Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 22 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)

[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 22 (Thursday, March 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         GRASSLEY AMENDMENT TO GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. During debate, Mr. President, on Goals 2000: Educate 
America Act, I introduced an amendment, which the Senate adopted, to 
address an issue of concern to many of my constituents. The amendment 
was a culmination of over 2 years of research on the invasion of 
student and family privacy that might be taking place and is taking 
place in schools around America.
  I have dealt with people in 25 States who feel that their family's 
privacy has been invaded by intrusive surveys, analyses, and other 
evaluations. These surveys ask very personal questions of children 
without their parents' knowledge or consent.
  During debate on the Goals 2000 bill, I came to this floor with such 
examples from 14 different States, some of which I discussed and the 
rest of which, Mr. President, I just placed in the Record for easy 
referral by people who are interested in pursuing this.
  Because the weight of evidence is so overwhelming, the Department of 
Education suggested a possible compromise to the amendment that I 
originally introduced. I pursued negotiations with the Department. We 
reached an agreement that, quite frankly, met many of my concerns. And 
since it met so many of my concerns and since the Department of 
Education and their representatives were so forthcoming and up front 
and honest in their negotiations. We put that compromise together, and 
that amendment was adopted 93 to zero before we passed Goals 2000.
  Subsequent to this Senate's action on that amendment, the House 
Education and Labor Committee voted on identical language as an 
amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was 
taking place in the Education and Labor Committee. That debate was held 
the same afternoon my amendment was adopted.
  In introducing the amendment during the markup on the House side, 
Representative Armey of Texas stated that the Senate-passed language 
would be a positive change in the elementary and secondary education 
bill. He said it would also send a very clear signal to the conferees 
on the Goals 2000 bill regarding the House committee's reaction to my 
amendment and the compromise that was worked out between me and the 
Department of Education.
  So I was pleased when the House committee supported the amendment by 
a vote of 38 to 4. That vote was an affirmation of the good balance 
that I struck with the Department of Education in our negotiations on 
this side.
  Despite that balance struck and the overwhelming support in 
Congress--38 to 4 in committee on the House side, 93 to zero on the 
Senate side--I regret to report now that there may be--and I wish to 
say ``may be''--ongoing efforts to undermine our agreement with the 
Department of Education.
  In my hand, Mr. President, is an internal memorandum from the 
Department of Education. It represents a proposed revision of the Armey 
amendment by the Department of Education. It so happens that this 
proposed language is exactly the same proposal that the Department 
brought to me in our initial negotiations on Goals 2000. I speak of 
what is floating around the Hill now and the language that is written 
at the bottom of this page, and I will not go into specific detail what 
that language does. But we rejected this language. The negotiators for 
the Department of Education were very pleased with the negotiations 
that we worked out.
  So the suggested comment on this internal Department memo regarding 
the Armey amendment is exactly the position that I, the Department, and 
92 of my colleagues put to rest when we reached the final compromise.
  The fact that this language is suddenly resurfacing is troubling to 
me, and it should be troubling to each and every Member of this body 
who voted for my amendment.
  I must point out that this language is not yet an official Department 
position. It is merely being passed up the chain of command by wily 
bureaucrats in the bowels of Education.
  But that is why I indicated the agreement may be undermined. It is 
not yet a fait accompli. After all, I am confident that the Department 
would not want to be accused of saying one thing out of one side of its 
mouth and another out of the other. You see, I do not believe the 
Department, once it discovers that this language is floating around the 
Hill--in other words, once Secretary Riley and Mr. Cohen, who 
negotiated for him, see this language floating around the Hill--will do 
the bidding of some bureaucrat down there in the Department that does 
not like the agreement that was reached in the Senate.
  That would be double dealing. It would be a bait-and-switch approach. 
You do not survive long in this town with that sort of an approach.
  So I am hoping, Mr. President, that my being here on the floor this 
afternoon is a false alarm. Because I am hoping that this position 
paper will never see the light of day, that it will be put to rest once 
more as we agreed here in the negotiations before we adopted my 
amendment 93 to 0, and before we passed the Goals 2000 bill. I am 
confident that the honorable thing will be done and that the department 
will adhere to its agreed-to position.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the amendment in 
conference as passed by the Senate 93 to 0, and I hope that the 
Department of Education continues to work with us as we seek broad 
consensus on education reforms.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I do not see any of my colleagues seeking the floor. So I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. 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. GRAMM. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Presiding 
Officer, I would like to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized for 10 minutes.

                          ____________________