[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 9 (Friday, February 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1394

  (Purpose: To provide that no funds shall be denied to any State or 
local agency because it has adopted a Constitutional policy relative to 
                       prayer in public schools)

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

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1394.

  The amendment is as follows:

       Insert in the appropriate place in the bill the following:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds 
     made available through the Department of Education under this 
     Act, or any other Act, shall be denied to any State or local 
     educational agency because it has adopted a constitutional 
     policy relative to prayer in public school.''

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, it is a short amendment. I ask that it be 
received at this point and then laid aside for other business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1393

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I call up the Kennedy amendment to 
speak on and would like to speak on the Kennedy amendment.
  First, I point out that I understand the feelings of the Senator from 
North Carolina, and I am sure that in his State and in many other areas 
of the country his amendment would make a lot of sense and people would 
be for it. I am sure that seems true for my State. I have also traveled 
around the country far and wide and understand that in some areas of 
the country the thought of a young person getting parental consent to 
obtain contraceptives is not a realistic option. When the option for 
the kids who themselves are probably operating without much parental 
guidance at all is to use condoms or have AIDS, we want to make sure 
that the option to use condoms is there. For that reason, I oppose that 
amendment.
  I do, though, agree with Senator Kennedy's proposal that we should do 
everything we can in our society to strengthen the family and the 
relationship and the understanding among parents and their children, to 
be able to speak frankly and to talk about sex and the use of condoms 
and the dangers of not using them.
  For that reason, I will support the amendment which Senator Kennedy 
and I have offered as an alternative, which will be voted on 
immediately after the Helms amendment. I would hope that my colleagues 
would look at that and understand that this is certainly a more 
reasonable approach in the sense of our modern society. I hope that 
they will support this alternative and oppose what I believe would be 
an encroachment upon the local governments and the States in their 
ability to utilize the funds available for the purpose of primarily 
preventing the spread of AIDS and teen pregnancies.
  I yield the floor.


               amendments nos. 1395 through 1419, en bloc

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I send to the desk a package of 
amendments and ask that they be considered, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside and the 
amendments will be considered, en bloc.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes 
     amendments Nos. 1395 through 1419, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 1395

       On page 24, strike lines 18 through 23, and insert the 
     following:
       (d) Gifts; Use of Facilities.--The Goals Panel may--
       (1) accept, administer, and utilize gifts or donations of 
     services, money, or property, whether real of personal, 
     tangible or intangible; and
       (2) use the research, equipment, services, and facilities 
     of any department, agency or instrumentality of the Federal 
     Government, or of any State or political subdivision thereof 
     with the consent of such department, agency, instrumentality, 
     State or subdivision, respectively.
       On page 27, line 18, strike all beginning with ``that'' 
     through page 27, line 20, and insert a period.
       On page 27, line 24, insert ``, including the needs of 
     children with disabilities'' after ``needs''.
       On page 28, line 2, insert ``including norm-referenced 
     assessments and assessment formats that are appropriate for 
     use in culturally and linguistically diverse communities,'' 
     after ``assessments,''.
       On page 29, line 5, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 36, line 17, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 46, strike lines 14 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
       (d) Gifts; Use of Facilities.--The Council may--
       (1) accept, administer, and utilize gifts or donations of 
     services, money, or property, whether real of personal, 
     tangible or intangible; and
       (2) use the research, equipment, services, and facilities 
     of any department, agency or instrumentality of the United 
     States, or of any State or political subdivision thereof with 
     the consent of such department, agency, instrumentality, 
     State or subdivision, respectively.
       On page 54, line 9, insert ``representatives of a distance 
     learning consortia,'' after ``technology,''.
       On page 54, line 23, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 56, line 21, strike ``and''.
       On page 56, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       (F) how the Secretary will utilize the outcome of the 
     evaluation undertaken pursuant to section 908 of the Star 
     Schools Program Assistance Act to promote the purposes of 
     this part; and
       On page 56, line 22, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(G)''.
       On page 58, line 11, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 60, line 13, strike ``and challenging State content 
     and'' and insert ``, challenging State content standards and 
     challenging State''.
       On page 63, line 20, strike ``218'' and insert ``219''.
       On page 66, line 21, insert ``, including distance 
     learning,'' before ``can''.
       On page 72, lines 23-24, strike the words ``fundamental 
     restructuring and''.
       On page 77, line 4, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 77, line 11, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 77, line 16, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 80, line 9, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 83, line 14, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 88, line 7, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 90, line 2, strike ``and'' and insert ``standards 
     and challenging State''.
       On page 100, line 11, strike ``State content or'' and 
     insert ``challenging State content standards or challenging 
     State.''
       On page 101, lines 9 and 10, strike ``upon application of a 
     State educational agency requesting such a waiver''.
       On page 102, strike lines 8 through 11, and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Application.--(A)(i) To request a waiver, a local 
     educational agency or school that receives funds under this 
     Act, or a local educational agency or school that does not 
     receive funds under this Act but is undertaking school reform 
     efforts and has an education reform plan approved by the 
     State, shall transmit an application for a waiver under this 
     section to the State educational agency. The State 
     educational agency then shall submit approved applications 
     for a waiver under this section to the Secretary.
       (ii) A State educational agency requesting a waiver under 
     this section shall submit an application for such waiver to 
     the Secretary.
       (B) Each application submitted to the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A) shall--
       (i) describe the purposes and overall expected outcomes of 
     the request for a waiver and how progress for achieving such 
     outcomes will be measured;
       (ii) identify each Federal program to be involved in the 
     request for a waiver and each Federal statutory or regulatory 
     requirement to be waived;
       (iii) describe each State and local requirement that will 
     be waived; and
       (iv) demonstrate that the Senate has made a commitment to 
     waive related requirements pertaining to the State 
     educational agency, local educational agency or school.
       (3) Timeliness.--The Secretary shall act promptly on a 
     waiver request and shall provide a written statement of the 
     reasons for granting or denying such request.
       (4) Duration.--
       On page 104, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       (e) Results-Oriented Accountability.--In deciding whether 
     to extend a request for a waiver under this section the 
     Secretary shall review the progress of the State educational 
     agency, local educational agency or school receiving a waiver 
     to determine if such agency or school has made progress 
     toward achieving the outcomes described in the application 
     submitted pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(B)(i).
       On page 105, line 3, strike ``describing'' and insert 
     ``describing--''.
       On page 105, strike line 4.
       On page 105, line 5, insert ``the activities assisted 
     under, and outcomes of,'' before ``grants''.
       On page 105, strike lines 14 through 17, and insert the 
     following:
         disabilities;
       (2) the activities assisted under, and outcomes of, 
     allotments under this title; and
       (3) the effect of waivers granted under section 311, 
     including--
       (A) a listing of all State educational agencies, local 
     educational agencies and schools seeking and receiving 
     waivers;
       (B) a summary of the State and Federal statutory or 
     regulatory requirements that have been waived, including the 
     number of waivers sought and granted under each such 
     statutory or regulatory requirement;
       (C) a summary of waivers that have been terminated, 
     including a rationale for the terminations; and
       (D) recommendations to the Congress regarding changes in 
     statutory or regulatory requirements, particularly those 
     actions that should be taken to overcome Federal statutory or 
     regulatory impediments to education reform.
       On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

     SEC.   . NATIONAL BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHING STANDARDS.

       Section 551 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1107) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), by striking ``the 
     Federal share of'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B) of subsection (e)(1), by striking 
     ``share of the cost of the activities of the Board is'' and 
     inserting ``contributions described in subsection (f) are''; 
     and
       (3) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Matching Funds Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not provide 
     financial assistance under this subpart to the Board unless 
     the Board agrees to expend non-Federal contributions equal to 
     $1 for every $1 of the Federal funds provided pursuant to 
     such financial assistance.
       ``(2) Non-federal contributions.--The non-Federal 
     contributions described in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) may include all non-Federal funds raised by the Board 
     on or after January 1, 1987; and
       ``(B) may be used for outreach, implementation, 
     administration, operation, and other costs associated with 
     the development and implementation of national teacher 
     assessment and certification procedures under this 
     subpart.''.

     SEC.   . FORGIVENESS OF CERTAIN OVERPAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 1401 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 or any other 
     provision of law--
       (1) the allocation of funds appropriated for fiscal year 
     1993 under the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 
     1993, to Colfax County, New Mexico under section 1005 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and any other 
     allocations or grants for such fiscal year resulting from 
     such allocation to such country under any program 
     administered by the Secretary of Education, shall be deemed 
     to be authorized by law; and
       (2) in any program for which allocations are based on 
     fiscal year 1993 allocations under section 1005 of such Act, 
     the fiscal year 1993 allocations under such section deemed to 
     be authorized by law in accordance with paragraph (1) shall 
     be used.
       (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(1) of this section, in 
     carrying out section 1403(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 for fiscal year 1994, the amount 
     allocated to Colfax County, New Mexico under section 1005 of 
     such Act for fiscal year 1993 shall be deemed to be the 
     amount that the Secretary determines would have been 
     allocated under such section 1005 had the correct data been 
     used for fiscal year 1993.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1396

  (Purpose: To provide for a study of the impact of GOALS 2000 school 
   reforms on achievement and outcomes of students with disabilities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . STUDY OF GOALS 2000 AND STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES.

       (a) Study Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Education shall make 
     appropriate arrangements with the National Academy of 
     Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the inclusion of 
     children with disabilities in GOALS 2000 school reform 
     activities.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `children with disabilities' has the same meaning given such 
     in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
       (b) Study Components.--The study conducted under subsection 
     (a) shall include--
       (1) an evaluation of the National Education Goals and 
     objectives, curriculum reforms, standards, and other programs 
     and activities intended to achieve those goals;
       (2) a review of the adequacy of assessments and measures 
     used to gauge progress toward meeting National Education 
     Goals and any national and State standards, and an 
     examination of other methods or accommodations necessary or 
     desirable to collect data on the educational progress of 
     children with disabilities, and the costs of such methods and 
     accommodations;
       (3) an examination of what incentives or assistance might 
     be provided to States to develop improvement plans that 
     adequately address the needs of children with disabilities;
       (4) the relation of GOALS 2000 to other Federal laws 
     governing or affecting the education of children with 
     disabilities; and
       (5) such other issues as the National Academy of Sciences 
     considers appropriate.
       (c) Study Panel Membership.--Any panel constituted in 
     furtherance of the study to be conducted under subsection (a) 
     shall include consumer representatives.
       (d) Findings and Recommendations.--The Secretary of 
     Education shall request the National Academy of Sciences to 
     submit an interim report of its findings and recommendations 
     to the President and Congress not later than 12 months, and a 
     final report not later than 24 months, from the date of the 
     completion or procurement relating to the study.
       (e) Funding.--From such accounts as the Secretary deems 
     appropriate, the Secretary shall make available $600,000 for 
     fiscal year 1994, and such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal year 1995, to carry out this section. Amounts made 
     available under this subsection shall remain available until 
     expended.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1397

  (Purpose: To provide that a representative of a private, nonprofit 
 elementary and secondary school be represented on the State panel and 
            jointly selected by the chairman of such panel)

       On page 73, line 21, insert ``private, nonprofit elementary 
     and secondary schools,'' before ``local''.
       On page 74, line 2, insert ``and the representative of a 
     private, nonprofit elementary and secondary school described 
     in paragraph (1)(D)'' after ``panel''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1398

       On page 14, line 14, insert ``, firearms,'' after ``drugs'' 
     and before ``and''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1399

(Purpose: To permit State educational agencies to use certain title III 
funds to support innovative and proven methods of enhancing a teacher's 
ability to identify student learning needs, and to motivate students to 
    develop higher order thinking skills, discipline, and creative 
  resolution methods, including significantly reducing class size and 
                    promoting instruction in chess)

       On page 89, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       (E) supporting innovative and proven methods of enhancing a 
     teacher's ability to identify student learning needs, and 
     motivating students to develop higher order thinking skills, 
     discipline, and creative resolution methods, including 
     significantly reducing class size and promoting instruction 
     in chess;
       On page 89, line 11, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
       On page 89, line 14, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(G)''.
       On page 89, line 19, strike ``(G)'' and insert ``(H)''.
       On page 90, line 4, strike ``(H)'' and insert ``(I)''.
       On page 90, line 11, strike ``(I)'' and insert ``(J)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1400

(Purpose: To provide authority for the National Education Standards and 
    Improvement Council and its working group on voluntary national 
 opportunity-to-learn standards to consider unsolicited proposals for 
such standards, and to require the Secretary of Education to award more 
             than 1 opportunity-to-learn development grant)

       On page 37, line 8, insert ``In carrying out the preceding 
     sentence the Council and the working group are authorized to 
     consider proposals for voluntary national opportunity-to-
     learn standards from groups other than those that receive 
     grants under Section 218.'' after the period.
       On page 49, line 9, strike ``GRANT'' and insert ``GRANTS''.
       On page 49, line 11, strike ``Grant'' and insert 
     ``Grants''.
       On page 49, line 13, strike ``a grant or grants'' and 
     insert ``more than 1 grant''.
       On page 49, line 14, strike ``a consortium or''.
       On page 49, line 15, strike ``consortium or''.
       On page 51, line 4, strike ``a grant or grants'' and insert 
     ``more than 1 grant''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1401

 (Purpose: To establish procedures by which members of the Goals Panel 
                    vote and reach final decisions)

       On page 25, strike lines 19 through 20, and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Voting and Final Decisions.--
       (1) In general.--No individual may vote, or exercise any of 
     the duties or powers of a member of the Goals Panel, by 
     proxy.
       (2) Final decisions.--
       (A) In making final decisions of the Goals Panel with 
     respect to the exercise of its duties and powers the Goals 
     Panel shall operate on the principle of consensus among the 
     members of the Goals Panel.
       (B) If a vote of the membership of the Goals Panel is 
     required to reach final decision with respect to the exercise 
     of its duties and powers, then such final decision shall be 
     made by a three-fourths vote of the members of the Goals 
     Panel who are present and voting.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1402

 (Purpose: To provide that the national opportunity-to-learn standards 
address the extent to which school facilities provide a safe and secure 
    environment for learning and instruction and have the requisite 
 libraries, laboratories, and other resources necessary to provide an 
                         opportunity-to-learn)

       On page 38, line 5, strike ``and''.
       On page 38, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       (E) the extent to which school facilities provide a safe 
     and secure environment for learning and instruction and have 
     the requisite libraries, laboratories, and other resources 
     necessary to provide an opportunity-to-learn; and
       On page 38, line 6, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1403

       On page 16, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       (8) Teacher education and professional development.--
       (A) Goal.--By the year 2000, the Nation's teaching force 
     will have access to programs for the continued improvement of 
     their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the 
     knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all 
     American students for the next century.
       (B) Objectives.--The objectives for the goal established 
     under subparagraph (A) are that--
       (i) all teachers will have access to preservice teacher 
     education and continuing professional development activities 
     that will provide such teachers with the knowledge and skills 
     needed to teach to an increasingly diverse student population 
     with a variety of educational, social, and health needs;
       (ii) all teachers will have continuing opportunities to 
     acquire additional knowledge and skills needed to teach 
     challenging subject matter and to use emerging new methods, 
     forms of assessment, and technologies;
       (iii) States and school districts will create integrated 
     strategies to attract, recruit, prepare, retrain, and support 
     the continued professional development of teachers, 
     administrators, and other educators, so that there is a 
     highly talented work force of professional educators to teach 
     challenging subject matter; and
       (iv) partnerships will be established, whenever possible, 
     among local educational agencies, institutions of higher 
     education, parents, and local labor, business, and 
     professional associations to provide and support programs for 
     the professional development of educators.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1404

  (Purpose: To provide that nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, 
  direct, or control the use by a public, private, religious, or home 
      school of any curricular framework, instructional material, 
            examination, assessment or system of assessment)

       On page 115, line 17, strike ``and''.
       On page 115, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 115, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (3) to mandate any curriculum framework, instructional 
     material, examination, assessment or system of assessments 
     for home schools.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1405

 (Purpose: To protect children from exposure to environmental tobacco 
             smoke in the provision of children's services)

       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

                 TITLE VI--ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Preventing Our Kids From 
     Inhaling Deadly Smoke (PRO-KIDS) Act of 1993''.

     SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) environmental tobacco smoke comes from secondhand smoke 
     exhaled by smokers and sidestream smoke emitted from the 
     burning of cigarettes, cigars, and pipes;
       (2) since citizens of the United States spend up to 90 
     percent of each day indoors, there is a significant potential 
     for exposure to environmental tobacco smoke from indoor air;
       (3) exposure to environmental tobacco smoke occurs in 
     schools, public buildings, and other indoor facilities;
       (4) recent scientific studies have concluded that exposure 
     to environmental tobacco smoke is a cause of lung cancer in 
     healthy nonsmokers and is responsible for acute and chronic 
     respiratory problems and other health impacts in sensitive 
     populations (including children);
       (5) the health risks posed by environmental tobacco smoke 
     exceed the risks posed by many environmental pollutants 
     regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency; and
       (6) according to information released by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, environmental tobacco smoke results in a 
     loss to the economy of over $3,000,000,000 per year.

     SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Children.--The term ``children'' means individuals who 
     have not attained the age of 18.
       (3) Children's services.--The term ``children's services'' 
     means services that are--
       (A)(i) direct health services routinely provided to 
     children; or
       (ii) any other direct services routinely provided primarily 
     to children, including educational services; and
       (B) funded, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by 
     Federal funds (including in-kind assistance).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 604. NONSMOKING POLICY FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES.

       (a) Issuance of Guidelines.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     issue guidelines for instituting and enforcing a 
     nonsmoking policy at each indoor facility where children's 
     services are provided.
       (b) Contents of Guidelines.--A nonsmoking policy that meets 
     the requirements of the guidelines shall, at a minimum, 
     prohibit smoking in each portion of an indoor facility where 
     children's services are provided that is not ventilated 
     separately (as defined by the Administrator) from other 
     portions of the facility.

     SEC. 605. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator and the Secretary shall 
     provide technical assistance to persons who provide 
     children's services and other persons who request technical 
     assistance.
       (b) Assistance by the Administrator.--The technical 
     assistance provided by the Administrator under this section 
     shall include information to assist persons in compliance 
     with the requirements of this title.
       (c) Assistance by the Secretary.--The technical assistance 
     provided by the Secretary under this section shall include 
     information for employees on smoking cessation programs and 
     on smoking and health issues.

     SEC. 606. FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, each person who provides children's services shall 
     establish and make a good-faith effort to enforce a 
     nonsmoking policy that meets or exceeds the requirements of 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Nonsmoking Policy.--
       (1) General requirements.--A nonsmoking policy meets the 
     requirements of this subsection if the policy--
       (A) is consistent with the guidelines issued under section 
     604(a);
       (B) prohibits smoking in each portion of an indoor facility 
     used in connection with the provision of services directly to 
     children; and
       (C) where appropriate, requires that signs stating that 
     smoking is not permitted be posted in each indoor facility to 
     communicate the policy.
       (2) Permissible features.--A nonsmoking policy that meets 
     the requirements of this subsection may allow smoking in 
     those portions of the facility--
       (A) in which services are not normally provided directly to 
     children; and
       (B) that are ventilated separately from those portions of 
     the facility in which services are normally provided directly 
     to children.
       (c) Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--A person described in subsection (a) may 
     publicly petition the head of the Federal agency from which 
     the person receives Federal funds (including financial 
     assistance) for a waiver from any or all of the requirements 
     of subsection (b).
       (2) Conditions for granting a waiver.--Except as provided 
     in paragraph (3), the head of the Federal agency may grant a 
     waiver only--
       (A) after consulting with the Administrator, and receiving 
     the concurrence of the Administrator;
       (B) after giving an opportunity for public hearing (at the 
     main office of the Federal agency or at any regional office 
     of the agency) and comment; and
       (C) if the person requesting the waiver provides assurances 
     that are satisfactory to the head of the Federal agency (with 
     the concurrence of the Administrator) that--
       (i) unusual extenuating circumstances prevent the person 
     from establishing or enforcing the nonsmoking policy (or a 
     requirement under the policy) referred to in subsection (b) 
     (including a case in which the person shares space in an 
     indoor facility with another entity and cannot obtain an 
     agreement with the other entity to abide by the nonsmoking 
     policy requirement) and the person will establish and make a 
     good-faith effort to enforce an alternative nonsmoking policy 
     (or alternative requirement under the policy) that will 
     protect children from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke 
     to the maximum extent possible; or
       (ii) the person requesting the waiver will establish and 
     make a good-faith effort to enforce an alternative nonsmoking 
     policy (or alternative requirement under the policy) that 
     will protect children from exposure to environmental tobacco 
     smoke to the same degree as the policy (or requirement) under 
     subsection (b).
       (3) Special waiver.--
       (A) In general.--On receipt of an application, the head of 
     the Federal agency may grant a special waiver to a person 
     described in subsection (a) who employs individuals who are 
     members of a labor organization and provide children's 
     services pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement that--
       (i) took effect before the date of enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (ii) includes provisions relating to smoking privileges 
     that are in violation of the requirements of this section.
       (B) Termination of waiver.--A special waiver granted under 
     this paragraph shall terminate on the earlier of--
       (i) the first expiration date (after the date of enactment 
     of this Act) of the collective bargaining agreement 
     containing the provisions relating to smoking privileges; or
       (ii) the date that is 1 year after the date specified in 
     subsection (f).
       (d) Civil Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--Any person subject to the requirements of 
     this section who fails to comply with the requirements shall 
     be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an 
     amount not to exceed $1,000 for each violation, but in no 
     case shall the amount be in excess of the amount of Federal 
     funds received by the person for the fiscal year in which the 
     violation occurred for the provision of children's 
     services. Each day a violation continues shall constitute 
     a separate violation.
       (2) Assessment.--A civil penalty for a violation of this 
     section shall be assessed by the head of the Federal agency 
     that provided Federal funds (including financial assistance) 
     to the person (or if the head of the Federal agency does not 
     have the authority to issue an order, the appropriate 
     official) by an order made on the record after opportunity 
     for a hearing in accordance with section 554 of title 5, 
     United States Code. Before issuing the order, the head of the 
     Federal agency (or the appropriate official) shall--
       (A) give written notice to the person to be assessed a 
     civil penalty under the order of the proposal to issue the 
     order; and
       (B) provide the person an opportunity to request, not later 
     than 15 days after the date of receipt of the notice, a 
     hearing on the order.
       (3) Amount of civil penalty.--In determining the amount of 
     a civil penalty under this subsection, the head of the 
     Federal agency (or the appropriate official) shall take into 
     account--
       (A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the 
     violation;
       (B) with respect to the violator, the ability to pay, the 
     effect of the penalty on the ability to continue operation, 
     any prior history of the same kind of violation, the degree 
     of culpability, and a demonstration of willingness to comply 
     with the requirements of this title; and
       (C) such other matters as justice may require.
       (4) Modification.--The head of the Federal agency (or the 
     appropriate official) may compromise, modify, or remit, with 
     or without conditions, any civil penalty that may be imposed 
     under this subsection. The amount of the penalty as finally 
     determined or agreed upon in compromise may be deducted from 
     any sums that the United States owes to the person against 
     whom the penalty is assessed.
       (5) Petition for review.--A person who has requested a 
     hearing concerning the assessment of a penalty pursuant to 
     paragraph (2) and is aggrieved by an order assessing a civil 
     penalty may file a petition for judicial review of the order 
     with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit or for any other circuit in which the person 
     resides or transacts business. The petition may only be filed 
     during the 30-day period beginning on the date of issuance of 
     the order making the assessment.
       (6) Failure to pay.--If a person fails to pay an assessment 
     of a civil penalty--
       (A) after the order making the assessment has become a 
     final order and without filing a petition for judicial review 
     in accordance with paragraph (5); or
       (B) after a court has entered a final judgment in favor of 
     the head of the Federal agency (or appropriate official),

     the Attorney General shall recover the amount assessed (plus 
     interest at then currently prevailing rates from the last day 
     of the 30-day period referred to in paragraph (5) or the date 
     of the final judgment, as the case may be) in an action 
     brought in an appropriate district court of the United 
     States. In the action, the validity, amount, and 
     appropriateness of the penalty shall not be subject to 
     review.
       (e) Exemption.--This section shall not apply to a person 
     who provides children's services who--
       (1) has attained the age of 18;
       (2) provides children's services--
       (A) in a private residence; and
       (B) only to children who are, by affinity or consanguinity, 
     or by court decree, a grandchild, niece, or nephew of the 
     provider; and
       (3) is registered and complies with any State requirements 
     that govern the children's services provided.
       (f) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     first day of the first fiscal year beginning after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 607. REPORT BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall submit a report to Congress that 
     includes--
       (1) information concerning the degree of compliance with 
     this title; and
       (2) an assessment of the legal status of smoking in public 
     places.

     SEC. 608. PREEMPTION.

       Nothing in this title is intended to preempt any provision 
     of law of a State or political subdivision of a State that is 
     more restrictive than a provision of this title.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1406

  (Purpose: To make technical changes reading educational technology)

       On page 5, line 17, strike ``and''.
       On page 5, line 21, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       On page 5, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       (F) promoting the use of technology to enable all students 
     to achieve the National Education Goals.
       On page 6. between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       (6) the terms ``interoperable'' and ``interoperability'' 
     refers to the ability to easily exchange data with, and 
     connect to, other hardware and software in order to provide 
     the greatest accessibility for all students.
       On page 6, line 24, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 7, line 4, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       On page 7, line 9, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       On page 7, line 15, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
       On page 7, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       (11) the term ``public telecommunication entity'' has the 
     same meaning given to such term in section 397(12) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934;
       On page 7, line 20, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(12)''.
       On page 7, line 23, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(13)''.
       On page 8, line 3, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(14)''.
       On page 8, line 5, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(15)''.
       On page 8, line 7, strike ``and''.
       On page 8, line 8, strike ``(14)'' and insert ``(16)''.
       On page 8, line 11, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       On page 8, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       (17) the term ``technology'' means the latest state-of-the-
     art technology products and services, such as closed circuit 
     television systems, educational television or radio programs, 
     cable television, satellite, copper and fiber optic 
     transmission, commuter, video and audio laser and CD-ROM 
     disks, and video and audio tapes, or other technologies.
       On page 53, line 2, strike ``and''.
       On page 53, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (7) to promote the effective uses of technology in existing 
     Federal education programs, such as chapter 1 of title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and 
     vocational education programs; and
       On page 53, line 3, strike ``(7) to monitor'' and insert 
     ``(8) to monitor, and disseminate information regarding,''.
       On page 53, line 12, insert ``the Office of Science and 
     technology Policy,'' after ``with''.
       On page 53, line 13, insert ``the Department of Energy, the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration,'' after 
     ``Commerce,''.
       On page 54, line 1, strike ``to''.
       On page 54, line 2, strike ``carry'' and insert ``that 
     supports the overall national technology policy and 
     carries''.
       On page 55, line 1, insert ``in support of the overall 
     national technology policy'' after ``activities''.
       On page 55, line 2, insert ``the Office of Science and 
     technology Policy,'' after ``as''.
       On page 57, line 14, insert ``The Director of Educational 
     Technology shall report directly to the Secretary and shall 
     perform such additional functions as the Secretary may 
     prescribe.'' after ``Technology.''.
       On page 58, strike lines 3 through 17, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) in support of the overall national technology policy 
     and in consultation with other Federal departments or 
     agencies which the Director determines appropriate, provide 
     leadership to the Nation in the use of technology to promote 
     achievement of the National Education Goals and to increase 
     opportunities for all students to achieve challenging State 
     content and challenging State student performance standards;
       ``(2) review all programs and training functions 
     administered by the Department and recommend policies in 
     order to promote increased use of technology and technology 
     planning throughout all such programs and functions;
       ``(3) review all relevant programs supported by the 
     Department to ensure that such programs are coordinated with 
     and support the national long-range technology plan developed 
     pursuant to this Act; and
       ``(4) perform such additional functions as the Secretary 
     may require.
       On page 58, line 25, strike the end quotation marks and the 
     second period.
       On page 58, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(d) Experts and Consultants.--The Secretary may obtain 
     the services of experts and consultants in accordance with 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code.''.
       On page 59, line 1 renumber (2) to (c).
       On page 60, line 24, insert ``giving priority to research 
     on, and evaluation of, such effectiveness and benefits in 
     elementary and secondary schools'' after ``education''.
       On page 60, after line 24, insert the following:
       (10) a biannual assessment of, and report to the public 
     regarding, the uses of technology in elementary and secondary 
     education throughout the United States upon which private 
     businesses and Federal, State and local governments may rely 
     for decisionmaking about the need for, and provision of, 
     appropriate technologies in schools, which assessment and 
     report shall use, to the extent possible, existing 
     information and resources;
       On page 61, line 1, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(11)''.
       On page 61, line 4, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(12)''.
       On page 61, line 5, strike ``and''.
       On page 61, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       (13) encouraging collaboration between the Department of 
     Education and other Federal agencies in the development, 
     implementation, evaluation and funding of applications of 
     technology for education, as appropriate; and
       On page 61, line 6, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(14)''.
       On page 110, strike lines 4 through 7, and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist 
     each State to plan effectively for improved student learning 
     in all schools through the use of technology as an integral 
     part of the State improvement plan described in section 306.
       On page 110, line 13, insert ``(or continue the development 
     of)'' after ``develop''.
       On page 111, strike lines 20 through 23, and insert the 
     following:

     cost-effective, high-speed, statewide, interoperable, wide-
     area-communication educational technology support system for 
     elementary and secondary schools within the State, 
     particularly for such schools in rural areas; and
       On page 112, line 19, insert ``public and school 
     libraries,'' after ``parents''.
       On page 112, lines 23 and 24, strike ``necessary''.
       On page 112, line 25, insert ``and school library'' after 
     ``classroom''.
       On page 13, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       (6) describe the resources necessary, and procedures, for 
     providing ongoing technical assistance to carry out such 
     plan;
       On page 113, line 12, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 113, line 15, strike ``(7)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       On page 113, line 19, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       On page 113, line 23, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
       On page 114, line 3, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(11)''.
       On page 114, line 8, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(12)''.
       On page 114, line 10, strike ``and''.
       On page 114, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
       (13) describe how the State educational agency will apply 
     the uses of technology to meet the needs of children from 
     low-income families; and
       On page 114, line 11, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(13)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1407

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that States should develop 
  and adopt challenging State content standards and challenging State 
            student performance standards in academic areas)

       It is the sense of the Senate that:
       Because high academic standards are the key to excellence 
     for all students and a focus on results is an important 
     direction for education reform, it is the sense of the Senate 
     that States should develop their own content and performance 
     standards in academic subject areas as an essential part of 
     their State reform plan.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1408

       On page 68, line 12, amend Section 304(a)(1) by adding a 
     new subparagraph ``(C)'' as follows:
       ``(C) to the Alaska Federation of Natives in cooperation 
     with the Alaska Native Education Council to benefit Alaska 
     Native students; and''
       Page 68, line 8, strike ``and''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1409

        (Purpose: To provide for education improvement programs)

  The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1410

   (Purpose: To provide assistance for Home Instruction Programs for 
                         Preschool Youngsters)

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

     SEC.  . HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS.

       Subsection (b) of section 1052 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2742(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A)(i) In any fiscal year in which this subsection 
     applies, each State that receives a grant under this part may 
     use not more than 20 percent of such grant funds in 
     accordance with this part (other than sections 1054(a), 
     1054(b), and 1055) to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     establishing, operating, or expanding a Home Instruction 
     Program for Preschool Youngsters that is not eligible to 
     receive assistance under this part due to the application of 
     such sections.
       ``(ii) Each State establishing, operating or expanding a 
     Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters pursuant to 
     clause (i) shall give priority to establishing, operating or 
     expanding, respectively, such a program that targets--
       ``(I) working poor families or near poor families that do 
     not qualify for assistance under the early childhood programs 
     under the Head Start Act or this chapter; and
       ``(II) parents who have limited or unsuccessful formal 
     schooling.
       ``(B) For the purpose of carrying out subparagraph (A), a 
     Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters that is not 
     eligible to receive assistance under this part due to the 
     application of sections 1054(a), 1054(b), and 1055 shall be 
     deemed to be an eligible entity.
       ``(C) For the purpose of this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `Home Instruction Program for Preschool 
     Youngsters' means a voluntary early-learning program, for 
     parents with one or more children between age 3 through 5, 
     inclusive, that--
       ``(I) provides support, training, and appropriate 
     educational materials, necessary for parents to implement a 
     school-readiness, home instruction program for the child; and
       ``(II) includes--
       ``(aa) group meetings with other parents participating in 
     the program;
       ``(bb) individual and group leaning experiences with the 
     parent and child;
       ``(cc) provision of resource materials on child development 
     and parent-child learning activities; and
       ``(dd) other activities that enable the parent to improve 
     learning in the home;
       ``(ii) the term `limited or unsuccessful formal schooling' 
     means the--
       ``(I) completion of secondary school with low achievement 
     during enrollment;
       ``(II) noncompletion of secondary school with low 
     achievement during enrollment; or
       ``(iii) lack of a certificate of graduation from a school 
     providing secondary education or the recognized equivalent of 
     such certificate;
       ``(iii) the term `near poor families' means families that 
     have an income that is approximately 130 percent of the 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act; and
       ``(iv) the term `working poor families' means families 
     that--
       ``(I) have family members--
       ``(aa) who are working; or
       ``(bb) who were looking for work during the 6 months prior 
     to the date on which the determination is made; and
       ``(II) earn an income not in excess of 150 percent of the 
     poverty line as described in clause (iii).''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1411

          (Purpose: To establish parents as teachers programs)

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

                      TITLE  --PARENTS AS TEACHERS

     SEC.  01. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) increased parental involvement in the education of 
     their children appears to be the key to long-term gains for 
     youngsters;
       (2) providing seed money is an appropriate role for the 
     Federal Government to play in education;
       (3) children participating in the parents as teachers 
     program in Missouri are found to have increased cognitive or 
     intellectual skills, language ability, social skills and 
     other predictors of school success;
       (4) most early childhood programs begin at age 3 or 4 when 
     remediation may already be necessary; and
       (5) many children receive no health screening between birth 
     and the time they enter school, thus such children miss the 
     opportunity of having developmental delays detected early.

     SEC.  02. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title to encourage States and 
     eligible entities to develop and expand parent and early 
     childhood education programs in an effort to--
       (1) increase parents' knowledge of and confidence in child-
     rearing activities, such as teaching and nurturing their 
     young children;
       (2) strengthen partnerships between parents and schools; 
     and
       (3) enhance the developmental progress of participating 
     children.

     SEC.   03. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``developmental screening'' means the process 
     of measuring the progress of children to determine if there 
     are problems or potential problems or advanced abilities in 
     the areas of understanding and use of language, perception 
     through sight, perception through hearing, motor development 
     and hand-eye coordination, health, and physical development;
       (2) the term ``eligible entity'' means an entity in a State 
     operating a parents as teachers program;
       (3) the term ``eligible family'' means any parent with one 
     or more children between birth and 3 years of age;
       (4) the term ``lead agency'' means--
       (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), the office, 
     agency, or other entity in a State designated by the Governor 
     to administer the parents as teachers program authorized by 
     this title; or
       (B) in the case of a grant awarded under this title to an 
     eligible entity, such eligible entity;
       (5) the term ``parent education'' includes parent support 
     activities, the provision of resource materials on child 
     development and parent-child learning activities, private and 
     group educational guidance, individual and group learning 
     experiences for the parent and child, and other activities 
     that enable the parent to improve learning in the home; and
       (6) the term ``parent educator'' means a person hired by 
     the lead agency of a State or designated by local entities 
     who administers group meetings, home visits and developmental 
     screening for eligible families.

     SEC.   04. PROGRAM ESTABLISHED.

       (a) Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to make grants 
     in order to pay the Federal share of the cost of 
     establishing, expanding, or operating parents as teachers 
     programs in a State.
       (2) Eligible recipients.--The Secretary may make a grant 
     under paragraph (1) to a State, except that, in the case of a 
     State having an eligible entity, the Secretary shall make the 
     grant directly to the eligible entity.
       (b) Funding Rule.--Grant funds awarded under this section 
     shall be used so as to supplement, and to the extent 
     practicable, increase the level of funds that would, in the 
     absence of such funds, be made available from non-Federal 
     sources, and in no case may such funds be used so as to 
     supplant funds from non-Federal sources.

     SEC. 05. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Requirements.--Each State or eligible entity receiving 
     a grant pursuant to section   04 shall conduct a parents as 
     teachers program which--
       (1) establishes and operates parent education programs, 
     including programs of developmental screening of children; 
     and
       (2) designates a lead State agency which--
       (A) shall hire parent educators who have had supervised 
     experience in the care and education of children;
       (B) shall establish the number of group meetings and home 
     visits required to be provided each year for each 
     participating family, with a minimum of 2 group meetings and 
     10 home visits for each participating family;
       (C) shall be responsible for administering the periodic 
     screening of participating children's educational, hearing 
     and visual development, using the Denver Development Test, 
     Zimmerman Preschool Language Scale, or other approved 
     screening instruments; and
       (D) shall develop recruitment and retention programs for 
     hard-to-reach populations.
       (b) Limitation.--Grant funds awarded under this title shall 
     only be used for parents as teachers programs which serve 
     families during the period beginning with the birth of a 
     child and ending when the child attains the age of 3.

     SEC. 06. SPECIAL RULES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this section--
       (1) no person, including home school parents, public school 
     parents, or private school parents, shall be required to 
     participate in any program of parent education or 
     developmental screening pursuant to the provisions of this 
     title;
       (2) no parents as teachers program assisted under this 
     title shall take any action that infringes in any manner on 
     the right of parents to direct the education of their 
     children; and
       (3) the provisions of section 438(c) of the General 
     Education Provisions Act shall apply to States and eligible 
     entities awarded grants under this title.

     SEC. 07. PARENTS AS TEACHERS NATIONAL CENTER.

       The Secretary shall establish one or more Parents As 
     Teachers Centers to disseminate information to, and provide 
     technical and training assistance to, State and eligible 
     entities establishing and operating parents as teachers 
     programs.

     SEC. 08. EVALUATIONS.

       The Secretary shall complete an evaluation of the parents 
     as teachers programs assisted under this title within 4 years 
     from the date of enactment of this Act, including an 
     assessment of such programs' impact on at-risk children.

     SEC. 09. APPLICATION.

       Each State or eligible entity desiring a grant under this 
     title shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner and accompanied by such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require. Each such application 
     shall describe the activities and services for which 
     assistance is sought.

     SEC.   10. PAYMENTS AND FEDERAL SHARE.

       (a) Payments.--The Secretary shall pay to each State or 
     eligible entity having an application approved under section   
     09 the Federal share of the cost of the activities in the 
     application.
       (b) Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal share--
       (A) for the first year for which a State or eligible entity 
     receives assistance under this title shall be 100 percent;
       (B) for the second such year shall be 100 percent;
       (C) for the third such year shall be 75 percent;
       (D) for the fourth such year shall be 50 percent; and
       (E) for the fifth such year shall be 25 percent.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of payments 
     under this title may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, 
     including planned equipment or services.

     SEC.   11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1993, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the fiscal years 1994 through 1997, to carry out this 
     title.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1412

       At the end of the bill insert the following new section:

     SEC.   .

       (a) Congressional Findings.--
       The Congress finds that--
       (1) Mentoring, peer counseling and peer tutoring programs 
     provide role models for children and build self-esteem;
       (2) Mentoring, peer counseling and peer tutoring programs 
     promote learning and help students attain the necessary 
     skills they need to excel academically;
       (3) Mentoring, peer counseling, and peer tutoring programs 
     provide healthy and safe alternatives to involvement in 
     drugs, gangs or other violent activities; and
       (4) Mentoring, peer counseling, and peer tutoring programs 
     promote school, community and parental involvement in the 
     livelihood and well-being of our children.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--
       Therefore, it is the Sense of the Congress that federal 
     education programs that provide assistance to elementary and 
     secondary education students should include authorizations 
     for establishing mentoring, peer counseling and peer tutoring 
     programs.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1413

       On page 79, line 18, strike ``Governance'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``Accountability.''
       On page 79, line 19, strike governance and insert in lieu 
     thereof accountability.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1414

       On page 83, line 16 strike the word ``may'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``shall.''
       On page 84, line 16 strike the word ``may'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``shall.''
       On page 84, line 7 strike the word ``may'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``shall.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1415

   (Purpose: To reaffirm the role of State and local governments in 
                        educational governance)

       At the appropriate place in the committee substitute add 
     the following findings:
       Congress is interested in promoting State and local 
     government reform efforts in education.
       In P.L. 96-88 the Congress found that education is 
     fundamental to the development of individual citizens and the 
     progress of the Nation;
       In P.L. 96-88 Congress found that in our federal system the 
     responsibility for education is reserved respectively to the 
     States and the local school systems and other 
     instrumentalities of the States;
       In P.L. 96-88 the Congress declared the purpose of the 
     Department of Education was to supplement and complement the 
     efforts of States, the local school systems, and other 
     instrumentalities of the States, the private sector, public 
     and private educational institutions, public and private 
     nonprofit educational research institutions, community based 
     organizations, parents and schools to improve the quality of 
     education;
       The establishment of the Department of Education, Congress 
     intended to protect the right of State and local governments 
     and public and private educational institutions in the areas 
     of educational policies and administration of programs and to 
     strengthen and improve the control of such governments and 
     institutions over their own educational programs and 
     policies;
       P.L. 96-88 specified that the establishment of the 
     Department of Education shall not increase the authority of 
     the Federal government over education or diminish the 
     responsibility for education which is reserved to the States 
     and local school systems and other instrumentalities of the 
     States;
       P.L. 96-88 specified that no provision of a program 
     administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the 
     Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or 
     any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or 
     control over the curriculum, program of instruction, 
     administration, or personnel of any educational institution, 
     school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or 
     association or over the selection or content of library 
     resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any 
     educational institution or school system. Now therefore
       The Congress agrees and reaffirms that the responsibility 
     for control of education is reserved to the States and local 
     school systems and other instrumentalities of the States and 
     that no action shall be taken under the provisions of this 
     Act by the Federal government which would, directly or 
     indirectly, impose standards or requirements of any kind 
     through the promulgation of rules, regulations, provision of 
     financial assistance and otherwise, which would reduce, 
     modify, or undercut State and local responsibility for 
     control of education.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1416

       On page 138, after line 22, insert the following.

     SEC.  AMENDMENTS TO SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 
                   PROGRAM

       (a) Program Design--
       (1) Academic Enrichment Authorized.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 253(a) of the Job Training Partnership Act is amended 
     by inserting ``academic enrichment'' after ``remedial 
     education.''
       (2) Required Services and Design.--
       (A) Subsection (c) of such section 253 is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) Basic Education and Preemployment Training.--The 
     program under this part shall provide, either directly or 
     through arrangements with other programs, each of the 
     following services to a participant where the assessment and 
     the service strategy indicate such services are appropriate:
       ``(A) Basic and Remedial Education.
       ``(B) Preemployment and Work Maturity Skills Training.
       ``(4) Integration of Work and Learning.--
       ``(A) Work Experience.--Work experience provided under this 
     part, to the extent feasible, shall include contextual 
     learning opportunities which integrate the development of 
     general competencies with the development of academic skills.
       ``(B) Classroom Training.--Classroom training provided 
     under this part shall, to the extent feasible, include 
     opportunities to apply knowledge and skills relating to 
     academic subjects to the world of work.''
       (B) Section 253 of the Job Training Partnership Act is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e) Educational Linkages.--In conducting the program 
     assisted under this part, service delivery areas shall 
     establish linkages with the appropriate educational agencies 
     responsible for service to participants. Such linkages shall 
     include arrangements to ensure that there is a regular 
     exchange of information relating to the progress, problems 
     and needs of participants, including the results of 
     assessments of the skill levels of participants.''.
       (C) Section 254 of the Job Training Partnership Act is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Prohibition on Private Actions.--Nothing in this part 
     shall be construed to establish a right for a participant to 
     bring an action to obtain services described in the 
     assessment or service strategy developed under section 
     253(c).''.
       (b) Transfer of Funds to Year Round Program.--Section 256 
     of the Job Training Partnership Act is amended by striking 
     ``10 percent'' and inserting ``20 percent''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1417

  (Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate that Federal tax laws 
  should not preclude States from promoting higher education savings 
                                 plans)

       At the end of title IV, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . STATE-SPONSORED HIGHER EDUCATION TRUST FUND SAVINGS 
                   PLAN.

       It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) individuals should be encouraged to save to meet the 
     higher education costs of their children;
       (2) an effective way to encourage those savings is through 
     State-sponsored higher education trust fund savings plans; 
     and
       (3) an effective way for the Federal Government to assist 
     such plans is to amend the Federal tax laws to provide that--
       (A) no tax is imposed on the earnings on contributions to 
     the plans if the earnings are used for higher education 
     costs,
       (B) State organizations sponsoring the plans are exempt 
     from Federal taxation, and
       (C) any charitable gift to the plans are tax-deductible and 
     are distributed to recipients on a pro rata basis.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1418

     (Purpose: To ensure that representatives of distance learning 
   consortia, and representatives of telecommunications partnerships 
receiving assistance under the Star Schools Program Assistance Act, are 
involved in developing a national long-range plan that promotes higher 
student achievement through the use of technology in education, and to 
   require such plan to describe how the Secretary of Education will 
 utilize the outcomes of the evaluation undertaken pursuant to section 
            908 of the Star Schools Program Assistance Act)

       On page 54, line 9, insert ``representatives of distance 
     learning consortia, representatives of telecommunications 
     partnerships receiving assistance under the Star Schools 
     Program Assistance Act,'' after ``technology,''.
       On page 56, line 21, strike ``and''.
       On page 56, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
       (F) how the Secretary will utilize the outcomes of the 
     evaluation undertaken pursuant to section 908 of the Star 
     Schools Program Assistance Act to promote the purposes of 
     this part; and
       On page 56, line 22, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(G)''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1419

   (Purpose: To ensure that State panels conduct outreach to involve 
            secondary school students in certain activities)

       On page 74, line 20, insert ``secondary school students,'' 
     after ``advocates,''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the package of amendments that have been 
agreed to by the managers of this bill are as follows:

       1. A series of technical amendments, including:
       An amendment by Senator Bingaman correcting a Department of 
     Education error in Chapter One allocations to Colfax County, 
     New Mexico.
       An amendment by Senators Hatfield and Durenberger relating 
     to flexibility to federal education regulations.
       An amendment by Senator Domenici regarding reporting on 
     regulatory flexibility.
       An amendment regarding the National Board for Professional 
     Teaching Standards.
       A technical amendment restoring gift authority to the 
     National Education Goals Panel.
       2. An amendment by Senator Dole requiring the Department of 
     Education to arrange with the National Academy of Sciences to 
     conduct a study on the inclusion of children with 
     disabilities in Goals 2000.
       3. An amendment by Senator Danforth requiring that the 
     state panel include representatives of private schools.
       4. An amendment by Senator Chafee including firearms in the 
     elements addressed by the sixth National Education Goal 
     regarding safe and drug-free schools.
       5. An amendment by Senator Levin including among the bill's 
     authorized activities the following: promoting significantly 
     reduced class size and instruction in chess.
       6. An amendment by Senator Domenici regarding the process 
     for making opportunity-to-learn development grants and the 
     voting procedures of the National Education Goals Panel.
       7. An amendment by Senator Moseley-Braun including school 
     facilities among the elements addressed in the voluntary 
     national opportunity-to-learn standards.
       8. My amendment, cosponsored by Senators Pell and Hatfield, 
     adding a new National Educational Goal on teacher education 
     and professional development.
       9. An amendment by Senator Burns clarifying that Goals 2000 
     does not allow the federal government to control home 
     schooling.
       10. An amendment by Senator Lautenberg protecting children 
     in federal programs from second-hand smoke.
       11. An amendment by Senator Bingaman as follows:
       Technical amendments to the technology in education 
     provisions of Goals 2000.
       A Sense of the Senate amendment stressing the importance of 
     high academic standards.
       12. An amendment by Senator Stevens making technical 
     changes regarding the allocation of Goals 2000 funds to 
     Alaska Natives.
       13. An amendment by Senators Pell, Kassebaum, Jeffords, and 
     me reauthorizing the Office of Research at the Department of 
     Education, which also includes the following:
       An amendment by Senator Glenn regarding early childhood 
     parent education programs such as the Home Instruction 
     Program for Preschool Youngsters.
       An amendment by Senator Bond, as well as Senators Dodd, 
     Rockefeller, Heflin, Shelby, Chafee, Glenn, Pryor, Danforth, 
     Hatfield, Stevens, Kohl, Inouye, Domenici, Bingaman Hollings, 
     DeConcini, and Cochran, authorizing the Parents as Teachers 
     program.
       14. An amendment by Senator Boxer indicating that mentoring 
     programs are beneficial to students.
       15. Two amendments by Senator Hatch making technical 
     changes to the state plan.
       16. An amendment by Senator Roth expressing the sense of 
     the Senate with regard to local control of education.
       17. My amendment regarding the Summer Youth Employment and 
     Training Program.
       18. An amendment by Senator McConnell expressing the sense 
     of the Senate that states should establish state-sponsored 
     higher education trust fund savings plans.
       19. Amendments by Senator Gorton encouraging the Secretary 
     of Education to promote distance learning and ensuring that 
     Goals 2000 state panels conduct outreach to secondary school 
     students.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to make good on a promise 
I made on the Senate floor on October 18, 1993. On that day, the Senate 
passed the fiscal year 1994 appropriations conference report without my 
pro-kids amendment that would make all federally funded children's 
programs smokefree. The Labor-HHS conferees dropped my amendment, 
despite the fact that the Senate passed it by an overwhelming vote of 
95 to 3.
  One of the reasons I heard for this development was that my amendment 
was legislation on an appropriations bill. Well, today I rise to offer 
my pro-kids amendment to a piece of authorizing legislation, the Goals 
2000 bill. I am determined that the Congress enact this common sense 
amendment.
  The amendment I am offering today will help prevent sickness and 
death and hold down health care costs. It will protect our children. It 
will modify some behaviors. And it will put the Federal Government on 
record as saying that our children, our future, should not be harmed by 
exposure to second hand smoke when they participate in Federal programs 
designed to help them.
  My amendment is called pro-kids. This stands for protecting our kids 
from inhaling deadly smoke and is base on a bill I introduced earlier 
this year, S. 261. This bill currently has 22 cosponsors including 
Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Bradley, Chafee, Cohen, D'Amato, Durenberger, 
Harkin, Hatch, Hatfield, Inouye, Kerry of Massachusetts, Leahy, 
Lieberman, Lugar, Metzenbaum, Moynihan, Murray, Pell, Simon, Stevens, 
and Wellstone.
  Pro-kids will protect children from secondhand smoke while they are 
participating in federally funded children's programs such as Head 
Start, WIC, chapter 1, health care and day care programs. It will 
require Federal grantees to establish a nonsmoking policy if they 
provide health services to children under the age of 18 or provide 
other social services primarily to children under the age of 18, 
including elementary and secondary education.
  This amendment will help us move towards the sixth education goals 
contained in the underlying bill that states that ``parents, 
businesses, governmental and community organizations will work together 
to ensure that schools provide a healthy environment and are a safe 
haven for all children.''
  These nonsmoking policies would limit indoor smoking in facilities 
associated with these federally funded programs to those areas which 
are not normally used to serve children and which are ventilated 
separately from these areas.
  Evidence accumulated by the EPA and other organizations shows that 
separate ventilation is necessary to prevent secondhand smoke from 
recirculating through the ventilation system right into the rooms used 
by the children.
  In cases where unusual extenuating circumstances prevent total 
compliance, programs could apply for a partial waiver from this 
provision if they protect children from exposure to secondhand smoke to 
the extent possible. This amendment also allows the adoption of the 
nonsmoking policy to be done through collective bargaining if such an 
agreement exists. And this amendment does not cover home-based child 
care services provided by relatives who receive Federal child care 
funds.
  This amendment also provides an additional role for the Environmental 
Protection Agency [EPA] with regard to environmental tobacco smoke. 
Under this legislation, the EPA will establish guidelines for 
compliance under this act.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment for one simple irrefutable 
reason; secondhand smoke kills.
  An EPA report released on January 7, 1993 undeniably confirmed what 
public health officials have reported for several years: Smoking kills 
those who smoke and those who breath secondhand smoke. This report was 
released in the Bush administration by then Administrator Reilly with 
the full support of the Secretary of HHS, Dr. Louis Sullivan. Since 
then, it has been endorsed by Administrator Browner and Secretary 
Shalala.
  Mr. President, do you know how the tobacco industry responded to this 
6 year, peer reviewed, unanimously approved study? Nine tobacco 
companies are suing the Federal Government. They can't refute the 
scientific findings, they can't influence public opinion, so they are 
using their large profits to file a lawsuit.
  Now I have been having my disagreements with the tobacco industry 
ever since I became a Senator. I have come to admire their ingenuity 
and creativity. But this response, this suit against the Government for 
releasing a scientific study documenting the impact their product has 
on human health--well, Mr. President, I have to confess that I didn't 
expect that.
  But I did expect the EPA report to reach the conclusion it did: 
Secondhand smoke is a group A carcinogen, a group that includes toxins 
such as asbestos, benzene and arsenic.
  The evidence is clear that secondhand smoke is taking an enormous 
toll on the health of Americans, particularly our children. According 
to the EPA report, 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among nonsmokers 
result from exposure to secondhand smoke.
  But secondhand smoke takes the toughest toll on our Nation's 
children. Children exposed to secondhand smoke can suffer acute illness 
and ultimately may contract lung cancer. The EPA, unequivocally has 
stated that this is the case.
  Let me read some of the effects that secondhand smoke has on our 
Nation's children that are contained in the EPA report.
  Secondhand smoke causes more than 200,000 lower respiratory tract 
infections in young children annually, including bronchitis and 
pneumonia, resulting in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations.
  Secondhand smoke exacerbates asthmatic symptoms in children and is 
associated with 8,000 to 26,000 new asthma cases in children.
  I want to point out that this is not the first word we have heard on 
this matter. In a separate study, the American Heart Association 
concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung 
cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. They reported that approximately 
50 percent of all children are exposed to secondhand smoke and it 
caused approximately 35,000 to 40,000 cardiovascular disease related 
deaths each year.
  Furthermore, in 1986, a Surgeon General's report called secondhand 
smoke a hazard to nonsmokers health.
  Given that kind of evidence, Government has to respond. We have in 
the past. In 1990, the Congress passed the Clean Air Act to regulate 
189 hazardous air pollutants which were estimated to cause 1,500 deaths 
per year. Other Government agencies like EPA, HHS, and VA and GSA have 
acted to protect their employees from secondhand smoke.
  Cities have adopted new regulations restricting indoor smoking. We 
have banned smoking on all domestic airline flights. And the White 
House, at the behest of the First Lady, the architect of the 
President's health care plan, is now smoke free.
  We have made a start.
  But we have started in the wrong place.
  We have protected ourselves. But we have not yet protected our 
children and they, more than any other group in our society, are 
threatened by secondhand smoke.
  Children are the most vulnerable members of our society. They depend 
upon us to protect them and safeguard their health. They are the future 
of this country. Isn't it time to give our children, especially those 
who depend on the Federal Government for valuable services like health 
care and pre-school training, the same protection we already afford to 
airplane travelers and some Federal workers?
  We should prohibit smoking in federally funded institutions which 
serve children under the age of 18 immediately, so that our children 
can breath healthy air.
  Now, I would just like to mention some of the many organizations 
which have endorsed pro-kids. The American Cancer Society, the American 
Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Academy 
of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Nurses 
Association, and the National Education Association, which represents 
many of our Nation's teachers.
  Now I would like to read from an EPA brochure entitled ``Secondhand 
Smoke.'' I sent a copy of this brochure to all of my colleagues and I 
urge them to read it before we vote on this issue. Let me just read an 
admonition contained in this brochure:

       EPA recommends that every organization dealing with 
     children have a smoking policy that effectively protects 
     children from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

  Mr. President, it has been over a year since Congress received the 
EPA report that concluded that secondhand smoke kills and makes our 
children sick.
  Since then, companies, States, and localities have adopted policies 
to protect nonsmokers from this deadly carcinogen. Recently the fast 
food restaurant Arby's has gone smoke free. Last year, the U.S. Postal 
Service went smoke free.
  And what action has Congress taken to protect children from 
secondhand smoke? We have done nothing. Imagine that, the Post Office 
protects its workers from secondhand smoke but we haven't protected 
children in federally funded day care centers.
  But the cruelest irony came last year when the U.S. Supreme Court 
ruled that a prisoner in Nevada--a prisoner--had the right to be 
protected from secondhand smoke. The Supreme Court has protected 
prisoners but the Congress has not protected children. This is 
disgraceful.
  As the author of the airline smoking ban, I am embarrassed by this 
lack of action. We need to protect our children from secondhand smoke, 
right now, not some time in the future.
  Mr. President, I am asking for a small change in national policy and 
a small change in individual behavior. My amendment is not 
revolutionary--it simply expands current restrictions and applies them 
to facilities serving children. It is not punitive--it does not prevent 
people from smoking or punish them if they do; it simply says they 
cannot expose our children to the harmful effects of their behavior. It 
is not based on prejudice--it is a logical and necessary response to an 
unbroken record of objective scientific evidence.
  Mr. President, the time to act is now. We have the data, we know the 
risk to our children. The Senate must pass this amendment and we must 
enact this into law. We owe this to our children.
  Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee and bill manager in a colloquy 
with regard to my pro-kids amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would be happy to discuss this matter 
with the junior Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. President, I thank the distinguished chairman. As the 
bill manager knows, I have worked hard for several years to protect 
people from the dangers of secondhand smoke. One of the measures that I 
have pushed is called pro-kids, which the Senate is considering for the 
second time in 6 months. Pro-kids would make all federally funded 
programs serving children under the age of 18 smokefree. The Senate 
initially passed pro-kids on September 28, 1993 by a recorded vote of 
95 to 3 on the fiscal year 1994 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Despite 
this overwhelming vote, the conferees dropped this provision. Critics 
of my amendment argued that this amendment was legislation on an 
appropriations bill.
  Now I am offering my amendment on an authorizing legislation, the 
Goals 2000 bill. I was determined to ask for another rollcall vote to 
emphasize how important it is for the conferees to hold this amendment. 
However, I will forgo this request if I receive assurance from the 
distinguished chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee that 
he will make every effort to hold this amendment in conference.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would say to the Senator from New Jersey that I 
support his amendment and I intend to urge the House and Senate 
conferees on the Goals 2000 legislation to include the pro-kids 
amendment in the final conference report.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate the Senator's comments and his 
commitment to make every effort to keep this amendment in conference. 
However, I wanted to inform the Senator that if this amendment is not 
included in the final conference report I will continue to push to 
enact this legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that the Senator is determined to see his 
amendment enacted into law and I commend him for it.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the distinguished floor manager for engaging 
in this colloquy. I have no objection to my pro-kids amendment being 
part of an accepted managers' package.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, and Senator 
Kassebaum, for their assistance in including my amendment on the 
importance of mentoring programs in S. 1150, the Goals 2000: Educate 
America Act. I am very grateful for their support.
  We have all seen or read the horrible statistics on the welfare of 
our children. One in five children lives in poverty; 380,000 students 
drop out of school each year, the teen pregnancy rate has soared and 
our children are growing up in a more violent society, the 
ramifications of which we are just beginning to understand.
  Mentoring programs, where youths are matched with adults or peers who 
provide role models for them during the tough, at-risk years, can 
become the quality bridge between Head Start and high school.
  I know from personal experience that mentoring is a way to make a 
difference in a child's life, to reach into the goodness of a child and 
yourself at the same time. Everyone who cares about the future of our 
children should give a child time, attention, caring, and tutoring on 
school subjects and on life.
  There are examples of mentoring and peer tutoring programs in many of 
our schools and communities. They involve college students, youth 
service organizations, and senior citizens. Unfortunately, this proven 
strategy for helping our children succeed in school and in life 
receives little direct Federal assistance. That is why I introduced my 
amendment.
  The Boxer amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that Federal 
education programs that provide assistance to elementary and secondary 
education students should include incentives for establishing 
mentoring, peer counseling, and peer tutoring programs. After passage 
of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, I hope we will move forward and 
act on this issue during consideration of the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senators Dodd, Rockefeller, Heflin, Shelby, Chafee, Glenn, Danforth, 
Hatfield, Stevens, Pryor, Kohl, Inouye, Domenici, Bingaman, Hollings, 
DeConcini, Cochran, and myself and ask for its immediate consideration.
  Mr. President, the bill we are debating today deals extensively with 
ways to reform our Nation's struggling education system. Over the past 
20 years, we have seen SAT scores decline by 35 points, even though the 
amount of money spent per pupil on primary and secondary school 
students has increased 47 percent. After 1983, when the Carnegie 
Foundation published ``A Nation At Risk,'' States and the Congress were 
spurred to implement a number of major reforms, including reducing 
class sizes, increasing teacher pay and professional development 
opportunities, placing increased emphasis on math and science, and the 
like.
  Despite 10 years of reform, our education system still struggles. Our 
kids rank next to last in the world among industrialized nations on 
proficiency in science. Only Spain, Slovenia, and Jordan score lower in 
math than United States students. Our kids take fewer foreign 
languages, and test scores have shown little or modest improvement. 
These trends are particularly disturbing as we enter a period of global 
competition.
  Why is this happening? I believe we must look further than the 
schools and teachers when we talk about reasons for our decline as an 
``education superpower.'' It is no secret that family disintegration 
and decline has contributed greatly to many of the problems in the 
system. Schools are now expected, indeed required, to take on many of 
the functions which were traditionally the responsibilities of the 
family. Many of our public schools now offer health classes, mental 
health counseling, school breakfast and lunch, and after-school 
programs.
  It is theoretically possible for a child to go through the entire day 
without seeing either parent. About two-thirds of mothers of children 
from 6 to 18 work outside the home, whether by choice or because of 
financial necessity. The divorce rate has skyrocketed since 1970, and 
20 percent of all kids now live with only one parent. The result is 
that our kids are poorer in material terms, and worse, that parents are 
less involved in their children's lives than ever before.
  Recent studies have shown that parents spend only a few minutes each 
day in direct interaction with their children. I do not believe our 
children are better off as a result of these social trends; in fact I 
believe they suffer greatly.
  No one can argue that our teen suicide rate is up, and our teenage 
pregnancy rate is unacceptable. Nearly half of school-age kids--44 
percent--are left unsupervised after school. Those kids are more likely 
to do drugs, to engage in premarital sex, and to do poorly school. The 
generation of kids currently in our Nation's public schools have less 
time with their parents than ever before--less time to share meals, 
less time to do homework, less time to learn from their parents what is 
and is not appropriate behavior. The results of this neglect show up in 
truancy, poor test scores, teenage pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, 
and a host of other social problems.
  Despite this accelerated pace of social change over the years, 
children's needs today are the same as they were in 1970. All children 
need at least one loving parent to provide for their material needs and 
to help develop their abilities, personalities, and characters. These 
needs do not begin at age 6, 10 or 16, but at birth. A child cannot put 
his needs on hold until his parent is ready and willing to meet them. 
In fact the first years are the most important.
  As Reverend Halverson has pointed out, a child learns half of all he 
will ever know by the time he reaches age 3. Within the first 3 years 
of life, the foundations of personality, character, and learning are 
laid through the example and effort of a child's parents. Yet today's 
American parent faces pressures that were unheard of a generation ago. 
Young mothers have entered the work force, both by choice and economic 
necessity, in record numbers over the last two decades. Parents often 
have jobs that force the family to relocate to cities away from 
extended family members. The result is that children spend less time 
with their parents than ever before; in addition, they are often away 
from grandmothers, aunts, and other members of their family who can 
provide the support that is necessary through good times and bad.
  Mr. President, I believe that parent education and early childhood 
development programs can help parents counteract the disturbing trend 
of not having enough time to spend with their children and the problem 
of extended family separation. Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, and many 
other States have begun to offer parent education programs in order to 
help parents be their children's first and very best teachers.
  The Parents as Teachers Program, development in my home State of 
Missouri, provides new parents with information about all stages of a 
child's development and advice about how to deal with the challenges 
that come with having children: Teething, nightmares, temper tantrums, 
illnesses, and more. Health screening is also provided on a periodic 
basis for each child so that health problems do not go undetected and 
untreated.
  Parents as teachers and similar programs emphasize the importance of 
parents in developing the emotional, physical, and social elements of 
their children's personalities in addition to providing for their 
material needs. Parents as teachers helps parents make the most of the 
time they spend with their children and provides constructive advice 
about how to beat the time crunch.

  Missouri has found great success through parents as teachers; 
children enter school ready to learn and their parents are involved in 
the schools and in their children's education.
  Mr. President, I do not believe we will ever be able to reform 
education until we really involve those with the primary 
responsibility: parents. Research shows that parental involvement in 
the education of their children is the key to long-term gains for 
youngsters. Parents are their children's first and most influential 
teachers. What parents do to help their children learn is more 
important to academic success than other factors. We need to help 
ensure strong links between the home and school from the earliest 
possible time.
  At the request of Senator Hatfield, the committee has added a seventh 
national goal: that of parental involvement. I commend the Senator from 
Oregon for his strong voice on behalf of parents. Frankly, the idea of 
parental involvement is so simple, so basic, so fundamental to true 
progress that I am surprised it took this long to be included in the 
national goals.
  Now, for that goal to be truly meaningful, we should put some teeth 
behind it.
  The parents-as-teachers curriculum starts early in strengthening the 
foundations of later learning--language and intellectual development, 
curiosity and social skills. In addition, health screening is provided 
for participating preschool children to detect potential impairments 
early.
  Parents as teachers is a proven, effective program. Two independent 
research studies have shown that children participating in parents as 
teachers consistently score significantly higher on all measures of 
intellectual achievement, auditory comprehension, verbal ability, and 
language ability than their peers who did not participate. And these 
gains held true regardless of the socioeconomic status of the family, 
or marital status of the parents.
  Parents-as-teachers staff have been successful in identifying and 
intervening to help children overcome developmental delays, and in 
encouraging families to seek medical assistance or other specialized 
services. Many children receive no health screening between birth and 
the time they enter school. The Parents-as-Teachers Program provides 
periodic health screening so that minor vision and hearing problems can 
be arrested early, before they result in developmental delays. Early 
intervention through parents as teachers results in improved or 
corrected conditions before a child reaches school.

  Parents participating in parents as teachers were shown in the same 
study to be more knowledgeable about child-rearing practices and child 
development than comparison parents.
  And another study done in 1989 showed that children maintained these 
gains through the first grade. Teachers reported that parents who had 
participated in the program were more involved in school activities 
than nonparticipants. Thus the crucial link between home and school is 
established through this program.
  Research has also shown that many two-parent, middle-income families 
have problems with parent-child communication and family stress, 
putting their children at risk for developmental delays. Some of you 
may recall a George Will editorial titled ``Mothers Who Don't Know 
How,'' which referred to this phenomenon as the ``Gilded Ghetto'', 
where parents give their children everything but time, which is crucial 
to child development.
  Implementation of parents as teachers on a broad scale could go a 
long way toward ensuring that our Nation meets the first educational 
goal: That all children enter school ready to learn.
  Briefly, my amendment would set up a $20 million competitive grant 
for States who wish to begin or expand parent education programs for 
families with kids birth to 3. We believe providing seed money to 
expand proven-effective programs is an appropriate role for the Federal 
Government.
  We envision that down the road the States will be able to muster the 
political support they need for this great program to sustain it by 
themselves, and provide for a diminishing Federal share over the 5-year 
authorization.
  Mr. President, I have a personal interest in the ongoing success of 
this program. The program started with a bit of Federal seed money in 
four Missouri school districts while I was Governor. My wife Carolyn 
and I utilized the information from the program when our son Sam was 
born, and experienced first-hand its beneficial effects, both for 
parents and children. For four successive State of the State Addresses 
as Missouri Governor, I asked that the pat program be authorized for 
every school district statewide.
  Since I signed it into law in 1984, the program has served 167,000 
Missouri families. Currently, 65,000 Missouri families participate each 
year. The program serves 35 percent of all families with children 0-3 
regardless of socioeconomic status. And the families love it.
  I would certainly like to see the day that parents as teachers is 
offered in every school district in America. I believe that equipping 
parents to maximize the intellectual and social development of their 
children is the best investment we can make in the next generation.
  Children spend far more time at home with their parents than they do 
in school. In fact, teachers tell me that it is virtually impossible 
for children to separate behavior and motivation to learn in school 
from what is going on at home. Yet, in terms of education policy we 
spend little time focusing on home life, and in most Federal programs 
children are taken out of their homes and put in centers and cared for 
by professionals. It makes infinitely more sense for us to focus on 
parents, and to equip them with the skills they need and want to help 
ensure the best possible start for their children. That is what this 
amendment does, and I urge its support.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Senator Bond to include the Parents as Teachers 
Program in the Goals 2000 legislation, and I commend the Senator from 
Missouri for his leadership in moving this important program forward.
  Goals 2000 establishes in law our national education goals. The first 
of these goals calls for all children in America to start school ready 
to learn by the year 2000. It is astonishing that this is still a goal 
rather than a reality for a country as wealthy as ours. Even more 
astonishing is the fact that it is a goal we are far from achieving.


                           not ready to learn

  The national goals panel reported last year that just over half of 
all 3- to 5-year-olds attend preschool and that only 53 percent are 
read to each day. In addition, the panel reported that only 37 percent 
of 2-year-olds are immunized against major childhood disease.
  These are serious obstacles we must overcome if we ever hope to make 
a difference in our schools. But the route to school readiness is no 
mystery--we have proven models that have been successful in preparing 
children for school.


                  parents the most important teachers

  The Parents as Teachers Program is one of the best of those. It 
succeeds by recognizing that parents are a child's first and most 
important teachers and by giving parents the tools they need to be 
successful in this role.
  The Parents as Teachers Program began in Missouri in 1981 under the 
leadership of Governor Kit Bond. Over the last decade, the program 
spread and is now working in 41 States--including Connecticut--to 
enhance parents' role in education.
  Local voluntary programs provide parents of infants and toddlers with 
child development information and assistance. Parent educators work 
with parents to support their efforts to create home environments 
conducive to learning.


                     modest cost, impressive result

  The approach is simple and the cost modest. But the results are 
impressive and far-reaching. Several thorough evaluations have shown 
that children who participated in the program score significantly 
higher on measures of school-related achievement. In addition, child 
development experts speak highly of this approach, among them Dr. 
Edward Zigler, director of the Bush Center in Child Development and 
Social Policy at Yale University.
  While the Parents as Teachers Program most obviously addresses the 
challenge of our first national education goal--school readiness--it 
should also help us achieve all the others, from school completion and 
student achievement to making our schools safe and drug-free. There are 
few factors as critical to improving our schools as the involvement of 
parents. The Parents as Teachers Program engages parents in education 
from day one and brings us a vital ally in our efforts to achieve our 
goals.
  I believe the Parents as Teachers Program can be a critical component 
of our efforts in the Goals 2000 legislation, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in support of this amendment.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague and 
friend Senator Bond as a cosponsor of the amendment to Goals 2000, 
pertaining to parents as teachers. I am an original cosponsor of this 
legislation, which, as you know, will encourage States to establish 
parents as teachers programs.
  Senator Bond and I have been trying to get this legislation passed by 
the Senate for several years.
  Parents as Teachers provides guidance and support to new parents, 
encouraging them to nurture a readiness to learn in their infants. Data 
collected in a 13-year study of the early development by the Harvard 
University preschool project, indicate that language, curiosity, social 
skills, and cognitive intelligence, lay the foundation for learning. 
The study further shows that, with few exceptions, the development of 
these skills in a 6-year-old can be predicted at age 3. An official who 
headed several departments in the Mobile, AL, County Public School 
System, told a group of State legislatures and business persons:

       We weep when we see the conditions some of the 4- and 5-
     year-old children are in when they come to us. They don't 
     understand simple directions, are afraid of adults and other 
     children, and have low receptive and expressive language. 
     They are simply not ready either for kindergarten or first 
     grade.

  The time and effort involved in helping children try to catchup are 
staggering.
  Parents as Teachers is the obvious next step beyond Head Start. By 
beginning at the beginning, prevention can replace remediation.
  The Parents as Teachers Program is spreading across the Nation. It is 
growing because it has a proven record of success. In my home State of 
Alabama, parents as teachers programs have been very successful.
  These Alabama programs receive financial support and encouragement 
from the Children's Trust Fund. The Alabama Children's Trust Fund 
provided the original funds which allowed the Mobile, AL, Parents as 
First Teachers Program to open its doors.
  However, there is a need for immediate Federal financial assistance. 
The original pilot program in Mobile, AL, and the Parents as Teachers 
Program in Montgomery almost had to close their doors several years ago 
because of lack of funds. The Montgomery program is partially supported 
by Montgomery County Board of Education funds but can serve only a 
small segment of its target population.

  There is a growing recognition in this country of the importance of 
the first 3 years of a child's development. Subtle and overt influences 
during this period of development may adversely affect the academic and 
social development of children. I am convinced that the Parents as 
Teachers Program is the most effective system available to help parents 
best nurture their children.
  Money spent on this program is clearly an investment. By reaching 
children before problems take root, failure and the need for 
remediation can be avoided. Further, the Parents as Teachers Program 
can help parents nurture the skills necessary for their children's 
later school success.
  The Parents as Teachers Program may also help to address some social 
problems facing our Nation. The Children's Trust Fund of Alabama is 
convinced that this program can prevent or reduce child abuse, which is 
a problem affecting all socioeconomic and racial groups. Also, the 
Montgomery County, AL, Board of Education has demonstrated its 
confidence in this program to aid teen mothers by choosing this as its 
focus group.
  Parents as Teachers will not create a huge Federal bureaucratic 
program. It is designed to encourage States to adopt parents as 
teachers projects by providing seed money.
  Mr. President, I would like to see Parents as Teachers Programs 
available to parents and infants statewide and nationwide.
  Not only has this program proven itself as an effective deterrent to 
child abuse and infant mortality but it has also been an effective 
preparatory program for learning, and a stimulus of the curiosity and 
problem solving skills so desperately needed in our Nation.
  I am sure that my colleagues agree that an ounce of prevention is 
worth a pound of cure.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to consider the 
potential of this program, then join us in support of this amendment 
which will encourage States to establish Parents as Teachers Programs.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Bond amendment on 
Parents As Teachers. I cosponsored similar legislation in the 101st and 
102d Congresses because I believed then, as I do now, that parents must 
be actively involved in the education of their children if children are 
to reach their fullest potential.
  I am sure that if any of us could remember the very first thing we 
learned, there is a high probability that a parent taught it to us--
whether it was shaking a rattler or reading a nursery rhyme. Since 
parents are children's first teachers, it is important that parents 
have the necessary knowledge and skills to ensure that their children's 
preschool years are spent in a positive and productive educational 
environment.
  Numerous studies indicate that the first years of a child's life 
profoundly effect his later learning capabilities. For example, during 
the early years, children learn more at a faster rate than at other 
periods of their lives. In addition, the development of language, 
intelligence, and curiosity occur during the first 3 years of life. A 
child's personality also is most actively molded during this period. 
Thus, it is important that parents reflect a loving and enthusiastic 
attitude towards the child. Parents must know: How to show affection 
for the child; how to express pride in the child's accomplishments; how 
to choose educational toys; how to answer the child's questions, and 
how to allow the child to explore his environment freely as long as the 
exploration does not endanger the child's safety.
  Parents who do these things well can reasonably expect that their 
children will grow up emotionally stable and intellectually prepared 
for school.
  Because the first 3 years of a child's life are so important, we must 
put forth our best efforts to ensure that parents know how to teach and 
care for their children. While this statement seems clearly obvious to 
most of us, we must realize that childrearing to a great extent in 
America is trial and error often based on the experiences of our 
parents or other adults in our lives. However, we have an opportunity 
here to take advantage of years of research in early 
childhood development to compensate for some of the experiences which 
have been passed on that may not contribute to a positive learning 
environment.

  It is especially important that parents be educated to be good 
parents because so many of today's parents are mere children 
themselves. However, the Parents as Teachers Program addresses the 
needs of all parents--young and old, poor and middle class.
  Many believe that the parents as teachers legislation is unnecessary 
because we already have Head Start. I agree that Head Start is an 
extremely effective program which I wholeheartedly support; however, 
for many children, Head Start, which begins at age 3, is too late.
  The parents as teachers legislation would go a long way in bridging 
the gap between birth and Head Start. This amendment would provide seed 
money to States to fund an early childhood education program for 
parents. Specifically, the legislation would authorize a $100 million 
competitive grant program over 5 years for States desiring to begin or 
expand parents as teachers programs. Under the legislation, Federal 
funding would decline to 75 percent in the third year, 50 percent in 
the fourth year, and 25 percent in the fifth year. After the fifth 
year, the legislation would require the States to pick up the cost of 
the program.
  I am pleased to support the Bond amendment because I am familiar with 
the success of the Parents as Teachers Program in my home State of 
Alabama. The Alabama program enrolls parents when the mother is 
pregnant, and the family remains in the program until the child's third 
birthday. The program provides services such as: Home visits by parent 
educators trained in child development; group meetings to help parents 
share experiences; periodic health screening of children to check 
sensory and educational development; and referral to community and 
professional services if problems are detected during the screenings.
  The Alabama Parents as Teachers Program is based on a Missouri model 
established in 1984. A recent study of the children who participated in 
the Missouri program in the early 80's indicated that the children were 
significantly ahead of other children in academic performance at the 
end of the first grade. In addition, the study also revealed that the 
parents in the Missouri program have continued to play a more active 
role in their children's education than other parents.
  The results of the Missouri study and the success of the program in 
Alabama are enough for me to know that this legislation is worthy of my 
support. We cannot skimp when it comes to the education of our 
children--they are our country's future. Although the funding of the 
Parents as Teachers Program would result in budget expenditures, the 
long-term benefit to society would far outweigh the short-term costs of 
the program. The results would translate into a sound financial 
investment that will save future costs for welfare, social services, 
and the criminal justice system. I strongly urge all of my colleagues 
to support this amendment which represents an investment in the human 
capital of our Nation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator 
Bond's bill S. 715, the Parents as Teachers Act, and of this amendment.
  As a member of the National Education Goals Panel, I have paid 
special attention to Goal One--that every child will enter school ready 
to learn. In the course of that work, I have become convinced of the 
critical importance of good parenting in a child's early years--
children who are read to become better readers, children who 
participate in activities with their parents, whether they be going to 
church or neighborhood events or libraries, are more successful in the 
early grades in school--and later on as they proceed through school. 
Parents are their children's first teachers--but sometimes they need 
help in being the best teachers they can be. Parents as Teachers offers 
parents the opportunity to learn more about child development, child 
safety, and child health.
  In Las Cruces, NM, we have a Parents as Teachers Program which has 
been tremendously successful. Like all Parents as Teachers Programs, it 
is entirely voluntary--parents ask for these services. Last year the 
program served 276 families in the Las Cruces area--there are over 300 
participants currently enrolled. Vision, hearing, and developmental 
screening are offered and 10 visits per year are made to participants' 
homes. In Las Cruces there are three bilingual parent educators and all 
of their birth-to-year-3 curriculums have been translated into Spanish. 
When I visited with the program last year I spoke with parents, who 
described to me how valuable the program had been for them--not only 
with respect to the intellectual and social development of their 
children but in terms of their own self-respect and esteem as parents.
  In Las Cruces the PAT Program provides the parenting component for 
Even Start and the Migrant Even Start Program but it does much more 
because it reaches out to families regardless of their income level. 
Seventy-five of the Las Cruces families are from the White Sands 
Missile Range. These parents have welcomed the Parents as Teachers 
Program--have sought out these services and are grateful for the 
support which PAT has given them in what is the most important and 
probably the hardest job in life--parenting.
  I strongly urge you to support this amendment to establish and fund 
the Parents as Teachers Program as part of Goals 2000.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of the Parents as Teachers Act and the amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Missouri, Senator Kit Bond to S. 1150.
  Parents are a child's first teacher. Research shows that fundamental, 
life-long learning skills are established from infancy. It is reported 
that self-esteem is established by the age of 4. The parent-child 
relationship is a critical factor in a child's success in early school 
years and throughout life.
  But parents do not instinctively know how to help their children 
build a foundation for learning and health care. They need tools and 
guidance to be good at helping their children in this way.
  That is why this amendment is so important. It authorizes the 
Secretary of Education to make grants, on a competitive basis, to 
establish community programs to help parents provide a life of learning 
and growing for their children and to make the transition between 
infancy and independence.
  Specifically, it provides $20 million in funding for approximately 
1,000 school districts to participate in this program. The average 
annual cost for each district is $20,000. Once established, States and 
local communities will eventually pick up the cost of the program. This 
legislation phases out Federal funds through a declining match from 100 
to 25 percent over a 5-year authorization
  This amendment provides parents with the tools to strengthen language 
skills, intellectual development, social skills, and health care of 
children throughout their lives. The program has an adult literacy 
component, open to parents with children aged 3 and under, regardless 
of their socio economic status.
  It also establishes a national center to provide information, 
training, and technical assistance to participants.
  Key provisions include:
  Home visits by parent educators upon request to give research-based 
information to parents about language skills, psychological, and 
physical development;
  Periodic health screening to ensure that disabilities or development 
problems are detected before a child enters school; and
  Group visits for parents to allow them to meet parents with children 
of the same age and establish a support group to discuss problems.
  My home State of Mississippi has developed a program patterned after 
the successful Missouri Parents as Teachers model. Located in Jackson, 
MS, the Center for Family Education is supported by a cooperative 
partnership between the Junior League of Jackson, Central Presbyterian 
Church in Jackson, the Field Cooperative Association, the Child Care 
Food Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Mississippi 
Department of Human Services, and Frito lay, Inc.
  The Jackson program utilizes part-time paid staff and volunteers in a 
public-private effort. It has brought dramatic and positive change in 
the quality of life for the families it has served. It provides the 
missing link in the mosaic of Federal and State services to children 
and families, and it works because it recognizes that positive parental 
involvement is the key to a child's successful development.
  The first of the six education goals established by the President and 
the Nation's Governors is: ``By the year 2000, all children in America 
will start school ready to learn.''
  Nothing could be more important in achieving this goal than helping 
parents establish a home environment for their children that celebrates 
learning and good health care. This is a good prevention program 
because its long-term benefits should result in better educated and 
more employable youth, fewer drop-outs, reduced teen pregnancy, less 
need for remedial education programs, and less dependency on drugs and 
alcohol.
  The Parents as Teachers Act calls for a modest investment in Federal 
funding. But this modest investment will generate a huge return for 
individuals and entire communities. I thank Senator Bond for asking me 
to join as a sponsor of this amendment and applaud him for bringing 
this exemplary model program to our attention.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to support the amendment to S. 
1150 reauthorizing the office of educational research and improvement. 
It is particularly fitting that we take it up as a part of our broader 
efforts to assist local communities in improving their schools through 
the Goal 2000 legislation.
  It is true that at first glance, the Office of Educational Research 
and Improvement may not seem integral to education reform. This is 
certainly not an attention-grabbing office of the Government. But it 
nonetheless plays an indispensable role because it is the Office that 
tells us what works and what doesn't when it comes to education.


                          top-quality research

  The reauthorization of the Office of Education Research and 
Improvement ensures that schools across the country will have access to 
top-quality, timely education research. I am particularly pleased that 
this legislation includes changes I offered to ensure that the Office 
will study one of the most serious problems facing our schools today--
violence.


                       the need to study violence

  A few years ago, the idea that the Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement should study violence would have seemed preposterous. I am 
sorry to say, however, that violence is a reality in many of our 
schools, and they need the Office's help to develop and evaluate 
promising strategies to stop it.
  While we are working through the Safe Schools Act to provide direct 
security assistance to schools, we must acknowledge that Federal 
dollars alone will never be sufficient to reach every community in need 
of help. Through Federal research, however, we can provide schools 
across the country with valuable information about what works and what 
doesn't in violence prevention. They can then use that information to 
make their own buildings safe for their students.


                  INCIDENTS DEMONSTRATE NEED FOR HELP

  The need for this help is clear. Schools need to know how to stop 
shootings like the one that took the life of young Miguel DeJesus last 
year as he approached the front door of his school in New Britain, CT. 
Schools need to know how to stop the terror caused when gunfire breaks 
out in their hallways, as happened at Dunbar High School here in 
Washington last month. Schools need to know how they can safeguard 
their students and teachers and create an environment fit for learning.
  Bringing the benefit of the Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement's works in this and other areas into the classroom is one 
of the most useful things we can do to help our schools help 
themselves. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am offering today on behalf of myself 
and on behalf of Senator Domenici an amendment in order to rectify an 
extremely unfortunate situation which has arisen in our State as a 
result of an inadvertent error by the chapter 1 office of the 
Department of Education. Because of that error, many children who would 
otherwise be entitled to chapter 1 services over the 3 years will not 
receive those services.
  Colfax County is a small county in northern New Mexico. In 1993, 
Colfax received notice from the U.S. Department of Education that its 
chapter 1 allocation, which had been expected to be about $330,000 was 
instead over $680,000. Upon receipt of this unexpected funding, Colfax 
contacted the Department of Education to verify the amount. Colfax was 
told that the amount was correct. Colfax proceeded to distribute the 
money as required by chapter 1--including over $500,000 to the Raton 
District, Colfax's largest school district.
  Ration then hired additional teachers and other professionals, 
including people who left long-standing jobs to join the chapter 1 
Program and other who moved to Raton to join the chapter 1 staff.
  Around Thanksgiving this year, Colfax was notified by the Department 
that the Department had made a mistake and that the chapter allocation 
had indeed been too high. After considerable negotiation and 
correspondence the Department notified Colfax that repayment was 
required under the law and could be made over 3 years. I will note that 
it is my understanding that throughout the negotiation the Department 
was very helpful and apologetic--but the Department simply has no 
discretionary funds which it could use to rectify such a situation.
  The extra amount paid to Colfax came at the expense of the other 
counties across the Nation participating in the Chapter 1 Program--but 
only in the average amount of $195 per county. The effect on those 
counties of the underpayment was certainly de minimis. But, if Colfax 
is required to pay back the excess $350,000 over the next 3 years, its 
Chapter 1 Program, assuming funding at current levels, will be reduced 
by one-third to one-half for each of those years. Thus, many children 
otherwise in need of, and deserving, chapter 1 services will deprived 
of those services. Colfax County does not have other resources from 
which to make up this shortfall. This is a major and devasting blow to 
a school system and its deserving children.
  The amendment which I am proposing today with Senator Domenici would 
forgive the obligation of Colfax to repay this money. At the same time 
it would provide that the counties receiving underpayments would not be 
repaid--but, as I have noted, that would have an imperceptible impact 
on other countries.
  We have an opportunity here to rectify a major injustice to a small 
school district and I ask you to join me in voting to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, in offering this amendment.
  This matter was first brought to my attention by Paul Malano, 
director of Chapter 1 at Raton Public Schools. Raton is the largest 
school district in the small county of Colfax in New Mexico. Like many 
schools in rural areas, Raton has more than its fair share of 
disadvantaged children, and depends on Chapter 1 funding to provide 
these students with the assistance they need.
  When Colfax County learned, late last year, that it was to receive an 
unexpected windfall in Chapter 1 funds, it brought this matter to the 
attention of the New Mexico State Department of Education. The State 
Department of Education notified the U.S. Department of Education that 
in all likelihood, the large amount of Chapter 1 funding that had been 
allocated to Colfax County was due to an oversight, and to please check 
the figures again. When the Department of Education verified that the 
amount of funding was, indeed, correct, Colfax County began 
distributing its funds.
  Some time later, the county was notified that the amount that had 
been paid out to Colfax County had been the result of a mistake on the 
part of the U.S. Department of Education, and that Colfax would now be 
required to repay the amount of overpayment. This amount is in excess 
of $350,000. However, to help Colfax pay back the amount, the 
Department agreed to allow Colfax to repay the amount over 3 years.
  Now, for a small district and county, $100,000 per year is a 
considerable sum. And as Colfax had already spent most the funding it 
had been given--since the Department of Education confirmed upon 
double-checking that the amount it received was correct--it has very 
little remaining funds with which to repay the excess. Therefore, the 
payments are to be taken out of the county's Chapter 1 funding each 
year for 3 years.
  Senator Bingaman has explained more fully than I the details of the 
amendment we are offering. But the bottom line is that it allows Colfax 
County to waive the amount of this overpayment. It is plain that Colfax 
County acted in good faith by bringing this matter to the attention of 
the U.S. Department of Education. With the Department's confirmation 
that the funding was indeed correct, Colfax acted in the only way it 
knew how--it distributed the funds to its students. It is now being 
penalized because it asked that the Department double-check its 
figures, and because it distributed the funding to its poor students. 
We want to remedy this situation.
  This amendment was drafted with the assistance of the Department of 
Education, and has been cleared by both sides. I appreciate the 
Senate's consideration of this amendment, and I want to thank my 
colleague, Senator Bingaman, for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have introduced a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
expressing that Federal tax law should not preclude States from 
promoting higher education savings plans for Americans.
  It is my hope that reforms to the tax code can be initiated to 
provide families with an incentive to save for their children's 
education. By encouraging long-term savings we can help Americans 
defray the rising costs of education.
  Many of my colleagues are probably aware that higher education costs 
have skyrocketed over the last several decades. At the present rate of 
8 percent per year, a $5,000 per year tuition bill will be $11,700 by 
the year 2000.
  Soon, a typical middle-class family will not be able to afford the 
luxury of a college education if they do not have the opportunity or 
the encouragement to save. Since 1982, the personal savings rate has 
continually declined from 8 percent to a near record low of 3.8 percent 
in August 1992. This figure is quite discouraging, especially, 
considering that the cost of education continues to rise.
  Mr. President, nobody disagrees that this Nation's future is 
dependent on the education of our youth. Not only do we need to train 
our future scientists and business leaders, but we need to provide 
service personnel and traditional blue-collar occupations with skills.
  There are three parts to this amendment. The first expresses the 
sense of the Senate that individuals should be provided an initiative 
to save in order to meet the higher education costs of their children.
  The second provision urges that State organizations sponsoring 
education savings plans be made exempt from Federal taxation. 
Presently, there are 34 States that have some form of education savings 
plan and thousands of individuals vested in those programs. It seems 
unnecessary to reinvent the wheel. Let's allow the existing plans to 
continue to operate--only more efficiently.
  The third provision urges that corporate and individual gifts to the 
education trust fund be made exempt from Federal taxation. Such 
investments would be distributed among participants on a pro rata 
basis. This would boost the return to participants and would also 
provide corporations the opportunity to invest in the future leaders in 
this country.
  I believe that these reforms will provide families a reasonable 
solution to providing for their child's education. In addition, it 
enhances State programs that already have provided savings 
opportunities for their residents. I am pleased the Senate has accepted 
this amendment. This is the first step to providing families the 
opportunity to invest in their educational future.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the managers of the 
bill for accepting a modified form of the amendment that I had proposed 
to Goals 2000.
  This amendment would state that nothing in this bill would authorize 
the Federal Government to mandate the use of any curriculum, 
instructional material, or test by home schools or private schools.
  I have heard from a lot of folks--and I am sure my colleagues have, 
too--who are concerned that this bill is the beginning of the Federal 
takeover of our country's school system.
  I have also heard from those who support the bill, who say that this 
is not the intention of the bill.
  Experience has taught me that nothing is more attractive to the 
bureaucrats than the opportunity to increase regulation and control.
  Anyone who is involved in education can tell you how many regulations 
and how much paperwork they must deal with under Chapter One and the 
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA].
  So I do not think folks are too far off the mark when they express 
concern about more Federal control.
  Let me remind my colleagues--the education of children between 
kindergarten and high school is a State and local responsibility.
  That is only fair, considering the 94 percent of the money for 
schools comes from these sources.
  Goals 2000 will supposedly increase efforts to reform our schools. 
Let me say that much reform is already taking place.
  Goals 2000 focuses on public schools. I strongly support our public 
schools. My children attend them.
  I am glad that my colleague, Senator Gregg, was successful in 
amending the bill to strengthen the protection for public schools.
  Let us not forget, though, that public schools are not the only 
option for many Americans. There are private schools, and yes, there 
are home schools, too.
  In fact, there are over 700 home schools in my State of Montana 
alone. And the statistics indicate that home schoolers do a fine job of 
educating their children.
  Again, I do not think the Federal Government should have control over 
what is taught and what tests are used in any American school.
  I thank the managers of the bill--Senator Kennedy and Senator 
Jeffords--and I also thank Senator Mack and Senator Craig, who are 
cosponsors.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I rise toward the end of this debate 
for the purpose of reading a short essay on the subject of goals in 
education and standards in public life. My purpose, very simply, will 
be to say that on the two quantifiable goals which we are going to 
legislate today, there is no possibility of our achieving them by the 
year 2000. And it is a source of some concern to me that we are going 
forward as we now do, evidently not aware of this. Although, if I may, 
I, for one, have written in great detail an article in The Public 
Interest, in the winter of 1991. It is a simple article entitled 
``Educational Goals and Political Plans,'' saying what on Earth was the 
Bush administration doing associating itself with these matters? How 
could the Governors have signed on? And does this mean we have learned 
nothing from educational research over the past 30 years?
  I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record at 
the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, I have in mind the two quantifiable 
goals in the bill before us. These are, No. 2: School completion. Goal: 
By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at 
least 90 percent.
  Madam President, that will not happen.
  No. 4: Mathematics and science. Goal: By the year 2000, U.S. students 
will be the first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.

  Madam President, that will not happen.
       There are seven goals in all:
       First, that children should start school ``ready to 
     learn''; second, that the high school graduation rate should 
     increase to at least 90 percent; third, that American 
     students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having 
     demonstrated some competency in certain basic subjects--
     English, mathematics, and so on; fourth, that our students 
     will be ``first in the world in mathematics and science 
     achievement''; fifth, that every American adult be literate 
     and ``possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete 
     in a global economy and exercise the rights and 
     responsibilities of citizenship''; sixth, that ``every school 
     in the United States will be free of drugs and violence and 
     will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning''; 
     and seventh, that ``every school will promote partnerships 
     that will increase parental involvement and participation in 
     promoting the social, emotional and academic growth of 
     children.''
       It might be helpful to the Senate to review the history of 
     such efforts.
       As has been noted, this is not the first time a President 
     has proposed the setting of education goals. Nor is the 
     notion of education reform, as this legislation has been 
     called, a new one. The effort to provide good and equal 
     educational opportunity has been with us for some time, as 
     has widespread dissatisfaction with our school system.
       President Eisenhower, in response to the launch of Sputnik 
     by the Soviets in 1957, endorsed five education goals in a 
     report entitled ``Education for the Age of Science.'' In 
     1984, President Reagan proposed a set of education goals to 
     be achieved by 1990. And in 1990, President Bush devoted a 
     sizable portion of his State of the Union address to setting 
     forth his education goals for the year 2000:
       ``Education is the one investment that means more for our 
     future because it means the most for our children. Real 
     improvement in our schools is not simply a matter of spending 
     more. It's a matter of asking more, expecting more out of our 
     schools, our teachers, of our kids, of our parents and 
     ourselves. And that's why tonight I am announcing America's 
     education goals, goals developed with enormous cooperation 
     from the nation's governors * * *.''
       President Bush then listed his education goals, which were 
     similar to President Reagan's goals--and virtually identical 
     to those now proposed by President Clinton.
       As it happens, President Bush was speaking to Congress in a 
     vocabulary created in the 1960s by James S. Coleman, then of 
     Johns Hopkins University, and his associates, notably Ernest 
     Campbell, then of Vanderbilt University. As directed by 
     Section 402 of the Civil Rights Act of 1954,1 Coleman 
     and his associates conducted a survey of public schools 
     and students in 1965, which was published in the summer of 
     1966 by the Office of Education of the U.S. Department of 
     Health, Education, and Welfare. Entitled Equality of 
     Educational Opportunity, the work soon became known as the 
     Coleman Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Pub. L. No. 88-352; 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Coleman Report introduced the language of educational 
     outputs, which was a wholly new way for public officials to 
     define educational policy. This language has antecedents in 
     economic concepts such as Wassily Leontief's input-output 
     models and Simsh Kuznets's gross national product; but the 
     report was unmistakably a work of sociology. It's first 
     finding was ``that the schools are remarkably similar in the 
     effect they have on the achievement of their pupils when the 
     socioeconomic background of the students is taken into 
     account.''
       Thirty months earlier, on January 1, 1964, another 
     Government report--``One Third of a Nation''--had been 
     issued.

       The matter of setting goals has been with us for some 
     years--recently but importantly--and it might be useful to 
     review that practices.
       President Eisenhower, in response to the launch of Sputnik 
     I by the Soviets in 1957, endorsed five education goals in 
     the report entitled ``Education for the Age of Science,'' and 
     these goals led to the National Defense Education Act of 
     1957, which was quite influential in shaping American science 
     curricula in the years that followed.
  But thereafter we began to be much more ambitious and much less 
successful.
  In 1984, President Reagan proposed a set of educational goals to be 
achieved by 1990. They were not that far distant, Madam President, from 
the goals today we are saying are going to be achieved by the year 
2000.
  Then in 1990, President Bush devoted a sizable portion of his State 
of the Union Address to setting forth his educational goals. These 
goals, in turn, had been adopted by a national education summit 
conference held at Charlottesville, VA, in September 1989, where the 
Governors and the President got together and agreed on these goals. So 
this was more than just one Presidential address, one speech writer in 
the EOB. This was the Nation's Governors in concert with the President.
  The President said, ``Education is the one investment that means more 
for our future because it means the most for our children.'' He went on 
in that phrase concluding, ``and that is why tonight I am announcing 
America's education goals, goals developed with enormous cooperation 
from the Nation's Governors.''
  Here they are, Madam President. Here is the official transcript, 
which includes applause lines.
  ``By the--[applause]--by the year 2000, every child must start school 
ready to learn.''
  That is a harmless goal. Call any child you want ready to learn. Most 
of them are.
  ``The United States must increase the high school graduation rate to 
no less than 90 percent. [Applause.]''
  That is what we are saying in this legislation today. This was 4 
years ago.
  ``By the--[applause]--year 2000, U.S. students must be the first in 
the world in math and science achievement. [Applause.]''
  This is very serious and also very interesting because, as it 
happens, the President, President Bush, was speaking to Congress in a 
vocabulary that had been created in the 1960's by James S. Coleman, 
then professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University, most recently 
president of the American Sociological Association, and his associates, 
notably Ernest Campbell, then of Vanderbilt University.
  As directed by section 402 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Coleman 
and his associates conducted a survey of public schools and students in 
1965, which was published in the summer of 1966 by the Office of 
Education of the United States Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare. This was the second largest social science survey in history, 
and it measured both the inputs into schools around the Nation and the 
outputs. The report was entitled ``Equality of Educational 
Opportunity,'' soon to be known popularly, if that is an appropriate 
term, as the ``Coleman Report.''
  What Coleman and his associates did was to introduce the language of 
educational outputs, which was a wholly new way for public officials to 
define educational policy. Previously, educational policy goals had 
been to have a certain pupil-teacher ratio, to spend a certain amount 
of money per student, to have a certain number of books in the library, 
a certain number of hours in the day and hours in the week, days in the 
year. Inputs.
  Now, Dr. Coleman, who I am sorry to have to say is not well at this 
time, introduced the idea of outputs. This language had antecedents in 
economic concepts, such as Wassily Leontief's input-output models of 
the economy and Simon Kuznets' concept of gross national product. These 
are familiar ideas to us, and they were familiar in economics then, but 
they had never been used in educational matters.
  In this pathbreaking report, that changed. Thereafter, we never spoke 
education in the same language again. We had a new vocabulary. I wish I 
could say we had a new understanding of what that new analytical 
technique had developed, because the first finding of Coleman's massive 
study was, and I quote, that ``the schools are remarkably similar in 
the effect they have on the achievement of their pupils when the 
socioeconomic background of the students is taken into account.''
  This was seismic, Madam President. Everything we had thought we knew 
turned out to be, in effect, not wrong but irrelevant. The Department 
of Health, Education, and Welfare was shaken.
  I was much involved in these affairs at that time and can report 
there was a real question about releasing the report. It had a history. 
It was at the time when on the floor of the Senate the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was being 
debated. It did not appear that the Senate was ready to outlaw a dual 
school system. So the section was put into the bill that said, all 
right, let us demonstrate the effects of the different levels, 
different inputs that go into these dual schools and we will see why 
this is not fair to students. And then when, indeed, the legislation 
went all the way, thanks to Hubert Humphrey and other such great men at 
that time, this section remained. And when asked, ``Why are you doing 
this? Everybody knows all this anyway. We have a different number of 
books in the libraries. There is a difference in schools. Some schools 
are better, and others are not.''
  Coleman himself said, ``Well, everyone knows it. We are going to 
proffer it once and for all.'' But then in the great tradition of 
social science research, he found that what everyone knew was not so, 
and this was not very welcome. I can assure you it was not welcomed, 
although it was certainly striking. I can recall an evening in 
Cambridge, MA, a gathering of academics, when Seymour Martin Lipset 
walked into a room and came up to me and said, ``Have you heard what 
Coleman is finding?'' I said, ``No. What?'' He said, ``It's all 
family.''
  That was news. But it fitted in. It was not entirely within the 
constructs that we had begun to develop in the years just preceding.
  Thirty months earlier than the time of the report, January 1, 1964, 
President Johnson released a document entitled ``One Third of the 
Nation.''
  I was then Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy, Planning and 
Research. I had conceived this study and proposed it be done, proposed 
it one could say to President Kennedy--but actually to Theodore 
Sorenson at the White House--which simply said at that time that almost 
half the American population was passing through a standard test called 
the Armed Forces Qualification Test and the failure rates were very 
high.
  Gen. Louis B. Hershey would report, once again, 49 percent of the 
males failed. It seemed to us this might be a source of inquiry as to 
where are our problems, and who are those who are failing, and what 
might we do?
  We came up with some striking findings. We found that in the northern 
tier of States, running from the Great Lakes to the Pacific Ocean, 
educational failure was minimal: Only 2.7 percent failed in Minnesota; 
3.6 percent in Washington State.
  Might I say, Madam President, this is the incidence of very low I.Q. 
in any large population, normal. Any educational test that had a lower 
failure rate would not test educational achievement. It was a perfect 
score, you could say.
  By contrast, the failure rates on the AFQT in the Old South were 
appalling: 52 percent in South Carolina; 51 percent in Mississippi. 
Obviously, some jurisdictions did better than others. But why?
  This got close to home for an Assistant Secretary from New York, 
where the AFQT failure rate was 34 percent. We ranked 46th in the 
Nation, just ahead of Georgia, just behind North Carolina.
  The failure rate, moreover, was more than twice that of our neighbor, 
Rhode Island, and three times of our neighbor, Vermont. We have a 
border on Long Island Sound with Rhode Island. Rhode Island had a 
failure rate of 14.3 percent.
  Since our educational expenditures were very high, this ought to have 
suggested that there was something other than inputs that mattered. In 
those years, New York City had what was considered one of the best 
school systems in the world, but our achievement levels were at the 
level of South Carolina. Again, it had to be asked: What was going on?
  President Johnson accepted the report which President Kennedy had 
commissioned, and issued a statement, which I drafted.
  Rather than read it at this hour, I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  Without objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       I am releasing today the report of the Task Force on 
     Manpower Conservation, appointed by President Kennedy on 
     September 30, 1963. I regard with utmost concern the 
     principal findings of that report.
       First, that one-third of the Nation's youth would, on 
     examination, be found unqualified on the basis of standards 
     set up for military service; and
       Second, that poverty is the principal reason why these 
     young men fail to meet those physical and mental standards.
       The findings of the Task Force are dramatic evidence that 
     poverty is still with us, still exacting its price in spoiled 
     lives and failed expectations. For entirely too many 
     Americans the promise of American life is not being kept. In 
     a Nation as rich and productive as ours this is an 
     intolerable situation.
       I shall shortly present to the Congress a program designed 
     to attack the root of poverty in our cities and rural areas. 
     I wish to see an America in which no young person, whatever 
     the circumstances, shall reach the age of twenty-one without 
     the health, education, and skills that will give him an 
     opportunity to be an effective citizen and a self-supporting 
     individual. This opportunity is too often denied to those who 
     grow up in a background of poverty.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Then, with that data, the President called for his all-
out war on poverty in the State of the Union Address, which he gave a 
few days later. His principal programs were educational, such as Head 
Start and the Job Corps. But soon, the age of Coleman was upon us. It 
was not at all clear what would change educational achievement.
  The Department of HEW had some qualms about issuing the report, and 
indeed Coleman agreed, if they could write an introduction. The 
introduction took a very long time getting around to the central 
finding, although in fairness it did.
  John Herbers, a wonderful reporter for the New York Times, spotted 
that central finding--you had to do your work to get to it; it was on 
page 21--and in a New York Times story, he wrote that the ``differences 
in schools had very little effect on the achievement scores of children 
with a strong educational background in the home.''
  Again, to cite the Commissioner of Education, ``Family background is 
more important than schools.''
  Twenty years passed and Prof. Eric A. Hanushek of the University of 
Rochester published a review article, as the phrase has it, that 
reported that Coleman's findings have now been fully validated.
  I quote Professor Hanushek:

       Two decades of research into educational production 
     functions have produced startlingly consistent results; 
     Variations in school expenditures are not systematically 
     related to variations in student performance * * *.

  In 1990, Hanushek, with John E. Chubb, wrote:

       For more than two decades--since the massive government 
     study, Equality of Educational Opportunity was conducted in 
     mid-1960s--researchers have tried to identify inputs that are 
     reliable associated with student achievement and school 
     performance. The bottom line is, they have not found any.

  What I am saying to you, and I say to my two friends, the managers of 
the bill, is that you are enacting two goals that cannot be achieved 
and will not be achieved. And it is to me incomprehensible that the 
Department of Education would not know that, would not have said it 5 
years ago, would not be saying it today.
  I would say to you that we are not just setting goals, we are 
establishing standards.
  Take the high school graduation rate. The big change in high school 
graduation rates came between 1910 and 1960. Graduation was rare at the 
beginning of this period: 8.8 percent of 17-year-olds achieved it. By 
1960, 69.5 percent of 17-year olds received high school diploma, by 
1969, 77.1 percent. In 1980 this slumped to 71.4 percent; the 
Department of Education estimates that it was 73.8 percent last year. 
But the graduation rate has never risen above 77.1 percent, where it 
was in 1969. Is there any possibility that we will reach 90 percent 6 
years from now--unless we fudge the numbers by including persons who 
received a GED or some equivalent later in life. But Goal number two in 
the bill uses the term ``high school graduation rate.'' That means 
receipt of a diploma in the senior year.
  The situation is the same where international rankings are concerned. 
In the First International Study of Achievement in Mathematics, 
conducted over a period of several years in the mid-1960's, American 
13-year-olds tied for 10th place in mathematics out of 12 countries 
participating. In the same study, our 12th-graders were dead last.
  In the follow-up study conducted between 1983 and 1986, our 13-year-
olds seemed to fare slightly better. Their mathematics scores were 
about in the middle, with five nations scoring higher and seven lower--
seven others scored the same as the United States. But American 
students in the last year of secondary school scored almost last; out 
of 15 countries studies, only Thailand and Hungary had lower scores.
  In 1991, we were 13th out of 14 countries in mathematics achievement 
of 13-year-olds on the International Assessment of Educational 
Progress. Only Jordan scored worse. In science achievement, the United 
States was 12th out of 14 nations. Our rankings have not improved over 
the last three decades. On what grounds are we to assume a dramatic 
leap upwards in the next 6 years?
  What does it say about us, Mr. President, that we feel compelled to 
set goals that quite obviously cannot be met? Are we in a permanent 
state of denial about this?
  Paul E. Barton, director of the Educational Testing Service Policy 
Information Center, is a supporter of education goals, but nevertheless 
believes that ``[t]he role of the family in the educational achievement 
of students is in danger of being ignored; if it is, we are not likely 
to reach the education goals set for the year 2000.'' In his excellent 
1992 study, ``America's Smallest School: The Family,'' Barton found 
that a number of family behaviors were strong predictors of educational 
achievement. ``Five such factors,'' Barton said in a recent speech, 
``could pretty well predict average mathematics scores for the 37 
States on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.'' The 
factors were: number of days absent from school; number of hours spent 
watching television; number of pages read for homework; quantity and 
type of reading material in the home; and presence of two parents in 
the home.
  Barton concluded that these five factors were associated with 91 
percent of the differences among the States in average proficiency. A 
telling example: the correlation between the percentage of eighth 
graders living in two-parent families and average mathematics 
proficiency is a solid .74.
  Mr. President, the year 2000 will be here before we know it. It will 
arrive with these two education goals still conspicuously unmet. I will 
not oppose the legislation before us. I fear, however, that an 
unintended consequence of this effort will be the delay until the turn 
of the century of a serious debate on this subject.
  In the meantime we would do well to ask whence came this official 
delusion. Is it evidence of a dysfunction in the political world far 
more portentous than that in our high schools? Are we in fact 
legislating an official lie? That is a goal governments achieve all too 
readily. Goals ascend as standards decline.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the Public Interest, Winter 1991]

                 Educational Goals and Political Plans

                     (By Daniel Patrick Moynihan)*

       American politics has been notable for its lack of 
     ideological structure. We have had our share and more of 
     ideological movements, but these have typically begun outside 
     the system of political parties, thereafter seeking to 
     influence and on occasion to penetrate the established 
     institutions. The latter have in the main resisted this, 
     usually preferring to soften distinctions and to compete for 
     votes at the center. Accordingly, it is common for American 
     politics to be described as pragmatic, in contrast to the 
     complex social doctrines that guide European politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This American institutional peculiarity, however, conceals 
     a long-established bias in favor of that obscure but enduring 
     ideology known as social science, to which the Founders 
     themselves explicitly acknowledged their debt; they asserted 
     that the Constitution was drawn up in accordance with a ``new 
     science of politics,'' based on a realistic assessment of 
     human motivation, which gave promise of stability through the 
     interaction of clashing interests. Good revolutionaries, they 
     placed an appropriately high value on stability, but they 
     looked for more than stable government; their science was 
     intended to produce good government as well.
       Instances abound of Americans' attempts to use social 
     science to improve government. It was the American theory of 
     penal reform, for example, that summoned Alexis de 
     Tocqueville to upstate New York; only upon arrival did he 
     look about him at American democracy.


                        educational reform today

       But of all such reformist enterprises none began earlier, 
     has lasted longer, and remains as problematic as the effort 
     to provide good and equal educational opportunity. Indeed, as 
     a nation, once again we find that we are dissatisfied with 
     our educational system. We do not seem to be turning out the 
     students we had hoped for. A front-page story in the New York 
     Times last March described the present as ``a moment of 
     widespread dismay with the schools'' of New York City. And 
     New York is scarcely alone. In 1983 a National Commission on 
     Excellence in Education entitled its report ``A Nation At 
     Risk.'' On every hand there was a litany, as Chester E. Finn, 
     Jr., put it, of ``allegation, lamentation, and evidence.'' 
     The evidence--test scores--was damning, and the effort toward 
     reform was seemingly stymied.
       Recognition of the need for reform reached an apogee of 
     sorts in 1990, when President Bush devoted a sizable portion 
     of his 1990 State of the Union message to setting forth 
     specific educational goals for the year 2000. The White House 
     thereafter provided a test, which helpfully noted the moments 
     when the Congress broke into ``applause),'' ``(light 
     applause),'' or ``(continued applause, laughter)'':
       ``Education is the one investment that means more for our 
     future because it means the most for our children. Real 
     improvement in our schools is not simply a matter of spending 
     more. It's a matter of asking more, expecting more of our 
     schools, our teachers, of our kids, of our parents and 
     ourselves. And that's why tonight--(light applause)--and 
     that's why tonight I am announcing America's education goals, 
     goals developed with enormous cooperation from the nation's 
     governors. . . .
       ``By the--(applause)--by the year 2000, every child must 
     start school ready to learn.
       ``The United States must increase the high school 
     graduation rate to no less than 90 percent. (Applause.)
       ``And we are going to make sure our schools' diplomas mean 
     something. In critical subjects, at the fourth, eighth, and 
     twelfth grades, we must assess our students' performance.
       ``By the--(applause)--year 2000, U.S. students must be the 
     first in the world in math and science achievement. 
     (Applause.)
       ``Every American adult must be a skilled, literate worker 
     and citizen.''
       Now this is a large pronouncement, even granted the 
     setting. We are told that the future is at stake. And not 
     just the future of our youth, but that of our nation. Of a 
     sudden, international politics has taken over what was once 
     the modest domain of school boards whose members in most 
     parts of the carefully avoid party identification.
       We will return to the (drear) implications for the nation 
     of the State of the Union address. The point here is that the 
     President was speaking to Congress in a vocabulary created in 
     the 1960s by the sociologist James S. Coleman, then of Johns 
     Hopkins University, and his associates, notably Ernest 
     Campbell of Vanderbilt University. Coleman and his associates 
     conducted a survey of public schools and students in 1965, 
     which was published in 1966 by the Office of Education of the 
     U.S. Department of Health Education, and Welfare. Entitled 
     Equality of Educational Opportunity, the work soon became 
     known as the Coleman Report.
       The Coleman Report introduced the language of educational 
     outputs, which was a wholly new way for public officials to 
     define educational policy. This language has antecedents in 
     economic concepts such as Leontief's input-output models and 
     Kuznets's gross national product; but the report was 
     unmistakably a work of sociology. It was the peculiar 
     political fate of this most powerful government-sponsored 
     social-science research of the later twentieth century to 
     appear just as the federal government had lost the capacity 
     to act upon it. Whether and when this capacity might be 
     restored is another matter.


               EDUCATIONAL FAILURE AND THE WAR ON POVERTY

       Let us go back to January 1, 1964, when another government 
     report--One-Third of a Nation--was issued. This report had 
     its origins the previous summer,\1\ when the author of the 
     present essay, who was then Assistant Secretary of labor for 
     Policy Planning and Research, noted that half--49.8 percent--
     of the young men who were examined for Selective Service had 
     been rejected, having failed the mental test (the Armed 
     Forces Qualification Test or AFQT), the physical test, or 
     both. This seemed a large proportion. If on closer 
     examination it was true that a goodly portion of the entire 
     cohort of young men would fail, then we had a better case 
     than we perhaps realized for the assorted education and 
     training programs that President Kennedy had proposed to a 
     generally indifferent Congress.
       Selective Service was not in the least controversial at 
     this time, while military preparedness is (almost) always an 
     acceptable theme and an occasion, at times, for social 
     enquiry.\2\ Wherewith, the President's Task Force on Manpower 
     Conservation. The Task Force was chaired by W. Willard Wirtz, 
     Secretary of Labor, with Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of 
     Defense; Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, 
     Education, and Welfare; and Lieutenant General Lewis B. 
     Hershey, head of the Selective Service System. I served as 
     secretary, using the great capacities of the career civil 
     servants of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and a more-than-
     cooperative Department of Defense to establish the baseline 
     data.
       We established, as the title of the report indicates, that 
     if all the eighteen-year-olds in the population were to be 
     tested, a third would be rejected for failing at least one of 
     the tests, One-third was surely a large enough proportion to 
     cause concern. But most striking was the variation among 
     states.\3\ In that most admirable northern tier of states 
     running from the Great Lakes to the Pacific Ocean, 
     educational failure was minimal: only 2.7 percent failed in 
     Minnesota, and 3.6 percent in Washington. By contrast, the 
     AFQT test-failure rates in the Old South were appalling: 51.8 
     percent failed in South Carolina, and 51.2 percent in 
     Mississippi. Obviously, some jurisdictions--if you like, 
     civic cultures--did better by their children than did others. 
     This got close to home for this Assistant Secretary from New 
     York, whose AFQT failure rate of 34.2 percent ranked 
     it forty-sixth in the nation, just ahead of Georgia, just 
     behind North Carolina. The failure rate in New York, 
     moreover, was more than twice that in Rhode Island (New 
     York's neighbor across Long Island Sound), which had a 
     rate of 14.3 percent.
       This ought to have suggested that educational expenditures 
     or other inputs did not automatically produce the output of 
     educational achievement. There was no shortage of inputs in 
     New York State as such matters were then understood. In terms 
     of inputs, New York had one of the best school systems--if 
     not the best--in the nation. New York was still the most 
     populous state in the Union, and probably the wealthiest. 
     Nonetheless, the only explanation that came to mind for the 
     high failure rates was poverty.
       On receiving the report on January 5, 1964, President 
     Johnson issued a statement drafted largely by the present 
     author:
       ``I am releasing today the report of the Task Force on 
     Manpower Conservation, appointed by President Kennedy on 
     September 30, 1963. I regard with utmost concern the two 
     principal findings of that report.
       ``First, that one-third of the Nation's youth would, on 
     examination, be found unqualified on the basis of standards 
     set up for military service; and
       ``Second, that poverty is the principal reason why these 
     young men fail to meet those physical and mental standards.
       ``The findings of the Task Force are dramatic evidence that 
     poverty is still with us, still exacting its price in spoiled 
     lives and failed expectations. For entirely too many 
     Americans the promise of American life is not being kept. In 
     a Nation as rich and productive as ours this is an 
     intolerable situation.
       ``I shall shortly present to the Congress a program 
     designed to attack the roots of poverty in our cities and 
     rural areas. I wish to see an America in which no young 
     person, whatever the circumstances, shall reach the age of 
     twenty-one without the health, education, and skills that 
     will give him an opportunity to be an effective citizen and a 
     self-supporting individual. This opportunity is too often 
     denied to those who grow up in a background of poverty.''
       Thereafter, the President recurrently referred to these 
     findings. Lyndon B. Johnson was capable of appearing more 
     empathic than he was, but these findings seemed to reach him. 
     He clearly thought that evidence of dismal educational 
     achievement would mobilize the society to improve it.
       The logic seemed inescapable. If Minnesota could have a raw 
     failure rate in an education test that was close to the 
     incidence of very low IQ rates, then clearly it was possible 
     to do as well elsewhere. It might have been objected--this 
     was 1964--that the dual school systems of the South made such 
     progress problematic in South Carolina or Mississippi, and 
     there would have been agreement on this. But on what grounds 
     could it be argued that New York was incapable of the 
     performance of Rhode Island?
       These were newly vigorous times in Washington. The 
     assassination of President Kennedy had released great energy. 
     Or was it anxiety? Either way, the capital was suddenly alive 
     to all manner of possibilities, not least that of abolishing 
     poverty. There were competing theories as to how this might 
     be done, but only one set of data as to what needed doing, 
     drawn from One-Third of a Nation.
       In his 1964 State of the Union address President Johnson 
     urged Congress to declare ``all-out war on poverty * * * in 
     these United States,'' and in short order the Office of 
     Economic Opportunity came into being. Its principal programs 
     were educational, such as Head Start, an early childhood 
     program pretty much modeled on the kindergarten created by 
     Froebel in the first half of the nineteenth century in 
     Europe, and the Job Corps, a form of residential vocational 
     education. On its own, the Department of Defense began 
     Project 100,000, an effort to bring into the Army young men 
     who would otherwise have been rejected and to train them up 
     to standards.
       What we have here is a simple deficiency model. Poverty 
     persisted because certain young people received too little 
     education. The solution: give them more.


                      the importance of the family

       Twenty-four years later another president--Ronald Reagan--
     declared, ``My friends, some years ago, the Federal 
     Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won.'' There 
     were few to contest the statement for the simple reason that 
     the subject had proved complex. Where there were simple 
     deficiencies, as with income or health care for the aged, 
     poverty had in fact been greatly reduced, if not overwhelmed. 
     However, it turned out that, by the 1960s, trends were in 
     place that would make the poverty of portions of the nation's 
     youth seemingly irreducible. This would be the lurking, half-
     understood message of the Coleman Report.
       It all began, unobtrusively, in a little-noticed provision 
     of the epic Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandated the 
     Commissioner of Education to ``conduct a survey and make a 
     report to the President and the Congress, within two years * 
     * *, concerning the lack of availability of equal educational 
     opportunities for individuals by reason of race, color, 
     religion, or national origin in public educational 
     institutions at all levels in the United States. . . .'' 
     [My emphasis.]
       The report--Equality of Educational Opportunity--appeared 
     thirty months after One-Third of a Nation. It was not, 
     however, endorsed by a cabinet committee or hailed by a 
     president. No new program was proposed based on its findings. 
     To the contrary, it was released on the fourth of July 
     weekend, 1966, with a minimum of endorsement. The U.S. 
     Commissioner of Education assured any potential readers that 
     ``[m]y staff members and the consultants who have assisted 
     them on this project do not regard the survey findings as the 
     last word on the lack of equal education opportunities in the 
     United States.'' The Assistant Commissioner for Educational 
     Statistics noted that ``[i]n addition to its own staff'' his 
     office had ``used the services of outside consultants and 
     contractors,'' such as ``James Coleman.'' No middle initial 
     for outside consultants.
       It was not until p. 21 of the Summary report that readers 
     might have sensed that here was something new under the sun: 
     ``The first finding is that . . . schools are remarkably 
     similar in the effect they have on the achievement of their 
     pupils when the socioeconomic background of the students is 
     taken into account.''
       One-Third of a Nation had been reported on the front page 
     of the New York Times. Coverage of the release of Equality of 
     Educational Opportunity was buried on page 24 of the Times on 
     July 2, 1966; but Times reporter John Herbers, a journalist 
     of rare insight, spotted the news. What was surprising, he 
     noted, was that ``differences in schools had very little 
     effect on the achievement scores of children with a strong 
     educational background in the home.''In the words of the 
     Commissioner of Education, ``[F]amily background is more 
     important than schools.''
       Congress had called for a report concerning the ``lack of 
     availability of equal educational opportunities.'' The report 
     that came recorded little by way of unequal opportunities, as 
     then understood, but great differences in educational 
     achievement. Coleman later revealed, if that is the term, 
     that he and his associates had started out with a radically 
     different notion of the world they were mapping:
       ``[T]he major virtue of the study as conceived and executed 
     lay in the fact that it did not accept [the traditional] 
     definition[;] . . . by refusing to do so, [it] has had its 
     major impact in shifting policy attention from its 
     traditional focus on comparison of inputs (the traditional 
     measures of school quality used by school administrators: 
     per-pupil expenditures, class size, teacher salaries, age of 
     building and equipment, and so on) to a focus on output, and 
     the effectiveness of inputs for bringing about changes in 
     output.''
       In 1990 Chester E. Finn, Jr., described the impact of the 
     report in terms of the ``paradigm shifts'' discussed in 
     Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 
     whereas the old paradigm posited a ``direct and automatic . . 
     . causal relationship between inputs and outcomes[, so] that 
     altering the former was believed ineluctably to change the 
     latter,'' the new paradigm held that inputs ``did not 
     necessarily have any effect on [outcomes] . . . . Educational 
     achievement and other desired outcomes, it seemed, were 
     strongly influenced by many factors (some external to the 
     formal education system), such as home environment, peer 
     group, and exposure to television.''
       Finn records that the response to Coleman's new paradigm 
     was ``initially, a mixture of bafflement and hostility.'' 
     More importantly, and largely because of the timing of the 
     report's release, it was subdued. Just as One-Third of a 
     Nation appeared at the outset of an extraordinary period of 
     political initiative and innovation in American national 
     politics, so Equality of Educational Opportunity appeared 
     just when that period came to a close, thirty months later.
       In a 1965 message to Congress, Johnson, drawing on One-
     Third of a Nation, had stated that ``nearly half the youths 
     rejected by Selective Service for educational deficiency have 
     fathers who are unemployed or else working in unskilled and 
     low-income jobs.'' This observation anticipated Coleman, but 
     did not quite get at his point. The importance of family was 
     evident, but since there was ``nothing'' to be done about 
     family, ``educational deficiency'' had to be offset in the 
     schools. The President therefore proposed a new program of 
     financial assistance to public schools serving children in 
     ``low-income families[,] . . . with the assurance that the 
     funds will be used for improving the quality of education in 
     schools serving low-income areas.'' (This became Chapter 1 of 
     Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, which is still in effect today.)
       What if Coleman's work had been available at the outset of 
     the thirty months in which Lyndon Johnson's attempt to reduce 
     poverty held sway? Would the war on poverty have taken a 
     different direction, a different cast? Not likely. This was a 
     time when a great many interest groups were getting attention 
     for their agendas, almost all of which were defined in 
     traditional input terms. Civil rights apart, there was no 
     more insistent claim than for ``federal aid to 
     education.'' It came now in the form of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965. Although this was not the 
     straightforward federal cost sharing that had been sought 
     from the time the post-war baby boom appeared, it was 
     still federal aid. Social science was welcome to help make 
     the case for it, but no more than that.


                     publicizing coleman's message

       In any event, as noted, Coleman's work appeared at the 
     close of a period of innovation and experiment. The real 
     challenge was to ensure that the work secured a place in the 
     realm of policy analysis and debate. For practical purposes 
     its sponsor, the Office of Education, with the full knowledge 
     of the Office of the Secretary of Health, Education, and 
     Welfare, had sought to suppress it. An effort now began to 
     see that it survived. This was not difficult; Coleman was a 
     well-established academic with a wide acquaintance in the 
     circle of (then) liberal Democrats, assorted socialists, and 
     unreconstructed Californians associated with the new journal 
     The Public Interest. Coleman contributed an article, ``Equal 
     Schools or Equal Students,'' to issue No. 4, Summer 1966. He 
     wrote:
       ``The sources of inequality of educational opportunity 
     appear to lie first in the home itself and the cultural 
     influences immediately surrounding the home; then they lie in 
     the schools' ineffectiveness to free achievement from the 
     impact of the home, and in the schools' cultural 
     homogeneity[,] which perpetuates the social influences of the 
     home and its environs.''
       That fall I took the report to Theodore R. Sizer, the 
     ebullient dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, 
     who immediately grasped that here was something new and 
     important. A faculty seminar was organized, which attracted 
     some eighty professors and graduate students from all manner 
     of disciplines and from all over the country. (Most 
     importantly, it attracted the attention of Frederick 
     Mosteller, Chairman of the Harvard Department of Statistics.) 
     Jason Epstein of Random House also recognized that something 
     of large consequence had come along and cheerfully published 
     On Equality of Educational Opportunity (Frederick Mosteller 
     and Daniel P. Moynihan, eds.), a massive collection of papers 
     prepared in connection with the seminar. The research was now 
     securely in the public domain.
       The seminar, in effect, ``reran'' the Coleman data; the 
     numbers came out the same. Two decades later, Eric A. 
     Hanushek, who had been a member of the seminar, reported that 
     the conclusions remain valid:
       ``Two decades of research into educational functions have 
     produced startlingly consistent results: Variations in school 
     expenditures are not systematically related to variations in 
     student performance. . . . These findings suggest that school 
     decision making must move away from traditional ``input 
     directed'' policies to ones providing performance incentives. 
     The concentration on expenditure differences in, for example, 
     school finance court cases or legislative deliberations, 
     appears misguided given the evidence.''
       Or consider Hanushek and John E. Chubb, writing in 1990 on 
     ``Why `More' Has Not Meant `Better''':
       ``Education policy is usually seen as a problem of 
     selecting the correct inputs. . . . There is a fundamental 
     problem with this approach, however. . . . For more than two 
     decades--since the massive government study, Equality of 
     Educational Opportunity[,] was conducted in the mid-1960s--
     researchers have tried to identify inputs that are reliably 
     associated with student achievement and school performance. 
     The bottom line is, they have not found any.''
       Standing alone, this body of research might not present any 
     political difficulties. But it does not stand alone. To the 
     contrary. Research in other areas led University of 
     Massachusetts sociologist Peter H. Rossi to announce his Iron 
     Law; ``If there is any empirical law that is emerging from 
     the past decade of widespread evaluation research activities, 
     it is that the expected value for any measured effect of a 
     social program is zero.''
       Writers in The Public Interest, for example, had begun to 
     suspect this; their doing so made them objects of suspicion 
     in turn. A sometimes savage critique arose. Every finding of 
     fact was scrutinized for intention. In the end a 
     neoconservative school emerged, convinced that liberalism had 
     become a closed doctrine. And yet the political system as a 
     whole remained open enough to Coleman's insights. It was not 
     impossible to argue that if we did not know enough about how 
     to get inputs to yield a desired outcome, we simply needed to 
     learn more. On the other hand, the attempt to learn more was 
     scarcely rewarding.
       In 1970, as Counselor to President Richard M. Nixon, I 
     drafted, with the inspired help of Finn and others, a Special 
     Message to the Congress on Education Reform, a statement 
     drawn almost entirely from Coleman and the seminar that 
     followed. There were two proposals worthy of notice. First 
     was the creation of a National Institute of Education to 
     continue the Coleman quest.
       ``There is only one important question to be asked about 
     education: What do the children learn?
       ``Unfortunately, it is simply not possible to make any 
     confident deduction from school characteristics as to what 
     will be happening . . . in any particular school. Fine new 
     buildings alone do not predict high achievement. Pupil-
     teacher ratios may not make as much difference as we used to 
     think. Expensive equipment may not make as much difference as 
     its salesman would have us believe.
       ``And yet we know that something does make a difference.
       ``The outcome of schooling--what children learn--is 
     profoundly different for different groups of children and 
     different parts of the country. Although we do not seem to 
     understand just what it is in one school or school system 
     that produces a different outcome from another, one 
     conclusion is inescapable: We do not yet have equal 
     educational opportunity in America.
       ``The purpose of the National Institute of Education would 
     be to begin the serious, systematic search for new knowledge 
     needed to make educational opportunity truly equal.''
       With the notable assistance of the late Edith Starrett 
     Green, Representative from Oregon, and John Brademas, then 
     Representative from Indiana, the National Institute of 
     Education was in fact created, and located in the Department 
     of Health, Education, and Welfare. Regrettably, it was a 
     waste of money and, indeed, of presidential assets. No one 
     wanted to hear from Richard M. Nixon that ``the educational 
     effectiveness of many special compensatory programs[,] . . . 
     despite some dramatic and encouraging exceptions[,] . . . 
     [is] not yet measurably improving the success of poor 
     children in school.'' This was dismissed because it was 
     somehow taken to mean that President Nixon opposed Head 
     Start.
       The education message, which was stuffed with proposals for 
     increased funding of one established program or another, also 
     called for a Presidential Commission on School Finance to 
     address a familiar range of issues. In one respect, however, 
     it was unique. It clearly was partial to some form of support 
     for Catholic schools. These were described as ``non-
     sectarian, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and other'' but to my 
     thinking it was the Catholic schools that mattered most, for 
     the two simple reasons that there were more of them and that 
     so many were located in inner-city neighborhoods.
       It did not require any great immersion in the Coleman data 
     to sense that whatever-it-was-that-worked for 
     ``disadvantaged'' children was most likely to be found in 
     denominational schools and that whatever-that-was might prove 
     transferable, so long as the models remained in place. In the 
     1980s, Coleman, in association with Thomas Hoffer and Andrew 
     M. Greeley, would publish research on Catholic education of 
     great interest. The now familiar themes of family and 
     community emerged to account for the better performance, 
     notably in inner cities, of parochial schools. The breakdown 
     of ``functional communities'' had followed the breakdown of 
     family.\4\ Public schools somehow could not connect with 
     children in the way that parochial schools somehow could.
       But by this point the political parties had taken sides. In 
     the 1970s a tuition tax credit for private schools passed the 
     House of Representatives and might have passed the Senate 
     save for fierce opposition from Democratic President Jimmy 
     Carter. His successor, Republican Ronald Reagan, just as 
     emphatically supported tuition tax credits; but they were not 
     enacted, given the now settled opposition of Democrats. On 
     the other hand, by the 1990s the case for a more pluralist 
     educational system was being advanced with considerable 
     vigor.\5\


                           unrealistic goals

       At the same time, a general pattern of avoidance in 
     Washington led to such mindless exercises as the education 
     goals set out in the State of the Union address of 1990. The 
     mode of analysis could be traced to Coleman, but the rigor 
     was absent altogether.
       This thought should be pressed, not least by the research 
     community. President Bush's goals were not merely proclaimed. 
     They were in a legitimate sense negotiated with the governors 
     of the states. He and the governors met to discuss the 
     subject--one of three such gatherings in our history--in the 
     Fall of 1989. The press office of the National Governors' 
     Association was near to breathless on the outcome. A press 
     release described the agreement to establish national 
     education performance goals as ``an historic first.''
       The following February, the National Governors' Association 
     specifically endorsed the goals set forth in the State of the 
     Union address. Through its emphasis on outputs, the Coleman 
     Report had changed the terms in which political executives 
     addressed the subject of education. What it did not do, and 
     could not be expected to have done, was to invest these terms 
     with an appropriate sense of accountability. For on no 
     account could the President's goals--the quantified, specific 
     goals--reasonably be deemed capable of achievement.
       It will readily be seen that some of the presidential goals 
     were essentially nonquantitative, such that we will never 
     know for sure whether we have achieved them. By the year 2000 
     ``every child must start school ready to learn''. Most of us 
     would grant that readiness to learn is an elusive concept, 
     although we are often surprised by what we learn to measure. 
     Similarly, it is hard to be sure just what the President 
     meant when he said that ``every adult must be a skilled, 
     literate worker and citizen.'' We get the idea, of course. 
     But measuring the outcome would seem to present difficulties. 
     Just what do we mean by ``skilled'' or ``literate''? But then 
     again, we might very well find a measure of such qualities. 
     When an employer advertises for a ``skilled mechanic'' those 
     concerned seem to know what is involved. Why not, then, a 
     ``skilled citizen''?
       Let us concentrate, however, on those two specific, 
     numerical goals: that American students attain a 90-percent 
     graduation rate and be first in the world by the year 2000 in 
     math and science achievement. In preparing this essay, I 
     wrote to half a dozen people who had taken part in the 
     Harvard faculty seminar on the Coleman Report in the 1960s to 
     ask what they thought were the prospects of achieving these 
     goals by the year 2000. Two respondents replied that the 
     goals were ``completely unreachable'' and ``unrealistic''; 
     another said that it was ``barely conceivable'' that we would 
     meet the graduation goal, and a fourth held out ``little hope 
     of even beginning on the path to the goals.''
       The final two respondents were somewhat more sanguine. One 
     agreed that the two goals ``are . . . very hard to attain,'' 
     but he ``would not go so far as to say [that achieving them 
     is] impossible''; while ``skeptical,'' the final respondent 
     was ``impressed by the vigor'' with which the governors were 
     ``attack[ing] this education issue.''
       I would note that the last two responses came from people 
     who have been practitioners as well as researchers, and thus 
     are not disposed to let hopes die too easily. I would note 
     also that two respondents were more sanguine about graduation 
     rates, and one suggested that to be ``first in the world in 
     science and mathematics'' might be an amorphous goal--would 
     it be enough to have the most Nobel laureates?--as against 
     the general understanding that the President was talking 
     about test scores on various international comparisons. 
     Accordingly, it should be made clear that I am the one 
     holding that the President's goals are unattainable. I assume 
     that most social scientists in the field would agree; but 
     then agreement is never universal, nor ought it to be.
       In any event, our subject is not the goals, but the 
     relation of social science to politics in this field. As 
     regards the goals themselves, my views derive from two sets 
     of observations. Neither is conclusive, but then we won't 
     have to wait long to see if the goals are met.
       A first set of observations is that in recent years we seem 
     to have been moving away from these goals rather than toward 
     them. The big change in high school graduation rates came in 
     the half-century from 1910 to 1960. Graduation was rare at 
     the beginning of this period (8.8 percent of seventeen-year-
     olds achieved it), and common at the close (69.5 percent). By 
     1964 the graduation rate had reached 76.7 percent, and in 
     1970, 76.9 percent. Then it slumped considerably to a 1980 
     low of 71.4 percent, from which it has since risen to 74.0 
     percent in 1989. (Incidentally, don't trust any of these 
     decimal points. They give the illusion of accuracy much too 
     common in government statistics.) We seem to be doing a 
     little better, but not as well as we did a quarter-century 
     ago. The 1980s did show an improvement, but by no more than 
     2.6 percent. Double that for the 1990s and by the year 2000 
     we will have reached 79.2 percent, not far above the level of 
     1970.
       So far as rank order is concerned, educational outcomes in 
     the late 1980s look very much like those of the early 1960s 
     that were recorded in One-Third of a Nation. In 1962 
     Minnesota ranked first in AFQT scores (which is to say it had 
     the lowest failure rate). In 1988 Minnesota had the highest 
     graduation rate. New York was forty-sixth in the 1962 AFQT 
     rankings and forty-sixth in the 1988 graduation rankings, a 
     quarter-century later.\6\ In truth, the graduation rate in 
     New York State has been declining steadily since the 1960s. 
     (It was at 73.5 percent for the class that entered in the 
     fall of 1965, but it declined to 66.3 percent for the class 
     that graduated in June 1988.) As for funds, the National 
     Center for Education Statistics reports that for 1989-1990, 
     New York, at $7,153, had the third highest per-pupil 
     expenditure in the nation, following only Alaska (whose 
     $7,411 figure is inflated by the high cost of living there) 
     and New Jersey ($7,312). New York was well above the national 
     average of $4,448. By contrast, California--the largest 
     state--was slightly below that average with a per-pupil 
     expenditure of $4,392. As for those pesky 1988 graduation 
     rates, while New York was forty-sixth in the nation, 
     neighboring New Jersey ranked fifteenth.
       Now to the President's goal of moving American up to first 
     in the world in science and math scores by the year 2000. The 
     Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1991 has 
     a bar chart that shows us ninth-grade science scores as 
     evaluated by the International Association for the Evaluation 
     of Educational Achievement. The chart is entitled ``Grade 9 
     Science Achievement in The U.S. Lags Behind Other 
     Industrialized Countries.'' In this ranking, Hungary is 
     first, followed by Japan, Canada, Finland, Sweden, England, 
     and, finally, the United States. These rankings seem to 
     bounce around a bit. High school seniors in Hong Kong and 
     Singapore regularly come out first in physics, chemistry, and 
     biology. England often ranks second. The United States rarely 
     makes the first ten.
       Most striking is the case of Hungary. Nineteenth-century 
     Hungary developed a high scientific culture. Much of modern 
     physics came out of the University of Budapest in the early 
     years of this century. (Much of the Manhattan Project was the 
     work of native Hungarians who had fled Europe.) But the 
     twentieth century was not kind of Hungary. War, revolution, 
     and tyrrany followed in seemingly inexorable succession. 
     Hungary is just now emerging from a half-century of fascism 
     followed by communism. Just about anything you could do to a 
     people has been done to Hungarians. But nothing has been able 
     to prevent Hungarian schoolchildren from learning physics. By 
     contrast, is there any reason to think that American 
     schoolchildren will reverse their long-established 
     performance patterns in these measures in the space of a 
     decade?
       The presidential goals set out in 1990 for the year 2000 
     would have been more defensible were it not for the fact that 
     in 1984 the preceding president had set out substantially the 
     same goals for 1990. In particular, the goal of a 90-percent 
     graduation rate seems to have gotten stuck in the memory bank 
     of the White House word processors: in 1984 President Reagan 
     called for reducing the dropout rate ``to 10 percent or 
     less'' before the end of the 1980s.
       It is safe, I would think, to regard the dropout rate as 
     the reciprocal of the graduation rate. Surely the two goals 
     are approximately the same.\7\ The Reagan goal was not met; 
     it was not even approximately met.
       There was another goal set forth by President Reagan in 
     1984: ``Before this decade is out, we should regain at least 
     half of what we lost in the sixties and seventies on 
     scholastic aptitude tests.'' Let us examine this proposition. 
     Between 1984 and 1989 the mean SAT verbal score for college-
     bound seniors did increase--by two points, from 426 to 428. 
     That is after having dropped forty points from the peak 
     reached in 1967. The closure was nowhere near the half-way 
     point.
       My second set of observations has to do with how little the 
     education innovations of the past quarter-century seems to 
     have changed some measures of educational achievement.
       Yet to leave the matter there would miss the point, for 
     Coleman did more than put in place a new way of thinking 
     about education. He also put in place a potentially powerful 
     mode of accountability. His outputs, measured by specialists, 
     can still be grasped by the general public. If, as forecast 
     here, the year 2000 arrives and the United States is nowhere 
     near meeting the education goals set out in 1990, the 
     potential will nonetheless exist for serious debate as to why 
     what was basically a political plan went wrong. We might even 
     consider how it might have turned out better.


                               footnotes

     *I acknowledge with gratitude the able assistance of David 
     Rich.
     \1\See Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ``Toward a Post-Industrial 
     Social Policy,'' The Public Interest, no. 96 (Fall 1989), pp. 
     16-27.
     \2\Tradition has it that the introduction of conscription 
     during World War I first revealed to British authorities the 
     ill health and educational deficiencies of the urban working 
     class. The arrival of troops from Australia and New Zealand, 
     who looked almost like members of a different species, is 
     said to have made a striking contrast.
     \3\One-Third of a Nation did not reestimate failure rates on 
     a state-by-state basis. I use here the raw failure rates 
     contained in General Hershey's annual Selective Service 
     System report for 1963.
     \4\Consider the evidence provided by Marian Wright Edelman of 
     the Children's Defense Fund in her 1990 commencement address 
     at Howard University: ``Every 79 seconds, an unmarried Black 
     woman has a baby. Over 62 percent of Black babies are being 
     born to unmarried women, which almost guarantees the poverty 
     of the majority of the next generation of Black children. 
     Every 3 minutes and 38 seconds, a Black teenager has a baby. 
     . . . Five out of six young Black female-headed families are 
     poor.'' Note also that ``[e]very 30 seconds of the school 
     day, a Black child drops out.''
     \5\See James S. Coleman, Thomas Hoffer, Sally Kilgore, and 
     Samuel S. Peng, Public and Private Schools, National Center 
     for Education Statistics, 1982; Thomas Hoffer, Andrew M. 
     Greeley, and James S. Coleman, ``Achievement Growth in Public 
     and Catholic Schools,'' Sociology of Education, American 
     Sociological Association, Volume 58, Number 2, April 1985; 
     and James S. Coleman and Thomas Hoffer, Public and Private 
     Schools: The Impact of Communities (Basic Books, 1987). See 
     also John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe, Politics, Markets and 
     America's Schools (Brookings Institution, 1990).
     \6\Please note that I do not claim that the high school 
     graduation rate is a surrogate for whatever it is that is 
     tested by the AFQT. Yet there is some evidence that it is 
     such a surrogate. In December 1989 a study sponsored by the 
     Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense noted that 
     ``[d]ecades of study results have demonstrated that those 
     without a high school diploma are twice as likely as high 
     school graduates to leave the military before completing a 
     full term of service.'' See Janice H. Laurence, Peter F. 
     Ramsberger, and Monica A. Gribben, Effects of Military 
     Experience on the Post-Service Lives of Low-Aptitude 
     Recruits: Project 100,000 and the ASVAB Misnorming. Human 
     Resources Research Organization, p. 2.
     \7\What neither rate takes into account is the number of 
     people who eventually receive a General Education Development 
     (GED) diploma. According to Marshall S. Smith, including 
     these ``graduates'' in the graduation rate would increase the 
     1989 rate from 74 percent to 78 percent. There has, however, 
     been a marked reduction in the number of people receiving 
     GEDs. In 1989, 13.4 percent fewer GED diplomas were awarded 
     than in 1988, despite a decline in the graduation rate. See 
     American Council on Education, The 1989 Statistical Report 
     (GED Testing Service, 1990).

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from New York, 
Senator Moynihan, for his very erudite--as he usually is--discussion of 
the problems this country is having with education, and also some of 
the studies that have been done in the past, pointing out the serious 
problems that exist in regard to our young people successfully moving 
into the next century. I so disagree with a couple of his comments.
  With respect to goal 1, he thought students were now coming, ready to 
learn. I do not think that is what he was referring to. For we do have 
serious problems with many, many young people in this country, on their 
ability to learn. They need to be helped through Head Start, other 
preschool, health, and nutrition programs, including full 
implementation of the WIC Program. This will ensure that when they do 
come to school, they are fully immunized and fed, so they have an 
opportunity to be able to learn.
  Goal 2 states we should reach a 90-percent graduation rate by the 
year 2000. If you look at the latest statistics, the graduation rate is 
88 percent. That is very misleading. First of all, there are 
demographic groups in our society, Hispanics and blacks, who are way 
below that. So certainly, when we look at that goal, we need to talk 
about everyone.
  More important is the evidence as to whether or not those who 
graduate are meeting those matters contained in goal 3. Goal 3--when we 
talk about graduation and being ready for the next century--refers 
primarily to the ability, to have met the standards necessary to be a 
meaningful participant in the work force. The rates of that kind of 
competency are far from being achieved.
  Studies show only 60 percent of our students are competent in 
English; much less than that are competent in math and science. There 
is no question we have to look at those studies and understand you have 
to be also qualified under goal 3 to be considered as a graduate under 
goal 2.
  Let me make a few more comments on being ready to learn, which I just 
discussed. The goals panel, which was created after the at-risk study 
of 1983, has been keeping tabs on some of these things. I would like to 
just go through the list of the things they said regarding the ``Ready-
to-Learn'' situation.
  In 1990, one-half of all infants born in the United States started 
life with one or more risk factors: tobacco or alcohol use by their 
parents. In 1991, only 37 percent of 2-year-olds had been fully 
immunized. Less than half of all 3- to 5-year-olds from families with 
incomes less than $30,000 are enrolled in preschool. And 70 percent of 
the children eligible for Head Start still go unserved. So we are far, 
far away from reaching that.
  I think I have previously gone through some of the real deficiencies 
in reaching our goals. Let me just mention a few as we go on with 
respect to goal 3.
  Fewer than 1 in 4 fourth and eighth grade students are able to meet 
high standards of performance in mathematics or reading on the National 
Assessment. In 1990, only 46 percent of all students completed 4 years 
of English in high school; fewer than 20 percent studied biology, 
chemistry, physics; and even fewer completed algebra, geometry, and 
calculus courses.
  With regard to goal 4, which is that we should be first in the world 
in math and science, we are a long way from that. I again point out 
that in the leading study among 13-year-olds, we ranked 13th out of 15 
industrialized nations. We have to provide decent education for those 
who are going to be workers in skilled fields. We are far from that.
  I now would like to point out why I think it is so important for our 
society to reach these goals: The cost we will suffer if we do not.
  When we examine what the costs may be to improve our educational 
programs and to provide the funds that may be necessary--I emphasize 
may be necessary--to reach the Goals 2000, I think it is incredibly 
important to also examine what we will lose if we do not do so. Too 
often under budget pressures and a budget crunch, we get so preoccupied 
with adding a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, that we do 
not take a close look and reassess our priorities. Thus, it is costing 
the ability of this Nation to increase its economic activity, and its 
tax revenues in order to be able to pay for the programs and to take 
care of the deficit.
  If we do nothing to try to cure the problems which are creating the 
failed education system, we are never going to get out of this spiral 
of being unable to pay for our programs and reduce the deficit. Let me 
go through some of the areas that are deficient in that respect.
  I would point out to my colleagues who had the opportunity to watch a 
program on educational television a few weeks ago--the very wonderful 
series put on by Hedrick Smith, where he went and examined school 
systems around this country and measured the deficiencies, pointed out 
the incredible crisis we are having in reaching these goals by the year 
2000.
  Let us take a look first at some of the programs we fund which are 
related to deficiencies in education. Approximately $400 billion of 
Federal spending is for programs--welfare, unemployment, crime, health 
care, housing and training--that were created to assist low-income 
individuals. These programs would be highly sensitive to increased 
literacy and higher education attainment. If we could reach the goals 
set out in Goals 2000, we would expect major savings in these programs. 
If one assumes the savings amounted to 30 percent, that would translate 
to a reduction in annual Federal spending of $120 billion.
  If we do nothing, spending will probably get worse.
  There would be a savings at the State level. A comparable estimate 
would be $150 billion, of which we might be able to save $45 billion. 
So the cost to the States right now for their programs of this nature 
is $150 billion, with potential savings of one-third. That certainly 
would justify the expenditure of greater amounts of money in our 
educational programs.
  Further, the largest impact clearly comes in the form of increased 
economic activity and resultant growth in the corporate and personal 
income.
  With the full attainment of Goals 2000, I think we can expect to see 
increased activity of at least $250 billion, and these are from 
estimates given to us. I am hopeful it would be much larger than that. 
I am asking my staff to continue to refine these estimates as we work 
through this. I intend to take these issues up again when we start 
looking at the budget for the next year and how we should reorder 
priorities.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of 
my statement some of these estimates to justify my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, in my mind, there will be few bills that 
we consider that will be more important than the Goals 2000 bill. Goals 
2000 will only be meaningful if it wakes us up and make it very clear 
that unless we do something, the standard of living of this country 
will not increase as much as it could.
  Those who have traveled around the world have seen and been impressed 
by the incredible opportunities of opening markets. But the other thing 
I think one is more impressed with is how the other nations that we are 
competing with are there already working just as hard as they can to 
garner every piece of business possible while we kind of slothfully 
plod along. Furthermore, their educational systems are producing 
workers much more qualified than ours.
  The studies indicate that if we do not wake up, this Nation in the 
next century will slip from being the leader down to a second-rate 
country. We will be ashamed and not be able to look our grandchildren 
and great-grandchildren in the eye and say that we did for them what 
had to be done in order for them to have not only the standard of 
living that we have but an even higher one.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

          Estimate of the Cost of Education Policy Complacency

       1. Lost productivity: $225 billion.
       Economists estimate that lost productivity due to less than 
     adequate training and education of workers cost U.S. business 
     about one quarter of a trillion dollars each year.
       2. Cost of on-the-job remedial training and education: $200 
     billion.
       The National Center for Education and the Economy estimates 
     that U.S. businesses spend $200 billion per year to bring 
     worker skills up to minimum levels.
       3. Welfare costs: $290 billion.
       The federal government spends $208 billion and the states 
     spend another $82 billion on means-tested entitlement 
     programs--collectively referred to as welfare (FY 1992 
     constant dollars). The programs consist of medical benefits, 
     cash aid, food benefits, housing benefits, education 
     benefits, job training, and other benefits.
       Improved education of these needy individuals would have a 
     significant effect on reducing the need for these programs.
       Over one-quarter of children under the age of six live in 
     poverty.
       A study of low income disadvantaged children in Michigan 
     indicated that early intervention with the Head Start Program 
     could have a major impact on improving the prospects of these 
     children. Compared to a control group, children who were 
     given comprehensive preschool support were twice as likely to 
     hold a job, be in college, or in a vocational program after 
     high school. Their high school graduation rate was one-third 
     higher, their pregnancy rate was 50 percent lower, and their 
     arrest rate was 40 percent lower.
       We need to help these individuals all through the education 
     process. Right now, approximately 20 percent of our students 
     drop out of high school.
       Of those that have dropped out of high school, less than 
     half are employed. A total of fifty-two percent of high 
     school dropouts are unemployed or receiving welfare 
     assistance. A recent study put the cost of providing benefits 
     to this group of recipients at $75 billion per year.
       A recent study, ``America's Children at Risk,'' indicated 
     that fewer than half of the 17 year olds (whether in school 
     or not) possess the academic skills needed to hold most entry 
     level jobs or to attend college.
       Data from the Census Bureau indicates that a high school 
     graduate can expect to earn 50 percent more each year than a 
     high school dropout. ($14,200 vs. $21,700)
       4. Cost of drugs: $238 billion.
       The Institute for Health Policy at Brandeis University in 
     its 1993 report entitled Substance Abuse: the Nation's Number 
     One Health Problem, estimated the cost of illegal drug 
     activity at $238 billion per year. This represents the cost 
     of lost productivity, premature death, inability to perform 
     usual activities, cost of criminal justice system, 
     destruction of property, and other causes.
       5. Crime and incarceration: $43 billion.
       Approximately 1.4 million Americans are incarcerated in 
     jails and prisons. The cost of this system is $22 billion per 
     year.
       Over 82 percent of those in detention are high school 
     dropouts.
       Another sad example of the failure of our ability to 
     nurture our young people is the fact that over 65,000 
     children are in correctional facilities around the country. 
     It costs about $30,000 per year, one-third more than an 
     adult, to pay for detention of a child.
       Violent crime costs Americans $18 billion per year in 
     medical expenses alone.
       Being shot by a gun is now the second leading cause of 
     death among young people. A staggering six children per day 
     are killed by guns.
       We currently have 682,000 teenagers in this country, 5 
     percent of the 16-19 age group, who are not in school, not in 
     the labor force, not in the military, and not functioning as 
     a homemaker. The fact that we have such a large number of 
     youth who have no productive role in society has a 
     significant implication for delinquency, neighborhood 
     stability, and youth alienation We must bring them into the 
     educational system.
       6. Unemployment: $41 billion.
       We currently spend $41 billion per year on unemployment 
     benefits. We can assume that if we fully fund the programs to 
     reach the goals of Goals 2000, that there would be a positive 
     impact on employment. Many, who are now unemployed, would get 
     jobs; and many who are underemployed, would become fully 
     employed. This would increase productivity and tax revenues. 
     Studies have shown the higher the education level of the 
     worker, the faster he or she finds a new job and gets off of 
     unemployment.
       7. Health care: $141 billion.
       An estimated 15 percent of the population is not covered by 
     health insurance. These individuals are primarily ``working 
     poor'' and would be helped by increased educational 
     opportunities.
       With improved educational attainment, one can assume that 
     there will be two positive effects on the costs of health 
     care. First, a better educated populace that is earning 
     higher wages, can be expected to have a healthier existence. 
     This would result from better wellness habits and from 
     improved living conditions. The second effect would come from 
     the fact that many of these individuals would move from 
     minimum wage jobs with no benefits to jobs with health 
     coverage. We could expect our improved education system to 
     make a significant reduction in the pool of uninsured 
     individuals.


                   amendments nos. 1395 through 1419

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, on behalf of myself, Senators Jeffords, 
Pell, and Kassebaum, I urge adoption of the manager's package of 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendments 
offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, numbered 1395 through 1419, 
are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1395 through 1419) were agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1420

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for himself, Mr. 
     Gregg, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 1420.

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

       The Senate finds that--
       (1) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was 
     established with the commitment of forty percent Federal 
     funding but currently receives only eight percent Federal 
     funding;
       (2) This funding shortfall is particularly burdensome to 
     school districts and schools in low-income areas which serve 
     higher than average proportions of students with disabilities 
     and have fewer local resources to contribute; and
       (3) It would cost the Federal government approximately $10 
     billion each year to fully fund the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act.
       It is the Sense of the Senate that the Federal government 
     should provide states and communities with adequate resources 
     under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as soon 
     as reasonably possible, through the reallocation of funds 
     within the current budget monetary constraints.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I will just speak very briefly. This 
amendment is offered on behalf of myself, Senator Gregg, and Senator 
Dodd. All of us share the deep concern about the demands the Federal 
Government has placed on the State and local communities. We believe 
very strongly it is critical we do everything we can to have the 
Government live up to its promise of funding special education at 40 
percent.
  I know in my State, for instance, we now spend $71.3 million, which 
is about 96 percent of the total. This certainly is far from what we 
thought the Federal Government would do. I do not intend to speak any 
longer at this time. I will speak after 5 o'clock. But right now, I 
would just ask the manager for the majority whether he would accept the 
amendment. Then I will ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We urge the Senate to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I am sorry, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish a rollcall? The adoption 
of the amendment is vitiated.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask it now be in order to offer a 
second-degree amendment to the Grassley amendment, No. 1388.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we are very hopeful, as I have talked 
to the Senator from Iowa, we will be able to work out the difference. I 
offer this amendment in that spirit.


                amendment no. 1421 to amendment no. 1388

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

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1421.

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

       In the pending (Grassley) amendment, strike all after 
     ``Sec.'' and insert the following:


                          protection of pupils

       Section 439 of the General Education Provisions Act is 
     amended to read as follows:
       Sec. 439. (a) All instructional material, including 
     teacher's manuals, films, tapes, or other supplementary 
     instructional material which will be used in connection with 
     any survey, analysis, or evaluation described in subsection 
     (b) shall be available for inspection by the parents or 
     guardians of the children engaged in such program or project.
       (b) No student shall be required, as part of any applicable 
     program, to submit to a survey, analysis, or evaluation that 
     is not directly related to academic instruction and in which 
     the primary purpose is to reveal information concerning:
       (1) political affiliations;
       (2) mental and psychological problems potentially 
     embarrassing to the student or his family;
       (3) sex behavior and attitudes;
       (4) illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning 
     behavior;
       (5) critical appraisals of other individuals with whom 
     respondents have close family relationships;
       (6) legally recognized privileged and analogous 
     relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and 
     ministers; or
       (7) income (other than that required by law to determine 
     eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving 
     financial assistance under such program), without the prior 
     consent of the student (if the student is an adult or 
     emancipated minor), or in the case of unemancipated minor, 
     without the prior written consent of the parent.
       (c) Educational agencies and institutions shall give 
     parents and students notice of their rights under this 
     section.
       (d) Enforcement.--The Secretary shall take such action as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate to enforce this section, 
     except that action to terminate assistance provided under an 
     applicable program shall be taken only if the Secretary 
     determines that--
       (1) there has been a failure to comply with such section; 
     and
       (2) compliance with such section cannot be accrued by 
     voluntary means.
       (e) Office and Review Board.--The Secretary shall establish 
     or designate an office and review board within the Department 
     of Education to investigate, process, review, and adjudicate 
     violations of the rights established under this section.

  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the first-degree 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the second-degree to the 
Grassley amendment
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I think that concludes at least the 
housekeeping details on it.
  As I have indicated to the Senator from Iowa, we have every intention 
of working with him in terms of working out that amendment so we will 
not need a vote on this amendment. I understand later in the afternoon 
there will be a proposal so the Members will know the order in which 
these amendments will be considered on Tuesday morning.
  I will do that with regard to the School-to-Work Program on Monday, 
for Tuesday afternoon. I thank my colleague and friend from Vermont for 
all the help and assistance today and look forward to a successful vote 
on Tuesday next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, if I may, I just want to alert 
everyone so they have the final, last call, they have 5 minutes if they 
have any other amendments on this bill. If they are not offered by 5 
o'clock, they will not be considered for the Goals 2000 bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have spent some time on the floor this 
afternoon. I was enjoying the comments of the Senator from New York as 
related to studies that were done during the 1960's and 1970's, as to 
education in America and the impact it was having or not having and why 
these problems existed then and obviously have grown since that time, 
studies changing from the amount of resource input to the sociological 
environment in which children were raised and from which they came to 
the educational system prepared or unprepared to learn.
  Of course we understand that is of such a fundamental importance. 
While I compliment my colleagues for efforts to bring stronger 
standards in education to our Nation's school systems, if we do not as 
a society recognize the root cause of our problems, and those 
referencing young people and their unwillingness or their inability to 
learn and therefore dropout rates, and that root cause is the American 
family or the disintegration of an environment in which children are 
raised to have a learning understanding or a learning culture, or we 
will not solve our problems.

                          ____________________