[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under order 106, the Senate now turns to 
consideration of S. 1150. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1150) to improve learning and teaching by 
     providing a national framework for education reform; to 
     promote the research, consensus building, and systematic 
     changes needed to ensure equitable educational opportunities 
     and high levels of educational achievement for all American 
     students; to provide a framework for reauthorization of all 
     Federal education programs; to promote the development and 
     adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards 
     and certifications, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1356

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1356.

  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 text of the amendment will be printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be adopted and considered original text for the purposes of 
amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will object at this time solely until 
such time as we can determine the impact upon the amendment process. So 
at this time, I would have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand and respect the objection of 
my friend from Vermont. Just in terms of the understanding of the 
membership, the changes between the original text and the substitute 
incorporate a number of the suggestions, as my colleagues have pointed 
out--the Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords and also Senator 
Kassebaum--in terms of additional kinds of flexibility for the States.
  I understand that the principal objection is dealing with the 
parliamentary situation, and so we will go ahead and have the debate on 
the substance of the legislation. We are prepared to consider any of 
the amendments with regards to the underlying legislation, and we will 
obviously incorporate any decisions by the Senate in any vehicle that 
is eventually reported out of the Senate.
  And so we are ready to do business in the Senate, pending 
consideration of the Members about the parliamentary situation.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we in no way intend to impede the 
process. I think there will be pretty close unanimity on the bill when 
we complete it. However, I wish to make sure that this side of the 
aisle is protected in the ability to offer second-degree amendments, et 
cetera.
  I thank the Chair.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matthew 
Alexander, a member of the staff of the committee, be afforded 
privileges of the floor during pendency of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today the Senate begins action on the 
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. This legislation, designed to make 
more rapid progress toward meeting the national education goals, has 
strong, bipartisan support on the Labor and Human Resources Committee.
  The reason for this bipartisan support is clear. Education reform is 
not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is a national issue, 
and all of us recognize that it is time for the Federal Government to 
do more to help communities across the country improve their schools.
  During the recess, I visited the Fenway School in Boston, and I met 
students and teachers who brought home to me what education reform can 
mean and why better and different schools are at the heart of solving 
so many of our problems, not only in education, but in other areas as 
well, especially crime control and welfare reform.
  One of the students whom I met was Efrain Gutierrez, an 18-year-old 
sophomore. He had dropped out of his old school, but now he is getting 
straight A's at this small, highly personalized and completely 
reorganized school. When I asked him what he had done when he was not 
in school, he said, ``I don't think you want to know.''
  We can authorize billions of dollars for fighting crime, but few 
programs will be as successful as a school like the Fenway that gives 
students a place to belong and to succeed and to enhance their own 
self-esteem.
  Another student, Charlene Hampton, graduated last year and is 
starting nurse training at community college. At 19, Charlene has a 
five-year-old child, but the Fenway School has made it possible for her 
to still come to classes and get her work done. Charlene will succeed 
and become an independent and productive member of our city and 
society. We would need less welfare reform if we had more school 
reform.
  There are many stories like these, and there are many schools like 
the Fenway. If they were here to talk to us, they would echo the 
statement of Fenway teacher Eileen Shakespeare, who said, ``If I could 
ask you to take a single message back to Washington, it would be this: 
`Please have a sense of urgency about what we are doing here with 
students, and help us.'''
  We need that sense of urgency in the Congress. Let us act now, and 
pass this legislation, an important first step in providing greater 
Federal support for States and local communities to reform their 
schools.
  The Goals 2000: Educate America Act will enact into law the six 
national education goals. It will establish a bipartisan National 
Education Goals Panel to report on progress toward achieving those 
goals. The goals are well-known, but they bear repeating.
  First, all children in America will start school ready to learn;
  Second, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 
percent;
  Third, U.S. students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having 
demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including 
English, mathematics, science, foreign language, civics and government, 
arts, history, geography, economics, and every school in the United 
States will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well so 
students may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, 
and productive employment in our Nation's economy;
  Fourth, U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and 
science achievement;
  Fifth, every adult American will be literate and possess the skills 
necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and 
responsibilities of citizenship; and
  Sixth, every school in the United States will be free from drugs and 
violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to 
learning.
  Goals 2000 incorporated in this legislation places the emphasis on 
our investment in education on results; codify the national education 
goals and the National Education Goals Panel which includes two House 
Members and two Senators, among others. It will encourage the 
development and use of high academic standards for all students, world 
class standards, such as those which are used in other industrialized 
countries; create an incentive grant program for States to support 
comprehensive education reform--and will have an opportunity to debate 
that ad nauseam.
  This is a voluntary program and we are encouraging States to develop 
that comprehensive education reform. Nothing is required, no 
contingency on other educational programs if they do not care to 
participate; provide funds for use by States for ongoing teacher 
training and professional development; promote flexibility by providing 
authority for the Secretary to waive certain Federal regulations to 
assist States in implementing reform.
  We are permitting the States and local communities and education 
structures to be able to get to the waiver of certain rules and 
regulations. Some important ones like the issues on civil rights and 
the protections of the disabled and special needs children not so. But 
in other areas, we are permitting them as part of their reform program 
to get waivers by the Secretary so that they can implement their reform 
and we are permitting greater flexibility for the Secretary to permit 
States as an entity to be more expansive in terms of waiving certain 
kinds of requirements.
  We permit States to use funds granted under the act to promote public 
school choice, charter schools, and magnet schools.
  We will elaborate on those--encouragement for those initiatives as 
well.
  We create a National Education Standard and Improvement Council to 
oversee development of voluntary national standards, promote parental 
and community involvement in education and promote bottoms-up education 
reform in every school and community.
  This is a bottoms-up education reform with support from the top down. 
But it is basically and essentially a bottoms-up program of school 
reform.
  Provide planning grants to the States to increase the use of 
technology to increase student learning, create a mechanism to 
establish national work force skills standards. Those are some of the 
matters which we will have a chance during the course of this debate to 
elaborate on.
  It is equally important to emphasize what Goals 2000 does not do. 
While all these provisions are important, one of the most important is 
the Congress encourage the development of standards. A month or so ago, 
the Washington Post published a good example of what the content 
standards might look like.
  Here are a few of the examples, Mr. President. These are guidelines 
for science knowledge recommended by the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science. By the end of the second grade, all students 
should know circles, squares, triangles, and other shapes, which can be 
found in things in nature and in things that people build; water left 
in an open container disappears, but water in a closed container does 
not disappear; thermometers, magnifiers, rulers can take measurements 
and are often more useful than just observing an object. We will get 
into the kinds of elements that we will be talking about in terms of 
the goals and in terms of the standards.
  But I would hope that the Members will include this in the course of 
the debate and see from this report exactly what we are attempting to 
do in terms of the early grades--the second grade, 5th, 8th--and 
finally 12th grade.
  Besides content standards in course subjects the bill also encourages 
the development of new assessments that will gauge how well the 
students have mastered the content. In other words, performance 
standards and the assessment schools are using right now just do not do 
the job.
  There is enormous innovation in terms of a number of the school 
reforms in terms of how they do this kind of assessment, in terms of 
oral presentation, in terms of portfolio examinations, in terms of 
other kinds of reviews to determine the individual's understanding of 
the material that is being discussed and needs to be comprehended.
  This is a third kind of standard that this bill deals with, the 
standards that are the most controversial, that is, opportunity to 
learn standards. These will describe the things that are obviously 
needed for a student to learn. Basically, what we are talking about is 
the departure point. What you want is a departure point so that the 
children that ended this whole assistance are going to have a 
relatively equal kind of departure point in terms of the schools 
themselves, textbooks and trained teachers and other aspects. Then we 
want to have the content standards and the assessment standards. That 
is what we are attempting to achieve.
  Those opportunities to learn standards will describe things that are 
obviously needed for a student to learn, well-trained teachers, up-to-
date materials, curriculum that makes sense, an orderly and safer 
school.
  Just as important as what the Goals 2000 does is what it does not do. 
We do not federalize education. We do not establish a national 
curriculum or the equivalent of a national school board. It requires 
States adopt national standards. We do not require that the States 
adopt national standards or submit State standards for Federal 
Government approval. We do not create unfunded mandates. And we do not 
make the receipt of any other federal funds contingent upon the 
provisions of Goals 2000.
  It does not dictate to the State how much to spend, how to license 
teachers, or what textbooks to use. It does not establish school-based 
health clinics. It does not mandate or encourage value-based or 
outcomes-based education. And it is not surprising that this bill 
passed the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan support, 
307 to 118, with 57 Republicans in support.
  Mr. Gunderson stated in his endorsement: Goals 2000 is the kind of 
foundation for improvement of education at the State and local level 
that we want. And I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to vote for this bill when we come to final passage. Now is the time 
for the Senate in a similar bipartisan spirit to also act.
  There has been a great deal of reform activity in the States in the 
decades since the well-known report nations at risk sounded the alarm 
about the decline in American education 10 years ago. But there has 
been no national consensus about how the Federal Government should 
respond to the national crisis. Two past Presidents and five Congresses 
have been unable to come together to support legislation that would lay 
out the best approval to deal with that crisis. Goals 2000 will end 
that delay and make the Federal Government a full-fledged partner in 
the important effort to re-create America's schools and prepare 
students for the 21st century.

  Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, American education has never 
been short on innovation. There are examples of excellence and 
innovation in schools across the country. We have all visited them and 
been impressed. What we have not figured out, however, is how to create 
a better overall system--how to look at the one or two good schools in 
a district and make sure all the others share the best practices and 
best strategies of the best schools.
  We know the elements of a good school--a clear focus on well-defined 
standards for all students; no tracking of students into dead-end 
programs; schedules that give students personal attention; new ways to 
measure student performance; opportunities for health and other social 
services; increased time for core subjects; instruction that connects 
subjects to each other, and is adapted to different ways of learning; 
and finally, more investment in children before they fail, not after.
  President Clinton and Secretary of Education Riley have committed 
themselves to creating a system of schools like these. It is the kind 
of system that many have advocated for many years--a system that is 
based on high content and performance standards for all students, that 
invests in students and teachers alike, and that coordinates Federal, 
State and local efforts.
  Goals 2000 is a step toward achieving all these principles. It will 
create the framework and national education policy we need. Better 
education is at the heart of a better future for poor children and the 
Nation.
  There is no magic solution, but essential steps, taken together and 
implemented simultaneously by Federal, State, and local officials, can 
form the basis for a more effective education system that meets the 
needs of all children.
  I cannot stress the word ``local'' too strongly. It is teachers who 
educate children, not school boards or States or Congress. The single 
greatest challenge facing American schools is to help teachers rethink 
their classroom practices and break out of the habits of our ``factory 
model system of education.''
  That challenge cannot be met in Washington or in State capitals. It 
must be met teacher by teacher, school by school, in each of the 1 
million classrooms in America.
  As award-winning educator Deborah Meier from Central Park East School 
in Harlem has said ``It is clear that since we need a new kind of 
school to do a new kind of job, we need a new kind of teacher too.'' 
Congress cannot legislate that teachers change their habits of mind and 
the way they teach students. But we can help local districts create 
conditions that make it possible for them to adopt the best and the 
most effective practices.
  Goals 2000 will help to create those conditions. By codifying into 
law the national education goals, we will strengthen our commitment to 
reach them. Having every child ready to learn, attaining a 90 percent 
high school completion rate, meeting check points for having 4th, 8th, 
and 12th graders master challenging material, becoming first in the 
world in math and science achievement, making sure every adult American 
has learned to read, and having safe and drug-free schools are daunting 
goals. But our country has faced other difficult challenges, and with 
leadership and dedication and participation from people from many 
different parts of our society, we will succeed. They must be achieved 
if we are to remain competitive in the global marketplace.
  Mr. President, I see other of my colleagues on the floor at this time 
that are eager to make a statement and comments.
  I will at a later time elaborate on a few additional kinds of 
matters, but at the outset I first of all commend the chairman of our 
Education Committee, my friend and colleague, Senator Claiborne Pell. 
Senator Pell, as a chairman of the Education Committee, has as all of 
us in this body know demonstrated time in and time out the strong 
commitment, first of all, in education, starting at the earliest of 
years as well as into higher education which bears his mark over a long 
and distinguished career.
  He has made many contributions to the country, but I think perhaps 
his longest-standing contribution will be the work that he has done in 
education. I think all of us on that committee are very much aware of 
the strong effort that he always made in terms of bipartisanship in 
assuring that education would not be a partisan matter.
  I think as we begin this real debate today and as we have the strong 
bipartisan support in that committee we acknowledge his continuing 
leadership in the areas of education, and this legislation certainly 
bears so much of his input and creativity, and we will look forward, 
after our friend and colleague Senator Jeffords, hearing from him.
  Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first, I appreciate the accolades of the 
chairman of the full committee for the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Education, Senator Pell, who worked for many years with my predecessor, 
Senator Stafford, and accomplished so much to improve the education of 
this country. I am just honored to be able to serve with him and look 
forward to serving with him for the years to come.
  Mr. President, as to the impression that we are leaving with the 
opening statements, that this may be a love-in, and that we have a 
unanimous agreement, and that once we have passed this bill the 
Nation's problems will disappear, I wish that were to be the case.
  But I think we will all understand when we fully understand the 
dimensions of the goals and the dimensions of the problems that this is 
a beginning of a prolonged effort in the sense it should have been here 
years ago but what will be a prolonged effort to improve the education 
of America. It does, however, represent a bipartisan compromise to 
improve teaching and learning and making our schools really ready to go 
into the work force in the 21st century.
  My support for this bill sprouts not from a naive belief in some 
theory, but from the very real experience in my home State of Vermont. 
We are proud of our long history of education reform, and in a large 
way the State of Vermont has provided one of the prototypes for this 
legislation today. As we have learned in Vermont and across the 
country, there is no mission more important that providing 
opportunities for our future generations.
  Right now, the educational system in this country does so much for 
too few, while doing too little for so many. Goals 2000 puts us on a 
path toward reversing this trend--so that we offer more opportunities 
to more students in more schools across this Nation. Vermont has taken 
a lead in school reform, and we have begun to see the results. The time 
to act is now--this bill will help States apply reforms that work, that 
give more students a better education and brighter opportunities.
  Briefly, as Senator Kennedy has stated, the bill codifies the six 
national education goals and adds a seventh goal acknowledging the 
importance of parental involvement. It incorporates the existing 
national education goals panel and creates a body to certify national 
model standards and assessments. At the heart of the bill is a State 
grant program to improve teaching and learning through planning through 
comprehensive education reform and restructuring. Finally, it 
establishes a national skill standards board to serve as a catalyst to 
stimulate the development and adoption of a voluntary national system 
of skill standards. S. 1150 represents a major step forward in the 
effort to encourage wide-scale reform in our Nation's schools.
  The provisions of this bill have a long history. This is to remember 
because it has been a long time that we have been looking at the 
problem but have done little or nothing, in fact probably things to 
make detrimental to improvement. In 1983, the landmark report, ``A 
Nation at Risk,'' brought to the public's attention what many already 
knew--that we faced a rising tide of mediocrity in our schools which 
threatened our very future as a nation and as a people. In no uncertain 
terms, this report described the problems that were plaguing American 
schools--low expectations for students, a watered-down curriculum, 
minimal requirements for high school graduation, and a shortage of 
high-quality, experienced teachers. The Commission found the situation 
to be so serious that it made the following observation:

       If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America 
     the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we 
     might well have viewed it as an act of war.

  As a result of these alarming findings, ``A Nation at Risk'' set out 
four recommendations to make our system of education second to none in 
the world. First, they recommended, we set high standards for all 
students in basic subject areas such as mathematics, history, English, 
and science--not just for college-bound students, but for all 
students--and that we provide the necessary supports to help students 
reach those standards. Second, we hold students to those high standards 
by requiring their mastery as a condition for high school graduation, 
college entrance, and entry into the workplace. Third, we increase the 
amount of time our children spend in school by lengthening the 
schoolday and school year, and by using the time students are in school 
more productively. Finally, we improve the preparation of teachers and 
make teaching a rewarding and respected profession.

  It has been 10 years since the Commission made these recommendations 
during the Reagan years. What have we done to implement them?
  Well, since the beginning of the eighties overall Federal support for 
education, after adjusting for inflation, has decreased by 5 percent. 
Funds for elementary and secondary education declined 15 percent while 
postsecondary education funds declined 24 percent. As many as 30 States 
right now are in a crisis over the funding of education in their own 
States and generally the States have also decreased their spending for 
education. Is our educational system today second to none? Of course, 
the answer is ``no.'' At best, we are no worse off than we were 10 
years ago. At worst, the next generation of graduates from America's 
high schools will not be prepared to meet the challenges of the next 
century.
  We have made some progress, however; 6 years later in 1989, then-
President Bush convened the education summit, in Charlottesville, VA. 
That meeting brought the national leadership together with all 50 
Governors to address education reform. As a result, our Nation's top 
State policymakers along with the President produced six national goals 
for our schools that are contained in this bill. It is now 4 years 
later and we are getting around to try to put those goals into place.
  These goals specified that by the year 2000, first, all students 
would arrive at school ready to learn; second, that the graduation rate 
would increase to at least 90 percent; third, that students would 
master challenging content in core subject areas; fourth, that our 
students would be first in the world in math and science; fifth, that 
all adults would be literate and prepared for life-long learning.
  Let me just remind you that right now we have about 30 million 
Americans who are pretty much totally illiterate, and we have another 
45 million that are functionally illiterate. That is 75 million 
Americans that fall under goal 5.
  Goal 6, that our schools would offer children a disciplined and drug-
free environment.
  I do not have to tell anyone that this has not been reached since 
1989. In fact, it is a scare to every parent in America now as to what 
is going to go on in the schools the next day.
  Failed attempts last year to enact legislation have 
delayed legislative action on these goals until now--almost 5 years 
after they were established and 10 years after ``A Nation at Risk'' 
brought our attention to the problem. Since that time, nearly 30 
million young adults have graduated from high school, many without the 
skills they will need to be productive workers. Another 40 million 
children have entered kindergarten without the benefit of needed school 
or preschool reform.

  Some of my colleagues have asked why we need this bill. Others have 
questioned whether we can afford this bill. I cannot help but ask how 
can we afford not to pass this bill and do what is necessary to 
accomplish the goals. Mr. President, the situation in our schools is so 
serious that we must enact this bill and do much, much more. Let me 
provide some statistics to illustrate how we are doing relative to our 
goals.
  Goal 1 states that all children should enter school ready to learn. 
Yet, today we are not even close to attaining this goal. Nearly one-
half of all infants born in the United States begin life with one or 
more factors that places him or her at risk for future educational 
failure. Only 37 percent of 2-year-olds have complete immunizations 
against major childhood diseases. And nearly half of all 3- to 5-year-
olds, especially those most at risk, receive no preschool education. We 
only provide Head Start for some 30 percent of those that are eligible. 
Clearly, many children are coming to school today without the 
preparation they need to be successful learners. Yet despite this 
demonstrated need, we still have not fully funded proven programs like 
Head Start and Even Start.
  The second goal states that we want the high school graduation rate 
to increase to at least 90 percent by the year 2000. Yet today, almost 
13 percent of all 16- to 24-year-olds are high school dropouts, 
including nearly 35 percent of Hispanic youths and 19 percent of 
African-American youths. This issue is critical for our future economic 
security. Fewer than half of recent high school dropouts had a job in 
1991. Of all mothers on welfare, one-half of them failed to finish high 
school. Of the more than 1.1 million persons incarcerated in 1990, 82 
percent were high school dropouts. That gives you an idea of what might 
be very helpful in the crime area. The average annual cost of 
supporting a prisoner is $22,500. That means our annual cost of 
incarceration is about $22 billion a year. And that does not include 
anything done to try to bring them back into our society. But it 
obviously indicates that we can save huge amounts of money if we can 
decrease the dropout rates to enable those that are right now 
incarcerated to be able to get employment.
  Goals 3 and 4 state that we want our students to demonstrate high 
achievement and to be first in the world in mathematics and science. 
Again, we have a long way to go to reach those goals. The ``1993 
National Assessment of Educational Progress'' indicates more than 75 
percent of students at all grade levels failed to achieve even the 
basic level of proficiency in these areas and over 60 percent failed to 
meet the proficiency level in English. In international comparisons--
and this is where it is so critical to remind ourselves that we are 
entering a very, very competitive world market system in the future of 
our Nation. And improving our standard of living depends entirely on 
our ability to compete in those world markets.
  In international comparisons, American students consistently score 
below most other industrialized nations. In the ``1992 International 
Assessment of Educational Progress,'' U.S. 13-year-olds scored second 
to last among 15 nations in mathematics achievement.
  Make no mistake about it. These disturbing statistics are not about 
someone else's children and they are not someone else's problem. These 
are our children, our future work force, and our future leaders. The 
quality of our public schools in America is directly related to the 
standard of living of each and every one of our citizens.
  As badly as we need reform, we must remember that reform costs money. 
In some cases, schools have funded reform efforts by cutting back on 
facilities maintenance, or even some educational program activities. 
Clearly, this defeats the point and is one reason that this bill is 
important. Goals 2000 authorizes $400 million in fiscal year 1994 for 
State and local reform efforts, planning basically.
  State and local communities will develop plans, through broad-based 
panels, to encourage the improvement of teaching and learning within 
the State. Each State and each plan will be unique. Goals 2000 does not 
prescribe how reform should occur but recognizes the rightful ownership 
by local communities and State administrators.
  Numerous States have already embarked on innovative and successful 
programs to restructure education. My own State of Vermont is among the 
States that is committed to systemic reform with high standards and 
clear goals.

  Educators, businesses, and community members have joined forces in 
Vermont to provide every student an opportunity to master high skills. 
Known as the Green Mountain Challenge, Vermont's school reform 
initiative is a partnership of teachers, principals, superintendents, 
school boards, employers, parents, and human services professionals. It 
is reform designed to listen to and respect the concerns of teachers 
and parents while simultaneously establishing clear goals and 
benchmarks from the top.
  Let me tell you some of the changes that you may see taking place if 
you visit the classrooms of Vermont. In one school, you will walk into 
a classroom where groups of elementary school students are actively 
working together on a long-term project to research and build a model 
rain forest in their classroom. In another school, you will find older 
students tutoring their younger peers in an exercise that improves the 
reading skills of both participants. In yet other schools, you will see 
students of all ages and all abilities grouped together to form 
learning communities.
  But communities and States cannot do it alone. Federal funding and 
incentives are imperative for reform. The GAO, in a recent report, 
points out that in the absence of Federal actions, maintaining 
commitment, and finding resources for systemwide reform may be 
impossible for many districts. Federal funds must not undermine local 
and State control but Federal funds are critical to technical 
assistance, information dissemination, and professional development.
  Last Congress President Bush introduced America 2000, a bill similar 
to this bill. America 2000 passed the Senate 92 to 6, but the 
conference report failed by a slim margin. I voted against conference 
report because of some problems I found with it, but I am confident 
that this year we can go forward with those problems being satisfied.
  While this situation was unfortunate, I believe we have a new 
opportunity to place our mark on education reform. Let me be very clear 
to my fellow colleagues who, like me, voted against that conference 
report--we have a different bill before us today. The bill is also 
different from the House bill and different from the bill as originally 
introduced by President Clinton and deserves our careful attention and 
support.
  I commend my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Pell, and Kassebaum for 
their commitment to and work on this bill. The bill which came out of 
committee reflects a spirit of compromise and makes a number of 
important changes to what was originally introduced. Let me go over in 
detail some of the important revisions made by the committee.
  First of all, changes made by the committee free States and school 
districts to develop school improvement plans that best meet the needs 
of the children in their communities and their schools. The committee 
bill removes the overly prescriptive requirements and mandates which 
describe in detail how States should address the specifics of their 
reform plans. At the local level, the committee changes allow for 
significantly more local flexibility and remove requirements that the 
local improvement plans exactly match State plans. Fortunately, the 
committee recognized that in order for Goals 2000 to be successful on 
the local level, parents, local educators, and community members must 
be able to tailor the plan to the needs of their students and must feel 
ownership over the process and have accountability for the results.
  Second, the committee bill drives more of the funds to the local 
level--and reserves fewer funds for national activiites--than the bill 
as introduced. We know that the most important changes will occur in 
schools and classrooms, and that the most successful reform will have 
grassroots, bottom-up support. As a result, the percentage reserved for 
national activities is reduced from 6 to 4 percent.
  Third, S. 1150, as reported, removes the mandate that States develop 
standards to gauge students' opportunity to learn. Although it is 
critically important that States seek to provide every student with an 
opportunity to learn challenging content, we felt that it was not wise 
to require that States use particular strategies in order to do so. The 
committee substitute requires all States to address the issue in some 
fashion in their State plan, but leaves the specifics up to each 
individual State.
  I have heard some concern expressed that the development of model 
standards at the national level would force a national curriculum and 
Federal standards for school spending on to the States. This is 
entirely not true. First of all, these model national standards are 
completely voluntary for their adoption. The bill specifies that no 
State has to adopt or implement any standards in order to receive 
Federal funds under this act or any other Federal legislation. The 
standards are being developed simply to provide guidance for those 
States if they wish to develop standards of their own. Second, we added 
provisions to the bill to clarify that these model standards must be 
general enough to allow any State to use them and must not be so 
specific as to restrict State or local prerogatives concerning 
instructional methods. They also state that nothing in this act would 
override the Department of Education Organization Act which outlines 
the respective State and Federal relationships. I hope this is clear.
  The committee bill supports the important role of locally determined 
bodies, such as school boards and State education agencies, in 
monitoring the school reform plans and does not seek to replace them 
with duplicative structures. We believe that the creation of a State 
panel is an essential element for planning purposes, but this panel 
should not be burdened with the task of monitoring the progress of 
individual schools and districts. Not only does the Goals 2000 Act take 
bold steps toward widescale reform of our Nation's education system, it 
also starts to erect the framework for building the necessary bridge 
between the worlds of education and work. Title V of the bill 
establishes a National Skill Standards Board designed to coordinate the 
development of a voluntary national system of skill 
standards, assessment and certification. This will be incredibly 
important as we go forward, to assure that our mobile work force will 
have the skills necessary to get the jobs that are available.

  The intention of this title is to facilitate lifelong learning 
opportunities and promote attainment of high skills for all Americans. 
It focuses on workers at all stages of the work and career spectrum, 
including young adults seeking a first job, unemployed or displaced 
workers seeking reemployment, and experienced workers seeking better 
jobs. These standards would provide workers with portable and 
recognizable credentials to certify mastery of identifiable skills 
required for successful performance in the work place in the modern 
world.
  From the outset, let me acknowledge that some have questioned the 
inclusion of this title in the education reform package. They ask would 
it not be more appropriate to place provisions establishing voluntary, 
national, industry-recognized skill standards in comprehensive work 
force preparation legislation? Since this provision was not part of the 
original Goals 2000 bill, I initially shared these concerns. However, I 
am now convinced that this matter is significantly related to our 
educational goals and properly placed within this legislation. 
Education does not end after high school. It must be a continuum from 
birth to adulthood. Voluntary skill standards will help encourage the 
high skills necessary for American workers to compete and succeed in 
the high technology world of the 21st century.
  This bill addresses the concerns that Members on this side of the 
aisle have expressed to me. It further incorporates the recommendations 
of distinguished education experts such as Commissioner Rick Mills from 
Vermont who testified before the committee on his experience as a 
leader in the area of school reform and restructuring.
  Some opponents may question the necessity of spending Federal dollars 
to accomplish State education reform. But, as the experience of the 
1980's makes clear, even the most ardent reformers can fall short of 
their goals if the tools at their disposal are not sufficient to 
overcome the obstacles in their way. And obstacles there are many--
drugs, violence, single parenthood, alcohol abuse, poor nutrition, and 
physical abuse. Children come to school carrying more baggage than just 
books.
  Our schools must be able to identify these problems and deal with 
them. Our schools have taken on the role of a social agency in this 
regard, but we have not provided the teachers or the administrators 
with any more money to assist them in caring for our children. It is 
time we begin looking at what we must do to make those goals 
attainable.
  The state of our education system poses a clear and present danger to 
this country--yet, we have failed to take the current threat seriously. 
We have not understood that now is the time to commit our resources to 
education, health, and social services programs in the same way we 
committed ourselves to fight the cold war. We have not been willing to 
admit that the threat from within is as great as that which we perceive 
from without.
  Enacting Goals 2000 is essential to the future of our children 
and the future of our educational system. Our outdated system is no 
longer adequate for our changing society. It is not producing the 
highly skilled and fully literate adult population that our society 
must have.

  I believe Goals 2000 is the beginning of a new commitment of the 
Federal Government to improve the educational opportunities of our 
young people.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Kennedy 
and members of the committee who have worked very hard and diligently 
to provide a bill which can help us go into the next century with the 
kind of confidence we will need in order to provide our Nation with the 
standard of living it requires.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I strongly support enactment of S. 1150, the 
Goals 2000: Educate America Act school reform bill. President Clinton's 
proposal is important and needed legislation. Far too often, American 
students are not sufficiently challenged in the classroom. As a result, 
they frequently place lowest in international achievement rankings. 
Goals 2000 seeks to reverse that tide. It establishes clear, high 
expectations for every student, school, and community. It spurs State 
and local education reform efforts. And it strengthens the linkage 
between school and workplace. Goals 2000 is truly a mandate for change.
  It has become increasingly clear that American competitiveness is 
dependent on a world-class work force, and is dependent on a world-
class educational system. Excellence without equity is recipe for 
economic defeat, and equity without excellence is a hollow promise. 
Goals 2000 serves both as a framework and catalyst to improve and 
reform our educational system. In essence, it acknowledges that 
excellence and equity in education are inextricably linked.
  First, Goals 2000 codifies the National Education Goals developed by 
then-Governor Clinton, President Bush, and the Nation's Governors in 
1989. We have made very few modifications to the goals in committee in 
order to maintain their broad bipartisan appeal. One change of note, 
however, is the inclusion of civics and government as an area in which 
by the year 2000, students will be expected to demonstrate competency 
over challenging subject matter. I have long held that it is absolutely 
critical for students to understand how our Government works, as well 
as the rights and responsibilities of citizenship in a democracy.

  Second, Goals 2000 provides for the development of rigorous voluntary 
content standards that identify exactly what students should know and 
be able to do in specific subject areas. We have also included 
authority for the Secretary to support the development of model 
national leadership projects to integrate standards from different 
subject areas, such as English and history, into a single coherent 
instructional program. Subjects need not and should not be taught in 
isolation of one another.
  Further, Goals 2000 establishes voluntary opportunity-to-learn 
standards that define the teaching and learning conditions necessary 
for all students to have a fair and equitable chance at receiving a 
world-class education. Opportunity-to-learn standards will empower the 
public to hold not only schools but also policymakers accountable for 
the results they produce. They are essential to an education of equity 
and excellence.
  What pleases me most about President Clinton's initiatives is that it 
also provides for the development of quality, thought-provoking 
assessments. For over 25 years I have called for better assessments 
tied to national standards so that we might measure students actual 
knowledge of subject matter and better target our limited Federal 
resources. Moreover, standards and assessments are essential if State 
and local officials are to establish, as AFT President Al Shanker 
recently stated:

       The clear consequences for success and failure so that 
     students have the incentive to work hard and achieve because 
     they know that something important--like a high school 
     diploma, college entrance or access to a good job--is at 
     stake.

  Third, and perhaps most important, Goals 2000 provides a $400 million 
school improvement grant program to help spur systemwide State and 
local education reform. Educators, and State and local community 
leaders will receive the guidance and support they need to develop and 
implement their own education reform plans. Funds will go toward 
improved and ongoing teacher training, parental and community 
involvement, performance-based assessments tied to challenging 
curricula, and real incentives for schools and students.
  I am especially pleased that the grant program contains a special 
emphasis on financially distressed areas. Education reform requires 
resources, particularly in our most needy areas. In Rhode Island, a 
healthy proportion of the more than $1.5 million the State may receive 
under the Goals 2000 program should go to such financially strapped 
areas as Central Falls, Providence, Pawtucket, and Newport. Admittedly, 
$1.5 million is an austere level of funding for austere times. But put 
into the hands of those closest to schoolchildren, not Washington 
bureaucrats, even a small amount of funding--as little as $10,000--can 
lead to a process that can change an entire school.
  Fourth, Goals 2000 provides schools with greater flexibility in their 
use of Federal funds. Under program flexibility, educators will be able 
to serve children as a whole, rather than as a collection of isolated 
needs. I think it is important to note, however, that flexibility is 
not our end goal. Our goal is increased achievement and opportunity for 
children. And therein lies the genius of Goals 2000. The development of 
high standards and quality assessment provides for a level of program 
accountability to guide future decisions regarding more or less 
flexibility at the local level. Without quality assessments, we would 
have no way of measuring if services are delivered to the students who 
need them most.
  Finally, to improve the linkage between school and work, Goals 2000 
creates a skills standards board to identify essential work force 
skills and establishes a voluntary national system of occupational 
certification. Workers, and those seeking work, will receive clear 
guidance as to the skills that are necessary to enter a particular 
field. Skill standards will increase worker mobility, enabling workers 
to take their skills to where jobs exist. These standards are an 
important first step toward a future skills training initiative.
  Mr. President, we have delayed the enactment of education reform 
legislation too long. I am afraid that is in large part due to the 
intervention of politics. I have long believed that partisanship should 
have little to do with our work in education. We may have differences 
of approach and emphasis, but those differences should not be rooted in 
party label. For the good of children, we ought to steer clear of 
partisanship when it comes to education policy. I am pleased to say 
that Goals 2000 is a change from the past. The school reform bill 
before us has been developed and improved in a bipartisan fashion. We 
have taken a good bill and made it better. It merits our strong support 
and swift enactment.
  In closing, I will comment on the fact that when I go around and make 
speeches to young people, at the end of the speech period --and I have 
done this many, many, many times--I ask the students if they feel they 
are properly challenged, learning to the limit of their abilities. I 
find that very often, usually the children will say no. You ask them to 
put up their hands and maybe 95 percent of those who raised their hands 
will say they have not been properly challenged. This is in spite of 
the fact that the teachers are directly behind me as I ask this 
question.
  I think this bill is a good bill and a step down the road we should 
take and should have taken some time ago.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for 
S. 1150, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Senate bill 1150 contains 
many of the same basic elements as President Bush's America 2000 
initiative and the Senate-passed version of S. 2 during the last 
Congress.
  For those of you who may be hearing opposition to this bill, let me 
tell you at the outset that this bill does not: federalize education, 
establish a national curriculum or school board; require that States 
adopt national standards or submit standards for Government approval; 
tie any other Federal education funds to compliance with Goals 2000 
provisions; dictate to States how much they need to spend per pupil, 
how to license their teachers, the proper teacher-pupil ratio, which 
textbooks to use, et cetera; impose unfunded mandates on States; and 
mandate or encourage values-based education or the establishment of 
school-based clinics.
  This legislation reflects the bipartisan consensus of the Senate that 
fundamental education reform will be accomplished only by strengthening 
the connection between communities and their schools and by renewing 
the absolutely vital partnership among parents, teachers, and students. 
This legislation stresses the need to raise our standards and 
expectations for student performance. Students, I believe, are ready 
and willing to rise to this challenge. The bill encourages the 
strengthening of our Nation's teaching force and provides teachers and 
administrators with the training and support they need.
  Our vision for education may be national in scope, but responsibility 
for its delivery rests squarely in hands at the local level. In fact, 
my single greatest concern with the legislation as originally proposed 
by the administration was that it was too bureaucratic, prescriptive, 
and top-down in its approach.
  Republican Senators have been instrumental in making significant 
improvements to the bill both before and after its introduction. We 
have worked very hard to develop a bill with few of the defects of the 
conference bill, S. 2, which we opposed last year. I believe that the 
committee has successfully minimized the level of Federal involvement 
to that necessary to encourage higher standards without stifling local 
innovation and decisionmaking.
  This legislation does not seek to displace local and State control 
over schools. Rather, it provides support for innovative thinking and 
experimentation in the way we educate our students. We also worked to 
ensure that the focus of education reform advocated in this bill 
remained on educational achievement, rather than on inputs and 
resources. I believe that the Goals 2000 bill making its way through 
the Senate represents a true mixture of bottom-up education reform with 
local, State, and Federal support and partnership.
  At the heart of S. 1150 is a grant program to States, school 
districts, principals, and teachers to plan and implement dramatic and 
needed reforms of their schools and school systems. This program 
represents 95 percent of the authorized funds. States, school 
districts, and schools are encouraged to engage in education reform 
designed to raise standards and expectations for all students and 
improve student academic achievement.
  The legislation also allows local education agencies to waive Federal 
regulations which impede the ability of teachers to focus on providing 
the best possible education for their students. This proposal puts 
teachers back in the decision making role of determining the best ways 
to teach their students.
  I have heard various criticisms of this bill. Most of them have been 
aimed at the House version or earlier Senate versions of this 
legislation. Let me address some of these criticisms. Goals 2000 does 
not establish or promote a national school board or a national 
curriculum. I would not support either of those moves.
  While the Goals 2000 State grant program does encourage that 
participating States, school districts, and schools have high 
expectations for students and hold all students to high standards of 
academic achievement, those expectations and standards would be 
entirely locally determined. Other decisions about whether to include 
values or sex education in the curricula or whether to open school-
based clinics would remain local decisions, as they always have been.
  This bill does not impose unfunded Federal mandates. In fact, the 
opposite is true. Like the Bush administration, S. 1150, provides 
States, school districts, and schools with an option to obtain waivers 
from Federal statutes and regulations that impede education reform. In 
addition, the National Governors Association, which vehemently opposes 
unfunded Federal mandates, has indicated its support for the Senate 
bill.
  Another charge is that the bill threatens to change the focus from 
school and student outcomes and achievement as measures of educational 
progress back to the inputs, such as resources, upon which we have 
traditionally relied to monitor our educational system. However, the 
Senate committee amendment modifies the bill's language on delivery or 
opportunity-to-learn standards, as these input requirements are called, 
and the House bill is very different on this point.
  The House bill requires the National Education Goals Panel to 
identify actions that should be taken by Federal, State, and local 
governments to achieve State opportunity-to-learn standards. It would 
also require the Goals Panel to report on the progress of States in 
meeting such standards. The Senate will does not insert the federally 
funded Goals Panel into this type of monitoring role.
  The House bill is also much more prescriptive and restrictive with 
respect to opportunity-to-leave standards in the State grants. The 
Senate bill, by comparison, only requires that States establish 
strategies for providing all students with an opportunity to learn, but 
States decide whether they will adopt specific standards to accomplish 
this aim.
  I should also mention briefly title V of the bill, which will 
establish a National Skill Standards Board to assist in the development 
of national, occupational skill standards. I must confess to some 
skepticism as to the usefulness of these standards and the need for 
such a board. Nevertheless, I am prepared to defer to the judgment of 
those in the business community who support this effort. But, I 
strongly believe businesses, both large and small, must be adequately 
represented in the development of standards if this project is to work. 
The Secretary of Labor shares this view and has agreed to a compromise 
approach that I believe will provide more balanced representation on 
the Skills Standards Board.
  Finally, some oppose this bill because it does not include Federal 
money for private school choice. As in S. 2, which passed by a vote of 
92 to 6, a State or school district may use their Federal grant to 
implement public school choice as part of its plan. The bill does not 
prohibit private school choice, only the use of Federal dollars for 
such activity.
  I recognize that private schools have made substantial contributions 
to the education of many children, and I believe that the existence of 
a private school system provides healthy competition for public 
schools. However, as a nation we have made a commitment to education by 
providing free public schools and requiring that children attend. To 
honor this commitment fully, all schools must be good ones.
  Frankly, I would have preferred not to include Federal funding of any 
school choice in this bill. I support school choice if a school 
district decides that it is a feasible option and will improve 
education achievement in the district's public schools. However, 
choice, whether private or public, is a State and local issue, as are 
decisions about how to fund it. I see no reason for a Federal role in 
this decision.
  Ultimately, the real solutions to improving our schools will be found 
outside Washington. However, I believe that this legislation can be of 
assistance in encouraging States and localities to seek improvement of 
local schools and to think boldly in terms of reform. It is on that 
basis that I offer my support for S. 1150.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, it is moments 
such as this where I should say amen and sit down because, frankly, the 
Senator from Kansas has said virtually everything I wanted to say about 
this legislation, particularly in some of her last few points about the 
flexibility of this bill.
  My hope is--and I know this does not happen with great frequency, Mr. 
President, but my hope is, because this legislation is attracting so 
much attention, Members would take some time--it is not a lengthy 
bill--that they might read this one. I know I may be asking a lot in 
some instances but, just merely reading this legislation I think would 
allay about 95 percent of the concerns that have been raised in other 
forums.
  The Senator from Kansas points out what this bill does not include, 
and I would urge people to read her statement because she is exactly 
correct. There have been a lot of statements about what is in this 
bill. Read the bill and read the statement by the Senator from Kansas 
and you will have a good beginning as to what is included.
  I think the one central feature that is so critically important is 
the notion of local flexibility, the ability for school districts and 
States to be experimental, to try things that work in their communities 
and their States. That has not always been the way we have crafted 
legislation in the education area, but this particular product is such 
an effort, to really maximize those choices.
  I hope it does not need stating, but I will repeat it again. If at 
any point in our history the need for having the best educated 
generation this country has ever produced it is now. We just passed the 
NAFTA bill which is going to open some wonderful opportunities 
economically in this hemisphere.
  When we have 50 percent of our high school graduates not going on to 
college at all and you realize how important it is going to be to have 
an educated work force, I do not think it needs to be reemphasized that 
we must do everything possible to increase and improve the quality of 
educational opportunity at the elementary and secondary level. I want 
to underscore what the Senator from Kansas has said about parents. And 
Senator Bond of Missouri deserves great credit for offering the 
parents-as-first-teachers concept,
  Because it is absolutely true. I have a sister who teaches young 
children in Hartford, CT, from the largest inner city elementary school 
in the State. She would be the first to tell you were she here. She is 
a very good teacher. She works very hard. But even at the very young 
age of 4, 5, 6 years of age when she receives these children as her 
charges so much damage has already been done. It is almost impossible 
to try to reverse some of the problems these children bring to the 
classroom at that young age.
  They are not yet adolescents or teenagers. These are the youngest 
children.
  So involving parents is so critically important if we are going to be 
successful, getting parents to come to those schools, to be involved in 
the total aspect of their child's lives. This bill makes an effort at 
that.
  President Bush deserves great credit, by the way. He authored the 
conference that met in Virginia that initiated this particular 
proposal, and hence underscoring the point again that the Senator from 
Kansas has made about the bipartisan nature of this effort. We are not 
going to agree on every aspect. Some may have particular problems of 
one feature or another. But this is an opportunity for us to really put 
our stamp on the educational needs of this country at a tremendously 
important and critical juncture.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to read the bill, read the statement by 
the Senator from Kansas. I commend the Senator from Rhode Island, 
Senator Pell, who has been a champion for years in education, and our 
colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords as well; my colleague from 
Illinois who is here, Senator Simon, who has spent years working these 
areas.
  I look forward, by the way--and I would end on this particular note--
to working with my colleague from Vermont. He and I have been raising 
the proposal of having the Federal Government commit more of its 
resources over the next decade to education. It is controversial. But 
nonetheless, I think it is a wonderful opportunity for us to alleviate 
some of the property tax burden that people pay in this country for 
education. Two-thirds of the property taxes in Connecticut go for local 
education. A lot of those dollars go to special education programs and 
the like. If the Federal Government can begin to assume some of that 
financial responsibility we cannot only do more, but I think also 
alleviate some of the particular financial burdens that people have.
  That is another issue and a time for another debate. I did not want 
to miss the opportunity to let my colleagues know that the Senator from 
Vermont and I intend to pursue that particular approach through other 
vehicles along the way in our commitment to doing what we can to 
improve the quality of our education.
  So, Mr. President, I look forward to the debate over the next few 
days on this issue. There will be some major issues of some 
controversy.
  Let me underscore as well the point on the voucher issue. Again there 
has been a lot of talk about this. But frankly, this is not a matter 
for us taking tax dollar revenues and subsidizing other school systems 
which is exactly the wrong direction. I have great respect for the 
private and parochial school systems in this country. I am a product of 
them. But I also believe my parents made a choice at that time. They 
did not think that making a choice excluded them or precluded them from 
bearing an obligation to support education in this country. In a sense 
to promote that idea because we are angry with what we see going on in 
our schools today is to ask those who have the least to pay the 
greatest burden in this area. I do not think we ought to do that. I do 
not think we can afford to do it no matter how appealing it may be.
  So my hope is our colleagues will think long and hard before deciding 
to go move in that direction.
  On that note, Mr. President, I ask our colleagues to look at the 
bill, to read it, to read the statements again, particularly that of 
the Senator from Kansas today, and to ultimately support what I think 
is a very good product.
  Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Illinois. I know he has 
some important comments.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Illinois, [Mr. Simon].
  Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I agree with everything he said. There is all sweetness and light. It 
will not be all sweetness and light when we get to these amendments.
  But what we are asking is on that voluntary basis, and the Senator 
from Kansas used the word voluntary and I would underscore it. That is 
what this calls for, a voluntary establishment of high academic 
standards. And then do something that I have heard the Senator from 
Rhode Island say over and over again. In fact, I have stolen this 
process from him. He says, ``When I speak to students, I ask them if 
they are being challenged enough.'' And overwhelmingly they say they 
are not being challenged enough. I have stolen that technique from the 
Senator from Rhode Island without giving him credit, I regret to say. 
But absolutely we ought to be doing more.
  Parental involvement; Senator Dodd has talked about this, Senator 
Hatfield has been excellent on this. The PTA has been urging us to do 
more. The local school councils established by the city of Chicago did 
not cost us a penny; gotten parents involved, and there is no question 
that has helped the Chicago schools.
  Senator Wellstone and I will be offering an amendment to strengthen 
the opportunity-to-learn standards. I hope we can get something worked 
out on that.
  And then I would finally urge that we recognize--this is one piece of 
the puzzle. This is a step forward. It is a small step forward. We need 
other steps forward. I think the direct lending was one for higher 
education. The school to work will be one. Then we get to a more major 
issue, and that is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  One other item: The Presiding Officer who has been great in this 
whole budget revenue field--and we are pleased that he is here from the 
State of North Dakota. We face the fact that we passed unanimously a 
Senate resolution saying let us increase 1 percent a year what we are 
doing out of the budget for education. It was easy to pass that 
resolution. Pretty soon, we are going to be at the budget. Then we are 
going to find out whether we just gave that lip service, or whether we 
are going to do it.
  That is when the crunch comes. I hope we will do something.
  Some of my colleagues have heard me talk before about when I was in 
the fourth or fifth grade. I do not remember when it was. I was taking 
that geography lesson. I learned that we were a rich nation because of 
all of our natural resources. And I believed that up until, I do not 
know, 15 years ago when all of a sudden I realized the nations that 
were moving more rapidly economically in terms of increasing their 
national income were nations that had virtually no natural resources--
Japan, Taiwan, Sweden. I realized these nations are investing in their 
human resources. That is what we have to do.
  This bill is one step in that direction. I applaud this step. We have 
to take more steps.
  I applaud Senator Pell, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Kassebaum and 
everyone who has played a roll in this. I am pleased to join in support 
of it.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, let me express my respect, 
especially for the prior speakers and their commitment to and concern 
for education and improving education in our country.
  That is I believe a universal concern, of course. I do not think it 
is unique to either party. And it is something that has been outlined 
by the Senator from Illinois who has made some exceptionally aggressive 
efforts in this area which I greatly admire, as he has outlined. This 
is critical to the future capacity to have high quality education.
  Really, if you want to look at the resources of our Nation, the true 
resources are the minds of our children. This is especially true as we 
move into the information and communication century, which will be the 
21st century.
  We all recognize this. Of course, this bill is a statement by the 
administration and by members of the leadership of this committee as to 
how they think it should be addressed and how they feel we should 
improve education throughout this country. All the speakers to date 
have been high in their praise of this bill. I must demur. I think that 
this piece of legislation has some very serious flaws.
  I sought the goals of the bill. The goals, of course, were designed 
by the Governors Conference in Charlottesville which was convened by 
President Bush. I guess I am the only Member of this body who was a 
member of that conference because at the time the conference was 
convened I was serving as Governor of my State.
  Those goals were excellent. They have been outlined by both the 
chairman of the committee and the Senator from Vermont. I will not go 
over them again. But they do define well what we as a nation should be 
pursuing in the area of education.
  The problem, however, is that this bill is not an enactment of those 
goals only. This bill did not stop at just stating that these goals 
were a good idea. It went well beyond that.
  Had in fact the bill been a restatement or an affirmation of the 
decision of the Governors at Charlottesville and acceptance of those 
goals and had this bill been an attempt by the Federal Government to be 
a partner in pursuing those goals and assisting the States, especially 
in the area of assessment in order to determine whether or not the 
goals have been obtained, then I would have no problem with this bill. 
But that is not what this bill does.
  This bill, although having an innocuous term, reaches well beyond 
just the definition of the goals or the attempt to assist the States. 
It is a significant power grab by the Federal Government for the 
structure to try to obtain control--control is maybe too strong a 
word--but to try to obtain a significant and dominant role in the 
manner and methodology of education of our children in the elementary-
secondary school systems.
  You might ask what is wrong with that? Well, because that is not the 
way the American education system has worked.
  Traditionally, the Federal role in education has been defined and 
targeted in, laser like, in its areas of responsibility. Traditionally, 
the Federal Government has picked certain arenas where it felt that the 
States maybe were not doing everything they could or where it could 
help the States and address those issues. Special education is probably 
the most well known of that, but certainly the chapter 1 and the 
Elementary and Secondary School Act assistance is part of it, too. And 
that really has worked fairly well, where the Federal Government has 
picked a defined and limited role to address elementary and secondary 
school education and has done so in partnership with the States and 
left to the States and to the local communities the dominant and 
pervasive role of educating our children as they work their way through 
the first 12 grades.
  Why has it worked? It has worked because quality education--and this 
was a conclusion which we reached at Charlottesville, and it has not 
been talked about here, and I can understand why, listening to the 
speakers who went before me--depends primarily, even more so than on 
money, on local participation. High quality school systems in this 
country, whether they are at the elementary level or at the secondary 
level, wherever you find them, always have one very dominant factor, 
and that is a high degree of local participation in designing the way 
the school is run.
  They also have a lot of other factors, of course. Some of that 
involves money. A lot of it involves a first-class principal with 
energy, and a good teaching staff, of course, is critical. But most 
important is a commitment by the community to make sure that the 
education of their children in their town is the best that can be 
provided.
  Local control cannot be obtained through Federal regulation. In fact, 
Federal regulation is anathema to local control. In fact, probably in 
the most aggressive experiment the Federal Government has taken on in 
the area of education is the area of 94-142, which is the special 
education area. In insisting and setting up a Federal structure on how 
children shall be educated who have handicaps and disabilities, the 
Federal Government's dominance in that area has become so aggressive 
that it has in many instances undermined what might have been 
initiatives on the local level which would have created even a better 
atmosphere for that child.
  That grew out of the history of the fact that many of these children 
were not receiving the adequate education they needed and the Federal 
Government stepped in. But I tend to think the pendulum has swung too 
far in that area. We will have a chance to discuss that on later 
legislation in some considerable depth.
  In that area specifically, the Federal Government has created a 
regulatory morass of huge proportions, and it has not even funded the 
obligation that it has put on the local school systems to help educate 
the disabled and handicapped child, which is an outrage in and on its 
face; the fact that we passed a bill in this Congress that said that 
the Federal Government was going to tell the States and the communities 
how to educate these disabled kids and then said we would pay 40 
percent of it and we end up paying 6 percent of it, and thus the school 
systems had to scramble around and relocate resources to take care of 
these children.
  But the fact is that quality education cannot be driven from the top. 
Quality education has to involve having the parent, the principal, the 
teacher, and the local school board feel that they are empowered with 
the capacity to make the decisions which make a difference in the way 
education is delivered. That is what it comes down to. That is how you 
develop quality education. And that is what the Governors concluded at 
Charlottesville; that most of the high quality systems involve large 
flexibility and a large amount of autonomy on the local and State 
level.
  So we have this bill come forward, which in an innocuous term is 
called voluntary, and we have heard that phrase mentioned here on 
innumerable occasions--this is voluntary, this is voluntary, this is 
voluntary--to the point where you have to refer to a Shakesperian 
phrase which I believe is ``methinks she doth protest too much.'' The 
fact is this is not voluntary. It is only voluntary in words, but in 
practice it is substantively a directive.
  Why? Well, there are a number of reasons. The language of the bill, 
to begin with. I refer you simply to the language of the bill. It does 
not talk about voluntary in the operative language. It talks about 
voluntary in the political language. In the operative language it uses 
a word like ``shall.'' The States shall present a plan. The plan shall 
comply with the opportunity-to-learn standards. I refer the Members of 
this body to the bill itself and to section 306 for some of that 
language and some of the other critical sections.
  So the language of the bill is not voluntary. In its operative and 
most effective and in the terms which create legal obligation, the 
language of the bill is very definitive.
  Well, then you will hear people say, well, States do not have to 
participate; they do not have to put in for this $400 million, so, 
therefore, it is obviously voluntary. That is a truly ironic argument. 
I mean anybody who has been in the Government knows the pressure which 
will be raised within the various States to obtain some of this funding 
should it be appropriated. The educational communities within the 
States, the parents within the States, the States themselves, the State 
legislatures, if you put $400 million on the table, there is going to 
be a huge, practical momentum to obtain those funds.
  And that is the way human nature is, and that is the way of the body 
politic.
  So, as a practical matter, there is very little that is voluntary in 
the State's choice to pursue this. You are not going to have the States 
of Idaho or Arkansas or Mississippi not want to get a percentage of 
that $400 million. Obviously, they are going to want to and they are 
going to feel that, since it is their tax dollars they send here to 
Washington to begin with, they ought to be able to get some of them 
back.
  I think it is a very reasonable approach. It is not avarice on their 
part. It happens to be a reasonable desire to recover some of the tax 
dollars they send to Washington.
  So when the Federal Government puts $400 million on the table and 
says, here we are going to divide it up to the States in the context 
that it is voluntary that the States are going to participate in that, 
it is absurd. The States are going to be under pressure from their 
constituents. And once they opt into the plan, the language is not 
voluntary. It is ``shall.'' They shall have a plan; they shall comply 
with this standard and that standard.
  Then, of course, I know that the mea culpas have been put out there 
that this will not be used in later cases to obtain Federal funds. 
States will not be tested on their applications under chapter 1 by any 
standards that are stepped up under this bill. And even this bill has 
language in there that says something to that effect.
  But let me tell you, that is not the way it works. It is not the way 
it has ever worked. Anybody who has ever dealt with the Federal 
Government and has tried to participate in a program knows that once 
the Federal Government sets up a standard, which they do under this 
bill, once those standards are put in place, those standards become the 
criteria which are either used exclusively or at least as a major 
element of the decision process in obtaining other funds which are 
related to that matter.
  It would be like saying that, when the EPA set their standards on how 
you define clean water, the State applying for a clean water grant 
could ignore those standards. Of course they cannot and they are not 
going to be able to ignore the standards that are set out here if they 
wish to apply for other Federal grants.
  Clearly, this bill and the language in this bill will create in the 
area of designing and defining the methodology of teaching, the 
methodology of education at the elementary and secondary school level, 
the methodology of curriculum, clearly that language will be used as a 
test against which to gauge other applications for other grant 
programs. To say otherwise, I think, is to ignore the history of the 
way the Federal Government assigns grant programs.
  Voluntary? Well, it is not voluntary. I think I have pointed out 
three reasons why it is not voluntary. But let me point out a fourth 
reason why it is not voluntary so we can put an end to this use of this 
word ``voluntary'' around this floor relative to this bill.
  It is not voluntary because once the Federal Government, under this 
national NESIC--which is the new sub-board of the National Goals 
board--once NESIC has set up the standards which they determine to be 
the best way to teach a kid in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, 
sixth and through the twelfth grade, once they have set up those 
standards, no matter how specific they are --and I suspect they will 
begin fairly generalized in their terms but will evolve into a fair 
amount of specifics fairly quickly--the opportunity-to-learn standards, 
once those standards are set up, they become the benchmark for the 
litigation community in this country.
  Any good lawyer pursuing a case on behalf of a local group that feels 
it has been affronted or feels that it is not receiving proper 
attention to its concerns in education, when they bring that lawsuit 
against that local school board and they are looking around for ways in 
which to defend their position--let us say that they believe that 
American history should be taught under one form and the local school 
system is teaching it in another form, and they determine that under 
the NESIC standards their form is the form that is appropriate, they 
are going to use those standards in court. They are going to cite them.
  You can say, ``Well, that doesn't matter. That is just some set of 
standards that is brought in.''
  Well, sure, it is just some set of standards brought in. It just 
happens to be standards set up by the U.S. Government as the best way 
to educate children. You do not think a court is going to take that 
rather seriously, especially a Federal court where most of these cases 
are brought; or a jury is going to be impressed by a group of standards 
set up by a Federal organization on how you should teach, what math 
books you should use, what curriculum you should use, how big the 
classroom should be, how many books should be in the library, what type 
of gym should be designed?
  I can tell you they are going to take that seriously when that case 
is brought, even though it may just be a group of Federal standards 
sitting out there set up by a board that has no direct regulatory 
authority over the local school board.
  Clearly, clearly, it is going to become the anvil upon which the 
hammer of activist lawsuits directed at local communities in order to 
try to redirect what may have been the very appropriate political 
decision of the local community school board--it is going be the anvil 
upon which that hammer is struck.
  So, voluntary, this is not. It is politically nice to call it 
voluntary. I understand that. Because you would not want to say you 
were mandating something on the States, would we? That might be truth 
in packaging.
  There are a lot of problems with this piece of legislation. But let 
me speak specifically to a couple that we will be offering amendments 
on.
  First--in listening to the discussions of some of my colleagues, I 
guess it is not going to be such a problem; probably will be accepted--
is that this legislation has the capacity to lead to an unfunded 
mandate. But I understand from both the ranking member and the chairman 
of this committee that it is not an unfunded mandate specifically 
stated as such, so I presume no one will have an objection. I will 
offer that and will make it clear that nothing in this bill will be 
deemed an unfunded mandate.
  There is language in this bill which really undercuts the capacity of 
the Governors to be a player in the sense that the plan can be 
delivered to the Federal education authority without the Governor's 
approval, even through the education department solely. And there are 
some States that are structured in a way where the education department 
is independent of the Governor. The Governor does not even appoint the 
commissioner of education. Therefore, we will try to correct that 
problem by making sure that Governors have the final say on any plan 
that is developed under this program.
  There is the issue of litigation, which I just talked about. I heard 
a number of people say, including the ranking member, that this is not 
going to be used for purposes of litigation. Maybe it was not him, but 
I know somebody said that here. So we will try to address that.
  I heard a number of people say that this would not be used for 
purposes of designing curriculum or controlling class size. We will 
offer a series of specific amendments so that this bill cannot be used 
for the purpose of teacher instruction practices, curriculum 
definition, limitation on class size, national building standards for 
schools, or equalizing spending per pupil.
  We will make it absolutely clear within this bill that what is being 
represented here--which is, this a voluntary bill and which is not 
going down into the specifics of day-to-day operations of school 
systems--is the way it is. And I presume those will not be too 
controversial, because everybody already stood up and said the bill 
does not do that to begin with.
  Where I think the controversy, obviously, is going to arise is on the 
issue of the opportunity-to-learn standard section of the bill. I still 
do not understand why it is in here. I have listened to the 
administration. I have listened to the Secretary of Education. Their 
goals are obtainable. In fact, if you listen to what they say, they do 
not even mention this topic. And they are very legitimate and 
thoughtful goals.
  I have a tremendous amount of respect for Secretary of Education, 
Governor Riley. If you listen to him talk, he is saying exactly what 
needs to be said. He is saying we should enact the goals of the 
Governor's Conference, which this bill does, and then we should design 
assessment standards to make sure that those goals are reached and have 
content standards within that.
  He does not talk about opportunity to learn. ``Opportunity-to-
learn,'' that is a nice euphemism. What it really means is Federal 
methodology for teaching. That is really the proper definition of it, 
if you are going to be accurate. It is the methodology of how people 
teach and what they are taught and the atmosphere in which they are 
taught.
  The chairman of the committee described it as the jumping-off place. 
That is a pretty good term, actually, for it. Then he used terms like: 
Do they arrive at school ready to learn? Do they have an atmosphere to 
learn in? And what are they going to be taught from? I think that is 
essentially what he was saying.
  That is a good way to describe it. It is a jumping-off place. It is a 
jumping-off place in which the Federal Government is going to define 
the place. Where is the place? It is the school, that is the place. It 
is the school. It is going to define the school under this process. 
Opportunity-to-learn standards are a methodology for teaching and 
education in the school.
  The size of the school comes into issue. The curriculum specifically 
comes into issue. I heard somebody come up and say curriculum is not 
affected here. Curriculum is specifically--specifically--identified as 
one of the things that, under the opportunity-to-learn standards, 
people must be concerned with.
  In fact, let me read the list, because I know a lot of folks do not 
have time to read these bills. They are long and convoluted, and it 
takes a long time. And since there is so much agreement among the 
leaders of the committee, I am sure a lot of people are willing to walk 
away and say it is an easy vote. But let me read the list of what is 
involved here:
  `` * * * opportunity-to-learn standards . . . shall address''-- it 
does not say it is a voluntary opportunity to address these. It says, 
``shall address.''
  ``the quality and availability of curricula, instructional materials, 
and technologies;''
  That is pretty much the whole ball of wax. That is called education 
at the elementary and secondary school level.
  `` * * * opportunity-to-learn standards * * * shall address the 
capability of teachers to provide high-quality instruction to meet 
diverse learning needs in each content area;''
  That, I think, is a phrase which is meant to say: Do not try any of 
this alternative certification, folks. It is not going to make it.
  Those States which have been experimenting with hiring teachers from 
outside the traditional teaching fields because the teachers have an 
expertise in a field they feel the children should know about will, I 
think, run headlong into the standard that is proposed under that one. 
That is a real labor sleeper.
  `` * * * opportunity-to-learn standards * * * shall address the 
extent to which teachers and administrators have ready and continuing 
access to professional development, including the best knowledge about 
teaching, learning, and school improvement;
  ``the extent to which curriculum, instructional practices, and 
assessments are aligned to content standards; and
  ``other factors--''
  This is sort of a catch-all. If we did not pick up everything in 
education that we want to be under our control,
  ``other factors that the Council deems appropriate to ensure that all 
students receive a fair opportunity to achieve the knowledge and skills 
described in the voluntary national content standards and the voluntary 
national student performance standards certified by the Council.''
  It is a very sweeping and pervasive definition of what is the 
methodology of teaching. It is a method, Federal methodology, a plan 
for education. The way it works under this law, just so people 
understand it, as I understand it--maybe I do not fully understand it, 
but I think I do--is that if you wish to put in for a grant under this 
bill, you are, under this law, required to have addressed the issue of 
opportunity-to-learn standards.
  We went through the issue of voluntary questions. That does not mean 
you have to comply with what NESIC says is the opportunity-to-learn 
standards. No, you do not. But your school improvement plan has to have 
an opportunity-to-learn section.
  I have to say, if you are applying for a grant and your opportunity-
to-learn standards, which were developed maybe at some community-based 
effort and you are pretty proud of them, come up, but they are not 
consistent with the opportunity-to-learn standards which were developed 
by NESIC, the national school board group, your chances of being a 
successful competitor for that grant I have to believe are 
significantly reduced. So, as a practical matter, I think that is 
another lever that is used here to force compliance with that standard.
  So there will be a contentious debate. Maybe it will not be 
contentious. Maybe it will be brief and to the point. In any event, it 
will be a discussion, and there will be an amendment offered by myself 
to eliminate the opportunity-to-learn standards, which are unnecessary 
to the basic purposes of this bill and to the goals of the Secretary of 
Education. In fact, if they were eliminated, this bill would be a very 
tolerable one.
  Those are some of the issues which we shall be raising. I will also 
be raising, if the Senator from Indiana does not raise it, and I 
suspect he will, the question of choice, which has already been 
addressed here. As I feel, if you are going to give schools any 
flexibility at all, you ought to give them a chance to have real 
choice, not just public school choice. Public school choice is not 
choice, of course, in New Hampshire and most States, because in most 
States that do not have large urban areas, there is only one public 
high school.
  So as Secretary Riley was kind enough to state at one of our 
hearings, there really is not any choice in a community that only has 
one high school. You limit choice to public schools.
  I think there is probably a large segment of this Nation which is 
subject to the one high school situation, if they are just looking at 
public schools. So choice should be made available to rural communities 
as well as to urban communities, to suburban communities as well as to 
urban communities, by expanding it, the opportunity to private school 
as well as public school, if the States wish to do that. It would be up 
to the States, obviously, to make that decision.
  These are the reservations which I have about this bill and they come 
to, really, this very simple point. You cannot correct the problems of 
education in this country by having the Federal Government usurp the 
authority of the parents, the principals, and the teachers, in their 
capacity to develop the imaginative and creative curriculums and ideas 
on teaching our children.
  This bill leads logically to a system where Federal influence in the 
design and methodology of teaching our children in the elementary and 
secondary school system will be expanded in an exponential way. We have 
never done this in this Nation. We have always allowed our local 
communities to make these decisions because we have always understood 
the importance of keeping the power of wielding and delivering 
knowledge to our children in the hands of the parents rather than in 
the hands of the bureaucratic few here in Washington.
  This bill puts us on a very slippery slope which, in my opinion, 
leads inevitably to a dramatic expansion in the role of the Federal 
Government, in a dominant way--not in a partnership way--in the 
education of our children in elementary and secondary schools.
  So I will be offering a number of amendments to try to correct those 
concerns and I, obviously, will appreciate the body's consideration of 
those amendments.
  I yield my time.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from New 
Hampshire--I know the Senator from Montana is going to speak, but I 
would just like to ask a couple of questions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, perhaps the Senator from New Hampshire 
was not on the floor when I was speaking because I stressed the 
importance of local control. Having been a school board member myself 
in a rural area, a rural school district area of the State of Kansas, 
and my own children going through that school district, nothing is more 
important in my mind than local control; a community being able, and 
parents being able to have a direct voice in the type of education that 
their students are receiving.
  So I would beg to differ with the Senator from New Hampshire. I do 
not believe this is usurping the authority of parents, nor should 
it. It is one thing that I feel strongly about.

  I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire on some of the things he 
said about the opportunity-to-learn language. I do not see it as being 
a threat because I think it is basically sort of just fuzzy language. 
It is not in any way requirements that are going to lead to control, 
again, by the Federal Government.
  So I do not think this is a significant power grab. I know that the 
Senator from New Hampshire worries about it being the camel's nose 
under the tent. That is what we all worry about frequently with 
legislation, and we have to be very cognizant of that and be aware of 
any consequences, if, indeed, it becomes that.
  I know others want to speak, but I want to mention two things. When 
the Senator from New Hampshire talked about certification and standards 
that would be developed, these are like the math instructors developing 
standards for math; that in the fourth grade, a student would be 
required to be able to multiply certain types of mathematical 
procedures. I do not even know what that would be, but these are 
requirements that I think many of the teachers hope, whether it is in 
science or geography or math, that students at various levels would be 
able to maintain.
  This is not going to be anything that nationally we are going to 
prescribe to, that nationally we are going to try and set. We are not 
going to set the textbooks. I just worry about that. I know there are 
concerns, and I do not mean to get into it, but I do not like to take 
worst case scenarios and create fears about what might be done when 
really there is no language in this bill to indicate that is what would 
happen.
  Some of the amendments I know that the Senator from New Hampshire is 
going to offer to make sure that it does not happen will probably be 
ones that will be acceptable to the committee, if it provides any level 
of comfort.
  I just particularly wanted to address, as a former school board 
member myself, my absolute dedication to local control.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield to me for an answer, I hope I 
did not in any way imply that she is not committed to local control. As 
a former school board member, I am sure she is, but the practical 
impact of this bill--obviously, I disagree with her sense of where it 
goes. I do not think it is a worst case example I am talking about. 
This language is very specific.
  I refer the Senator from Kansas back to section 211.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Under what title?
  Mr. GREGG. Two hundred thirteen, sub 3, which outlines the power and 
the directive for an opportunity-to-learn standard structure. It is 
very specific. It says quality, availability of curriculum instruction, 
materials and technology. That is not designing math courses. That is 
saying whether or not you are going to teach Euclidean geometry or some 
other type of geometry. One could come to that conclusion.
  If they wanted to get to the point that the Senator from Kansas had 
wanted to get to, which is to set a standard to make sure all third 
graders know multiplication and all eighth graders know algebra I, if 
they wanted to get to that, they could have done it without having to 
go to methodology. They could have done it by assessment. But this is a 
methodology bill, not an assessment bill in that section.
  I must disagree with the Senator's evaluation of the impact of the 
bill. Obviously, we are going to disagree on that.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, just to respond, if the Senator will 
allow a bit more exchange here. I agree with the Senator from New 
Hampshire on that. It is not language I necessarily think is necessary. 
It is not mandatory language, as you know. It is only there as a 
voluntary guideline.
  I share the Senator's concern because I think from that it could lead 
to other consequences if, indeed, it ever became mandatory.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield to me further, as a practical 
matter, it is mandatory. I believe it is unquestionably going to end up 
being language which is not only put in place--directives and specific 
criteria on what type and how people should be taught--but that it is 
going to become language which is going to become the enforcing 
mechanism throughout our school systems in a very short time after its 
adoption.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana 
[Mr. Burns].
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, as we have heard this colloquy between my 
friend from New Hampshire and my good friend from Kansas, I would like 
to make some of the same points. There are some very good things in 
this bill. There are some things that give us all a little heartburn. I 
will say, ``on a voluntary basis'' is mentioned 75 times in this bill. 
That sounds like overkill to me, and it also raises my curiosity about 
why it should be mentioned that many times.
  Education in my State is probably the No. 1 issue. We have gone 
through a restructuring of our higher education. The money that is 
collected on personal property taxes in Montana is a driving force in 
every local Government. We are trying to do more with less.
  My concern, coming out of local government, is the thing called 
unfunded mandates. Those unfunded mandates may be cloaked in many 
disguises. There are quite a few of them in this piece of legislation, 
but as it works its way through the debate, I hope that we can deal 
with some of those.
  I do support the seven national education goals because I think we, 
as a nation, should have something to shoot for, but it seems like 
whenever you start setting a bureaucracy in place, those goals take on 
a new meaning.
  Let us take for instance, without this piece of legislation, our goal 
is to have 90 percent or more of the children graduate from high 
school. In Montana, we are at 89 percent now without this piece of 
legislation. We can also say from our Department of Education on the 
Federal level, we can set some goals, but I think we are going to have 
to leave the flexibility to the States to decide how we attain or reach 
those goals.
  Students should know their subjects, including math and science. 
Adults should be literate. Our schools should be safe and parents 
should participate in the schools, and I think most parents do. I was a 
cosponsor of Senator Hatfield's bill on the issue, and I am glad that 
is incorporated in this piece of legislation. But the real question 
boils down to: How do we achieve those goals? Who actually controls the 
reform and the kinds of reforms that are to be undertaken? That is 
where I have some problems with this bill.
  Under 2000, meeting these goals requires the establishment of three 
new bureaucracies and creates a new office in the Department of 
Education. When are we going to learn around here that when you create 
these bureaucracies, we can sometimes deal with the fiscal 
responsibilities, on occasion, but we have a terrible time dealing with 
the bureaucracies, because as it is set up, they are nonresponsive and 
unelected faces, and they will not respond to the likings of our 
people.
  The National Education Goals Panel, the National Education Standards 
and Improvement Council--those bureaucracies alone are going to cost 
the taxpayers $6 million the first year and ``such sums as necessary'' 
in the next 4 years. That is before we ever send any recommendations to 
the States or buy one textbook or offer any advice on how we attain 
goals.
  The unelected bureaucracies will be in charge of approving plans that 
States develop to improve education. I have a problem with that, too. 
That is saying that somebody on the banks of the Potomac is smarter 
than my school board at home in Montana, and I cannot believe that. For 
the folks here, I do not think they really understand the conditions 
under which we have to educate our children compared to the way they 
educate theirs.
  In order to qualify for a piece of the $393 million in Federal money 
that is being dangled in front of them--and we know how tight budgets 
are everywhere else, especially in my State--States will agree to have 
their reform plan approved by these bureaucracies. It does not take a 
rocket scientist to figure that out.
  Under this bill, States are required to include the quantity, 
quality, and availability of curriculum and the instructional 
technologies in line with the NESIC, whatever that council thinks is 
necessary.
  Also, that same Council would evaluate these plans according to other 
specified factors that it deems appropriate. In other words, they have 
the ability to change their standards, to sort of change the rules 
without any congressional oversight or any input from the States, 
whenever they start making their application for moneys.
  That is just one way that the Federal Government is going to get more 
involved in this business of educating your kids. In other words, where 
are the decisions going to be made? Are they going to be made in 
Garfield County, MT or Williams County, ND, or are those decisions 
going to be made in Washington, DC.
  Let me emphasize that word ``voluntary.'' It appears, like I said, 75 
times in this piece of legislation--75 times. Now, that tells me 
somebody is trying to sell merely by repetition and not by meaning. You 
are looking at an old fellow who used to go up and down the road 
selling things. If you sell things voluntarily, I probably said 
voluntary every sales call. So whoever put that in there all that many 
times is very wise because they will keep using it every day.
  While some might say this is to emphasize the need of voluntary, 
indeed I think it is mentioned many times just to lull folks into a 
false sense of security.


                             Another area.

  Let us talk about opportunity-to-learn standards. Some standards 
input is needed to give all students a chance to learn. Nobody can 
quarrel with that, on a generic level that is. Most would agree that 
students need certain inputs: A teacher, dedicated teachers--and we 
have thousands of them--classroom, all to learn. But who defines the 
inputs? Who makes that definition? Is it made here or is it made at the 
local level? It could be extended to a number of areas including school 
building standards, spending per student, and class size.
  I want this spending by student to be looked at a little bit because 
I think South Dakota--I am not real sure--has the highest national SAT 
scores and yet spends less per student than any other State in the 
Union. Montana is not too far behind. And so we know that money is not 
the answer. Spending per student could become one of those standards 
dictated by the bureaucracy. So we have to look at those inputs.
  I can see lawsuits being filed on this bill also. It seems like it is 
every time we turn around. And we all know that complying with court 
rulings is not voluntary. I would be the first to admit there is always 
room for improvement. I think Montana has a fine education system, 
ranks near the top of the United States in many categories. There are a 
lot of caring teachers, dedicated professional people, principals and 
parents who are working to prepare their young ones for learning. These 
efforts are being undertaken as we speak without Federal control or 
Federal interference.
  As I said before, we need to trust parents and schools to work out 
their solutions without the heavy hand of Government.
  The bill contains some positive provisions--I have already mentioned 
some of those--including parental participation as a goal. In addition, 
the bill has technology provisions that are a step forward. Schools 
often lag behind in bringing up-to-date technologies into the 
classrooms due to budget constraints. I would venture to say we have 
done a lot of work in distance learning in eastern Montana. We have 
hooked schools together and they share resources through teachers who 
can teach in four classrooms at the same time. They can see the 
teacher. The teacher can see them. The interaction is through 
television at distances of as much as 100 miles.
  I serve on the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space of the 
Commerce Committee. We are going to continue to look at the 
technologies that are available and should be made available to not 
only education in the rural areas but also inner city areas where they 
are having an eroding tax base, where they can share resources with 
teachers, not only within their own district but also outside the 
district, and distance is nothing; you can have an instructor clear 
across the country.
  One of our most modern schools is the Cold Stream School outside of 
Missoula, MT. John Goagland, a fourth grade teacher, uses multimedia 
with fourth graders who are doing some wonderful things, and they did 
that without Government telling them they had to do it. We have these 
kinds of professional teachers in our system. They exist in every 
system. And sometimes goals and rules and regulations set here hinder 
that kind of imagination and ingenuity that is going to be needed to 
educate our kids in the future.
  Those technologies will have to be used. We will also have to look at 
using these new tools with teachers. Our teachers will have to be 
taught in our colleges. Teachers must learn to use new tools. New 
technologies, of course, get outdated quickly but nonetheless the 
update is always there. We have set up a Montana Telecommunications 
Advisory Council to inventory those projects, to see how these new 
tools of technology play a part in inventory and what we need to do to 
prepare for the future.
  I do not know how many States have a boarding school that is a public 
school. Garfield County, MT, is bigger than Delaware. It only has one 
high school and so all the kids have to come in, but it is a boarding 
school. They come in on Mondays. They go to school. They stay there all 
week. Fridays, the parents come and get them and take them home on the 
weekend.
  Now, there are schools where you are going to have to use new 
technologies in teaching, new tools, because those kids, those young 
Americans deserve the same quality of education as any other young 
American in any urbanized district that has great resources for their 
schools.
  So we are doing that. And not only does that system have implications 
in education but it also has implications in rural health care as we 
move forward. So I am pleased that the bill will help promote some 
awareness in those areas and the protection for technology down the 
line.
  Finally, the bill does not contain strict mandatory opportunity-to-
learn standards that were included in the original bill. As many of my 
colleagues know, the OTL standards in the original bill would require 
States to develop OTL plans as a condition for receiving Goal 2000 
funding, and the committee substitute removed this absolute mandate.
  So this discussion will move along and, of course, I will have a 
couple of amendments. I hope they would be accepted by my colleagues. 
We are dealing with an area which may have as much impact on the 
direction of this country as any other piece of legislation we will 
consider this year, when you start talking about how we are going to 
educate our young people. I heard a young person address their class 
the other day, and he said, ``As seniors in this high school, we young 
people are not 100 percent of the population of this country. But we 
are 100 percent of the future.''
  That is how important this issue is, and we have to do it right the 
first time.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to respond to a certain extent to my two 
colleagues. Certainly, I can really say nothing more than Senator 
Kassebaum has already stated on the issue of voluntary. I would point 
out that most of those words were added at the urging of members of the 
committee who are deeply concerned that it might become mandatory.
  I would also point out to the Senator from Montana, I also get 
concerned when I see words mentioned so frequently, but I will point 
out that our colleague from New Hampshire has six amendments that will 
put in a new term which is more satisfactory to the Senator; it says it 
is not mandatory. So I want the Senator to know that there may be six 
more terms which are essentially voluntary.
  I hope that does not disturb the Senator, because we did appreciate 
his support the last time. We hope to make it much better than it was 
the last time. I think we have done that.
  Let me make a couple of comments in response to my good friend from 
New Hampshire. I share his concern, as the Senator from Kansas pointed 
out, about making sure that our school boards are not in any way 
mandated on what kind of standards they will be using in the classroom. 
But I would also point out that we have to remember why we are here, 
because of the at-risk report which came out during the Reagan 
administration that let us know some 10 years ago how we were slipping 
behind with respect to our competition. As we move into the future, 
this Nation has to be in the forefront of educational activities such 
that we understand and know the dimensions of what is required for the 
21st century. If we are not ready for that, then we are going to slip, 
as we have over the last decade to a certain extent, behind in our 
ability to compete. Thus we have to remember why we are here.
  One of the reasons we are here is that all present indications are 
that we have slipped behind and are slipping further behind in the 
ability to be able to have the forces to meet the competition in the 
next century and even now.
  So, if the Senator is satisfied that we are going to meet the 
competition when we are 13th out of 15 for our kids in the critical 
subjects of math and science, or if the Senator is happy that 75 
percent of our students are not qualified in those subjects, or if the 
Senator is satisfied that they cannot even reach the minimum 
requirement of 60 percent in English, and if he somehow feels confident 
that, notwithstanding that, we are going to be capable to reach the 
dimensions necessary to meet the competition, I have to differ with the 
Senator.
  But I have to remind us that the standards of what should be out 
there, what they should be learning, may not be available to all the 
schools in this Nation; that the voluntary standards are being 
established to ensure that our curriculum in this country will place us 
first in math and science by the year 2000. If our schools around this 
country are not aware of what is necessary in their curricula, then 
they ought to be made aware of what will be helpful for them to reach 
that goal. That is the whole purpose here. It is not to enforce anyone 
to do anything.
  Finally, I think there is a basic misunderstanding of what the 
function of the Federal Government is here, and we have to know what 
the constitutional functions of the States are. The States have the 
primary responsibility for education. I am dedicated to ensure that 
does not change, and you cannot change it basically unless we change 
the Constitution. So what we are here for is to help the States and to 
make sure that they can meet the challenges.
  And 941-42, which the Senator used as an example, came about not as a 
result of a Federal mandate. It came about as a result of court 
mandates in the States insisting that every child in America have an 
appropriate education. As a result of that, the Congress provided a 
program to establish the guidelines in order to establish what would be 
considered an appropriate education.
  We guaranteed at that time--at least I thought we guaranteed when I 
voted for it--to provide 40 percent of it, recognizing that it would 
force a burden upon the States in order to do that. However, the court 
cases or the lawyers that are bringing cases are bringing it under 
State law as to what is an appropriate education, not under Federal 
law.
  Furthermore, as to the other example, where you thought if they 
establish standards, they will use it. Well, the lawyers will use any 
standard they can find. If you make a leap, not a very big leap, to the 
fact that lawyers are beginning to understand that a school system does 
not provide the kind of education which is necessary for their child, 
their student, to be able to survive in the modern world, we may have 
cases coming up in the State courts which will say that the school 
standards are not appropriate. I cannot guarantee that. But that will 
be a State issue, not a Federal issue. The lawyers may well do that. We 
may get decisions that say, unless the States improve their educational 
system, use the kind of tools that are available to them, establish the 
kind of curricula they should have in order for their students to be 
able to meet the demands of our society in the present or the future, 
you make a case.
  But, again, all we are trying to do here is to provide the tools that 
will be necessary to the local governments and to the States in order 
to be able to assure that we meet the goals that the Senator agreed to 
in Charlottesville, and the States will be in a position to better do 
that through guidance and having people take a look at their plans and 
be able to give them comments on it.
  So I hope that the Senator will understand that there is absolutely 
no intent in this bill to do anything other than to help the States for 
what is a State mandate; that is, to provide appropriate education to 
their students.
  So I hope that anything which indicates that this is a leap to 
require mandates--if the Senator looks through the language, the things 
the Senator is referring to, it only refers to that in order to get the 
money, you have to provide a plan. But it does not say what the plan 
has to have. It says you are supposed to meet certain criteria, which 
anyone would suggest is essential for anyone to have a plan. There is 
no attempt in any way--
  The Senator from New Hampshire was very instrumental in the committee 
ensuring that these voluntary words got added. He wants to add six or 
so more. We can deal with that. I do not want anyone to leave here with 
any feeling on either side of the aisle that we in any way intend to 
usurp the normal processes of the local schools and States of having 
primary responsibility to provide education in this Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me respond to my colleague and friend 
from across the Connecticut River on a few points and then offer an 
amendment.
  Nobody is satisfied with what is happening in education. That is 
unquestionably the case. We are all very concerned that as a Nation our 
children are not able to compete in the international economy or the 
global marketplace. We do not even know whether we can compete with our 
neighboring States in many cases. But the way you would address that is 
not to penalize the system. The way you address that is by giving more 
autonomy to your local schools, teachers, and parents to develop and 
educate the children in a manner which will reach the goals we have 
outlined. You give them the assessment standards necessary to 
accomplish that and to test themselves. You do not tell them how to do 
the methodology of teaching. You tell them the outcome of what it 
should be. I would suggest what the efforts should be to allow them to 
make their own assessment whether their children are being educated 
well and competitively.
  But this bill does not do that. This bill does just the opposite. If 
I were to characterize the response of the Senator, it is almost that 
we work for the Federal Government, and we are here to help you.
  We have heard that before. I think there is reason to be cynical 
about that because of the traditional events.
  The Senator said that lawyers have a right to sue, and then he said 
these were tools for the local government.
  It is not tools for the local government you are creating here. It is 
tools for lawyers to sue to take away autonomy from local governments 
and local school boards, in most cases elected or at least appointed by 
elected officials, and reflected by the parents' concerns, usually, and 
reflected by parents and teachers. It takes away the autonomy of that 
school board and gives it to a court and allows lawyers to use the 
standard set here in Washington --which may have absolutely good 
intentions but which may be inconsistent with the decision made in 
Vermont on what should be taught--allowing lawyers to take that 
standard set here in Washington into the courtroom in the Federal court 
Montpelier, and insist that the school board in Rutland change their 
curriculum, redesign their buildings, not certify a teacher who they 
have certified to teach there because it did not meet this new Federal 
standard which has been created by this national school board called 
NESIC.
  It is not voluntary. I outlined before the four reasons why it is not 
voluntary. I do not want to go over them ad nauseum. I think it worth 
reminding everyone the language in here is not voluntary. It is 
political language of the bill. There is $400 million on the table and 
competition for that. It is not a voluntary event. It is something 
every State wants to participate in, and feels it has to participate 
in.
  Down the road we are going to see the standard set by this NESIC 
national school board used as standards for evaluating applications and 
grants for other Federal programs that involve education, and we have a 
lawsuit waiting in the wings for enforcement.
  So I do not believe it is voluntary. Yes, I want to put language in 
the bill which says specific areas will not be mandated. The reason I 
have chosen to do that is not because I think more language is 
necessary that is nonfunctional, such as voluntary is in this bill, but 
because I think we need some functional language in this bill which 
unequivocally makes it clear that, first, this is not going to create 
unfunded mandates and, second, there are certain areas where there 
clearly is no authority given for the purposes of designing national 
methodology. And that is what the amendments go to which the Senator 
referred to.
  So let me begin, if it is appropriate at this time, by offering an 
amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment pending the action 
of the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I at this time withdraw my objection to 
the adoption of the Kennedy substitute and I ask unanimous consent that 
it be adopted and considered as original text.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the amendment (No. 1356) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, as we begin this debate, I want to 
express my appreciation to Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Pell, and 
Jeffords for their leadership in bringing the administration's Goals 
2000 to this point in the legislative process.
  As we begin this debate, I believe it's important that we--and the 
American people--have a clear understanding of what this legislation 
is--and what it is not.
  Goals 2000 is not a new Federal education program.
  And, despite our best efforts through amendments on the floor, Goals 
2000 must not become a vehicle for each of us to promote our own 
particular solution to the serious problems now facing public education 
in this country.
  I think of Goals 2000 as a basic set of principles for reforming 
public education--something akin to the six principles the President 
used to help shape the health care reform proposal that he and the 
First Lady have now put before us.
  In that sense, it's appropriate that we take up this proposal before 
we consider reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
ESEA is a much better place to answer the ``how'' questions--at least 
as they apply to Federal education programs and policies. Goals 2000 
should be limited to defining the ``what.''
  As we begin this debate, Mr. President, I also want to thank the 
authors of this bill for their willingness to incorporate a number of 
changes and improvements that I and others have suggested.
  This is a different and better bill because of those changes.
  For example, I want to call attention to the authority this 
legislation now gives both States and local school districts to use a 
portion of their Federal grants to help start innovative new public 
schools, including charter schools.
  The chairman knows of my strong personal interest in these 
provisions. I especially appreciate his support for charter schools, 
which are now a part of the education reform strategies of nine 
States--including both Massachusetts and my own State of Minnesota.
  Mr. President, I also strongly support the changes that have been 
made in the mandate waiver section of this bill. These changes will 
help test new ways of holding schools accountable for what students 
actually learn.
  My distinguished colleague from Oregon and I have an amendment to 
offer that builds on these provisions, by demonstrating ways that 
States can play a more direct role in reducing the burdens of both 
Federal and State mandates.
  Through those demonstrations, we hope to test ways of replacing 
uniform and burdensome rules with new forms of accountability that are 
based on results and that can be individually tailored to each school 
and to each student.
  Finally, Mr. President, I appreciate the changes that have been made 
to address concerns that I and others have raised throughout this 
debate about the role in education of reform of so-called opportunity 
to learn standards.
  This legislation now makes it clear that States will not be required 
to adopt such standards or include them in their education improvement 
plans.
  It's also now clear that adopting or meeting opportunity to learn 
standards will not be required of States, districts or schools as a 
condition of participating in Federal education programs or as a 
condition of receiving Federal education funds.
  The chairman is aware of my strong objections to uniform and 
mandatory opportunity to learn standards. But, I'm now satisfied that 
the changes that have been made do adequately address my most serious 
concerns.
  At the same time, Mr. President, I will not hesitate to vigorously 
oppose any efforts--on the floor or in conference--to change this 
legislation to use opportunity to learn standards to prescribe how 
school reform must be done.
  Mr. President, like most Members of this body, I have received 
numerous calls and letters in recent weeks from constituents who are 
angry and who are deeply concerned about this bill.
  They have been told that this bill creates a new national school 
board that will run local schools.
  They have been told that this bill prohibits home schooling or that 
it imposes new, prescriptive regulations on nonpublic education.
  They have been told this bill will allow social workers to 
arbitrarily remove children from the care of their parents.
  There are many important issues raised by this legislation, Mr. 
President. And there may be some very legitimate reasons to oppose it.
  But, I want to assure my constituents who are calling me based on 
these kinds of fears--that I would never vote to approve this bill if 
those fears had any real basis in fact.
  Mr. President, the objectives of this legislation can be stated very 
simply: We must produce a 21st century work force that can compete, a 
work force that can assure long-term economic security for every single 
American.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, we can't get to that goal with a 19th 
century system of elementary and secondary education.
  I want to emphasize the word ``system'' because that's what we have 
to reform. We need to stop blaming the teachers and the students and 
the parents.
  Today, Mr. President, that system is in a serious state of distress.
  But, as we try to address that reality, we're not being honest if we 
believe this legislation--even if fully funded and implemented--will 
result in the kind of significant improvements that a 21st century 
America, will need.
  I say that because this legislation depends mainly on plans and on 
incremental changes in existing schools.
  Real change in behavior, Mr. President, doesn't come from plans, or 
by relying just on existing schools.
  I do agree with the chairman that setting high standards that focus 
on results can help offer concrete goals for change.
  But, real improvements in what students learn will only come when 
there's a reason to change. And, just like health care and a lot of 
other public services, real change will only come when market forces 
are present that encourage and reward success.
  To get that kind of change, education must be viewed from a consumer 
standpoint.
  That means, Mr. President, that parents and students must have the 
right to choose which schools their children attend; that teachers and 
parents and communities must have the right to start and run 
innovative, new schools; that schools must be as diverse as the needs 
of today's increasingly diverse students; and, that new forms of 
accountability must be tested that offer schools and teachers 
incentives and rewards for improved results.

  All over America, Mr. President, States are taking steps to both 
redesign and redefine public education to implement these and other 
fundamental reforms.
  My own State of Minnesota has been among the leaders by lessening the 
burdens of input-oriented rules and regulations; by redirecting 
accountability toward improved results; by making it possible for 
parents and students to choose which public schools they attend; and, 
by increasing the number and diversity of public school choices that 
are available.
  One of the architects of Minnesota's version of education reform is 
John Brandl, a professor at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at 
the University of Minnesota, and a former member of the Minnesota State 
Senate.
  In a recent article on the Clinton-Gore plan for reinventing 
government, Professor Brandl offered the following advice on how best 
to achieve real change.
  ``To restructure government,'' Professor Brandl argues, ``is to 
arrange it so that people acting in their own interest will also tend 
to accomplish a greater good. Governments that aren't designed this way 
will not be efficient, much less innovative.''
  ``Competition is one way of arranging government,'' Brandl continues, 
``so that people watching out for themselves will also meet public 
purposes. In the long run, a government program not characterized by 
either competition or a sense of community will probably fail.''
  I personally hope that John Brandl's advice will be followed, Mr. 
President, as this bill goes forward in the legislative process, and as 
we consider other Federal education proposals in the weeks and months 
that lie ahead.
  Mr. President, I would like to support this legislation because of 
the improvements I've discussed and because I believe it helps 
establish a framework for the kind of real reform that can--and must 
now take place.
  At the same time, Mr. President, I've noted those issues and 
amendments that might cause me to oppose this legislation, either now, 
or when it comes back from conference.
  Finally, Mr. President, I believe we must realize the limitations of 
this legislation, and, we must accept the reality that achieving the 
goals it would make law will require the leadership of States and the 
dedicated efforts of teachers, parents, and students in every community 
in America.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise today as an original 
cosponsor of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, legislation designed 
to address the educational needs of our children by providing a 
coherent, national framework for education reform.
  I support this legislation because it is in the interest of our 
Nation to maintain quality public education for everyone.
  Education is not just a private benefit but a public good.
  It is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
  It is the means by which we prepare our children to succeed--to make 
a living, to participate in the community, to enjoy the arts, and to 
understand the technology that has reshaped our workplace.
  Mr. President, the National Education Goals Panel recently reported 
that:

       Most children from poor families never attend preschool;
       Eighty percent of eighth graders do not have access to 
     computers;
       Fifty percent of 10th graders feel unsafe at school; and
       Twelve percent of all students nationwide fail to complete 
     high school.

  In fact, the National Education Goals Panel concluded that ``at no 
point in a learner's life--before formal schooling, during the school 
years, or as adults--are we doing as well as we should be or as well as 
we can.''
  The Goals 2000: Educate America Act addresses these problems by 
creating a comprehensive framework for education reform founded on the 
6 national education goals adopted by our Nation's Governors in 1989.
  These goals state that by the year 2000:
  All children will begin school ready to learn;
  Ninety percent of high school students will graduate;
  All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated 
competence in English, math, science, foreign languages, civics and 
government, arts, history, geography, and economics;
  American students will rank first internationally in math and 
science;
  All American adults will be literate; and
  All American schools will be free of drugs and violence.
  This framework for education reform is also based on a seventh goal 
which builds on the role of parents as their children's first and most 
important teachers.
  Mr. President, these 7 national education goals are similar to the 
education goals already developed by several States across the country.
  The Illinois State Board of Education, for example, has developed 
eight State education goals that are also designed to promote school 
readiness, adult literacy, and academic achievement.
  Mr. President, Goals 2000 encourages States to meet the national 
education goals by authorizing $400 million to help them develop their 
own internationally competitive content and performance standards which 
define what students should know and be able to do in order to compete 
in the emerging global market.
  Goals 2000 also encourages States to meet the national education 
goals by authorizing the National Education Standards and Improvement 
Council and the National Education Goals Panel to certify and approve 
voluntary national content and performance standards in important 
subject areas.
  Although this legislation also authorizes these bodies to certify 
content and performance standards submitted voluntarily by States, it 
does not require American students to meet any national standards 
because our public education system distinguishes itself from other 
public education systems in the world by its pluralism, diversity, and 
local control.
  Mr. President, Goals 2000 encourages States to measure their progress 
in meeting the national education goals by authorizing the National 
Education Standards and Improvement Council to certify assessments, 
submitted voluntarily by States, which measure the achievement of all 
students.
  Many administrators currently exclude students with disabilities and 
students with limited-English proficiency from their assessments in 
order to raise their school's overall achievement levels.
  This legislation will also help States develop comprehensive systems 
of assessments like the Illinois Goal Assessment Program which 
currently measures the achievement of public school students in 
reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies.
  These systems of assessments will help States:
  Evaluate the extent to which students are meeting State and national 
education goals;
  Chart the progress of individual schools, local school districts, and 
the State over time; and
  Generate information that can be used for accountability, policy-
making, and school improvement.
  Mr. President, Goals 2000 recognizes the important relationship 
between education and employment by establishing a National Skill 
Standards Board to endorse voluntary national skill standards, 
assessments, and certifications for broad clusters of occupations.
  In fact, this legislation encourages all Americans--including 
representatives from business, trade associations, employee 
organizations, and educational institutions--to work together to define 
the knowledge and skills needed to create secure economic futures for 
American employees and employers alike.
  Nonetheless, Goals 2000 recognizes that there are possible dangers in 
assessing the achievement of students--especially economically and 
socially disadvantaged students.
  As Stephen Jay Gould highlights in his book ``The Mismeasure of 
Man,'' intelligence and achievement tests have been misused throughout 
history to ``rank people in a single series of worthiness, to find that 
oppressed people and disadvantaged groups--races, classes, or sexes--
are invariably inferior and deserve their status.''
  Goals 2000 limits these dangers in two important ways.
  First, it increases the Federal Government's share of public 
education, which dropped from 9.8 percent in 1980 to just over 6 
percent in 1992, while targeting 65 percent of State grants and 50 
percent of local grants to schools with large numbers of economically 
and socially disadvantaged students.
  Goals 2000 also limits the possible negative effects of assessments 
by authorizing the National Education Standards and Improvement Council 
to certify voluntary national opportunity-to-learn standards.
  These standards will define the teaching and learning conditions 
students need in order to have a fair opportunity to achieve the 
knowledge and skills described in the voluntary national content and 
performance standards.
  More specifically, this legislation requires the National Education 
Standards and Improvement Council to certify voluntary national 
opportunity-to-learn standards which address:
  The quality and availability of curricula, instructional materials, 
and technologies;
  The capability of teachers to provide high-quality instruction to 
meet diverse learning needs in each content area;
  The extent to which teachers and administrators have ready and 
continuing access to professional development; and
  The extent to which curriculum, instructional practices, and 
assessments are aligned to content standards.
  Mr. President, while I firmly believe that these educational inputs 
must be addressed when certifying voluntary national opportunity-to-
learn standards, I am convinced that emerging education reforms are 
doomed unless we house them in adequate school facilities.
  I will be introducing an amendment which would require the National 
Education Standards and Improvement Council to certify national 
voluntary opportunity-to-learn standards that address ``the extent to 
which school facilities provide a safe and secure environment for 
learning and instruction and have the requisite libraries, 
laboratories, and other resources necessary to provide an opportunity-
to-learn''.
  I will also be introducing separate legislation in the very near 
future which will help local school districts meet State performance 
standards and the National Education Goals through the repair, 
renovation, alteration, and construction of public elementary and 
secondary schools.
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by urging my 
colleagues to support the Goals 2000: Educate America Act and by 
reminding them that passing this legislation is only the first step in 
reforming our Nation's system of public education.
  After we develop standards and assessments to measure the educational 
needs of our children, we have a responsibility as public servants to 
see to it that they are met.
  I firmly agree with statements made by Shirley Malcolm in a recent 
Office of Technology Assessment report that: ``If we are prepared to do 
more, once we know more, perhaps the dangers of inequity possible in 
new assessments are worth the risk. But absent the resolve to 
intervene, one could argue that assessment becomes little more than 
voyeurism''.
  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent to have the full text of 
my remarks included at this point in the Record.


                           amendment no. 1358

   (Purpose: To establish a limitation on unfunded Federal mandates)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1358.

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

       At the end of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC.   . ADDITIONAL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that 
     the funds provided under this Act cannot be utilized by the 
     Federal Government to contribute to an unfunded Federal 
     mandate.
       (b) Requirements.--Subject to subsection (c) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, no 
     provision of Federal law shall require a State, in order to 
     receive funds under this Act, to comply with any Federal 
     requirement, other than a requirement of this Act as in 
     effect on the effective date of this Act.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Any provision of Federal 
     statutory or regulatory law, in effect on or after the 
     effective date of this Act, shall be subject to subsection 
     (b) unless such law explicitly excludes the application of 
     subsection (b) by reference to this section.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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.
  Mr. CRAIG. 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. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire 
for his cooperation in addressing some of the concerns that he has.
  He has submitted a series of amendments. I believe there are about 12 
in all. I think we are making very good headway towards accepting some 
and working with him on some of the language to see if they cannot be 
accommodated. We will describe in greater detail the reasons for the 
acceptance of those particular measures and we will attempt to work 
with him on language clarifications on the others.
  But I think we are making good progress and responding to some of the 
questions he has which we believe basically implicitly is in the 
legislation, but we would accommodate him in a number of those areas 
explicitly as to what the understanding would be.
  So we are in the process of working those through. It is our 
intention to consider those as the first amendments that we would 
adopt.
  But what I would like to indicate to our other colleagues is that we 
are prepared to deal with other amendments that have been submitted to 
the Senate and which we have reviewed and are prepared to debate and, 
to the extent possible, if they are consistent with the thrust of the 
legislation, would be accepted. If not, we would be glad to debate them 
and have the Senate make a judgment on those.
  So I hope, for those Senators who do have some amendments, that we 
will be able to address those at the earliest possible time.
  I note that the hour now is 2:30. I know later on this afternoon, 
there will be those who will wonder whether we are going to finish 
action on this legislation. Now is the time that we can dispose of 
these measures.
  We are quite prepared to debate them. There are a number of those 
that have been at least proposed, and we are quite prepared to move 
ahead on those amendments.
  So we will have a quorum now, awaiting other amendments. But we want 
to urge our colleagues to come to the floor and to offer those 
amendments, because we are prepared to accept them. The majority leader 
has indicated that we plan to stay in this evening. If we are able to 
make good progress, like we have been making earlier, I think we have a 
good opportunity to move this legislation right along for acceptance in 
the not-too-distant future.
  So we will have a short quorum call. We have some noncontroversial, 
bipartisan amendments. As I understand, there are some school choice 
amendments; there are a number of amendments on what we call social 
issues; there are a number on Federal control. I think we will be 
addressing those measures.
  Then there is a series of other amendments, as well, probably about 
15 other amendments, some of which we have, as I look down the list, 
been able to work out. Although they have not been submitted, they have 
been worked out.
  So I urge my colleagues who do have amendments and want to have a 
debate on those amendments to come to the floor so that we can get 
started on those measures.
  At this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to speak 
for a few moments about Goals 2000 and about the importance of this 
legislation and why we must expeditiously get this bill through the 
Senate, work it out with the House and get it to the President for 
signature.
  I know a lot of attention is focused this year on health care, and 
that is going to be important in changing our health care system in 
this country. I realize that is important, but I believe that what we 
are about right now is more important for the future of this country 
and whether we will be economically competitive in the year 2000 and 
beyond than any other piece of legislation to come before us this year.
  We all know that education is vital to the economic well-being of our 
country. In order to succeed in the increasingly competitive 
international marketplace, we must have the best educated and 
healthiest, best skilled workers in the world.
  This bill we have now before us, Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 
will make this happen.
  I would, at the outset, like to commend the distinguished chairman of 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kennedy, for his great 
and dynamic leadership on this issue. I want to also pay a great deal 
of thanks, highest respect to the Secretary of Education, Richard 
Riley, again, for making this such a high priority of his and for 
focusing our attention on Goals 2000. He has been tireless in his 
endeavors to get this measure before us and to bring the American 
people along to where I think they now understand more fully just what 
Goals 2000 is all about.
  I also want to thank Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, again for all 
of his help, all of them for their outstanding leadership in developing 
this legislation. This administration is strongly committed to 
improving American education, and this bill reflects that commitment.
  The bill before us makes a number of reforms. It sets very important 
education goals, establishes voluntary academic and occupational 
standards to make U.S. workers competitive. It provides grants to 
States and school districts to implement systemic reform. Finally, the 
legislation also recognizes that not all schools are created equal, and 
it calls for the adoption of voluntary opportunity-to-learn standards.
  Again, I want to reemphasize, as the chairman has and others will as 
we go through this debate, that the standards in this bill are 
voluntary and nothing in this legislation will undermine local controls 
of schools. We all know what the goals are. I will not go through those 
six goals again. The goals were adopted, as you know, at the 
Charlottesville Education Summit in 1990. I believe we have all pretty 
much signed off on these goals, regardless of political affiliation.
  The legislation, however, before us will add two more goals that 
appropriately recognize the vital role of parents and classroom 
teachers. Goal seven calls for development of partnerships to increase 
parental involvement in our Nation's schools, a most worthy goal. And 
goal eight calls for ensuring that the Nation's teaching force has 
access to the professional development programs that they need.
  Reaching these goals will certainly not be easy. They are very 
ambitious and challenging. Reaching them, as I said, will not be easy, 
but this legislation sends a clear and unequivocal message that these 
goals must be accomplished to ensure the future of our Nation.
  As I have pondered these goals since 1990, and as I serve on the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee, I have come to feel that there is 
probably one goal still missing. Not that I am going to offer an 
amendment to add another goal. We can all keep adding goals to this 
thing. There will be an amendment, I believe, offered by Senator Simon, 
and others, dealing with the opportunities-to-learn act that will touch 
on what I consider to be a lack of a goal that should be in here. And 
that has to do with what I feel is that every child ought to have 
access to quality facilities, quality educational facilities.
  I recommend to you and to anyone else, Mr. President, a book that 
they ought to read if they want to find out about education in America. 
It is one book by Jonathan Kozol. It is called ``Savage Inequalities.'' 
Read that book and you will find out why our education system in this 
country is in dire condition.
  I have pointed that out a lot of times by referring to the local 
situation we have here. And 12 miles from this very Capitol where I 
live, in Fairfax County, VA, we have some of the finest schools in the 
country. Both of my kids go to public schools. They are great public 
schools. They have great teachers, the finest facilities and labs--
language labs and science labs--and everything else from grade school 
right through high school. It is a high-income area. A lot of people 
live out there, make pretty good money, and they pay high property 
taxes. They have a great school system 12 miles from the Capitol.
  Also, 4 blocks from here, you have dilapidated, rundown schools that 
are not only an eyesore but it sends a strong message to the kids that 
go to school that this is what we care about, this is all we care about 
your education; that we send you to these facilities everyday where the 
roofs are leaking, toilets do not work, they smell, they have no good 
facilities and, obviously, they cannot attract good teachers.
  And these kids go to these rundown facilities every day. Why? Well, 
because the people who live in that area do not have a very high income 
and pay insufficient property taxes to provide quality facilities.
  Jonathan Kozol, in Savage Inequalities, points this out time after 
time across this country, inequalities between the haves and have-nots 
in terms of the educational facilities that are there for kids. Unless 
and until we have some other system of funding for facilities, this 
will continue in this country. So that is why I believe there is one 
goal that is missing, and that is every child ought to have access to a 
quality facility in education.
  The only way we are going to do it is by having a different source of 
funding for those facilities. I believe it is part of the 
infrastructure of this country, and I think all of us ought to be 
investing in those facilities. I will have more to say about that later 
when Senator Simon calls up his amendment, but at the outset I wanted 
to say, Mr. President, that while I fully support these goals and the 
other two goals that are being added, which are very important, I 
believe we ought to also pay attention to the lack of facilities, 
quality facilities, in so many areas of our country.
  Mr. President, I do want to, however, right now focus on what I 
believe to be the cornerstone of any efforts we make to improve not 
only education but the quality of life for our kids and future 
generations to improve the competitive edge that we have in the world 
today. I believe the cornerstone of that is goal No. 1, the first goal: 
That by the year 2000 all children will start school ready to learn.
  When we look at all the goals, I believe that is the most important, 
the single most important. I am pleased that the bill includes 
additional language suggested by Senator Dodd and myself which stresses 
the importance of this goal. I wish to thank Senator Kennedy for his 
support in making these changes. Early intervention and prevention must 
be a top priority. We must recognize that the ability of a child to 
succeed in school is directly related to the health and well-being of 
that child from day one.
  About 4 years ago, the Committee on Economic Development issued a 
report which called on us to rethink the way we approach education.
  Now, this committee was made up not of social scientists, nor those 
who have dedicated their lives to education per se. The Committee on 
Economic Development was made up of some of the captains of American 
industry, CEO's, and others, of some of the larger and more powerful 
corporations in America. They had a subcommittee set up to look at 
education. When they issued their report, here is what they said:

       We must rethink education in America, that education begins 
     at birth and preparation for education begins before birth.

  I wholeheartedly agree with that statement made by the Committee on 
Economic Development over 4 years ago. We must focus on prevention 
rather than remediation. We have become very good in our country at 
patching and fixing and mending--it costs us a lot of money and it 
never does the job very well--rather than fixing the structure right in 
the first place.
  So early intervention programs, such as thinking that education 
begins at birth and preparation begins before birth, if we think in 
terms of education in the long run, are going to save us money.
  We know all the figures: A dollar invested in comprehensive preschool 
education like Head Start saves $3 later on. A dollar invested in 
immunizations saves $10 in later medical costs. A dollar invested in 
comprehensive prenatal care saves about $4 in later health costs. One 
dollar invested in the WIC programs for pregnant women saves an 
additional $3 in Medicaid costs. These are investments that up front 
save us money and make our lives better.
  I recall the first hearing held by the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee on this piece of legislation. For the first time ever, two 
Cabinet Secretaries sat down at a committee hearing and testified 
together, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education. I 
remember saying that we were missing the third leg of that stool 
because HHS Secretary Donna Shalala was not present. The chairman 
assured me she would have been, but there was a scheduling problem and 
she could not be there.
  I know that we have the understanding of this administration on the 
importance of early childhood health and education, and the crucial 
roles they play in making sure that all children start school ready to 
learn. Later this year, we will take another important step when we 
reauthorize the Head Start Program, and I look forward to working on 
that legislation.
  This legislation, Goals 2000, authorizes funding for States and local 
schools, as we note, to implement systemic reform. All of our States, I 
am sure, are involved in that. But again I wish to repeat, for 
emphasis' sake, that we can have all of the systems reform we want in 
elementary education, secondary education, and beyond, but unless and 
until we take the admonition of the Committee on Economic Development 
and we focus on prenatal care and postnatal care and early childhood 
intervention and development programs, all of this is just going to be 
patching and fixing and mending one more time.
  We know scientifically and medically that much of a child's brain 
capacity is developed long before they begin elementary school. Those 
of us who are parents, which includes most of us, I am sure, at one 
time or another, remember when our children were 2 years old, 3 years 
old, and how rapidly they learned. Every day, new words, new concepts; 
the brain was developing very rapidly.
  Children who do not have any kind of intellectual stimulation or who 
lack nutrition, who lack the kind of support and challenge they need at 
those ages, are going to fall behind.
  So again I say that the first goal in Goals 2000 is the most 
important. Unless we do that, forget about the rest of them; they are 
just words on paper and we are just paddling upstream.
  So we must focus on early childhood education. We have to break down 
whatever barriers exist legislatively and conceptually to enable us to 
address this on a national level, to reach down, and to make sure that 
we have the resources available at the local level for a comprehensive 
Head Start.
  Most people think that Head Start is only for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-
olds. Well, right now it is only for 4- and 5-year-olds. We are trying 
to get 3-year-olds in it, but people think that is all it is for. The 
legislation establishing Head Start does not stipulate that you have to 
wait until age 3. We can go right down to age 1. It is only a lack of 
will and a lack of commitment that we have not done that. If you really 
want to have an effective Head Start Program, let us get these kids 
right after birth and start a Head Start Program right then, and not 
wait until they are 4 years old.
  So I just wanted to make those points, because in all of this debate, 
I know we are going to have a lot of amendments that deal with a lot of 
things like vouchers, I am sure, and various and sundry types of items 
dealing with sex education, and I suppose we will have amendments on 
condoms in schools and everything else. I am sure we will have a lot of 
heated debate about this. Prayer in school may even come up, and we 
will debate these things. I am sure the cameras will roll, and it will 
probably be on the evening news.
  But those are the things that should not deter us from our focus on 
early childhood education. Let us have the debates on these amendments. 
I am sure that people feel very strongly about them. But they should 
not take away our focus on what is most important, and what is most 
important is making sure that goal one is realized.
  Mr. President, I would just add one other thing in that regard. Last 
month, I visited Moulton Elementary School in Des Moines with Secretary 
Riley to learn about an innovative elementary school counseling program 
called Smoother Sailing.
  It is based on a simple premise, intervene before the crisis instead 
of trying to pick up the pieces after one occurs, and a recognition 
that many children in our society today face enormous challenges. Not 
all of our children are privileged to live in secure two-parent 
families that have decent incomes, clothing, shelter, and all the 
amenities of life. A lot of our kids live in very rough circumstances. 
They live in homes maybe with a single parent suffering from the trauma 
of a divorce, some who are victims of physical or sexual or mental 
abuse. These kids need our help.
  We have not in the past had any kind of counseling in elementary 
schools for these kids. A program started in Des Moines actually 
started with a private sector grant to the schools of Des Moines to 
test an idea. The idea was if we could get one qualified counselor--I 
do not mean a counselor about what you have to take in school. I mean a 
counselor that is qualified in counseling to counsel kids in terms of 
the social problems they have; the problems they may have at home, the 
problems they may have interacting with other people.
  If you could reduce that down to one counselor for say 250 kids, 
could they see a marked decrease in the incidence of school violence, 
absenteeism, and a corresponding increase in the grades of these at-
risk kids? They tried this experiment.
  They hired more counselors. They put these counselors in these grade 
schools. These are professional counselors, well trained. These are not 
just someone that you say, OK, now you are a counsel, now go counsel. 
They have been doing this for several years now, and lo and behold, it 
has worked.
  The attendance is up. Classroom disruptions and violence among kids 
is down, and the test scores have improved. By any yardstick of 
measurement it has been a resounding success.
  Again, this is another indication of where early intervention works 
when you get the kids early.
  Goals 2000 will promote the development of innovative programs like 
this and others that systematically change our Nation's schools rather 
than mandating exactly what we do. Goals 2000 says here is our goal, 
you and the local school figure out how best you want to attain those 
goals. I believe the Des Moines school district with the implementation 
of Smoother Sailing has already been ahead of the curve on that.
  Lastly, Mr. President, I chair the Subcommittee on Disability Policy. 
I want to just take a few moments to discuss Goals 2000, and how it 
relates to students with disabilities.
  In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed into law. It 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Furthermore, part 
B of IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, extends to 
all students the right to a free and public education based upon the 
unique needs of the child.
  I want to say that Goals 2000 is fully consistent with the Americans 
With Disabilities Act and it is consistent with and compliments part B 
of IDEA and section 504 of the Rehab Act of 1973.
  This legislation will promote reform in our schools. It will set 
standards of excellence for all students, and most certainly includes 
students with disabilities.
  As I reflect upon this legislation, I am reminded of a challenge 
issued to us over 30 years ago when President John Kennedy declared 
that the United States was sending men to the Moon. This is what he 
said at Rice University in Houston, TX, in September 1962:

       We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and to do other 
     things, not because they are easy but because they are hard, 
     because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best 
     of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one 
     which we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to 
     postpone, and one that we intend to win.

  Mr. President, I want to compliment the distinguished chairman of our 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Kennedy, for carrying 
on his brother's legacy in this regard. We are establishing these 
national education goals, not because they are easy but because they 
are hard, and reaching them is a challenge that we are willing to 
accept, one that we cannot postpone.
  We must dedicate our energies and skills to reaching them, and we 
fully intend to do so because our future depends on it.
  So I am hopeful again that, in all of the debate on these amendments 
that will be coming up, we keep in mind what the ultimate goal of this 
legislation is.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Leave of Absence

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, pursuant to rule 6, paragraph 2, I ask 
leave of the Senate to be absent from the votes of the Senate for the 
remainder of the day. Because I must proceed with a medical test this 
afternoon, I will not be able to return to the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, I am a cosponsor and a 
strong supporter of Goals 2000 because I believe that, on the whole, 
our schools are going to benefit from the creation and dissemination of 
a national framework of some standards. However, I think it should be 
clear to everyone who has looked at the bill and understands the 
current academic performance of our youth that the creation of national 
standards and Goals 2000 will not be sufficient alone, nor will they 
necessarily improve the success of students in our Nation's public 
education system, unless other things are done as well.
  What I have found in California is that the standards of our schools 
and the standards of our learning fluctuate widely. Some schools 
perform effectively; some not so well; most are mediocre. I am 
particularly concerned by the widespread practice of what is called 
social promotion, by which students are passed along from grade to 
grade regardless of whether they pass their courses successfully. This 
is done in hopes that if they do not learn one year, they will learn 
the next year.
  But what I see happening is that as students reach the fifth, sixth, 
seventh and eighth grade, and they have not learned their fundamentals, 
they drop out mentally, and then they drop out physically. They become 
the truants, they become the discipline problems, and increasingly 
their opportunities to find a worthwhile life diminish. We see schools 
that graduate youngsters that cannot read or write, multiply, divide, 
or add, recognize China on a map, fill out an employment application, 
or count the change in their pockets. That actually happens in many of 
the schools in my State.
  I believe that the practice of social promotion is a key part of the 
current problem in education. As a result of this practice, classroom 
standards deteriorate, the credibility of the entire education system 
diminishes, and too many students graduate from high school without 
possessing the necessary skills to continue their education or even to 
successfully enter into the job market. They have a certificate of 
graduation, but it means nothing.
  Now, as long as children are simply passed along from grade to grade, 
schools will never be able to produce the quality, the learning 
climate, and the discipline that is necessary for children to achieve 
high academic standards.
  While Goals 2000 will certainly lead to the adoption of new 
educational standards by many schools, it does not specify how 
participating schools should implement these standards in a meaningful 
way. The mere act of establishing goals which are voluntary does little 
to ensure their achievement. Will these goals actually be translated or 
implemented into real action in a meaningful way?
  Schools need more than just goals. They need more flexibility. They 
need more accountability. They need more funds for our most 
disadvantaged children.
  I believe very strongly--and I am a product of a decentralized public 
education system, so perhaps I am somewhat biased--but I believe that 
centralized public education--the huge educational bureaucracies, huge 
administrative bureaucracies--is ineffective and inefficient.
  I would like to see our system decentralized. I would like to see the 
large administrative bureaucracies eliminated, the money put into 
principals, teachers, parents; I would like to see that schools are run 
by principals who know what the standards are and then they have the 
obligation to enforce these standards and to see that they work in the 
schools. I believe in that way you can have a student that has 
completed grade 4 and knows what the expectation of learning is when 
you complete grade 4; the same for grade 5; the same for grade 6, 7, 8, 
and on.
  The lack of student and school accountability in Goals 2000 concerns 
me, particularly because I know the Nation is looking at Goals 2000 and 
expecting real educational change from its enactment.
  I have been trying to work with my colleagues and the Department of 
Education to explore ways of including more accountability in this and 
future education legislation. I have sent out a ``Dear Colleague'' 
letter. I have tried to see how many are willing to make standards of 
achievement mandatory--and there is very little response. To propose 
that if schools buy into this program, if they take the Federal money, 
that the standards should be mandatory is not yet an idea whose time 
has come. But I believe it will be one day.
  I believe as experiments with chartered schools and other 
developments flourish, we will develop the kind of competition within 
our school system that is necessary. With that progress, I think will 
come some precision in academic standards.
  When I went to public school, you were held back if you did not reach 
the course level. That is no longer the case. You get promoted even if 
you are getting failing grades. I am one that believes that social 
promotion gives a false sense of accomplishment to a youngster, and 
they get a very rude awakening when they cannot fill out that 
employment application.
  I believe there are a variety of ways we could make sure that 
academic standards are implemented in a meaningful way.
  For example, I believe we should move toward making standards 
mandatory. Schools should phase out the widespread practice of social 
promotion; and schools should be required to provide the necessary 
remedial help for students who are struggling.
  I also believe that asking schools to do more than just passing 
students along from year to year is not asking them to do too much. 
Many schools have found effective ways to make sure that all students 
succeed academically before they are promoted to the next grade: Before 
and after school programs, use of instructional aids, peer tutoring 
arrangements, parent involvement initiatives, and multiage groupings 
are but some.
  In taking the position in favor of accountability and high standards 
linked to specific school policies, I am not targeting public school 
educators or attempting to punish children who are struggling to 
succeed academically. Moreover, I understand the need to make the 
standards in Goals 2000 voluntary and to avoid taking authority from 
the State and local education agencies that are closest to the needs of 
their students.
  But at the same time I must say I do not see them taking the 
necessary actions to assure accountability and to assure achievement 
levels in each of the grades. I feel compelled to begin to speak out 
about the need to achieve real educational reform.
  I think our society must do right by our children. We owe them a 
challenging curriculum, excellent teaching, and academic policies that 
encourage and enable them to obtain further success. Schools need to 
equip our children for the future, not just hand them off.
  In California, the State industry is moving toward a high-skilled 
workplace. You will not be able to get a factory job in California in 
20 years without some college education. You will not be able to get a 
job without good basic skills, some knowledge of the world around us, 
and the ability to think and learn.
  I will never forget when the semiconductor industry told me that they 
wanted to hire foreign nationals for certain jobs because our students 
did not have the required skills available and did not know how to 
think. We must teach our students how to think. We must teach them how 
to reason. And we must recognize that the classroom, more than any 
other program, is the ticket to a job. It, in effect, is the golden key 
to opportunity in our future.
  My decentralized public school learning was what gave me the ability 
to get into Stanford University. I had strict teachers, strict 
accountability, and that students were held back if they did not learn; 
we were counseled, we were kept after school and, in a less complicated 
day, I will admit, in a less diverse world, I will admit, we did learn.
  But there is no lack of youngsters wanting to learn today. Our 
classrooms are complicated. Some of our schools have as many as 50 
languages in them. That is an enormous task for teachers.
  I hope that this Goals 2000 program is going to be a first step. I 
know there is sensitivity among legislators about local control, about 
big brother not dictating what must happen in schools. But I also know 
that if there is no motion from the States to achieve accountability in 
education, to achieve promotion on the basis of merit and achievement, 
then our youngsters' future is going to be doomed.
  I look forward to working with the leadership--Senator Pell, Senator 
Kennedy, and others--to craft legislation which might be placed on 
later educational initiatives.
  We know how much basic arithmetic a youngster must learn, what the 
standards should be for each of the grades. What is necessary is that 
we apply it, and that we insist on it.
  With that in mind, I am pleased to support Goals 2000, not because it 
is going to be Nirvana for public education, but simply because it is a 
first step toward a national structure which aims at saying there are 
certain goals that we as a nation seek to achieve for our youngsters.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I just want to say a word in support of the 
amendment of the Senator from California. She knows I thought it was a 
very good one. But when we tried to circulate it a little bit, there 
was no universal support for it. But I will be glad to help any way I 
can and I look forward to working with her.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for his support.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    amendment no. 1358, as modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. This modification replaces the amendment that is pending 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  This amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 115, at the end of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL MANDATES, DIRECTION, AND 
                   CONTROL.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an 
     officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, 
     direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or 
     school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of 
     State or local resources or mandate a State or any 
     subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not 
     paid for under this Act.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1358, As Further Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have talked with the Senator from New 
Hampshire on his modification. We have over the period of time been 
addressing this issue. I am wondering on the modification on line 7, 
instead of the word ``require'' could we substitute the word 
``mandate''? I think that was agreeable to the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. I have no objection.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, perhaps the Senator would like to address 
the Senate on this issue. We are prepared to accept this amendment, and 
then we are prepared to accept a series of amendments, the Gregg 
amendments, and we still have perhaps one other on which we are in the 
process of working out language. We then expect there will be debate on 
the opportunities-to-learn program, the views of the Senator from New 
Hampshire. I see the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from 
Illinois. So we would proceed on that measure.
  Then I am very hopeful we will have the Senator from Indiana. [Mr. 
Coats] here to debate the issues on school choice, and we could get 
started on that in terms of the very late, late afternoon.
  Then hopefully we might get into some of the other issues that are 
here. We have actually had some of what is called the general social 
issues, that those are going to be matters which are going to be 
raised. There are a series of amendments on those, and we would like to 
address them in the early part of the evening.
  We have worked out a number of different amendments which will be 
discussed further and are being incorporated into this legislation or 
into other education legislation. I know the Senate has been extremely 
patient with the floor managers, but we have been making important 
progress.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair. I wish to thank the chairman of the 
committee and the manager of the bill on the Republican side for their 
cooperation and courtesy, and staff on both the Republican and 
Democratic sides, for their assistance in working out some of these 
amendments.
  As I understand it, we now have agreement on eight amendments. The 
amendment that is pending at the desk is agreed to. The purpose of the 
amendment pending at the desk is to assure that this bill will not 
become an unfunded mandate. I think we all appreciate the burdens being 
put on the States and local communities as a result of Federal mandates 
which are not funded. This is a very significant concern, I know, in my 
State. It is a concern I think throughout this body. There are a number 
of Members of this body who have dedicated a considerable amount of 
energy to this issue.
  At least as it relates to this bill, we will have very specific and 
very, I believe, effective language in it to make it clear that if the 
Federal Government tells the State to do something or tells the local 
community to do something, the Federal Government will have to pay for 
the costs of that mandate.
  The other amendments which I believe have been worked out deal with 
making it specific in the bill that certain activities that have been 
traditionally locally controlled will not be overwhelmed by the nature 
of this goals panel or the activities of NISEC, and they include the 
language that makes it clear that there is no mandate in this bill that 
would affect teacher instructional practices, teacher certification 
systems, limitations on class size, curriculum content, national school 
building standards, or equalized spending per student.
  Obviously, all of these issues are very sensitive issues which should 
remain in the domain of the local school boards and with States, and 
this language makes it clear that they do in the context of this bill.
  The final amendment which I understand has been agreed to involves 
the litigation issue which I raised in my opening statement, and 
attempts, although I do not think it can ever guarantee it, knowing the 
imagination of members of the bar, at least to limit the usage of this 
bill as an anvil upon which the hammer of litigation can be used to 
drive the activities of local school boards and to affect local school 
policy by requiring that it comply with the standards that are set out 
by any Secretary under this bill.
  I very much appreciate, again, the cooperation of the leadership of 
the committee in addressing these issues and I look forward to the 
adoption of these amendments and yield back my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just very briefly, it was never our 
intent to establish in this legislation an unfunded mandate or to 
require that as a result of this legislation, we would be requiring of 
the States expenditures that the States did not desire. We have been 
working with legal counsel about how that particular language will 
reflect that position. I believe Senator Jeffords and myself are in 
accord with what the Senator from New Hampshire is desirous of, and 
that is that the Federal Government is not going to mandate to the 
States additional kinds of funding on the basis of this legislation in 
which the States themselves are not going to be involved.
  That is clearly our intention. The Senator's amendment I think 
captures that. We have agreed to accept this language. We will work 
very closely with the Senator, obviously, in the conference. But we are 
strongly committed to that concept and to that principle. If there are 
better ways we can work that in terms of language, we are open to it. 
But we have no difference in supporting the Senator's principle.
  I urge the Senate to accept the amendment as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I echo the words of Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, 
and also my good friend across the border in New Hampshire. I certainly 
believe the last thing we want to do is mandate additional expenditures 
at State levels with all of the crises they are having now in funding.
  Certainly, I agree that is not what we intend here, and therefore I 
certainly, speaking for myself as the manager from our side, would 
agree with the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on amendment 1358, 
as modified?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1358), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1359

 (Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America 
   Act shall be construed to mandate limitations on class size for a 
               State, local educational agency or school)


                           Amendment No. 1360

 (Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America 
   Act shall be construed to mandate a Federal teacher certification 
        system for a State, local educational agency or school)


                           Amendment No. 1361

 (Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America 
Act shall be construed to mandate teacher instructional practices for a 
               State, local educational agency or school)


                           Amendment No. 1362

 (Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America 
 Act shall be construed to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a 
               State, local educational agency or school)


                           Amendment No. 1363

 (Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America 
  Act shall be construed to mandate national building standards for a 
               State, local educational agency or school)


                           Amendment No. 1364

 (Purpose: To provide that nothing in the Goals 2000: Educate America 
Act shall be construed to mandate curriculum content for a State, local 
                     educational agency or school)


                           Amendment No. 1365

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have a series of amendments which have 
all been proposed by Senator Gregg. These seven amendments are offered 
en bloc on behalf of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mr. 
     Gregg, proposes amendments numbered 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 
     1363, 1364, and 1365, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 1359

       On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
       On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (3) to mandate limitations or class size for a State, local 
     educational agency or school.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1360

       On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
       On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (3) to mandate a Federal teacher certification system for a 
     State, local educational agency or school.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1361

       On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
       On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (3) to mandate teacher instructional practices for a State, 
     local educational agency or school.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1362

       On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
       On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (3) to mandate equalized spending per pupil for a State, 
     local educational agency or school.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1363

       On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
       On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (3) to mandate national school building standards for a 
     State, local educational agency or school.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1364

       On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
       On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (3) to mandate curriculum content for a State, local 
     educational agency or school.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1365

       Strike line 24 on page 44 and everything that follows 
     through line 2 on page 45, and inserting in lieu thereof:
       ``(g) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     to--
       ``(1) require any State to have standards certified 
     pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) in order to participate in 
     any Federal program; or
       ``(2) create a legally enforceable right for any person 
     against a State, local educational agency, or school based on 
     a standard or assessment certified by the Council or the 
     criteria developed by the Council for such certification.''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Over the period of these last several hours, we have 
addressed these issues about the Federal Government not imposing 
mandates on per pupil spending, mandating curriculum, instructional 
practices, teacher certification, on class size, and on school 
buildings. Those are incorporated in the Senator's amendments.
  We support the Senator's amendments that would make explicit that 
intention.
  The Senator had what they called the unfunded mandates, which the 
Senate has accepted, and the Senator has an additional amendment 
dealing with litigation, and we will, after we dispose of this, dispose 
of that. And then we understand there is one additional amendment that 
the Senator will offer with regard to the role of the Governor and the 
approval of State plans. I think that is at least our understanding of 
it.
  I will urge at the appropriate time, after my colleague from Vermont 
and the Senator from New Hampshire make what comments they would like, 
that we move ahead and incorporate these amendments.
  If I could, Mr. President, also include then at this time the 
amendment dealing with the nonenforceability of standards by 
litigation, and ask that that be made a part of the amendments en bloc, 
as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I echo the comments again of the manager 
of the bill, and also the Senator from New Hampshire. I concur in those 
amendments and believe they will be helpful in making more clear the 
understanding that we have on these issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Again, I wish to thank the managers of the bill and the 
chairman for accepting these amendments. I do have a couple of other 
amendments which we are still discussing with the Governor, one 
obviously on opportunity to learn, and maybe one more. But I greatly 
appreciate the assistance in these amendments and would urge they be 
considered approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
  The amendments (Nos. 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1364, and 1365) 
were agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 1366

(Purpose: To amend the State improvement plan regarding opportunity-to-
                            learn standards)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of myself 
and the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Minnesota 
[Mr. Wellstone].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for himself and Mr. 
     Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 1366.

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

       On page 79, strike all beginning with line 6, through page 
     79, line 14, and insert the following:
       (d) Opportunity-To-Learn Standards.--Each State improvement 
     plan shall establish a strategy and timetable for--
       (1) adopting or establishing opportunity-to-learn standards 
     that address the needs of all students;
       (2) achieving the State's opportunity-to-learn standards in 
     every school in the State; and

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, one of the things that we ask for in this 
bill is that the States voluntarily move towards seeing that we really 
do guarantee opportunity to all young people. And this amendment does 
not change that.
  What we have done is to move away from the original compromise 
reached in the language of the committee. We restore that original 
language and we say, for example, ``adopting or establishing 
comprehensive''--that is put back in--``opportunities-to-learn 
standards that address the needs of all students achieving.'' Then we 
have in here, we restore ``establishing a timetable for demonstrating 
progress toward reading, comprehensive State opportunity-to-learn 
standards in every school in the State.''
  We are not saying what the timetable is. If they want to come back 
and say, by the year 2050, we are going to establish standards, under 
the amendment that Senator Wellstone and I are offering, that complies 
with our amendment. Frankly, our amendment is probably weaker than it 
should be. But it is stronger than the, frankly, anemic language that 
we have in the bill.
  When I visit in the State of Illinois and go from school district to 
school district, and I find one school district that is rich in 
assessed valuation, rich in industry, and then I go to the neighboring 
district where the people in those industries work, a district that is 
poor in industry but rich in children, and I find those children do not 
have anywhere near the kind of resources of the neighboring school 
district, clearly we ought to do something.
  We are not saying the Federal Government is going to mandate 
anything, though I have to say I favor that. What we are saying is the 
States ought to establish a timetable.
  I recognize that my distinguished colleague from Vermont may have 
some difficulties with our amendment. I have discussed with the Senator 
from Minnesota the possibility of our offering this amendment and 
discussing it, and then setting it aside to see if we cannot work out 
some practical compromise that is stronger than what we have right now.
  I, frankly, think the amendment that we offer is not strong. It can 
be criticized for being too weak. But at least it says to the States 
you establish a timetable and then live up to that timetable. That 
seems to me to be not too much.
  I see my distinguished colleague from Vermont standing, whose 
leadership in this area of education I applaud. I am sure he is rising 
to say he is enthusiastically for our amendment. I cannot imagine him 
saying anything else.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I hate to destroy the enthusiasm 
oozing from the comments. But as manager of the bill and a member of 
the committee, we worked very hard to work out a compromise on this 
very important language. We also will be receiving an amendment which 
will be going in the other direction from this side of the aisle.
  So I would suggest that, hopefully, if we can get the Senator from 
Illinois to offer the other amendment, maybe three or four of us can 
get together and work something out. I would be most willing to try to 
do that.
  I agree with the Senator that the question of the opportunity to 
learn, the ability for our young people to have an opportunity to 
learn, requires, I think, much more than we are doing at this time. But 
at this particular moment, as far as the amendment goes, I would have 
to say that I cannot accept it.
  Mr. SIMON. I understand the situation in which he is. I am certainly 
willing to sit down with him and with other colleagues to try to work 
something out. I hope we can work something out.
  Let me also, before I yield the floor, mention that my colleague from 
Minnesota who has been really great in this matter of trying to achieve 
some equity in our schools--when he was presiding I went up and I saw 
that he had Jonathan Kozol's book, ``Savage Inequalities,'' which just 
tells what is wrong. One of the schools that he cites in that book is 
the East St. Louis School District in the State of Illinois, a school 
district that is desperate.
  One of the ironies--then I will yield the floor to my colleague--is 
the school districts with the greatest needs get the least funding in 
our system. It is very interesting that in Sweden with nowhere near the 
inequities in income that we have, Sweden has a system where the 
economically poorest areas get as much as two to three times as much in 
student aid as the other districts, recognizing that they need added 
input there.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, thank you.
  First of all, let me thank my colleague, Senator Simon. I am proud to 
introduce this amendment with him, and I appreciate the remarks of the 
Senator from Vermont.
  Madam President, I have to say at the beginning it is going to take 
me a little time to marshal our evidence behind this amendment, and not 
because I do not think the amendment is compelling, but because I think 
sometimes when we come out to the floor at 4:10 in the afternoon and 
speak on the floor, it is kind of sleepy. It becomes an abstraction. We 
forget that we really are talking about people's lives.
  What we are saying in this amendment is that if we want to, as we 
have done in Goals 2000--I commend Senator Kennedy. I talked to the 
Secretary of Education today, Secretary Riley. I commend him. I think 
it is important to have goals. I think we should have high 
expectations. I think there is a considerable amount of evidence that 
shows that when we have higher expectations for young people and for 
our students, they have a better chance of reaching those expectations 
than when we have low expectations which can become a self-fulfilling 
prophecy: Low expectations, low results.
  But at the same time, I do not think that you cannot have high 
standards without spelling out the very reasonable idea that each 
State--and States really define this, Madam President. We do not 
mandate anything. We just simply say as States reach these standards 
each State should set out a plan and should talk about how it should 
achieve its plan to make sure that each and every student has the same 
opportunity to reach these goals. That is all we say. We leave it 
entirely up to the States how to do it.

  I agree with the Senator from Illinois. In many ways this amendment 
is all too weak. But what concerns me is that when I talk with teachers 
that are down in the trenches with a lot of the young people and they 
look at this Goals 2000 they really say, ``We feel like there is a huge 
contradiction here,'' and sometimes they view it as kind of just a 
bunch of highfalutin language Goals 2000. And they say, ``At the very 
minimum, why don't you make it clear that it is completely inconsistent 
to talk about reaching goals that is all voluntary without having some 
language that makes it clear also at the State level. Please, each 
State come up with a plan as to how you want to assure that each 
student has the same opportunity to learn.'' That is exactly what this 
amendment does.
  Now, I think for the purposes of my colleagues I might want to just 
spell out what the differences are here. The purpose of S. 1150 is to 
set high academic standards for students, and we agree. What we simply 
say is that States, with total flexibility and discretion, design the 
content of the standards. They talk about a strategy for meeting 
opportunity-to-learn standards and a timetable to do so.
  There are no Federal mandates, and again since this is within the 
context of something that is voluntary, it is voluntary, but there is a 
reason for this amendment. We do need to do it on the floor of the 
Senate if we are to be intellectually honest and if we are to have a 
debate, and I hope there will be a debate, a debate on education as it 
connects with lives of children in this country, we have to talk about 
the issue of inequities in our education system.
  The Senator from Illinois is absolutely right. Jonathan Kozol's book 
should be required reading for every Senator. I heard Senator Harkin 
from Iowa say that earlier.
  Let me first of all go back to 1983, a report that received much 
national coverage, a Nation at Risk. If the Nation was at risk in 1983, 
and I will just quote the beginning of this report, notice it said ``a 
Nation at risk''. When Senators say wait a minute, when we are talking 
about education, this is not really Federal; we are talking about 
national security. We are talking about a nation at risk.
  If our young people do not have full opportunity to be economically 
productive, if they do not have the full opportunity to be able to 
think on their own two feet in a way that you have to in a democracy, 
and if there are huge disparities of resources between districts so 
that some districts do not have the money for the new technologies or 
facilities or whatever else or cannot recruit or cannot retain 
teachers, then this really is a nation at risk.
  I quote:

       We report to the American people that while we can take 
     justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have 
     historically accomplished and contributed to the United 
     States and the well-being of its people, the educational 
     foundations to our society are presently being eroded by a 
     rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a 
     Nation and as a people.

  Madam President, then this report goes on to lay out the academic 
achievement or lack of academic achievement of our young people, and we 
have not improved all that much since 1983. But now what we are talking 
about----
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, will my colleague yield for one point?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Certainly.
  Mr. SIMON. My colleague cited the 1983 report and that strong 
language. I assume that must have come in some radical liberal 
Democratic administration. Am I correct in that assumption? Or what 
administration made this report on this 1983 language.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague raises an interesting question and makes 
a good point. What was so important about that report then and I think 
still is important about its conclusion today is we are talking about 
the Reagan administration, President Reagan. We are talking about the 
initiation of this report as part of its administration, and I think we 
all agree that this should be a nonpartisan issue. So that was the 
political context of those times.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, if we are to say that it is a nation 
at risk, and I just would add to that 1983 report that was over 10 
years ago, is it no wonder that people get a little bit cynical and 
they say, is this the same moving picture shown over and over again? Is 
this just symbolic politics?
  Now what we read about is the violence in the schools. Now what we 
read about is the worsening of conditions in many of the neighborhoods, 
within many of our cities. But let us not just be urban. I will later 
on cite a lot of statistics about small-town rural America that are 
having the same problem in terms of our young people not having the 
same opportunities to learn.
  What Senator Simon and I are saying in this amendment to our 
colleagues is the goals are important. Let us decentralize it. Let us 
give the States creativity. It is all voluntary, but it is 
intellectually honest and rigorous and it is consistent for us to say 
at the same time that there should be goals and our young people should 
meet the goals and also we ought to have some standards that set out in 
a timetable a strategy to make sure each and every young person has the 
same opportunity to reach those goals.
  Otherwise, what you end up doing--and I will give some evidence for 
that in a moment--is you set up goals that many young people cannot 
reach, and you fail them again. It strikes me, therefore, you add 
nothing to what I think we are about in our country.
  Today's Nation at Risk should be viewed as a crisis; 1.8 percent of 
our Federal budget goes to the Department of Education; 6 cents of 
every education dollar in the States comes from the Federal Government.
  Now, Madam President, let me go on and let me talk a little bit about 
some hearings that we had. Senator Kennedy was extremely cooperative 
and helpful.
  Madam President, the interesting thing is that usually these hearings 
take place and then they are written up and that is about it. But let 
us talk a little bit about some of the hearings that we held on equity 
financing and other problems.
  This is the prepared statement of Linda Trentham, a professor at 
Auburn University. She is talking about Mt. Brook, AL. In terms of 
State and local revenues for one recent year, schools in Mt. Brook, AL, 
received $4,820 per student per year, the highest rate in Alabama. At 
the other extreme in Roanoke City, State and local revenues paid $2,371 
per year. These differences accounted for a disparity of $61,225 a year 
for a class of 25. These discrepancies do not appear in just the 
wealthiest and poorest of systems in Alabama but are widespread and 
systemic. Federal funds which are generally earmarked do not close this 
gap in basic educational programs. Disparities have been present for at 
least 20 years. So there is probably a cumulative effect. The funding 
gap is not closing but in the last 6 years has gotten more pronounced.
  Some Lowell schools lack adequate textbooks and other support 
materials. For instance, in some schools students must share textbooks 
and are not allowed to take books home to study. In at least one school 
library the newest encyclopedia was 1975.
  Why do we have people come and testify before our committees if we do 
not take to heart what they have said and if we do not try and build on 
the information they presented us?
  But even in some new school buildings chemistry labs have virtually 
no chemicals or other equipment with which students can work. One 
science teacher had to show students a picture of a microscope because 
she had none for them to use.
  There is testimony before the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
Committee.
  And I could go on and on. There is testimony from Joseph Fernandez.

       My name is Joseph Fernandez, and I am president of the 
     Council of the Great City Schools and former chairman of the 
     New York City public schools and former superintendent of 
     Dade County public schools. Thank you for your opportunity to 
     testify.'' Mr. Fernandez then said that the vast majority of 
     our students have not successfully completed an introductory 
     course in algebra by the end of the 10th grade. Only a third 
     of the Hispanic and Asian-American youths score above the 
     national norms on the standardized reading and math tests. We 
     have a significant shortage of preschool, math and science 
     and minority teachers, as well as teachers for the 
     disabled and limited English proficient.

  And he goes on and on.
  Now, Madam President, I would like to, if I could, refer to Jonathan 
Kozol's book, ``Savage Inequalities.''

       Looking around some of the inner city schools, where filth 
     and disrepair were worse than anything I'd seen in 1964, I 
     often wondered why we would agree to let our children go to 
     school in places where no politician, school board president, 
     or business CEO would dream of working.

  Jonathan Kozol went around the country and looked at the different 
educational opportunities for our students to find some answers.
  And I just go from place to place in this book.
       To find some answers, I spent several days in Camden (N.J.) 
     in the early spring of 1990. Because the city has no hotel, 
     teachers in Camden arranged for me to stay nearby in Cherry 
     Hill, a beautiful suburban area of handsome stores and costly 
     homes. The drive from Cherry Hill to Camden take about five 
     minutes. It is like a journey between different worlds.
       On a stretch of land beside the Delaware River in the 
     northern part of Camden, in a neighborhood of factories and 
     many abandoned homes, roughly equidistant from a paper plant, 
     a gelatin factory and an illegal dumpsite, stands a school 
     called Pyne Point Junior High.
       In the evening, when I drive into the neighborhood to find 
     the school, the air at Pyne Point bears the smell of burning 
     trash. When I return the next day I am hit with a strong 
     smell of ether, or some kind of glue, that seems to be 
     emitted by the paper factory.
       The school is a two-story building, yellow brick, its 
     windows covered with metal grates, the flag on its flagpole 
     motionless above the lawn that has no grass. Some 650 
     children, 98 percent of whom are black or Latino, are 
     enrolled here.
       The school nurse, who walks me through the building while 
     the principal is on the phone, speaks of the emergencies and 
     illnesses that she contends with. ``Children come into school 
     with rotting teeth,'' she says. ``They sit in class, leaning 
     on their elbows, in discomfort.

  And on and on and on.
  And the Senator is right. He talks about a school, as I remember, in 
East St. Louis called Martin Luther King, Jr., talking to a young 
woman. And she says,

       This gives lie to Martin Luther King, Jr. We don't have the 
     same opportunities at this school.

  He talks about the differences right here in Washington, DC. If you 
look in one direction in Bethesda, you could see a financial base from 
an appropriate tax system, for good schools, good facilities. Teachers 
can be recruited, good salaries. That is the way it should be.
  If you look to Anacostia, which is probably not more than a 1\1/2\ or 
2 miles from the Chamber, the exact opposite situation--much less of a 
base to draw from, inadequate lab facilities, the sharing of textbooks.
  Madam President, I have to say--and I believe that the Senator from 
Illinois may be focusing on this later on--that when we send our 
children into decrepit school buildings--mainly this is a function of 
the wealth of the community--and there are holes in the ceiling and 
they are not warm, and there are old textbooks and inadequate lab 
facilities, it strikes me that we send precisely the wrong kind of 
message.
  How can we expect our children to be excited about learning and how 
can they believe all of our fine rhetoric about goals and everybody is 
going to achieve those goals when they know that they do not have the 
same opportunities as so many other children have within our country?
  Madam President, I would like to have printed in the Record, because 
I would be interested in some discussion with my colleagues, a whole 
set of examples of some of the struggles of schools in my State of 
Minnesota, especially in what we call greater Minnesota; that is to 
say, in the small towns and the rural parts of our State.
  I ask unanimous consent to have some examples printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           State of Minnesota


                           office memorandum

     Department: State Fire Marshal Division.
     Date: January 31, 1994.
     To: Len Nachman, Minnesota Department of Education.
     From: Jon Nisja-Supervisor, Deputy State Fire Marshal.
     Phone: (612) 643-3096.
     Subject: Schools with Unique and/or Difficult Fire Safety 
         Problems.

       As per your request I have compiled a list of some of the 
     school districts in which we have seen some unique and often 
     difficult fire safety problems. Many of the schools where we 
     encounter these types of problems are located in smaller, 
     rural communities. Some of these problems have evolved or 
     developed because of a lack of code enforcement in these 
     areas. The following is a brief list of some of the schools 
     and a summary of the problems noted:


              CASS LAKE AREA LEARNING CENTER-Cass Lake, MN

       Problems: Combustible construction; lack of fire alarm and 
     detection; vertical separation problems; exiting problems 
     (insufficient number, only had one).


                    HIBBING HIGH SCHOOL-Hibbing, MN

       Problems: Vertical separation problems; exiting problems-
     insufficient number (only one from upper floors), travel 
     distance problems, confusing, dead end corridors.


         ATWATER-GROVE CITY SCHOOLS-Atwater and Grove City, MN

       Problems: Combustible construction; vertical separation; 
     combustible interior finish; exiting problems-insufficient 
     number, dead end corridors.


BARRETT-HOFFMAN-ELBOW LAKE SCHOOLS-Barrett, Hoffman, and Elbow Lake, MN

       Problems: Combustible construction; vertical separation; 
     exiting problems-insufficient number and capacity; students 
     in basement (poor exiting)


                  ROLLINGSTONE SCHOOL-Rollingstone, MN

       Problems: Combustible construction; vertical separation; 
     structural deficiencies due to long-term water leakage 
     problems.


                 BRAHAM INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL-Braham, MN

       Problems: Combustible construction; structural 
     deficiencies, exiting problems-confusing, dead-end corridors.
                                  ____


                     School Facilities in Minnesota


                               memoranda

     To: Josh Syrvamaki, Senator Paul Wellstone's office.
     From: Len Nachman, Facilities Team, MN Dept. of Education.
     Subject: Request for information.
     Date: January 31, 1994.
     School Facilities Conditions for the State of Minnesota

       If you want more examples or pictures, please let me know. 
     Len Nachman 612/296-5032.


               special school district no. 1, Minneapolis

       Approximately $400 million is needed to meet Minneapolis 
     schools health, safety, accessibility and deferred 
     maintenance needs.
       The district is gaining 1000 students per year (2-3%).
       There is a need to replace many old and tired buildings.
       There is a need to get out of leased space that is not 
     educationally adequate.
       They are currently under-funded to fix up facilities and to 
     maintain what can be fixed up.
       Without necessary maintenance, the buildings will 
     completely deteriorate.
       District needs a program of ongoing funding to maintain 
     buildings.
       The $400 million does not include enhancing the schools 
     educational programs.


               independent school district 625, st. paul

       The St. Paul Public Schools has over $110 million in needs 
     over the next ten years to address critical deferred 
     maintenance environmental health and safety and handicap 
     accessibility (ADA) problems. With school buildings that are 
     old (approximately 47% of the district buildings have 
     original construction that is 50 years or more old), it is 
     critical that the deferred maintenance needs to protect 
     buildings' structures and infrastructure be addressed. 
     Roofing, painting, tuckpointing, window replacement, 
     mechanical and electrical system renovations and 
     replacements and plumbing replacements are among the 
     district's major areas of deferred maintenance needs. 
     Building improvements and modifications to address ADA 
     requirements alone total more than $8 million. New codes 
     and mandates affecting life safety, hazardous substances, 
     and environmental health and safety annually result in 
     major capital improvement needs. In addition, capital 
     improvement needs currently funded at $9 million annually 
     for the next three years funds only a fraction of the 
     capital improvement needs of the districts' 65+ 
     facilities. Changing populations and increased enrollments 
     have created space needs in the district both at the 
     elementary and secondary levels. These needs must be met 
     through new property acquisitions, building additions, and 
     lease of outside space. Two new high schools at a total 
     estimated cost of $80 million are needed. Recently, 
     elementary space shortages have been again experienced 
     which will require funding (estimates currently being 
     developed).


                Independent School District 709, Duluth

       School district needs approximately $90 million to repair 
     schools. The district has recently spent $20 million.
       This year the five worst buildings had to be abandoned 
     because they were not economically or educationally advisable 
     to fix up.
       Nine existing facilities were upgraded ($20 million).
       The $90 million does not include funds for educational 
     improvements or technology improvements.


               Independent School District 698, Floodwood

       Nearest neighboring district is 19 miles away and cannot 
     accommodate the students.
       It has a student enrollment of 360 students.
       This is a low-income district with limited taxing ability.
       The original building was built in 1911 with additions in 
     1926, 1938, 1958, 1965, and 1976.
       $250,000 is necessary for minimal five code violations.
       There is no budget for educational improvements or ADA code 
     corrections.
       The Fire Marshal has indicated he will close the 1911, 
     1926, 1938, sections of the building.


              Independent School District 526, Twin Valley

       The nearest neighboring district is 12 miles away.
       Total Need.--The Minnesota Department of Education 
     estimates that it needs $2 billion for the repair, 
     renovation, alteration, and construction of public elementary 
     and secondary schools.
       Number of School Buildings.--Minnesota has 392 school 
     districts with 1,536 buildings.
       Age of School Buildings.--16% of Minnesota school buildings 
     are over 70 years old while 38% are over 50 years old and 63% 
     are over 30 years old.
       Assessments.--Minnesota does not conduct an annual 
     assessment of its school buildings.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the quality of the education that a 
young person receives should not be based on where that young person 
lives. If we want to be competitive as a nation, if we want to focus on 
our greatest resource, if we want to understand that there is not going 
to be any real national security until we invest in the health and 
skills and intellect and character of our young people, then I suggest 
that as we pass this Goals 2000 legislation, we should at the very 
minimum be clear that, as each and every State sets out these goals 
that we have established and talks about meeting those goals, that we 
are consistent, that we are honest, and we just include in this 
amendment the most moderate language which says that there should also 
be an opportunity-to-learn standard where each State says this is going 
to be how we make sure that every one of our youngsters has the same 
opportunity to achieve these goals.
  This amendment has the support of the National Education Association, 
the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National 
Association of Secondary School Principals, the Council of the Great 
City Schools, and the National Parent-Teacher Association, the PTA.
  Madam President, I believe that the reason for the importance of this 
legislation--and I once again thank Senator Kennedy for his work--is 
that we really do send a message that we care about goals, we care 
about education, and we care about raising expectations.
  But I think the teachers down in the trenches and I think the parents 
down in the trenches--and I hear this from Minnesota over and over 
again, it saddens me--they are also saying as long as you are going to 
have this language, you cannot have this contradiction. At least, say 
you want to make sure that each and every child has the same 
opportunity to learn.
  Why is that so unreasonable? Why can we not get some language that is 
firm on that point? Why can we not have a part of that as Goals 2000? 
Why can we not say that part of what Goals 2000 is, is to make sure 
that each and every youngster has the same chance at all he or she can 
be.
  That is what this amendment says. I think it is an extremely 
important amendment. I hope that we will have the full support of our 
colleagues.
  I yield the floor.


                Amendment No. 1367 to Amendment No. 1366

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1367 to amendment No. 1366.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam 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:

       In the pending amendment strike all after: ``(d) 
     Opportunity To Learn'' and insert the following:
       Strategies.--Each State improvement plan shall establish 
     strategies for providing all students with an opportunity to 
     learn, such as--
       (1) adopting or establishing comprehensive State 
     opportunity-to-learn standards:
       (2) establishing a timetable for demonstrating progress 
     toward meeting comprehensive State opportunity-to-learn 
     standards in every school in the State; and
       (3) periodically reporting to the public on the extent of 
     the State's improvement in achieving such standards.
       (e) Technical and Other Assistance Regarding School Finance 
     Equity.--
       (1) Technical assistance.--(A) the Secretary is authorized 
     to make grants to, and enter into contracts and cooperative 
     agreements with, State educational agencies and other public 
     and private agencies, institutions, and organizations to 
     provide technical assistance to State and local educational 
     agencies to assist such agencies in achieving a greater 
     degree of equity in the distribution of financial resources 
     for education among local educational agencies in the State.
       (B) A grant, contract or cooperative agreement under this 
     subsection may support technical assistance activities, such 
     as--
       (i) the establishment and operation of a center or centers 
     for the provision of technical assistance to State and local 
     educational agencies;
       (ii) the convening of conferences on equalization of 
     resources within local educational agencies, within States, 
     and among States; and
       (iii) obtaining advice from experts in the field of school 
     finance equalization.
       (2) Research.--(A) The Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     applied research and analysis designed to further knowledge 
     and understanding of methods to achieve greater equity in the 
     distribution of financial resources among local educational 
     agencies.
       (B) The Secretary may carry out research under this 
     paragraph directly or through grants to, or contracts or 
     cooperative agreements with, any public or private 
     organization.
       (C) In carrying out this paragraph, the Secretary is 
     authorized to--
       (i) support research on the equity of existing State school 
     funding systems;
       (ii) train individuals in such research;
       (iii) promote the coordination of such research;
       (iv) collect and analyze data related to school finance 
     equity in the United States and other nations; and
       (v) report periodically on the progress of States in 
     achieving school finance equity.
       (3) Coordination.--The Secretary shall coordinate 
     activities under this subsection with activities carried out 
     by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
       (4) Data.--Each State educational agency or local 
     educational agency receiving assistance under the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall provide such data 
     and information on school finance as the Secretary may 
     require to carry out this subsection.
       (5) Models.--The Secretary is authorized, directly or 
     through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, to 
     develop and disseminate models and materials useful to States 
     in planning and implementing revisions of the school finance 
     systems of such States.
       (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1994 and such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 1995 
     through 1998 to carry out this section.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I see the Senator from New York is here. I wanted to 
respond to the points that have been made by Senator Wellstone and 
Senator Simon, but I would be glad to permit the Senator to make 
whatever comment he desires.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I will take about 10 to 11 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________