T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, earlier this month, I came to the floor to announce that I was introducing legislation that would authorize the removal of one of two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula in my state. I have always been skeptical about claims that dam removal will have significant enough impact on my state's depleted salmon runs to justify their social and economic costs. I am willing to go along with this limited experiment, however, provided that the removal or significant alteration of any dam on the Columbia-Snake River System will not take place without Congressional approval. As I mentioned in my statement, removing the lower Elwha Dam, a relatively small, poorly maintained project, is a small price to pay for the protection of the larger, more productive Columbia-Snake dams that are the lifeblood of our Northwest economy and that in recent years have come under attack by the Clinton-Gore Administration. I hoped that allowing the experiment of dam removal to move forward on the Elwha River would be enough to satisfy the wishes of environmental extremists within this Administration. I should have known that when it comes to environmental issues nothing is ever enough for this Administration. I was astounded by the criticism my bill has received. Big City newspapers in Seattle and Portland have attacked the bill. The Sierra Club and other radical groups have attacked the bill. The Administration has attacked the bill, as has my Democratic colleague from Washington state. Needless to say, this criticism is unfounded and shortsighted. Let me remind my colleagues and anyone else who has an interest in this subject what my bill does and does not do. It authorizes many millions of dollars to remove the lower Elwha River Dam. It also protects the local water supply in Port Angeles, and protects jobs at a local paper mill. As I have said repeatedly, I am skeptical that dam removal will result in a significant increase in Elwha River salmon runs because: (1) many rivers on the Olympic Peninsula that have never been dammed are not teeming with salmon; (2) the salmon crisis challenge our coastal rivers as well and yet none of those rivers have dams on them; and (3) Puget Sound is now home to endangered salmon runs, and, of course, there are no major dams on Puget Sound. Yet, despite these reservations, I am still willing to go forward with this experiment--it's worth the money to see the results on the ground. But rural communities of Eastern Washington are so concerned about how this legislation impacts their livelihood--many in Eastern Washington believe removal of the Elwha River dams is a precursor to destroying dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers . So my bill contains protections for these communities by requiring congressional approval for any destruction, or significant modification, of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. I should point out that for several years federal agencies have taken unprecedented and unauthorized actions to alter significantly and limit the effectiveness of these projects without any input from Congress. For the most part, my bill allows these agencies to continue implementing the present series of unauthorized actions. It simply prevents the executive branch from taking additional unilateral actions to modify these projects without Congressional approval. Why it should be so controversial when Elwha dam removal will have been the subject of two bills in Congress, I fail to understand. Columbia and Snake River dam removal almost certainly requires Congressional approval now, under present law--my bill just provides reassurances for eastern Washington. I think this is also an appropriate time to remind all of those who are interested in this legislation--the Port Angeles community, Eastern Washington, environmentalists, the Administration, and Northwest congressional officeholders--what I am for, and what I am not for in regards to management of our region's environment, and the Columbia/ Snake Rivers system. Here are the things that I am for: Salmon: On this one, everyone has the same goal--more salmon. We just have different approaches for accomplishing this goal. I want more salmon in our rivers, and I want solutions to our Northwest salmon crisis that result in more salmon and less conflict among the region's various interests. Clear, Scientific Conclusions: We need clear, scientific conclusions that guide the region toward responsible salmon recovery measures. Hydropower Production: Hydro is the cleanest and most cost-effective way to produce large amounts of electricity. Our hydropower asset is the backbone of our Northwest economy. I don't want to lose that ``leg up'' that we have on other regions, nor do I want to resort to less environmentally friendly sources of power production to replace power lost because of dam removal. Irrigation: Eastern Washington is America's pantry and refrigerator. Our farmlands produce dozens of different crops that feed the nation and the world. Before the dams, Central Washington had few farms, and was mostly a dustbowl. Irrigated farmland has turned this part of the nation into some of the world's most productive farmland. River Traffic: We get a large share of those crops to market by barging them down the river. Studies show that it would take 700,000 more trucks each year to get farm products to market if dam removal eliminated barge traffic. Recreation: I want people to have access to the river for boating, fishing and other recreation activities. Protecting our Communities from Severe Floods: Without question, the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers were the single biggest reason why Portland and other Columbia River communities did not incur untold millions of dollars in additional damages from the record winter rains our area has seen over the past three years. A Clean Washington State: This is my most important goal--I want our State to have clean water, clean air, and a healthy environment for all of our citizens. My desire for a clean Washington state is why I have backed the following environmental initiatives: Washington Wilderness Bill; Double-hulled oil tankers in Puget Sound; Higher emission standards for automobiles; and Spending taxpayer dollars on recreation such as the Mountains to Sound Greenway, the Cape Horn Trail, Alpine Lakes, and other nature projects. Given all the confusion and mischaracterizations of my bill, I think it is also important to talk about what I cannot support. Here is what I am not for: Removing Dams on the Columbia-Snake: Why would anyone want to remove the jewels of our Northwest economy? I will never support such efforts to cripple the world's most productive hydro system. The Status Quo: During the past six years, we have spent $3 billion on salmon recovery for the Pacific Northwest, most of it directed by the Clinton Administration, and the crisis is even greater than it was when the Administration's efforts started. Wasteful Spending of Taxpayer Dollars: Even now, our government spends $500 million on Columbia/Snake River salmon recovery, and most of that money is spent in ways that have not proven to be successful. Until I passed legislation that ended an outrageous conflict of interest by which those who approved the spending of salmon recovery funds awarded most of the money to themselves, the money was misspent. Now, at least the money goes to those whom objective scientists feel will use it most effectively. Solutions Dictated to the region from Washington, D.C.: Recently, the Administration's top environmental staffer in Washington, D.C., Katie McGinty, was in Oregon to discuss the government's salmon recovery plans for the Northwest. That is exactly the wrong way to approach this problem. Why would our region put decisions about our economy, our communities, our future in the hands of someone 3,000 miles away? I believe we need to make these decisions, not Administration officials in Washington, D.C. Rather than continuing the mindless attacks on my efforts to bring some balance to this debate, I make the following offer to those who criticize the Eastern Washington part of my Elwha package. If you are not for dam removal and want to keep the dams intact, offer up better legislative language that helps accomplish the goal of protecting our region's economic future. My legislation may need improvement. I am anxious to listen to how others would reach my goal. If there is a better idea of how we can ease the concerns of Eastern Washington with regard to dam removal, I challenge the Administration, Senator Murray, and the Sierra Club, and other opponents of this legislation, to offer a better alternative. I am interested in all proposals from those who want to make a statement in favor of protecting the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. If you favor removing dams, however, and that is what is really driving your opposition to my legislation, I think it is time for you to be honest with the Northwest and state your position clearly. The Clinton Administration, and major environmental groups have sent mixed signals on this issue. Many of them advocate extreme, unrealistic and unscientific salmon recovery measures; some do not. I think it is time for these people to make their positions clear--do they want the dams removed or effectively destroyed, or what? And if they continue to temporize on this issue, I ask them to address the goals that I discussed earlier--salmon, irrigation, river traffic, hydropower production, recreation, and flood control--and tell me how they are committed to those traditional objectives, or if the possibility of attaining some salmon recovery goals is worth destroying most or all of these other uses. I want my Elwha Dam removal legislation fully discussed in committee and have requested hearings. In the past few weeks, the opponents of my anti-dam removal legislation have called me divisive, extremist, and a salmon-hater. I am none of those things. I hope that my opponents, and particularly the Administration and my Democratic colleagues from the Northwest, will work together with me to craft legislation that removes the lower Elwha River dam and protects Eastern Washington from those who want to remove dams, stop irrigation, eliminate barge traffic, reduce hydropower, raise electric rates for families, restrict recreation and push for dubious salmon solutions. I welcome the opportunity for a full and reasoned debate on this subject. It's time to put the rhetoric aside, the tired adjectives aside, and the political smokescreens aside. It's time for everyone to come clean, and make clear where they stand on this important issue. This bill provides such an opportunity, and I look forward to receiving proposals from people throughout the region on how to improve my bill. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am given to understand from the debate on the floor this afternoon that I have made many new friends along with the Senator from Georgia. Senators on the other side of the aisle who were totally unable to find a good word for his bill over the course of the last month or two have suddenly said how desperately they wish to vote for his bill if it were not for the Gorton amendment having been added to it. Mr. President, the Gorton bill basically takes $10 billion a year of Federal money for our public schools, of which about $2 billion is used by bureaucrats today, and says that we prefer classrooms to bureaucrats. We would like to allow each State, if it wished to do so, to say that the whole $10 billion went into our schools rather than to have roughly $2 billion of it siphoned off by Federal and State bureaucrats. I suppose it is perfectly appropriate for Members of this body to believe that without those bureaucrats in Washington, DC, and in our State capitals, all of that money would be wasted; that our school board members, our superintendents, our principals, our teachers, and our parents, don't know what they are doing and that we must set national priorities for them and tell them there are certain things they must spend the money--that we have collected from them and returned to them--on. That, however, has not been the argument against the Gorton amendment so far. More than one Member this afternoon opposing it talked about how it damaged disabled children. It doesn't include the aid for disabled children. It is not affected by it at all. It is totally irrelevant to that subject. Others have said how it destroys the fight against drugs in our public schools, or for safety, or for mathematics education, and the like. Mr. President, it may very well be that, for example, the principal debater against this, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, knows more about what the Boston schools need than does the Boston school committee, but I am reasonably confident that he does not know more about what the Wenatchee, WA, school district needs than do the teachers and parents and school board members in Wenatchee, WA. That amendment takes about one-third of the money, $10 billion out of $30 billion a year that goes to the Department of Education here in Washington, DC, for common school education, and it says that States, like that system of Federal regulation and the narrow Federal categorical aid program, are perfectly free to retain it without change, but that those States that think that either their States or their local school districts might possibly do better without those Federal regulations and with more money will have that option for a 5- year period. The State can adopt the policy under which it is the State educational agency that makes the determination as to how this money can be used, or the States can opt. It is my preference, and was the only option a year ago when I first proposed it and this amendment was agreed to, that each of the 14,000 school districts in the United States can make those choices for themselves. It may be that the Wenatchee school district, or any other, will feel that the precise requirements and the exact amount of money in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act is what the Wenatchee school district ought to spend on that subject. But if it were allowed to make those choices, that school district might decide that it wanted to spend more money on that subject from the Federal Government, and perhaps in a slightly different way than the set of Federal regulations set out for every school district in the country, and it might, if it is very fortunate, decide that it could get by with less and put more of that money into teaching English, or mathematics, or computer sciences. Mr. President, I suppose one can say that to allow that kind of discretion would be disastrous to our schools; that there is no way that it is appropriate for us to trust those local school board members wisely to spend the money collected here in Washington, DC, and send it back for school purposes. But I believe that if there is to be an argument against that, it ought to be on the basis of what the amendment says and not the statements of those who have not read it. To repeat. It does essentially two things. It takes this $10 billion and says each State may continue the present system, may have a State- based system or may have a local-based system for a period of 5 years, at the end of which time, I think, perhaps we might know a little bit more about what works best. It does something else. It says that this bill stays in effect only as long as Congress keeps, modestly at least, increasing the amount of money it puts into our schools. I would have thought many on the other side of the aisle would have liked that effective guarantee, a real incentive for us to do our job for education. Evidently, however, there is in this body a view not widely shared in the United States, a view that the present system is so close to perfect that we do not dare experiment with it; that we are doing so well with our Federal policies, that we are so successful that we should not experiment with them at all. For those who believe that bureaucrats are more important than classrooms, or at the very least that bureaucrats here in Washington, DC, should run our classrooms, and that they should retain literally billions of dollars that could otherwise be spent in the classroom, opposition to the amendment was appropriate and taken well. But for those who believe that there is not only great concern, perhaps the greatest concern, for children in a given part of the United States on the part of those children's parents and their teachers, their principals, their school board members, and a degree of competence and knowledge about what those communities and schools need, this amendment offers a new chance and a real experiment. It isn't permanent. Can I say that there is no question but that it will be a better system? Of course not. I think it will be. I am sure we will learn when there are States that accept each of these three alternatives. But to say that it is some kind of disaster, to say that without this guidance, without these requirements from the Department of Education in Washington, DC, without our wisdom, 100 Members of this body, with all we know about schools, that we will irretrievably damage the educational fabric of this country is simply wrong. I regret having deprived my friend and colleague from Georgia of so many friends and so many supporters. I strongly support his bill, as he does mine. But it does seem to me that there ought to be enough tolerance in this body, enough faith in the American system that we are willing for a period of time to let some States in this country try to operate under State-mandated rules and others to let school districts make their own decisions. The amendment that a small majority of this body passed yesterday does just exactly that, nothing less and nothing more.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, the Gorton-Frist amendment is based on two philosophical principles. The first of those principles is that the present system under which 7 percent of the dollars going into education come from the Federal Government, together with 50 percent of all of the rules and regulations under which that education is provided, is not necessarily either in theory or in practice the best way to set policies for our public schools or to fund those public schools. It is based also on the philosophy that parents and teachers and principals and superintendents and elected school board members all across the United States not only care more about the children in their trust but are better able to set the educational policies for their children in their schools than are bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or even Senators in the U.S. Senate. The Gorton-Frist amendment, however, forces these two philosophical distinctions or principles on no one. Under this amendment, any State that likes the present system of Federal control is authorized to retain it. Any State that believes educational policy should be set at the State capital through a State school board or Governor or State superintendent of public instruction is free to adopt such a system. And any State that believes, as we do, that local control and local spending policies are best, is free to adopt that policy. We also guarantee that no State will lose money under this amendment. I commend it to the President and to the Members of the Senate.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today, as we debate the most important issue we will discuss all year on the Senate floor--our children's education--I would like to take a moment to recognize Washington State's Teacher of the Year, Ms. Yvonne Ullas. A first grade teacher at Naches Primary School in Yakima, Washington, Ms. Ullas is being honored in Washington, DC to recognize her dedication to her profession and innovation in the classroom. We think we have a challenging job in the Senate, but every day Ms. Ullas is charged with stimulating the minds of 24 active first graders. The Naches primary school has prepared this book with their advice for President Clinton and have asked that I send it over to the White House. Many of the children commented that if they were President they would make sure our kids have the best education. I will make sure the words of advice reach the President. I know Ms. Ullas serves as an example of excellence in education and of the dedication of many people in our local communities to ensuring a bright future for our children.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand the minority will simply permit the Frist second-degree amendment to pass by a voice vote. I will then ask for a rollcall vote, which will take place at 3 o'clock, on the underlying amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in 1768 in a letter to George Wythe, Thomas Jefferson wrote, No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness . . . Preach a crusade against ignorance; establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against the evils [of misgovernment]. As a nation we have long recognized the importance of education of the future well-being of our children and our nation. A quality education is vital in an increasingly competitive global environment and indeed, as Jefferson notes, to the preservation of our democracy. Every Senator undoubtedly wants to do everything in their power to improve the educational opportunities for all children. It is one of our highest priorities in the U.S. Senate. As many of my colleagues may recall, last year I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 1998 Senate Labor, Health and Human Services Education appropriations bill that consolidated most federally funded K-12 education programs, and sent that money directly to local school districts free from the mandates and regulations imposed on our schools by Washington, DC, bureaucrats. The Senate approved the amendment but, at the administration's insistence, it was stripped from the final bill. For most of this half century Washington, DC, has been dominated by people who believe that centralized decisions and centralized control exercised by Washington, DC, is the best way to solve problems, including those in the classroom. This approach has not worked. As Washington, DC, has taken power and authority from local school districts, our schools have not improved. But, old habits die hard. The belief in centralized power is still very much alive. When I proposed my amendment last year, every single Democrat in the Senate opposed it and the President strongly criticized the approach of returning money and authority over education to our school districts. Why is the status quo no longer acceptable? There are a multitude of reasons. As many of you know, the results of the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) were recently announced. Unfortunately, those graduating from our high schools did not fare well. Twelfth grade students from the United States did not achieve at a level I would call acceptable, with scores below the international average in both science and mathematics. Is it because the United States has not been devoting sufficient resources to education? The facts don't bear out that assessment. Resources devoted to education have been increasing in constant dollars almost yearly for the last 25 years, but there has been no significant change in the achievement of students. What do we have to show for our investment? We have a web of literally hundreds of Federal education programs woven throughout 39 Federal departments and agencies and totaling $73.1 billion in 1997. I wish I had a comprehensive list of all the Federal education programs to show you, but the Department of Education doesn't know exactly how many there are. In January of this year Dr. Carlotta Joyner of the GAO appeared before the Senate Budget Committee Education Task Force and presented us with a graphic that highlights the web of Federal education programs in only the three areas of education: At Risk and Delinquent Youth, Early Childhood programs, and Teacher training programs. What this chart shows is that 15 Federal departments and agencies administer 127 At Risk and Delinquent Youth programs, 11 Federal departments and agencies administer more than 90 Early Childhood programs, and 9 Federal departments and agencies administer 86 Teacher Training programs. It is no wonder that more and more, our states and local school districts are being suffocated by a tidal wave of papers, forms and programs, each of which no doubt began with good intentions. The net result of this tidal wave, however, is precisely what makes it difficult to set priorities in each of the many varied states and school districts across the country to determine that which will best serve their students. I firmly believe that the elected school board members, parents, superintendents and principals, as well as governors and legislatures, are dedicated to providing the best possible education for school children that they possibly can, and that they are better able to make decisions about what is best for their students than are Members of Congress or bureaucrats in the Department of Education. It is extremely arrogant of us here in this body to set detailed requirements for very specific education programs that apply to children all across the United States. It's wrong to believe that Congress or the Department of Education has all the answers to the variety of problems our schools and educators face. Why should a bureaucrat in Washington, DC, decide what's best for the children in Washington State? They don't know Walla Walla from Wenatchee from Woodinville. Over the past several months I have had the opportunity to meet with parents and educators from across Washington State and the Nation. They have expressed a great deal of concern about the stifling nature of the rules and regulations that come along with the myriad of federal education programs in existence. In fact, several have commented that although school districts receive only about 7 percent of their funding from the Federal Government, with that money comes 50 percent of the rules and regulations they must comply with. A perfect example of the crushing nature of Federal rules, regulations and paperwork comes from a program I didn't even include in my amendment. The Bellevue School District, a suburban school district east of Seattle, has gathered all the paperwork necessary to begin, just begin, the file they are required to keep for special education students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Placed end to end, this paperwork extends for almost 40 feet. 40 Feet! We have allowed bureaucrats in Washington, DC, to impose half or more than half of the rules and regulations that so often frustrate innovation and success in our schools. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that Congress must do more to free State and local officials from the burden placed on them by the Federal Government to educating America's children. We must be willing to admit that somebody else may know a little bit more than we do about this subject. My firm belief is that the wisdom needed to educate our children lies in States and individual school districts--with parents at home, with teachers in the classroom, with principals in the schools, and with school board members who, almost without exception, are public-spirited citizens who have run for election to a job that does not pay or pays very little. We must keep in mind that the same citizenry who elected us to the U.S. Senate also elected our school board members. It is unlikely that they were wise in electing us and ignorant of their own interests in picking their school board members. I have listened to educators from around the country and have applied those lessons to the crafting of this amendment. My amendment makes several changes that address the concerns of those who have been kind enough to take the time and work with me and my office to improve upon the work begun during last year's appropriations process. First, there were concerns that any attempt to block grant education funds to local communities was simply a back door attempt to cut funding. My amendment makes it crystal clear that is not what this effort is about. My amendment authorizes specific levels of funding through fiscal year 2003, targets that appropriators must meet in order for the block grants to continue. If these targets are not met, we would revert to the status quo. Others have expressed concern that my amendment is an attempt to close the Department of Education. Nothing could be further from the truth. My amendment is not about abolishing the Department of Education--my amendment is about giving communities the flexibility they need to educate our children. Even after enactment of my amendment, there would be plenty of work left for the Department. My amendment does not even touch on the Department's responsibilities with respect to higher education. And even though my amendment includes more than 20 Federal education programs, that is but a fraction of the total number of education programs administered by the Department of Education, not to mention the Federal Government as a whole. Concerns have also been expressed about the targeting of Federal funds to disadvantaged students. The concern is that because Federal funding often is targeted at a specific population, block granting funds and allowing States and school districts to decide how those funds are spent will mean those populations will no longer be served. Well, this mentality is what led to the creation of the quagmire of education programs we find ourselves wallowing in today. My amendment retains specification for what populations the Bilingual Education and Education for the Disadvantaged (Title I, Part A), funds are to be spent, but it leaves up to States and school districts the method by which those populations are best served. As for the list of 20 Federal programs, my amendment outlines a series of allowable uses such as hiring new teachers, magnet schools, charter schools, and combating illiteracy, which give local officials flexibility in designing reforms to improve the achievement of students. The total amount of funding that gets to the classroom will be considerably greater because so much less will get lost in the gears of administration at two, three or four different levels of bureaucracy between Washington, DC, and the classroom. As I've stated previously, we cannot assume that Washington, DC, knows best when it comes to educating the diverse population that exists in America today. I have heard comments that different states have different opinions about how they should receive federal funds. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee Education Task Force, chaired by my good friend and colleague Senator Frist, I had a chance to hear from Frank Brogan, Commissioner of Education from the State of Florida, and Henry Der, Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction from the State of California. Mr. Brogan and Mr. Der have widely different opinions about the efficacy of involving the Federal Government in decisions regarding education in their States. Mr. Brogan states, Congress should identify priority areas and allow States to designate the dollars for specific programs. With Education, we are already beginning to see States becoming living laboratories, testing varied programs and options. If left to pursue reform without added Federal burdens and interference, States can learn from the success and mistakes of others, . . . with the freedom to emulate some programs as models and/or discard those that are ineffective. Mr. Der followed Mr. Brogan with, We submit to you that the roads toward devolution will result in less opportunities for those with special needs and will retard the leadership role that the U.S. Department of Education has played, as well as undermine the accountability that we need to build into our education programs.'' Therefore, it became clear to me that States should have a choice concerning how they receive their Federal funds, and my amendment gives them that choice. My amendment says that States will have three options with respect to how they receive Federal education funds. Simply put, a State legislature, with the concurrence of the Governor, will choose from one of three methods for receiving Federal funds: (1) States can continue to receive Federal education funds through current categorical programs; (2) States can receive Federal education funds in a block grant to the State Educational Agency; or (3) States can direct the Federal Government to send Federal education funds directly to their Local Educational Agencies. There are also provisions in my amendment that respond to other concerns about the immediate financial impact on States and school districts. My amendment includes a 100 percent hold harmless, so that no State or school district will receive less than what they received before enactment of this legislation. Further, there is a provision which says that for those States receiving a multiyear grant through one of the programs included in the block grant, that multiyear grant will be funded through to completion in order to provide an appropriate transition from one process to another. Finally, my amendment encourages accountability by requiring States and school districts to collect information about how Federal funds are spent, as well as involving parents and other members of the public in debates over how funds will be utilized. As you can see, my amendment is based on the principal that with additional authority and money schools would receive from this reform, our teachers, parents, principals, and school boards would be inspired to do even more for our children. They would not, as some suggested during debate on this issue last year, be inspired to build swimming pools. They would be inspired to make sure that every child in their community receives the best education possible. While I think this example shows the fundamental difference between the approach I advocate, and that of the administration, I just have to ask this question: Does anyone really believe that there are parents, teachers or school board members in America who would rather use scarce education dollars for swimming pools instead of providing a quality education for their children? On February 10 of this year, I had the opportunity to visit the Union Gap Elementary School and learn about the tremendous work they are doing, in the words of their Superintendent Bob McLaughlin, to `heal' their children's reading difficulties. More than three years ago, Dr. McLaughlin became painfully aware that the Union Gap School District did not have a program to assist its students who were having difficulty learning to read. Dr. McLaughlin then took it upon himself to search out a program which would be both affordable and helpful to the students. During the 1995-96 school year. Dr. McLaughlin discovered the Read-Write program and soon thereafter the program underwent a 10-week test in the school. The test was so successful that at the conclusion of the 10-week test run the school board adopted the program and fully implemented it for the 1996-97 school year. Since the program has been implemented, significant gains have become evident. Dr. McLaughlin also took the time to explain to me his previous experience as a principal at a neighboring high school upon which brought him to the conclusion something should be done about reading comprehension at the elementary level. As a high school principal, Dr. McLaughlin would continually see students entering his school unprepared to read and write effectively, and in many instances no where near grade level. The frustration he experienced seeing these kids struggle through high school without the necessary tools drove Dr. McLaughlin to seek a solution at Union Gap Elementary. As Dr. McLaughlin and other teachers at the elementary school know, once you teach a child to read that child has gained a skill he or she retained for a lifetime of enrichment. This instance is a clear example of the innovative work school districts are engaging in to improve the education of their students. Under the Gorton Amendment, Dr. McLaughlin and his school board would have the flexibility to expand this program if that is what they felt was in the best interest of their students. I doubt seriously that Dr. McLaughlin would consider tennis courts or swimming pools to be a priority. This issue boils down to each Senator asking if he or she believes schools will be improved through more control from Washington, DC, or by giving more control to parents, teachers, principals, superintendents, and school board members? I believe our best hope for improving the education of our children is to put the American people in charge of their local schools. Mr. President, I wonder if the minority manager will agree to a unanimous consent agreement that I have 3 additional minutes on this amendment? I do see my colleague from Washington here. We are going forward with that amendment, and I would like just 3 minutes further to speak on this subject.

Mr. GORTON. No, the Senator is not correct. Title I is in this amendment. However, the money is distributed only on the basis of title I-eligible students. In other words, the school districts will get the same amount of money and will still be targeted for title I-eligible students. But it is in this amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am saddened by the response of Senator Kennedy. This amendment was revised very substantially after consultation, wide consultation with people thoughtfully interested in education. By the terms of the amendment, any State that wants to continue the present system and thinks it is best may do so, any State that wants to operate its Federal aid through its State educational entity may do so, and any State that thinks that education will best be conducted at the local level will be permitted to do so. How that destroys programs or hurts education is beyond my understanding. In January, Dr. Carlotta Joyner of the General Accounting Office came before the Senate budget task force and said in three areas of education 15 Federal departments and agencies administer 127 at-risk and delinquent youth programs; 11 Federal departments and agencies administer more than 90 early childhood programs; and 9 Federal departments and agencies administer 86 teacher-training programs. Twenty programs are consolidated into this block grant for those States that wish it. It takes about one-third of all of the money that the U.S. Department of Education spends on education from kindergarten through 12th grade. To say that once we reduce the rulemaking functions of the U.S. Department of Education we are going to destroy education is to say that neither State education agencies nor local school districts nor superintendents nor teachers either know what they are doing or care about what they are doing. That is simply wrong. They know more and they care more because they are right there with our children. If it does not work, it will go out of existence. Any State that does not want it does not have to take it. I believe this is an amendment that ought to be adopted unanimously. I regret the opposition of the Senator from Massachusetts. What we are doing is improving education and getting more dollars into the classroom, not less. Mr. President, I yield such time as he wishes to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. GORTON. I yield the Senator 1 minute. Sorry.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my friend and colleague from North Dakota and I, together, less than 2 months ago, voted with 94 other Members of this Senate for a bill relating to transportation covering somewhat more than four times as many billions of dollars as this amendment does. Unlike the House of Representatives, we included no specific programs in that transportation bill. We decided there was a national purpose for transportation but that the priorities as to how that money for highways ought to be spent should be set by States--generally speaking, not by elected officials in those States, but usually by a highway bureaucracy. No one said that, because we weren't telling the States what roads to build, there was no national purpose and we should abandon transportation as a national issue. Yet the Senator from North Dakota says that, rather than give a three-way option to States with respect to $10 billion a year in education money, it would be philosophically more consistent to abandon the field because, after all, the States might set different priorities; maybe the States and local school districts don't care about drugs or don't care about disadvantaged students. Mr. President, that is a basic philosophical difference between us. The thought being expressed to me--that elected school board members and principals and teachers and parents and even State legislators don't care much about education or about education priorities--boggles the mind. We are the only people who do so? We are the only people who can set the way in which national priorities are carried out? We and bureaucrats at the Department of Education? Let me tell you, we come up with 7 percent of the money and 50 or 60 percent of the rules? In one field not covered by this, where the Senator from North Dakota did support me, we give 9 percent of the money for disabled education and we set rules that are so stringent that some school board members are saying they are going to defy those rules because they cannot provide for a safe environment for their students. In title I, the forms are exceeded only by IDEA. This proposal will allow schools to spend more money on disadvantaged students, more money on bilingual students, and do it in a way that suits the particular needs of the districts, if the State elects to do so. Any State that agrees with the position of Senator Dorgan is perfectly free to keep the present system. Any State that feels it can do a better job will be allowed to do a better job. And any State that feels its elected school board members can do a better job will be allowed to do that. Maybe Senator Dorgan is right. If so, we will learn by experiment. But unless we feel--with him and Senator Kennedy--that the present system is working magnificently, that our system of education is so good that it doesn't need to be changed or experimented with at all, we should reject this amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my friend from North Dakota makes two arguments. One, a philosophical argument against the abolition of the Department of Education, based on the philosophy that there is a function of the Department of Education in Washington, DC. That, however, is not an argument against this amendment since this amendment does not abolish the Department. It takes only about one-third of the money that it is spending in K through 12 education. The second argument the Senator from North Dakota makes is that it is absolutely essential for the success of our educational efforts that there be very strict rules coming from the Department of Education to every school district in the United States. That would be a forceful argument if we had been a tremendous ``signal'' success in these policies. Nothing indicates that we have been. It is one of the reasons we are debating education policy here today. What I proposed is an opportunity to try three experiments: Continue the present system, allow the States to do it, or allow local school districts to do it. I remain puzzled that anyone should say that we are so successful today that we can't experiment, we can't change. Let's try for a while three different systems and see which one works the best. Competition always ends up with the best results. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask the following Senators be listed as original cosponsors of the amendment: Senator Frist, Senator Hagel, Senator Mack, Senator Coverdell, Senator Helms, Senator Bob Smith, Senator Domenici, Senator Nickles, and Senator Craig.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, last fall during the debate of the Labor, Education appropriations bill, I introduced an amendment to consolidate more than a dozen Federal aid programs for education from kindergarten through 12th grade into a single block grant, with the block grant going to each individual school district across the United States. The amendment had three goals: To see to it that each school district receive more money than it does at the present time by sending directly to the school districts money now kept by the Department of Education for administrative purposes and money kept by State educational agencies for administrative purposes. The second goal was to reduce the flood, the blizzard, of paperwork imposed on all of our school districts across the country with respect to dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of separate programs directly or indirectly aimed at the education of our children between kindergarten and 12th grade. And the third and philosophical reason for the amendment was the belief that the professional educators, the parents, and the elected school board members in each State and school district in this country had the education of their children close to their hearts and really knew, in each community, more about what the children of that community required in connection with education policy than did any person in Washington, DC, whether a bureaucrat in the Department of Education or a U.S. Senator in this body. Perhaps the most difficult conclusion for any of us here to reach is that maybe we don't know as much as do people at home about the immediate problems and challenges that they face in a wide range of areas--in this case, most particularly, education. So it was an attempt to allow 10,000 flowers to bloom, to allow each individual school district far more discretion than it has at the present time to determine where Federal aid could best be used. After all, we only come up with 6 to 8 percent of the money that our schools spend. We don't have a right to come up with 50 or 60 percent of the rules and regulations and forms with which our schools must contend. That burden lessens the ability of teachers to teach and administrators to administer and school board members to set policies. Somewhat to my surprise, that amendment was passed by a vote of 51 to 49. It was objected to, partly on substantive grounds and partly on procedural grounds. It had not been the subject of hearings. The House of Representatives was uncomfortable with it. The President was opposed. And it was eventually dropped in the conference committee on that appropriations bill. Since then, however, it has been a matter of major discussion among school officials all across the United States. It has been the subject of hearings here in the U.S. Senate, conducted by my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Frist from Tennessee, on a bipartisan basis. I have spent countless hours talking to educators on the subject and listening to both their praise and to their concerns. As a consequence, this amendment is somewhat changed from the previous amendment. This amendment will last for 5 years, but its effective date will be delayed in order to give the people of each State a very real choice in the way in which they receive their Federal aid for education. We heard the representative of at least one State school superintendent say that he liked the present system. We heard several State school superintendents say how much more they could do with the money dramatically to reform education policy if the money came to each of the 50 States, to their Governor or to their superintendent of schools. Many of the outside intellectuals and academics in the field of education feel that it is at the State level that true education reform is taking place. We hear from many school board members--I hear from many of them in my home State and so do other Members--that they liked my original proposal to get rid of both bureaucracies and allow each individual school district to make these decisions. So this amendment gives each State a choice. The State legislature in the next year may elect to continue the present system, it may elect to take the money at the State level going through whatever educational establishment that State has established, or it may elect, either positively or by taking no action, to allow the money to go directly through to school districts. Senator Frist will offer a second-degree amendment allowing that choice to be rescinded to change the amendment I think friendly to the proposition. As a consequence, we will be able to determine whether or not the proposal I made last year is a significant benefit to education, whether the best system is one in which each State makes its own choices, much as we have done with respect to welfare reform, or whether the present system is best, because there will be States that make each of these three decisions. I hope that this will turn this proposal into a bipartisan proposal. I am not sure why anyone should oppose that triple option allowing a different way of doing things. Only if we regarded the present education system as perfect should we reject an experiment of this sort. The second objection, the second apprehension that was close to universal, was the proposition that if we went to a block grant, if we combined all of these ideas into a block grant, Congress would immediately lose interest in education and the block grant would inevitably decline and that the money wouldn't be there for schools. I believe the interest in education here to be high enough so that that would not have taken place, but the concern was very real. In responding to that concern, we have set authorization levels for the 5 years during which this experiment will take place, each of which rises modestly in each of those years consistent with the balanced budget agreement and the projections of the freeze under which discretionary spending will operate. This proposal says that if in any year we don't meet that authorization level, the whole experiment falls and ends, and we go back to the present system. We have guaranteed not only a continuation of effort, we have guaranteed a modest increase in that effort over the years. Finally, we have a hold harmless under which school districts say that no school will receive less money if they elect one of the two systems other than continuing the status quo than they would have received otherwise, with the distribution of title I money based on the number of title I eligible students fundamentally, bilingual money based on the number of bilingual students fundamentally, and a distribution of the balance on the basis of the prosperity and poverty of a given State. I think we have something very positive for education here, a system that will get more money into the classroom, will allow more experimentation, will allow us to find out whether the present system is the best system we can come up with or a State-based system or a local-based system. At this point, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues of both parties to look at this very carefully, not to judge it necessarily on the basis of the way in which they judged last year's proposal but to judge it on the basis of whether or not they have a sufficient trust in their own elected school board members, elected by the same people who elect us, to make better judgments, in some cases, about their schools than we can make here on a one-size-fits-all basis in Washington, DC. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McConnell be added as a cosponsor to the Gorton amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, those deck chairs, as I remember, were sitting on the deck of the Titanic. It is already going down. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ashcroft be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, seeing there is the sponsor of another amendment here, I think proper procedure is to move to that amendment. Mr. President, I ask for a rollcall on the Gorton amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will immediately resume consideration of H.R. 2646, the Coverdell A+ education bill. Under the previous order, this Senator will be recognized at 9:30 a.m. to offer an amendment with respect to block grants. Members who have remaining amendments to the Coverdell bill are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate those amendments. Senators are reminded that any votes ordered this morning with respect to pending amendments will be stacked to occur at approximately 3 p.m. Further votes will occur throughout today's session as we attempt to complete action on this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, this is the message from the majority leader, and I want to emphasize the last point. It is his intention that we finish all amendments and debate on final passage of this bill before the end of the session today. So those who have amendments should come to the floor and offer them in order, after the debate on my own is complete. Now, Mr. President, I ask recognition in order to present an amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just a few moments ago, the manager of this bill had a vehicle for a wide-ranging debate over Federal education policy and received unanimous consent to withdraw from consideration the Gregg amendment. Because the Gregg amendment was identical to an amendment that I offered last year in debate over the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and because the Gregg amendment perhaps created more interest on the part of school authorities, school board members, superintendents, principals, and teachers, than any other amendment being debated this week, it seemed important to me to explain to educators all across the country why the debate on the Gregg amendment or the Gregg-Gorton amendment will not be pursued during the course of the debate on this Coverdell A+ bill. Violence in our schools--assaults, the carrying into schools of guns and other dangerous weapons, disruptive behavior that threatens the safety and security of the educational environment, disruptive behavior that detracts from the educational experience of all students--is an increasingly serious problem. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the purposes of which are not only praiseworthy but in some respects essential in guaranteeing to all students, including even the most severely disabled, the opportunity for a public education that will allow them to live to the maximum of their capacities, nevertheless includes within it a set of provisions relating to safety, to discipline, and to the orderly nature of our classrooms that amounts to a clear and explicit double standard and, in an increasing number of cases, severely detracts from the educational atmosphere for all of the students of such a school. In Seattle, late last month, a student designated ``disabled'' attacked other students with a knife on a schoolbus. In Louisiana, a teacher was attacked and hospitalized. In several States, as we know, assaults with guns have actually resulted in the deaths of students and of teachers. In Danbury, CT, parents picketed a school and withdrew their children from the school because two students were suspended for a mere 10 days for bringing a gun into the school atmosphere. The Seattle Post Intelligencer, Seattle's morning newspaper--not a newspaper from which I often quote--wrote an editorial shortly after the incident that took place on that Seattle school bus that reads, in part, as follows: Tuesday's stabbing incident involving a student aboard a Seattle school district bus has called attention to unwise provisions of Federal law that apparently require more tolerance of dangerous behavior by special education students. If the school district really is required by law to allow students back into class who carry weapons or otherwise have demonstrated intent to harm others, that law is in error and must be changed. . . . In this school year, there have been four or five instances in which special education students have been accepted back into school even though they had carried weapons, according to Brenda Little, an assistant legal counsel for the district. Before a special education student can be disciplined, said Little, principals are required by Federal law to prove that the child understood the consequences of his or her behavior and that it was not related to the student's disability. That's a prescription for disaster. If a child carries a weapon to school, it is irrelevant whether that child understands the possible consequences of doing so. . . . In fact, if the child doesn't understand the consequences, that's all the more reason to remove that child from situations where other children may be harmed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the editorial is correct; it is correct in its understanding and it is correct in its policy judgments. In Louisiana, the Shreveport Times reports in an article about the Gregg-Gorton amendment that Louisiana Department of Education revealed that there were 22,790 out-of-school suspensions in special education in the 1996-97 school year. . . . The Bossier Parish school board led the fight for more local control by signing a resolution last week that supports Gorton and Gregg. . . . Bossier School superintendent Jane Smith vowed that if a special education student posed a considerable safety threat, such as bringing a gun to class, the parish would treat him or her like a regular education student regardless of the Federal laws. In other words, Mr. President, we have a law, we have a statute, we have a set of regulations that actually causes a school superintendent to say that this is so bad, this is so dangerous to the students I am attempting to educate that I will simply defy the law. The Seattle school district hasn't taken that position. In Danbury, Connecticut, parents had to picket and take their kids out of school because of the requirements of the statute that literally sets up a double standard. School districts have plenary authority over safety and discipline and an appropriate educational atmosphere for all of their regular students. They now have almost none--very limited rights to oppose discipline on students denominated ``disabled.'' And don't think that this country isn't full of imaginative lawyers who can come up with a plausible case to denominate a student ``disabled.'' In fact, often they use the very violent or safety-threatening activity of the student to demonstrate that a particular student is disabled. The Gorton-Gregg amendment was very simple and very short. I believe that our colleagues ought to be reminded of exactly what it said. I am going to read it now: Notwithstanding any other provision of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, each State educational agency or local educational agency may establish and implement uniform policies with respect to discipline and order applicable to all children within its jurisdiction to ensure safety and an appropriate educational atmosphere in its schools. That's all. That is the entire proposal. Well, when I made this proposal last year on my own, 47 Members of this body--just 3 short of the number needed to pass it--voted in favor of it. Several members who have voted against it have come to me since then to say that the combination of the reauthorization of IDEA, and the even more prescriptive regulations now proposed by the U.S. Department of Education, and the reactions of their own school boards, have caused them to rethink the issue. As a consequence, I believe that there is a very real chance that the Gorton-Gregg amendment would have been accepted by this body had we presented it. But I must say, in a very interesting side line, that it truly cross- pressured our school board members, our superintendents, our principals, our teachers, and our PTA members because, of course, by and large, they don't much like the Coverdell bill. They recognize that the Coverdell bill is very likely to pass, that it will be presented to the President and the President will veto it. So a combination of the proposition that the President would veto this amendment in connection with the veto of the Coverdell bill and their own opposition to Senator Coverdell has caused them to be less than enthusiastic about pursuing it at this time. That is a valid concern, Mr. President. Both Senator Gregg and I would like to accomplish our goal, would like to see to it that schools have restored to them the authority to keep order and to provide for the safety and security of their students. We feel this way in spite of the fact that we are strong supporters of the Coverdell bill. A second element is involved. The amendment can be read to cover two closely related, nonetheless distinct, subjects. One of those is the pure physical safety and security of students in schools; that is to say, allowing schools to take disciplinary measures even against those who are disabled. That will assure the safety and security of all of the rest of the students. That is what the editorial in the Seattle Post Intelligencer is about. But the other element in this amendment has to do with an appropriate educational atmosphere in the schools. That is even more worrisome to the community advocating the rights of the disabled. They see that as authorizing school boards, or teachers, or principals to expel students who present no safety hazard to their fellow students, but can be seen by the tremendous amount of attention they require on the part of teachers severely to distract from the educational atmosphere of a particular classroom. Personally, I believe that that is an appropriate consideration for our teachers and our principals and our school board members. I believe they have a right to weigh the quality of education of all of their students in making these judgments. I do recognize, however, that that aspect of this amendment is more controversial--not only more controversial, but more arguable than the balance is. And as a result of a series of meetings during the last two-week recess at schools all across the State of Washington, in which both the amendment I will introduce tomorrow on block grants and IDEA, aforementioned, more of our time was spent on this Disability Act and safety and security in the schools than on any other subject. At the last of those meetings when both the disability community was represented and school authorities were represented, I detected for the first time some willingness to meet on a middle ground. Whether that middle ground has to do with safety and security only, how far the disability community is willing to go in that connection, whether or not there ought to be some consideration of the educational atmosphere of all students, none of these questions were settled by any stretch of the imagination in the course of the meetings that I had, even with the education community in the State of Washington. But I do feel that it is at least possible that on this very controversial issue a bit more time may permit us to find some common ground. From my perspective at least, that is the second reason that it was appropriate that I consented to the withdrawal of the Gregg amendment at this point in the debate. I want to make it crystal clear, however, to educators all over the country who have supported us in this cause, that this withdrawal does not mean that the debate is over by any stretch of the imagination. The present Gregg-Gorton amendment, or something very similar to it, will be presented at an early opportunity on some other bill that relates directly or indirectly to education. It will not go away. But I hope the next time that it is presented, it is presented on a bill that is almost certain to be signed by the President of the United States rather than vetoed by the President of the United States. In addition, I hope that by that point we may have at least a partial meeting of the minds--one might hope a full meeting of the minds-- between those genuinely concerned with the educational rights and civil rights of the disabled community and those genuinely concerned with the safety and security of all of our students, and on the proposition that all of our students receive their education in an atmosphere best conducive to that education for all students in the public schools of the United States. It is with those twin hopes--that we will have a better vehicle for this debate and that perhaps we can have the debate at a somewhat more extended fashion than the very limited time on the Coverdell bill and that we might bring the two sides together to a greater extent than they have ever been in the past--that I have agreed to the withdrawal of that amendment. It is withdrawn from this bill. It will come up again. I believe that we need to do more to empower those men and women all across the United States who provide the educational services to our children day after day, week after week, year after year because of their own professional dedication. I believe their views need to be considered, and I think that we will be able to consider them better a little later on this year. I pledge, however, that consider them we will.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my friend from Louisiana makes a curious set of arguments. The single word he used most in his remarks was ``compromise,'' that this provision is now the result of a compromise of 4 years' work. No; this provision is not the result of 4 years of work. This provision is the result of a discussion that took place after this bill was reported from the Commerce Committee, after all of the open public hearings and all the open discussion. And what kind of compromise was it? Well, it was a compromise between the big unions, the big carriers and maybe some of the big shippers. It isn't a compromise that involved its victims. No representative of small shippers was in the room where this ``compromise'' was made. None of the small businessmen who were middlemen were in the room when this ``compromise'' was made. A curious compromise, I must say, when the victims were excluded from it, after having been a part of everything that went on for the 4 years of work on this bill up through and including its report from the Commerce Committee. No, this was not a compromise; this was a backroom deal, the worst kind of backroom deal. The Senator from Louisiana says, ``Carefully, carefully crafted.'' ``Killer amendment.'' Strange. I don't see any dissent on the Commerce Committee, Republicans or Democrats, with the bill in its original form. How can it be a killer amendment? Does the Senator from Louisiana mean that, if we pass this amendment, every Member of his party will then filibuster the bill? Simply because we have not done the will of the longshoremen's unions, they will give up competition and open shipping, lock, stock and barrel across the board? Well, if that is what he means--if that is what they mean, let them say so. It isn't going to kill the bill over here; and I do not think it will kill the bill over there. What do outsiders say about it? Today's Journal of Commerce, the newspaper that deals with business, endorses this bill. It says: Today, the Senate is expected to approve a bill that boosts competition and makes it easier for shipping lines and their customers to operate. In one respect, however, this bill actually limits competition by denying freight consolidators--middlemen--full opportunity under the new law. * * * * * Lately, however, middlemen have become an important export conduit and even a threat to the status quo. Not surprisingly, it was the major shipping lines and labor unions that teamed up to deny to consolidators private contracting privileges. In other words, they have given themselves the ability to do business in a way they now want to deny to others in the same business. The only difference is the people who made this ``compromise'' are big and the ones who are victimized are small. This amendment is consistent with the philosophy of the bill. It was included in the bill in every stage to this point. It is backed by everyone who deals with this issue objectively. It will not kill the bill, unless there are 41 Members here who will simply vote to kill the bill on behalf of one small set of labor unions who want a monopoly. And I do not think that will happen. We should do the right thing and pass the amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the article in the Journal of Commerce, which is dated April 21, 1998; a statement in support by the Transportation Intermediaries Association, dated April 20, 1998; and a letter from the New York/New Jersey Foreign Freight Forwarders and Brokers Association, Inc., dated April 20, 1998, printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the 1984 Shipping Act significantly brought openness and competition into the field of ocean shipping, a field dominated for decades by cartels, by fixed prices, by underhanded competition, and by, very frequently, the victimization of those who ship their goods by sea. This 1998 set of amendments to the Shipping Act further opens up the process to competition and allows the business of ocean shipping to operate far more like most of the rest of the free market in the United States, with one exception. If you are a large shipper of goods by sea, sophisticated, a major customer, you deal directly with the ocean carrier, and those relationships with the ocean carrier are made much more flexible, much more subject to competition, by this bill. If, on the other hand, you are a modest shipper, a small or medium- sized shipper, perhaps someone new to the business of exporting your goods from the United States of America, you don't, as a general practice, deal directly with the ocean carrier, you deal with a middleman, a consolidator, a freight forwarder. That small businessman in the various ports of the United States gathers together shipments to the same place from a number of different shippers and makes the arrangements with the ocean carrier. As this bill was debated and reported from the Committee on Commerce, it treated both of these groups in an identical fashion. Each got the benefits of the bill; each got the benefits of competition. Somewhere, however, between the Commerce Committee and the floor, the big boys got together behind closed doors, and a combination of the ocean carriers and the longshoremen's unions, working with a handful of Senators, determined that the small business people would not get these advantages, that they would continue to have to operate, under most circumstances, under the requirements of the 1984 act. Under the 1984 act, they were treated identically. If this bill passes without my amendment, they will no longer be treated identically. The small shipper will be discriminated against. The small businessman who is a freight forwarder will be discriminated against. The big guys will get away with something. It is curious, Mr. President, that neither the small shippers nor the freight forwarders were included in the negotiations that led to the revised bill, the substantive bill that is before us, as against the bill that came out of the Commerce Committee. The big boys got together, shafted the small business people on both sides, and now present this bill to you with the statement, ``Take it or leave it; it's tough, but we've made a deal with the longshoremen's unions because they think that they may not get some of the business from these small businessmen, and you're just simply going to have to take it that way.'' I don't think that is the way the laws ought to be made. I don't think that is the way we ought to deal as Senators. We make wonderful speeches at home, all of us, about the sanctity of small business, but here we are asked to discriminate against small business and in favor of big business. If we adopt my amendment, we will simply put this bill back into the same condition in which it found itself when it was reported by the Commerce Committee--everyone treated equally, everyone the beneficiary of a freer market than we have at the present time--and we will have done our duty to all of our constituents and not just to those who are able to afford expensive lobbyists in Washington, DC. The bill, in its present form, is unfair to small businesses. It discriminates against small businesses. The bill as reported from the Commerce Committee did not do so. We should restore provisions that the Commerce Committee saw fit to include in the bill. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.