[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          GOALS 2000, S. 1150

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there are several reasons that I 
was not able to support the Goals 2000 legislation. While I have always 
been a strong supporter of education initiatives, and I believe that we 
should codify the six National Educational Goals initially developed 
under the Bush administration, important aspects of this bill are 
problematic.
  I am very concerned with the expanded role of the Federal Government 
in developing educational standards, and particularly opportunity-to-
learn standards. While we all want our students to satisfy high 
standards and have full educational opportunity, I do not believe that 
this is what the bill's standards will achieve. Instead, I believe that 
they will be a means by which the Federal Government will further 
impose its will on State and local governments, thereby usurping their 
traditional authority. I applaud the efforts of Committee members and 
other Senators to ensure that the standards are purely voluntary. 
However, the practical effect will be that States will feel compelled 
to adopt the standards in order to receive the bill's grant funds.
  The expanded Federal role in education is reflected in the new 
Federal Bureaucracy that is created by Goals 2000. The bill establishes 
several new boards to achieve its goals, including the National 
Education Goals Panel, the National Education Standards and Improvement 
Council, and the National Skill Standards Board. We already have an 
enormous taxpayer-funded Department of Education that, in consultation 
with State and local agencies and organizations, is fully capable of 
conducting the tasks that these boards must now do. I believe that we 
should be empowering families and local school boards, rather than 
building additional remote Federal bureaucracies. Despite several 
amendments intended to maintain local control, I continue to be very 
concerned that Goals 2000 will have the practical effect of limiting 
the autonomy of localities in making decisions concerning their 
educational standards and methodologies.
  During the amendment process, Goals 2000 increased substantially in 
its cost to the taxpayer, by about twofold. This does not even include 
the small, though symbolically significant, unfunded State and local 
mandates included in the bill, such as unfunded requirements to provide 
information to the Department of Education. States and localities are 
already unduly burdened by unfunded Federal requirements. I believe 
that we can achieve the goals of this legislation without the loss of 
local autonomy, the increased bureaucracy, or the unnecessary and 
unfunded costs. For these reasons, I decided to vote against the 
bill.

                          ____________________