[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 11 (Tuesday, February 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           amendment no. 1394

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business in the Senate is the 
Levin amendment No. 1394 to the bill S. 1150.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Michigan 
[Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, my amendment seeks to assure school boards 
that if they seek in good faith to adopt constitutional policies 
relative to prayer in school that they are not going to find their 
Federal funds cut off.
  Last week the Senate adopted an amendment of Senator Helms which 
threatens to cut off Federal education funds to local school districts 
if they make a mistake, even, presumably, in good faith, relative to 
the efforts of students seeking to pray in school. It put a club to 
heads of local school boards to protect the rights of only one group of 
students: the group wishing to have organized prayer in school.
  There were a number of options following the adoption of the Helms 
amendment.
  One was to offer an amendment threatening the same funds cutoff if 
local school boards violate the constitutional rights of persons who do 
not want to be faced with organized prayer in school, thereby putting 
another club to the heads of local school boards.
  A second option was to try to remove some of the threat in the Helms 
amendment by assuring school boards that if they adopt a constitutional 
policy toward prayer, whether facilitating it or the opposite, their 
good faith decision would not lead to a funding cutoff.
  My amendment follows the second route because the first approach is a 
slippery slope for local school boards which already face complex 
decisions relative to constitutional rights as relate to prayer in 
school. We should not make it more difficult for school boards to 
follow the Constitution by making them a target of either side of the 
prayer issue. We should not put them under the threat that Federal 
funds could be cut off if a good faith effort on the school boards' 
part turns out to be unconstitutional, according to some court.
  The school prayer issue is one of the most emotional of all issues 
faced by school boards. School boards already spend large sums of money 
defending lawsuits from one side or the other. That is why my amendment 
is aimed at neutralizing some of the impact of the Helms amendment. 
That is why I decided not to put another club to the heads of local 
school boards by threatening them with the loss of Federal funds if 
they failed to protect the constitutional rights of those on the other 
side of the issue.
  One final word on a procedural issue: My amendment was offered last 
week pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement which allowed for 
amendments offered before a time certain. I was not involved in setting 
the time. This amendment was offered in a timely manner. I had 
previously informed the leadership staff that I would be offering such 
an amendment. There was no restriction in the unanimous-consent 
agreement relative to this amendment nor did I know of any side 
agreement, if there was one.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to be added as a cosponsor 
of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          LEVIN AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH HELMS-LOTT AMENDMENT

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this past Thursday there was a gentlemen's 
agreement with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], which 
would reduce the debate time on this bill. I agreed to reduce to two 
the number of amendments I would offer--and the Senator from 
Massachusetts would be permitted to offer one opposing amendment for 
each of my two.
  I offered an amendment on school prayer. Senator Danforth then 
offered an amendment on behalf of Senator Kennedy on silent meditation. 
The Senate then approved my prayer amendment, 75-22, and, by a vote of 
78 to 8, approved the Danforth amendment the following morning, on 
Friday. I then offered my second amendment forbidding the distribution 
of condoms to school children without parental consent. Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Jeffords offered an opposing amendment.
  Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreed to by Senator 
Kennedy and me, I assumed that good faith had prevailed. I then agreed 
to another unanimous consent request establishing a deadline for 
Senators to offer other first degree amendments to the bill at 4 p.m. 
on Friday, with votes on all amendments pending to be stacked on 
Tuesday.
  However, without my knowledge or consent, the unanimous-consent 
agreement was changed to extend the deadline for amendments to 5 p.m. 
At a few minutes before the 5 p.m. deadline, the Senator from Michigan 
[Mr. Levin], offered another first degree amendment relating to the 
issue of prayer in the schools.
  So once again, good faith efforts from this side of the aisle to save 
the Senate's time are met with bad faith from the manager on the other 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. President, as to the Levin amendment itself, over the weekend I 
checked with some of the Nation's foremost legal scholars and 
litigators on the issue of school prayer and the first amendment. 
Specifically, I asked them to examine Senator Levin's amendment to see 
what effect, if any, the Levin proposal would have on my school prayer 
amendment which the Senate passed by a vote of 75 to 22.
  Mr. President, their unanimous conclusion was that the Levin 
amendment is consistent with, and indeed complements, the Helms 
amendment.
  Obviously, the Levin amendment, is what is known around this place as 
a CMF amendment, a ``cover my fanny'' amendment. Senator Levin was 1 of 
the 22 Senators who voted against my school prayer amendment last 
Thursday--and he caught some heat about it. However, as the Levin 
amendment will not diminish the impact of the Helms-Lott amendment, I 
will not be upset if is it accepted on a voice vote. At least that 
would save the Senate some time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a legal opinion on the 
implications of the Helms-Lott amendment and the Levin amendment be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. This opinion was drafted by Mr. James Matthew Henderson, 
Sr., senior litigation counsel for the American Center for Law and 
Justice.
  Mr. Henderson has been involved in many of the school prayer and 
religious rights cases that have come before the Supreme Court in prior 
years. Mr. Henderson has this to say about the effect of the Levin 
amendment on my school prayer amendment:

       First, the Levin amendment is not a substitute for the 
     Helms-Lott amendment. The two amendments are separately 
     effective. The two amendments are capable of coordinated 
     reading and effect. There is no inconsistency in a reading of 
     the amendments which allows Levin to moderate Helms-Lott. 
     Because they are not inconsistent, and because Levin does not 
     purport to supplant Helms-Lott, both amendments are viable.
       Second, the Levin amendment responds to the Helms-Lott 
     amendment. In other words, the funding inquiry would begin 
     with the Helms-Lott amendment question: does the agency have 
     a policy or practice which interferes with instances of 
     voluntary, student-initiated prayer? If so, Helms-Lott would 
     mandate stripping funding from such education agencies. The 
     Levin amendment, however, would provide those education 
     agencies in jeopardy of funding losses with the opportunity 
     to prove that the questioned policy on school prayer 
     satisfies constitutional requirements.

  Mr. President, the Levin amendment really should be withdrawn, but if 
it is not, I must serve notice that I have a number of second-degree 
amendments that I will offer to it.

                               Exhibit 1

 A Tale of Two Amendments: Comparisons and Contrasts Between the Helms-
                       Lott and Levin amendments

                   (By James Matthew Henderson, Sr.)


                              introduction

       The Senate has added one amendment to the education bill 
     now pending before it, and has a second one pending before 
     it. The first amendment, the Helms-Lott amendment, states:
       ``No funds made available through the Department of 
     Education under this Act, or any other Act, shall be 
     available to any state or local educational agency which has 
     a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents 
     participation in, constitutionally-protected prayer in public 
     schools by individuals on a voluntary basis. Neither the 
     United States nor any state nor any local educational agency 
     shall require any person to participate in prayer or 
     influence the form or content of any constitutionally-
     protected prayer in such public schools.''
       On February 4, 1994, Senator Levin offered the second 
     amendment, which is still pending. The Levin amendment 
     states:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, no funds 
     made available through the Department of Education under this 
     Act, or any other Act, shall be denied because it has adopted 
     a constitutional policy relative to prayer in public 
     school.''
       Important questions must be answered in consideration of 
     these back-to-back amendments. Most importantly, the question 
     of whether the legal effect of the two amendments is 
     essentially a nullity, if both survive conference committee, 
     it needs to be resolved. Also, consideration should be given 
     to their separate operation and enforceability, given the 
     possibility that only one may survive conference.
       As a prerequisite to this discussion, it must be understood 
     that, in the public school setting, a student is generally 
     free to express his views so long as such expression does not 
     lead to disruption of the school or work a substantial 
     interference with the rights of others. Further, it is clear 
     that the Establishment Clause does not operate to restrict or 
     private religious expression, including prayer. That 
     clause concerns itself with the affairs of government, not 
     of students. Thus, a guiding axiom is that students in 
     public schools cannot violate the Clause by their private 
     actions.


                        the helms-lott amendment

       There need be no doubt about the need for strong medicine 
     to buttress the rights of students seeking to express faith 
     in their God through voluntary, student-initiated prayer on 
     public school campuses. The contact reports and files of the 
     American Center for Law and Justice include many, many 
     instances in which public school officials have prevented or 
     interfered with student-initiated, voluntary prayer on 
     campus. It is an unfortunate fact of life for many students 
     that ignorance of the law seems to abound in the area of 
     student-initiated, voluntary prayer.
       Consider the case of Misty Newberry, a student at Massac 
     County High School in Metropolis, Illinois. In September, 
     1992, Misty joined with a small group of friends for a short 
     time of prayer before the beginning of the school day. They 
     were observing ``See You At The Pole,'' the National Day of 
     Student Prayer, when hundreds of thousands of students around 
     the Nation joined together to pray for their fellow students, 
     their teachers and administrators and their communities.
       When Misty Newberry and her friends were praying, however, 
     her school's administrators were calling the police and the 
     sheriff. Before the event could end voluntarily, Misty and 
     another had been threatened with tear gas, if they would not 
     cease their prayer activities. Ultimately, Misty was taken 
     into custody and placed in the back of a sheriff's cruiser, 
     then released after approximately fifteen minutes.
       Had the Helms-Lott amendment been the law at the time of 
     Misty's misfortune, there is little doubt that Misty would 
     have been able to pray for her principal, instead of being 
     arrested at his direction.
       The Helms-Lott amendment positively mandates a cut-off of 
     any funds made available through the Department of Education 
     for any ``state or local educational agency'' that, by policy 
     or practice, ``prevents participation in, constitutionally-
     protected prayer'' under conditions where the prayer is 
     student-initiated and voluntary. No implementing regulation 
     seems necessary before the effect of the amendment would be 
     felt. Nor does the language admit of a discretionary 
     authority to deny funding. Rather, funding under the Goals 
     legislation, and funding under any other act, which is 
     provided through the Department of Education would be at 
     jeopardy if a school district or state education department 
     promulgated or enforced a policy of interfering with student-
     initiated voluntary prayer.
       It is also important to note what the Helms-Lott amendment 
     would not do. Under the Helms-Lott amendment, there would not 
     be any possibility of coerced participation in religious 
     activity. Nothing in the language admits of an interpretation 
     under which students could be compelled to participate in 
     prayer activities. Of course, the Supreme Court's decision in 
     Abington v. Schemmp, struck down such programs of compulsory 
     religious observance in public schools. As if the fact of 
     precedent were insufficient, the Helms-Lott amendment states 
     quite specifically, ``Neither the United States nor any state 
     nor any local educational agency shall require any person to 
     participate in prayer or influence the form or content of any 
     constitutionally-protected prayer in such public schools.'' 
     Thus, student and teachers both are protected from unwanted 
     and unwarranted compulsion to give assent to any particular 
     religious observance.


                          the levin amendment

       Following the adoption of the Helms-Lott amendment, the 
     Senate took up the Levin amendment, a separately effective 
     provision which prohibits the Department of Education from 
     withholding any funds under any federal act in cases where 
     the recipient of the funds has ``adopted a constitutional 
     policy'' on school prayer.
       Taken in isolation, the Levin amendment approaches 
     constitutional insignificance. Its operative impact is 
     extremely light. Because it appears chiefly to have been 
     offered as a counterweight to the Helms-Lott amendment, it 
     would only affect those situations where an educational 
     agency was threatened with a cut-off of federal funds because 
     of its policy or practice of preventing voluntary 
     participation in student-initiated prayer. Careful review of 
     the language of the Levin amendment demonstrates that it is 
     not positive law.
       In the absence of the Levin amendment, would the Department 
     of Education be permitted to withhold funds from a school 
     district solely on the basis of the district having a stated, 
     and constitutional policy regarding school prayer? The 
     obvious answer is, no. Such a denial would be irrational. The 
     addition of the Levin language, then, adds nothing, because 
     the Department of Education is not in the business of denying 
     federal funding to otherwise eligible educational agencies.


                    taking the amendments in tandem

       Two key points should be noted about the situation in which 
     both amendments service the conference process, and, 
     ultimately, become law.
       First, the Levin amendment is not a substitute for the 
     Helms-Lott amendment. The two amendments are separately 
     effective. The two amendments are capable of coordinated 
     reading and effect. There is no inconsistency in a reading of 
     the amendments which allows Levin to moderate Helms-Lott. 
     Because they are not inconsistent, and because Levin does not 
     purport to supplant Helms-Lott, both amendments are viable.
       Second, the Levin amendment responds to the Helms-Lott 
     amendment. In other words, the funding inquiry would begin 
     with the Helms-Lott amendment question: does the agency have 
     a policy or practice which interferes with instances of 
     voluntary, student-initiated prayer. If so, Helms-Lott would 
     mandate stripping funding from such education agencies. The 
     Levin amendment, however, would provide those education 
     agencies in jeopardy of funding losses with the opportunity 
     to prove that the questioned policy on school prayer 
     satisfies constitutional requirements.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If there is no 
further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1394) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the committee accepted an 
amendment that I have joined Senator Pryor in introducing which would 
utilize the reservoir of skill and talent that exists among senior 
citizens in the school community. Our amendment would provide for State 
enhancement and expansion of intergenerational mentoring programs, 
including tutorial programs, in their public schools. The proposal 
would place trained, mature adults into the public school system, and 
match the needs of America's youth with the experience and skills of 
seniors. Specifically, our amendment would:
  Encourage States to use intergenerational mentoring for 
State educational improvements:
  Ask States, in developing State improvement plans, to describe 
strategies for utilizing programs such as intergenerational 
mentoring in helping students meet State standards; and
  Authorize that funds to be used for State activities designed to 
implement the State improvement plan would include programs such as 
intergenerational mentoring.
  Mr. President, this amendment builds upon legislation I previously 
authored, which was enacted into law in 1989 as a part of the National 
Volunteer Service Act, that creates a separate RSVP one-to-one senior 
tutorial program for K-12 students.
  Programs that involve senior citizens in the education of our 
Nation's children are by no means new. Such projects have had great 
success in schools throughout this country, including my own State of 
Michigan. There are currently a number of projects in Michigan that 
have achieved success in increasing the learning abilities of 
educationally disadvantaged students, and have provided rewarding 
experiences to our greatest human resouce--our senior citizens. 
Programs exist from as far north as Escanaba in the Upper Peninsula, to 
the southern region of the State in Jackson County, and spanning from 
west to east covering Kent, Oakland, and Wayne Counties.
  Mr. President, current projects that are scattered about varying 
public schools in the States, are not sufficient to meet the demands 
and the challenges in its entirety. It is estimated that even with 
presently established projects, millions of educationally disadvantaged 
children are in need of help in the basic skills of reading, writing, 
and math. This amendment will enable the States, that may voluntarily 
choose to do so, to bring in more projects as needed.
  Mr. President, I am also pleased that the committee has decided to 
accept my amendment which adds to the list of initiatives that may be 
funded under State improvement plans. My amendment permits State 
educational agencies to use certain title III funds for: ``* * * 
supporting innovative and proven methods of enhancing a teacher's 
ability to identify student learning needs, and to motivating students 
to develop higher order thinking skills, discipline, and creative 
resolution methods, including significantly reducing class size and 
promoting instruction in chess.''
  Mr. President, studies on the effects of reduced class size show that 
students in small class routinely outperform those in regular and 
regular-with-aide classes in all types of schools. Small classes also 
enhance the teacher's ability to identify student learning needs, 
provide individual attention, develop positive relationships with 
students and families and teach more material more thoroughly.
  Relative to the provision of my amendment on the instruction of 
chess, current studies speak to the success of such programs in the 
schools. A 4-year study of school chess players found that chess 
instills self-confidence and self-worth; dramatically improves the 
ability to think rationally; and results in higher grades, especially 
in English and math. I ask unanimous consent that the attached articles 
from the August 27, 1993, USA Today and the May 17, 1993, Washington 
Post regarding the success of chess in the schools be included for the 
Record at the end of the text of my statement.
  Mr. President, in closing, I would like to commend my colleages on 
the Labor Committee for their leadership and perseverance in getting us 
to this point today. The legislation before us represents a great deal 
of bipartisan effort and consensus that we can, indeed, succeed in 
fundamental education reform if the connection between school and 
community is strengthened and the essential partnership with parents, 
teachers, and students is renewed.
  Due in no small part to the distinguished leadership and special 
efforts of Senator Kennedy, Senator Pell, Senator Kassebaum, Senator 
Jeffords, and others, the legislation provides the framework for 
meeting the national education goals, while maintaining critically 
important local flexibility--the ability for school districts and 
States to try things that work in their community and in their State.
  Mr. President, one of the reasons why I joined as an original 
cosponsor of this legislation is the positive nature of the national 
education goals, which specify that by the year 2000:
  First, all students would arrive at school ready to learn;
  Second, that the graduation rate would increase to at least 90 
percent;
  Third, that students would master challenging content in core subject 
areas;
  Fourth, that our students would be first in the world in math and 
science;
  Fifth, that all adults would be literate and prepared for life-long 
learning;
  Sixth, that our schools would offer children a disciplined and drug-
free environment; and
  Seventh, that every school will promote partnerships that will 
increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the 
social, emotional, and academic growth of children.
  Finally, Mr. President, I hope the enactment of this legislation will 
help make major improvement in American education and work force 
training.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, Aug. 27, 1993]

              Chess Center Helps Kids in the Game of Life

                           (By Tamara Henry)

       Washington.--Fearing a wrong move, 11-year-old LaWanda 
     Wellington slowly slides her black knight across the board 
     while suspiciously eyeing her opponent's white bishop and 
     queen.
       ``Go ahead and do it,'' coaches Andrew Agostinelli, an 
     Eastern High School math teacher who helps out at the chess 
     camp in downtown Washington. ``You think you can't, but you 
     can.''
       LaWanda plops the knight on a square. ``Yeah. That's it! 
     Isn't it?'' reassures Agostinelli. She sighs. She smiles.
       The camp is the first project of the U.S. Chess Center, 
     which began last July when director David Mehler received the 
     official go-ahead to operate the largest chess facility 
     outside the former U.S.S.R. In a city that reeks of power and 
     self-important bureaucrats, Mehler's goal is to share his 
     love of chess with the powerless--inner-city children.
       Traditionally, chess had not been an inner-city sport but 
     mainly a game for men, the wealthy or intellectuals. Brought 
     to America by Spanish explorers, chess players include Queen 
     Isabella, who financed Christopher Columbus, and Benjamin 
     Franklin.
       Now, the move Searching for Bobby Fischer has sparked even 
     more interest in the game, especially among children. But 
     unlike Fred Waitzkin's story of his son Josh's journey 
     through the national chess championships, Mehler isn't 
     looking for chess geniuses.
       ``I just enjoy doing this,'' says the 42-year old former 
     criminal defense lawyer.
       ``It's the most effective way to get these kids to have a 
     different feeling about themselves,'' Mehler says. He's been 
     teaching chess for more than 20 years and discovered the 
     benefits of the game while teaching school and earning his 
     law degree in Sacramento.
       Studies show young chess players quickly learn self-
     discipline, the dangers of impulsive behavior, the value of 
     concentration and how to succeed within the limits of the 
     rules.
       The U.S. Chess Federation says children make up almost 
     35,000 of its total paid membership of about 70,000--the 
     highest membership ever in the group's history. Adults pay 
     $200 and student $60. Almost 2,500 USCF-affiliated chess 
     clubs are in schools. About 150,000 youngsters play in 
     organized competition.
       About 30 youngsters signed up for the two-week, three-
     hours-day-camp. But a little over a dozen actually show up 
     each day. The children are transported from blighted 
     neighborhoods by a local community group to a neoclassical 
     office building blocks away from the White House. The 
     building's carpeted basement houses the Chess Center, the 
     U.S. Chess Hall of Fame and Museum and gift shop.
       Once downstairs, the youngsters rush to long tables lined 
     with chess sets. Usually they wait for Mehler to discuss the 
     day's new concept or to serve milk. Occasionally, there are 
     field trips.
       ``Here's a little strategy,'' says Mehler in his mini-
     lecture. ``I see folks move pawns in front of rooks. That's 
     not as good as moving pawns in front of kings and queens.''
       He pauses. ``The bolder you are, the more successful you'll 
     be. Move pawns into the center of the board.''
       The children study their chess boards as he talks.
       Meanwhile, Agostinelli and LaWanda continue their 
     discussions. A few space down, Mark Smith, 17, helps Jared 
     Estep, 14, improve his strategy. At another table sit two 
     other Wellingtons, 6-year-old William and 7-year-old LaNette, 
     LaWanda's cousin and sister.
       ``What I like about (the chess camp) is it helps them to 
     get out of the drug environment, gets them off of the streets 
     and helps them to use their brains and think,'' Smith says.
       Smith started playing chess about five years ago and has 
     seen remarkable improvements in his math, thinking and verbal 
     skills: ``Instead of writing on paper, I imagine. I calculate 
     in my head.''
       The plan for the chess center began in 1989 when world 
     champion Garry Kasparov came to the nation's capital to 
     introduce the game as a way to battle drug abuse among 
     children. He helped raise funds for a pilot program that 
     summer.
       Mehler's goal is to teach chess to youngsters at the center 
     and in every school in the metropolitan area. He targets 
     minorities, girls and women.
       Besides the camp, there are after-school lessons for 
     students in grades four through 12, a Saturday morning 
     program for kindergarten through third-graders, weekend and 
     other special activities for teenagers. Evenings are reserved 
     for adult tournaments, seminars taught by masters, casual 
     games and adult lessons.
       ``Many of these kids came with the attitude they would 
     never be able to play chess,'' says Mehler, who remembers 
     LaNette crying when she first tried to properly move a pawn.
       ``But, of course, she did learn to play chess,'' Mehler 
     says. ``If we can get these kids out of the habit of thinking 
     they can't learn things and instead in the habit of knowing 
     that they can, then there are no limits.''

                [From the Washington Post, May 17, 1993]

  Maneuvering to Win Young Minds: P.G. School Chess Club Teaches Boys 
                      Self-Discipline, Self-Esteem

                             (By Lisa Leff)

       Classes have ended for the afternoon at Morningside 
     Elementary School, but in the library two dozen young boys 
     are sitting in silence, smooth chins cupped in hands and wiry 
     shoulders hunched over wooden tables. They are the Master 
     Knights, and twice weekly at 2:15 p.m., this library becomes 
     their clubhouses.
       ``You know what happens at the tournament if you make too 
     much noise, don't you?'' coach Beulah McMeans tells the 
     members of Morningside's boys-only chess team as they ponder 
     their next moves. ``You'll get disqualified, won't you?''
       To the Master Knights, patience, self-discipline and 
     playing by the rules are part of the game. Now in its second 
     year, the 29-member scholastic chess club was formed to 
     engage the minds of black males from kindergartners to sixth-
     graders. Like a variety of other programs at the 175 public 
     schools in Prince George's County, the Morningside club is 
     designed to nurture black youths and help them to thrive.
       But Morningside, in western Prince George's County near the 
     District line, is the only county school using chess as a 
     vehicle for student success. McMeans, a guidance counselor 
     who made a habit of pulling out a worn chess set when 
     children were referred to her because of behavior problems, 
     sees a simply beauty in it.
       The centuries-old board game, correctly or not, generally 
     is thought of as the pastime of ``brains,'' which is just 
     what McMeans wants her players to feel free to be. And the 
     boys seem to get a kick out of ``doing something no one else 
     they knew was really doing,'' she said.
       ``One of the first rules of chess is after the game, you 
     shake your opponent's hand, win, lose or draw. Second, you 
     learn from your mistakes,'' McMeans said, ``We want that 
     to go right back into the classroom and the community.''
       A sense of high purpose infuses the team's Tuesday and 
     Thursday meetings. Although uniforms are optional for 
     students at Morningside, Knights must wear blue pants and 
     white shirts and spend their recesses at practice. Team 
     members usually are required to put in an hour of homework 
     before they may pick up their vinyl, tournament-style chess 
     boards after school.
       McMeans demands that her players approach chess with the 
     dedication of athletes. They keep thick playbooks filled with 
     rules and the strategies of Bobby Fischer, the only American 
     ever to be world chess champion. She does not let them have 
     sodas and snacks while they practice. ``If you really want to 
     play chess, you don't care about cookies or candy,'' she 
     tells them.
       In the era of fast-paced video games and Rollerblades, it 
     might be hard to understand why a group of boys would stay 
     after school to play chess, a game that can be time-consuming 
     and plodding. But the Knights say they appreciate the game's 
     emphasis on tactics, rather than luck. What's more, size 
     matters little in chess; just last Thursday, Richard English, 
     8, a third-grader, beat Joseph Walker, 10, a fifth-grader, 
     who accepted the defeat with a gentlemanly grin.
       ``It's like a thinking game,'' said Deshaun Wells, 11, who 
     is in sixth grade and taught himself chess using a computer 
     program. ``When we play, it's like we are seeing who is the 
     smartest or something.''
       Gregory Bridges, 12, is president of the Master Knights, a 
     position for which he was selected because of his devotion to 
     the club and his skill as a player. His father, Elvin 
     Bridges, one of several parents who sometimes drop by the 
     school for a quick game or two, taught Gregory how to play 
     six years ago. Now, the sixth-grader is teaching his younger 
     brother, DeShawn Brown, 5, after school with the Master 
     Knights.
       Chess, Gregory has decided, ``keeps everyone down to 
     earth.''
       ``When you see someone who is big and bad on the streets, 
     you hardly see anyone who plays chess. That is how chess 
     influences you,'' he said. ``You have to have patience and a 
     cool head, and that patience carries outside the chess 
     club.''
       Last month, with financial help from the school system and 
     a local property management firm, the Knights took a four-day 
     road trip to Charlotte, N.C., to participate in the National 
     Scholastic Chess Championships. They were the first public 
     school team from Prince George's to compete in a tournament 
     and one of a few all-black teams among those representing 300 
     elementary schools.
       Much of what they saw made an impression--teams that had 
     chess masters as coaches, teams with their own jackets. One 
     team even rented a $500 hotel suite so it could practice in 
     private. The Knights, most of whom were in championship 
     competition for the first time, suffered a bad case of 
     jitters. Gregory was the only player to win his first game.
       But although they did not bring home any trophies, they 
     gave a respectable performance, winning 37 of their 105 games 
     and finishing ahead of several teams with more experience. 
     ``It was better than coming in last or not coming anywhere at 
     all,'' Gregory said.
       Amy Schapp, a fifth-grade teacher at Morningside, said the 
     Master Knights have made her a believer in the power of 
     chess. Last September, one of the boys in her class was in 
     danger of getting D's and E's and seemed totally disconnected 
     from school. At McMean's suggestion, he became a Knight. Last 
     marking period, he made the honor roll.
       ``The chess club is a very positive thing. It gives them 
     something to strive for. They belong to the Master Knights, 
     and I think that is a good feeling for them,'' Schapp said.
       McMeans and her husband taught themselves how to play chess 
     more than 20 years ago while living as an Air Force family in 
     Athens. On club days, she wears an ivory knight on a gold 
     chain around her neck, a gift from her husband. She plans to 
     get the team members T-shirts with the logo ``Leaders of 
     Tomorrow,'' because in chess, moves by knights are L-shaped.
       Still, she'll confess there is nothing mystical or sacred 
     about the game. Chess makes the Master Knights smarter 
     because they believe it can. Their team slogan is, ``We 
     think, therefore we are.''
       ``Whatever works. If this works for them, we'll play 
     chess,'' McMeans said. ``If this fades, we will find 
     something else.''
  Mr. LEVIN. Am I correct in my understanding that the wording in the 
legislation pertaining to the subjects of history, geography, civics, 
and government would not impede States and local school districts who 
define those subjects as social studies from continuing that practice 
and benefiting from the legislation?
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. The intent of this legislation is not 
to exclude States and local school districts that use the subject 
heading social studies rather than history, geography, civics, and 
government.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
express my strong support for Goals 2000.
  This country has a justifiable reason to be proud. It is the first 
modern nation to guarantee all its citizens access to an education. 
When we look at the progress of our schools, however, we discover what 
our young people have not learned as opposed to what they have learned. 
All too often the high school diploma is a certificate of attendance 
instead of a certificate of knowledge. There is an uneven playing field 
in education. Expectations of students differ not only between 
socioeconomic classes, but from State to State, and for college-bound 
students and the forgotten student group that goes to the work force 
immediately after high school.
  We need a national framework to funnel our efforts and to reach the 
35 percent of our kids who are not ready to participate successfully in 
school.
  In response to our current predicament, a bipartisan group including 
our Nation's Governors and the President developed the six national 
education goals to be achieved by the year 2000. These goals, along 
with a newly added seventh goal calling for more parental 
participation, have provided a framework for Goals 2000. I have been a 
supporter of this legislation from the beginning.
  Goals 2000 will create a partnership between the educational system 
and local communities by providing a set of voluntary world-class 
standards. Standards are the linchpin that bring about educational 
reform, designed to fit the special needs of our communities.
  Opponents of Goals 2000 claim this bill is bad for local community 
control of school because they think it establishes Federal education 
mandates. As we all know, this just isn't so. This bill creates no 
mandates, no outcome-based education, no refusals to fund other 
education programs down the road. It's voluntary, inclusive, and 
bottom-up.
  Let me quickly go through the goals to reiterate what we are talking 
about here.
  Goal 1, all children in America will start school ready to learn.
  Goal 2, high school graduation rate will be 90 percent. In my own 
State of Colorado, we are ranked 26th in the Nation with a 74.5 percent 
graduation rate. This bill will help us help more kids earn their 
diploma.
  Goal 3, students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated 
competency in core subjects. In 1990, only 22 percent of Colorado's 
fourth graders scored at the proficient or advanced level in reading.
  Goal 4, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and math 
achievement. In Taiwan, 41 percent of eighth graders have advanced 
scores in math; in Switzerland, 33 percent score at this level. Only 26 
percent of Colorado eighth graders earn advanced scores.
  Goal 5, every adult American will be literate.
  Goal 6, every school in the United States will be free of drugs and 
violence. Nearly 3 million crimes occur on or near schools every year. 
We must make our schools a safe environment if we intend to create a 
learning environment.
  Goal 7, the newest goal; every school will promote partnerships that 
will increase parental involvement and participation. Because we all 
know it's parents that must raise children, not schools, and not the 
government.
  Last month, I had the honor of hosting Secretary Riley on a tour of 
Denver's West High School. We were able to see students who are 
learning at world-class levels, even in a tough part of Denver. I had 
the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ed Cordova, the principal at this school. 
With tenacity and determination, he is reaching these kids, even with 
many of them in local gangs. He has found a way to help these kids aim 
for high standards as young adults.
  You see, the problem isn't so much what to do and how to improve 
schools. The difficulty is taking what we have learned and putting 
those ideas into action. We have already learned that reform is best 
when it is voluntary, inclusive, and bottom-up. When we involve 
parents, teachers, and the entire community in the process of putting 
children first like West High School is attempting to do. Goals 2000 
allows the States and local school boards to continue in their efforts 
and encourages them to excel.
  What's important to stress here is this: I think most of us agree 
each State in this country needs to be working in its own unique 
context toward the common goal educating America's children. I know I 
trust the people of Colorado to make the right choices for our children 
at the local level. If people are concerned about Goals 2000, they 
should be involved with their local community and their decisions about 
local schools.
  The year 2000 is only 6 years away. We have a long way to go to have 
our children learning at world-class standards. Passing Goals 2000 is 
the next step forward.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to give the decisionmaking powers 
to our local communities and vote in support of the Goals 2000: Educate 
America Act.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, as an original cosponsor of the Parents 
as Teachers Act, I rise to offer my support for Senator Bond's 
amendment to include the Parents as Teachers Program as part of Goals 
2000. As Governor of Missouri, my colleague developed this fine program 
in our State, and it works. He should be commended for his continued 
efforts in promoting this concept.
  Parents as Teachers began statewide in 1985 with 13,000 families. The 
program has experienced steady increases in participation with 119,000 
families participating last year and a waiting list of 3,000 families. 
The success of Parents as Teachers is evidenced by its limited 
replication in 42 other States.
  The strength of the program is that it is community and family based 
and it assists parents in being actively engaged in the early childhood 
development and health of their children from birth until the ages of 3 
to 4. The premise underlying the program is that parents are a child's 
first and most important teachers, and the role of the State is to 
assist the parents in providing the best educational foundation 
possible. Parents as Teachers represents a wise investment. Remedial 
education and dealing with the problems of dropouts in high school are 
very expensive. Helping children be ready for school in the first place 
is much more cost effective and supporting parents in doing this makes 
sense.
  In recognition that income and education levels do not necessarily 
determine how much a parent knows about child development, Parents as 
Teachers is a voluntary program for all parents. Even our most affluent 
school districts have children who are struggling. Parents as Teachers 
assists parents in making rational choices for their own family. The 
professional parent educators do not do things for families, but rather 
provide them with information and support to feel confident in making 
good decisions for themselves. There are specific things parents learn 
through Parents as Teachers about how to lay a solid foundation for 
school success. All parents deserve support in giving their children 
the best possible start in life.
  In keeping with the objectives of Goals 2000, the Parents as Teachers 
model is flexible to meet the needs of the community, incorporates 
community participation, and fosters interagency collaboration. I 
believe this amendment complements and strengthens the seventh goal 
added to Goals 2000 with regard to parental participation in the 
education of their children and recognizes the significant role of 
parents' involvement. My colleague, Senator Bond, should be commended 
for his continuing efforts to improve the education of our young 
children.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has turned its 
attention to this matter. Education is an issue that I think all of us 
will agree is a vital one for the future of our country, and it is 
appropriate that with the new year we rededicate ourselves to this 
topic.
  During the past week, Members have worked very hard to get a good 
bill. While there are some portions of this bill that I disagree with--
and which I believe can be, and should be, improved--there are also a 
number of provisions I endorse. I have been willing to listen hard to 
both sides and do what needs to be done to craft a good bill, and I 
appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to do the same.
  So let me begin by being very blunt about what we are doing here. I 
favor reforms to the educational system that will make a significant 
difference in the delivery of educational services to our students. 
Period.
  I do not want to create just another expensive block grant program 
which does nothing more than perpetuate the status quo. While I will be 
one of the first to admit that our system is meeting the needs of 
students who are performing well, I also believe that we can and should 
continue to do better.
  I do not favor reforms that wrestle control of education away from 
State and local governments and place it in the hands of the Federal 
Government. Nor do I want a bill that places a government monitor at 
every stage of a student's development.
  During the past week or so, I have received more phone calls and 
letters than I can count from parents, teachers, and administrators who 
have expressed a serious concern that this bill will mean Federal 
interference in a vital part of their lives and the lives of their 
children.
  I absolutely agree with them that we don't need a government that is 
constantly looking over the shoulders of teachers and parents. Folks 
are already intimidated enough by the threat of a big government. I 
want to give our educators the opportunities they need to do their jobs 
right, which means doing their jobs effectively, creatively, and 
efficiently. We cannot assume, even with all our good intentions, that 
we know better than our teachers, principals, local school boards, and 
parents about what works in local schools. There is too much evidence 
to the contrary.
  During consideration of the education reform bill in the 102d 
Congress, the final version of the bill made no meaningful reforms and 
simply established a large block grant program with a tangle of Federal 
strings attached.
  I believe control of education should remain firmly in the hands of 
the States, their local governments, and individual communities, each 
of which has its own unique needs. As I have done before, I will oppose 
any legislation that tips this balance in favor of the Federal 
Government.
  However, I am pleased to note that numerous provisions of the Goals 
2000 bill reflect--at least in ideology--many of the proposals that 
Senator Nunn and I have recommended in the first report issued by our 
Strengthening of America Commission.
  Senator Nunn and I serve as cochairmen of this Commission, which was 
formed with the cooperation of the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies [CSIS]. Our object is to help build a stronger 
America through changes in tax policy, investing in human resources, 
and breaking gridlock in Washington.
  For example, in our report, we essentially agree with the proponents 
of Goals 2000 that the time has come to consider developing academic 
standards. Our CSIS report encourages the Nation to develop educational 
content and student performance standards in core subjects, very 
similar to the core subjects listed among the Nation's education goals.
  We have recommended that these standards draw upon work being done by 
the States, subject matter specialists, and other professional 
organizations, as well as comparing with those standards set by our 
competitors.
  To this end, we have recommended that the Congress establish an 
entity to coordinate and ensure the quality of this effort and monitor 
its results. Ideally, this is the role that will be filled by the 
National Education Standards and Improvement Council [NESIC] in the 
Goals 2000 legislation.
  While we need national standards, local educators must be given 
flexibility in attaining them. Resources, authority, and responsibility 
must be returned to the classroom. With this concern in mind, I think 
we need to be very careful about how we go about implementing many of 
these reforms, as well as how much authority we invest in NESIC.
  This bill places a great deal of weight on setting national and State 
content and student performance standards. The content standards are to 
be broad descriptions of knowledge and skills to be acquired in a 
particular subject area, while student performance standards are the 
more concrete and explicit definitions of what students should know and 
be able to achieve.
  Setting national standards has always been tricky. We've had a 
difficult time addressing the issue because no one has ever been quite 
sure how we go about measuring success in attaining these standards. 
However, if we are going to strive for excellence in the classroom, I 
think most would agree that we do need to give our educators some idea 
of what we consider that standard of excellence to be.
  The real challenge will be to ensure that content standards are 
sufficiently broad enough--and voluntary enough--to leave schools the 
flexibility and creativity to strive for these standards in an infinite 
number of ways.
  In basketball, for example, we know that the standard of excellence 
is to get the ball through the hoop. But what kind of offense each team 
wants to run to reach that goal is left to each team to determine. Our 
standards must be very carefully set so as not to say, ``You may only 
shoot layups. You may not shoot three-pointers.''
  This same philosophy should apply to national content and performance 
standards. I know Senator Kassebaum shares this concern and has worked 
very hard to ensure that this bill does not become overly prescriptive.
  I was pleased to read that the committee noted in the bill's report 
that setting and adopting standards are in and of themselves not 
enough--that we will also need well-trained teachers and other 
resources. I also believe we should make it clear that any national 
standards are not expected to be the ceiling on what our students 
should know. Our teachers and students should not only strive to meet 
these standards, but to exceed them.
  On the similar topic of education standards, our CSIS report also 
states that the current mesh of standardized tests does not reflect 
true academic effort and achievement of our students. As I mentioned 
earlier, one of the primary concerns about national standards has 
focused around how we measure student success in meeting those 
standards.
  In the CSIS report, we recommended that high-quality educational 
content and student performance standards be supported by high-quality 
student assessments. We believe educators need to move away from the 
typical multiple-choice format--turn the crank and get the answer--and 
toward a new type of assessment process.
  Again, we recognize that this will be difficult. I hope NESIC will 
work closely with States to explore new methods of student assessment. 
It really is an area where much still needs to be done.
  I am somewhat less enchanted, however, with opportunity-to-learn 
[OTL] standards. I believe the rationale behind such standards is 
certainly well-intentioned--that it may not be fair to ask students to 
strive for national standards when they were never, for any number of 
reasons, given a fair opportunity to learn such standards. However, I 
do not believe we significantly improve education by imposing mandates 
on what those in industry might call the beginning of the pipeline.
  Instead, we must focus our efforts on providing schools with support 
and flexibility which will help them meet high standards, rather than 
dictating to them what resources must be utilized.
  For instance, while we may have a good idea what conditions are 
generally favorable for learning--which types of instruction, for 
example, what kinds of resources, and how much money--we also know that 
these factors do not hold true in every situation.
  For example, I once brought to the attention of my colleagues the 
accomplishments of five students in El Paso, TX, who, despite what many 
would have considered tremendous odds, were bound for the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology. Five students from one public school was 
believed to be the largest class from any one public school to attend 
MIT.
  Yet, looking at the demographics of this school, one would hardly 
have expected five students with such high academic achievement. A 
majority of students lived below the poverty line, and a great deal did 
not speak English upon entering the school their freshman year. Still, 
through perseverance, hard work, dedicated teachers, and very little 
Federal interference, this school produced these, and other, 
outstanding students.
  Might this school have done some things differently with OTL 
standards? You bet. Might the school have produced more quality 
students? It's hard to say. But my point is, what teachers in El Paso 
or Albuquerque find works for their students may not necessarily work 
equally as well for students in Amarillo or Santa Fe. The diversity of 
our system is what makes it so great.

  Therefore, Federal, State, and local governments should ensure that 
their poor schools have the requisite resources to prepare their 
students to meet rigorous standards. Frankly, we can do this any number 
of ways--our CSIS Commission, for example, recommends reforms in the 
Chapter I Program, and you can be certain that Senator Nunn and I will 
revisit this issue during the debate on the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act--and I believe schools should take the opportunity to 
address the issue as they see fit. But I certainly don't think we 
should mandate this standard.
  I caution my colleagues that experience has traditionally shown that 
what begins as voluntary often does not stay that way for long. 
However, I am satisfied that the language we currently have before 
adequately protects the rights of State and local education agencies to 
address this issue voluntarily and to fit each specific situation.
  I know Senators Kassebaum and Jeffords also have the same serious 
concerns about opportunity-to-learn standards, and I believe it is 
through their efforts that the OTL language in the bill has been 
shifted from prescriptive to descriptive. If I thought this bill 
mandated any of these standards, I would oppose it.
  I have also heard a great deal of concern from folks that this bill 
will force States to implement what people are calling outcome based 
education [OBE]. As I understand it, the intent of OBE is to focus on 
academic results and provide greater flexibility to localities. This in 
itself is good.
  However, I understand and appreciate the concerns I am hearing from 
New Mexicans who fear that outcome-based education will move away from 
the basics of education and into matters that are best left to the 
discretion of parents.
  As I understand it, this legislation in no way mandates or endorses 
one system of reform over another. There may be many who oppose 
outcome-based education, but whether a school wants to use assistance 
under this legislation to implement OBE as a means of reform, that is 
entirely their business.
  I am also encouraged by the emphasis this legislation places on the 
importance of job skills standards. This is also an issue stressed in 
our CSIS report, though in a slightly broader scope than allowed by the 
parameters of this bill.
  Our report points out that the United States has only minimal 
standards to measure skill competencies. For example, most occupational 
training certifies only program completion or graduation, which are not 
necessarily recognized by employers or transferable from job to job and 
State to State.

  The Skills Standards Board authorized under this legislation is 
charged with endorsing voluntary skill standards systems developed with 
voluntary partnerships. These skill standards, among other criteria, 
must allow for regular updating as information becomes available, must 
be developed after taking into account relevant standards in other 
countries, and, perhaps most important, they must be portable 
credentials to facilitate mobility within that skill or among 
industries.
  In the CSIS report, we have stressed the importance of businesses, 
trade association, educators, and labor working together to develop a 
system of technical and professional standards for occupational 
training.
  We believe that the technical and professional certificates 
recognized by employers and postsecondary institutions should be 
available for the entire range of services and industries and should 
include rigorous qualifications and standards. If enacted, I urge the 
National Skills Standards Board to consider the recommendations made in 
our report.
  Finally, I want to thank the members of the committee for their 
willingness to accommodate me on several amendments I proposed to the 
bill we currently have before us. For the benefit of my colleagues, I 
want to review very briefly how my amendments change this bill for the 
better.
  My first amendment lays some ground rules for how the National Goals 
Panel would conduct its business. Frankly, if we are going to invest as 
much authority in the Goals Panel to make important decisions as this 
bill provides, then I think we need to define exactly how the members 
of the panel make those decisions.
  My amendment is very simple: It states that in making final 
decisions, the Goals Panel shall operate on the principle of consensus. 
In the event that a vote is required to reach a final decision, a 
three-quarters vote by members present and voting is required. I think 
these are reasonable parameters to set for the panel, especially with 
the importance of its role.
  My second amendment refers to the national report card that this 
legislation asks the Goals Panel to submit annually to the President. 
In the bill before us, we allow the Secretary to waive statutory 
requirements in six specific areas--such as chapter 1 and Eisenhower 
Math and Science, for example--if States believe that regulations 
within these statutes are impeding their ability to implement education 
reform.
  This is an idea I support, as I hear often from educators who tell me 
they feel they are being strangled by regulatory redtape and are thus 
not able to perform their jobs to the fullest of their abilities. 
Frankly, I think we should allow States to waive other regulations that 
may be hindering their efforts, not just the six provided in the bill.
  However, rather than adding to the bill other statutes and 
regulations that may be waived, I am simply asking that the Goals 
Panel, as part of the report card, revisit this issue each year, and 
identify actions that it believes should be taken to overcome statutory 
or regulatory impediments to education reform. I have worked with 
Senator Jeffords on a slight modification of this amendment, and I am 
pleased the bill now reflects the intent of this language by assigning 
this duty to the Secretary in his report to Congress.
  Finally, my third amendment amends the provision relating to the 
opportunity-to-learn development grant first by adding language 
allowing NESIC to consider unsolicited proposals when determining whom 
will receive OTL development grants. This amendment also clarifies that 
more than one grant is to be awarded under this provision. I have been 
informed that the committee has always intended for more than one award 
to be issued, and this amendment makes this intention clear.
  Mr. President, I believe we can--and should--make a determined effort 
to ensure we pass a good bill and a bill which, unlike our efforts in 
1992, will return from conference in a recognizable form. I know all of 
us in this body are committed to doing so.
  I want to thank the members of the Education Subcommittee for their 
efforts on this bill and their willingness to accommodate on my 
amendments. I am encouraged by the debate we have had so far, and I 
look forward to enacting meaningful and responsible reform during this 
Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendments to be 
proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the 
bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays on final passage 
been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator that they 
have been ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I expect very shortly we will be having 
the final vote on the Goals 2000. I thought I would just report to the 
Senate what the administration intends to do in the outyears.
  This current year, subject to authorization, Goals 2000 will receive 
$100 million. After the conference, which I think can be worked out 
very quickly, we will be able to implement the program. Under the 
President's budget, which we have now, the President has indicated that 
Goals 2000 funding would be increased to $700 million in 1995 and $1 
billion in 1996, 1997, and 1998. That would be $3.8 billion over 5 
years in terms of support for education reform. I do not mean support 
from the top. Those grants will go primarily to schools and school 
districts across this country.
  I believe that is a very, very significant commitment toward 
achieving the goals in the legislation and toward real school reform.
  When you take the increase in the Head Start Program, which is going 
to be some $700 million; the increase in the Chapter 1 Program, which 
is an additional $700 million; the $300 million increase for Chapter 2, 
which would basically go to training programs for teachers, focusing on 
teacher education and upgrading teachers' skills--all this is a major, 
major commitment by the administration to education programs.
  So, this is a very important day in the life of the education of this 
country. I just want, once again, to extend our great appreciation for 
the strong bipartisan support we had in our committee and here on the 
floor, and to thank, in particular, Senator Jeffords, Senator 
Kassebaum, and our associate, Senator Pell, who is the chairman of the 
Education Committee who has been a tireless advocate for these kinds of 
reforms and a number of others over many years.
  It is important for our local schools to understand, for parents to 
understand, for students to understand, for school boards and 
principals and supervisors to understand, and for those who have 
responsibility in the States for leading education, as well as the 
Governors, to understand that this is really a dramatic commitment by 
the President and the administration and the Congress to put education 
issues on the front burner of the American agenda.
  I think this is extremely important. I agree with those--and I note 
the Senator from Vermont is on the floor--who believe we have to do 
even more in terms of investing in our young people than even this 
commitment. But I do think we are making an extremely important 
downpayment on what I hope will be an increased commitment of resources 
to quality education for the young people of this country.
  We now look forward to working to make sure that this legislation 
achieves the objectives which we have advanced in the committee and on 
the floor during these past days of debate.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts for the incredible work on this bill. As he has stated, 
we have established a needed framework or at least the groundwork to 
create the framework for education reform in this country. What we have 
done today could turn out to be one of the most important days in the 
history of this country if we fulfill our commitment to follow up with 
the plans that are laid and follow through with the resources that are 
necessary to accomplish the goals which we have established.
  So I look forward to working with my good friend in my neighboring 
State of Massachusetts to make sure we do continue on this path towards 
alleviating an incredible crisis in this Nation in the field of 
education which is related directly to our ability to compete in the 
world of the future and to increase the standard of living and to help 
all of our people have a better life.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leaders' time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Leaders' time was reserved; the Senator is 
correct.

                          ____________________