The program will provide much-needed 
assistance to families, who, in many cases, have been bearing the 
burden of this national public health problem unaided and alone.
  The grant program will be directed by the Centers for Disease Control 
and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 
Portions of the funding for the grant will come from each of these 
agencies.
  It is time for Congress to join those who have already dedicated time 
and resources to this effort. Particularly, I want to recognize the 
National Organization of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome that has been aiding 
children and families and fighting for prevention for the last 10 
years. I would also like to thank the directors of the Family Resource 
Institute, who have educated and been a voice for parents of children 
with alcohol-related birth defects. I also greatly appreciate the work 
of those in my own state, including Judy Struck and those at the 
University Affiliated Program, Charles Schaad, and the South Dakota 
March of Dimes.
  The National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, NIAAA, has 
been studying FAS and FAE for more than 20 years, and it has provided 
excellent leadership with the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee. The 
Centers for Disease Control and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration should also be commended for their growing 
dedication to this cause.
  We have developed a model for dealing with FAS and FAE that will 
bring our nation's best scientists together with advocates, service 
providers and families and will enable us to develop our knowledge of 
successful prevention, diagnosis, early detection, and education. It is 
the result of extensive consultation and input from experts in the 
field. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this important 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before I comment on the pending 
amendment, the ranking member of the subcommittee and I have conferred, 
as we have been trying to have all of the amendments submitted. We make 
a request at this time that any Senator who has an amendment to this 
bill, let us know what it is by 11 o'clock. It is our intention, 
shortly thereafter, to propound a unanimous consent request that the 
amendments submitted to us at that time be the only amendments which 
will be considered on the bill. That is by 11 o'clock.
  Briefly, on the pending amendment offered by the Senator from South 
Dakota, it is a very good amendment which allocates $25 million to 
fetal alcohol syndrome. Some $15 million is currently allocated. It may 
be even a greater amount should be allocated for this very pressing 
problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

[[Page 12796]]


  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from South Dakota 
for bringing attention to this serious problem. Fetal alcohol syndrome 
affects 2,000 infants born every year. At the same time, we must keep 
in mind that birth defects generally are a major, even larger health 
care problem in this country. Birth defects are the leading cause of 
infant mortality, and about 150,000 children will be born with a major 
birth defect annually.
  This year, CDC is spending only $16.5 million total on all birth 
defects, with an additional $2 million being spent on a folic acid 
awareness campaign for which I fought and worked with my colleagues in 
this body to support. The $10 million for CDC to fight fetal alcohol 
syndrome would be well spent. At the same time, we need to 
significantly increase our overall investment in the fight against 
birth defects.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member and 
Senator Daschle as we move forward to make sure this critical area of 
children's health is adequately addressed in this bill and in the work 
of the CDC in the coming year.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield back 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 question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3658. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?-
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     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
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Allard
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The amendment (No. 3658) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senator from Iowa and I had announced 
previously our request that all Senators submit amendments by 11 a.m. 
this morning. It is our intention, as soon thereafter as we can, to 
compile a list and to ask unanimous consent that that be the exclusive 
list for amendments to be considered on this bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I fully support 
him in that. At 11 o'clock, which is about 20 minutes from now, we hope 
to be informed of all amendments. I say to Senators on our side, please 
let us know, either through the Cloakroom or directly, because shortly 
after that, I will be joining with our chairman in propounding a 
unanimous consent request to make that a finite list.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Iowa. We had announced that between the votes, but we repeat it at this 
time. We think we can conclude this bill today. If we have the 
cooperation of Senators on letting us know about their amendments, we 
will be able to do that.
  Mr. President, we are about to have an amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy. This has been 
worked out, but I formally ask unanimous consent that time on the 
amendment by Senator Kennedy be limited to 60 minutes equally divided 
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Kennedy amendment will be followed in 
sequence by an amendment by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd. 
This has been cleared.
  I ask unanimous consent that the time on the Dodd amendment, prior to 
the vote in relation to that amendment, be limited to 30 minutes 
equally divided with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor to Senator Kennedy.


                           Amendment No. 3661

 (Purpose: To provide an additional $202,000,000 to carry out title II 
                  of the Higher Education Act of 1965)

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Reed, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray, 
     Mr. Levin, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3661.

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

       At the end of the title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . TEACHER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT.

       In addition to any other funds appropriated under this Act 
     to carry out title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
     there are appropriated $202,000,000 to carry out such title.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I offer this amendment along with 
Senators Reed, Bingaman, Wellstone, Dodd, Murray, Levin, Schumer, and 
Durbin.
  Mr. President, this amendment is one of the most important policy 
matters that we are going to consider on this appropriation bill, and 
that is whether we are going to provide adequate resources to train the 
needed number of teachers for our classrooms and for children across 
this country.
  We believe--at least I do--that the funds that have been allocated in 
the current bill are inadequate to do the job. I spelled out in my 
earlier comments that I know the Appropriations Committee received 
allocations. But, I don't believe those allocations given to the 
committee were adequate to really respond to the challenges we are 
facing in education. It is as a result of the fact that the Republican 
leadership wants to have a tax break. It seems to me that these 
priorities take preference over that. I wish these priorities had been 
given additional funds. In spite of that, we ought to make an 
expression in the Senate about our priorities for the children of this 
country, particularly in the area of training teachers, so that we are 
going to have a well-trained teacher in every classroom in the country.
  Mr. President, it was only in February of this year that the Wall 
Street Journal had an article on the front page:

         Schools Turn to Temp Agencies for Substitute Teachers

       Most school districts begin each day with a nerve-racking 
     hunt for substitutes to fill in for absent teachers. With a 
     tight labor market making the task especially tough, a few 
     are starting to outsource the job. Kelly Services Inc. 
     unveiled the first nationwide substitute teacher program four 
     months ago,

[[Page 12797]]

     and now handles screening and scheduling for 20 schools in 10 
     States.

  Mr. President, this is a national indictment of policy out of the 
local, State, and Federal level, where we are using the Kelly Services, 
which have provided professional secretaries and office assistants, and 
now they are out there recruiting teachers to teach in the schools for 
the children of this country. We have to be more serious about this 
issue. We know what needs to be done, and we ought to get about the 
business of doing it.
  We have a number of groups that support our amendment, which include 
the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the 
Association of Community Colleges, American Council on Education, the 
National Association of Independent Colleges, the NEA, the AFT, Council 
of Chief State School Officers, and others.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full list of those supporting the 
program be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Groups That Support the Kennedy Teacher Quality Amendment

       American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
       American Association of Collegiate Registrars and 
     Admissions Officers.
       American Association of Community Colleges.
       American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
       American Council on Education.
       American Federation of Teachers.
       Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.
       Boston College.
       National Association of College and University Business 
     Officers.
       National Association of Independent Colleges and 
     Universities.
       National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant 
     Colleges.
       National Education Association.
       National PTA.
       The California State University.
       Clark University.
       The College Board.
       Council of Chief State School Officers.
       Lesley College, School of Education.
       University of California.
       University of Massachusetts.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in 1996, what is basically the most 
important document that has been published on the need for getting 
high-quality teachers for the children of this country has been 
published by the National Commission on Teaching in America's Future, 
in September of 1996--``What Matters Most: Teaching for America's 
Future.'' There are many other studies and documents, but I think this 
is about as fine a document as we could have. In our Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee, we relied on it very substantially, but 
not completely. We had over 20 days of hearings on our elementary and 
secondary education bill. Nonetheless, this document was, I thought, 
very profound.
  The problem in making recommendations is about how to address them. I 
will take a moment to read the major flaws in teacher preparation:

       For new teachers, improving standards begins with teacher 
     preparation. Prospective teachers learn just as other 
     students do: by studying, practicing, and reflecting; by 
     collaborating with others; by looking closely at students and 
     their work; and by sharing what they see. For prospective 
     teachers, this kind of learning cannot occur in college 
     classrooms divorced from schools or in schools divorced from 
     current research.
       Yet, until recently, most teacher education programs taught 
     theory separately from application. Teachers were taught to 
     teach in lecture halls from texts and teachers who frequently 
     had not themselves ever practiced what they were teaching. 
     Students' courses on subject matter were disconnected from 
     their courses on teaching methods, which were in turn 
     disconnected from their courses on learning and development. 
     They often encountered entirely different ideas in their 
     student teaching, which made up a tiny taste of practice 
     added on, without connections, to the end of their course 
     work.

  Mr. President, they made a series of recommendations about what we 
ought to do. One was to reinvent teacher preparation and professional 
development. It included professional development in the schools 
themselves. Also, it talked about the importance of mentoring. Those 
are two very important features which have been left out in terms of 
this underlying appropriations bill which were included in our 
authorization bill.
  Then, further, it goes on and says:

       . . . fix teacher recruitment and put qualified teachers in 
     every classroom.

  That was one of the very strong commitments that we had in our 
Democratic proposal, our Democratic commitment for the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act--a commitment to American families that we 
would put a well-qualified teacher in every classroom in this country 
within 4 years.
  Look at what happened last year across this country, where school 
districts hired 50,000 unqualified teachers. This isn't a problem of 
just 1996, this is a problem of the year 2000 and 2001. We have to 
address it.
  So where are we in terms of these recommendations that we took to 
heart in a very bipartisan way--which I will come back to--in terms of 
our Elementary and Secondary Education Act?
  In this legislation, there is effectively no new money for teacher 
preparation. We are going to have level funding for title II of the 
Higher Education Act. This is what is requested; $98 million was 
requested last year and $98 million for this year. So there is 
virtually no increase. There will be absolutely no new Federal 
participation in working with States and local communities in terms of 
enhanced teacher recruitment--zero, none.
  If you look at what is happening in this last year, as this money is 
being expended in 2000, where the grants are being made, now, it is 
only the difference between $77 million and $98 million because about 
95 percent of the $77 million is carried through in 2- to 3-year 
programs. So the current situation is that over a 2-year period, with 
the demand for 2.2 million teachers, our Federal response has been to 
provide $21 million to help States and local communities go out and 
recruit teachers, when we have a need for 2.2 million of them. That is 
effectively wrong. We cannot do that. It is so important, and I will 
come back to this.
  Let me just show you here what happened. For the $77 million that we 
had, we had 366 total applicants, but only 77 applications could be 
funded. We had 5 times the number of applications for the number of 
grants available. The desire is out there. The interest is out there. 
Parents and local communities want this kind of help and assistance. We 
are funding one out of five. And this is what is happening, also: We 
are expecting $21 million in grants for this current year, zero for 
next year. We expect that 11 applications will be funded out of 141 
total applications. That is more than 12 times the number. People 
across this country--States, educational centers, local communities--
want the help. One of the most important aspects of education is having 
well-trained teachers. What I find so troublesome is the fact that we 
worked out a bipartisan effort in the Higher Education Act of 1998, 
which is basically what this is all about.
  It is about funding the provisions in the 1998 Higher Education Act. 
When we authorized the Higher Education Act in 1998, we had strong 
bipartisan support. Efforts were led by Senators Reed, Bingaman, 
Jeffords, and Gregg. Our goal was to create a program to address the 
Nation's needs and to recruit better qualified teachers to enter the 
classroom. Each day, we agreed on that basic principle.
  I hope our colleagues will agree to give it the full support it 
deserves.
  Senator DeWine during the course of the debate on title II:

       Really, there is nothing more important in regard to 
     education than the teacher. Our children deserve to be taught 
     by teachers who really understand their subject, understand 
     the subject matter.
       I have worked hard to incorporate measures concerning good 
     teaching into this bill. I want to thank Chairman Jeffords 
     for the assistance that he has given me and the cooperation 
     in getting these sections incorporated into this very good 
     bill.

  Senator Jeffords:

       As its foundation, Title II embraces the notion that 
     investing in the preparation of our nation's teachers is a 
     good one. Well-prepared teachers play a key role in making it 
     possible for our students to achieve the standards required 
     to assure both their own well being and the ability of our 
     country to compete internationally.


[[Page 12798]]


  Senator McCain on July 8:

       Another important component of this bill is the 
     establishment of a comprehensive program promoting statewide 
     reforms to enhance the performance of teachers in the 
     classroom by improving the quality of teacher training. 
     Having professional, well-trained teachers is an essential 
     component for ensuring that our children achieve high 
     educational standards.

  Senator Smith of Oregon:

       By improving the quality of teacher training and 
     recruitment, increasing the purchasing power of students 
     through Pell grants and other forms of student assistance, 
     and by improving access to higher education for students with 
     disabilities, this legislation provides opportunity for the 
     young people of our Nation to seek a higher education.

  The list goes on and on. It keeps going on, with the exception to 
stop when it comes to putting funding into these kinds of commitments.
  These are efforts that have been made in a bipartisan way to try to 
get an effective program and partnership with the State and local 
communities. Effectively, we are zeroing this out. We had $21 million 
provided for this last year. That is wrong.
  Research shows that the national need for high-quality teachers is 
growing:
  Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching, November 
1997:

       Nationally, relatively few teachers have access to 
     sustained, intensive professional development about their 
     subject matter, teaching methods, or new technologies.

  National Center for Education Services, The Baby Boom Echo Report, 
1998:

       An estimated 2.2 million teachers will be needed over the 
     next 10 years to make up for a large number of teachers 
     nearing retirement and rapid enrollment growth.

  One thing is for sure: They are not getting them in here. The Federal 
Government is AWOL on that issue of education.
  What matters most is teaching for America's future.
  The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that 
more than 50,000 people who lack the training for the job enter 
teaching annually on emergency or provisional licenses. And, 30-50% of 
teachers leave within the first three to five years. In urban district, 
the attrition rate can be 30-50% in the first year.
  That is what is happening. You get them in there, and they leave, 
unless you have some very important changes, such as providing skills 
for teachers who will be working with newer teachers in situations 
involving mentoring, where we have seen these figures change 
dramatically and where teachers will remain and work in these 
communities.
  The Urban Teacher Challenge Report of January 2000:

       One hundred percent of 40 urban school districts surveyed 
     have an urgent need for teachers in at least one subject 
     area. 95% of urban districts report a critical need for math 
     teachers; 98% report a critical need in science; and 97% 
     report a critical need in special education.

  There it is. In urban areas across the country: No math, no science, 
no special education. We are asking ourselves: What can we do as a 
nation to try to make a difference for children in our country? I don't 
know how many more studies we have to have. I am not saying if you just 
pour buckets of money, it is going to solve the problem. But one thing 
we know is that without the investment of resources in these areas, we 
are not going to solve it either.
  My colleagues will speak about other aspects. But we need investment 
in terms of recruitment and professional development and in terms of 
mentoring.
  Listen to the results of some of these studies.
  ``Teacher Quality and Student Achievement'', Linda Darling-Hammond, 
December 1999:

       The states that repeatedly lead the nation in math and 
     reading achievement have among the nation's most highly 
     qualified teachers and have made long-standing investments in 
     the quality of teaching. The top scoring states--Minnesota, 
     North Dakota, and Iowa, recently joined by Wisconsin, Maine, 
     and Montana--all have rigorous standards for teaching that 
     include requiring extensive study of education plus a major 
     in the field to be taught. By contrast, states such as 
     Georgia and South Carolina, where reform initiatives across a 
     comparable period focused on curriculum and testing but 
     invested less in teacher learning, showed little success in 
     raising student achievement within this timeframe.

  Do we have that? What are the conclusions? If you invest more in 
quality teachers and recruiting, and providing and keeping professional 
enhancement and mentoring, you are going to have the corresponding 
results in enhanced academic achievement.
  That is what these reports show. If you do not do this, and spend the 
money in other ways, which you could do with the general funds--which I 
would call the block grant way--you find that you are failing the 
children in those particular areas.

       1996 Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States, 
     and 1994 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States 
     (National Assessment of Education Progress): Over the last 
     decade of reform, North Carolina and Connecticut have made 
     sizable investments in major statewide increases in teacher 
     salaries and intensive recruitment efforts and initiatives to 
     improve preservice teacher education, licensing, beginning 
     teacher mentoring, and ongoing professional development. 
     Since then, North Carolina has posted among the largest 
     students achievement gains in math and reading of any state 
     in the nation, now scoring well above the national average in 
     4th grade reading and math, although it entered the 1990s 
     near the bottom of the state rankings. Connecticut has also 
     posted significant gains, becoming one of the top scoring 
     states in the nation in math and reading, despite an increase 
     in the proportion of students with special needs during that 
     time.

  That has impacted many of our communities. Many of our communities 
are increasingly challenged with a wide expansion of diversity that 
eventually, of course, adds such extraordinary value to these 
communities. But they initially put additional kinds of pressures on 
education institutions and other institutions. That has been true in 
Connecticut, and it has been true in my own State of Massachusetts.
  What does this report say? The report says that when you have sizable 
investments and intensive recruitment efforts and initiatives to 
improve preservice teacher educating, licensing, beginning teacher 
mentoring, and ongoing professional development, you see dramatic 
increases in the quality of education for these children.
  I think that would be fairly self-evident for people in this Chamber 
to understand. We certainly understood it in the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions committee. It was understood there. As I pointed 
out, there is broad bipartisan support for those particular provisions.
  We find that the various studies--I mentioned just a few of them--are 
compelling and convincing, and those who wrote those studies made 
presentations which were compelling. Others, in response to those 
measures, indicated they were compelling.
  I see Senator Reed. I understand I only have 10 minutes left. I yield 
myself 3 more minutes.
  Let me point out exactly what this amendment does.
  My amendment increases the appropriation for the Teacher Quality 
Enhancement Grants from $98 million in the underlying FY2001 Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill to the 
full authorization level of $300 million to enable much greater 
participation in this vital program to improve teacher preparation and 
recruitment.
  This increase in appropriations from $98 million to $300 million will 
help fund over 100 additional partnerships.
  The Teacher Quality Enhancement Program provides three types of 
grants to improve teacher training and recruitment:
  One, local partnership grant to improve teacher training; two, State 
grants are to implement statewide teacher reform efforts; and three, 
local partnerships for State grants to focus on innovative teacher 
recruit programs.
  The teacher quality enhancement grants support local partnerships 
among teachers, institutions, and local schools to help improve in many 
ways the quality of teachers entering the classroom. By increasing the 
cooperation between college programs that prepare new teachers in the 
schools that hire the teachers, teachers obtain the effective training 
they need to

[[Page 12799]]

teach in classroom settings. The prospective teachers have more 
opportunities to observe successful veteran teachers and obtain 
feedback.
  I urge the Senate to support this amendment to increase the funding 
for this critical program so more of the Nation's schools and 
communities can improve teacher training programs. The Nation's 
children deserve no less.
  Under the current proposal in the Senate, there is no new money for 
teacher preparation level for title II. There is minimal increase in 
the Eisenhower program, which effectively had been block granted in the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, so it may disappear completely. 
There are no funds for mentoring or recruitment. I think the bipartisan 
program that passed out of our human resources committee on higher 
education considered these various measures and had bipartisan support. 
I think we ought to give life to those recommendations. That is what 
this amendment does.
  I withhold the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I prefer to hear the balance of the 
argument of the proponents of the amendment before responding.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 8 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 30 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy for yielding and for sponsoring 
this amendment. He has grasped the most critical aspect of educational 
reform in the United States today--improving the quality of teachers. 
He has simply brought forward the bipartisan, unanimous consent we 
reached in the Higher Education Act amendments of 1998 where, in the 
vote of 96-0, we passed the teacher quality enhancement grants program. 
We authorized a magnificent program on a unanimous vote, but we have 
failed to fully fund it. If we have the plan, but not the money, we are 
not going to succeed.
  Senator Kennedy is simply saying, we have a good plan, let's put the 
resources behind it.
  We understand we need to have high-quality teachers to meet the 
challenges of the 21st century classroom. These challenges are 
different from 50, 30, 20, even 10 years ago. It is no longer 
sufficient for a student to go to a teacher college and learn about 
pedagogy and then go into the classroom. They need to have clinical 
exposure. They must have real-life experiences in the classroom before 
they become new teachers.
  They also have to understand their subject matter. Technique is one 
aspect, but it can't substitute for detailed knowledge of the subject--
be it science, history, or mathematics. They also have to understand 
how to integrate technology, which is at the key of most of the 
breakthroughs in education in the United States today.
  They have to be able to deal with a diverse population of students, 
some with limited English proficiency, some who are coming from 
cultures much different from the culture in which the teacher grew up.
  All of this necessitates significant reform in our educational 
practice. That is why, in the Higher Education Act, I worked closely 
with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, and others to develop partnerships 
between teacher colleges and elementary and secondary schools--real 
partnerships where aspiring teachers can get the clinical experience, 
and the other things necessary to be prepared for today's classrooms. 
It is similar to the model of physician training. We would never send a 
physician into an operating room simply with a few lectures on theory. 
It is practice, practice, practice, before they are allowed to operate. 
It should be the same for teachers.
  We can't do that unless we fully fund the teacher quality grants. 
They cover the spectrum. First, they provide the opportunity for these 
partnerships to develop. Second, they support statewide reforms. Third, 
they allow for recruitment of teachers, particularly to reduce 
shortages of qualified teachers in high-need school districts.
  We will need 2 million new teachers over the next 10 years because of 
the changing population of teachers, retiring teachers who are leaving, 
and the increase of our student population entering first grade and 
kindergarten. Look at any urban school district in this country, and 
you will see they are suffering severe teacher shortages. Recruitment 
is necessary.
  We also need to stimulate partnerships that are so essential between 
colleges of education and elementary and secondary schools.
  Last year, $77 million was available for new grants. Mr. President, 
366 applications were received--a huge response--from States and local 
school districts. This is a popular program. The Department of 
Education could only fund 77: 25 local partnerships, 24 State grants, 
and 28 teacher recruitment grants. Rhode Island, I am proud to say, got 
a State grant and is using it very well.
  This year, however, only $21 million was available for new grants. 
There were 141 applicants, but the Department of Education estimates 
they will only be able to fund 11 grants--1 in 12. The need is there 
and the plan is there; the resources are lacking. That is why we are 
here today.
  We want to fully fund this program up to the authorized total of $300 
million, creating an additional 100 partnerships, State and recruitment 
grants. This will help meet the demand and do the one thing that is so 
critical to education reform in this country, which is not questioned 
by anyone, evidenced by a 96-0 vote in this Chamber approving the 
program: We have to enhance the quality of teachers in this country. We 
can't do it just with admonitions. We can't do it just with sentiments. 
We have to do it with dollars.
  We have a program that works. We have a popular program. We just 
don't have the resources. Senator Kennedy's amendment, which I am proud 
to cosponsor, will give us the resources to do the job.
  I thank the Senator. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the bill which has been reported out by 
the Appropriations Committee appropriates some $40.2 billion to 
education funding, an increase of $4.6 billion over last year. This 
bill has $100 million more than the President asked for. We have 
assessed the priorities as the subcommittee saw them and as the full 
committee saw them and have made very substantial increases in very 
many important accounts.
  For example, on the title I grants, there is an increase of $394 
million, bringing the total to $8.3 billion. On the 21st Century 
Afterschool Program, there is an increase of $146 million, coming to 
$600 million. On special education, where we have made an extraordinary 
effort to try to have the Federal Government meet its obligation, we 
have made an increase of $1.3 billion to $7.3 billion. On title VI 
innovative education State grants, we had an increase--this was 
considered so important--from $400 million to $3.1 billion. On Pell 
grants, we had an increase of $350, to $3,650, a very important grant 
program enabling people to go to college. On the higher education 
programs, we had an increase of $165 million to $1.7 billion.
  The amendment which the Senator from Massachusetts has offered is a 
very worthwhile amendment. I do not deny that for a moment. If we had 
more funding, I would be glad to see us increase the money in that 
account by what the Senator from Massachusetts would like to have. But 
the difficulty is that we have assessed the priorities. We have 
stretched the subcommittee allocation to $104.5 billion. That is the 
maximum amount which could be obtained, consistent with the wishes of 
our caucus. In fact, that is stretching the matter.
  Last year, we lost some 20 members of the Republican caucus of 55 
because there was too much money in the bill as it was viewed on our 
side of the aisle. But we have come in here with $104.5 billion and 
made allocations as we see fit, as we assessed the priorities.

[[Page 12800]]

  Regrettably, I could not be on the floor yesterday to debate the 
Wellstone amendment and the Bingaman amendment and the Murray amendment 
because I was busy on a Judiciary Committee hearing where I have the 
responsibility to chair the subcommittee on the Department of Justice 
oversight. If time permits today, I am going to talk a little bit about 
that. But when Senator Wellstone offered an amendment for $1.7 billion 
to increase title I funding, I would, frankly, like to see that funding 
done. Title I is very important, but I had to vote against it because 
it is a matter of assessing the priorities.
  When Senator Bingaman offered a $250 million increase, again on title 
I, it was very meritorious. There is no higher priority, in my opinion, 
than education. The only priority which equals education is health 
care.
  The allocations which our subcommittee has made have to take into 
account education and health care. We have increased the funding very 
materially on the National Institutes of Health and on drug 
rehabilitation programs and on school violence programs--all of which 
have to come out of the overall funding of $104.5 billion.
  Senator Murray offered an amendment on class size, wanting to add 
$350 million. She disagreed with what the committee has done on the 
subcommittee recommendation, meeting the President's request for $1.4 
billion for teachers to reduce class size. But we added a provision, if 
the local school districts want to use it for something else, they 
could get their share somewhere else.
  So we come now to the amendment which is pending. It was just 
authorized in 1997-1998. There was no appropriation for support for 
teacher quality and professional development in 1998. In fiscal year 
1999, there was an allocation of $77 million. It went up last year to 
$98 million. It is true, the funding has leveled.
  I heard the Senator from Massachusetts say this funding is an 
indictment. That is just a figure of speech, but if it is an 
indictment, the President is included as well as the Appropriations 
Committee because that is the President's request. The President has 
already issued a veto threat on the bill because he doesn't like our 
allocations and our priorities. But the last time I read the 
Constitution, the Congress has the appropriations responsibility. 
Certainly the President has to sign the bill, or we can have passage 
over the veto, but we have established the priorities. On this matter 
of teacher quality and professional development, we have met the 
President's figure.
  I approached the Senator from Massachusetts for some light talk 
before the amendment was offered. I said: Senator Kennedy, how much 
money do we have to have in the bill so as to preclude a Kennedy 
amendment to add money? I ask him that every year. I want to know what 
the answer is next year, so we can bring a bill, hopefully, which would 
have sufficient money. But if it is $1.4 billion for class size, 
someone is going to offer an amendment for more money. Senator Murray 
did so, for $350 million more. Whatever the amount of money we put in, 
somebody is going to offer an amendment for more money.
  I said last year, in voting against the add-ons, that I had cast more 
difficult votes that I did not like in the 4 days I managed this bill 
than I had cast in the previous 18 years I had been in the Senate 
because I am a firm believer in education.
  In the Specter household, my parents had very little. My mother went 
to the eighth grade; my father, an immigrant, had no formal education. 
My brother and two sisters and I have been able to share in the 
American dream because of educational opportunity. I have been on this 
subcommittee for my entire tenure in the Senate, and I am doing 
everything I can to promote education in America so everybody has the 
maximum opportunity.
  I would like to spend more money on teacher recruitment, teacher 
development, but it cannot be done within the confines of the very 
enormous allocation we have at the present time.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have left on the 30 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 22 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments and 
his explanation. But the fact remains, these allocations are within a 
context about how we are going to allocate resources in the Federal 
Government. This explanation we heard is in the context of a 10-year, 
$792 billion tax cut. If we did not have the $792 billion tax cut, we 
would have the opportunity to do more.
  I personally believe this is a higher priority. I think most of us on 
this side of the aisle believe that it is a higher priority than having 
a tax cut and putting on the squeeze, in terms of improving quality of 
education. That is philosophical and that is decided in this body, 
where the majority are the Republicans and where they have had the 
votes in order to be able to do that. But that is the harsh truth.
  The fact is, in more recent years, between 1980 and 1999, we are 
finding out the support for elementary and secondary education is 
falling down, and in higher education it is falling down.
  Against that background, we have the explosion of the number of 
children who are going on to schools, K-12 schools. These are the 
numbers--54 million. I don't think we can do business as usual. I don't 
think it is a matter of shifting priorities from here to there on this 
matter, and shuffling the debt. I respect the Senator from 
Pennsylvania's strong commitment to education and health. There is 
nobody in this body who doubts it. But we are talking about the broader 
issue, and that is, given the announcement yesterday that we are going 
to have a $750 billion surplus in addition to what was expected, 
whether we are going to be able to find some $300 million to improve 
the quality of education, and do it in a program that has strong 
bipartisan support, that is what this is about. That is really what is 
at issue.
  With regard to our program, in the legislation, the national 
commission, they say:

       We recommend that colleges and schools work with the States 
     to redesign teacher education so that the 2 million teachers 
     hired in the next decade are adequately prepared.

  Then they list the various criteria:

       . . . stronger disciplinary preparation, greater focus on 
     learning, more knowledge about curricula, greater 
     understanding of special needs, multicultural competence, 
     preparation for collaboration, technological skills, and 
     strong emphasis on reflection.

  Those have all been incorporated in our underlying amendment, which 
we are trying to fund. That is why it had the strong bipartisan 
support. Without this amendment, we have, effectively, flat funding. In 
our appropriation priorities, we are saying to the American people that 
we are not going to fund resources to provide the best teachers in the 
classrooms of America. I think we ought to be able to do so.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania has 22 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, with respect to the argument on 
education, it is a matter of priorities. We have a very extensive 
allocation of $104.5 billion. Much as I would like to see additional 
funding for teacher training and teacher recruitment, it is simply a 
matter of priorities. I am constrained to oppose the amendment by the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.


                          Independent Counsel

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in my remaining time, or at least in a 
portion of it, I think it worthwhile to comment on the very extensive 
hearing which was held by the Judiciary Committee yesterday on the 
issue of independent counsel because the matter is now pending before 
the Attorney General of the United States as to whether independent 
counsel ought to be appointed.
  The subcommittee on the Department of Justice oversight has conducted 
extensive hearings. Even before the subcommittee began its hearing 
process, this is an issue which I raised

[[Page 12801]]

with the Attorney General on judiciary oversight more than 3 years ago 
in April of 1997. At that time, I raised the question of hard money and 
have consistently called for an investigation. We had the Chairman and 
Vice Chairman of the Federal Election Commission testify a week ago 
today on current complaints which have been stated by Common Cause and 
by Century 21, that both political parties ought to be investigated for 
abuses on soft money and for coordination of soft money with their 
campaign accounts. I have long contended that the investigations ought 
to be as to both parties on a bipartisan or on a nonpartisan basis.
  The issue, as I say, was raised first in April of 1997. FBI Director 
Freeh then made a request for independent counsel. That recommendation 
to the Attorney General was in November of 1997. Charles LaBella, who 
was appointed by the Attorney General as special counsel, made a 
similar request for independent counsel in July of 1998.
  Within a week after the Freeh report was issued, I asked for a copy 
and was denied that. Within a week after the LaBella report was issued, 
I requested a copy and was denied that. We finally received those 
documents when Judiciary Committee subpoenas were issued, returnable on 
the 20th of April.
  Then it came to light when Vice President Gore announced that he had 
been questioned by the new chief of the task force, Robert Conrad, that 
the matter was still open. Somehow, notwithstanding the fact that the 
Vice President had been questioned on four prior occasions, no 
questions were ever asked on two matters which had received very 
substantial publicity: the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple fundraiser and the 
issue of coffees in the White House.
  As a result of the investigation of the judiciary subcommittee, we 
determined that Mr. Conrad had made a recommendation to the Attorney 
General again for independent counsel, just like the LaBella 
recommendation, just like the Freeh recommendation. Mr. Conrad 
testified before our subcommittee a week ago today and declined to 
respond to questions about that matter. It was my judgment that it was 
a matter for the public to know. The public had a right to know. There 
was a necessity for the public to know if we were to have 
accountability by the Attorney General. As is the established custom as 
a subcommittee chairman, I made that public disclosure which was in 
accordance with our practice and something where there was solid 
justification for doing so.
  In the hearing which we had with the Attorney General yesterday, it 
had been scheduled long before the disclosure was made that Mr. Conrad 
had made a recommendation of independent counsel. We went over with the 
Attorney General quite a number of factors, starting with the 
statements which Attorney General Reno had made during her confirmation 
hearing in 1993.
  The Attorney General--then not the Attorney General but the district 
attorney of Dade County in Miami, FL--came in and asked for our support 
and our votes, and I voted for her in the Judiciary Committee and on 
the floor, in part because of her strong stand that the Independent 
Counsel Act was an important act. She said this during her confirmation 
hearings:

       It is absolutely essential for the public to have 
     confidence in the system, and you cannot do that when there 
     is a conflict or an appearance of conflict in the person who 
     is, in effect, the chief prosecutor.

  The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President who 
appoints her and is obviously very close to the President and to the 
Vice President.
  Attorney General Reno further said at her confirmation hearing:

       The credibility and public confidence engendered with the 
     fact that an independent and impartial outsider has examined 
     the evidence and concluded prosecution is not warranted 
     serves to clear a public official's name in a way that no 
     Justice Department investigation ever could.

  She quoted from Archibald Cox who said:

       The public could never feel easy about the vigor and 
     thoroughness with which the investigation was pursued. Some 
     outside person is absolutely essential.

  It is in that context that the evidence was examined in our hearing 
yesterday as to whether independent counsel should have been appointed 
as to the Vice President and as to the President as well.
  As to the Vice President, the issue arose about the veracity of 
statements which he made about telephone calls raising hard money from 
the White House. If the money was so-called soft money, it was not a 
contribution and not covered by the act. But if it was hard money, then 
there could be a violation of the act. The Vice President was 
questioned about that and said he did not raise hard money, did not 
know that hard money was to be raised.
  I questioned the Attorney General at some length about the specifics 
which had been produced. For example, there were four witnesses who 
testified that at a meeting on November 21, 1995, hard money was 
discussed, certainly probative raising the inference that if a Vice 
President is at a meeting where hard money is discussed, he knew he was 
raising hard money or that hard money was the objective.
  Leon Panetta, White House Chief of Staff, was very blunt about his 
testimony that the Vice President was there and listening and said the 
purpose of the meeting was ``to make sure they''--the President and 
Vice President--``knew what the hell was going on.''
  The Attorney General and I had a protracted discussion about the fact 
that she discounted the evidence from David Strauss who was the deputy 
Chief of Staff for the Vice President who had made contemporaneous 
notes at this November 21, 1995, meeting: ``Sixty-five percent soft, 35 
percent hard.''
  Mr. Strauss said he could not remember. Notwithstanding that, the law 
of evidence is conclusive that if there is prior recollection recorded 
and a contemporaneous record made, that is evidence which can go before 
a grand jury or before a court.
  The attorney said he did not remember, even after he looked at his 
notes. That raises an evidentiary report of prior recollection 
refreshed, and that is evidence. Even if a person does not now 
remember, if they had notes and that refreshes their recollection, the 
person may testify from the notes on the approach of current 
recollection refreshed. It does not rule out what his notes had on 
prior recollection recorded, even though he could not remember it. That 
was some very important evidence.
  In addition, the Vice President received 13 memoranda from Harold 
Ickes who was involved and running the campaign. Those 13 memoranda 
recited hard money. The Vice President said he did not read the 
memoranda. That is a question which would call for further 
investigation.
  The memoranda were put in his in box. And a secretary testified that 
the input was culled very carefully to keep out extraneous matters. But 
the Ickes memoranda always went in.
  Then the Vice President further said that: The subject matter of the 
memoranda would have already been disclosed in his and the President's 
presence.
  The Vice President further conceded, in interviews with the FBI--he 
acknowledged that he had ``been a candidate for 16 years and thought he 
had a good understanding of hard and soft money.''
  It is important to focus on the fact that the matters presented to 
the Attorney General are not such that would warrant a prosecution, but 
only that the matters call for further investigation.
  The independent counsel statute is very carefully structured so that 
the Department of Justice does not do very much. The Department of 
Justice only makes a preliminary inquiry, and then, in the language of 
the statute, ``The Attorney General, on completion of a preliminary 
investigation, determines that there are reasonable grounds to believe 
that further investigation is warranted.''
  The others who were present at the meeting, who ``did not recall,'' 
should have been called before a grand jury, which the Attorney General 
cannot do

[[Page 12802]]

on her preliminary inquiry. That is to keep the Department of Justice 
really out of it, but to turn it over to an independent counsel at an 
early stage.
  The Attorney General did say yesterday that they did not submit this 
to a grand jury. Certainly that is the next step. When witnesses are 
questioned, it is one thing, but it is quite another to come into the 
formality of a grand jury, under oath, and to be asked questions. That 
is why there is the provision for further investigation.
  The Attorney General testified yesterday, relying on her submission 
to the court declining the appointment of independent counsel, that 
``the Government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.'' That 
said, the standard for further investigation for appointment of 
independent counsel does not involve proof beyond a reasonable doubt, 
it is only that there is reason to have a further investigation.
  I shall not characterize the Attorney General or draw conclusions at 
this stage, but only lay out the facts and suggest that on the face of 
the very substantial materials produced, further investigation was 
required and independent counsel should have been appointed.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the subject then arose as to what were 
the factors related to the famous fundraiser at the Hsi Lai Buddhist 
Temple on April 29, 1996.
  The Vice President had received an e-mail from his scheduler asking 
whether there should be another stop on the April 29 itinerary on top 
of the ``two fundraisers in San Jose and LA.''
  The Vice President responded:

       If we have already booked the fundraisers, then we have to 
     decline.

  But the Vice President said he did not know there were any 
fundraisers, that the Hsi Lai Temple was a fundraiser.
  Then Harold Ickes sent the Vice President a memorandum on April 10 
identifying the Los Angeles fundraiser which would raise $250,000 and a 
supplemental memorandum on April 25 saying the Los Angeles fundraiser 
would raise up to $325,000. Within 24 hours of receiving this 
memorandum, the Vice President was given briefing materials from the 
Democratic National Committee informing him that the DNC luncheon he 
would attend on April 29 was at the Buddhist temple.
  During the course of the event, two of the guests who ate lunch with 
the Vice President talked about fundraising. Witnesses there said--
``One speaker commented that they had raised x amount of dollars.'' And 
another witness at the luncheon said that a speaker took the podium and 
reassured the assembled guests that they had ``doubled checked'' and it 
was ``OK to give contributions at the Buddhist temple.''
  So here again, there are substantial indicators which certainly would 
call for going forward with independent counsel.
  Then the question was raised about the coffees which raised more than 
$26 million. When the Vice President was questioned about the coffees--
and the Vice President released the transcript--he said:
  Question:

       In terms of a fundraising tool, what was the purpose of the 
     coffees?

  His response was:

       I don't know.

  Then he was asked:

       With respect to raising $108 million, did you have 
     discussions with anybody concerning the role coffees would 
     play in raising that type of money?

  The answer of the Vice President:

       Well, let me define the term ``raising.''

  Shades of what ``is'' is.
  Later, he was questioned:

       You had indicated earlier you may have attended one coffee. 
     What were you talking about?

  His response:

       Although it was not my practice to go to any of these 
     coffees, there may have been one that I attended briefly.

  The Vice President's lawyer then submitted a letter 2 days later, 
saying:

       As best we can determine from the Vice President's 
     schedule, he was designated to attend four White House 
     coffees. The Vice President hosted approximately 21 coffees 
     at the Old Executive Office Building.

  Here again, those matters require further inquiry.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I raised a question with the Attorney 
General as to why the Department of Justice went to ask the Vice 
President these questions on April 18. The apparent reason was that the 
subcommittee had finally gotten subpoenas out to get the Freeh and 
LaBella memoranda returnable on April 20.
  So the subcommittee would soon find out that the Vice President had 
never been questioned about the Buddhist temple fundraiser or about the 
coffee klatsches and that, in fact, the Department of Justice was 
embarrassed by that omission.
  I believe the Attorney General did a substantial disservice to the 
Vice President in failing to have these matters resolved one way or 
another at an early stage.
  I said at the outset, last Thursday, when I discussed the matter as 
to the Conrad recommendation for independent counsel, that there is a 
sharp distinction between the level of information evidenced to call 
for an independent counsel's investigation and the level to return a 
criminal prosecution.
  I raised a question with the Attorney General yesterday that her 
failure to act on these matters in 1997, and when Director Freeh called 
for an independent counsel in 1998, and when LaBella called for an 
independent counsel, has now put the 2000 Presidential elections in 
some state of controversy. These matters should have been cleared up. 
Why the questioning on April 18?
  If independent counsel is appointed now, can there possibly be a 
determination to clear the Vice President before the Democratic 
convention in August? It seems highly unlikely.
  If independent counsel or special counsel is appointed now, is there 
time to resolve the matter before the general election? It seems highly 
unlikely.
  So that by delaying, it really is too late, at this point, to have 
special counsel. And that is a responsibility which falls squarely with 
the Department of Justice and the Attorney General for failing to 
appoint independent counsel in a timely manner.
  It is puzzling why the matter would be reinvestigated and re-inquired 
into on April 18. The reason is obvious--so they would not be further 
embarrassed by not having asked about these two matters before. But 
what is to be done at this stage?
  All of this leads to a conclusion that there ought to be some form of 
judicial review on the Attorney General's judgment on an independent 
counsel. I had tried for a long time to have a mandamus action brought 
to take it for judicial review to see if an independent counsel should 
have been appointed under the mandatory provisions of the statute or 
the discretionary provisions where there was an abuse of discretion. 
The problem was one of standing.
  It would be my recommendation to the subcommittee that the 
subcommittee recommend that there be provision for standing to the 
Judiciary Committee to bring an action for judicial review to have a 
court determine whether an independent counsel should be appointed 
because of an abuse of discretion by the Attorney General or because of 
mandatory provisions of a new statute. This will be a very constructive 
result, so we do not find ourselves in a situation where these 
questions linger for more than 3 years and cannot really be resolved 
before the conventions and so that the Democratic Party would know who 
their candidate ought to be or what baggage that candidate would have.
  How much time remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SPECTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page 12803]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I follow boxing. When I was a younger man, I 
did some boxing of my own.
  One of the things I remember more than anything else regarding fights 
is when Evander Holyfield fought Mike Tyson. You remember the famous 
fight where they were in the ring and suddenly Mike Tyson was chewing 
and biting on Evander Holyfield's ear. That was unfair. It was 
unnecessary. Mills Lane, the referee, said: You shouldn't do that.
  They come out again. He does it again.
  I feel, with all due respect to my good friend from Pennsylvania, 
that that is kind of what has happened here.
  The two leaders want to speed up this very important bill. The 
minority will do everything we can. We have agreed to a time when the 
amendments could be filed. We have agreed that I will work, as other 
members of this conference will, to have some of the amendments 
disappear. The majority leader wants to finish this bill today.
  Instead, we have an anti-Gore campaign speech coming from nowhere.
  If we want to do something about campaign finance, why don't we do 
something in the Senate Chamber such as trying to outlaw campaign soft 
money? That would be a good step to take. We have been trying for years 
to have campaign finance reform. We have narrowed the issues. We will 
now just take doing away with soft money. We will take that. But, no, 
we are prevented from having a vote on that. Why? Because the majority 
won't let us vote on it. So we have an anti-Gore campaign speech today 
by the manager of this bill.
  I don't serve on the Judiciary Committee. I can't answer all the 
questions that have been asked. I read the newspapers.
  We know that the Attorney General is an impeccably honest person. For 
example, when she was the chief law enforcement officer of Dade County, 
Miami, she would go to a car dealership to buy a car and would pay only 
the sticker price on the window. She didn't want anyone thinking she 
was getting some kind of a special deal from the car dealership. No one 
can question the veracity of Janet Reno. She is an honest woman and has 
been a good Attorney General and has called things the way she believes 
they should be.
  I don't know anything about Conrad, other than he donated money to 
Jesse Helms. The only donation he has made in his life was to Jesse 
Helms. I also find it interesting that this came out as a result of a 
leak, a leak from supposedly secret information.
  Then my friend from Pennsylvania has the audacity to talk about an 
independent counsel. We have had our fill of independent counsels, 
majority and minority. We don't want anymore. They have harassed and 
berated President Reagan, President Clinton. Independent counsel is 
out. Remember, we didn't reauthorize that. Of course, we can, because 
the law was in effect about the period of time the Senator from 
Pennsylvania was talking about. We could have another independent 
counsel, and maybe they could break the record of some of the others. 
For example, Walsh, he was at $50 million or thereabouts. We have had a 
tag team on the Whitewater stuff. We will probably break all records 
there. It will probably be about $75 or $80 million by the time that is 
finished. We all should be a little suspect that this great concern has 
taken place 4 months before the election.
  To advance campaign finance reform, the House, in a bipartisan 
fashion, as they did last year, passed a bipartisan campaign finance 
bill that we had buried over here; it went no place--late at night 
passed a campaign finance bill to outlaw 527s. These are the secret 
committees that are formed. You don't have to list how much money you 
give, who gives it, or why they give it. You list nothing. They are 
secret. The House, in a bipartisan fashion, outlawed that yesterday.
  Why don't we do that same thing in the Senate before the Fourth of 
July recess? If we want to do something to help the political process, 
let's do that, rather than gin up all this stuff that is so patently 
political from my friend from Pennsylvania that anybody could see 
through it.
  This is simply an effort to hurt Al Gore in his election against 
George W. Bush. That is all it is about. Let's call it the way it is. 
You can dress it in all kinds of clothes and be very self-righteous 
about all this, but the fact is, this a campaign speech and a campaign 
effort to hurt Vice President Gore.
  Let's talk about Vice President Gore. He also is an honest man, has a 
wonderful family; he is a religious man.
  Now we have the ``bite on the ear'' this morning. I don't know how 
much we can take over here. We have worked very hard to move along the 
appropriations bills. The majority leader said: Work with us on these 
appropriations bills. It would be the right thing to.
  We believe it is the right thing to do also. But we need the majority 
to go halfway. Do we now want Senators coming in here all day debating 
this? We have Senator Leahy. We could have him come. He is ranking 
member on the Judiciary Committee. He would be happy to come over and 
spend an hour or two talking about what went on in the Judiciary 
Committee. We could have Bob Torricelli come over and spend an hour or 
two. He is articulate; he could do that. Is that what we want to happen 
today or do we want to go ahead with the Labor-HHS bill, a very 
important bill for the country?
  I know the Presiding Officer believes strongly in the defense of this 
country. We should do the Defense authorization bill. We can't do the 
Defense authorization bill because it is tied up with campaign finance 
reform. If we did 527s, Senators McCain and Feingold would be happy to 
move on to another issue and allow us to complete the Defense 
authorization bill. A lot of items could be completed in the Senate. 
The minority needs a little help to move these things along. We can't 
be burdened, come Thursday afternoon or Wednesday night late, with: Why 
aren't we moving this bill along? We are not getting cooperation.
  With regard to the work we have ahead of us on this bill, right now 
we have 88 amendments on the Democratic side--I don't know how many on 
the Republican side--to try to get rid of before we are able to 
complete the bill. That takes a lot of time. I don't think we should be 
diverted with this phony campaign finance issue, an attempt to 
interject it into the Presidential race 4 months before the election.
  I think the majority leader has to make a decision. Are we going to 
spend the day on campaign finance? We would be happy to do that. What 
went on in the Judiciary Committee, we will come over and talk about it 
if that is what they want to do. I see my friend from Illinois, a 
member of the Judiciary Committee. I think he has something to say. I 
think he spent some time in the last few days in the Judiciary 
Committee. Is that fair?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was on the Judiciary Committee 
assignment and Government Affairs assignment in the last Congress, and 
I sat through literally 1 whole year of this under Chairman Thompson.
  Mr. REID. Well, I didn't. I can only comment on what I read in the 
papers. But I know when somebody's ear is bitten, as Tyson did to 
Holyfield, and it is unfair; that is what happened here today. I am not 
a member of the Judiciary Committee, but I am not going to let this go 
on being unannounced. We are on a Labor-HHS bill, and we are getting a 
lot of pressure to do something about it. Here we have a campaign 
speech in the middle of this bill, and that isn't fair.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might address the Senator from Nevada 
through the Chair, the situation we saw yesterday is clear evidence 
that we are in the campaign season. Instead of dealing with issues that 
many of us think are critical for families, such as prescription drugs 
and gun safety legislation, we are instead talking about further 
investigations.
  I think there is a point where this Congress is expected to legislate 
rather

[[Page 12804]]

than investigate. The closer we get to the election, I think the more 
the American people discount some of the rhetoric they are hearing on 
this issue.
  Mr. REID. Well, if we want to do some work on this issue, then we 
will spend the day doing it on this issue, if that is what the majority 
wants. Or, as I say, I make an invitation: If we want to do something 
constructive about campaign finance reform, let's pass what the House 
did last night and do it before the Fourth of July recess. Let's make a 
goal when we get back, in that 3-week period, that we get rid of soft 
money, that corrupting influence on political campaigns.
  Early in this century, there was a decision made by the Congress that 
we would not have soft money, corporate money, in Federal elections. 
The Supreme Court turned that on its head and now soft money is the 
money of choice, putting millions of dollars in these Federal 
elections. That is the invitation I make to the majority. Let's do 527 
tomorrow and do soft money when we get back.
  I know my time is gone. I want to move on with this bill. But the 
choice is that of the majority as to what we are going to do. Are we 
going to do appropriations bills? Are we going to debate what went on 
in the Judiciary Committee for the last several days?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. I believe I have 30 seconds left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian says there is no way to 
reserve that 30 seconds of time. All time did expire.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, and I don't intend to 
object, but I have an amendment on the bill, a relevant amendment. If 
it is going to be much longer, I will come back in an hour. If we can 
get to it, I would like to do that or let me go, so I can do something 
else.
  Mr. SPECTER. Within the confines of 30 seconds, simply to reply, we 
are taking the time that we had on this amendment and nothing more. 
This is not a matter that has arisen in 4 months but 3\1/2\ years ago.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the 
Budget Act, as amended, that the effect of adopting the amendment 
provides budgetary authority in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation under the fiscal year 2001 concurrent resolution on the 
budget and is not in order.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional 
Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the 
consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--48

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inouye
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 51, the nays are 48. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, just so we know what is happening here, 
after the Senator from Connecticut offers his amendment--I don't see 
the manager of the bill--there was an understanding that Senator Kerry 
from Massachusetts would offer the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The distinguished Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3672

(Purpose: To provide $1,000,000,000 for 21st Century Community Learning 
                                Centers)

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

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3672.

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

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC.  . 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total 
     amount appropriated under this Act to carry out part I of 
     title X of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     shall be $1,000,000,000.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, this is an amendment on the 
21st Century Community Learning Centers program.
  Before getting to the substance of this amendment, I want to take a 
minute to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and my colleague from 
Iowa for the work they have done on this bill in a number of areas--and 
in the are of child care in particular. Last year, when I offered an 
amendment to increase the funding for the Child Care and Development 
Block Grant, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania reluctantly 
opposed that amendment. In so doing, he said he would make every effort 
to raise the level up in this year's appropriation, which he did. I am 
very pleased with the level of funding that he has provided for child 
care.
  So, while I am offering an amendment on afterschool, which is related 
in some ways to child care, I want to express my gratitude to the 
chairman of the subcommittee for his commitment to this issue and to 
our nation's families and children. As a result of the efforts of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa and their 
colleagues on the committee, 220,000 children will have access to 
affordable childcare next year who would not have had the increase in 
funding not been provided by the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Second, I commend Senator Kennedy for his amendment on teacher 
quality. I am sorry it had a point of order raised against it. Similar 
motions have been made other Democratic education amendments--against 
Senator Bingaman's amendment on accountability, Senator Murray's 
amendment on class size, and Senator Wellstone's on title I.
  I cannot let the moment pass without expressing my deep regrets that

[[Page 12805]]

these amendments were necessary because the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act has still not been considered. As many of you know, we 
only deal with that bill once every 6 years. I know we are in a rush to 
get everything done, but once every 6 years to focus on the elementary 
and secondary education needs of 2.5 million children and their parents 
is not a great amount of time.
  I am sorry I am offering this amendment on the Labor-HHS bill. I 
would have liked to have considered this issue on the ESEA 
reauthorization. But, I know we are not going to have a chance to get 
back to the authorizing bill, so I am left with no alternative but to 
offer this amendment on afterschool programs on this bill. I express my 
apologies to my colleagues for doing so. If my colleagues care about 
afterschool programs, as most Americans do, this may be our only chance 
to do something about it.
  The committee did increase funding for afterschool programs in this 
bill. They have raised that amount from $453 million up to $600 
million. There has been an increase. It is interesting to note, we 
appropriated only $1 million in 1997 for afterschool programs. The 
demand has been so great by school districts across the country to fill 
this need that we have watched this program grow tremendously.
  I will show my colleagues why. People ask: Why do we need more 
afterschool funding? The answer is not difficult to understand. In 
fact, parents across the country will tell you this without looking at 
statistics. You can go to any community in America, and around 3 
o'clock in the afternoon, you will find people who work will try to 
find that 5, 10, 15 minutes to get to a phone if they do not have one 
at their own workstation, to call home to find out whether or not their 
child has gotten home and is safe.
  This is a huge concern for parents. Do my colleagues remember the old 
bumper sticker which said: ``It is 11 p.m. Do you know where your child 
is?'' Mr. President, the fact is that 11 p.m. is not the problem, the 
hours right after the school day ends are the problem.
  The statistics on this chart come from our major police 
organizations. They show that the peak period for serious violent 
crimes is between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. That is the problem time.
  Percent of robbery incidents for children under age 18: The peak 
period is 3 p.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m., up to around 8 o'clock in the 
evening.
  Percent of aggravated assault incidents for children under 18: The 
peak period is about 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
  The first chart show when children are the perpetrators of crime. The 
second chart shows when children are at risk of being victims of crime. 
The peak period is 3 to 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
  As I said, parents know about this and care about it. Let me show you 
to what extent they care about it. Through the 21st Century program, we 
are now offering 310 afterschool programs around the country. Yet the 
demand for these programs is much higher--in FY 2000, 2,252 schools 
applied for grants to provide afterschool services through this 
program. That demand is coming from the parents through the schools. 
And, frankly, we're not coming even close to meeting that demand with 
an increase in funding of $147 million. Increasing funding to $1 
billion, as this amendment would do, would allow us to triple the 
number of children serviced to 2.5 million.
  Before he even says anything, I can tell you the chairman is not 
going to argue with me about whether or not we need to do this. The 
chairman is going to say: Where are the resources going to come from? 
We are up against a wall on this.
  It is a very difficult situation. If I want to find an offset for my 
amendment, I have to raid health care or child care. With these budget 
caps we have forced competition between programs that are serving the 
same families.
  I know we have budget caps, but, like most Americans, I believe if 
people care enough about this, we will find a way to deal with it. We 
always manage to on other issues. This certainly qualifies as a crisis, 
if not a natural disaster where the winds and fires have devastated 
areas, it is close to something of a natural disaster when we have the 
violent crimes, the victimization of children, the fear that parents 
have about who is watching their kids, and what are they doing when 
they are home alone.
  I will share with my colleagues, aside from the crime elements, what 
happens to kids when they are home alone.
  Drug abuse, alcohol, cigarettes all begin with these age groups when 
kids are unsupervised. Parents, as I said earlier, are not unmindful of 
this. Eighty-five percent of the most recent study of voters think 
``afterschool programs are a necessity. More than a third of the voters 
believe the single biggest threat to their children today is being 
unsupervised. Voters rank afterschool programs, along with parent 
involvement and reducing class size, as the most effective means of 
improving academic performance.
  Two months ago, I attended an event at the White House to release a 
report by a group called Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. It is a coalition 
of over 700 police chiefs and prosecutors across the country. Many of 
the individuals are conservative Republicans.
  These police chiefs said: If you are going to address the issue of 
juvenile crime and the victimization of children, you have to focus on 
the issue of after school. The parents get it; the police officers get 
it. The question is whether or not we are going to find some means to 
do something about it, to support a program that can serve 2.5 million 
children of the 5 million who are home alone in the afterschool hours.
  I mentioned earlier--and I will repeat it again today--that we spend 
less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget on 
elementary and secondary education. I suspect that could be a great 
trivia question. I suspect most Americans think that as a percentage of 
our Federal budget that we would spend something more than less than 
one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget on the 50 million 
children who attend public schools. Out of the 55 million children who 
go to school every day in this country, 50 million of them go to a 
public school. Five million children go to private, parochial schools.
  Less than one-half of 1 percent of our budget goes to serve 50 
million children. I suspect not one of us has been home in our states, 
regardless of the audience, where we do not find some way to talk about 
education in our remarks. We do so because I think all of us in this 
Chamber--regardless of party or political ideology--understand deeply 
how important education is to the well-being of our Nation and the need 
to improve the quality of our public schools.
  Shutting down failed schools may provide some quick satisfaction, but 
too often those kids in a rural school--in Nebraska or Connecticut--or 
an urban school--in Los Angeles or Chicago or Philadelphia--have no 
alternative if you shut down the school. There are not a lot of schools 
around where they can all of a sudden go the next day or the next week. 
And these are the very children we most need to help. We have to do a 
better job in trying to help these underserved kids, the ones who come 
from single-parent families, or where two parents are working because 
they have to put food on the table.
  Contributing only 7 cents out of the entire education dollar in the 
country, does not make the federal government a very good partner. Our 
local communities are strapped, our States are struggling to try to do 
a better job on class size, teacher quality, accountability, and 
afterschool programs.
  We are not measuring up, in my view, to the level of partnership that 
we ought to provide. I am not suggesting we ought to assume all of the 
responsibility for education. That would be ridiculous. But right now 
we only contribute 7 cents on the dollar--$15 billion out of about $190 
billion--that is spent nationwide on elementary and secondary 
education.
  Again, here we are at the dawn of the 21st century. It is so obvious, 
it is so

[[Page 12806]]

self-evident, that if we have hopes of succeeding as a people in this 
century, we must meet the educational needs of our children. This is 
about as fundamental as it gets. This is the hub of the wheel. People 
always say kids represent 25 percent of the population but they are 100 
percent of our future. We are the ones who will set the ground rules on 
whether or not they are going to have the chance to succeed and prosper 
in the years ahead.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my friend be 
given 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I was not able to hear his entire 
presentation, but he and I have worked together on afterschool 
programs. We have made some progress because, frankly, in the first 
budget fight that this President had, he put afterschool on the table, 
and he insisted we increase our participation.
  I don't know if my friend went over the details of how many people in 
this country really support what he is trying to do today. I wanted to 
make sure my friend knew, in the last poll I saw, about 90 percent of 
the people said: We need to do more for our children after school. I 
wonder if my friend knew that.
  Mr. DODD. I did make that point. The Senator from California has been 
a leader on this issue for a long time and on many other issues related 
to education. But I made the point about how many people care about 
this issue and I shared the polling numbers with my colleagues.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy my friend did that.
  We call ourselves representatives. What we are supposed to do is 
represent the hopes and the dreams and the needs of the people. We have 
a bill that comes to the floor that is a cap bill. We understand that. 
But my goodness, we know there are surpluses coming. If we can't do 
more to meet this need, and get that 60 votes for the Senator in this 
amendment, I think we are failing our children.
  I thank my friend for his leadership.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
  I suspect my time has expired, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. DODD. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote to waive the budget 
point of order that I know my friend from Pennsylvania will have to 
make. I thank him again.
  I will end where I began. He has been a very good friend on a lot of 
these issues. I realize his objections to this are not on the policy 
issue as much as it is a problem financially.
  But I wanted to offer this amendment because it is a critically 
important one. My hope is we get back to the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act and that we spend more time on that bill before this 
session ends. We have a chance to address these kinds of policy 
questions, on which I think more of my colleagues would like to be 
heard.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is 
recognized.

                          ____________________