T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Second, I send the modification I just discussed to the desk and ask unanimous consent it be included.

Mr. GORTON. Two mechanical matters. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Domenici, Abraham, Craig, and Smith of Oregon be added as cosponsors, if they are not already cosponsors of the modified amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the statement by my friend and colleague from New York on educational policy is greatly to be commended. He set out a vision that I think is a magnificent one for parents and students and teachers and all interested in education all across the United States. As he pointed out, this amendment is not directed at all of those goals by any stretch of the imagination but is focused on the goal of trusting to a far greater extent than we have in the past the wisdom of the parents and the teachers and the administrators and local school board members in each of the thousands of school districts in the United States with respect to what best can advance the education of the students for which they are responsible. The principal goal of my amendment is to remove these thousands of pages of regulations and detailed supervision, frequently on a one- size-fits-all basis, directed from on high here in Washington, DC, at urban, rural and suburban school districts all across the United States. Already, this amendment has been improved by suggestions by the Senator from New York and others with respect to title I. And he has now asked the question that was asked by the Senator from Kentucky in a slightly different form--each Senator, while he or she has strong general ideas, also represents particular constituencies in the particular State--as to whether or not it is possible to see to it that as we move into this situation we do not have States that are huge losers as well as winners. It is my opinion--it is the reason that I introduced this amendment-- that every school district in every State in the United States should be a winner in two ways. First, because so much less money has to be spent on administration that more dollars would actually get down to individual students; but, second, because these mountains of regulations and impositions from the Federal Government on local school districts will be removed, the use of the same number of dollars would be far more effective in the ultimate educational result. But, since that is much more important than the formula, the Senator from New York has said, ``Can't we hold harmless each of the States, at least?'' I think we can only do it by States, because now so much of this money doesn't go to school districts, it goes to the States. The States distribute it. And, on reflection, I think he is right. I think he is correct in that. So, I will ask the indulgence of my colleagues to send one more modification to the desk. Before I send it to the desk I think I just simply ought to read it for their approval. It would be that: Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the total amount awarded to local education agencies in each State under this section shall not be less than the net dollars that State would have received absent the provisions of this section. What does that mean? That means that roughly 85 percent of the money, the money that now gets out of Washington, DC, would be distributed just as it is at the present time. The other 15 percent, or the great bulk of that 15 percent that is no longer needed for all of the bureaucrats writing and enforcing these regulations here, would go in the way in which the rest of the amendment describes. I think probably that makes even more forceful the point that I have made from the very beginning of this debate, that its primary goal is to see to it that we allow the decisions about the way the money is spent to be made by the people who are actually spending it and actually providing the education. My own opinion is that's far more important, even, than the billion-plus dollars that would be distributed to the various States because of the smaller expenses of administration. I think this meets with the suggestion the Senator from New York made, and I would like to ask for his comments on it.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be set aside and the Senate turn to consideration of amendment No. 1110 to S. 1061.

Mr. GORTON. Yes. I am quite certain that Kentucky would--with the exception of the modification that we made with respect to title I, where the proportions will be identical next year to what they are in the present year. We have a slight poverty-based preference in this bill. We divide the 50 States --or the 48 States other than Alaska and Hawaii--into five categories, and the 10 richest States have their allocation multiplied by .9, the 10 poorest States by 1.1, and the States in between by 1.05, 1.0, or .95, respectively, so that the student in the poor State gets a greater degree of aid than the student in a rich State.

Mr. GORTON. I cannot answer that question categorically. I can say that we have something over $11 billion in this appropriations bill, which would be distributed pursuant to this amendment. Because at the present time the administrative costs --the sand in the wheels--amounts to about 15 percent of all of the money that we as taxpayers send to Washington, DC, that goes to the Department of Education, before it gets back, the total distribution to the school districts of the United States will be more than a billion and a half dollars more than it is at the present time, which means--just in simple mathematics--that a great bulk of school districts will end up getting more money. Moreover, that 15 percent doesn't include the amount that the State superintendents of public schools take out of most of these categorical aid programs for their part of the administration at the present time, further enhancing the amount of money that will get to each individual school district. Even having said that, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I believe the most important single element in this bill, from the point of view of having money spent on children's education, is the removal of the huge numbers of requirements to meet the qualifications for hundreds of different categorical aid programs, which now come out of even the money that gets to the school districts, who must hire all kinds of administrators to see to it that the money is spent in this federally determined, uniform category. One school district superintendent, reported to me by one of my friends, has said something that is consistent with what I hear from my own State: ``We get about 10 percent of all of the money we spend on schools from the Federal Government, but 60 percent of all of the forms we have to fill out, 60 percent of all the time we have to use, is spent accounting for that 10 percent.'' So it is hard for me to imagine a school district anywhere in the country that is going to have less money to spend on the education of its children under this amendment than it does at the present time, and the overwhelming majority of them will have far more.

Mr. GORTON. With the exception of IDEA impact aid, and a few other smaller categoric aid programs.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I spoke to this amendment at length on two occasions and intend to do so again tonight, but as a matter of deference to my many friends on this side who want to speak on the amendment and to many of those on the other side who wish to do so and to go on to other business, I will reserve my principal argument until the end. Suffice it to say this is an amendment designed to see to it that the individual school districts in the United States be permitted to spend the great bulk of the money that we appropriate, in this case somewhat over $11 million, as they see fit rather than with respect to hundreds and thousands of pages of detailed regulations that are the bane of almost every school district in the country. The fundamental philosophical question is just this: Do we believe that individual school districts and parents and teachers know best how to handle education in their own communities, or do we believe those fundamental decisions are best left to bureaucrats here in Washington, DC? I believe the former. The opponents to this amendment believe the latter. With that, I yield the floor to allow other Members who wish to speak to the amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Speaking on behalf of the majority leader, I now give notice that it looks as though there will be two stacked votes after the debate on this amendment; therefore, in proximately 1 hour. Amendment No. 1076, as Modified

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I withdraw my previous request for unanimous consent, and I now ask unanimous consent that the debate limitation with respect to amendment No. 1122 be vitiated, and that there now be 60 minutes for debate prior to a motion to table amendment No. 1076. I further ask unanimous consent that following the expiration or yielding back of time, the amendment be temporarily laid aside, the Senate then proceed to vote on the McCain motion to waive with respect to amendment No. 1091, to be immediately followed by a vote on a motion to table the Gorton amendment No. 1076.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, that agreement was in error. It was a mistake on the part of Senator Specter. I ask unanimous consent that the agreement be switched to amendment 1076.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the order of business?

Mr. GORTON. I will read the end of that memorandum: ``The amendment would not change or otherwise affect the allocation of Title XXI funds to states but changes the way in which state funds may be used.'' Will not change the allocation. It will change the way in which they can be used in my State and I believe to a greater or lesser extent, three other States. I simply want to repeat for the purposes of this argument, these are States that did what the policy behind Kidcare in effect requires of other States before it was required by this Congress and by the Federal Government. These are States that went out of their way to try to see to it that health insurance was available to these relatively low- income families for their children. It is unconscionable, I believe, Mr. President, that we should say because you did the job we came to somewhat later, earlier, you are just out of luck. You can continue to pay for it yourself. You will not get the incentive that Kidcare provided, so on behalf of my own State and on behalf of a few others, without penalizing any other State in the Union, I am asking for the reasonable treatment, the fair treatment, that this amendment provides. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent it be charged equally to both sides.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, that is a truly incredible statement on the part of the Senator from Vermont. In the first place, of course, this amendment does not give this money to local governments. It gives it to local education authorities, that is, school boards and school districts. Evidently the Senator from Vermont feels that his own constituents have so little regard for education in the State of Vermont that they would immediately cut their contribution to the education of their children by the amount of the distribution to those local school boards. I would be ashamed to make that comment about the people of the State of Washington. I cannot imagine that that would happen. Moreover, Mr. President, the Senator seems to forget that at least a significant part of this money is in the educational system at the present time. It is my view that just not enough of it gets there, that too much of it gets siphoned by the bureaucrats on the way to a school district in Vermont or in Oregon or in the State of Washington. But to make the statement that only we are wise and only 100 Members of the U.S. Senate are really concerned about education and that, if we were to allow a local school agency to set its own priorities with the money we appropriated to education, that they might not do it, that they would just simply decide, ``Oh, no, education isn't very important. We can now cut down our own contribution level,'' is insulting, I would say, Mr. President, to every citizen of the United States who cares about his or her children or his or her country or their future. This money is going into education now. That is why we are appropriating it. Too much of it is going to a bureaucracy and not getting to the children who are being educated. Too many priorities are being set here, and too few at home. That is what the question is about. Mark my words, Mr. President, successful or unsuccessful, if this amendment passes, more money--not less--more money will get into the education of almost every student in the United States of America. The fundamental question is not how much; the fundamental question is, who ought to make the decision as to how it is spent? We here in this body, great educational experts as we seem to think we are, or the people who are actually providing the teaching in the day-to-day operations of our schools? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished occupant of the chair, the junior Senator from Oregon, be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his thoughtful comments, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. I would just like to say in summary that I am in no way critical of what my State has done, and the movement towards these standards I find very encouraging. I think absent these constructive criticisms that they are likely to set very, very good and very significant standards. It is just that I have to predicate the comment that we shouldn't be discouraged by the results. We should be discouraged by the results. And we should resolve that we are going to do everything possible to cause those results to improve markedly and as quickly as possible.

Mr. GORTON. I ask for two additional minutes.

Mr. GORTON. My answer to that question is an unqualified yes. Of course we should do just that. What we must take great care with is seeing to it that any national standards strengthen and encourage the standards that are already being set in any of the States; that they be able to move forward; not an excuse to move backward; and that they measure real knowledge. I believe that the heart of some of the objections to the national standards are the ones made by the American Federation of Teachers to Washington State mathematics. There just is no way except in the heart of some totally abstract profession that you can justify giving 100 percent to a student who gets the wrong answer to a question. It may be encouraging students to move towards a way to come up with the right answer. But that is not something that ought to get 100 percent. I hope we derive a system for whatever national tests come, and I think some are likely to come that measure real knowledge and real progress, and that encourages States to make their own standards even tougher and their assessments to take place more frequently.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today, the Senate proceed to the consideration of a resolution regarding Mother Teresa that was submitted today by Senators Nickles, Lott, and Daschle. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form. I finally ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 2:15 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the resolution with no intervening action or debate. This resolution has been cleared by the minority leader.