[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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending 
business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       (1) Dorgan-Conrad amendment No. 1369, to require each local 
     educational agency, as a condition for receiving Federal 
     assistance, to implement a gun-free program in its schools.
       (2) Kennedy amendment No. 1375 (to Amendment No. 1369), to 
     express the sense of the Senate regarding guns in schools.
       (3) Danforth-Kassebaum amendment No. 1383, to express the 
     sense of the Senate that local educational agencies should 
     encourage a brief period of daily silence for students for 
     the purpose of contemplating their aspirations.

  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are now working with the distinguished 
Senator from the State of Washington on an issue involving violence in 
schools. I think we are making good progress. The Senator from 
Washington intended to lay his amendment down at 8:30, and we were 
going to have the opportunity to debate it. I think we have been able 
to make good progress in terms of developing a common position so that 
the time is being well spent.
  I would like to use some of this time prior to the vote at 9:30 on 
Senator Danforth's amendment. I will just elaborate on one of the 
important parts of this legislation that has not received attention but 
is, I think, extremely important.
  Over the past several days our debate on the Goals 2000 bill has 
focused primarily on the first four titles of the bill, which deal with 
goals and standards for the improvement of our education system. This 
bill also, however, includes another equally important title which 
provides for the development of standards which will be crucial to the 
improvement of our job training system.
  Under title V of the bill, we are establishing for the first time a 
national skill standards board to oversee the development of a 
voluntary national system of skill standards for use in the training of 
our workers. The proposal to create such a board was one of the key 
recommendations contained in the influential report, ``America's 
Choice: High Wages or Low Skills,'' issued in 1990 by the bipartisan 
Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force. The cochairs of 
that were Senator Brock from Tennessee and Ray Marshall, who was 
Secretary of Labor under President Carter. This was one of their very 
important recommendations that we received at that time, and since we 
have received it, we have worked with a number of our colleagues, both 
on the committee as well as others who have been interested and 
experienced in these areas.
  Those recommendations have been included in the legislation and work 
very much in harmony with what we will be doing subsequently with the 
dislocated worker program.
  I know many of my colleagues are familiar with the work of that 
Commission which was cochaired by the Cabinet Members, Republican Bill 
Brock, a former Member of this body, and Ray Marshall, who was 
Secretary of Labor. Serving on that Commission were some of the most 
accomplished individuals in the country. The list of the members 
included business leaders like John Sculley, the CEO of Apple Computer; 
James Houghton, chairman of the board of Corning; Alan Wurtzel, 
chairman of Circuit City stores. Labor leaders, such as Owen Bieber, 
president of the Auto Workers; Howard Samuel, head of the AFL-CIO's 
industrial union department; Bill Lucy from AFSCME; John Jacob, 
president of the Urban League; and former Governors Jim Hunt and Tom 
Kean.
  This was the caliber of individuals from the business community, from 
the labor and education community and from Government, who served on 
that Commission.
  The constituencies these individuals represent tend to have very 
different views of the world. Yet what was remarkable about this 
Commission was that all of its members representing the three disparate 
interests came together and were able to agree on a sweeping set of 
recommendations for major reform of our education and job training 
systems.
  As I said earlier, one of the key recommendations of the Commission 
was that we establish a national skill standards board to oversee the 
development of voluntary standards for job training. As the 
Commission's report noted, one of the reasons why we have been doing 
such a poor job in providing training for our front-line work force is 
that we have no mechanisms for identifying the kinds of skills workers 
should be acquiring to meet the needs of a competitive economy.
  We have no system by which to measure whether particular training 
programs are effective in providing workers with those skills. We have 
no system to certify that workers who have undergone training have 
acquired particular skills. What we have instead is a highly fragmented 
system of public and private training efforts that may or may not be 
teaching workers skills that are relevant to existing or future job 
opportunities.
  What we have found is that, in many of these training programs, when 
individuals who go through the training programs finish the programs 
and are then hired, employers do not know precisely the range of 
different skills a particular graduate of a program has achieved. The 
graduates are not sure exactly what skills they have. Each knows that 
he or she has participated in a training program, but it may be one of 
many different types of training programs set up by the local group.
  Third, the taxpayer does not know whether a particular training 
program is really effective in terms of the investment of the taxpayers 
in that program.
  These are some of the concerns that exist with respect to training 
programs throughout the Nation.
  We want to try to ensure that by establishing voluntary standards 
through various industries, individuals who participate in training 
programs will know that they have achieved certain skills, that those 
skills will be portable, and when they go to employers, that employers 
will know that they have those skills--and the taxpayers will know that 
their investments in training programs have been worthwhile and valid.
  That is what we are attempting to achieve by consolidating and 
coordinating the various training programs with the recommendations 
that will be considered by the administration in the next few weeks, 
and doing so by developing various skills standards.
  Under the Job Training Partnership Act, for example, every community 
has its own private industry council which contracts with providers to 
provide training in various different skills. Yet there is no 
uniformity in the content and quality of the programs offered. So, for 
example, a particular worker here in the District of Columbia might be 
referred to a program in computer technician training, but because 
there are no recognized standards for training workers for careers in 
that field, the individual making a decision whether to enroll in a 
particular program has no way of knowing whether the skills taught by 
that program will be skills valued by employers, or whether the program 
is effective in providing its participants with those skills. As a 
result, the worker is left with no effective way to choose a training 
program that will best serve his or her needs.
  Now, suppose that a worker chooses and completes a training program 
and starts looking for a job. She puts on her resume that she is a 
graduate of the District of Columbia computer operator training 
program, but finds out that going through that program is not helping 
her get hired, because the employers who interview her do not know what 
that credential means.
  Unless an employer happens to be personally familiar with the 
particular program the worker completed, she has no way of knowing 
whether the training provided through that program is at all relevant 
to her company's needs, or what skills the worker actually acquired 
through the program.
  By the same token, public officials, who are accountable for making 
good use of the taxpayers' money, have no reliable way of measuring 
whether the training the taxpayers are paying for is effective or not.
  The National Skills Standards Board will help to address that 
problem.
  One of the best models that we have in this country for a more 
effective training system is the building trades apprenticeship system 
used in the unionized construction industry.
  The building trades apprenticeship system is widely recognized for 
doing an excellent job in developing highly skilled workers, who are, 
as a result, able to command very good wages and benefits. One of the 
key elements contributing to the success of that system is the use of 
recognized training standards, which are developed jointly by employers 
and unions in the relevant industry. There must be the combination of 
both groups in developing successful programs.
  These standards typically allow for local variation, but establish 
basic criteria concerning the skills apprentices are expected to 
acquire at each stage of their training in order to advance through the 
program and achieve certification as fully qualified journeymen craft 
workers.
  Because of these standards, an apprentice entering the program can be 
confident that he or she will be taught a full range of skills that 
will be relevant to the industry and valuable to employers, and that, 
after completing the program, will receive a certification that is 
meaningful, not just to one employer, but to employers throughout the 
industry and across the Nation.
  At the same time, employers are willing to pay for training provided 
through the program, and to hire workers who have completed the 
program, because they have confidence in the credential and know that 
the skills that have been taught and acquired in that program are 
skills that are in fact relevant to their needs.
  Our goal in creating a National Skills Standards Board is to create a 
framework for the development of industry-based standards for training 
workers, particularly in industries that do not have a tradition of 
apprenticeships or similar skill development systems in place.
  Once developed, these standards could be used by government agencies 
as a means of ensuring that public training funds are used effectively.
  That is very important in terms of the taxpayers' understanding of 
how resources within the budget are being used for training programs. 
This is something that the Nation will have to change about the 
training programs that have been developed in the past, and that were 
tailored to address different employment challenges, in order to create 
more coordinated and unified programs that will help individuals 
receive additional training and effective educations today and in the 
future.
  Forty or fifty years ago, when someone worked in a shipyard in Fall 
River, MA, it was generally the case that, if his father or grandfather 
had been a welder, then he would be a welder also. Now we know that 
every new graduate who enters the work force may have perhaps six or 
seven different jobs over the course of their lifetime. If we are going 
to be competitive in the world community, it is essential that students 
have the opportunity to continue their training and their education, 
and to upgrade a variety of different skills. We are hopeful that we 
can achieve that objective in both the private and public sectors.
  Workers will benefit by being able to select training programs 
knowing whether those programs have complied with recognized industry 
training standards.
  And employers will benefit by being better able to assess the skill 
development needs of their workers and thereby improve their return on 
training investments.
  In Germany, which is widely regarded as having the best worker 
training programs of any modern industrial countries, uniform national 
skills standards, developed jointly by labor and management, are 
regarded as critical to the training system.
  In Australia, labor and industry--including many American companies 
that are doing business in that part of the world--have joined together 
to work with government and the education community to develop skills 
standards for their training programs.
  In the development of the Australian skills standards, which were 
adopted a little over a year ago, much of the support for those efforts 
came from American subsidiaries in those countries that were actually 
involved in those kinds of training programs. Their support was to 
ensure that, as they continue their education and training programs, 
companies in other industries will do the same so that everyone shares 
the costs of training effective workers, and as a result, everyone 
shares the benefits.
  Under this proposal, we will also bring together business, labor, and 
the education community, to work together to establish a framework for 
a voluntary national skills standards system.
  I particularly want to thank Senator Kassebaum for her contributions 
to this proposal. The substitute bill which is pending includes 
provisions modifying the composition of the Board which were worked out 
with her assistance, and which have helped us to secure broad support 
for the proposal from the business community.
  Mr. President, this is one aspect of the Goals 2000 legislation 
that obviously will be related to the Schools-to-Work Program, as well 
as to the Dislocated Workers Program, which we hope to address in the 
late spring of this year.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], is 
recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the floor manager.
  Mr. President, I rise this morning in support of the Gorton 
amendment. From personal conversations I have had with educators, 
principals, and others, there is clearly a need for an amendment of 
this nature. It would assure communications between schools and between 
educators relative to young people who have a history of violence. 
Currently, there is no provision to allow communication to come forth 
if the youngster moves from school to school.
  I am appalled at the rise of violence occurring in and around 
schools.
  There are no comprehensive statistics on school violence but 
according to a survey by the National School Boards Association: 82 
percent of 729 school districts said violence had increased; 61 percent 
reported weapons incidents; 39 percent reported shootings or knifings; 
23 percent reported drive-by shootings; 15 percent reported at least 
one rape; 78 percent reported student assaults on students; and 60 
percent reported student assaults on students and teachers.
  Why does violence occur? According to an article in America's Agenda: 
18 percent gang or drug disputes; 15 percent long standing arguments; 
12 percent romantic disagreements; 10 percent fights over material 
possessions; and 13 percent accidents.
  Earlier this week, I was visited by Larry Graham and Esther Cox, who 
were representing both the National Association of Elementary School 
Principals and the National Association of Secondary School Principals 
of which Esther is the State president.
  Two weeks ago, it was one of the schools in Esther's district that 
was the recipient of a drive-by shooting.
  As clearly stated by the National School Boards Association, 
``Violence is not confined to urban schools.''
  We can't expect children to learn if they are afraid to go to school.
  It is, therefore, important to provide the safest environment for 
students to learn and teachers to instruct.
  The significance of having this information is not to breach the 
individual rights of that student but simply to prepare the educator to 
better understand the actions of a youngster who has a history of 
violence.

  Currently, as explained to me by educators, information is unable to 
be requested, and as a consequence, they have a very difficult time 
addressing the problems of violence. As you know, it is quite a common 
practice of schools with students who have a history of violence, to 
try to readjust them in new surroundings, where, hopefully, new friends 
and so forth will take some of the tensions off them.
  So as I understand the amendment, Mr. President, it ensures that 
there is nothing standing in the way of schools, from the standpoint of 
Federal or State jurisdiction, which would prevent them from requesting 
or receiving information that would, perhaps, help them avoid a 
situation from developing that would jeopardize the teacher's safety or 
the safety of those in the classroom. The difficulties here are many, 
especially as to how we address those youngsters who are troubled and 
how we ensure that safety remains in the classroom for the benefit of 
the majority of youngsters.
  This is an effort, if you will, to address a very difficult problem, 
in a broad way, by giving greater discretion to educators, who have the 
responsibility of accountability, which is appropriate.
  I commend the Senator from Washington for his steadfast commitment to 
try to address, in a positive manner, one of the ways we can improve 
the process. Clearly, I think one of the most significant ways is to 
remove any Federal activities or strictures that would inhibit 
communication which would serve the best interests of students and the 
teachers.
  I understand the amendment is under some review now, and I am 
certainly supportive of it.
  I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1385

  (Purpose: To help local communities achieve Goal 6 of the national 
education goals, which provides that by the year 2000, every school in 
America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined 
environment conducive to learning, by strengthening local disciplinary 
                                control)

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself, Mr. 
     Wallop, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. 
     Simpson, proposes an amendment numbered 1385.

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

          TITLE   --YOUTH VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES

     SEC.   01. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title to help local communities 
     achieve Goal Six of the National Education Goals, which 
     provides that by the year 2000, every school in America will 
     be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined 
     environment conducive to learning, by strengthening local 
     disciplinary control.

     SEC.   02. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the violence within elementary and secondary schools 
     across the Nation has increased dramatically during the past 
     decade;
       (2) almost 3,000,000 crimes occur on or near school 
     campuses every year, with 16,000 crimes occurring per school 
     day or one crime occurring every 6 seconds;
       (3) 20 percent of teachers in school have reported being 
     threatened with violence by a student;
       (4) schools are being asked to take on responsibilities 
     that society as a whole has neglected, and teachers and 
     principals are being forced to referee fights rather than 
     teach;
       (5) over two-thirds of public school teachers have been 
     verbally abused, threatened with injury, or physically 
     attacked;
       (6) violent or criminal behavior by students interferes 
     with a teacher's ability to teach in a safe environment the 
     students not exhibiting such behavior;
       (7) 40 percent of all students do not feel safe in school 
     and 50 percent of all students know someone who switched 
     schools to feel safer;
       (8) nearly one-half of the teachers who leave the teaching 
     profession cite discipline problems as one of the main 
     reasons for leaving such profession; and
       (9) a lack of parental involvement contributes strongly to 
     school violence.

     SEC.   03. PROVISIONS.

       (a) Local Discipline Control.--No Federal law or 
     regulation, except education and civil rights laws protecting 
     individuals with disabilities, or state policy implementing 
     such a Federal law or regulation, shall restrict any local 
     educational agency, or elementary or secondary school, from 
     developing and implementing disciplinary policies and action 
     with respect to criminal or violent acts of students, 
     occurring on school premises, in order to create an 
     environmental conducive to learning.
       (b) Shared Information.--No Federal law or regulation, or 
     state policy implementing such a Federal law or regulation, 
     shall restrict any local educational agency or elementary or 
     secondary school from requesting and receiving information 
     from a State agency, local educational agency, or an 
     elementary or secondary school regarding a conviction or 
     juvenile adjudication, within five years of the date of the 
     request, or a pending prosecution for a violent or weapons 
     offense, of a student who is attending an elementary or 
     secondary school served by the local educational agency, or 
     the elementary or secondary school, requesting such 
     information.
       (c) Parental Responsibility.--It is the policy of the 
     Congress that States, in cooperation with local educational 
     agencies, schools, and parent groups, should be encouraged to 
     enforce disciplinary policies with respect to parents of 
     children who display criminal or violent behavior toward 
     teachers, students, other persons, or school property.
       On page 90, line 10, strike ``and''.
       On page 90, line 11, strike the period and insert ``, 
     and''.
       On page 90, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       (J) supporting the development, at the State or local 
     level, of school-based programs that restore discipline and 
     reduce violence in schools and communities, such as community 
     mobilization programs.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, there are six education goals in broad, 
general terms established by this legislation, Goals 2000: School 
readiness; school of completion; student achievement in citizenship; 
excellence in mathematics and science; adult literacy and lifelong 
learning; sixth, and last in the bill, safe, disciplined, and drug-free 
schools.
  Mr. President, with respect to the first four of those goals, we will 
find them impossible unless our school buildings provide a safe 
atmosphere in which our students are to learn.
  We see on the front page of this morning's Washington Post three 
separate stories that deal with safety in schools and with school 
discipline, not the least of which is the visit by the President of the 
United States to a crime and violence-ridden school here in the 
District of Columbia. Regrettably, however, conditions in that school 
are not confined to that particular venue or to the District of 
Columbia but are found all across the United States.
  Mr. President, early last month, in preparation for the debate in 
which we are engaged here today, this Senator convened an education 
conference in Fife, WA, a small city between Seattle and Tacoma, which 
was attended by 200 parents, teachers, students, principals, school 
board members, school administrators, representatives of private 
schools, home schoolers, business people, State legislators, 
representatives of disability groups, and other community leaders. The 
purpose was to discuss Goals 2000 and the direction of the education 
system in the United States.
  Considerably, to my surprise, I found that the primary education 
concern of those attending was not the specific goals in mathematics, 
science, English, and the like, it was school discipline and the safety 
of students and teachers in the schools served by the local communities 
represented by the people attending my education conference.
  We find, from a national point of view, that more than two-thirds of 
all public school teachers have been verbally abused, threatened with 
injury, or physically attacked. Perhaps more significantly, almost half 
of all of the people who leave the teaching profession, Mr. President, 
do so citing discipline problems as one of the frustrations which cause 
them to abandon that noble profession.
  Violence has increased dramatically all across the country in 
schools, elementary as well as secondary, during the course of the last 
decade. Statistics show us that some 3 million crimes a year are 
committed on or very near to school campuses. One-fourth of all major 
urban school districts now use metal detectors at their schools. Twenty 
percent of all of the teachers have reported being threatened by 
violence by a student.
  Mr. President, I have three children who have gone through the public 
schools of the State of Washington, occasionally with some problems, 
but never with a threat to their physical well-being. My first 
grandchild now is in kindergarten. I have a deep personal fear and 
concern over whether or not she will be granted the ability to learn 
those skills which are necessary for an American citizen, if she is 
required to go to a school in which her personal safety cannot be 
guaranteed because of other students engaged in criminal or violent 
activity.
  All of this, Mr. President, is a springboard to the amendment which I 
have here submitted and which I am pleased and delighted to say has the 
agreement and support of the distinguished senior Senator from 
Massachusetts, who is managing this bill. I want to thank him for 
working out his very real concerns with some elements of the proposal, 
which can now be summarized relatively simply.
  This amendment simply states that no Federal law or regulation will 
restrict the disciplinary rights of school districts and of schools 
regarding criminal or violent activity on the part of students on those 
school grounds.
  Mr. President, that would seem almost to go without saying that this 
kind of authority should exist. Yet, I found a common thread in 
frustrations expressed to me by local communities. These Washingtonians 
feel restricted by Government laws and regulations in their ability to 
discipline violent or criminal activity. One school principal told me 
he has spent more time in hearings in the last 2 years than in the 
previous 25 years of his educational career.
  A second area of importance, the second substantive area included in 
this amendment is the sharing of criminal information. We find schools 
and, for that matter, law enforcement authorities, fearful of lawsuits 
if they simply exchange information between one school district and 
another to follow a student who has a history of violent and criminal 
behavior. Law enforcement agencies are often reluctant to share such 
information with schools. This amendment states, again, that no Federal 
law or regulation will restrict the sharing of that information.
  This Senator, Mr. President, believes in a Federal system and in the 
rights of States to pass their own laws and engage in their own 
activities. My amendment does not restrict what any State authority may 
require through State law of one sort or another. Though, obviously, we 
encourage States and local districts to impose appropriate disciplinary 
standards to reduce violent and criminal activity.
  Perhaps the single most controversial element in connection with this 
amendment was the concern raised on the part of organized disability 
groups. So at the suggestion of my distinguished leader, Senator Dole 
from Kansas, and of Senator Kennedy himself, we have carved out an 
exception in this amendment for those determined to be disabled under 
Federal civil rights and disability laws.
  I have some serious concerns about the misuse of a determination that 
a person is disabled and therefore cannot be disciplined for violent 
activities, Mr. President. I think in many cases we see how that misuse 
of those laws is exercised.
  One of the front-page stories in the Post this morning, having to do 
with a separate law, illustrates dramatically the frustration of 
communities with respect to violent activity which is determined to be 
a result of a disability. But I have agreed to this exception for two 
reasons. One is that we will be dealing with at least some of these 
laws and their own reauthorization within the immediate future, and we 
can debate how they should be amended at that time.
  Second, most Washingtonians tell me that the overwhelming majority of 
the violent offenses which are committed in schools are committed by 
those who are not disabled under any definition whatsoever.
  The Washington State PTA told me:

       We understand that parents of disabled children are 
     concerned about the effect of this amendment on the rights of 
     their children. Parents and teachers [in Washington state] 
     have observed that when a student exhibits violent behavior 
     in a classroom and the teacher is unable to remove that 
     student from the classroom due to an interpretation of a 
     federal regulation, the educational performance of all 
     students is impaired. The same parents and teachers have 
     observed that the educational performance of special needs 
     students [and others with disabilities] virtually comes to a 
     halt. Under these circumstances, the Washington State P.T.A. 
     believes that [your] amendment would provide much needed 
     protection for these disabled students.

  While I have reservations, my preference actually to do something 
about violence in schools, however, and to restore some authority and 
confidence to local communities exceeds my desire to do this job 
perfectly and totally at this particular time.
  Mr. President, I would like to share with you a few of the words I 
have heard from parents and educational authorities in the State of 
Washington about this problem.
  This is from a very recent letter:

       Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington Association of School 
     Principals and our National Affiliates, the National 
     Association of Elementary School Principals and the National 
     Association of Secondary School Principals, support the 
     concepts presented in [your] proposed amendment. 
     Specifically: ``that students and parents must realize there 
     are immediate consequences for violent behavior''; ``that 
     information regarding criminal or violent behavior of 
     students must be shared between agencies to maximize the 
     chances for remediation and to ensure the safety of all 
     students, staff and community''; and ``that parents and 
     students must take greater responsibility for the behavior of 
     the student.''

  I would now like to quote from a letter I received from the 
Washington State PTA.

       Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State P.T.A. supports 
     the Youth Violence Amendment to Goals 2000 that you are 
     sponsoring. We appreciate your quick response to the concerns 
     about discipline and violence expressed by parents and 
     educators at your Education Summit [and in Washington state].

  Another letter:

       Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State Educational 
     School Districts support this amendment.

  In a major meeting of the teachers and principals in King and Pierce 
County on Monday evening, there was an urgency expressed for clear laws 
regarding discipline and a zero-tolerance policy towards violence. They 
embraced the idea of being empowered at the local level to reduce 
violence.
  Dr. Gene Sharratt of the North Central E.S.D. in Wenatchee says:

       Dear Senator Gorton: Your amendment is excellent and 
     certainly reflects the feelings of not only the nine E.S.D.s 
     in the State of Washington, but the 296 local school 
     districts as well.

  Another letter:

       Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State School Directors' 
     Association is ``supportive of [your] proposed amendment.''

  Mr. President, these are samples of the kind of communications we 
have received, stating we must deal with violent and criminal behavior 
in our schools--now. That kind of behavior is taking place every day 
and it undercuts tremendously not only the security of our students, 
teachers, administrators, and communities, but with equal importance 
the ability of the millions of our students to actually learn. A safe 
environment for learning is vitally important. The goals of Goals 2000 
cannot be met without safe schools and without schools free from the 
fear of violence.
  As I said earlier, I do not believe that this amendment does the job 
as well as I would have liked. We do run into legitimate concerns on 
the part of those concerned with the disabled. We will have an 
opportunity to debate those particular matters in the near future. But 
the great bulk of the violence, the great bulk of the crimes committed 
in our schools, comes from those who are not in any way disabled 
whatsoever. And many of our school authorities feel that their hands 
are tied by Federal regulations; that they cannot take a young person 
who commits an assault at the beginning of a free school lunch period 
and expel him and deprive him of that lunch because it is a Federal 
program, and Federal regulations will lead to lawsuits about such a 
deprivation. Some of my colleagues tell me this is not the intent of 
the law. Well, I suggest talking to the people who must face these 
frustrations every single day. In fact, I recommend every Senator hold 
an education conference in their States. Hearing from the people who 
must deal with our education policies everyday is invaluable.
  Our schools feel--and even if it is a feeling, this is significant--
that their hands are tied with respect to discipline by a myriad of 
Federal laws and Federal regulations. The gist of my amendment, the 
guts of this amendment, is simply that no Federal law or regulation 
will limit the ability of schools except in cases regarding the 
disabled, implement prompt disciplinary policies with respect to 
violent or criminal activities on the grounds of our schools.
  I hope at some point we will be able to go further, but I believe 
this empowerment of local schools and communities will have a 
significant and beneficial effect on safety in our schools, on the 
well-being of our children in our schools, and therefore on their 
ability of our children to learn and become good, law-abiding American 
citizens.
  Once again, I wish to express my appreciation to the distinguished 
senior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for agreeing to at 
least the heart of this amendment and a similar agreement on the part 
of the Senator from Vermont. I, therefore, have concluded my remarks.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a group of letters from 
which I quoted be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Washington State PTA,

                                     Tacoma, WA, February 2, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State PTA supports the 
     Youth Violence Amendment to Goals 2000 that you are 
     sponsoring. We appreciate your quick response to the concerns 
     about discipline and violence expressed by parents and 
     educators at your Education Summit.
       Educators and parents stressed that there are federal 
     regulations that make it difficult to create a safe, orderly 
     environment in our schools. Educators are unreasonably 
     hampered when they try to prevent or reduce violence. They 
     find that federal regulations inhibit their ability to design 
     and implement common sense discipline in their schools.
       Thank you for including parents in the decision-making 
     process. We believe parents need to help create disciplinary 
     policies to make parents accountable for the acts of their 
     children who display criminal or violent behavior towards 
     teachers, students, other persons, or school property.
       We understand that parents of disabled children are 
     concerned about the effect of this amendment on the rights of 
     their children. Parents and teachers have observed that when 
     a student exhibits violent behavior in a classroom and the 
     teacher is unable to remove that student from the classroom 
     due to an interpretation of a federal regulation, the 
     educational performance of all students is impaired. The same 
     parents and teachers have observed that the educational 
     performance of special needs students virtually comes to a 
     halt. Under these circumstances, the Washington State PTA 
     believes that this amendment would provide much needed 
     protection for these disabled students.
       Once again, thank you for your quick action on behalf of 
     the safety and welfare of the students of Washington.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Cara Lockett,
                                                        President.
                                  ____

                                                     North Central


                                 Educational Service District,

                                  Wenatchee, WA, January 28, 1994.
     Campbell Mathewson,
     Legislative Assistant, Senator Slade Gorton's Office, Hart 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Campbell: I was extremely pleased to receive your fax 
     on January 27 relating to Slade Gorton's amendment to Goal 
     2000. His proposed amendments are excellent, and certainly 
     reflect the feelings of not only the nine ESDs in the State 
     of Washington, but the 296 local school districts as well. 
     Maintaining local district control for establishing a 
     disciplined learning environment will help all schools meet 
     the learning needs of their students in a safe and orderly 
     manner.
       I will be happy to write a letter of support or get others 
     to either call or write, if necessary. Please extend our 
     appreciation and congratulations to Senator Gorton for his 
     leadership in this crucial area.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Gene Sharratt,
                                                   Superintendent.
                                  ____

     To: Campbell Mathewson, Legislative Assistant for Senator 
         Slade Gorton.
     From: Dr. Charles E. Talmage, Walter Ball, and John 
         Richardson, Executive Directors, Association of 
         Washington School Principals.

       The Association of Washington School Principals and our 
     National Affiliates (NAESP/NASSP) support the concepts 
     presented in Senator Gorton's proposed amendment:
       First, that information regarding criminal and/or violent 
     behavior of students must be shared between agencies to 
     maximize the chances for remediation and to insure the safety 
     of students, staff and community.
       Second, that parents and students must take greater 
     responsibility for the behavior of the student. That students 
     and parents must realize there are immediate consequences to 
     undesirable behavior. We have become a ``too many chance'' 
     society.
                                  ____

     To: Campbell Mathewson.
     From: Walter Ball, Association of Washington School 
         Principals.
     Subject: Local discipline control.

       Mr. Campbell Mathewson: Since the Goals 2000 apply to all 
     of our nation's public K-12 students, we are concerned that 
     subs (a) and (b) apply only to students in federally funded 
     programs, a limited application. But, even this statement of 
     federal support is of value in improving flow of information.
       We would recommend for your consideration the following 
     language for para (a):
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal 
     law, or State law that implements a Federal program or that 
     establishes a State program funded in whole or in part with 
     Federal funds, shall restrict a local school authority in 
     developing and implementing disciplinary policies necessary 
     to maintain a proper learning environment.''
       For para (b) the following:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal 
     law, or State law that implements a Federal program or that 
     establishes a State program funded in whole or in part with 
     Federal funds, shall restrict any local school authority from 
     requesting and receiving information from or sharing 
     information with a State or local agency, including health, 
     social service, law enforcement and judicial, regarding the 
     criminal or violent behavior of a student who is attending an 
     elementary or secondary school served by the entity 
     requesting such information.''
       For para (e), the following:
       ``It is the policy of the Congress, that States, in 
     cooperation with local education agencies and schools, should 
     support the enforcement of disciplinary policies that include 
     parental responsibility when their children display criminal 
     or violent behavior toward teachers, students, other persons, 
     or school property.''
                                  ____

                                           Washington State School


                                       Directors' Association,

                                    Olympia, WA, January 31, 1994.
     To: Campbell Mathewson, education legislative assistant to 
         Senator Gorton.
     From: Dottee Rambo, coordinator for Federal relations.
     Subject: Senator Gorton's proposed amendments to Goals 2000.

       Thanks for sharing the proposed amendments with us and 
     offering us an opportunity to comment before the fact.
       The only concern we have is with provision (a) Local 
     Discipline Control. It appears that attorneys have determined 
     that the ``stay put'' provision of the Federal Education of 
     the Handicapped Act (20 U.S.C., Sec. 1403 e 3) prohibits 
     schools from removing a special-education student from his/
     her regular learning environment as a discipline measure even 
     if the misconduct had no relationship to the student's 
     handicap. (A ``worst-case'' example: a vision-impaired 
     student brings a gun to school. Clearly there is no 
     connection between the handicap and the misconduct, but 
     apparently ``stay put'' would prevent usual discipline from 
     being enforced.)
       The WSSDA has difficulty with this particular provision 
     even when the discipline problem is related to the handicap 
     because the short period of time permissible to suspend such 
     a student is inadequate to reassess the student's placement. 
     But beyond that, it appears that federal regulations, rules 
     or perhaps case law have extended this protection to other 
     than handicapped-related incidents.
       We would appreciate it if you and the Senator would take a 
     look at this provision of the Education of the Handicapped 
     Act as it related to schools' disciplinary ability, in order 
     to protect all children in a safe and sound learning 
     environment.
       Other than this concern, the WSSDA would be supportive of 
     the Senator's proposed amendment.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains on the 10 minutes? 
Have we exhausted the time the Senator from Washington requested?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes 50 seconds remains.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would like to briefly make 30 seconds of comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the compromise that 
we have reached with the Senator from Washington. The issue that he is 
addressing--reducing violence in schools--is a serious one and one I 
ardently support trying to solve that problem.
  One death resulting from violence is one too many. Yet, we hear 
countless stories about guns in the school, stabbings, violence and 
discipline problems. The bloodshed has been so rampant that we have 
become numb to it. Clearly, we cannot sit idle, do nothing or ignore 
violence occurring in our schools. Yet, we must find the best way to 
stop the violence and we must be reasonable at the same time.
  Yesterday, I believe we took a step in the right direction with 
respect to the Senator from Massachusetts and my colleague from 
Washington. We have reached full agreement today, and I am pleased to 
support his amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senator Gorton's amendment is aimed at a 
critical issue, ensuring that schools have the flexibility to deal with 
criminal or violent acts on school premises, so that teachers may teach 
and students may learn, without disruption and without basic fear for 
personal safety. The amendment makes clear that no Federal law or 
regulation, or State policy implementing such a law or regulation, 
shall restrict a school district or school from implementing 
appropriate disciplinary actions to address and stop violence.
  Before agreeing to accept the amendment, I and my colleague from 
Vermont, Senator Jeffords, insisted that the amendment make clear that 
it is not intended to override important protections in existing law 
for children with disabilities. Equally important, the amendment is not 
intended to override basic civil rights or due process protections 
embodied in State or Federal statutory law and in court cases 
interpreting various statutes and constitutional provisions.
  This amendment also makes important strides with respect to providing 
schools with information on students in their midsts who have 
previously been convicted of firearms violations or other violent 
offenses, or who have a pending prosecution for such offenses. The 
newspapers are full of stories of students who enroll in a new school 
or school district, while under house arrest in another jurisdiction 
for a violent felony, with all of these facts and circumstances 
completely unknown to the new school. This amendment makes clear that 
no Federal law or regulation, or State policy implementing such a law 
or regulation, shall restrict a school from requesting or receiving 
information on students with violent felony convictions.
  Again, the information that a school may request and receive is 
narrowly restricted only to convictions, juvenile adjudications, or 
pending arrests, and only to a narrow class of violent or weapons 
offenses. This amendment is not intended to promote fishing expeditions 
by school districts into the various records maintained by State and 
local agencies, which are protected from disclosure except under 
specified circumstances.
  With these important restrictions in scope, we have accepted Senator 
Gorton's amendment as an important measure to help us achieve Goal Six 
of the National Education Goals, which provides that by the year 2000, 
every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will 
offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning, by strengthening 
local disciplinary control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senate that under 
the previous order a vote is now to be taken.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could yield myself 1 minute to make 
a unanimous consent request.
  I understand we are about to vote. We are going to urge the 
acceptance of this amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. It is certainly agreeable to the Senator that we deal 
with the actual vote now.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider the amendment of the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Washington.
  The amendment (No. 1385) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.


                       vote on amendment no. 1383

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 9:30 
a.m. having arrived, the question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 
1383) of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth]. On this question, 
the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn], the 
Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Wofford] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], 
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], the Senator from Maine [Mr. 
Cohen], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator from 
Utah [Mr. Hatch], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the 
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Nickles], the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] 
are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Hatch] would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--78

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

                                NAYS--8

     Boxer
     Byrd
     Feingold
     Hatfield
     Leahy
     Murray
     Shelby
     Simon

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bond
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Durenberger
     Glenn
     Hatch
     Helms
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Nickles
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 1383) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
Indiana [Mr. Coats] now be recognized to offer his amendment on school 
choice; that there be 1 hour of debate on the amendment divided as 
follows: 40 minutes under the control of Senator Coats or his designee, 
and 20 minutes under the control of Senator Kennedy or his designee; 
that upon the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on 
or in relation to the Coats amendment; that no second-degree amendments 
be in order thereto, and that all of the above occur without any 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). Under the previous order, 
the Senator from Indiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1386

 (Purpose: To provide a low-income school choice demonstration program)

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I will be shortly sending to the desk an 
amendment that Senator Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut, and I 
are offering relative to this bill. I would like just to take a few 
moments to describe what the amendment does and then turn it over to 
Senator Lieberman for his analysis and description of the legislation.
  It was Edmund Burke who said ``Time is the grand instructor.'' When 
it comes to education and when it comes to making substantive changes 
in our education system, changes that will truly make a difference, it 
seems that our time is running short. It is true that not every 
education system is broken. There are a number of innovations underway. 
Some of those are effective, but it is also true that there are many 
education systems in public education today that are badly in need of 
repair.
  Probably there is no area where there is greater need for examination 
of how we provide public education to our young people than in those 
education institutions affecting low-income children. It is easy and at 
least available for affluent families in America to make a choice as to 
where they send their children to school. If they are unhappy with the 
public education system or the school which their children are going 
to, they can place their children in a parochial school or a private 
school, giving their children what they believe are opportunities for a 
better education.
  That is not true for low-income children. In many of our inner cities 
and in many of our rural areas, they simply do not have the choice or 
the financial wherewithal to make any decision other than sending their 
child to the public school.
  The public school systems have tried all kinds of different 
innovations. We have reduced the size of school classes, increased the 
length of the school year, raised teachers' salaries, lowered 
expectations, painted buildings, encouraged ethnicity, and focused on 
self-esteem and feeling rather than fundamentals.
  The bottom line is that most of these changes have not truly made a 
difference. They have not significantly altered the quality of 
education provided to these students and they have not only not 
improved the results as measured by SAT scores and other tests, but we 
have actually seen a reduction in those scores.
  The truth is that for a majority of poor- and middle-class families 
in America, there is no choice about where they send their children to 
school and there is no competition within the system to force or to 
bring about innovative changes to make those school systems better.
  Today in America, if you have the financial means, you have a choice 
of where you send your children to school, and if you do not have the 
financial means, you do not have a choice. We have had a number of 
discussions about the whole concept of choice on this Senate floor over 
a number of years. There are proponents and opponents. There are those 
who advocate that choice is the magic bullet solution to our 
educational problems and those who vigorously oppose that. I do not 
fully know whether or not choice is the answer, but it may be an answer 
and the amendment that we will be offering today says let us test the 
concept; let us not make a radical choice change now throughout the 
whole public education system, let us not mandate that the school 
systems offer this, but let us test the concept to see whether or not 
it works.
  If the proponents of choice are correct, we will have objective data 
to analyze and to evaluate and to offer to other school districts and 
other State education institutions around the country from which they 
can then make a decision as to whether or not they want to utilize 
choice in their systems for the future.
  If the opponents are correct and the arguments that are raised 
against choice are valid, we will have an objective set of data to come 
to the conclusion that perhaps this is not the best solution.
  So the amendment that we are offering today is very simple. It says, 
let us set aside a small amount of funds available to the Secretary of 
Education to offer six demonstration grants to local education 
associations for their utilization in providing a test of the choice 
system.
  Our amendment would go specifically for the purpose of providing 
assistance to children from the lowest income homes, and their parents. 
The children who would be eligible under this program would be children 
who qualify for reduced school lunch prices or full subsidy on school 
lunch--an income-based measurement.
  So the funds can only go to parents and children who fall in the low-
income category. Those funds could be used to opt into and to pay for 
education costs at alternative schools. It would be the parents' choice 
as to which school they could send their children. There is no 
limitation, there is no restriction, yet there is no proscription of 
which school needs to be chosen.
  We have incorporated a very strict civil rights and desegregation 
protection clause to make sure that participating schools can in no way 
discriminate on the basis of race. We also stipulate that demonstration 
projects cannot continue if they interfere with these segregation 
plans.
  The total cost of this demonstration project would be $30 million and 
there would be no more than six projects. School districts would 
voluntarily apply for the grants through the Secretary, and we have 
established some criteria for the Secretary to make that determination 
as to which districts would be included.
  My home State of Indiana has several existing choice initiatives 
underway. One program, originated by Golden Rule Insurance, pays half 
the tuition for children from low-income families to attend private 
schools. The program already serves 1,100 students, with a waiting list 
of 650 students. Our public schools are also experimenting with choice. 
Indianapolis public schools, for example, has initiated the Select 
Schools Program. More than 80 percent of parents participated this 
year.
  I have spoken with educators in a district in Indiana who have 
already expressed an interest in the program. Some public school 
educators have met with the parochial and private school educators and 
there is real interest in testing the concept to see how it works, to 
work out the bugs, and to see if it would actually make a difference.
  I do not really understand why anybody would want to oppose this 
particular amendment because it is not a mandate, it is purely 
voluntary. It provides a basis for which we in Congress can evaluate 
the validity of this particular concept. If it turns out that it 
substantially improves opportunities for low-income children, then why 
would we not want to provide that data to school districts and 
education agencies across this country? Why would we not want to have 
that set of information available so that we can make intelligent 
choices? After all, our bottom line is not preserving any particular 
system. Our bottom line is providing the best education opportunities 
we can to American children. In this particular area, we have denied 
that opportunity to children from low-income homes because they simply 
do not have the opportunity to have a choice as many others do.

  It is important to understand what this amendment does not do. It 
does not force choice on anyone. It is purely voluntary. It will not 
upset the American public education system. We are simply doing it on a 
voluntary basis for six test districts throughout the entire country.
  Third, it will not drain resources from any public school or 
education system. We have a specific prohibition against that. The 
Secretary cannot provide any reduction in funds or deny any funds that 
a public school would otherwise be eligible for, even though students 
in that school or school system opted out or numbers decreased. It 
cannot adversely affect the amount of funds available during this time.
  It does not violate civil rights protections. I have already spoken 
to this. It does not destroy public education. In fact, I think it 
enhances public education. My home is Fort Wayne, IN. For decades, our 
education system has thrived on competition. We have a vigorous 
Catholic school education system in Fort Wayne, IN. We have a Lutheran 
school system because of our heavy concentration of people of Lutheran 
belief. They have established their own system.
  Those two systems exist, along with other private education 
opportunities, side by side with the public schools in Fort Wayne, IN, 
and they are all thriving. They are thriving because the parents and 
students of Fort Wayne, IN, have a choice. The competition between 
those three systems has caused each system to better their education 
program to compete with each other for the students, and they work hand 
in hand. Parents in Fort Wayne have opportunities which parents in many 
States and areas do not have.
  So why not give it a try? Why not give it a test?
  Madam President, I think the amendment is very simple and self-
explanatory. I now send it to the desk and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Mack, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1386.

  Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered 
as read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
       TITLE ____--LOW-INCOME SCHOOL CHOICE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Low-Income School Choice 
     Demonstration Act of 1993''.

     SEC. ____02. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this title is to determine the effects on 
     students and schools of providing financial assistance to 
     low-income parents to enable such parents to select the 
     public or private schools in which their children will be 
     enrolled.

     SEC. ____03. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title--
       (1) the term ``choice school'' means any public or private 
     school, including a private sectarian school, that is 
     involved in a demonstration project assisted under this 
     title;
       (2) the term ``eligible child'' means a child in grades 1 
     through 12 who is eligible for free or reduced price meals 
     under the National School Lunch Act;
       (3) the term ``eligible entity'' means a public agency, 
     institution, or organization, such as a State, a State or 
     local educational agency, a consortium of public agencies, or 
     a consortium of public and private nonprofit entities, that 
     can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, its 
     ability to--
       (A) receive, disburse, and account for Federal funds; and
       (B) carry out the activities described in its application 
     under this title;
       (4) the term ``local educational agency'' has the same 
     meaning given such term in section 1471 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       (5) the term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian or other 
     individual acting in loco parentis;
       (6) the term ``school'' means a school that provides 
     elementary education or secondary education (through grade 
     12), as determined under State law; and
       (7) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education.

     SEC. ____04. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1995, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the fiscal years 1996 and 1997, to carry out this title.

     SEC. ____05. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Reservation.--From the amount appropriated pursuant to 
     the authority of section ____04 in any fiscal year, the 
     Secretary may reserve not more than 5 percent for evaluation 
     of programs assisted under this title, in accordance with 
     section ____11.
       (b) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--From the amount appropriated pursuant to 
     the authority of section ____04 and not reserved under 
     subsection (a) in any fiscal year, the Secretary shall make 
     grants, in amounts not to exceed $5,000,000 in the first year 
     of the demonstration project, to eligible entities to carry 
     out not more than 6 demonstration projects under which low-
     income parents receive certificates for the costs of 
     enrolling their eligible children in a choice school.
       (2) Inapplicability of section 401.--Section 401 shall not 
     apply to this title.
       (c) Use of Grants.--Grants awarded under subsection (b) 
     shall be used to pay the costs of--
       (1) providing education certificates to low-income parents 
     to enable such parents to pay the tuition, fees, the 
     allowable costs of transportation, if any, and the costs of 
     complying with section ____09(a)(1), if any, for their 
     eligible children to attend a choice school; and
       (2) administration of the demonstration project, which 
     shall not exceed 15 percent of the amount received in the 
     first fiscal year for which the grant recipient provides 
     certificates or 10 percent in any subsequent year, 
     including--
       (A) seeking the involvement of choice schools in the 
     demonstration project;
       (B) providing information about the project, and the 
     schools involved in the project, to parents of eligible 
     children;
       (C) determining the eligibility of children to participate 
     in the demonstration project;
       (D) selecting students to participate in the demonstration 
     project;
       (E) determining the value of, and issuing, certificates;
       (F) compiling and maintaining such financial and 
     programmatic records as the Secretary may prescribe; and
       (G) collecting and making available to the Secretary such 
     information about the effects of the demonstration as the 
     Secretary may need to conduct the evaluation described in 
     section ____11.
       (d) Special Rule.--Any school participating in the 
     demonstration provided for under this title shall comply with 
     title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not discriminate 
     on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

     SEC. ____06. AUTHORIZED PROJECTS; PRIORITY.

       (a) Authorized Projects.--The Secretary may provide 
     assistance under this title only to a demonstration project 
     that--
       (1) involves at least one local educational agency that--
       (A) receives funds under section 1006 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
       (B) is among the 20 percent of local educational agencies 
     receiving funds under section 1006 of such Act in the State 
     and having the highest number of children described in 
     section 1005(c) of such Act; and
       (2) includes the involvement of a sufficient number of 
     public and private choice schools, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary, to allow for a valid demonstration project.
       (b) Priority.--In selecting grant recipients under this 
     title, the Secretary shall give priority to projects--
       (1) in which choice schools offer an enrollment opportunity 
     to the broadest range of eligible children;
       (2) that involve diverse types of choice schools; and
       (3) that will contribute to geographic diversity, including 
     States that are primarily rural and States that are primarily 
     urban.

     SEC. ____07. APPLICATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Any eligible entity that wishes to receive 
     a grant under this title shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may prescribe.
       (b) Contents.--Each application described in subsection (a) 
     shall contain--
       (1) information demonstrating the eligibility of the 
     applicant and its demonstration project;
       (2) with respect to choice schools--
       (A) a description of the standards used by the applicant to 
     determine which public and private schools are within a 
     reasonable commuting distance of eligible children and 
     present a reasonable commuting cost for such children;
       (B) a description of the types of potential choice schools 
     that will be involved in the project;
       (C)(i) a description of the procedures used to encourage 
     public and private schools to be involved in the 
     demonstration project; and
       (ii) a description of how the applicant will annually 
     determine the number of spaces available for eligible 
     children in each choice school;
       (D) an assurance that each choice school will not impose 
     higher standards for admission or participation in its 
     programs and activities for eligible children with 
     certificates provided under this title than the school does 
     for other children;
       (E) an assurance that each choice school will have been 
     operating an educational program of the same type as the 
     program for which it will accept certificates, for at least 1 
     year before accepting such certificate;
       (F) an assurance that the applicant will terminate the 
     involvement of any choice school that fails to comply with 
     the conditions of its involvement in the demonstration 
     project; and
       (G) a description of the extent to which choice schools 
     will accept certificates as full payment for tuition and 
     fees;
       (3) with respect to the participation of eligible 
     children--
       (A) a description of the procedures to be used to determine 
     the eligibility of children under this title, which shall 
     include--
       (i) the procedures used to determine eligibility for free 
     and reduced price meals under the National School Lunch Act; 
     or
       (ii) any other procedure, subject to the Secretary's 
     approval, that accurately establishes a child's eligibility 
     within the meaning of section ____03(2);
       (B) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure 
     that, in selecting eligible children to participate in the 
     demonstration project, the applicant will--
       (i) apply the same criteria to both public and private 
     school children; and
       (ii) give priority to children from the lowest income 
     families;
       (C) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure 
     maximum choice of schools for participating children, 
     including procedures to be used when--
       (i) the number of parents with certificates who desire to 
     enroll their children in a particular school exceeds the 
     number of such children that the school has agreed to accept; 
     and
       (ii) grant funds are insufficient to support the total cost 
     of choices made by parents with certificates; and
       (D) a description of the procedures to be used to ensure 
     compliance with section ____09(a)(1), which may include--
       (i) the direct provision of services by a local educational 
     agency;
       (ii) arrangements made by a local educational agency with 
     other service providers; and
       (iii) an increase in the value of the education certificate 
     in accordance with section ____08(a)(2)(A);
       (4) with respect to the operation of the demonstration--
       (A) a description of the geographic area to be served;
       (B) a timetable for carrying out the demonstration;
       (C) a description of the procedures to be used for the 
     issuance and redemption of certificates;
       (D) a description of the procedures by which a choice 
     school will make a pro rata refund of the certificate for any 
     participating child who withdraws from the school for any 
     reason, before completing 75 percent of the school attendance 
     period for which the certificate was used;
       (E) a description of the procedures to be used to provide 
     the parental notification described in section ____10;
       (F) an assurance that the applicant will place all funds 
     received under this title into a separate account, and that 
     no other funds will be placed in such account;
       (G) an assurance that the applicant will provide the 
     Secretary periodic reports on the status of such funds;
       (H) an assurance that the applicant will cooperate with the 
     Secretary in carrying out the evaluation described in section 
     ____11; and
       (I) an assurance that the applicant will maintain such 
     records as the Secretary may require, and comply with 
     reasonable requests from the Secretary for information; and
       (5) such other assurances and information as the Secretary 
     may require.

     SEC. ____08. EDUCATION CERTIFICATES.

       (a) Education Certificates.--
       (1) Basic value.--The basic value of an eligible child's 
     education certificate under this title shall be the cost of 
     tuition and fees normally charged by the public or private 
     school chosen by the child's parents.
       (2) Increases and issuances.--Subject to such regulations 
     as the Secretary shall prescribe--
       (A) the value of the certificate may be increased to cover 
     the additional reasonable costs of transportation directly 
     attributable to the child's participation in the 
     demonstration project or the cost of complying with section 
     ____09(a)(1); and
       (B) education certificates may be issued to parents of 
     children who choose to attend schools that do not charge 
     tuition or fees, to cover the additional reasonable costs of 
     transportation directly attributable to the child's 
     participation in the demonstration or the cost of complying 
     with section ____09(a)(1).
       (b) Adjustment.--The value of the education certificate may 
     be adjusted in the second and third years of an eligible 
     child's participation to reflect any increases or decreases 
     in the tuition, fees, or transportation costs directly 
     attributable to that child's continued attendance at a choice 
     school, but shall not be increased for this purpose by more 
     than 10 percent over the value for the preceding year. The 
     value of the education certificate may also be adjusted in 
     any fiscal year to comply with section ____09(a)(1).
       (c) Special Rule.--If a participating eligible child was 
     attending a public or private school that charged tuition in 
     the year before the first year of a grant recipient's 
     participation under this title, the basic value of the 
     certificate for such child shall be the tuition charged by 
     such school for such child in such preceding year, adjusted 
     in accordance with subsection (b).
       (d) Maximum Amount.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, the basic value of an eligible child's 
     certificate shall not exceed the per pupil expenditure for 
     elementary and secondary education, as appropriate, for the 
     preceding year by the local educational agency in which the 
     public school to which the child would normally be assigned 
     is located.
       (e) Income.--Certificates, and funds provided under 
     certificates, shall not be deemed income of the parents for 
     Federal income tax purposes or for determining eligibility 
     for any other Federal program.

     SEC. ____09. EFFECT ON OTHER PROGRAMS; USE OF SCHOOL LUNCH 
                   DATA.

       (a) Effect on Other Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Eligible children participating in a 
     demonstration under this title, who, in the absence of such a 
     demonstration, would have received services under part A of 
     chapter 1 of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 shall be provided such services.
       (2) Part b of the individuals with disabilities education 
     act.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the 
     requirements of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act.
       (b) Counting of Children.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any local educational agency participating 
     in a demonstration under this title may count eligible 
     children who, in the absence of such a demonstration, would 
     attend the schools of such agency, for purposes of receiving 
     funds under any program administered by the Secretary.
       (c) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding section 9 of the 
     National School Lunch Act, a grant recipient under this title 
     may use information collected for the purpose of determining 
     eligibility for free or reduced price meals to determine a 
     child's eligibility to participate in a demonstration under 
     this title and, if needed, to rank families by income, in 
     accordance with section ____07(b)(3)(B)(ii). All such 
     information shall otherwise remain confidential, and 
     information pertaining to income may be disclosed only to 
     persons who need that information for the purposes of a 
     demonstration project under this title.
       (d) Construction.--
       (1) Sectarian institutions.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to supersede or modify any provision of a State 
     constitution or State law that prohibits the expenditure of 
     public funds in or by sectarian institutions, except that no 
     provision of a State constitution or State law shall be 
     construed to prohibit the expenditure in or by sectarian 
     institutions of any Federal funds provided under this title.
       (2) Desegregation plans.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to interfere with any desegregation plans that 
     involve school attendance areas affected by this title.

     SEC. ____10. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.

       Each grant recipient under this title shall provide timely 
     notice of the demonstration project to parents of eligible 
     children residing in the area to be served. At a minimum, 
     such notice shall--
       (1) describe the demonstration;
       (2) describe the eligibility requirements for 
     participation;
       (3) describe the information needed to establish a child's 
     eligibility;
       (4) describe the selection procedures to be used if the 
     number of eligible children seeking to participate exceeds 
     the number that can be accommodated;
       (5) provide information about each choice school, including 
     information about any admission requirements or criteria; and
       (6) include the schedule for parents to apply for their 
     children to participate.

     SEC. ____11. EVALUATION.

       The Secretary shall conduct a rigorous evaluation of the 
     demonstration program authorized by this title. Such 
     evaluation shall--
       (1) describe the implementation of each demonstration 
     project and its effects on all participants, schools, and 
     communities in the project area; and
       (2) compare the educational achievement of all students in 
     the project area, including--
       (A) students receiving certificates; and
       (B) students not receiving certificates.

     SEC. ____12. REPORTS.

       (a) Report by Grant Recipient.--Each grant recipient under 
     this title shall submit an annual report to the Secretary, at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may require.
       (b) Report by Secretary.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall report annually to the 
     President and the President shall report annually to the 
     Congress on the progress of the local demonstrations, 
     including information submitted by each grant recipient and 
     from other sources.
       (2) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     President and the President shall submit a report to the 
     Congress on the national evaluation described in section 
     ____11 within 9 months after the conclusion of the 
     demonstration projects assisted under this title.
       In section 3, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), strike 
     ``title V'' and insert ``titles V and ____''.

  Mr. COATS. With that, I yield to my colleague and cosponsor, the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague from Indiana. 
I am delighted to join with him as a cosponsor of this amendment, 
repeating a role that I played with another distinguished Member of 
this Chamber 2 years ago.
  Madam President, I associate myself with everything my colleague from 
Indiana said, and I would add a few remarks.
  It seems to me the amendment we are offering is entirely consistent 
with the thrust and the content of the underlying Goals 2000 bill which 
starts from a recognition that our current system of education is 
obviously doing well in some areas but failing a lot of our kids in 
other areas; that we need to set goals for ourselves nationally, and 
that we need to stimulate a lot of different programs, fresh ideas to 
try to achieve those goals.
  In fact, Goals 2000, as submitted by the administration and reported 
out of the committee, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
which will come before us in a while, does open unconventional, new 
doors, down the road to educating our children.
  The fundamental truth is that what we are about is not focusing on 
any particular structure or defending that existing structure of 
education. What we are focused on is our children and what is the best 
way to educate and prepare them for lives that are self-sufficient, 
that are productive, that are responsible. In fact, in Goals 2000 and 
in the later bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, to 
follow there is specific endorsement, as the President has personally, 
of public school choice, a fresh idea in many cases. Let us stimulate 
children and parents to have the choice to take their kids from one 
public school to another, creating some competition among the public 
schools and hopefully upgrading the quality of education.
  In the Goals 2000 proposal and in the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act there is explicit support of a great idea that is being 
tried in more and more of our States that my colleague from Minnesota, 
Senator Durenberger, and I introduced legislation on in the last two 
sessions, which is charter schools, independent entities set up 
generally within the public school format or within the public school 
aura, but freed of the central bureaucracy, usually created by groups 
of teachers. It would be created by entrepreneurs, negotiating a 
charter with the public education authority, given 3, 4, 5 years to 
achieve the aims and, if they achieve it, the charter, the contract is 
renewed. If they do not, that is it. It is a very innovative idea, 
supported by the underlying bill and the overall Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act to follow.
  So as I cosponsor this amendment, I see it as consistent with this 
attempt to focus on the children, not on the buildings or the existing 
personnel, and to open the door to innovation, acknowledging that a lot 
of what we are doing now is not working, and all of it aimed at helping 
our kids and our society achieve the kinds of goals we are talking 
about in the underlying bill.
  Madam President, that is what this amendment is all about. It says a 
number of things. One is that, as my colleague from Indiana has said 
and I will just mention it briefly, we have a special challenge in 
educating our poorest children, and it has special consequences for our 
society. Our poorest children come into the schools too often with 
problems, and it is hard for the schools often to respond to those 
problems. But you know what, our poorest children are born with the 
same potential as every other child in America. I take it is as a 
failure of the system, not a failure of the child, when too many of our 
poorest children are moved along through the system of education 
without having attained the skills, increasingly deprived of self-
esteem because they know they are not being given what it takes to make 
it, being sent in and out of a world in which they are not going to be 
prepared; they do not have the training to live the kinds of lives they 
and their parents want them to live.
  This amendment says let us give the parents of those poorest 
children--in this case defined as families that qualify for free or 
reduced-price school lunches--the opportunity to make the same choices 
that wealthier parents make in our society. If they are not happy with 
the school, the public school that their kids are attending, they pick 
them up and either push their way to another public school or send them 
to a private or a religious-based school.
  Today, poor parents do not have that option, and that is what this 
amendment is all about.
  It is about something else. It is about what I have observed in the 
State of Connecticut, which is that private schools--and in this case I 
wish to particularly focus on the religious-based school systems, and 
in the State of Connecticut that mostly means schools operated by the 
Catholic Church, the so-called parochial school system, many of these 
schools built around churches that were started decades ago in many of 
our cities, in many cases around those churches is now mostly a poor or 
minority population.
  Those schools that have opened up and reached out to a lot of kids in 
those neighborhoods, African-American, Hispanic-American, inviting them 
into education, and the result--incidentally, many, if not most, of the 
kids are not Catholic, as it happens, an expression of the mission, of 
the remarkable mission, of these church-related, church-sponsored 
schools. And by and large I observe--I know there are arguments about 
why--that the kids from the poor families who are going to those 
parochial schools seem to be doing better. You know there are those who 
argue this is a self-selection process. Parents who care enough to send 
their kids to the parochial schools are ones who are obviously guiding 
them with education. I think it is something more than that.
  The Rand Corp. did a study a while back evaluating the performance of 
a comparable group of African-American and Hispanic-American children 
in Catholic parochial schools and public schools. The study shows that 
the gap in performance between these minority children and all other 
children dropped significantly in the parochial school system. The Rand 
study also points out that these parochial schools seem to perform 
better because they had a very rigorous academic curriculum. They were 
independent, sometimes not so much by choice but by necessity, because 
there is not much money there. The central bureaucracy got in the way. 
They had the ability to provide the students with more attention than 
their colleagues in the public school system.
  I also suspect that the record here is an expression of the special 
sense of mission and underlying sense of values that I have noted every 
time I have been inside or been in touch with teachers and 
administrators in a religious-based school system. So we do have these 
schools that seem to be working.
  I note parenthetically, although it is not the purpose of this 
amendment in a specific sense, that, unfortunately, many of these 
schools are in financial trouble today. It is hard to run a school. It 
is hard to run a school particularly where the children --it is not so 
much the children of the people who are going to the church any more 
than they are going to the school. One positive effect of a choice 
program would be to give a little bit more financial support for these 
schools to keep some of them open. In the State of Connecticut, the 
trend is for these schools to close because of financial problems.
  I know the question is raised that if we have a school choice 
program, it will be a fundamental threat to the public schools.
  Madam President, obviously our primary responsibility as public 
officials is to the public schools. I am a graduate of the public 
school system, and I am grateful for the education I received and proud 
of it.
  Most of our children will always be educated at the public school 
system, where they should be. And most of the money will go there. But 
what we are saying here is maybe there is something special going on in 
these religious-based school systems. Maybe this is a little bit extra 
in the way of education and values being conveyed to our children that 
not only educate them in reading and writing, but educate them with a 
sense of purpose and value and mission.
  Maybe we ought to open this little door to allow some parents to make 
this choice, and maybe the public schools will learn--all of us will 
learn--some things from this test.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I certainly yield to the President pro tempore, 
Senator Byrd.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Madam President, I suggest that the biggest threat to the public 
schools of this country is the fact that more and more there is less 
and less discipline in those schools. Anything goes. The halls are 
filled with thugs in many schools, carrying guns and knives. I have 
voted, I guess, for every bill that has come along in this Senate in 
the nearly 36 years that I have been a Member of the Senate, for every 
bill supporting public education.
  As Caesar said in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar:

       But I am constant as the northern star, of whose true-fix'd 
     and resting quality there is no fellow in the firmament.

  I have been constant in my support for public education, and I am 
still very supportive of public education. It will be a catastrophe in 
this country if the public school systems ultimately fail. But I am 
becoming frustrated, and I think I reflect the frustrations of millions 
of citizens in this country, millions of students, and thousands upon 
thousands of teachers.
  How can a teacher teach in an environment where the teacher is 
threatened, feels threatened, and is many times the subject of abuse 
and the object of assault and battery? How can students learn in such 
an atmosphere?
  So I say the biggest dangers to the public school system today are 
the problems that are associated with it concerning lack of discipline, 
the failure to teach, the failure to educate, and the failure to learn.
  I have voted for billions of dollars to go into the public school 
systems of this country. I have never failed in my support for those 
moneys. But as I say, I am becoming frustrated. I hear it every day 
from teachers, from parents, and from students.
  This is not to say that there are not some excellent public schools 
nor that they do not turn out some excellent students. But all too 
often, and all too much we are not getting our dollars' worth in the 
education of our young people. And the taxpayers of this country are 
going to turn away to something else. That is the greatest danger to 
the public school system.
  I have some hesitations about voting for this amendment. But I also 
have some inclinations to vote for it. As I understand, it is a pilot 
project. Perhaps we ought to give it a try. If we really want to save 
the public school system in this country, it had better shape up. There 
needs to be discipline. For the rowdies and the thugs, they ought to be 
thrown out; have a special building for them if necessary; put all of 
them in it. Let those students who are not only willing to learn but 
who are desirous of learning have the chance to learn in an atmosphere 
which is not threatening to life and limb.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the President pro tempore, and I appreciate 
his remarks very much. They are really at the heart of what motivates 
this amendment.
  I spoke to one parent in a Connecticut city who said to me, ``My 
child, when he goes to school, is more worried about getting shot than 
getting AIDS, and that is why I want to pull him out of that school.

  I think one of the things that might come out of this test we are 
talking about--and it is only a test--is that one of the reasons why 
some of these religious-based schools seem to do better with the same 
population of kids is that they have more discipline and they have this 
sense of mission and values.
  Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield, I have had the occasion many 
times during my years of service in the Senate to observe students who 
are taught discipline in the schoolrooms and respect for the flag, 
respect for authority, respect for their teachers, and, in many 
instances, those are Catholic schools.
  Another thing, we are not teaching our children the basics. I saw on 
television, not too long ago, a young lady who was asked, ``What do you 
remember about Abraham Lincoln?'' She giggled and said, ``He got 
shot.'' How much longer are we going to pour billions of dollars of 
taxpayers money into a system that turns out students who are not ready 
to be promoted or to graduate? We are experimenting too much with our 
children and they are not being taught the basics.
  ``Every mother breeds not sons alike.'' Daniel Webster was next-to-
the-youngest in a group of eight siblings. Those people were poor, but 
the other seven siblings were not Daniels. There was only one Daniel 
Webster. Shakespeare, in Titus Andronicus, said, ``Every mother breeds 
not sons alike.'' He was later on to say, ``All the water in the ocean 
can never turn a swan's black legs to white, although she lave them 
hourly in the flood.''
  I think we ought to do everything we can to educate children who 
really want to learn, and put the fast learners on a fast track. I 
think we ought to emphasize excellence in our schools, not only with 
students but also with teachers. It came to my attention in the last 
day or so that, on a blackboard in a local school over in Virginia, a 
teacher had written w-h-o-'-s for the pronoun w-h-o-s-e, and t-h-e-y-'-
r-e for t-h-e-i-r. How can students learn when they have teachers who 
cannot spell?
  I thank the Senator. I am just having difficulties within myself as 
to how to vote on an amendment like this. I have been a stalwart, but I 
am becoming frustrated and the people are becoming frustrated, and it 
poses a danger to the public school system. It is going to have to be 
cleaned up, and the people of the education system are going to have to 
learn to teach. It is all right to study methodologies, but they also 
need to know the substance of the subjects they are teaching.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the President pro tempore. I will conclude 
here. I hope I can convert his inclination to a definite disposition to 
vote for the amendment. The amendment is merely a test. God knows that 
none of us can say that our existing school systems are working 
perfectly so we should not at least take $30 million out of the 
hundreds of billions that are spent in American education and test this 
idea of choice. If it does not work, that will be it. If it does, we 
will see how we can expand it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I understand the desires of the 
proponents of this amendment, and I recognize the validity of taking a 
look at the comparisons of the private versus public school system. 
However, I must oppose the amendment at this time. First of all, and 
probably foremost, we have gone out of our way to ensure that we do not 
load this bill down with demonstration programs. This will be the first 
one which will be added which would authorize funds to start 
demonstration projects before we have had an opportunity to implement 
the bill and to look at the planning process and get the advice of the 
States. There is no prohibition right now for States to do anything--
they can have private school choice.
  Again, I reiterate that my main concern here is that the school 
choice amendment which is being offered is the only and the first of 
what could prove to be many, if we start allowing demonstration-type 
projects to be offered to what is designed to be a planning bill to 
provide funds for the States to plan.
  There is no prohibition under the law or any Federal prohibitions to 
the States or the local Governments from sending or having their own 
programs on demonstrating the applicability or the desirability of 
school choice.
  I point out, however, that I also believe at this time, when we 
should be and hopefully will be reordering priorities, I have looked at 
the proposal of the administration this morning on eliminating the 
number of demonstration projects in the Department of Education with 
the expectation that that will help fund other programs. I have some 
concern about that, and I am hopeful that we will at least find out 
through studies as to their validity and whether those programs have 
and are working.
  I just point out that we are going to be eliminating a number of 
demonstration projects. Should we now start adding more of them? I hope 
that will not occur here.
  I think it is time we reorder our priorities on education and examine 
all those programs that have worked. However, at this time, we should 
not be adding new demonstration projects.
  We point out that also this will cut into the amount of money that is 
available in the Department of Education under the funds for education 
to assist, to try to serve some of the needs.
  This amendment establishes a $30 million program to assist private 
schools, while our financially strapped public schools continue to 
fight looming deficits. In the past decade, this Nation has seen a 
declining share of funds committed to education. The total share of 
Federal spending on education accounts were a mere 1.8 percent compared 
to 2.5 percent in 1980. In other words, we have had a real slide during 
that period of time. In addition to that, when this Nation had its huge 
educational crisis after World War II, we committed 10 percent of our 
budget to education.
  So we have had an overall decrease, after adjusting for inflation, of 
5 percent and 15 percent from funds for elementary and secondary 
education. To start now siphoning funds off into a choice plan I think 
would be a serious mistake at this particular moment.
  Along with the decline in Federal funds has come an increase in the 
number of 5- to 17-year-olds in this country. Over 4 million eligible 
children will be denied chapter 1 reading and math instruction.
  Furthermore, the Federal Government picks up a mere 9 percent of the 
cost of educating our children with disabilities, far short of the 40 
percent we promised to shoulder, and Senator Gregg will raise that 
issue later, talking in depth.
  The tragic state of funding for this has led the Vermont House of 
Representatives to pass a bill to call for massive restructuring of the 
tax base to curtail increase in property taxes. Thirty other States in 
this Nation are facing a similar crisis.
  Too much of the burden to pay for our Federal programs is falling on 
the States. Passage of an amendment similar to this one will provide 
even less money to the States to fund their own public educational 
programs.
  An important element of that argument is the very real fear that the 
local schools will be left with the most difficult and expensive 
students to serve. Private schools may still use the same entrance exam 
on choice students as they do on all students.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Connecticut yield 
additional time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I just hope that we will be able to 
accommodate these kinds of matters as we change our national priorities 
to provide much more money to education.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________