[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]

 
                      OPPOSING THE HELMS AMENDMENT

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment 
offered by our distinguished colleague from North Carolina which 
prohibits the use of Federal funds for programs which distribute 
condoms in schools without parental consent.
  I want to make it clear, Mr. President, that I also intend to support 
an amendment by our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts which 
encourages parental participation in school-based programs which 
distribute condoms or other family planning information.
  My reasons for these votes, Mr President, reflect both my views on 
the proper Federal Government role in deciding what goes on in local 
schools and the experience that my own State has had in dealing with 
these highly emotional and controversial issues.
  There are some exceptions, Mr. President, regarding fundamental human 
rights. But, in general, I do not believe we at the national level 
should be telling local schools boards and communities how to run their 
schools.
  We should encourage the establishment of high standards--and that's 
exactly what we're doing in this bill. And, we should set up ways of 
holding schools accountable for meeting those standards.
  But, in general, Mr. President, I believe the best thing we're doing 
in this bill is making it easier to ``get out of the way''--to replace 
cumbersome and unneeded Federal mandates with new ways of holding 
schools accountable for what students actually learn.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina takes just 
the opposite approach, Mr. President. I believe it is inconsistent with 
the general direction now being taken in this bill--away from telling 
local school boards and communities what they can and cannot--and must 
and must not--do.
  I also oppose this amendment, Mr. President, because our own 
experience in Minnesota suggests that it is unnecessary.
  In the Minneapolis public schools, for example, a very well-developed 
system of school-based clinics has been established with strong input 
from parents and others in the local community.
  And, one essential component of that program is the option that each 
parent has each year to limit access to services offered in those 
school-based clinics for their own sons and daughters.
  Minneapolis public schools parents actually have three options each 
year--to place no restrictions on access by their son or daughter to 
school-based health services, to prohibit access entirely, or to limit 
access to services other than family planning services.
  That system was developed by a broadly representative group of 
parents, church leaders, teachers, health professionals, and others. It 
has worked well. And, more than anything else, Mr. President, it 
demonstrates that each community is best left to address this issue on 
their own.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I know I am not alone in believing that we 
need to help our schools prepare our young people to lead productive 
and satisfying lives.
  I feel strongly, as I am sure we all do, that nothing is more 
important than securing a future in which our children will be able to 
compete and succeed in a global economy, in which they will be able to 
cope with everyday life, and in which they will be able to appreciate 
those things that make life rich and rewarding.
  I am sure that everyone here has read the alarming statistics about 
the performance of American students in international comparisons, 
particularly in core subjects such as science and math. And, I was very 
disturbed to discover that, among eight industrialized countries, the 
United States is the only one where people over 55 do better at 
geography than recent high school graduates.
  There are encouraging signs, however. I, for one, do not have to look 
far.
  Utah has always made education a top priority. Despite demographics 
that make school financing a tremendous challenge, The State of Utah 
has a highly successful educational system and a successful 
collaboration with our local school districts.
  Utah ranks third in the Nation in State government expenditures for 
education per $1,000 of personal income.
  For every $1,000 of personal income, Utah spends $73.87 on education; 
average is $42.87.
  Utah ranks first in expenditures for higher education.
  Utah has the highest literacy rate in the United States.
  Some 85.1 percent of Utahns age 25 or older have a high school 
diploma--second in the Nation.
  Utah students score above the national average on SAT and ACT tests.
  These are just a few of Utah's achievements in education. I am proud 
of my State. Utahns have long taken the view that a quality education 
is essential for our State and our Nation's future. That is why Utahns 
tax themselves so heavily to support our education system.
  It is also why in 1987 the Utah State Board of Education appointed 
the Strategic Planning Commission. Comprised of Republicans and 
Democrats, from both the private and public sector, this commission 
examined all aspects of Utah education and published its report in 
1988. Our distinguished colleague and my good friend, Senator Bennett, 
then a corporate leader in Utah, served as the chairman of this 
commission. I am sure he would be pleased to elaborate on the strength 
of this effort and the validity of its results.
  The action plan developed by the strategic planning commission has 
provided the framework for Utah's initiatives in education since then.
  Most recently, education has been at the forefront of Utah's 
centennial celebration as well. Utah's program for ``Centennial 
Schools,'' awards additional funds directly to schools for innovative 
programming.

  Mr. President, Utah is not stuck in the mud when it comes to 
education reform. My State has adopted changes in its system when such 
changes, in the judgment of the people of my State and their leaders, 
have appeared warranted or desirable. Utahns do not cling tenaciously 
to particular education policies or practices when they do not work.
  Mr. President, Utah is not unique in this regard. As of 1990, 34 
States had undertaken some kind of comprehensive school assessment and 
developed some kind of improvement plan.
  And, according to information I have received from the Education 
Commission of the States, every one of these States has chosen to 
address its educational needs in a different way.
  We must be careful, Mr. President, that we do not demand change for 
its own sake.
  No one--certainly not a Federal institution such as the department of 
Education or the National Education Standards and Improvement Council 
or the National Education Goals Panel--has the same direct stake in the 
success of local schools as do the parents and children who depend on 
local schools.
  No one--certainly not a Federal institution--can deliver educational 
programs with the same sensitivity and accommodation to local needs as 
the schools' own teachers and principals. It is foolish to think that 
we here can legislate quality education through this bill.
  In suggesting standards, assessments, or delivery standards, we 
cannot clone those teachers--who we can all name--who make the biggest 
difference in education.
  We cannot create excellence in school leadership by legislative or 
executive fiat. Who could even describe in legislative language how 
thousands of talented elementary and secondary school principals have 
successfully motivated faculty and students? And, one principal's 
method at one high school in Salt Lake City, may not work at all in a 
high school in Vermont, Mississippi, Indiana, or anywhere else.
  Mr. President, change should not be directed or supervised by the 
Federal Government. Change should be initiated, developed, and 
implemented by State and local citizens and their elected or appointed 
officials.
  This bill, Mr. President, is an attempt to engineer change from the 
Federal level--otherwise why would Utah and 33 other States that 
already have education plans have to seek Federal waivers for them.
  Utah, at both the State and local levels, is committed to the best 
education possible for Utah children. I have no doubt that the people 
of my State will continue to enact specific reforms that they believe 
will be effective and that will reflect the values, resources, and 
demographics of the communities they serve.
  What we need, Mr. President, is more money. And, I must say, Mr. 
President, that Goals 2000 is sort of like dangling a thick, juicy 
steak in front of a hungry man. Goals 2000 contains the authorization 
for a $400 million grant to States and, therefore, the prospect that 
States will receive additional financial help if they follow the 
prescribed outline for a State educational reform plan. I am sorry that 
so many States will be compelled by the need for additional resources 
that they will sacrifice more of their prerogatives in education.
  What we need is more flexibility and fewer mandates. But, the 
planning process described in Goals 2000 does not promote flexibility. 
There is no way, in my view, that 50 State plans, developed under the 
same statute, evaluated under the same criteria, and approved by the 
same individual can avoid a trend toward the national homogenization of 
education policy.
  I hope my colleagues recognize the Pavlovian effect here: Federal 
financial help if a State does it right--according to the criteria set 
up under Goals 2000. No funds if a State does it wrong, or merely 
chooses to do it its own way.
  Mr. President, I also believe there could be unintended adverse 
implications for independent school improvement initiatives. Even in 
the absence of Federal incentives, many organizations and schools have 
initiated a wide variety of projects to help students learn. Of course, 
there are thousands of these; but, I would like to mention one that is 
particularly apropos inasmuch as this is Black History Month.
  The organization Black Americans of Achievement has developed a board 
game that simultaneously engages students and informs them of the 
diverse and significant achievements of black Americans. Students learn 
in a setting that is challenging, yet enjoyable; academically 
important, yet engrossing; informative, yet creative.
  In addition, the Burger King Corp. has participated in the promotion 
of the game and is sponsoring a national contest to reward kids who 
have excelled in learning about African-American history. This game, 
which is now in use in over 1,000 schools nationwide, serves as an 
excellent example of private and public sectors working together. It 
serves as a reminder that not every good idea comes from the Federal 
Government.

  I agree that there is nothing explicit in this legislation that would 
prevent such initiatives from taking place. However, the top-down 
approach in the Goals 2000 legislation may have the unintended effect 
of stifling this type of endeavor. That, Mr. President, would be sad 
indeed.
  There are other reasons for taking a second look at this bill, Mr. 
President.
  First, this bill will create a bigger Federal education bureaucracy.
  The bill codifies the National Education Goals Panel. Now, Mr. 
President, I do not have an objection to the National Education Goals. 
The goals are, I believe, useful for advancing the debate on education 
within States and within communities. But, I question how useful it is 
to codify the National Goals Panel and to give it an authorization of 
$3 million the first year and such sums as necessary for the next 4 
years.
  The bill establishes a new entity called the National Education 
Standards Improvement Council [NESIC].
  This organization has been charged with certifying the standards 
developed by the discipline-specific national education associations, 
such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. It will forge 
these sets of academic standards into a set of national standards for 
curriculum content and student performance. It will also certify 
national opportunity-to-learn standards and assessments.

  NESIC is authorized at $3 million in the first year and such sums for 
the next 4 years.
  I suppose this would be cheap at twice the price if one agreed that 
this was an important function of the Federal Government and essential 
to parents and children. Personally, I just see it as another Federal 
entity putting hurdles in the way of educational progress where it 
really counts--at State, local, and classroom levels.
  The bill also establishes a National Skills Standards Board. We 
haven't focused much on the National Skills Standards Board. This is 
largely because the same arguments can be made about it as are being 
made about the other provisions of the bill.
  I will just note that in some respects, I believe the long-term 
effects of the Skills Board could be more detrimental than the effects 
of NESIC. Why? Because occupational standards and credentialing at the 
Federal level--even implied credentialing--will keep many people out of 
the labor market. Setting up occupational certifications is merely 
going to set the bottom rung of the employment ladder a little higher 
and some people will not be able to climb up.
  I know some businesses have endorsed this concept. I can appreciate 
their point of view--it is logical. But, then, these businesses are on 
the employment end--not the unemployment end.
  The National Skills Standards Board is authorized at $15 million in 
the first year and such sums for the next 4 years.
  Second, the bill robs classrooms of vital assistance.
  Mr. President, these three activities alone are authorized for $21 
million in the first year. That just about equals the cut President 
Clinton recommended in chapter 2. I remind my colleagues that chapter 2 
is a flexible block grant program that targets assistance to 
classrooms.
  The money allocated under this bill is for the development of 
educational plans. It's for process, not pencils. It's for bureaucrats, 
not books.
  Let me say that another way. We are taking money out of classrooms 
and concentrating it here in Washington, DC.
  The President has recommended $175 million in cuts in chapter 2 and 
impact aid. I cannot in good conscience justify these cuts as necessary 
budget cutting measures to adversely affected local school districts in 
Utah. President Clinton and this Congress are on the verge of a simple 
reallocation of these funds into Goals 2000. During this debate, we 
must not forget that this planning bill rides in here on the backs of 
programs that have an immediate impact on our children.
  I do not doubt that the bill's proponents sincerely believe that this 
is a good thing to do, but I sincerely believe that it is not in the 
best interests of children in Utah, particularly since Utah is already 
operating under its own cogent education plan.
  Third, the bill creates a system of stealth standards.
  Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, I support the national goals. 
I have always supported national goals. I believe the goals contribute 
a great deal to the debate and help focus the efforts of all the 
components of our educational systems at all levels. But, there is a 
great chasm between national goals and federally mandated standards.
  This bill is disingenuous in stating the so-called voluntary 
standards are in fact truly voluntary. According to the bill's 
proponents and apologists, a State is not compelled to have State-
developed standards certified by the National Education Standards 
Improvement Council.
  But, States are compelled to submit a plan. The plan must include 
various components, including provisions addressing opportunity-to-
learn standards, which has become the new term for delivery standards. 
The plan must be approved before any money goes out the door.
  It is the Federal level of government--the Secretary, along with peer 
reviewers--that will decide if a State's plan is up to snuff, and 
standards comparable in rigor to the national model standards will 
surely be a de facto requirement if not a de jure one.
  I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that these aren't voluntary 
standards, Mr. President, these are stealth standards, clouding the 
issue, and flying under the radar screen.
  Mr. President, one of my constituents, Mrs. Cherilynn Gulbrandsen of 
Provo, UT, took the time to send me her comprehensive analysis of Goals 
2000. She recognized, as I am sure other citizens have as well, that 
these newly sanctioned Federal entities will inevitably involve some 
element of partisan politics. She wrote:

       Appointees [to NESIC] are sure to be partisan, slanting the 
     curriculum toward the political ends of the party in power. * 
     * *

  She cited the spate of politically correct curricula being discussed 
in many educational circles.
  Mr. President, I believe many Americans have this concern. I believe 
many Americans are concerned not just with what Goals 2000 actually 
states, but what they believe it will lead to. Whether their concerns 
prove to be unfounded is not the point.
  What Members of this body ought to focus on is the fact that our 
constituents are, in fact, concerned. And, education, as much as any 
public policy area, demands community support and consensus building. 
As long as people feel they have lost control of education--control of 
such a critical, life-forming part of their children's lives--we will 
never achieve that kind of support.
  Fourth, the bill will provide the underpinning for more litigation.
  Mr. President, last summer several education hearings on finance and 
equity were held during which some witnesses made it clear that the 
reallocation of Federal education resources was high on their agenda.
  Attorney Jonathan Wilson, who served on the National Council on 
Education Standards and Testing, has explained that one way to achieve 
such a reallocation is through litigation. He succinctly explained why 
the opportunity-to-learn standards are not truly voluntary:

       You can say that it's voluntary, but it won't be. I'm a 
     lawyer--all I need from you to get me into court that I don't 
     have now is [school delivery] standards. Because I have got 
     state law that constitutionally says that you have got to 
     provide an adequate education, and the thing that keeps me 
     from going to court is I don't have a measure for what that 
     is. You give it to me, and I'll get things required--not 
     voluntary. * * * [Minutes of Implementation Task Force, 
     NCEST, October 30, 1991]

  I do not believe anyone in this body really wants education policy to 
be made by the courts.
  I do not believe anyone in this body really wants to burden States 
and local school districts with achieving opportunity-to-learn 
standards. I find it ironic that while the rest of this bill is so 
results oriented, the opportunity-to-learn standards are the epitome of 
input measures.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I know that many Members of the House 
and Senate may vote for this bill because it is an education bill. 
There is some fear that if they oppose this bill that they will be 
vulnerable to political attacks by those who will say that opposition 
to Goals 2000 is somehow synonymous with opposition to education.

  Mr. President, nothing could be further from the truth. This bill 
does not deal directly with anything that affects the daily classroom 
existence of students and teachers and parents.
  To be against this bill is not to be against education or education 
reform. To be against this bill is to be against widening the gulf 
between scarce Federal resources and the schools and teachers this 
money ought to be going to.
  To be against this bill is merely to be against the method that 
President Clinton has chosen for improving American education. To be 
against this bill is only to be against centralization of educational 
decisionmaking and the homogenization of educational programming 
through national standards.
  Mr. President, we have incredibly committed people working in and for 
our schools, battling poverty, malnutrition, crime, and drugs in their 
attempts to educate and engage young people. We ought to be putting the 
$422 million authorized in this bill into Chapter 2, job training, 
vocational education, drug education, library services, or any other 
effort that will more directly and more immediately assist those 
individuals. To be against this bill is merely to be against spending 
more money on Federal institutions and less money in classrooms.

  Mr. President, we ought to trust our State and local school boards 
and school administrators, our State legislatures and Governors, our 
teachers and principals, and, most of all, our citizens. I hope we do 
not pass Goals 2000 because, despite its best intentions, and despite 
the best efforts of my colleagues to mitigate the many concerns that 
have been raised, this bill represents a fundamental distrust of the 
way in which State and local people make and carry out education 
policy.
  I, for one, Mr. President, trust Utahns to do what is right for Utah 
schools and Utah children. These students--who include my 
grandchildren--represent Utah's future. As their senator, I want to 
support Utahns engaged in all the aspects of the education enterprise. 
I do not want to see their own Federal Government second-guess their 
needs, priorities, or action plans.


                           closing statement

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, before we complete action on this 
legislation, I would like to briefly discuss several important 
improvements that have been made in this bill since it was first 
introduced.
  I would also like to call attention to several school-to-work 
programs now underway in Minnesota which have helped me personally 
understand the importance of this legislation to the future economic 
security of this Nation.
  And, finally, I must comment briefly on the need to continue to draw 
on the experience and expertise of States like Minnesota--as this 
legislation is implemented and as we seize other opportunities to 
reform and improve education and job training programs later this year.
  The interest and enthusiasm for this legislation in my home State, 
Mr. President, was a major factor in my decision to become its lead 
Republican cosponsor. I have learned a great deal from the Minnesotans 
who have advised me on this legislation over the past year. And, I 
believe those who will implement this bill from the national level 
would be wise to continue to listen to those at the State and local 
level who have a great deal to teach us all.


                  importance of listening to employers

  One of the thing I have learned from Minnesotans, Mr. President, is 
that any School-to-Work Opportunities Program must include extensive 
involvement by employers. That lesson was brought home to me in the 
results of a survey conducted recently by the Minnesota Business 
Partnership, which has been among the employer groups that has been 
most supportive of youth apprenticeships and other ways of better 
preparing young people for work.
  In a recent Partnership survey of over 300 Minnesota businesses, 
nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said that a typical high school 
education is no longer good enough for today's business standards. The 
survey also found that:
  Job applicant who have only a high school diploma are eligible for 
only half the positions being offered.
  Even fewer jobs are available to those young people who do not have 
high school diplomas.

  More than half the employers in the Twin Cities believe today's job 
applicants lack adequate basic skills such as reading, writing, and 
math.
  Employers in nearly 90 percent of Minnesota manufacturing firms and 
80 percent of nonmanufacturing firms agree that technical 
qualifications are more important now than they were 10 years ago.
  Two-thirds of Minnesota employers believe today's workers need a 
strong background in technology in order to succeed in today's business 
environment.
  More than 90 percent of Minnesota employers in both manufacturing and 
nonmanufacturing companies said they would like graduates to be 
certified as meeting a minimum set of standards, and that they would be 
more likely to hire applicants who had been certified.


           a broad definition of school-to-work opportunities

  Mr. President, another important lesson I've learned from the 
educators, employers, labor officials, and State government officials 
who have advised me on this issue is that we must include a broad range 
of activities in our definition of school-to-work opportunities 
supported and encouraged by this legislation.
  Ideally, school-to-work programs represent a fundamentally different 
approach to teaching and learning that links the school and community. 
Such programs must therefore be considered an integral part of K-12 
education reform. And, although youth apprenticeships and other more 
formal manifestations of school-to-work programs begin in the latter 
years of high school, less formal ways of exploring careers and 
learning workplace skills should begin much earlier--in elementary, 
middle, and junior high schools.
  To help meet that goal, this legislation now adds language I 
suggested which includes career exploration and counseling beginning 
prior to the 11th grade as a required component of school-based 
programs. Ideally, these programs will begin in elementary schools and 
be integrated into the school curriculum.
  Examples of such components of school-based programs include job 
shadowing, mentoring, internships, service learning, use of outside 
speakers and career forums, field trips to local employment sites, and 
student entrepreneurship programs such as student-run community 
businesses and junior achievement.
  Because of my strong interest in the National and Community Service 
Trust Act, Mr. President, I'm especially hopeful that the service 
learning opportunities funded under that legislation will be viewed as 
an important opportunity to explore possible future occupations at 
young ages.

  And, I'm hopeful that there will be close collaboration between those 
running community and service learning programs and those designing 
local school-to-work programs funded by this legislation.
  Mr. President, establishing links with after-school, weekend, and 
summer work opportunities also represents an important opportunity to 
expand the reach of school-to-work programs to the millions of today's 
young people who have part-time jobs.
  In Minnesota, for example, 69 percent of high school juniors and 
seniors are employed part time, working an average of 22 hours per 
week. Yet, there is virtually no linkage between the potential for 
learning job and life skills through these jobs and the formal school 
curriculum.
  To begin bridging that gap, this legislation now includes language I 
suggested that authorizes establishment of links between part-time 
employment and the school curriculum as an allowable activity for local 
partnerships using State subgrants. Examples of such activities include 
career counseling, student peer group discussions, mentoring and 
student-teacher-employer seminars.


     importance of sharing information among states and communities

  Mr. President, because of the large number of States that are now 
implementing a variety of school-to-work program models, it will be 
important that successful programs be identified and information on 
them broadly disseminated. In addition, there are research, evaluation, 
and other opportunities for States to work together to design and 
promote replication of successful school-to-work programs.
  While this legislation envisions the Departments of Education and 
Labor providing national leadership and coordination, it intends that a 
major portion of this capacity building be done on a decentralized 
basis. This would include using existing research, evaluation, 
technical assistance, training, and communication capabilities that are 
available through nonprofit organizations, intergovernmental 
organizations, academic institutions, and other resources located 
around the country.
  To take advantage of these opportunities, several sections of the 
bill authorize the Secretaries of Labor and Education to use 
demonstration grants, contracts, or other means to fund research, 
demonstration and other projects, evaluation program programs and 
training and technical assistance.
  Under language I suggested, special authority is also now granted the 
Secretaries to establish a clearinghouse and capacity building network 
to collect and disseminate information on a variety of aspects to 
school-to-work programs including innovative curriculum, research and 
evaluation, and skill certificates, standards and related assessment 
methodologies.


      examples of school-to-work opportunity programs in minnesota

  Mr. President, during the January recess, I had the opportunity to 
meet personally with individuals who are involved in four different 
school-to-work programs in my own State.
  The first of those programs is an ongoing program coordinated by the 
Minnesota Teamsters Service Bureau called the workplace literacy 
project.
  This program is actually a partnership between the Teamsters Service 
Bureau and the Northeast Metro Technical College, several different 
unions and a number of employers in the trucking, hospital, and 
telecommunications industries. It has received funding from the U.S. 
Department of Education.
  The trucking project was completed earlier this year and was of 
assistance to drivers in obtaining their commercial drivers license 
which is now a requirement of Federal law for all drivers in the 
trucking industry. Under this project, 275 employees received training, 
including some nondrivers working for the same employers who received 
training in calculator math and basic computer schools.
  The hospital project has involved between 400 and 500 employees in 
four Twin Cities area hospitals. Job classifications receiving training 
have included nursing assistants, orderlies, dietary technicians and 
aids, food service, housekeeping, central stores and hospital 
facilities maintenance. In addition to Teamsters, this project has also 
included extensive involvement of members and leadership from the 
Service Employees Union. The hospitals involved include North Memorial, 
University of Minnesota, Abbot-Northwestern, and Riverside Medical 
Center.
  The telecommunications project is now being launched and is expected 
to provide training for 275 to 325 telecommunications workers in Locals 
7200, 7212, 7250, and 7290 of the Communications Workers of America. 
AT&T is the cooperating employer.
  In all three of these projects, the goals are to design and offer 
skills-related minicourses that will help employees upgrade basic job 
skills and adapt to changing circumstances in the workplace.
  In the hospital project, for example, many employees are learning 
skills that will allow them to assume broader responsibilities or more 
into more demanding positions. In a number of cases, these employees 
are positioning themselves to adapt to cost-saving strategies their 
hospitals now have underway.

  Mr. President, the second Minnesota school-to-work project I met with 
during January is the Skills for Tomorrow High School. This exciting 
project, headed by former Minneapolis Alderman Tony Scallon, will open 
this spring using Minnesota's charter schools law. The school--to be 
initially housed at Minneapolis Technical College--will employ youth 
apprenticeships as a central part of its curriculum.
  The Skills for Tomorrow High School is backed by a broad coalition 
including the Minnesota Business Partnership, Teamsters Service Bureau, 
Rockford and other Twin Cities area school districts, University of 
Minnesota College of Education, and Minneapolis Technical College.
  Students at Skills for Tomorrow High School will use a variety of 
means to help prepare themselves for work. In addition to completing a 
traditional high school degree, they will have the chance to explore 
careers and job training opportunities through postsecondary programs 
and youth apprenticeships at participating businesses.
  Mr. President, during the recent January recess, I also had the 
opportunity to meet with the steering committees of two youth 
apprenticeship projects that are now developing programs that will help 
prepare young people for careers in health professions.
  The first of these projects is in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area and 
involves a partnership that includes several area hospitals, Johnson 
High School in St. Paul and Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis, 
unions representing hospital employees, State government officials, and 
others.
  And, the second includes hospital representatives, educators, labor 
officials, and others in the Duluth-Cloquet area.
  The Duluth-Cloquet project is unique in its emphasis on improving 
skills to address unemployment or low paying employment on the nearby 
Fond du Lac Indian Reservation.
  Currently almost 60 percent of Cloquet Public School students and 95 
percent of Fond du Lac Ojibwe School students do not pursue education 
beyond high school.
  To begin to address the need for additional education that prepares 
these students for good paying jobs, a youth apprenticeship program is 
now being designed that focuses on several different occupational areas 
including health care.
  In what is called the health care cluster, occupational areas will 
include licensed practical nurse/associate degree registered nurse, 
therapist assistant--occupational and physical, dental hygienist, 
operating room technician, radiologic technologist, pharmacy 
technician, and respiratory care technician.
  The entry level wages for occupations including in the Duluth-Cloquet 
program range from $8 to $15 per hour. The selected occupations also 
offer significant opportunities for advancement.
  Mr. President, all four of these school-to-work projects in Minnesota 
are just the kind of initiatives this legislation is designed to 
support and encourage. I personally intend to continue to monitor these 
projects as they go forward. And, I'm hopeful that they and many others 
in Minnesota and other States will help address the serious need we 
have in this country for skilled workers in jobs that assure those 
workers and their families economic security and a bright future.


      the need to continue to listen and learn as we move forward

  Finally, Mr. President, let me close with a few comments on the need 
to view this legislation in a larger context.
  Later this year, we will have the opportunity to consider legislation 
reauthorizing the Elementary and Second Education Act, as well as a 
major Clinton administration initiative on job training and retraining.
  I hope we will not lose sight of the general framework for these 
initiatives established in the bill we are now about to enact.
  My own view is that youth apprenticeships and other school-to-work 
opportunity programs must be considered an essential component of 
education reform. I also believe we must be willing to provide stronger 
links--and eliminate current barriers--between programs that have 
heretofore been considered the exclusive province of education or job 
training or the responsibility of private employers.
  My own preference would be to take down these barriers and give much 
greater discretion to State and local officials to mix funding sources, 
level off eligibility requirements, and make whatever other changes are 
need to address the differing needs and priorities of each State and 
local community.

  As these various initiatives go forward, I hope we will also continue 
to listen to and learn from the kind of hands-on experts in the field 
that have meant so much to my own education on this subject.
  One such individual is Dale Jorgenson who is the youth apprenticeship 
coordinator for Minnesota Technology, Inc., and one of the driving 
forces behind school-to-work opportunities programs in Minnesota.
  Dale makes some very important observations in a letter he sent me 
recently, including the need to make sure we remove barriers that might 
exist to participating in a youth apprenticeship program for 
individuals on various forms of public assistance.
  In his letter, Dale also points out the difficulty that many smaller 
employers have in participating in youth apprenticeship programs and 
the need to consider what financial incentives for employers might be 
required.
  That's an issue that our colleague, Senator Gorton, attempted to deal 
with in his amendment to this legislation, Mr. President. And, it's an 
issue we're going to continue to face as the opportunity represented by 
youth apprenticeships rubs up against hard, cold economic realities.
  Mr. President, because a number of important issues and concerns are 
raised by Mr. Jorgenson's letter, I would ask that it be printed in the 
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Let me conclude, Mr. President, by again thanking Senator Simon, 
Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatfield, and all those who contributed to 
making this legislation the framework for a new and better way to help 
prepare all Americans for the future.
  We have a good start in this legislation--and in the programs it will 
support in Minnesota and all across the country. But, to realize its 
full potential, Mr. President, we have much more yet to do.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


                                       Minneapolis Technology,

                                  St. Cloud, MN, January 31, 1994.
     Senator Dave Durenberger,
     Minneapolis, MN.
       Dear Senator Durenberger: I want to thank you in return for 
     the interest that you've shown in the Cloquet/Duluth and St. 
     Paul/Minneapolis programs. I know that you received some good 
     information from the two groups. Just as important to me, 
     however, was the boost you gave the groups by recognizing 
     them as part of your Minneapolis connection in the school-to-
     work transition design. They feel very good about the 
     opportunity you gave them to meet with you, and I know 
     they've already sent you some additional comments on the 
     subject. I hope that all of it is helpful to you for the 
     upcoming debate in the Senate.
       I wanted to add several comments of my own. As I mentioned 
     at the meeting in Duluth, I have concerns regarding some of 
     the broader issues. One of them is with adult learners that 
     for one reason or another are living on public assistance. I 
     hope they have access to any and all programs that are 
     developed and that they will not lose any of their benefits 
     as a result of being compensated while in an apprenticeship 
     program. Another area of concern is high poverty areas that 
     may receive some opportunity grants for training programs. 
     While training is certainly important, the larger issue may 
     be economic development for those areas. Training individuals 
     without having local opportunities could drain the area of 
     its human assets, which in the long run could further depress 
     the area. Finally, in my development of programs at the local 
     level the biggest challenge by far has been getting 
     businesses interested and involved. In the long term I think 
     they will come to understand that it is imperative that they 
     actively support school-to-work programs. In the short term, 
     however, I sense that some incentive may be needed to get 
     them involved. This could be targeted job tax credits or 
     other types of assistance. I also would like to see the many 
     national business organizations brought together to discuss 
     the issues with other organizations, such as the Chamber of 
     Commerce, to identify possible strategies and advantages for 
     development of programs at the local level.
       I am convinced that business needs to be in the drivers 
     seat on school-to-work transition programs. They are the 
     customer for the product (the student) and must push 
     education and others to break out of their traditional molds. 
     I read somewhere a quote that said, ``Companies must leverage 
     an investment in training into a competitive advantage. In 
     our new economy, people must be treated as assets to be 
     developed in order to add value, not as costs to be 
     reduced.'' I believe this, and support your efforts to 
     develop a school-to-work transition program for the United 
     States.
           Sincerely,
                                                Dale J. Jorgenson,
                                 Youth Apprenticeship Coordinator.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we voted earlier today on final passage 
of S. 1361, the School-to-Work Act. I voted against this bill, and I 
want to explain my concerns.
  I agree that we need to do a better job meeting the needs of our 
students who are not college bound. Fifty percent of our young people 
do not go on to college, yet our public resources are devoted almost 
exclusively to those who do. in the meantime, 70 percent of the jobs in 
the United States do not require a college education.
  I, too, think we need to improve the school-to-work transition, 
particularly in those areas where skills require constant modification 
and updating as technology becomes available. However, I am not 
convinced that this bill is the way to do it.
  I believe we should focus our efforts more on consolidating the 
innumerable existing programs into one coherent system, rather than 
implementing yet another new program. Many of my colleagues have argued 
that this is not a new program and that consolidation of existing 
programs is one of this bill's objectives. However, it seems to me 
indicative of the Congress' need to create a new program first, then 
assess later. I fear this will become another stand-alone program 
alongside our other job training programs that need consolidating 
themselves. We are, in effect, supplementing, rather than supplanting 
what needs fixing. I see very little in this legislation to satisfy me 
otherwise.
  We spend more than $24 billion each year on 154 employment and 
training programs. Let's look at providing some real incentives for 
consolidating existing programs before we create program No. 155.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the pending legislation, the so-called Goals 2000 educational reform 
bill.
  I applaud the effort on behalf of our children that this bill 
represents. However, as a school board member and chairman for 6 years, 
I feel that this particular piece of legislation takes the wrong 
approach to the reform that our schools desperately need.
  During the Charlottesville Conference that served as the seed of the 
Goals 2000 legislation, our Nation's Governors agreed that a key to 
improving our schools was local flexibility and control. It is my 
fervent belief that little will result from this pale shadow of the 
original goals concept apart from a new, rigid Federal education 
bureaucracy that will stifle innovative reform efforts at the 
grassroots level.
  Supporters of this bill claim that this is not so--compliance with 
the provisions of the bill is strictly voluntary. In fact, the word 
``Voluntary'' is used in the Goals 2000 legislation no less than 75 
times, as if merely repeating the word so often would make it so. 
However, as many have already pointed out, there is little about this 
bill that is truly voluntary.
  Goals 2000 would set up new bureaucracies in the form of the national 
educational goals panel and the National Education Standard and 
Improvement Council [NESIC], which would be charged with developing 
national content and performance standards. States would have to 
conform to these standards in order to qualify for a share of the $400 
million in grants authorized by Goals 2000.
  This is coercion; States looking for additional funding streams for 
their educational systems will find it next to impossible to resist the 
political pressure to apply for these funds, and therefore submit 
themselves to the dictates of the NESIC. It is difficult to fault 
States for seeking to recover some of the tax dollars they send to 
Washington.
  It is additionally clear that after these standards are in place, 
further attempts will be made to link all Federal funding to State 
compliance. When the Senate takes up the Reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, my colleagues will notice that 
we are already sliding down the slippery slope toward mandatory 
compliance with Federal standards. On page 18 of the ``Improving 
America's Schools Act of 1993,'' the ESEA reauthorization bill, States 
are required to submit a plan that either first ``is integrated with 
the State's plan--under title III of the Goals 2000: Educate America 
Act'' or second, is integrated with other State plans under ESEA. The 
sequence here is important; I believe it heralds future attempts to 
require States to comply with national standards as a condition for 
receiving any Federal education funds.
  In effect, then, what we are doing in the name of the noble goal of 
creating better educational opportunities for our children, is laying 
the groundwork for a national school board that will use the power of 
the purse to dictate standards to our schools. This is not right, and 
is exactly what opponents of the creation of the Department of 
Education were afraid of.
  In conclusion, I believe that this piece of legislation will help 
carry us toward a future where local school systems surrender their 
authority to a powerful Federal educational bureaucracy, where 
decisions regarding curriculum, teacher training, and school spending 
are made in Washington. This will draw us away, I'm afraid, from our 
goal of making our schools work.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous and shortsighted 
legislation.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to like take a moment to 
discuss my grave concerns with the Helms amendment adopted by the 
Senate last week.
  The essence of the Helms amendment is as follows:

       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 * * *.

  This amendment at first glance may sound quite reasonable: It seems 
to say that no school may prevent a child from engaging in 
constitutionally protected prayer in school; and any school that does 
so will lose its funding. For those of us who believe strongly that the 
right to exercise one's own religious beliefs, free from interference, 
is one of the single most important guarantees of our Federal 
Constitution, this amendment may appear reasonable, and indeed, 
attractive.
  But upon closer inspection, this amendment is fraught with danger, 
and I believe my colleagues need to query whether this amendment 
achieves its purported goal.
  First point: The key to this amendment lies in three words: 
``constitutionally protected prayer.'' If schools are to comply with 
the amendment's direction, obviously they must understand exactly what 
constitutes ``constitutionally protected prayer.'' Yet this is a 
question that the courts have wrestled with for decades. The first 
amendment simply says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion''--but it does not define what kind of school 
prayer crosses that line. This area of constitutional law is far from 
settled; debate rages on today.
  This issue is particularly close to home for Rhode Islanders. Our 
State was founded by Roger Williams in 1636 as a result of a desire for 
freedom from Government sponsorship of religion. Moreover, the last 
time the Supreme Court addressed a school prayer case was in Lee versus 
Weisman, a 1992 decision involving the Nathan Bishop Middle School in 
Providence, RI. From this case we in Rhode Island have learned first-
hand just how unsettled this area of constitutional law is.
  The Lee versus Weisman case involved whether or not a clergyman's 
benediction at Nathan Bishop's graduation ceremony violated the first 
amendment. The case was filed in June 1989. In January 1990, the 
district court judge ruled that the benediction violated the 
Constitution. In July 1990, a divided first Circuit Court of Appeals 
upheld the district court decision by a 2 to 1 vote. The school board 
appealed to the Supreme Court, and in June 1992, the Court handed down 
a final decision. That final decision was by a 5 to 4 vote.
  Thus, after 4 years of litigation and three court rulings, at last a 
final determination was made on Nathan Bishop's benediction: In this 
particular case, the benediction was found to violate the Constitution.
  After all this, did this decision clear up the many uncertainties 
about prayers in our schools? By no means. Just 6 months after the Lee 
decision, a Fifth Circuit Court ruling that seemed to directly 
contradict the Lee ruling was nonetheless reinstated. Other cases 
continue to be brought, as public schools across the Nation adopt----or 
don't adopt--some form of prayer and are challenged.
  The quandry this continuing unresolved question has created for 
school administrators is perhaps best exemplified by the following 
example:
  About 1 year after the Supreme Court's Lee decision, a group called 
the American Center for Law and Justice sent a bulletin to 15,000 
public school superintendents nationwide. The bulletin stated that--

       School officials must understand--that the Lee decision in 
     no way diminished the well-established free speech rights of 
     students, including the right to religious speech,

and went on to warn that students have a right to include a benediction 
in their graduation ceremonies.
  Three weeks later, the American Civil Liberties Union sent their own 
letter to the same 15,000 superintendents strongly countering the 
assertions made in the American Center for Law and Justice letter, and 
noting that the ACLU ``will be monitoring developments in this area.''
  What is the school superintendent who receives these mailings to do? 
According to one legal organization, school prayer is quite 
constitutional; according to another, it is not. Such mixed signals--
and warnings--are a burdensome distraction for school officials, on top 
of their many other concerns.
  Is a student-led prayer permissible? What about a prayer or blessing 
offered by a clergyman? Can a nonsectarian prayer be read at a 
graduation ceremony? How about read over the school loudspeaker, at the 
start of the school day? What about after-school voluntary prayer 
activities? Each superintendent has to wrestle with these questions.
  Moreover, all this is doubly complicated for Rhode Island officials. 
In our State, the ethnic makeup of our population is rich and varied. 
For example, 15,500 of our residents were born in Asia; 6,800 were born 
in South America; and 6,500 were born in Africa. This diverse makeup 
invariably means that the religious beliefs of our populace--including 
its children--range widely. It therefore is difficult to ensure that 
any one single prayer can fit the many religions of our population.

  My point is this: This area of constitutional law is muddy, to say 
the least. The term ``constitutionally protected prayer'' may sound 
quite clear. But how exactly is a school to provide for such prayer if 
legal scholars and the courts--let alone the beleaguered school--
superintendent--cannot agree themselves on when a religious verse 
crosses the line into unconstitutionality?
  As an official of the Association of American School Administrators 
told me:

       We're certain this amendment muddies the waters, and the 
     waters already were muddy. The prayer cases of last year were 
     very confusing and from our perspective this will make it 
     worse.

  Second point: Although for the above reasons, schools would find it 
difficult if not impossible to comply with the Helms amendment, the 
amendment itself offers a very, very compelling reason to somehow 
achieve the impossible: Loss of Federal education funds.
  Of all the tools the Federal Government has at its disposal to 
encourage States to follow Federal wishes, the loss of Federal funds is 
perhaps the most powerful. It is no trivial matter; often millions of 
dollars are involved. Thus, I believe this type of threat--for that's 
what it is--should be used sparingly, only in those cases where the 
Federal Government has an extraordinary interest in the public welfare.
  For that reason I view the amendment as an example of the worst kind 
of Federal mandate that Washington hands out. The amendment States 
clearly that any school not complying with its terms will lose its 
Federal education grant. Because the education moneys are enormous, the 
schools would have no choice but to do what Washington demands.
  Certainly, Rhode Island would have to bow down to Washington's 
wishes. Our State's schools receive nearly $60 million in Federal 
education moneys--every cent of which would be at risk should this 
amendment become law. The amendment would mean no more Federal money 
for 36 programs like Chapter One, Even Start, Drug-Free Schools, 
Special Education, Vocation Education, and Literacy. Moreover, it could 
threaten our guaranteed student loans, and any education contracts or 
discretionary grants that we now receive.
  In sum, the Helms amendment asks States to do the impossible, or else 
risk losing millions of crucial education dollars.
  If the amendment is enacted into law, schools from Westerly to 
Providence to Woonsocket will have no choice but to try to steer a 
course through the jumble of court rulings in an effort to comply. 
Given the religious diversity of our State, this inevitably will mean a 
string of lawsuits alleging that a school is violating the 
Constitution--exactly what happened to Nathan Bishop.
  Do you know what the Nathan Bishop case cost the city of Providence--
and therefore the taxpayers? Providence paid a staggering $110,000 in 
legal costs--and at the end of the day, after years of legal battles, 
they lost. The lawsuits that would arise from the Helms amendment will 
cost the already financially struggling schools dearly and make lawyers 
rich; $110,000 of taxpayers' money spent on lawyers is $110,000 less 
spent on books and instruction.
  I believe this amendment is born of the fact that many people want 
very much to allow religious values into public schools--but that in 
many cases, the courts' interpretations of the Constitution make that 
impossible or uncertain. But no matter how strongly one feels, it is 
foolhardy to vent frustration at the Supreme Court--or for that matter 
the Constitution--by placing our schools on the horns of a terrible 
dilemma.
  We must and should ensure that all Americans--be they adult or 
child--are able to freely exercise their religious beliefs without 
interference. As the history of this Nation shows, religion is and 
always will be a key element of American life.
  But this amendment will not enhance the role that religion plays in 
children's lives. Instead it will add confusion to an already confusing 
and convoluted situation, and in the process wreak havoc with our 
States' efforts to educate our children.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, as we conclude this debate on the 
Goals 2000 proposal, I want to commend the bill's managers for 
accommodating a number of improvements that I and others have 
suggested, while still sticking to the underlying objectives of this 
legislation.
  I also want to point out several important provisions in this bill 
which need to be strongly supported in conference if this legislation 
is to retain the kind of broad bipartisan support that it will need to 
become law.
  There has been a great deal of discussion during this debate, Mr. 
President, about the need to reform the education system--a system that 
is showing serious signs of distress, signs that include:
  Low test scores compared to our international competitors;
  Rising levels of violence that threaten both students and teachers;
  Severe financial pressures that are closing schools, forcing layoffs, 
cutting valuable programs, and raising average class sizes; and
  Teacher strikes and high rates of turnover in top administrative 
positions, especially in our Nation's largest urban school systems.
  As we try to address these problems, Mr. President, we must remember 
that every local school system is different. And, we must not forget 
that most of the responsibility for organizing and funding schools lies 
at the State and local level.
  That means uniform national solutions won't solve these problems, as 
much as we in the Congress or administration might want to help.
  I'm also not convinced that more money will do the job--at least not 
within the current system.
  We're already spending something like $200,000 per classroom in New 
York City's Public Schools.
  That should be enough. But, too much of it is going to central 
administration bureaucrats, to one of the Nation's largest police 
departments, to one of the Nation's largest food service companies, to 
assistant superintendents and deputy curriculum directors and all the 
rest.
  The same is true here in Washington, DC, where a task force headed by 
Alice Rivlen a couple of years ago found that a third of the employees 
of the D.C. school system work--not in neighborhood schools--but in the 
central administration downtown.
  Every school system in this country doesn't face the same challenges 
we see in New York or Washington. But, too many are part of a system 
that desperately needs real reform.


                 expectations for reform at crossroads

  Mr. President, I have placed a high personal priority over the last 5 
years on using my position on the Senate Labor Committee to help define 
a positive and effective Federal Government role in support of State-
based education reform.
  Following the 1992 election, I looked forward to accelerating that 
effort with both a President and Secretary of Education who were among 
the first, and best, of the 1980's crop of education Governors.
  It's within that context that I have followed closely the 
introduction and evolution of President Clinton's Goals 2000 
initiative. I, and many others, have suggested a number of changes in 
the President's proposal. And, because of those changes, this is a 
different and better bill.
  As this dialog has gone forward, Mr. President, it's also been clear 
that we don't yet have consensus in the Congress on what role the 
Federal Government should play in support of State-based education 
reform.
  In part, my concern reflects the experience we had in conference 2 
years ago, as we attempted to reconcile differences over the 
Neighborhood Schools Improvement Act--S. 2. I do not want to see the 
President's Goals 2000 proposal succumb to the same fate--lacking 
strong bipartisan support and lacking a significant affirmative 
constituency outside the Washington Beltway.
  Without such support--especially from Senate Republicans and from 
Governors in both parties--we could easily repeat our previous 
experience with S. 2. And, although I don't welcome the thought of 
another legislative stalemate, I agree with those who argue that ``no 
bill is better than a bad bill.''


       senate bill shows deference to state and local initiatives

  Fortunately, Mr. President, the legislation now before us includes a 
number of features that support and show deference to State and local 
education reform initiatives.
  For example, one very positive feature in Goals 2000 is the provision 
allowing States to use State-level improvement funds to support public 
school choice initiatives, including information and referral programs; 
and to support the establishment of innovative new public schools, 
including magnet schools and charter schools.
  Under language I suggested, local school districts may now also use a 
portion of their grant funds to support innovative new public schools.
  A second positive feature of this legislation, Mr. President, is the 
discretion it gives the Secretary of Education to waive planning 
requirements for States that have already done comprehensive and 
systemic improvement plans.
  It's my expectation, Mr. President, that the Secretary will use this 
authority broadly to offer States maximum flexibility in meeting the 
planning requirements of the bill--both in the incorporation of 
previous planning and in the use of existing State structures that have 
prepared those plans. We should not second guess the methods used by 
States to achieve the results articulated in the legislation.
  Mr. President, a third positive feature included in this bill is its 
national leadership section that directs the Secretary of Education to 
disseminate information on outstanding examples of local and State-
based education reform through a variety of means such as publications, 
electronic and telecommunication media, and conferences.
  It's my hope that Secretary Riley and his successors will use this 
authority in much the same way it was used by his predecessor, Lamar 
Alexander. Through use of the bully pulpit, a Secretary of Education, 
especially one who is a former Governor, can do a great deal to 
highlight outstanding examples of reform and to urge their replication 
or adaptation elsewhere.


               waivers from federal rules and regulations

  Mr. President, I'm especially pleased that this legislation now 
includes several significant opportunities for States and local school 
districts to get out from under the burdens of Federal rules and 
mandates.

  Under an amendment that Senator Hatfield and I authored, up to six 
States will be able to seek broad authority to waive both Federal and 
State mandates--rules and regulations that now stand in the way of 
doing what teachers, principals, and parents now must be done to 
improve their schools.
  Minnesota is leading the rest of the country in replacing 
accountability for schools that's now based on inputs--like how many 
hours students have to be in the classroom and how many days have to be 
in the school year--with standards that reward schools based on what 
students actually learn. For that reason, I'm very hopeful that 
Minnesota will be one of the six States chosen to participate in the 
demonstration Senator Hatfield and I authored.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize the fact that this legislation 
places certain fundamental protections off-limits from this waiver 
authority and also requires that those seeking waivers demonstrate that 
the underlying objectives of the regulations being waived will not be 
jeopardized.
  To monitor whether that commitment is maintained, we will need a more 
localized, manageable, and effective alternative accountability 
mechanism for schools and districts that receive waivers. Ideally, that 
alternative accountability mechanism will be local and results 
oriented.
  One such alternative is now embodied in the laws of States that have 
authorized charter schools. Although these laws vary, they generally 
allow public schools to operate free of most rules and regulations in 
exchange for a multiyear, results oriented performance contact with a 
State or local education agency or some other public body.
  This arrangement keeps accountability with an entity that can provide 
effective oversight. It keeps the number of deregulated schools that 
need to be monitored by each oversight agency relatively low. And, it 
shifts the focus of accountability from input-oriented rules and 
regulations to contractually agreed to results.
  Clearly, the waiver provisions contained in the Goals 2000 proposal 
will take some time to fully implement. And, I would hope that, as 
these provisions are implemented, alternative accountability 
mechanism--including an oversight role for State or local education 
agencies, a clear focus on results, and the use of contracts or other 
formal agreements between deregulated schools and the State or local 
education agency--will be given a fair test.
  I also hope that the more general subject of the role of Federal 
waivers in education reform, including how those waivers are granted 
and administered, will be given additional consideration in this year's 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.


    opportunity-to-learn standards could counter direction of reform

  Finally, Mr. President, let me comment briefly on the provisions in 
this proposal that authorize so-called opportunity-to-learn standards.
  As Senator Kennedy knows, I have been among the most strident critics 
of these standards. I have not been alone. And, I know that the 
administration, the Nation's Governors, and many others have worked 
hard to reach agreement on several important changes to clarify the 
role that opportunity-to-learn-standards will play in meeting the 
objectives of this bill.
  I strongly support retaining those changes, Mr. President. And, I am 
pleased that the Senate did not agree to the amendment offered and 
withdrawn during this debate by my distinguished colleagues from 
Illinois and Minnesota. That amendment would have required States to 
adopt and implement opportunity-to-learn-standards.
  The way in which opportunity-to-learn-standards have now been limited 
by this bill are very important to me, Mr. President, and to many of my 
colleagues, as well as to Governors, State and local education 
officials, and school reform leaders all around the country.
  I strongly believe we must retain these provisions in conference. 
And, I will vigorously oppose any efforts to change the limitations the 
bill now placed on opportunity-to-learn standards as we reach a 
compromise on these and other differences with the House.
  In approaching the conference, Mr. President, I have identified five 
important limitations I believe must be drawn around these standards:
  First, compliance with opportunity-to-learn-standards must be 
strictly voluntary. And, there must be no link between achieving such 
standards and eligibility for Federal education improvement funds or 
funds authorized by chapter 1 or other Federal programs.
  Second, compliance with a uniform and mandatory list of opportunity-
to- learn-standards must not be considered a prerequisite to being held 
accountable for tough, results-oriented academic standards.
  Third, meeting opportunity-to-learn-standards must be viewed as only 
one of a number of alternative strategies available to State and local 
education agencies and to schools in achieving academic standards.
  Fourth, we must accept the reality that all schools and communities 
are unique. Therefore, we must recognize that some opportunity-to-
learn-standards may contribute to achieving performance standards in 
some schools or communities and other opportunity-to-learn-standards 
may make that contribution in others.
  And, finally, States and local districts and schools must be able to 
decide which opportunity-to-learn-standards may contribute to achieving 
academic standards in their unique circumstances.
  I believe these limitations are consistent with the legislation now 
before us, Mr. President. But, during the upcoming conference committee 
deliberations with the House, I intend to make sure that those 
limitations are not violated.
  To repeat what I said earlier, we are now at a critical crossroads in 
designing a proper and effective Federal role in support of State-based 
education reform.
  This Senator would like very much to be able to support a conference 
committee agreement that achieves that objective.
  But, this Senator will not hesitate to oppose, with any and all means 
available, a conference committee report that runs counter to that 
objective and that does more harm than it does good.


            proposal, as modified, deserves senate approval

  Having noted the various improvements that have now been made, Mr. 
President, I am prepared to vote to approve S. 1150.
  I'm pleased with the authority it gives States and local school 
districts to increase parent choices and help start innovative new 
public schools.
  I strongly support the authority this legislation grants the 
Secretary to grant waivers to States, districts, and schools that are 
stifled by input-oriented rules and regulations and are now willing to 
be held accountable for what students actually learn.
  And, I believe the changes that have now been made in the provisions 
dealing with opportunity-to-learn-standards need not stand in the way 
of the important reforms now taking place in education all over 
America.
  At the same time, Mr. President, I've noted those issues that might 
cause me to oppose a conference committee agreement on this 
legislation.
  I also believe we must realize the limitations of this legislation 
and the reality that achieving the goals it would make law will require 
the leadership of States and the dedicated efforts of teachers, 
parents, students in every community in this Nation.
  Real reform in education will not result just from changes in Federal 
law or Federal programs. But, the legislation we are now considering 
could help establish a framework within which that real reform can, and 
must, now take place.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are on the threshold of an important 
moment for education reform in this Nation. When we pass this bill 
today, with strong bipartisan support, we will be changing the way the 
Federal Government supports the revitalization of local schools in 
every school district in America.
  We will also have ended congressional gridlock on education reform, 
for not only have we passed Goals 2000, education reform legislation, 
the first such legislation that has successfully made its way through 
Congress since the national goals were set in 1989, but today we will 
also act on the Safe Schools Act, and the Office of Educational 
Research and Improvement legislation, a bill that has been waiting 
passage for 3 years. This morning we passed the School-to-Work Act.
  In passing Goals 2000, we will have successfully responded to the 
challenge of Eileen Shakespeare, a dedicated teacher at the Fenway 
School in Boston, who told me last month:

       If I could ask you to take a single message back to 
     Washington, it would be this: ``Please have a sense of 
     urgency about what we are doing here with students, and help 
     us.

  This bill responds to that plea. It is a major step toward meeting 
the urgent needs of hundreds of thousands of innovative teachers and 
students and school administrators in every community in America.
  We are sending a new and different partnership to support innovative 
and creative educators in classrooms across the country.
  Goals 2000 will establish new standards informing schools about what 
every student should know in core subjects like English, history, 
mathematics, and science.
  It provides new leadership and a new blueprint for school reform by 
moving Federal, State, and local governments in the same direction on 
education.
  It increases flexibility for States and school districts by waiving 
regulations that impede reform.
  It emphasizes the importance of quality teaching.
  It supports expanded involvement of parents and communities in local 
school reform.
  It assures accountability by emphasizing results and the importance 
of assessing school and student progress.
  It keeps education decisionmaking where it belongs--at the local 
level--with parents, teachers, and local educators.
  It will bring lasting improvements to the quality of the work force 
by promoting the development of occupational standards intended to 
ensure that workers are the best trained in the world.
  Above all, it promotes bottom-up school reform by supporting 
activities at the local school level. If the Pentagon can conduct a 
bottom-up review to get its house in order, so can education.
  I commend my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, for his 
impressive leadership on this essential bill. He has worked skillfully 
and tirelessly in this bipartisan effort. I thank also Senators 
Mitchell, Pell, and Kassebaum, without whom this bill certainly would 
not have moved so smoothly through the Senate.
  This has been a long and deliberate process. In 3 days, we have 
adopted 50 amendments, 46 by voice vote. We have rejected only one. I 
think we have made this a better bill, but have left its essence 
intact: a framework for high academic standards, locally developed and 
implemented with our support.
  And so I commend all of my colleagues for taking this needed step 
toward education reform. We owe no less to the Nation's children, their 
teachers, and their schools.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston] 
and the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and 
the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Texas [Mr. Gramm] would vote ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 34 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--25

     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Smith
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gramm
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Moseley-Braun
  So the bill (H.R. 1804), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill was passed.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 1804. The Chair is 
authorized to appoint conferees.
  The Presiding Officer (Mrs. Feinstein) appointed Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Pell, Mr. Metzenbaum, Mr. Simon, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, 
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Wofford, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Jeffords, 
Mr. Coats, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Durenberger.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, S. 1150 is 
indefinitely postponed.

                          ____________________