[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1150, the Goals 2000 bill, 
which the clerk will now report.
  The 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.

       Pending:
       (1) Dorgan amendment No. 1369, to require each local 
     educational agency, as a condition for receiving Federal 
     assistance, to implement a gun-free program in its schools.
       (2) Kennedy amendment No. 1375 (to Amendment No. 1369), to 
     express the sense of the Senate regarding guns in schools.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are expecting our colleagues, Senator 
Hatfield and Senator Durenberger, on the floor shortly. I thought I 
would take this time until they arrive to demonstrate some of the 
things that are happening in different parts of the country which have 
been inspiring circumstances and which we have tried to take advantage 
of and incorporate in this legislation. Programs like these are why we 
believe this legislation, although it has limited resources, supports 
or actually reflects the priorities that most families give to 
education in this country.
  Taken within the context of a variety of other kinds of efforts that 
we are involved in as a Congress and Senate, and with this 
administration, with its leadership under President Clinton and Mrs. 
Clinton, this legislation can make an important difference in terms of 
the quality of education for our young people.
  I mentioned in the closing moments last evening what we are trying to 
do for young people in this country by expanding the Head Start Program 
and strengthening the quality of the Head Start Program, even reaching 
down to the youngest of children.
  I think, and the President and Mrs. Clinton understand, that the 
early support of expectant mothers is something which is also 
important, so that we have well babies. Simultaneously, we try to 
ensure that they are going to grow up in a climate and atmosphere which 
is supportive and nurturing and helpful in developing self-esteem.
  There are obviously a variety of different factors that impact that 
condition but, nonetheless, the efforts of all of us to make that a 
positive experience are certainly reflected in what we are currently 
undertaking.
  We will have the opportunity to pass the reauthorization of the Head 
Start Program, with the recommendations that have been made in terms of 
bipartisan support, in these next few months. Also tied into this 
legislation, and I will elaborate in greater detail, are some of the 
examples that we have observed in different parts of the country, and 
which have really been the source of the direction and the inspiration, 
on which this particular legislation will focus.
  In these next several months we will also have the reauthorization of 
Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Program. That will 
be about $7 billion. It is the principal instrument by which the 
Federal Government supports those children who are at greatest risk and 
of greatest need. We have a series of recommendations that have been 
made by the administration, and we will be addressing those later in 
this session. But that again is related to what we are trying to do 
with the Head Start Program; tying the Head Start Program into the 
early years of educational experience and making sure that elementary 
and secondary education--the Title I program--fits into the Head Start 
Program.
  This is something that we can do. We made some progress in the last 
reauthorization. And we can do a good deal more in that area as well.
  We are talking, as well, in line with the President's program on 
health insurance reform, about providing for school-based clinics, 
obviously with the support of the local communities, with the support 
of parents, and with the support of teachers and the school districts.
  We have seen where these school clinics have been effective. We have 
several of them in my own State of Massachusetts. The Cambridge Rindge 
and Latin School, for example, has a good program. All one has to do is 
visit that high school and talk to those involved in the school clinic 
program, which provides health care services to the students.
  We find that, in urban areas, up to one-third of the children who go 
to those schools are abused in some form or shape, or live in an 
abusive family, whether it is substance abuse or physical abuse. What a 
difference it makes to those children to know that there is at least a 
secure group of helpful people who will be supportive of them, and who 
will help them make it through extraordinary challenges, maintain their 
interests in making educational progress, and keep them from dropping 
out of school and becoming part of the gangs and part of a lost 
generation.
  That is important, and that, obviously, will help and assist many of 
our young people as they are hopefully moving toward enhanced academic 
achievement in this program.
  As we mentioned briefly yesterday, we are making efforts with the 
private sector to move from the school to work, recognizing that, of 
the 100 percent of young people who graduate from high school, about 30 
percent of them go on to some form of continued education or training; 
60 to 65 percent, or even higher, in many of regions of our country, do 
not.
  We find an enormous disparity in terms of the opportunities for those 
who go on to higher education, which I certainly support, and those who 
do not continue their education. It is much different, really, than a 
generation ago, when I first came to the Senate, where if your 
grandfather had worked in the Four River Shipyard, your father had 
worked there, and maybe even your son had worked there--the women of 
the family clearly did not--there was at least an understanding that if 
you graduated from high school and you had developed certain skills and 
worked during the course of the summer, you would move into a job which 
would be rewarding, which would be satisfying, and which would permit 
you to live a constructive and productive life and that provided for 
the family as well.
  Over the period of the last 20 years, there has been a 20 percent 
real loss in wages for young people who graduate from high school with 
no additional training. The disparity between those who leave high 
school without additional training, and those who are able to get 
additional training through colleges, whether they are 2- or 4-year 
colleges, grows and continues to grow. Continued training and continued 
education is not a luxury for our society, it is an absolute necessity 
if we are going to compete in a world-class economy.
  We could have legislation addressing this issue, hopefully, and 
according to the leader, as a follow-on piece of legislation. We have 
emergency programs in terms of the earthquake victims. Certainly, with 
the strong bipartisan support we have had in the committee, and the 
strong support we have from administration, the Chamber of Commerce, 
and the National Association of Manufacturers, it is very important and 
closely tied to what we are considering today. As a matter of fact, 
there are provisions in this legislation establishing the skills 
standards that are directly related to the school-to-work program.
  So, again, this is a correction that is important. There are efforts 
being made to enhance the schools through technology and technology 
assistance, currently known as S. 1040, to ensure that young people, as 
students in our public schools, are going to have the similar kinds of 
advantages that those in many of our private schools have in terms of 
the technology and the technology training available to students and 
teachers, so that they can use the technology to really enhance 
academic achievement. This is something that is extremely important.
  In our committee, there have been bipartisan efforts in terms of 
attaching to the legislation the repayment of debt of a young person in 
our country resulting from continuing education, so that they can pay 
it out over a period of years in terms of percent of income. There is 
also the movement toward a direct loan program, which is being tested 
now, and which many of us support. And we did believe that a fair test 
and examination should take place.
  The guaranteed student loan program has worked, and before we move 
into this whole new area, I think, that we have a responsibility to 
make sure that something which has worked well, and has been effective, 
should be supplanted by something we hope will be even more effective 
and mean additional savings to our young people.
  I must say that I think we can make improvements in terms of the 
bureaucracy and the rules and regulations that affect all of these 
programs. I know we have, Under Secretary Riley and Madeleine Kunin, 
and Tom Payzant, who works with them, individuals who are 
knowledgeable, both as former Governors in the first two circumstances, 
and as someone who has been an outstanding supervisor, who can help us 
work our way through the elimination of a lot of the bureaucracy. I 
think that is important.
  We make a downpayment on that in this legislation by providing a 
great deal more flexibility, in terms of both the States and local 
communities, permitting them to use scarce resources more wisely for 
the students. That is, certainly, one of the important aspects of this 
program.
  There are other features as well, such as the tying-in of the 
voluntary national service program for our young people, that can make 
a difference.
  So, we look at it, at least most of us look at it, as an effort in 
strengthening this whole next generation, from the earliest of times 
through certainly the college experience, by trying to provide, albeit 
with limited resources, the kind of encouragement that can make such a 
very important difference for the young people of this country.
  Just very briefly--I see my friend from New Mexico, who wants to 
speak--I will just mention this comment and then continue on during the 
course of the day.
  I had hoped to talk about some of the encouraging things being done 
by a number of the States. But I will just close this part of the 
debate by pointing out that there is agreement among the general public 
that we, as a country and as a society, have not done enough. More than 
85 percent of Americans believe that the Nation needs higher education 
standards in order to be economically competitive. I think we all agree 
with that. We should be establishing benchmarks which can be achieved 
by our young people and which call upon the best among them to achieve 
those academic levels.
  Fifty-four percent of Americans believe that we lack clear standards 
of what students should know and be able to do upon graduation. 
Obviously, there are extraordinary circumstances, and I can mention a 
number of schools in Massachusetts that are some of the leading 
educational institutions in the country and that are public schools. 
But American people generally feel that we lack clear standards of what 
students should know and be able to do upon graduation. Three-quarters 
of Americans believe that the Nation does not invest enough in K-12 
education. I think this is something that we talked briefly about last 
night, and which many of us believe, and national leadership will help 
raise the visibility of academic standards.
  We are certainly hopeful that this bill is successful, and we believe 
that it will be; that with the increase in terms of academic 
achievement and accomplishment, there will be a reawakening by the 
American people to the importance of this kind of investment at the 
local, State, and Federal levels, and we can meet our responsibilities 
to the young people in a more effective way.
  I will yield the floor at this time and come back to this theme as we 
have more time during the course of the morning.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. 
Bingaman], is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in general in favor of 
this legislation. I compliment the Senator from Massachusetts, the 
Senator from Vermont, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Pell, who 
is the chairman of the subcommittee, on this very important 
legislation. I do believe that when history is written about this 103d 
Congress, if we are successful in enacting this Goals 2000 legislation, 
it will be one of the main achievements recognized by future 
generations.
  For a number of years, I have argued for establishing realistic and 
measurable national education goals. It is clear we cannot bring out 
the best in our young people if we do not expect the best of them. I 
also believe we cannot fairly expect the best from them if we do not 
tell them and their teachers and their parents what is considered an 
acceptable standard. In past Congresses, I have introduced legislation 
to accomplish this. I am pleased to see that many of the provisions I 
earlier proposed are contained in this important legislation.
  The Goals 2000 legislation will codify the six national education 
goals which were set by the President and the Nation's Governors 
several years ago. They will add a new goal on parental involvement as 
well as authorize and expand the National Education Goals Panel on 
which I served with Senator Cochran from Mississippi, representing the 
Senate on that panel.
  I strongly believe that the national education goals challenge our 
Nation's school systems to achieve the highest quality education for 
our youth. Specific goals provide direction; they provide 
accountability. They are essential tools in educational reform. In the 
years I have been on the Education Goals Panel, I worked closely with 
the Governors in reporting on progress toward the goals that have been 
set. I believe, as I have believed and I continue to believe, those 
goals provide the right direction for schools and the opportunity to 
measure progress reliably and usefully.
  Let me say a few words about this National Education Goals Panel. 
This legislation would expand its membership and responsibilities and 
give it a source of funding. It provides a bipartisan mechanism for 
building a national consensus which involves, of course, the Governors 
and the States, where the primary responsibility for education has 
traditionally been in our system of government and will remain. But the 
National Education Goals Panel is a way for the States to join with the 
Federal Government and with the local communities to pursue common 
goals.
  This legislation also establishes the National Education Standards 
and Improvement Council. This is a council that identifies and 
certifies the voluntary national content and student performance 
standards. This is a necessary part of the goals process that was 
established by the Governors several years ago. Standards tell us how 
we go about reaching the goals; what is meant by being competent in 
particular core subjects. They give us the yardstick which we can use 
to tell us whether those goals are being achieved.
  Also, standards not only tell the experts this, but they tell the 
students and the teachers and the parents what is expected of them. 
Since those standards are clearly intended to be world-class standards, 
developed with the knowledge of what other countries expect of their 
young people, they can help keep our American students from falling 
behind students in other parts of the world.
  Our Nation's economic prosperity is linked to an educational system 
that emphasizes national standards of excellence.
  A national system of standards and assessment in conjunction with 
other reform efforts, such as greater use of educational technology 
which I will refer to here in a moment, can be a foundation for overall 
educational reform in order to increase the level of student 
achievement throughout our country.
  Mr. President, I read an interesting study recently which was done at 
Cornell University which did a study of textbooks used in our public 
schools over the last several decades. The conclusion of the study was 
that those textbooks have had the effect of, as they refer to it, 
dumbing down over that period from the Second World War. This ``dumbing 
down'' of our textbooks has been a significant contributor to the 
decline in the verbal scholastic aptitude test scores over that same 
period. Low standards, whether they be in textbook writing or in 
curriculum development or in other instructional materials 
unfortunately produce dumbed down kids as well as dumbed down 
textbooks. That is clearly not what we need in this Nation.
  We want our children to meet high standards. They are capable of 
meeting high standards. I have talked to many parents in my home State 
of New Mexico, and I have yet to meet a single parent who does not want 
his child or her child to meet high academic standards.
  I cannot leave the subject of standards without noting that this 
legislation also provides that the standards developed by the National 
Council will be reviewed and approved by the goals panel. The goals 
panel has adopted a set of principles for itself to guide it in 
reviewing those standards. Those principles I believe will serve the 
country well.
  Let me say a few words about educational technology. This legislation 
also contains provisions concerning technology that I believe are 
absolutely necessary if we are to have a chance of achieving the goals 
that we are setting for ourselves. The Senator from Massachusetts 
pointed the direction with the Star Schools Program several years ago. 
We need to take that one step further. We need to emphasize and help 
States and local school districts to effectively use technology in 
providing education.
  The administration has placed a high priority on revitalizing 
education through systemic reform. I strongly believe that without 
technology as an integral part of that reform activity we will be 
missing a great opportunity.
  I also believe that technology offers a very cost-efficient way for 
us to provide greater educational opportunities and equity in 
educational opportunities to all of our students and their teachers.
  I am very pleased that the chairman accepted my amendment to ensure 
that educational reform include a component for technology. These 
provisions which were originally in Senate bill 1040, the Technology 
for Education Act of 1993, provisions that we are now taking from that 
act and putting in this legislation, establish an office of educational 
technology within the Department of Education to be administered by the 
director of educational technology. They provide funds for State 
technology planning grants to incorporate technology into statewide 
reform activities required by the Goals 2000 legislation.
  Last year, under the leadership of the Vice President, the Nation 
began to deal in a coordinated and a comprehensive way with the 
opportunities and challenges presented by these rapidly changing 
technologies. Goals 2000 takes the first step toward making sure that 
education has a place at the table in discussing the potential uses of 
technology.
  Last October, the House and Senate appropriations conference 
committee approved funding to begin these activities contingent upon us 
passing this authorization bill. For fiscal year 1994, the conference 
committee approved $500,000 to fund the office of educational 
technology, and an additional $5 million to fund the State technology 
planning grants which are called for in our legislation.
  With these provisions, we are enlisting a grassroots effort within 
the States to allow teachers, businesses, parents, and students to take 
steps to alter the traditional educational environment through a more 
creative use of technology in our schools.
  In my home State of New Mexico, I have seen firsthand the tremendous 
difference that technology can make. We have many small rural schools 
in our State, and the distances between the schools and the population 
centers is sometimes fairly great.
  High schools in San Jon, House, and Grady--which are some of the most 
rural communities in our State--those high schools are taking advanced 
courses, advanced classes that include advanced placement and language 
classes from the community college that is over 50 miles away in 
Clovis, NM. Those classes would not be available to those students were 
it not for the technology of distance learning. That technology has 
given those students equal access to the kinds of instruction that 
students in Albuquerque or Sante Fe are able to take advantage of.
  This is one of many examples across the country of how increased 
application of educational technology can dramatically improve the 
learning in our schools.
  These provisions, which are included in this Goals 2000 legislation, 
lay the base for further support for uses of technology in education 
which we have included in Senate bill 1040 that I referred to earlier.
  That legislation, Senate bill 1040, which I hope can be on the Senate 
floor in the near future, provides more Federal grants to staff 
development, product development, and acquisition of other technology 
products.
  I would like to say a few words about American Indian education as 
part of this larger bill that is being considered by the Senate today. 
I want to commend the chairman for adding important provisions to this 
bill to include a very important segment of our population, American 
Indian children, their parents, and their tribal leaders.
  As a Senator from New Mexico, a State rich in diverse cultures, I 
believe it is essential that we ensure all segments of our society, 
from the inner cities of New York to the pueblos of New Mexico, are 
included in the national effort to attain ambitious goals such as are 
set out in this legislation.
  The chairman accepted major portions of my amendment to ensure that 
American Indians have a voice in the process of reaching national 
consensus for educational reform.
  I believe that Indian tribes must play a key role in the development 
of reform plans if we are to ensure that Indian children are able to 
achieve those goals as our other children attempt to do as well.
  Let me say a few words about health education, Mr. President. I want 
to thank the chairman of the committee again and all members of the 
committee for their willingness to work with me on a series of very 
modest changes in the bill regarding age-appropriate comprehensive 
health education.
  The language agreed to by the committee modifies in a very modest way 
several of the goal objectives. The references to comprehensive 
sequential health education in Senate bill 1150 are the result of a 
compromise. I do not believe they should be objectionable to anybody in 
this body. In my view, we really need to do much more. We need to make 
a commitment to comprehensive school health education for all of our 
children.
  That is why Senator Cohen and I introduced a bill entitled ``Healthy 
Students-Healthy Schools'' in the last Congress, and again in this 
Congress. We will not stop discussing the issue until legislation 
containing those provisions is finally enacted.
  Over the next several weeks and months, I look forward to working 
with others on the Labor and Human Resources Committee and with others 
throughout the Senate toward enactment of the Healthy Students-Healthy 
Schools Act that Senator Cohen and I introduced.
  The language included in the Goals 2000 legislation, and the 
inclusion of some key provisions on comprehensive school health 
education in President's Health Security Act, are modest but firm first 
steps toward more effective health education in our schools.
  Restructuring our system of education is not a simple task. We face 
many challenges.
  However, I do believe we are well equipped for that battle. We have a 
commitment, a strong commitment from our President for educational 
reform along with many dedicated citizens working together to meet the 
challenges set forth in the national education goals.
  With bipartisan leadership from the goals panel, I am hopeful that 
that commitment and that work will produce better schools and a better 
America for all of us.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, 
and again I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for their 
leadership in presenting this to the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Order of Procedure

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour 
of 10:30 having passed, either the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger] or the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] will be 
recognized to offer an amendment regarding the flexibility from Federal 
regulations. There will be 30 minutes for debate with the time equally 
divided in the usual form. No second-degree amendments will be in order 
to this amendment.
  If there is no objection the pending amendments will be temporarily 
laid aside.
  The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1377

 (Purpose: To encourage and assist States, local educational agencies, 
   and schools in their comprehensive educational reform efforts by 
 allowing flexibility in the application of selected Federal statutory 
     or regulatory requirements that present barriers to education 
                       restructuring and reform)

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] (for himself, Mr. 
     Durenberger, Mr. Pell, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Graham) proposes 
     an amendment numbered 1377.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of section 311, insert the following:
       (e) Flexibility Demonstration.--
       (1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the 
     ``Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act''.
       (2) Program authorized.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out an education 
     flexibility demonstration program under which the Secretary 
     authorizes not more than 6 eligible States to waive any 
     statutory or regulatory requirement applicable to any program 
     or Act described in subsection (b), other than requirements 
     described in subsection (c), for such eligible State or any 
     local educational agency or school within such State.
       (B) Award rule.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall select for participation in the demonstration 
     program described in subparagraph (A) three eligible States 
     that each have a population of 3,500,000 or greater and three 
     eligible States that each have a population of less than 
     3,500,000, determined in accordance with the most recent 
     decennial census of the population performed by the Bureau of 
     the Census.
       (C) Designation.--Each eligible State participating in the 
     demonstration program described in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     known as an ``Ed-Flex Partnership State''.
       (3) Eligible state.--For the purpose of this subsection the 
     term ``eligible State'' means a State that--
       (A) has developed a State improvement plan under section 
     306 that is approved by the Secretary; and
       (B) waives State statutory or regulatory requirements 
     relating to education while holding local educational 
     agencies or schools within the State that are affected by 
     such waivers accountable for the performance of the students 
     who are affected by such waivers.
       (4) State application.--(A) Each eligible State desiring to 
     participate in the education flexibility demonstration 
     program under this subsection shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may reasonably require. 
     Each such application shall demonstrate that the eligible 
     State has adopted an educational flexibility plan for such 
     State that includes--
       (i) a description of the process the eligible State will 
     use to evaluate applications from local educational agencies 
     or schools requesting waivers of--
       (I) Federal statutory or regulatory requirements described 
     in paragraph (2)(A); and
       (II) State statutory or regulatory requirements relating to 
     education; and
       (ii) a detailed description of the State statutory and 
     regulatory requirements relating to education that the 
     eligible State will waive.
       (B) The Secretary may approve an application described in 
     subparagraph (A) only if the Secretary determines that such 
     application demonstrates substantial promise of assisting the 
     eligible State and affected local education agencies and 
     schools with in such State in carrying out comprehensive 
     educational reform and otherwise meeting the purposes of this 
     Act, after considering--
       (i) the comprehensiveness and quality of the educational 
     flexibility plan described in subparagraph (A);
       (ii) the ability of such plan to ensure accountability for 
     the activities and goals described in such plan;
       (iii) the significance of the State statutory or regulatory 
     requirements relating to education that will be waived; and
       (iv) the quality of the eligible State's process for 
     approving applications for waivers of Federal statutory or 
     regulatory requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) and for 
     monitoring and evaluating the results of such waivers.
       (5) Local application.--(A) Each local educational agency 
     or school requesting a waiver of a Federal statutory or 
     regulatory requirement described in paragraph (2)(A) and any 
     relevant State statutory or regulatory requirement for an 
     eligible State shall submit an application to such State at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     such State may reasonably require. Each such application 
     shall--
       (i) indicate each Federal program affected and the 
     statutory or regulatory requirement that will be waived;
       (ii) describe the purposes and overall expected outcomes of 
     waiving each such requirement;
       (iii) describe for each school year specific, measurable, 
     educational goals for each local educational agency or school 
     affected by the proposed waiver; and
       (iv) explain why the waiver will assist the local 
     educational agency or school in reaching such goals.
       (B) An eligible State shall evaluate an application 
     submitted under subparagraph (A) in accordance with the 
     State's educational flexibility plan described in paragraph 
     (4)(A).
       (C) An eligible State shall not approve an application for 
     a waiver under this paragraph unless--
       (i) the local educational agency or school requesting such 
     waiver has developed a local reform plan that is applicable 
     to such agency or school, respectively; and
       (ii) the waiver of Federal statutory or regulatory 
     requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) will assist the 
     local educational agency or school in reaching its 
     educational goals.
       (6) Monitoring.--Each eligible State participating in the 
     demonstration program under this subsection shall annually 
     monitor the activities of local education agencies and 
     schools receiving waivers under this subsection and shall 
     submit an annual report regarding such monitoring to the 
     Secretary.
       (7) Duration of federal waivers.--(A) The Secretary shall 
     not approve the application of an eligible State under 
     paragraph (4) for a period exceeding 5 years, except that the 
     Secretary may extend such period if the Secretary determines 
     that the eligible State's authority to grant waivers has been 
     effective in enabling such State or affected local 
     educational agencies or schools to carry out their local 
     reform plans.
       (B) The Secretary shall periodically review the performance 
     of any eligible State granting waivers of Federal statutory 
     or regulatory requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) and 
     shall terminate such State's authority to grant such waivers 
     if the Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity for 
     hearing, that such State's performance has been inadequate to 
     justify continuation of such authority.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to 
lay aside this amendment that I might make a statement on another part 
of this bill that does not call for any action by the floor and then 
return to this amendment to take it up.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to just make a few comments 
regarding the Goals 2000.
  I want to thank my colleagues on the Labor Committee for accepting my 
legislation to establish a seventh national education goal encouraging 
the involvement of parents and families in education. To borrow a page 
from Abraham Lincoln: Without the support of parents our schools cannot 
succeed. With it, they cannot fail. Without parental involvement, the 
six national education goals will not be attained by the year 2000. The 
national PTA and the Oregon PTA have my highest praise for helping to 
provide grassroots support for this measure all across the country.
  Again I thank the leadership of the committee for accepting this new 
national education goal.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Senators 
Kennedy and Kassebaum regarding the parental goal and a copy of the GAO 
report on ed-flex be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have just visited the ``State of the 
Union'' and have outlined some of this country's biggest problems as 
well as our greatest needs. From crime, education, and welfare reform--
to health care and job training--many of the answers to our problems 
can be traced to inefficiencies in our families, values, and 
educational systems.
  The American family and our children are in severe jeopardy, and I am 
one Member of the Senate who believes that a solution can be found 
through education--education as a means to arm parents in their efforts 
to fight for their children's future, a future that bypasses the lure 
of drugs and violence. No other single issue can impact our Nation's 
future more than a well-conceived education system which represents a 
pathway out of crisis and a means of empowering both parent and child 
to work together to find a better life within themselves and the 
greater community.
  Education is the foundation on which the soul of a nation is built. 
Our consideration of education legislation demands our collective and 
undivided attention. But we must first ask ourselves, what is the 
appropriate role at the Federal level?
  Traditionally, it has been to ensure that the disenfranchised have 
access to our educational system and to provide resources to ease the 
path toward an educated life, whether it be through early childhood 
programs like Head Start or student financial assistance for higher 
education.
  Today, we are considering formalizing another role for Federal 
involvement: to support the efforts of the States in attaining their 
reform goals; to encourage voluntary standards in certain subject 
fields; and to allow States the flexibility to innovate in their uses 
of Federal funds. I believe this is a logical extension of the Federal 
role in education, as long as it is permissive and not prescriptive.
  Over the past year, we have been telling our constituents that we are 
facing an educational crisis in this country. The problem has been 
identified, yet we continue to only repeat what parents and students 
live with every day. They better than most already know the realities--
budget cuts, overcrowding, drugs, high dropout rates, teen pregnancies, 
and gang violence, to name a few. I charge that it's Congress' turn to 
draw the line that will connect Federal and State partnerships in 
combating these trends. We must make the commitment to back up the 
States--to back up parents and families--and to encourage the positive 
innovations that are being made at local levels.
  The bill before use today was formed with the intent to provide 
resources for bottom-up education reform in local, State, and Federal 
partnership. Through the Goals 2000 legislation, the Federal Government 
is finally inviting parents and families into the education system, 
rather than just assuming their involvement.
  My legislation, S. 1118, to add the role of parents and families to 
our national education goals, has been included as part of the 
committee amendment to Goals 2000. In addition, the chairman and the 
ranking member of the Senate Labor Committee have assured me that this 
language will survive conference with the House.
  Mr. President, at this time I would like to read the new goal and the 
objectives:

       By the year 2000, every school and home will promote 
     partnerships that will increase parental involvement and 
     participation in promoting the social, emotional, and 
     academic growth of children.
       (i) Every State will develop policies to assist local 
     schools and school districts to establish programs for 
     increasing partnerships that respond to the varying needs of 
     parents and the home, including parents of children who are 
     disadvantaged, bilingual or disabled:
       (ii) Every school will actively engage parents and families 
     in a partnership which supports the academic work of children 
     at home and shared educational decision-making at school; and
       (iii) Parents and families will help to ensure that schools 
     are adequately supported and will hold schools and teachers 
     to high standards of accountability.

  There is tremendous support for this important addition. This new 
goal follows directly from the vigorous work of the Oregon PTA and 
subsequent meetings in my office with their delegation last March. The 
national PTA has added its powerful voice in support and has collected 
grassroots support all across the country for this effort.
  Additional endorsements have been received from such organizations as 
the Council of Great City Schools, the American Association of 
Administrators, the Council for Exceptional Children, the NAACP, and 
the National Association for Bilingual Education, among many others. 
Most importantly, the administration is now supporting this goal and is 
making public commitments to make this issue a priority--the power of 
the Federal bully pulpit, whether in the form of the President or the 
Secretary of Education, can go a long way toward setting expectations 
in this area.
  Why this goal was not included with the other six in the first place 
remains a mystery to me. From the day the goals were first made public, 
every teacher in the country could have told us that these goals would 
not be reached without first providing a means to make education valued 
in the great majority of homes in this Nation. Many told me.
  Classroom teachers should not have the added responsibility to sow 
the seeds of love, respect, safety, and excitement for learning. These 
values need to be established in the home, nurtured, and then fostered 
by our teachers, administrators, and educational systems.
  Teachers, schools, and States are making a commitment to help 
families and children where they can; the Federal Government is 
striving to make that commitment; parents need to step up and take even 
more responsibility for their children, and assume the values of 
responsibility and accountability themselves, and instill these virtues 
in their children.
  Practically all reports dealing with the status of education today 
list the dramatic changes in family structure as one of the principal 
causes of educational problems. When over 40 percent of today's 
schoolchildren will have lived in a single-parent household or are from 
two-parent families with both parents working, specific efforts must be 
made to provide for parent-school interaction. The report, ``Conditions 
of Education 1993,'' issued the Department of Education in July 
confirms that children who grow up in low-income families or with 
undereducated parents are often unable to pull out of a cycle of low 
achievement. Those families need help in interacting with schools.
  Whatever the reason for the omission of parental involvement in the 
original plan, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to rectify 
this oversight today. The fact is, studies show that good schools exist 
where good parent-school relationships exist. But schools alone cannot 
do the job. History has proven the validity of the old African proverb, 
``It takes an entire village to raise a child.'' The most reasonable 
place to start is with partnerships between the family and the school.
  Regardless of Congress' action or inaction, States can and are 
responding to the call for reform on their own without our help. My own 
State of Oregon enacted the Oregon Education Act for the 21st century 
in June 1991. This is a remarkably far-reaching mandate for change 
involving parents, students, education professionals, and members of 
the business community. Our goal is to have the best educated citizens 
in the Nation by the year 2000 and a work force equal to any in the 
world by the year 2010. To accomplish this, early childhood education 
has been made a top priority coupled with initiatives to bridge the gap 
between education and the workforce. This program allows for a flexible 
delivery system, an ongoing public dialogue, procedures to waive 
inhibiting regulations, and site-based decisionmaking that fits 
Oregon's needs.

  Other States are adopting similar measures to varying degrees, but 
much more can be done if we do it in concert with one another--the 
State-Federal partnership in education has a long history of success, 
and I believe Goals 2000 offers the opportunity to strengthen it even 
further.
  We must ensure that our efforts with this new legislation will 
recognize the reform that has already taken place in States like mine 
and others. Reform plans that have been enacted by State legislatures 
will become official Goals 2000 reform plans once approved by the 
Secretary of Education. Those States which are already well on board 
the reform bandwagon must not be asked to slow down.
  During this debate, I will seek to clarify that preexisting plans are 
eligible under the Goals 2000 legislation and, as long as they are 
broadbased, will generally be approved by the Secretary of Education. I 
would like to thank Senator Simpson and his staff for their assistance 
with this critical piece of Goals 2000.
  Just as parents need flexibility in working with the schools, so, 
too, must we foster that sense of flexibility in regard to the State-
Federal partnership. I am pleased, Mr. President, about the regulatory 
flexibility provisions included in this bill. I believe we all realize 
that as new Federal programs are added--categorical or not--to public 
law, and Federal funds are tied to these programs, we run an increasing 
risk of loading requirements on schools that inadvertently impede 
educational achievement.
  Programs we design here, with even the best input available, may not 
address the increasingly diverse educational needs of the students with 
which schools must contend. To force States, school districts, or even 
individual schools within the same district to jump through the same 
set of regulatory hoops can lead to the inefficient use of funds and a 
subsequent lack of progress. We must make sure that we provide 
sufficient flexibility to schools so that they may best identify and 
achieve the results of their program.
  I introduced legislation in March 1993 known as the Educational 
Flexibility Act, S. 525, which gives the Secretary of Education and 
heads of other Federal agencies the authority to waive inhibiting 
requirements. The Senate passed similar language as an amendment to 
America 2000 last Congress, by vote of 95 to 0, but the conference 
report on the bill never emerged. Since that time, Senator Kennedy, 
Kassebaum, and I requested that the General Accounting Office report to 
us on efforts of flexibility going on throughout the country.

  I am heartened that many of the provisions of S. 525 have been 
incorporated into this bill. Still there is much that can be done. In 
the coming years, we will be insisting that our educators swim in the 
uncharted and potentially stormy waters of reform. To require them to 
do so with the weight of unnecessary regulations on their backs is to 
invite failure or, at best, delay in attaining our goal of preparing 
children for the future. Today we are signaling schools all across this 
country that we believe in their abilities to define there own needs 
and create innovative solutions, and we will help them as much as 
possible.
  We are not going to attain the national education goals if we end up 
burying our teachers even deeper in paperwork that takes time away from 
their students. The only reform measures that will ultimately make any 
difference are those that result in positive changes in the classroom. 
We must not impede these changes.
  We must pay attention. Goals 2000 offers an opportunity to both the 
Federal Government and the States: The message is simply this: 
Education reform is encouraged. The state of the Union--our future--
will only be as bright as the intellectual glow that our parents, 
teachers, and schools can instill in the eyes of our children today. We 
must start with the root of our problems if we are to effect change in 
the larger society.

                               Exhibit 1

                                         U.S. Senate, Committee on


                                    Labor and Human Resources,

                                 Washington, DC, November 2, 1993.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mark: We appreciate your cooperation in working with 
     us on the new parent involvement education goal which will be 
     added to the Senate Goals 2000 bill. We share your views 
     about the importance of parental involvement in a child's 
     education and are committed to ensuring the inclusion of this 
     goal in the final conference bill.
           Sincerely,
     Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
       U.S. Senator.
     Edward M. Kennedy,
       U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                               U.S. General Accounting Office,

                                 Washington, DC, November 3, 1993.
     Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate.
       Dear Senator Hatfield: In order to raise the performance of 
     all of the nation's students, the Congress is considering 
     education reform legislation. The approach it is considering, 
     called systemic reform, involves all levels on the education 
     system--national, state, district, and school--and sets high 
     standards of achievement for all students.\1\ A key part of 
     such reform is providing freedom from regulations\2\ that, 
     according to experts, can constrain school improvement 
     efforts. Under systemic reform, this regulatory flexibility 
     would be given to schools in exchange for increasing 
     accountability for student achievement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This letter responds to your request for preliminary 
     findings from our ongoing study of states' regulatory 
     flexibility efforts. You asked for these findings to assist 
     you in considering the Goals 2000: Educate America Act,\3\ 
     which would provide grants to states for systemic reform 
     efforts and includes a number of provisions for increasing 
     flexibility in federal education programs.
       As part of our study, we visited three states,\4\ selected 
     because they (1) were involved in statewide education reform 
     efforts, (2) had provided flexibility to schools with respect 
     to their state regulations, and (3) had included students 
     with special needs in their efforts to provide more 
     regulatory flexibility to schools. Special needs students are 
     those who need special assistance to improve their 
     achievement, such as students who are disadvantaged,\5\ have 
     limited proficiency in English, or have disabilities.\6\ We 
     reviewed each state's improvement efforts and interviewed 
     state, district, and school officials in the three states. We 
     also met with federal education officials and reviewed 
     studies of systemic reform and state regulatory flexibility 
     efforts.
       The regulatory flexibility efforts of the three states we 
     visited varied.
       One state had three programs that provided flexibility: two 
     demonstration programs for a limited number of schools and 
     one program for all schools that receive funds for students 
     with special needs. In the first program, schools applied to 
     the state for grants; waivers of state regulations could be 
     requested as part of schools' plans to improve. In the 
     second, schools submitted applications that detailed their 
     improvement plans and, upon approval, were then exempted from 
     most state education regulations. The third program allowed 
     schools the flexibility to combine funds for students with 
     special needs in order to better coordinate services for 
     these students.
       The second state had two programs: one that provided 
     regulatory flexibility as a reward to schools whose students 
     had high performance on state achievement tests, and a 
     demonstration program in which a small number of schools were 
     given flexibility over many state regulations in order to 
     give them the freedom to develop new instructional techniques 
     and assessment systems.
       The third state completely revised its education system by 
     eliminating many procedural requirements for all schools, 
     such as the prescribed minimum number of daily minutes of 
     instruction, in return for evidence of improved student 
     achievement.
       Finally, all three states allowed most schools to request 
     waivers of state regulations on a case-by-case basis, whether 
     or not these schools participated in the states' other 
     regulatory flexibility efforts.
       You asked us four specific questions on school reform, 
     which we address as follows:
       1. How have schools used regulatory flexibility in their 
     school improvement efforts?
       School improvement efforts that used regulatory flexibility 
     provided by the states fell into two general categories: 
     innovative classroom structures and integrated instructional 
     models. Innovative classroom structures included (1) 
     combining students into multigrade groups so that teachers 
     could address the needs of students based on their 
     developmental needs rather than their ages and (2) 
     restructuring the school day to allow schools to schedule 
     longer blocks of time in order to cover subject areas in 
     greater depth and allow teachers more time for planning. 
     Integrated instructional models combined more than one 
     subject into thematic units and included some units taught by 
     teams of teachers. For example, one school integrated 
     different subjects--reading, art, science, and math--into a 
     unit on weather.
       To enable schools to try these innovative structures and 
     integrated instructional models, states provided many 
     different kinds of regulatory flexibility. For example, 
     states provided flexibility by (1) waiving regulations 
     relating to class structure, such as the length of the school 
     day and class size restrictions; (2) allowing teachers to 
     teach subjects for which they were not specifically 
     credentialed, such as allowing a mathematics teacher, as part 
     of a team, to teach a thematic unit on social studies; (3) 
     allowing funds to be combined, such as one state that allowed 
     schools to combine most of their funds for students with 
     special needs in order to encourage teachers and 
     administrators to work together in planning programs for 
     these students; and (4) allowing teachers to include 
     students in special programs based on their evaluations of 
     students' needs rather than solely on test results or 
     outside evaluations, such as allowing students whose 
     scores on a reading test were just above the program's 
     cut-off score to be included in a reading program for 
     disadvantaged students.
       Many schools, however, chose not to use the regulatory 
     flexibility that was available to them. In all three states, 
     schools were permitted to request waivers from state 
     regulations on a case-by-case basis, but the states received 
     few requests. In one state, about 20 percent of the schools 
     were granted flexibility in return for good performance on 
     standardized tests\7\ however, according to district 
     officials, about half of the schools granted flexibility had 
     not used it to attempt improvement.
       Several factors appeared to contribute to whether or not 
     schools took advantage of regulatory flexibility to attempt 
     improvement. Schools that developed plans for improvement as 
     part of a planning process requested many waivers from 
     regulations in several districts we visited. Schools that had 
     not developed plans for improvement may not yet have done 
     enough work to know which regulations were barriers to what 
     they wanted to do, according to state officials. Many schools 
     had been recently required to prepare school improvement 
     plans and, as a result, state officials expected to receive 
     more requests for waivers.
       The availability of technical assistance also seemed to 
     make a difference in whether schools took advantage of 
     regulatory flexibility to attempt improvement. Technical 
     assistance included (1) providing examples of innovations, 
     (2) establishing networks of schools involved in reform, and 
     (3) providing schools with information on organizations 
     working on education reform. This assistance, however, was 
     not available to all schools. Although all three states had 
     established centers to assist schools in their improvement 
     efforts, not all schools that requested assistance received 
     it, because funds were limited.
       Finally, incentives, and the lack of them, in the designs 
     of the states' programs appeared to affect schools' 
     participation and their willingness to attempt improvement. 
     For example, one state provided an incentive to schools to 
     attempt improvement by giving grants to schools that 
     participated in its demonstration program. In another state, 
     the program that rewarded schools with flexibility for good 
     performance did not provide an incentive for some schools to 
     improve because school officials felt that their programs 
     were already good enough since they had been designated high-
     performing. In addition, when flexibility was provided on a 
     temporary basis, some school officials were reluctant to make 
     changes that might later be rescinded. For example, if a 
     school decided to increase its class sizes beyond the state 
     requirement and hire more student aides for these larger 
     classes, the school would have to replace some of the aides 
     with state-credentialed teachers if the school lost its 
     eligibility in the program.
       2. What kinds of accountability systems have states 
     established to accompany regulatory flexibility?
       Providing accountability for student achievement in return 
     for regulatory flexibility is a key element of systemic 
     reform. None of the three states, however, had fully 
     implemented an accountability system that allowed it to both 
     (1) measure the effects of schools' improvements efforts on 
     student achievement and (2) provide consequences to schools: 
     rewards to schools that improve student achievement and 
     assistance to schools that fail to improve. All three states 
     had accountability systems that included statewide student 
     assessments. All three were also developing new assessment 
     systems that would better link assessment to high standards 
     of achievement, although none of them had completed the task. 
     Only one of the states, however, had developed an 
     accountability system with consequences for all schools, and 
     it had not yet been fully implemented. Another state had not 
     yet included consequences as a part of its accountability 
     system. The third state rewarded schools that had met the 
     program's definition of high achievement by providing the 
     schools with flexibility, but, by design, low-performing 
     schools were not included in the program.
       3. How are special needs students affected by states' 
     regulatory flexibility efforts?
       To varying degrees, all three states provided regulatory 
     flexibility in their programs for students with 
     special needs. All three allowed flexibility in their 
     programs for disadvantaged students. For example, in one 
     state, requirements for minimum number of minutes of 
     instruction for all students, including disadvantaged 
     students, were waived in all high-performing schools.
       Two of the states allowed flexibility in their programs for 
     students with disabilities. In one state, for example, funds 
     for students with disabilities were combined with general 
     funds so that schools could more easily educate all students 
     in regular classrooms. According to district officials, this 
     allowed students with disabilities to be included in the 
     state's new primary program, which combined children from 
     kindergarten through third grade into multigrade classes. 
     State and district officials reported that it was difficult 
     to include programs for students with disabilities in their 
     state regulatory flexibility efforts because of the 
     complexity of special education requirements and the concerns 
     of parents of these students.
       All three of the states were struggling with how to provide 
     better accountability for the achievement of students with 
     special needs. All of the states used their assessments to 
     measure the achievement of disadvantaged students. One state, 
     however, had not adapted its assessment for the state's large 
     population of students with limited English proficiency. In 
     addition, one state allowed schools to exempt many students 
     with disabilities from its new assessment system because 
     procedures had not yet been established for making the 
     assessments accessible to these students. Another state had 
     not made it possible for most students with severe 
     disabilities to be assessed.
       Two of the states were also working on how to separate the 
     assessment scores of special needs students from total 
     student scores in order to determine how well schools were 
     meeting the needs of these students. For example, officials 
     in one state were concerned that special needs students at 
     high-performing schools might not be achieving as well as 
     other students. The needs of these students could potentially 
     be overlooked because (1) the state did not require that 
     assessment scores for these students be reported separately--
     only total student achievement was tracked--and (2) no on-
     site monitoring of schools in the flexibility program was 
     required. In the one state that assessed all students, 
     including those with disabilities, state officials had not 
     yet decided how to separate out the data for reporting the 
     progress of some categories of its students with special 
     needs.
       4. What are the lessons from our preliminary findings for 
     the Congress as it considers the Goals 2000: Educate America 
     Act?
       As the Congress considers the Goals 2000: Educate America 
     Act, the preliminary findings from our study of states' 
     experiences in granting schools more regulatory flexibility 
     provide some lessons. If the Congress intends flexibility to 
     be used to improve schools, then our results suggest that it 
     should be only one part of congressional efforts to improve 
     student achievement. Although regulatory flexibility can 
     contribute to school improvement, flexibility alone does not 
     always encourage schools to improve. Other state actions, 
     such as providing technical assistance and encouraging 
     schools and districts to develop plans for improvement, can 
     help schools identify approaches for improvement and when 
     flexibility is needed to implement them. Thus, our 
     preliminary findings suggest that federal legislation link 
     flexibility to other specific efforts to help schools plan 
     improvements, as Goals 2000 does.
       Our preliminary findings, and a recent GAO report on 
     systemwide reform,\8\ also indicate that reform efforts 
     require schools to make a major investment of time and 
     resources. Thus, schools may not take advantage of 
     flexibility that is granted for a limited period of time. The 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act allows states to apply for 
     waivers from federal requirements for, initially, a maximum 
     of 3 years in the approved House bill and 5 years in the 
     proposed Senate bill. The Congress will need to consider 
     whether the time limit proposed for waivers from federal 
     requirements in Goals 2000 is long enough to (1) encourage 
     schools, districts, and states to invest in major reforms and 
     (2) implement the reforms. In addition, the Congress should 
     consider the potential impact that the renewal process for 
     waivers--including the kinds of evidence of improvement that 
     will be requested by the Secretary of Education--will have on 
     districts' and states' willingness to request waivers.
       Goals 2000 recognizes the importance of accountability in 
     its provisions for states to develop and implement assessment 
     systems. Our preliminary findings suggest, however, that 
     states are not yet able to determine the effects of 
     regulatory flexibility on the achievement of many students 
     with special needs. If the Congress intends that 
     regulatory flexibility apply to students with special 
     needs, then school districts and states will need to 
     include these students in their assessment systems, as 
     provided for in Goals 2000. The Congress may need to 
     clarify, however, that the achievement of these students 
     be monitored separately.
       We are also sending this letter to the Chairman and Ranking 
     Minority Member, Senate Committee on Labor and Human 
     Resources.
       We are continuing work on our study; our forthcoming report 
     will contain more detailed descriptions of regulatory 
     flexibility efforts in the three states we visited. If you 
     have any questions or need additional information, please 
     call me at (202) 512-7014 or Beatrice F. Birman at (202) 512-
     7008.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   Linda G. Morra,
                        Director, Education and Employment Issues.


                               footnotes

     \1\For a discussion of this approach, see Marshall S. Smith 
     and Jennifer O'Day, ``Systemic School Reform,'' Politics of 
     Education Association Yearbook 1990, pp. 233-267. See also 
     Systemwide Education Reform: Federal Leadership Could 
     Facilitate District-Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr. 30, 
     1993).
     \2\The term ``regulation'' refers to a variety of 
     governmental policies, including, but not limited to, 
     regulations. It also refers to statutes, guidelines, rules, 
     policies, and interpretations of these items by local 
     educators and policymakers.
     \3\The Goals 2000: Educate America Act refers to titles I-IV 
     of S. 1150, which is currently being considered in the 
     Senate, and H.R. 1804, which was passed by the House of 
     Representatives on October 13, 1993.
     \4\The states will be identified in the final report.
     \5\The three states we studied defined disadvantaged students 
     as those who were poor, had low achievement on state-required 
     tests, or both.
     \6\The majority of students with disabilities are identified 
     as having specific learning disabilities, speech or language 
     impairments, mental retardation, or serious emotional 
     disturbance.
     \7\Although other factors were considered, such as attendance 
     and dropout rates, the formula used to determine which 
     schools were high performing was heavily weighted towards the 
     results of a standardized test given to most students in the 
     state.
     \8\GAO/HRD-93-97, April 30, 1993.

  Now, I would like to direct a few questions to my friend and 
colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts. It is my understanding that 
to receive funds under title III of S. 1150 a State must develop or 
have already developed a school improvement plan. Is this correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, my colleague from Oregon is correct. Funds will be 
available during the first year to assist States that wish to develop 
plans for systemic education improvement. In subsequent years the funds 
might be used to complete a State's plan or to implement the plan 
already developed if the application meets the prescribed criteria.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator, for this now gets to the heart of 
my concern. My State of Oregon has already developed an outstanding 
statewide educational improvement plan which I believe meets the aims 
of Goals 2000. There are other States in similar situations. Will a 
State that has developed a plan to restructure its educational system 
prior to the enactment of this bill, need to develop a new plan in 
order to receive funds under this act?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Oregon for recognizing the need 
to clarify this important point. If a State has already enacted a 
school reform plan and elects to submit the proposal in order to 
receive funding for its implementation, the Secretary may approve that 
plan even if it was not developed in accordance with the exact 
provisions of this bill.
  The Senator from Oregon and I have worked together on many important 
education issues in the past, and I am sure we are in agreement that 
the purpose of the bill is to assist State and local efforts not to 
force States to engage in superfluous effort. This bill specifically 
states that ``Federal funds should be targeted to support State and 
local initiatives and to leverage State and local resources for 
designing and implementing systemwide education improvement plans.'' 
Preexisting plans will be certified by the Secretary when they are 
based upon broad-based input from educators and policymakers and if 
they address the broad issues outlined in the bill.
  Mr. HATFIELD. In Oregon, our plan was developed by the State 
legislature. Other States have gone through similar processes sometimes 
pursuant to a court order. In some States, State boards of education 
working through powers delegated by legislators have also implemented 
reform efforts. If a State developed a plan through such processes, am 
I correct in my interpretation that such a plan would be considered to 
be developed with ``broad-based input'' as stated in this bill? Is it 
intended that legislatively enacted plans would usually be acceptable 
to the Secretary?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If a plan is comprehensive, systemic, and directed 
toward helping all students meet challenging standards, it will be 
acceptable. In any case, States that have taken the initiative in 
formulating a viable plan and, in some cases have the implementation 
procedures underway ought to be complimented and encouraged and in no 
way penalized for their leadership.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I am in complete 
agreement with recognizing the actions taken by States such as Oregon 
as adequate for purposes of Goals 2000 educational reform plans.


                           amendment no. 1377

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to return now to the 
amendment that I am proposing.
  I am pleased to offer an amendment today on behalf of myself and my 
colleagues, Senators Durenberger, Pell, Jeffords, and Graham of 
Florida, which builds on the education flexibility provisions already 
included in Goals 2000. We are proposing the Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act to offer six states an enhanced arrangement in which to 
try regulatory flexibility.
  Senator Durenberger and I have been working together, with the 
assistance of the committee, to insure that the provisions in Goals 
2000 will be of the most possible assistance to States as they embark 
upon systemic education reform efforts. In that vein, we have worked to 
guarantee that schools that do not receive funding under Goals 2000 are 
still eligible for waivers of Federal regulation. We have also improved 
the accountability provisions in the bill since that is the essence of 
the trade-off between the States and the Federal Government--we will 
release the Federal straightjacket in exchange for careful 
accountability of the results of such waivers.
  Under Goals 2000, states apply directly to the Federal Secretary of 
Education for waivers of regulations. Waivers are limited to a specific 
list of programs--Chapter 1, Chapter 2, the Eisenhower Math and Science 
Education Act, the Emergency Immigrant Education Act, Drug-free 
Schools, and the Carl Perkins Vocational Act, and will not be granted 
if they relate to the health and safety of our children. In addition, 
Federal funds must continue to be used to meet the aims of the programs 
under which they were allocated to the States. While I believe this is 
an adequate arrangement, I am hopeful that my amendment will allow us 
to explore another possible route for the granting of education 
flexibility.
  The amendment I am offering today requires the Secretary of Education 
to establish a demonstration program for six States, which will be 
known as Ed-Flex Partnership States. Rather than the Secretary of 
Education making the decisions on waiver applications, this 
demonstration will allow the Secretary to negotiate an arrangement with 
six States in which, within certain limitations, the State itself can 
grant waivers. The effect will be to streamline the granting of 
regulatory waivers.
  In order to quality for this demonstration, a State must have an 
approved Goals 2000 improvement plan and must demonstrate a major 
commitment to waiving State statutory and regulatory requirements. As 
we all know, many of the truly onerous regulations originate at the 
State level. This demonstration is designed to support the efforts of 
States like Oregon, Florida and others which are already waiving State 
regulations, by adding a Federal waiver tool to their arsenal.
  The rationale behind this amendment comes from a report I 
commissioned from the Government Accounting Office last year. The 
report tells us that waivers of regulation make the most sense when 
they are done in concert at the local, State, and Federal level. 
Allowing the State the ability to make these decisions, pursuant to 
their agreement with the Secretary, will enhance the innovation and 
creativity we hope and expect will arise under the education 
flexibility program. By no means, however, are we giving the states 
free rein. The Secretary will have full authority to monitor the 
demonstration States and, after notice and appeal, terminate the 
authority if necessary. As this is a true demonstration in which we 
hope to establish a database on which to move forward, we are 
specifying that three of six States selected have populations below 3.5 
million and three have populations above, based on census data.
  At this point, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an 
opinion by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research 
Service which affirms that this concept is a proper delegation of 
authority to State educational agencies as long as guidance is given to 
them to use in granting waivers.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Congressional Research Service,


                                      The Library of Congress,

                                Washington, DC, November 18, 1993.
     To: Hon. Mark Hatfield; Attention: Sue Hildick.
     From: American Law Division.
     Subject: Delegation of Regulatory Waiver Authority to State 
         Educational Agencies Under S. 1150.

       This is in response to your request for an opinion on the 
     validity of a proposed amendment to S. 1150--the Goals 2000: 
     Educate America Act. Specifically you inquired as to whether 
     amending section 311 of the bill to allow regulatory waiver 
     determinations to be made by the state educational agency 
     rather than the Secretary of Education would constitute a 
     valid delegation of legislative authority. Upon examination 
     of the proposed amendment and relevant judicial precedent, it 
     appears that the provision would properly delegate authority 
     to state educational agencies, if language were included to 
     provide guidance to the state in making waiver 
     determinations.


    regulatory flexibility under s. 1150 and the proposed amendment

       Section 311 of the bill establishes a process by which 
     states and local school districts may seek waiver of various 
     Federal statutory and regulatory requirements in order to 
     facilitate the implementation of the state or local education 
     reform plan mandated under Title III. Under the provision, 
     the state educational agency, on behalf of itself, a local 
     educational agency (LEA) or an individual school may apply to 
     the Secretary of Education for waiver for the statutory and 
     regulatory requirements set out under the statutes enumerated 
     in the bill. The Secretary may grant the waiver upon a 
     finding that the requirement ``impedes the ability of the 
     state, . . . local agency or school, to carry out the [s]tate 
     or local improvement plan.'' In addition, the state 
     educational agency must waive or agree to waive similar state 
     requirements.
       Essentially, Senator Hatfield's proposal would amend 
     section 311 to authorize the state educational agency to 
     grant regulatory waiver requests made by local school 
     districts and individual schools, pursuant to an 
     ``educational flexibility'' plan approved by the Secretary. 
     Under the plan, the state would be required to outline the 
     process to be used in evaluating LEA waiver requests. Upon 
     approval of the plan, the state educational agency would be 
     required to transmit a list of the approved LEA applications 
     to the Secretary; conduct an annual audit of the approved 
     plans and include the results of the audit as part of an 
     annual report to the Secretary.


     delegation of waiver authority to the state educational agency

       The proposed amendment to section 311 does not appear to 
     raise serious constitutional delegation concerns as the 
     Supreme Court has consistently upheld legislative delegations 
     of authority where the legislation provides some 
     ``intelligible principle'' to which the recipient of the 
     delegation is to conform.\1\ Moreover, the required 
     ``principle'' apparently need not be narrow or detailed as 
     the Court has upheld congressional delegations containing the 
     broadest of legislative direction, including provisions 
     authorizing a Federal agency to fix ``fair and equitable'' 
     commodities prices\2\; the Federal Power Act which authorized 
     the Federal Power Commission to determine ``just and 
     reasonable'' rates\3\ and provisions within the 
     Communications Act of 1934 directing the Federal 
     Communications Commission to regulate broadcast licensing 
     ``in the public interest''.\4\
     Footnotes at the end of article.
       Thus, Congress' delegation of authority to waive statutory 
     and regulatory requirements under S. 1150, as amended by 
     Senator Hatfield's proposal, would be generally supported by 
     long standing Supreme Court precedent on the issue. However, 
     it would be advisable to include within the proposed 
     amendment some standard by which the state educational agency 
     would be guided in making its decision to grant LEA waiver 
     requests. For example, the language presently included in 
     section 311 that requires a finding that the particular 
     Federal requirement would ``impede the ability of the state, 
     . . . [LEA] or school . . . to carry out the state or local 
     improvement plan'' would appear a sufficiently ``intelligible 
     principle'' to withstand a challenge to the delegation.
       Just as Congress' ability to delegate its legislative 
     authority has been generally upheld, sufficient precedent can 
     be found to support such delegations to state, local and even 
     private entities to enforce and execute Federal law. For 
     example, in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins\5\, the 
     Court upheld provisions within the Bituminous Coal Act of 
     1937 which authorized the organization of coal producers 
     under the Bituminous Coal Code to fix minimum prices for code 
     members in accordance with stated standards. Prices set by 
     the Code were subject to approval by the National Bituminous 
     Coal Commission, the Federal agency responsible for 
     administering the act. In upholding the statute, the Court 
     noted that the Commission exercised the ultimate authority 
     to determine the prices and maintained ``authority and 
     surveillance over the activities of [the 
     organization].''\6\
       More recently provisions within the Beef Promotion and 
     Research Act, delegating authority to a private body, have 
     been similarly upheld where supervisory authority was vested 
     in a governmental agency. That act establishes a Cattlemen's 
     Beef Promotion and Research Board, composed of cattle 
     producers and importers, which is authorized to ``develop 
     plans or projects of promotion and advertising, research, 
     consumer information, and industry information * * *''\7\ 
     Assessments are imposed on cattle producers which are 
     remitted to the Board to implement the program. The program 
     was ultimately upheld in U.S. v. Frame\8\, where the court 
     found significant the fact that the Secretary of Agriculture 
     was authorized under the act to exercise considerable 
     supervision over the composition and operations of the Board. 
     Specifically, the Secretary selected members of the Board 
     from lists of nominations submitted by producers and 
     importers throughout the country. In addition, the Secretary 
     had approval authority with respect to the Board's budgets, 
     plans or projects, expenditures and contracting 
     activities.\9\
       Applying the line of reasoning set out in these decisions, 
     it appears that an amendment delegating waiver authority to 
     the state educational agencies would withstand judicial 
     scrutiny. Similar to the provisions upheld in Adkins and 
     Frame, the bill would provide the Secretary of Education with 
     significant supervisory authority over the state educational 
     agency in the conduct of its regulatory relief program under 
     section 311, as proposed to be amended, the state educational 
     agency would be required to annually submit, for secretarial 
     review, the results of the performance audits required under 
     the bill. Most significant, subsection (d) authorizes the 
     Secretary to terminate a regulatory waiver, upon a finding 
     that the performance of the waiver recipient has been 
     ``inadequate to justify the continuation of the waiver.''
       Moreover, numerous legislative precedent can be found in 
     which Congress has sought to delegate authority to implement 
     Federal law to the states. For example, the Medical Waste 
     Tracking Act of 1988 authorized the states to impose civil 
     and criminal penalties for violations of the Act ``to the 
     same extent as the Administrator'' of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency.\10\ In addition, many Federal consumer 
     protection statutes contain provisions delegating 
     administrative and enforcement authority to the states, 
     including the Water Pollution Prevention and Control (Clean 
     Water) Act\11\; the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1990\12\, 
     the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990\13\; and the 
     Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.\14\
                                                  Kevin B. Greely,
                                             Legislative Attorney.


                               footnotes

     \1\See J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 
     394, 409 (1928); see also Touby v. United States, 111 S.Ct. 
     1752 (1991); Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989).
     \2\Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742 (1948).
     \3\Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S. 
     591 (1944).
     \4\National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 
     190 (1943).
     \5\310 U.S. 381 (1940).
     \6\Id. at 399.
     \7\See generally 7 U.S.C. 2901-2911.
     \8\885 F.2d 1119 (3rd Cir. 1989).
     \9\Id. at 1128-1129. See also Nobelcraft Industries v. 
     Secretary of Labor, 614 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1980)(Upholding 
     provision in the Occupational Safety and Health Act directing 
     the Secretary of Labor to adopt interim standards, in 
     particular areas, adopted by private standards producing 
     organizations); Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188 
     (1982)(Upholding provision in Part B of the Social Security 
     Act authorizing the use of hearing officers appointed by 
     private carriers to adjudicate Medicare claims).
     \10\See Pub. L. 100-582.
     \11\33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342.
     \12\See Pub. L. 101-608.
     \13\Pub. L. 101-535.
     \14\47 U.S.C. Sec. 227.

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have done so by indicating that 
States should not approve waivers for local education agencies or 
schools unless a reform plan is in place and the waiver will assist the 
LEA or school in reaching its educational goals.
  Mr. President, my colleagues may recall that when we last considered 
legislation like Goals 2000, it was called America 2000 and it was 
proposed by President Bush. The legislation ultimately passed the 
Senate and attached to it was my amendment which provided for an 
original ed-flex demonstration in six States--that was the highpoint in 
negotiations at that time which was 2 years ago. The amendment passed 
95 to 0 on a rollcall vote here in the Senate.
  Today, the Goals 2000 legislation has broad authority for ed-flex for 
our schools, but still under the same onus of coming to Washington for 
an answer. The amendment I am offering is leap years ahead of where we 
were with America 2000--while it is still a demonstration for six 
States it is an effort by the Federal Government to truly partner with 
the States and allow them the maximum latitude to reform their schools, 
at their level.
  I would like to thank Senators Pell, Jeffords, Kennedy, and Kassebaum 
for their support and assistance with this amendment. In addition, the 
Department of Education has been a partner with me in designing this 
amendment and I would like to particularly thank Mike Cohen of 
Secretary Riley's staff for his assistance.
  At this time, I have completed my opening statement. I see one of my 
cosponsors, my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. President, I ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise, together with my 
distinguished colleagues from Oregon, Rhode Island, and Florida to 
offer the Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act 
amendment.
  My colleague from Oregon has already done an outstanding job in 
explaining the amendment. I would just like to add some relativity to 
the amendment and express also my appreciation to the members of the 
Labor and Human Resources Committee, with whom I enjoy company, and 
their staffs for their assistance with this amendment as well.
  This amendment is completely consistent with the mission of Goals 
2000--to reform public education in America through real system reform.
  The ed-flex demonstration supports bottom-up reform. Its purpose is 
to encourage and assist States, school districts, and schools in their 
reform efforts by allowing States to grant waivers of both Federal and 
State statutory and regulatory requirements that now present barriers 
to education restructuring and reform.
  Mr. President, educational leaders in Minnesota have told me that the 
flexibility offered by this amendment is just what States that are on 
the cutting edge of reform both want and need.
  Minnesota has already done a great deal on its own to reduce the 
volume of input oriented top down State regulation in education and 
shift the focus of accountability to results--to what students actually 
learn.
  More than 75 school districts in Minnesota--including Rochester and 
North Branch--have been given broad waivers from State rules and 
regulations by the State board of education, making it possible to 
introduce important innovations in schools all across the State.
  Minnesota's charter schools law also offers the opportunity for 
individual schools to operate free from most rules and regulations in 
exchange for a contract with their school districts that holds each 
school accountable for improved learner outcomes.
  The 1993 Minnesota Legislature approved a proposal that repeals 
literally hundreds of outdated and cumbersome rules and regulations 
that have little or nothing to do with what students need to know to 
get a good job or to be successful in life.
  And, finally, the Minnesota Department of Education is now engaged in 
a major initiative designed to totally refocus accountability for 
schools in Minnesota away from hours and days and years in the 
classroom--toward promoting and graduating students on the basis of 
what they actually learn.
  This amendment will further assist States like Minnesota that want to 
get out from under the burden of Federal rules and regulations that 
focus on these top down inputs--the outdated, outmoded, unreliable 
rules--and that--far too often--get in the way of the changes that 
teachers and principals know would do well for students.
  Mr. President, last year Senators Hatfield, Kennedy and Kassebaum 
commissioned an ongoing study done by the General Accounting Office 
which provides a sound rationale for the ed-flex amendment that my 
colleagues and I are offering. I believe that report has been put in 
the Record by my colleague from Oregon.
  The report says that in order to raise the performance of all of the 
Nation's students, education reform must ``involve all levels of the 
education system--national, State, district, and school--and set high 
standards of achievement for all students.''
  A key part of this kind of comprehensive reform is providing freedom 
from regulations that get in the way of what teachers and parents and 
others at the local level know needs to be done to change the way we 
teach and learn.
  ``Under systemic reform,'' the GAO study concluded, ``this regulatory 
flexibility would be given to schools in exchange for increasing 
accountability for student achievement.''
  Under this amendment, Mr. President, six States will be allowed to 
participate in the ed-flex demonstration. Three must have a population 
of over 3.5 million people and three States below that level.
  My own State of Minnesota has expressed strong interest in 
participating in this demonstration. And, our State's Commissioner of 
Education Linda Powell has informed me that her department is strongly 
supportive of the opportunities this amendment would provide.
  In a recent letter, Commissioner Powell told me:

       We believe that this (amendment) recognizes that the states 
     have individual differences and that, while Congress clearly 
     has the responsibility to set the policy for the nation, 
     because of the unique needs and state direction, the states 
     should be able to operate programs as they see fit as long as 
     they are meeting the policies set by Congress in the Act.
       States also need to accept the responsibility to be held 
     accountable for meeting those statutory policies.

  Commissioner Powell also said:

       Minnesota recognizes that all learners can achieve and be 
     successful. We also believe that we need to concentrate on 
     the results of learning and not as much on the administrative 
     processes.

  Mr. President, this amendment will help teachers, principals and 
students in States like Minnesota accelerate their education reform 
efforts. It will allow States to test new forms of accountability 
needed to meet the high standards that Goals 2000 will now place in 
law.
  I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to lend 
their support, as well.
  Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. 
Jeffords] is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will speak briefly.
  I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. I 
think it is an excellent one. He has been an outspoken proponent of 
regulatory flexibility and I am certainly glad to add my name as a 
cosponsor.
  My colleagues may remember that this amendment, or one similar to it, 
was passed when we were on a similar bill sometime ago. Let us just 
hope that this time it will get enacted into law.
  The amendment before us allows six States to be designated as ed-flex 
partnership States. These States would be given authority to waive 
specific Federal regulations within their State for local education.
  I think it is incredible, as we go forward, to fully understand that 
we have laid out for ourselves a schedule which will be very, very 
difficult to meet if we are to try to solve the problems of education 
by the year 2000. So we are going to need the most flexibility, at 
least in respect to allowing some States, through their own means, 
without the hindrance of regulation, to be able to establish programs 
and plans and curricula and whatever else they need in order to make 
sure that we have a chance at accomplishing the goals which we have set 
out.
  So I am very pleased to be a cosponsor and look forward to supporting 
this amendment in conference.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I too want to thank our colleagues for 
their initiatives and their strong commitment toward this kind of 
flexibility.
  I think any one of us who has had a chance to talk to teachers and to 
school principals at the local levels has countless stories about their 
feelings that they could make an important difference, if only they 
were given additional degrees of flexibility.
  I think all of us are familiar with some of the challenges that we 
have faced in the past, where we did reduce the kinds of regulations, 
and some of the resources that we had were diverted to other purposes. 
The response to that was to put on other rules and other regulations. I 
think many of us believe that they form a straitjacket in local 
communities.
  This is a very reasonable approach which permits flexibility in the 
six States. We have included additional flexibility for other States, 
as well, in terms of the development of their program. We are going to 
encourage that kind of flexibility and keep a very careful eye on how 
the scarce resources are utilized. I think all of us are hopeful it 
will be successful and will be monitoring it closely to be sure those 
resources are actually utilized in the schools.
  There are some areas, obviously, particular commitments that we have 
in terms of some of the special needs and other rules, that will not be 
waived, that guarantee certain protections for individual students. But 
this is, I think, a very useful, important, and constructive idea. I 
think it should be agreed to by an overwhelming majority and I 
certainly urge all my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Senator Pell is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to support and cosponsor the 
amendment offered by Senator Hatfield. It would establish a 
demonstration program in six States to test the concept of regulatory 
flexibility.
  This is something we ought to do. Again and again, we hear concern 
from the State and local level about the constraints placed upon 
education agencies by onerous Federal regulations. The complaint is 
often accompanied by an expression of frustration that compliance with 
Federal regulations often hampers programs from serving children in the 
way the program was intended. Because of this, I am of the mind that we 
ought to test whether or not this is, indeed, the actual situation. The 
best way to do that is through a demonstration program of the nature 
proposed by the Senator from Oregon.
  There are three aspects of the proposed demonstration that are 
particularly noteworthy. First, it requires that the States meet the 
original purpose of the program for which they seek regulatory 
flexibility. This will ensure that the reason behind the program will 
not be lost, and that the intended services will continue to reach 
those for whom the program was designed.
  Second, the demonstration program requires that the State also look 
at State regulations. We often find that burdensome regulations are not 
solely a matter of Federal law; they also extend to State regulations. 
Therefore, as we move to provide greater regulatory flexibility at the 
Federal level, we should do the same at the State level.
  Third, the demonstration program requires a good mix of participants. 
It would include both large and small States. This is important in 
determining whether or not the flexibility is, in any way, tied to the 
size of the State. The adequacy of the demonstration program is very 
definitely enhanced by this provision.
  Mr. President, this is a good measure and I urge its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the amendment, No. 1377, occur at 11:25 today without intervening 
action. This has been cleared with the Republican manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe there are others who want to 
address this issue. As I mentioned before, I certainly hope there will 
be overwhelming support for this program. Not only did we accept this 
on our last education bill, but we were able to maintain it in the 
conference as well. We certainly hope we will be able to do so in this 
conference as well. The House does not have a comparable report.
  I know there are others who want to talk about either this issue or 
others before the time expires. I just wanted to follow up on my 
comments from earlier this morning about some of the aspects of this 
legislation, some of the experiences that have taken place in a number 
of schools in different parts of the country, and why we are very 
hopeful this legislation will have, really, a far-reaching impact in 
strengthening the academic achievement of young people in this country.
  I tried earlier today to describe in broader terms what our committee 
was about and what I think the administration, the Congress, and the 
Senate, in a bipartisan way, have been about in terms of the young 
people in this country.
  I would like to come back to one of the important--essential--aspects 
of this legislation, and that is the focus we give to the teachers in 
our schools. Last spring, I met with a group of some 20 outstanding 
teachers from Massachusetts. They had been selected from school systems 
all over our State. It was an extraordinary group of men and women 
gathered at Boston College just outside of Boston. We had a long, 
informal conversation. In reviewing this legislation, they absolutely 
convinced me that we were on the right track. The conversation helps to 
underscore why the Goals 2000 is right in its emphasis on teacher 
development. Goals 2000 would allow States to make grants to schools 
for this purpose. Here are some of the things that the teachers told 
me.
  The personal relationship between teacher and student is about 80 
percent of the equation in getting kids to succeed. They reminded both 
myself and others to think back about our own education. You probably 
do not remember a textbook or media lab or curriculum, but you do 
remember a teacher. I think that applies, really, to all of us. It is 
critical that we give the teacher only the number of students that he 
or she could get to know, and that would allow him or her to find the 
key to reaching each student.
   Later on, when I visited the school I mentioned, the Fenway High 
School College at Bunker Hill, just 10 days ago, it was very clear to 
me that this bond between the kids and the teacher was really what was 
motivating the kids to stay in school and work hard. I heard it time in 
and time out, from the kids as well as from the teachers and 
principals. A teacher told me that he started to call up students after 
they dropped out of school, and 7 times out of 10, the student's reason 
was, ``Nobody even knew I was there or cared if I stayed.'' I think 
this point is really an important one.
  The teacher obviously has to be well educated himself or herself to 
know and understand learning. The teachers I spoke with wanted time to 
study and learn themselves and not to be overwhelmed by too large 
classes and too much paperwork. That we heard time in and time out. One 
of the things we have seen and will continue to see is, when the 
teachers have some additional time, and when they are given some 
additional support, in terms of looking at different types of curricula 
and the opportunity to work together, they are enormously creative and 
imaginative in really reshaping the school itself. We have dozens of 
examples of that. During the course of the day, if we have the 
additional time--we want, obviously to move on to the amendments--but I 
will go into some detail on it. I think there are some enormously 
interesting stories.
  Teachers want to be able to collaborate more, but they cannot, 
because there is no time in the school day. They have too much 
paperwork. They want to be valued. They want to be respected. And they 
want access to things other professionals have, like telephones. One 
teacher said there was only one phone in her school for 41 teachers.
  Against this background, I might mention that we, all of us, are 
pleased with the latest interim report of the National Board For 
Professional Teaching Standards. They are making good progress and they 
support standards for teachers as well as for everyone else. That is 
really in harmony with what we are trying to do with the content 
standards and also the various kinds of evaluations.
  We also look at the teacher standards as well. We have the interim 
report. We are expecting a follow-on report as well, and that has been 
enormously impressive and it is a part of our whole effort.
  I see my colleague, the Senator from Montana. I will continue to give 
examples when time is available. I see my friend seeking recognition. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana 
[Mr. Burns].
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1822 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will continue with some examples that 
were taken in the State of Minnesota, the charter schools, and a couple 
of schools in Dade County. A number of efforts that they developed has 
been reported by Tom Toch in the U.S. News article.
  I had the opportunity to see these under Superintendent Fernandez, 
when he was the superintendent in Dade County. He has developed a whole 
program to promote teacher training and teachers' involvement. He 
reported that initially when they were hiring teachers, he had a choice 
of 1 out of 2 teachers to come down into the schools. When he finished 
the program, in terms of the teacher development, teacher support, and 
teacher training, he had the choice of 1 out of 7, and he was able to 
make a judgment and determination toward improving, in a very 
significant way, the quality of the teachers in the classroom, with all 
of the attendant implications in terms of students and parents.
  Once his program really developed, there was an increasing 
involvement of parents and, obviously, of the students. They 
participated in an experiment conducted by the teachers themselves, 
where both parents and students attended Saturday classes. It was made 
clear that participation was voluntary, and they thought that both 
parents and students would not want to come if the students had weak 
academic achievement. But instead, the classrooms were overcrowded. 
Students brought the parents and were, in many instances, eager to 
attend the schools with the active support of the parents, because of 
the programs they had. One program actually provided a sabbatical to 
teachers themselves, after they had been teachers in the system for 7 
or 8 years, giving them a period of time off so that they could upgrade 
their own skills, and upgrade other kinds of efforts in that school 
district which were very creative and innovative and applicable in that 
particular district.
  These were the kinds of initiatives which were very evident, and 
which I saw personally in Dade County. There are similar examples in 
the charter schools in Minnesota which have been reported.
  It is important to know that in my own city of Boston, only 62 
percent, or 62 cents out of every dollar that is expended on a young 
person, actually is spent on the classrooms, the students and the 
teachers. The rest is spent for administrative costs.
  Obviously, in terms of the reorganization structure, in terms of the 
classroom and schools, we are very hopeful that that percentage will 
change. It is about 60 percent, generally, nationwide.
  I think there are important opportunities within this legislation to 
try and see how there can be a stronger emphasis, with scarce 
resources, on using funds more effectively in terms of supporting the 
teachers and the classrooms.
  There is a great desire for setting up teacher training in 
classrooms; clinical schools where teachers are trained, just as 
doctors are trained in hospitals. Such training would energize the 
teachers who do the teaching, and really help new teachers and veteran 
teachers in the schools.
  I might say, just getting back to Dade County, that their teacher 
organizations conduct a mentor program with students in the Dade County 
system, to interest them in pursuing teaching careers. Teachers bring 
the students to their various meetings and develop programs to interest 
some of the ablest, brightest, and youngest students to pursue a career 
in teaching. This program has paid off in developing a number of very 
talented, bright, young students who are making an early decision to go 
into teaching. These teachers, obviously, are from the communities that 
these schools are serving. That kind of innovativeness had received 
increasing and broad support.
  One of the developments that we have seen at a number of different 
high schools is the stripping the curriculum of superficial and 
nonessential courses; the concept of ``less is more.'' Students take so 
many courses that they do not learn any really well. Too many courses 
are trivial. We need fewer, longer, more disciplined courses. This is 
the concept of Ted Sizer and the essential schools. A number of our 
major cities, including Boston, have those. It is an interesting, 
historical fact that at the time of the classics and the Renaissance, 
they generally only taught three courses, sometimes four courses 
including perhaps philosophy, language, and a basic science course. But 
there were only three or four courses at that time. In many instances 
now, we see such a diversity of courses that many of our young people 
do not have the opportunity to get that kind of focus and get that 
direction with good teachers to be able to really learn in the basic 
areas.
  This is something that we have seen in a number of the schools. In my 
city of Boston, they have reduced the number of courses, extended the 
period of time, and improved the whole learning process, because they 
now have more time. Less time is focused on the teacher just directing 
in front of the class, and more time is directed to encouraging a much 
greater involvement of the students, and that has made an important 
difference. It is certainly one of those systems that ought to be 
reviewed by teachers. It may be important for some; it may not work for 
others, but it is certainly something that has taken place around the 
country.
  Kentucky has pioneered a new kind of testing that is a sharp 
departure from the multiple choice tests virtually all schools use. 
These tests include projects that require students to put together what 
they have learned in several different classes to try to bring together 
the knowledge that is learned in each class. I have seen a number of 
classrooms where students, young students in the early grades, are 
beginning language training, and they are looking at the continents in 
geography, and then reading about the continents in French, 
continuously learning the words, and then learning about those 
continents in other classes, so that there is a tying-in of information 
that is educationally relevant to students at an early age. It has been 
interesting to see some of the impressive results that have developed 
from that process. But continued innovation such as this obviously 
becomes increasingly complex and difficult. Teachers need to have the 
time to be able to work through new concepts with other teachers. 
Perhaps in some grades it would work well, others it might not. But 
nonetheless, there are some innovative concepts that can work in a 
variety of different environments.
  I see, Mr. President, time has just about expired at this time, so I 
would suggest the absence of a quorum and indicate that we expect this 
vote now to commence in the next couple of minutes. We are very hopeful 
that other Senators who have amendments will come to the floor and 
indicate their willingness to debate these issues so we can move this 
whole process along.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts suggests the 
absence of a quorum. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1377 offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. 
Hatfield]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], 
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], and the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeConcini). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--3

     McCain
     Nickles
     Stevens
  So the amendment (No. 1377) was 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.


                           Amendment No. 1375

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is the 
amendment in the second degree No. 1375 offered by Mr. Kennedy of 
Massachusetts.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are making good progress, and I 
appreciate the cooperation.
  As to the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut that deals with 
the issue of violence in schools, I know he is prepared to offer that 
now. I think it is a very constructive amendment. It is a timely one 
because there have already been appropriations for this subject to 
authorization prior to early spring, and there was unanimous consent 
for that.
  Afterward, we will go, hopefully, to the Coats-Lieberman amendment at 
just about 1 o'clock. There is a 1-hour time limitation on that 
amendment, and Senator Grassley will follow that. We will try to work 
that out if we have time now. I know Senator Gregg has an amendment.
  We are glad to try to accommodate if we are able to move along the 
other amendments as well as in terms of time.
  We are beginning to move along. We will have Senator Helms' 
amendment, which is listed as four different amendments. We are 
prepared to deal with those as well.
  So we are making some good progress. We are grateful for the support.
  I think we will have a continued series of votes now periodically, 
and we hope that our Members will keep close so we do not have to delay 
voting on amendments and delay the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that the pending 
amendments must be set aside.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
existing amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1378

 (Purpose: To help local school systems achieve Goal 6 of the national 
education goals, which provides that by the year 2000, every school in 
America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined 
  environment conducive to learning, by ensuring that all schools are 
                       safe and free of violence)

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Pell, Senator Cochran, Senator Metzenbaum, 
Senator Simon, Senator Wofford, Senator Wellstone, Senator Mikulski, 
Senator Glenn, and Senator Lieberman, I send an amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, (Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Pell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Metzenbaum, 
     Mr. Simon, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Glenn, and Mr. Lieberman), proposes an amendment numbered 
     1378.

  Mr. DODD. 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 the bill, insert the following new title:
                        TITLE ____--SAFE SCHOOLS

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE; STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Safe 
     Schools Act of 1993''.
       (b) Statement of Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title 
     to help local school systems achieve Goal Six of the National 
     Education Goals, which provides that by the year 2000, every 
     school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will 
     offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning, by 
     ensuring that all schools are safe and free of violence.

     SEC. ____02. SAFE SCHOOLS PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--From funds appropriated pursuant to the 
     authority of subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall make 
     competitive grants to eligible local educational agencies to 
     enable such agencies to carry out projects and activities 
     designed to achieve Goal Six of the National Education Goals 
     by helping to ensure that all schools are safe and free of 
     violence.
       (2) Grant duration and amount.--Grants under this title may 
     not exceed--
       (A) two fiscal years in duration, except that the Secretary 
     shall not award any new grants in fiscal year 1996 but may 
     make payments pursuant to a 2-year grant which terminates in 
     such fiscal year; and
       (B) $3,000,000 in any fiscal year.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     $75,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, $100,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1995, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1996, to carry out this title.
       (2) Reservation.--The Secretary is authorized in each 
     fiscal year to reserve not more than 10 percent of the amount 
     appropriated pursuant to the authority of paragraph (1) to 
     carry out national leadership activities described in section 
     ____06, of which 50 percent of such amount shall be available 
     in such fiscal year to carry out the program described in 
     section ____06(b).

     SEC. ____03. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.

       (a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this title, a local educational agency shall demonstrate in 
     the application submitted pursuant to section ____04(a) that 
     such agency--
       (1) serves an area in which there is a high rate of--
       (A) homicides committed by persons between the ages 5 to 
     18, inclusive;
       (B) referrals of youth to juvenile court;
       (C) youth under the supervision of the courts;
       (D) expulsions and suspension of students from school;
       (E) referrals of youth, for disciplinary reasons, to 
     alternative schools; or
       (F) victimization of youth by violence, crime, or other 
     forms of abuse; and
       (2) has serious school crime, violence, and discipline 
     problems, as indicated by other appropriate data.
       (b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this title, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to a local educational agency 
     that--
       (1) receives assistance under section 1006 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 or meets the 
     criteria described in clauses (i) and (ii) of section 
     1006(a)(1)(A) of such Act; and
       (2) submits an application that assures a strong local 
     commitment to the projects or activities assisted under this 
     title, such as--
       (A) the formation of partnerships among the local 
     educational agency, a community-based organization, a 
     nonprofit organization with a demonstrated commitment to or 
     expertise in developing education programs or providing 
     educational services to students or the public, a local law 
     enforcement agency, or any combination thereof; and
       (B) a high level of youth participation in such projects or 
     activities.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purpose of this title--
       (1) the term ``local educational agency'' has the same 
     meaning given to such term in section 1471(12) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
       (2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education.

     SEC. ____04. APPLICATIONS AND PLANS.

       (a) Application.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     title, a local educational agency shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application that includes--
       (1) an assessment of the current violence and crime 
     problems in the schools and community to be served by the 
     grant;
       (2) an assurance that the applicant has written policies 
     regarding school safety, student discipline, and the 
     appropriate handling of violent or disruptive acts;
       (3) a description of the schools and communities to be 
     served by the grant, the projects and activities to be 
     carried out with grant funds, and how these projects and 
     activities will help to reduce the current violence and crime 
     problems in such schools and communities;
       (4) if the local educational agency receives funds under 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act, an explanation of how 
     projects and activities assisted under this title will be 
     coordinated with and support such agency's comprehensive 
     local improvement plan prepared under that Act;
       (5) the applicant's plan to establish school-level advisory 
     committees, which include faculty, parents, staff, and 
     students, for each school to be served by the grant and a 
     description of how each committee will assist in assessing 
     that school's violence and discipline problems as well as in 
     designing appropriate programs, policies, and practices to 
     address those problems;
       (6) the applicant's plan for collecting baseline and future 
     data, by individual schools, to monitor violence and 
     discipline problems and to measure such applicant's progress 
     in achieving the purpose of this title;
       (7) an assurance that grant funds under this title will be 
     used to supplement and not to supplant State and local funds 
     that would, in the absence of funds under this title, be made 
     available by the applicant for the purpose of this title;
       (8) an assurance that the applicant will cooperate with, 
     and provide assistance to, the Secretary in gathering 
     statistics and other data the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to assess the effectiveness of projects and 
     activities assisted under this title or the extent of school 
     violence and discipline problems throughout the Nation;
       (9) an assurance that the local educational agency has a 
     written policy that prohibits sexual contact between school 
     personnel and a student; and
       (10) such other information as the Secretary may require.
       (b) Plan.--In order to receive funds under this title for a 
     second year, a grantee shall submit to the Secretary a 
     comprehensive, long-term, school safety plan for reducing and 
     preventing school violence and discipline problems. Such plan 
     shall contain--
       (1) a description of how the grantee will coordinate its 
     school crime and violence prevention efforts with education, 
     law-enforcement, judicial, health, social service, and other 
     appropriate agencies and organizations serving the community; 
     and
       (2) in the case that the grantee receives funds under the 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act, an explanation of how the 
     grantee's comprehensive plan under this subsection is 
     consistent with and supports its comprehensive local 
     improvement plan prepared under that Act, if such explanation 
     differs from that provided in the grantee's application under 
     that Act.

     SEC. ____05. USE OF FUNDS.

       (a) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--A local educational agency shall use grant 
     funds received under this title for one or more of the 
     following activities:
       (A) Identifying and assessing school violence and 
     discipline problems, including coordinating needs assessment 
     activities and education, law-enforcement, judicial, health, 
     social service, and other appropriate agencies and 
     organizations.
       (B) Conducting school safety reviews or violence prevention 
     reviews of programs, policies, practices, and facilities to 
     determine what changes are needed to reduce or prevent 
     violence and promote safety and discipline.
       (C) Planning for comprehensive, long-term strategies for 
     addressing and preventing school violence and discipline 
     problems through the involvement and coordination of school 
     programs with other education, law-enforcement, judicial, 
     health, social service, and other appropriate agencies and 
     organizations.
       (D) Training school personnel in programs of demonstrated 
     effectiveness in addressing violence, including violence 
     prevention, conflict resolution, anger management, peer 
     mediation, and identification of high-risk youth.
       (E) Community education programs, including video- and 
     technology-based projects, informing parents, businesses, 
     local government, the media and other appropriate entities 
     about--
       (i) the local educational agency's plan to promote school 
     safety and reduce and prevent school violence and discipline 
     problems; and
       (ii) the need for community support.
       (F) Coordination of school-based activities designed to 
     promote school safety and reduce or prevent school violence 
     and discipline problems with related efforts of education, 
     law-enforcement, judicial, health, social service, and other 
     appropriate agencies and organizations.
       (G) Developing and implementing violence prevention 
     activities, including--
       (i) conflict resolution and social skills development for 
     students, teachers, aides, other school personnel, and 
     parents;
       (ii) disciplinary alternatives to expulsion and suspension 
     of students who exhibit violent or anti-social behavior;
       (iii) student-led activities such as peer mediation, peer 
     counseling, and student courts; or
       (iv) alternative after-school programs that provide safe 
     havens for students, which may include cultural, 
     recreational, and educational and instructional activities.
       (H) Educating students and parents regarding the dangers of 
     guns and other weapons and the consequences of their use.
       (I) Developing and implementing innovative curricula to 
     prevent violence in schools and training staff how to stop 
     disruptive or violent behavior if such behavior occurs.
       (J) Supporting ``safe zones of passage'' for students 
     between home and school through such measures as Drug- and 
     Weapon-Free School Zones, enhanced law enforcement, and 
     neighborhood patrols.
       (K) Counseling programs for victims and witnesses of school 
     violence and crime.
       (L) Minor remodeling to promote security and reduce the 
     risk of violence, such as removing lockers, installing better 
     lights, and upgrading locks.
       (M) Acquiring and installing metal detectors and hiring 
     security personnel.
       (N) Reimbursing law enforcement authorities for their 
     personnel who participate in school violence prevention 
     activities.
       (O) Evaluating projects and activities assisted under this 
     title.
       (P) The cost of administering projects or activities 
     assisted under this title.
       (Q) Other projects or activities that meet the purpose of 
     this title.
       (2) Limitation.--A local educational agency may use not 
     more than--
       (A) a total of 10 percent of grant funds received under 
     this title in each fiscal year for activities described in 
     subparagraphs (J), (L), (M), and (N) of paragraph (1); and
       (B) 5 percent of grant funds received under this title in 
     each fiscal year for activities described in subparagraph (P) 
     of paragraph (1).
       (3) Prohibition.--A local educational agency may not use 
     grant funds received under this title for construction.

     SEC. ____06. NATIONAL LEADERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--To carry out the purpose of this title, 
     the Secretary is authorized to use funds reserved under 
     section ____02(b)(2) to conduct national leadership 
     activities such as research, program development and 
     evaluation, data collection, public awareness activities, 
     training and technical assistance, dissemination (through 
     appropriate research entities assisted by the Department of 
     Education) of information on successful projects, activities, 
     and strategies developed pursuant to this title, and peer 
     review of applications under this title. The Secretary may 
     carry out such activities directly, through interagency 
     agreements, or through grants, contracts or cooperative 
     agreements.
       (b) National Model City.--The Secretary shall designate the 
     District of Columbia as a national model city and shall 
     provide funds made available pursuant to section ____02(b)(2) 
     in each fiscal year to a local educational agency serving the 
     District of Columbia in an amount sufficient to enable such 
     agency to carry out a comprehensive program to address school 
     and youth violence.

     SEC. ____07. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE EDUCATION STATISTICS 
                   SYSTEM.

       Subparagraph (A) of section 406(h)(2) of the General 
     Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221e-1(h)(2)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (2) by adding after clause (vii) the following new clause:
       ``(viii) school safety policy, and statistics on the 
     incidents of school violence; and''.

     SEC. ____08. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.

       The Attorney General, through the Coordinating Council on 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department 
     of Justice, shall coordinate the programs and activities 
     carried out under this Act with the programs and activities 
     carried out by the departments and offices represented within 
     the Council that provide assistance under other law for 
     purposes that are similar to the purpose of this Act, in 
     order to avoid redundancy and coordinate Federal assistance, 
     research, and programs for youth violence prevention.

     SEC. ____09. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have a statement I want to make on this 
amendment, but Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois has some 
obligations she needs to attend to. She has a second-degree amendment 
that she cares to offer at this time.
  So I will withhold making my statement at this juncture and yield to 
the Senator from Illinois for the purpose of offering the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank you very much, and my thanks to the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  I have a statement that I would like to make in support of this 
amendment, but Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell has an even more 
pressing engagement, so I would like to first defer to him as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President; and I thank my colleague from 
Illinois.
  I did not know the amendment was coming up this quickly, so I am 
sorry that I have to press forward.
  I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is an amendment that 
can be very easily misread and misconstrued in this day of tight 
budgets.
  As many of my colleagues know, in my home State of Colorado, I have 
been trying to work with inner-city gang violence and spend a good deal 
of my time and evenings in that city visiting with gang members 
themselves. I see this as an extremely important amendment.
  Just yesterday, our Senate Chaplain had made some arrangements, in 
fact, to bring some youngsters from Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Denver 
who were active members of gangs to be able to come to the gallery in 
the Senate and watch our proceedings.
  Today, some of them are over on the House side involved in a hearing 
on violence and victims' reactions to violence. This morning, they went 
to the National Cathedral, to the National Prayer Breakfast, in some 
hopes that some would understand that there is a much bigger lifestyle 
out there than being involved in gangs.
  I had a chance to meet with them yesterday. I talked to them about 
the inner-city programs, about the midnight basketball programs. They 
tell me it is one of few alternatives to being on the streets, being 
involved in that program in Denver, CO. It is highly successful.
  There have been a number of independent reports that say gang 
activities in public housing has decreased; that many players have 
found permanent jobs; that many players have completed GED 
requirements. Certainly those who believe in both rehabilitation and 
offering alternatives to street violence support this amendment by 
Carol Moseley-Braun.
  We know that we are not going to find all the answers on a basketball 
court, but certainly it has to be one of the answers in providing 
alternative things to late-night activities.
  I, myself, was a product of a publicly funded sports program and 
often think that perhaps if I had not had those opportunities, I would 
be in a different kind of institution now than the U.S. Senate.
  But certainly we can recognize, in a time of tightening budgets, that 
it is much more cost effective, in terms of dollars and societal 
trauma, to put youngsters in gyms rather than in prisons.
  We have already proven we can be tough on the crime bill. I hope in 
this bill we can also prove we are smarter, also.
  I just wanted to rise to offer my support to my colleague, Senator 
Moseley-Braun, and to congratulate her on bringing this amendment to 
the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                Amendment No. 1379 to Amendment No. 1378

   (Purpose: To amend section 520 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National 
Affordable Housing Act to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
  Development to make grants to establish midnight basketball league 
training and partnership programs incorporating employment counseling, 
job training, and other educational activities for residents of public 
 housing and federally assisted housing and other low-income families)

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment 
cosponsored by Senator Campbell, Senator Simon, Senator Lautenberg, and 
Senator Robb, that is designed to help our Nation meet the second 
national educational goal by increasing educational opportunities for 
youth and young adults who live in public and public-assisted housing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send the amendment to the 
desk?
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], for herself, 
     Mr. Campbell, Mr. Simon, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Robb 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1379 to amendment No. 1378.

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

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
    TITLE ____--MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL LEAGUE TRAINING AND PARTNERSHIP

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Midnight Basketball League 
     Training and Partnership Act''.

     SEC. ____02. GRANTS FOR MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL LEAGUE TRAINING 
                   AND PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS.

       Section 520 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 11903a) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by inserting ``and assisted'' 
     after ``public'';
       (2) in the subsection heading for subsection (a), by 
     inserting ``Public Housing'' before ``Youth''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Midnight Basketball League Training and Partnership 
     Programs.--
       ``(1) Authority.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall make grants, to the extent that amounts are 
     approved in appropriations Acts under paragraph (13), to--
       ``(A) eligible entities to assist such entities in carrying 
     out midnight basketball league programs meeting the 
     requirements of paragraph (4); and
       ``(B) eligible advisory entities to provide technical 
     assistance to eligible entities in establishing and operating 
     such midnight basketball league programs.
       ``(2) Eligible entities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), grants 
     under paragraph (1)(A) may be made only to the following 
     eligible entities:
       ``(i) Entities eligible under subsection (b) for a grant 
     under subsection (a).
       ``(ii) Nonprofit organizations providing employment 
     counseling, job training, or other educational services.
       ``(iii) Nonprofit organizations providing federally 
     assisted low-income housing.
       ``(B) Prohibition on second grants.--A grant under 
     paragraph (1)(A) may not be made to an eligible entity if the 
     entity has previously received a grant under such paragraph, 
     except that the Secretary may exempt an eligible advisory 
     entity from the prohibition under this subparagraph in 
     extraordinary circumstances.
       ``(3) Use of grant amounts.--Any eligible entity that 
     receives a grant under paragraph (1)(A) may use such amounts 
     only--
       ``(A) to establish or carry out a midnight basketball 
     league program under paragraph (4);
       ``(B) for salaries for administrators and staff of the 
     program;
       ``(C) for other administrative costs of the program, except 
     that not more than 5 percent of the grant amount may be used 
     for such administrative costs; and
       ``(D) for costs of training and assistance provided under 
     paragraph (4)(I).
       ``(4) Program requirements.--Each eligible entity receiving 
     a grant under paragraph (1)(A) shall establish a midnight 
     basketball league program as follows:
       ``(A) The program shall establish a basketball league of 
     not less than 8 teams having 10 players each.
       ``(B) Not less than 50 percent of the players in the 
     basketball league shall be residents of federally assisted 
     low-income housing or members of low-income families (as such 
     term is defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing 
     Act of 1937).
       ``(C) The program shall be designed to serve primarily 
     youths and young adults from a neighborhood or community 
     whose population has not less than 2 of the following 
     characteristics (in comparison with national averages):
       ``(i) A substantial problem regarding use or sale of 
     illegal drugs.
       ``(ii) A high incidence of crimes committed by youths or 
     young adults.
       ``(iii) A high incidence of persons infected with the human 
     immunodeficiency virus or sexually transmitted diseases.
       ``(iv) A high incidence of pregnancy or a high birth rate, 
     among adolescents.
       ``(v) A high unemployment rate for youths and young adults.
       ``(vi) A high rate of high school drop-outs.
       ``(D) The program shall require each player in the league 
     to attend employment counseling, job training, and other 
     educational classes provided under the program, which shall 
     be held immediately following the conclusion of league 
     basketball games at or near the site of the games and at 
     other specified times.
       ``(E) The program shall serve only youths and young adults 
     who demonstrate a need for such counseling, training, and 
     education provided by the program, in accordance with 
     criteria for demonstrating need, which shall be established 
     by the Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory 
     Committee.
       ``(F) The majority of the basketball games of the league 
     shall be held between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. 
     at a location in the neighborhood or community served by the 
     program.
       ``(G) The program shall obtain sponsors for each team in 
     the basketball league. Sponsors shall be private individuals 
     or businesses in the neighborhood or community served by the 
     program who make financial contributions to the program and 
     participate in or supplement the employment, job training, 
     and educational services provided to the players under the 
     program with additional training or educational 
     opportunities.
       ``(H) The program shall comply with any criteria 
     established by the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Advisory Committee established under paragraph (9).
       ``(I) Administrators or organizers of the program shall 
     receive training and technical assistance provided by 
     eligible advisory entities receiving grants under paragraph 
     (8).
       ``(5) Grant amount limitations.--
       ``(A) Private contributions.--The Secretary may not make a 
     grant under paragraph (1)(A) to an eligible entity that 
     applies for a grant under paragraph (6) unless the applicant 
     entity certifies to the Secretary that the entity will 
     supplement the grant amounts with amounts of funds from non-
     Federal sources, as follows:
       ``(i) In each of the first 2 years that amounts from the 
     grant are disbursed (under subparagraph (E)), an amount 
     sufficient to provide not less than 35 percent of the cost of 
     carrying out the midnight basketball league program.
       ``(ii) In each of the last 3 years that amounts from the 
     grant are disbursed, an amount sufficient to provide not less 
     than 50 percent of the cost of carrying out the midnight 
     basketball league program.
       ``(B) Non-federal funds.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the term `funds from non-Federal sources' includes amounts 
     from nonprofit organizations, public housing agencies, 
     States, units of general local government, and Indian housing 
     authorities, private contributions, any salary paid to staff 
     (other than from grant amounts under paragraph (1)(A)) to 
     carry out the program of the eligible entity, in-kind 
     contributions to carry out the program (as determined by the 
     Secretary after consultation with the Advisory Committee), 
     the value of any donated material, equipment, or building, 
     the value of any lease on a building, the value of any 
     utilities provided, and the value of any time and services 
     contributed by volunteers to carry out the program of the 
     eligible entity.
       ``(C) Prohibition on substitution of funds.--Grant amounts 
     under paragraph (1)(A) and amounts provided by States and 
     units of general local government to supplement grant amounts 
     may not be used to replace other public funds previously 
     used, or designated for use, under this section.
       ``(D) Maximum and minimum grant amounts.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may not make a grant under 
     paragraph (1)(A) to any single eligible entity in an amount 
     less than $55,000 or exceeding $130,000, except as provided 
     in clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Exception for large leagues.--In the case of a 
     league having more than 80 players, a grant under paragraph 
     (1)(A) may exceed $130,000, but may not exceed the amount 
     equal to 35 percent of the cost of carrying out the midnight 
     basketball league program.
       ``(E) Disbursement.--Amounts provided under a grant under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall be disbursed to the eligible entity 
     receiving the grant over the 5-year period beginning on the 
     date that the entity is selected to receive the grant, as 
     follows:
       ``(i) In each of the first 2 years of such 5-year period, 
     23 percent of the total grant amount shall be disbursed to 
     the entity.
       ``(ii) In each of the last 3 years of such 5-year period, 
     18 percent of the total grant amount shall be disbursed to 
     the entity.
       ``(6) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under paragraph (1)(A), an eligible entity shall submit to 
     the Secretary an application in the form and manner required 
     by the Secretary (after consultation with the Advisory 
     Committee), which shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the midnight basketball league 
     program to be carried out by the entity, including a 
     description of the employment counseling, job training, and 
     other educational services to be provided;
       ``(B) letters of agreement from service providers to 
     provide training and counseling services required under 
     paragraph (4) and a description of such service providers;
       ``(C) letters of agreement providing for facilities for 
     basketball games and counseling, training, and educational 
     services required under paragraph (4) and a description of 
     the facilities;
       ``(D) a list of persons and businesses from the community 
     served by the program who have expressed interest in 
     sponsoring, or have made commitments to sponsor, a team in 
     the midnight basketball league; and
       ``(E) evidence that the neighborhood or community served by 
     the program meets the requirements of paragraph (4)(C).
       ``(7) Selection.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Advisory Committee, shall select eligible entities that have 
     submitted applications under paragraph (6) to receive grants 
     under paragraph (1)(A). The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Advisory Committee, shall establish criteria for 
     selection of applicants to receive such grants. The criteria 
     shall include a preference for selection of eligible entities 
     carrying out midnight basketball league programs in suburban 
     and rural areas.
       ``(8) Technical assistance grants.--Technical assistance 
     grants under paragraph (1)(B) shall be made as follows:
       ``(A) Eligible advisory entities.--Technical assistance 
     grants may be made only to entities that--
       ``(i) are experienced and have expertise in establishing, 
     operating, or administering successful and effective programs 
     for midnight basketball and employment, job training, and 
     educational services similar to the programs under paragraph 
     (4); and
       ``(ii) have provided technical assistance to other entities 
     regarding establishment and operation of such programs.
       ``(B) Use.--Amounts received under technical assistance 
     grants shall be used to establish centers for providing 
     technical assistance to entities receiving grants under 
     paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection and subsection (a) 
     regarding establishment, operation, and administration of 
     effective and successful midnight basketball league programs 
     under this subsection and subsection (c)(3).
       ``(C) Number and amount.--To the extent that amounts are 
     provided in appropriations Acts under paragraph (13)(B) in 
     each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make technical 
     assistance grants under paragraph (1)(B). In each fiscal year 
     that such amounts are available the Secretary shall make 4 
     such grants, as follows:
       ``(i) 2 grants shall be made to eligible advisory entities 
     for development of midnight basketball league programs in 
     public housing projects.
       ``(ii) 2 grants shall be made to eligible advisory entities 
     for development of midnight basketball league programs in 
     suburban or rural areas.

     Each grant shall be in an amount not exceeding $25,000.
       ``(9) Advisory committee.--The Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall appoint an Advisory Committee to 
     assist the Secretary in providing grants under this 
     subsection. The Advisory Committee shall be composed of not 
     more than 7 members, as follows:
       ``(A) Not less than 2 individuals who are involved in 
     managing or administering midnight basketball programs that 
     the Secretary determines have been successful and effective. 
     Such individuals may not be involved in a program assisted 
     under this subsection or a member or employee of an eligible 
     advisory entity that receives a technical assistance grant 
     under paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(B) A representative of the Center for Substance Abuse 
     Prevention of the Public Health Service, Department of Health 
     and Human Services, who is involved in administering the 
     grant program for prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation 
     model projects for high risk youth under section 509A of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa-8), who shall be 
     selected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       ``(C) A representative of the Department of Education, who 
     shall be selected by the Secretary of Education.
       ``(D) A representative of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, who shall be selected by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services from among officers and employees 
     of the Department involved in issues relating to high-risk 
     youth.
       ``(10) Reports.--The Secretary shall require each eligible 
     entity receiving a grant under paragraph (1)(A) and each 
     eligible advisory entity receiving a grant under paragraph 
     (1)(B) to submit to the Secretary, for each year in which 
     grant amounts are received by the entity, a report describing 
     the activities carried out with such amounts.
       ``(11) Study.--To the extent amounts are provided under 
     appropriation Acts pursuant to paragraph (13)(C), the 
     Secretary shall make a grant to one entity qualified to carry 
     out a study under this paragraph. The entity shall use such 
     grant amounts to carry out a scientific study of the 
     effectiveness of midnight basketball league programs under 
     paragraph (4) of eligible entities receiving grants under 
     paragraph (1)(A). The Secretary shall require such entity to 
     submit a report describing the study and any conclusions and 
     recommendations resulting from the study to the Congress and 
     the Secretary not later than the expiration of the 2-year 
     period beginning on the date that the grant under this 
     paragraph is made.
       ``(12) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) The term `Advisory Committee' means the Advisory 
     Committee established under paragraph (9).
       ``(B) The term `eligible advisory entity' means an entity 
     meeting the requirements under paragraph (8)(A).
       ``(C) The term `eligible entity' means an entity described 
     under paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(D) The term `federally assisted low-income housing' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 5126 of the Public and 
     Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990.
       ``(13) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(A) for grants under paragraph (1)(A), $2,650,000 in each 
     of fiscal years 1994 and 1995;
       ``(B) for technical assistance grants under paragraph 
     (1)(B), $100,000 in each of fiscal years 1994 and 1995; and
       ``(C) for a study grant under paragraph (11), $250,000 in 
     fiscal year 1994.''.

     SEC. ____03. PUBLIC HOUSING MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL LEAGUE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Section 520(c) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
     Housing Act (42 U.S.C 11903a(c)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Midnight basketball league programs.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this subsection and subsection (d), a 
     grant under this section may be used to carry out any youth 
     sports program that meets the requirements of a midnight 
     basketball league program under subsection (l)(4) (not 
     including subparagraph (B) of such subsection) if the program 
     serves primarily youths and young adults from the public 
     housing project in which the program assisted by the grant is 
     operated.''.

  Ms MOSELEY-BRAUN. This amendment would authorize less than $6 million 
for the development of new and existing midnight basketball leagues 
which serve high school dropouts and students at risk of dropping out.
  Now, I want to say to my colleagues, the name midnight basketball is, 
in some regards, misleading. Although midnight basketball sounds like a 
recreational program, in fact, it is actually an educational, crime 
prevention, and socializing program designed to provide young people 
with alternatives to the street and alternatives to crime.
  Midnight basketball has worked in over 41 communities across the 
United States. It has promoted youth development by requiring leagues 
to form public and private partnerships with local companies.
  Under this amendment, midnight basketball leagues would be eligible 
for grants ranging from $55,000 to $130,000--spread out over 5 year 
periods.
  Leagues would have to provide 35 percent in matching non-Federal 
funds for the first 2 years, and 50 percent in matching funds 
thereafter.
  In Chicago, private sponsors have not only contributed funds to help 
finance the leagues and teams, they have also helped midnight 
basketball leagues offer educational programs including one-on-one 
tutorial sessions and GED classes which league players are required to 
attend after each game.
  Private sponsors have also served as important adult mentors and role 
models for the young people living in housing projects in the city of 
Chicago.
  Mr. President, midnight basketball leagues also help prevent crime by 
requiring that a majority of midnight basketball games be played during 
the hours when most youth crimes are committed--10 p.m. to 2 a.m.
  As a result, midnight basketball leagues in Chicago and elsewhere 
have successfully assigned rival gang members to the same teams--
effecting truces both on and off the court.
  I am proud to say that many league players in Chicago have also 
recently completed their GED requirements and that none of them were in 
trouble with the law during the time they were involved in this 
program.
  In Chicago, midnight basketball leagues have been able to serve 80 
youngsters a year at a cost of about $85,000. It costs about that much 
to incarcerate one juvenile for 2 years.
  If midnight basketball helps keep even one of the participating young 
people out of our criminal justice system, this program will have 
served the taxpayers very well.
  Mr. President, midnight basketball has been a real success in Chicago 
and in 40 other communities across the country where leagues have 
already been formed.
  In fact, NBC Nightly News reported last November 4 that 20 of the 150 
participants in the Camden, NJ, midnight basketball league are either 
in college or on their way to college.
  This program can help us achieve one of the goals of the Goals 2000: 
Educate America Act--achieving a 90-percent graduation rate--by giving 
youth and young adults an opportunity to be socialized and educated in 
a context in which there is adult supervision and involvement.
  I want to share for a moment, Mr. President, my own experience with 
the approach that is represented in this program, because, as I said, 
the title ``midnight basketball'' is misleading.
  The midnight basketball program essentially uses basketball as an 
opportunity, an opportunity to provide tutoring, an opportunity to 
provide counseling, an opportunity to show youth and young adults that 
they have other options than being out on the streets.
  Mr. President, I was a dropout for awhile in my young life. I managed 
to get a job working in public housing projects which was considered to 
be a very good job at the time.
  But my role was to supervise young people in a program that was much 
like the midnight basketball program. I was a supervisor, but I guess 
by osmosis, the message that was being communicated to these young 
people spilled over to me. As a result, I was then convinced that it 
did make sense to go back to school; it did make sense to try to reach 
broader horizons; it did make sense to try to make something of myself; 
it did make sense to try to give something back to my community.
  And so, having seen programs like midnight basketball on a very 
personal level, I became an advocate of the midnight basketball 
approach even before it was called that.
  Now we have seen the midnight basketball approach work--targeting our 
young people who are the most neglected, the most at risk of dropping 
out, the most at risk of hopelessness, the most at risk of not having a 
gainful, productive activity in the afterschool hours. I ask the Senate 
to lend its support this afternoon to the midnight basketball 
approach--an innovative, novel approach which involves all sectors of 
the community in meeting the needs of young men and women.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment 
offered by our colleague from Illinois. I would point out we have a 
very successful midnight basketball program in Bridgeport, CT. It has 
been very successful and has achieved many of the same results our 
colleague from Illinois has identified in her amendment. I think this 
is a fine addition to our proposal on safe schools and urge the 
adoption of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I also commend our friend and colleague 
from Illinois. I had an opportunity to spend an afternoon with those 
law enforcement individuals in Boston who are assigned to the gangs. 
They were very strong in their commitment to deal with those individual 
members of the gangs that were difficult and violent, and had that 
proclivity. But they were also equally supportive of trying to 
intervene with this kind of program so individuals would have 
alternatives to gang violence. It is completely consistent with what 
has been accepted in the Senate in the omnibus crime bill.
  I commend the Senator for bringing this up. All of us understand we 
do not utilize our schools, whether they are in the urban or rural 
community, nearly to the extent we should with the range of activities. 
This is a demonstrated successful program, and I thank her for these 
additions. Hopefully, we will have an acceptance of the amendment.
  Mr. PELL. I would just like to express a word of support for the 
amendment. It is an excellent one. It is a job that needs to be done 
and the amendment should be agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I certainly believe this kind of program 
could be very beneficial and I have had no objection raised on this 
side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Illinois, and at 
an appropriate moment I will ask for adoption of the amendment. But in 
the meantime I would like to make, if I could, a general statement on 
the underlying amendment, that is the safe schools amendment.
  I am offering this safe schools amendment. I wish it were not 
necessary. I wish this were something that would not have to be a part 
of the Goals 2000, but I think all of us in this Chamber, regardless of 
where we come from, are painfully aware of what is happening.
  Even in the most secure neighbors, it seems, violence in our schools 
has become a fact of life--tragically. The amendment addresses the 
sixth goal as stated in the Goals 2000 proposal, going back to the 
conference in Virginia initiated by President Bush and supported by 
Governors and others at the time. That sixth goal states that all of 
our schools should be safe and secure.
  This amendment which I bring to the floor has the cosponsorships I 
have mentioned of a broad spectrum of our colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle. And I ask unanimous consent Senator DeConcini of Arizona be 
included as cosponsor as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. It responds to the growing crisis of violence in our 
Nation's schools. This measure will help our schools protect their 
students and preserve a learning environment free from violence.
  This is a problem that would have been inconceivable only a few short 
years ago. But it is a problem that has now grown so serious that it 
demands a Federal response. The Safe Schools Act that I am proposing 
today will be a major component of this response. Much of the answer 
resides in our States and localities. We do not mandate specifically in 
each instance what a State or local school district ought to do. But we 
give them broad authority to come up with ideas and sanctions and 
proposals that would meet the unique circumstances of these districts 
and of these States, again reinforcing the underlying principle 
associated with this legislation that the Senator from Massachusetts 
has brought to the floor, and that is flexibility: Allow our 
communities to respond in a fashion they deem appropriate.
  We need this legislation because, for far too many of our Nation's 
children, the fear of violence rather than the challenge of learning 
has become the reality of each school day. Let me cite a few examples, 
some of which my colleagues will be painfully aware of.
  Just a few city blocks from where we gather in this Chamber, the U.S. 
Senate, gunfire broke out only a few days ago in the hallways of Dunbar 
High School, followed by more shots outside the building. Thankfully no 
one was hurt in that exchange of gunfire, but the incident caused panic 
throughout that school, causing students to scurry for cover and to 
flee the building much as if a fire had broken out.
  Late last year young Miguel de Jesus, a young high school student in 
New Britain, CT, was shot, gunned down, mortally wounded on the school 
steps at 7 a.m. in front of hundreds of schoolchildren arriving for 
school that morning. Jettie Tisdale, a principal at an innercity 
elementary school in Bridgeport, CT, testified before our Labor and 
Human Resources Committee late last year that in her school, her 
elementary school, she has installed bulletproof glass to protect her 
kindergarten students from stray bullets. She also patrols the 
playgrounds at recess to provide possible deterrence to violence.
  This is in an elementary school. Children in some parts of that city 
who live within two blocks of the school have to be bused to school in 
the morning because of the problems of violence; bused to school from 
within two blocks of the institution because of what these children 
face walking to school.
  Statistical evidence is overwhelming. Our schools are becoming 
dangerous places and it is not just anecdotal, citing the few examples 
that I have. Numerous studies from all quarters have indicated the 
seriousness and the breadth of this problem.
  The Center for Disease Control has estimated that nearly 1 in 5 
students carries a weapon--a knife, a firearm, or a club--to school. 
Roughly 130,000 students, it is estimated, bring a gun to school every 
day; the overwhelming majority not to inflict violence on one of their 
classmates but to protect themselves from the violence they anticipate 
from some of the students or someone outside of the school. The 
National Crime Survey has estimated that nearly 3 million crimes occur 
on or near school campuses each year. A recent national survey in USA 
Weekend found that 37 percent of students said they do not feel safe at 
school any longer, and 63 percent said they would learn more if they 
felt safer.
  A U.S. Department of Education study found that 8 percent of public 
school teachers had reported being physically attacked during the 
previous school year.
  The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence reports that from 1986 to 
1990, 65 students and 6 school employees were gunned down at school; 
another 201 were severely wounded at school; and 242 were held hostage 
at gunpoint at school.
  As these numbers demonstrate, violence is killing and injuring 
children across our Nation. We all know this simply from reading our 
morning newspapers. What is less obvious is the terrible impact this 
violence is having on school budgets, at a time when they can hardly 
afford to meet their educational expenses. Security measures made 
necessary by violent incidents in schools are sapping vital resources 
away from teaching and learning. In New Haven, CT, for instance, the 
school district spent some $700,000 last year just in 1 year for school 
security. This is money that could otherwise have been spent on books 
and teachers and computers.
  My colleagues may recall a few weeks ago I cited statistics involving 
educational tools available at one of the innercity high schools that I 
visited in New Haven. There were only 13 computers for the entire 
senior high school student population. They literally line up in the 
afternoon to get a few minutes on that computer. Only 13 for literally 
7,000 high school students. That is the same school in that same 
district that is spending almost $1 million a year for cops on 
corridors and metal detectors. Think of what that $700,000 could do for 
that senior high school that could use a few more computers.
  This safe schools bill is not going to answer every problem, but we 
provide resources in this amendment that will allow for States and 
localities to get some of those dollars to offset some of these 
staggering costs of security that they currently have to provide.
  The Safe School Act is entirely consistent with the Goals 2000 
legislation, because it represents an initial effort to meet goal 6, 
which I mentioned earlier, which calls for all schools in America to be 
free from drugs and violence and to offer a disciplined environment 
conducive to learning.

  I will argue in many ways that this goal is the foundation on which 
all others rest. You cannot learn if you are frightened to death. Too 
many of our kids are frightened to death every single day. So all other 
five goals depend upon our ability to provide some modicum of security 
for teachers and students during the school day.
  Students are never going to learn when they fear for their safety. 
Teachers are never going to be able to teach when they have to be on 
the lookout for guns and knives in their classrooms. And schools are 
not going to be able to provide their students with all of the tools 
for learning when their budgets are drained by security devices and 
police officers in their corridors.
  The Safe Schools Act contains a number of different tools that 
schools can use to reduce violence within their walls. School districts 
hard hit by violence will be eligible for funds to secure their 
buildings by installing metal detectors, conducting minor remodeling, 
hiring security personnel and adopting other security measures. We all 
know that steps such as these are stop-gap attempts to stem the rising 
tide of school violence.
  They are not obviously the long-term solutions to this problem. This 
amendment recognizes this fact by requiring participating schools to 
get at the root causes of violence. The amendment would fund in 
addition to the measures I mentioned earlier, conflict resolution 
training, social skills development, peer mediation counseling, new 
curriculum on violence prevention and after-school programs. Much of 
this, I sadly tell you, should have been done by the parents before 
they ever come to school. Tragically, a lot of these kids are not 
getting it at home. Unfortunately, our schools have to begin taking on 
some of these additional responsibilities. That is a fact of life. So 
these funds will provide these schools with the ability to do some of 
these things.
  The Clinton administration has strongly supported this balanced 
approach to school violence. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, 
originally proposed this legislation. I introduced it last year, along 
with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Pell, 
and Senator Jeffords on June 17. Since that time, we have been joined 
by numerous other colleagues. I mentioned some already, including our 
distinguished colleague from Mississippi, who I see on the floor, 
Senator Cochran, and others.
  We held a hearing in September, and this bill was unanimously 
reported to the full Senate early in November. We thought this 
particular bill, the Goals 2000 legislation, was an appropriate vehicle 
on which to attach this amendment, and that is the reason that I offer 
it.
  We also have the support of many organizations. The amendment we are 
offering today includes language offered by Senator Glenn to assure 
that the Safe Schools program is coordinated with other Federal efforts 
in this area.
  Senator Cochran will shortly come forward with language defining a 
State role to help disseminate the good ideas developed under safe 
schools to other communities and their States. We already have heard 
the pending second-degree amendment from our colleague from Illinois on 
the midnight basketball program. Senator Simpson has another amendment 
to make sure that rural schools will not be discriminated against in 
these areas, which we will accept as well and will be included as a 
part of this package.
  As Senator Kennedy already pointed out, thanks to the good efforts of 
Senator Harkin, of Iowa, and others on the Appropriations Committee, 
this legislation already received $20 million for fiscal year 1994. 
Obviously, it needs authorization language in order for that money to 
become available to our States and localities; hence, the necessity and 
the timeliness of offering this amendment on this bill.
  So, Mr. President, in conclusion, the case for the Safe Schools Act, 
I think, is clear and compelling. Again, I want to emphasize we offer a 
lot of flexibility here. We do not get down to specific measures that 
each school district must impose.
  Sanctions, for instance, are permissible within school districts 
against students who bring guns or drugs to school. That can include 
expulsion--whatever remedies the various school districts and States 
would like to impose. We thought it appropriate not to get into the 
specificity of ordering certain sanctions but again to allow the 
communities and the States to decide for themselves what are 
appropriate responses to these problems of violence that are inflicting 
our school districts.
  So I urge the adoption of this amendment and urge adoption for 
support, as well, of the various second-degree amendments that will 
still have to be ordered.
  My colleague from Vermont, I know, is interested in responding to 
this, so I will be glad to yield at this time.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I ask unanimous 
consent that, after disposition of the amendment, I be allowed to pay 
tribute to Senator Ted Stevens who is celebrating his 25th anniversary 
in the U.S. Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will be brief. I, first of all, want 
to commend the Senator from Connecticut. I know how hard he has worked 
on the Safe Schools Act. I certainly want to inform the body that I 
think it is a tremendous step forward in trying to make sure that we do 
have in this Nation schools that are safe.
  I also am very pleased, and I think we are doing an important thing, 
that we are establishing Washington, DC, as a model under this premise. 
Good Lord, if we cannot make the schools in Washington, DC, safe, I do 
not know how we should as a Federal Government expect any city to make 
their schools safe.
  I also want to commend the Senator from Illinois. I think the 
amendment she has offered is an excellent one. I support it. I think we 
are ready for a vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if we adopt the amendment without 
offering the second-degree amendment, we will have to offer the second-
degree amendment to the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that the second-
degree amendment is already pending.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I suggest that we adopt the 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois and then that would open up the 
tree and then we would consider the amendment of the Senator from 
Mississippi. Then I think we would also like to explore with the 
Senator from Connecticut the possibility of a Dorgan amendment that 
might also be included in the package. I have not talked with the 
Senator about it. I wonder if we can accept the amendment of the 
Senator from Illinois and then consider the amendment of the Senator 
from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to that procedure, 
and I thank the distinguished manager.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 1379.
  The amendment (No. 1379) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chafee 
and Lautenberg also be included as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


          Amendment No. 1380 to Amendment No. 1378, As Amended

(Purpose: To establish the State Leadership Activities to Promote Safe 
                              Schools Act)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the 
Dodd amendment and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1380 to amendment 1378, as amended.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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:
       On page 15, after line 3, insert the following:

      PART B--STATE LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE SAFE SCHOOLS

     SEC.   21. STATE LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE SAFE 
                   SCHOOLS PROGRAM.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``State 
     Leadership Activities to Promote Safe Schools Act''.
       (b) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to award grants 
     to State educational agencies from allocations under 
     subsection (c) to enable such agencies to carry out the 
     authorized activities described in subsection (e).
       (c) Allocation.--Each State educational agency having an 
     application approved under subsection (d) shall be eligible 
     to receive a grant under this section for each fiscal year 
     that bears that same ratio to the amount appropriated 
     pursuant to the authority of subsection (f) for such year as 
     the amount such State educational agency receives pursuant to 
     section 1006 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 for such year bears to the total amount allocated to all 
     such agencies in all States having applications approved 
     under subsection (d) for such year, except that no State 
     educational agency having an application approved under 
     subsection (d) in any fiscal year shall receive less than 
     $100,000 for such year.
       (d) Application.--Each State educational agency desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require. Each 
     such application shall--
       (1) describe the activities and services for which 
     assistance is sought;
       (2) contain a statement of the State educational agency's 
     goals and objectives for violence prevention and a 
     description of the procedures to be used for assessing and 
     publicly reporting progress toward meeting those goals and 
     objectives; and
       (3) contain a description of how the State educational 
     agency will coordinate such agency's activities under this 
     section with the violence prevention efforts of other State 
     agencies.
       (e) Use of Funds.--Grant funds awarded under this section 
     shall be used--
       (1) to support a statewide resource coordinator;
       (2) to provide technical assistance to both rural and urban 
     local school districts;
       (3) to disseminate to local educational agencies and 
     schools information on successful school violence prevention 
     programs funded through Federal, State, local and private 
     sources;
       (4) to make available to local educational agencies teacher 
     training and parent and student awareness programs, which 
     training and programs may be provided through video or other 
     telecommunications approaches;
       (5) to supplement and not supplant other Federal, State and 
     local funds available to carry out the activities assisted 
     under this section; and
       (6) for other activities the Secretary may deem 
     appropriate.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     1995 and 1996 to carry out this section.
       On page 2, between lines 1 and 2, insert the following:

                      PART A--SAFE SCHOOLS PRGRAM

       On page 2, line 3, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 2, line 6, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 2, line 23, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 3, line 10, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 3, line 21, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 4, line 15, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 4, line 24, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 5, line 11, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 5, line 20, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 6, line 14, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 7, line 5, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 7, line 7, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 7, line 9, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 7, line 10, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 7, line 15, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 7, line 23, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 8, line 18, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 11, line 25, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 12, line 2, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 12, line 4, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 12, line 8, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 12, line 12, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 12, line 16, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 12, line 20, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 13, line 2, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 13, line 3, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
       On page 15, line 2, strike ``title'' each place such term 
     appears and insert ``part''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the sixth goal established by the 
Nation's Governors and President George Bush in an historic meeting at 
the national education Summit in 1989 provided that:

       By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of 
     drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment 
     conducive to learning.

  The only problem I have with that goal is that it probably should be 
the first rather than the sixth goal. If you go to school afraid about 
being harmed by a fellow student or becoming a victim of a drive-by 
shooting, you are not going to learn anything.
  It is in this kind of environment that we find so many of our 
Nation's schoolchildren. It is time the Federal Government took some 
responsibility for providing guidance and assistance to State and local 
governments and local administrators as they try to deal with these 
very real and very serious and sometimes very deadly problems in our 
Nation's schools.
  The purpose of this amendment is to provide some additional funds to 
States to share information among school districts about safe schools 
programs that are working and producing good benefits not only in that 
particular State, but around the country.
  Funds would be distributed to all States based on the chapter 1 
concentration grant formula. Ten million dollars is authorized to 
support a State coordinator, who could provide information about safe 
schools initiatives and develop programs to help prevent and deal with 
school violence. At least $100,000 would be made available to every 
State.
  I called the State superintendent of education in Mississippi, Tom 
Burnham, and asked him what we could do to help stem school violence. 
He suggested the need for a State safe schools coordinator because of 
an inadequate amount of information at the State level about some of 
the problems and the successful ways communities deal with school 
violence. In local jurisdictions and in individual schools, there is a 
need for more information about programs to address the problem of 
school violence. States need to determine the most serious problems so 
they can deal with them on an emergency basis.
  This amendment responds to a very real and very important need that 
is now unmet at the State level.
  The funds included in the Cochran amendment will be targeted for:
  Supporting the services of a statewide resource coordinator;
  Providing technical assistance to both rural and urban local school 
districts;
  Disseminating information on successful school violence prevention 
programs funded through other Federal, State, local or private sources; 
and
  Finding other activities the State educational agency deems 
appropriate to assist in reducing school violence and crime.
  Mr. President, America's school children should not fear for their 
lives on the way to, during, or on their way home from school. There 
are numerous examples in every State of violence every day in our 
schools. Children in schools are killing each other. People commit 
drive by shootings in playground areas at schools. Youth gangs are a 
serious problem. These problems plague not only our large cities, but 
our rural communities as well.
  As a result, students in violent schools are much less likely to 
concentrate on higher academic achievement and to stay in school and 
receive the educational preparation necessary to become full partners 
in our society. And parents are outraged that their children cannot 
learn in a peaceful environment.
  The trends are alarming, According to the 1993 National Education 
Goals Report, 9 percent of 8th graders, 10 percent of 10th graders, and 
6 percent of 12th graders brought a gun to school in the previous month 
in 1992. Something must be done to stop our children from bringing 
firearms on school property.
  We expect students to be serious about school. But schools and their 
surrounding communities also have an obligation to create an 
environment where teaching and learning can take place.
  President Bush and the Nation's Governors established six national 
education goals for the Nation's elementary and secondary schools in 
1989 at the historic Charlottesville Education Summit. The sixth goal 
is ``by the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs 
and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to 
learning.''
  I believe my amendment will assist State's efforts to curb the 
growing problem of violence in the classrooms.
  I thank the managers of the bill and other Senators who support this 
amendment.
  I hope the Senate will support this amendment as an amendment to the 
amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, an important initiative 
before the body at this time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Cochran amendment, I 
commend our colleague from Mississippi. He identifies a very legitimate 
and serious problem. There are a lot of terrific programs that people 
are engaged in across the country in antiviolence efforts. I recently 
participated in a dinner here in Washington with people who came from 
cities from across the country--Oakland, Boston, Chicago, New York, 
Detroit--people who are not in local government, State Government, 
people running boys clubs, girls clubs, after-school programs that are 
very successful. You do not hear about them. It is the child who 
engages in an act of violence who gets the headline. For obvious 
reasons we do not read about the child who goes off in the afternoon 
where there is an alternative to just hanging out.
  Too many of these ideas are left at the local level. What the Senator 
from Mississippi is achieving with this amendment is to make sure that 
these good ideas get known by other communities. Dissemination of 
information is critically important if these ideas are going to reach 
other communities.
  I commend the Senator for the amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I join in the remarks of the Senators from Connecticut 
and Mississippi.
  I strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1380) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                  amendment no. 1381 to amendment 1378

 (Purpose: To require that, to the extent practicable, grants shall be 
 awarded to eligible local educational agencies serving rural, as well 
                            as urban, areas)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Simpson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1381:
       On page 3, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       (3) Geographic distribution.--To the extent practicable, 
     grants under this title shall be awarded to eligible local 
     educational agencies serving rural, as well as urban, areas.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment is a simple one. It 
basically establishes that rural areas ought to be considered and be 
included when grants are awarded. We have many problems with schools in 
the rural areas, and to ignore that in this legislation would be a 
mistake. I believe it will be accepted, and I wish to commend the 
Senator from Wyoming for bringing this amendment to our attention.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  I think it is a good amendment. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1381) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the safe 
schools amendment, and I urge adoption of the underlying amendment 
with, obviously, all of the amendments that have been added to it.


                           amendment no. 1378

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senator Dodd's 
amendment to S. 1150, to improve safety and security in the Nation's 
schools. I was an original cosponsor of this legislation when it was 
introduced by my Connecticut colleague as the Safe Schools Act of 1993. 
President Clinton supports this legislation, and I thank both the 
President and Senator Dodd for their leadership on the bill.
  The legislation addresses an urgent need. I hear repeatedly from 
educators in my State that violence in schools threatens the health and 
even the lives of their students and, needless to say, seriously 
impedes their ability to educate our kids. Earlier this week, David 
Manning, the principal of Conard High School in West Hartford, CT, 
informed me that improving school safety has become the number one 
priority for Connecticut's high school principals, and he urged me to 
support this amendment. Educators should not have to play a central 
role in the war on crime. But, the bottom line is, we will not achieve 
the educational achievement goals set forth in this bill unless our 
schools are safe.
  This legislation will provide assistance to the most troubled school 
districts. Participating schools will be awarded $3 million a year for 
up to 2 years to implement crime reduction measures. Schools will have 
flexibility to use the funds in ways that best meet their needs. So, 
for example, schools could enhance law enforcement, they could take 
measures to protect children as they go between home and school, and 
they could invest in peer counseling and other preventive measures. 
These and other innovative programs will help free our children and 
teachers from violence and the fear of violence that impede learning 
and threaten the well-being of our children and our communities.
  The amendment will help move the Nation closer to one of our national 
education goals. Goal Six states that, by the year 2000, every school 
in America will be free of drugs and violence. We must achieve this 
goal, and we must achieve it as soon as possible. This legislation is 
an important step forward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the underlying amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1378), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
allowed to make a brief statement as if in morning business to pay 
tribute to my colleague, the senior Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], 
who is celebrating his 25th anniversary in this body today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________