[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                               WHITEWATER

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, last night President Clinton did a 
masterful job at his press conference answering a variety of questions, 
most of which were related to Whitewater.
  I have heard some people say, well, the President did a fine job and 
maybe this will help put the Whitewater issue to rest. But I would just 
make the comment that there are a lot of questions that have not been 
answered and even some confusion from what the President said last 
night.
  For example, the President said last night:

       I think that the American people are really upset about the 
     thought that this investment that we made 16 years ago, lost 
     money, did not involve savings and loans, might somehow 
     divert us from doing the work of the country.

  Mr. President, I just looked at some of the work--and I have not 
looked at it very closely--Mr. Leach did, Congressman Leach, and in 
data he supplied to the House and in his speech, there is a copy of a 
resolution of the board of directors of Madison Financial Corporation, 
April 17, 1985. I will read the resolve from the corporation:

       That the corporation prepay to Jim McDougal $30,000 of his 
     annual bonus in recognition of the profits of the prior year 
     and that said bonus be paid directly to Whitewater 
     Development.

  So there is S&L money that went to Whitewater Development. And, 
incidentally, the Clintons, the President and Mrs. Clinton, owned half 
of Whitewater so that statement he made, I think, was incorrect. There 
may have been other mistakes. The President has given the impression he 
has been totally forthcoming, he has released all the documents. He has 
not released them to the press.
  Mr. President, I think there are a lot of questions that remain to be 
asked of and certainly remain to be answered by President and Mrs. 
Clinton. I will just touch on a few of those.
  What about the files? What about those files that were in Mr. 
Foster's office for several months after his death, that even actually 
in January--Mr. Foster died, I might mention, in July--but by January 
they were turned over to special counsel. Why are they not made public? 
If this is just a real estate deal, why not make all information 
public? Why give it just to Special Counsel Fiske under guise of a 
subpoena so the public will not find out?
  Other questions. How much did President and Mrs. Clinton invest in 
Whitewater? The President said, ``We did not lose $70,000; we think 
maybe about $47,000 we lost.'' Well, how much did they invest? How much 
did they make and how much did they lose? Those questions have not been 
answered. The President referred to the Lyons report. Well, the Lyons 
report was very inconclusive and really very misleading. The Lyons 
report did not tell people--this is during the campaign year--the Lyons 
report did not tell people that Whitewater did not file a tax return 
for 3 years. Why not?
  Now, reports are that Mr. Foster filed those tax returns, or made up 
for the delinquent returns, when he was an employee of the White House. 
He was doing delinquent returns for Whitewater, a private corporation 
while a Federal employee. That seems to be wrong.
   Why are not the Whitewater returns made public? Why is not all the 
information that the McDougals, who said that they turned all the 
information over to the Clintons at the Governor's mansion, why is not 
that information made public?
  And we need to ask other questions. Was that information destroyed? 
Because now people say that information is not available. But the 
McDougals said they turned all that information over to, at that time, 
Governor and Mrs. Clinton.
  Where is that information? Where are those files? Mr. McDougal, who 
was on TV the other night, said he needs those files back so he can do 
some tax work or something for the reports. He said he turned them all 
over. I think he is willing to say that under oath. I do not know. 
Where are those files? And there have been reports that maybe a bunch 
of those papers were destroyed. If that is the case, there could be 
obstruction of justice.
  Those questions were not asked last night. They need to be asked. 
They need to be answered.
  Another question. Were then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton 
and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, provided a gift by being made 
equal partners in the Whitewater Development Corporation, despite 
investing little money? How much did they invest and how much did they 
get out?
  There have been reports that they bought some land, then they sold 
the land for a significant profit. Did they make a profit and how much? 
Did they lose money? Then they sold their part or venture in 1992 for 
$1,000. We need to have all the information. That information has not 
been made public. So I am calling on the President to make the 
information public.
  The President indicated last night he is fully disclosing, he is 
cooperating fully with Congress. He has not fully cooperated with 
Congress. He has not released that information.
  Did then-Governor Clinton's 1984 campaign receive money wrongly 
diverted by James McDougal, Clinton's business partner and owner of 
Madison Guaranty, a federally insured savings and loan, from Madison to 
pay off the $50,000 personal loan with another bank to the Governor? 
Additionally, did McDougal in 1985 write checks from Whitewater's 
account to pay off Bill Clinton's personal loans? Again, we do not have 
answers to these questions.
  Did Governor Bill Clinton in 1986 pressure David Hale, the owner of 
Capital Management Services, to knowingly issue an illegal Small 
Business Administration loan to Whitewater co-owner Susan McDougal, and 
were those funds then used to clean up financial problems of Madison? 
It has been reported that Mr. Hale, who controlled this Capital 
Management Services, made a $300,000 loan to Mrs. McDougal, who was a 
co-owner with President and Mrs. Clinton in Whitewater, and that at 
least $100,000 of those funds ended up in Whitewater.
  So again, those funds purportedly were for disadvantaged small 
business people who could not qualify for other business loans. Did 
that diversion happen? Was coercion used by the Governor for the loan 
to be made? Clearly, they were not entitled to that loan, to be 
recipients of that loan; they were not eligible to be recipients of 
that loan.
  In 1984, did Mr. Clinton pressure Madison owner and Whitewater 
Development partner James McDougal to hire his wife, Hillary Clinton, 
to represent the S&L, which allowed her to promote a stock issue plan 
to a newly hired State securities commissioner whose brother managed 
Clinton's campaign?
  If Governor and Mrs. Clinton were merely passive shareholders in 
Whitewater, how do they explain that Mrs. Clinton in 1988 sought broad 
powers of attorney over Whitewater and the fact that published reports 
indicate that the Clintons ``took an aggressive part in the management 
of Whitewater affairs?''
  Another question, Mr. President. Did the Rose law firm in 1989, which 
then was managed by the former Associate Attorney General, Mr. Webster 
Hubbell, violate FDIC rules by failing to disclose to regulators its 
earlier representation of Madison Guaranty by senior law partner 
Hillary Clinton?
  Did the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Paula 
Casey, in 1993 violate Department of Justice rules regarding conflict 
of interest by initially deciding to concur with Justice Department 
recommendations not to pursue a criminal referral from the Resolution 
Trust Corporation which specifically mentioned Bill and Hillary 
Clinton?
  Have laws or rules been violated by the White House officials in 
handling Whitewater files that were in the office of White House Deputy 
Council, Vincent Foster, following his death on July 20, 1993, but were 
not turned over to the Justice Department until January 18, 1994, 
nearly 6 months later?
  How much did the Clintons actually gain or lose in Whitewater 
Development? That still remains to be seen.
  Why did the Clintons' and McDougals' corporation, Whitewater 
Development, fail to file tax returns for 3 years? As far as I know it 
is not an option whether or not you file tax returns. Whether you make 
or lose money, you have to file tax returns. But Whitewater, of which 
President and Mrs. Clinton owned 50 percent, did not file tax returns 
for 3 years.
  Mr. President, we have these questions. A lot of other questions 
remain to be asked, questions that Congressman Leach alluded to.
  I will submit an additional two pages of questions. I know Senator 
Kassebaum is seeking the floor. I have an additional two pages of 
questions, commonsense questions not trying to do anything but get the 
facts out, that really need to be responded to. And hopefully they will 
be responded to quickly in the form of Congressional hearings or by 
just release of the information by the White House.
  I urge the White House, if they really want to get their Whitewater 
issue behind them, to release the information. I think the President 
took a small step in that direction yesterday. But, if they would 
release all of the information pertaining to Whitewater, it would be a 
big step towards getting this issue finally resolved.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Whitewater: Ten Questions

       The January 20 appointment of Special Counsel Robert Fiske 
     begins a process that hopefully will resolve serious 
     questions of possible wrongdoing by the President of the 
     United States and his spouse both before his election and 
     during his Administration. At question is the Clinton's 
     involvement in a real estate investment, known as Whitewater, 
     and a failed savings and loan, Madison Guaranty.
       Numerous reports concerning Whitewater have been published 
     in reputable newspapers around the country.
       The ten questions about Whitewater and Madison are:
       1. Were then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton and his 
     wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, provided a ``gift'' by being 
     made equal partners in the Whitewater Development 
     Corporation, despite investing ``little money''?
       It is not clear how much cash--if any--that then-Attorney 
     General Bill Clinton and his spouse actually invested in 
     their share of a joint purchase with James and Susan McDougal 
     on August 2, 1978, of 230 acres for $203,000 to eventually 
     establish Whitewater, a vacation-home development project.
       2. Did then-Governor Clinton's 1984 campaign receive money 
     wrongly diverted by James McDougal, Clinton's business 
     partner, and owner of Madison Guaranty, a federally insured 
     savings and loan, from Madison to pay off a $50,000 personal 
     loan with another bank to the Governor? Additionally, did 
     McDougal in 1985 write checks from Whitewater's account to 
     pay off Bill Clinton's personal loans?
       ``At least one person listed as having donated money at the 
     1985 [fundraising] event has denied he contributed to 
     Clinton'' (Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 1/15/94). Bill Clinton 
     reportedly asked McDougal ``to take care of the debt still 
     left over from 1984. `He asked me to knock out the 
     deficit,''' McDougal said (New York Times, 12/15/93).
       3. Did Governor Bill Clinton in 1986 pressure David Hale, 
     the owner of Capital Management Services, to knowingly issue 
     an illegal Small Business Administration loan to Whitewater 
     co-owner Susan McDougal, and were those funds then used to 
     ``clean up'' financial problems at Madison? (Washington 
     Times, 11/6/93)
       Hale told reporters that Governor Clinton, on at least two 
     occasions, pressured him to issue the SBA-backed 
     ``disadvantaged'' loan that was never repaid. Hale, when 
     awaiting trial on an indictment for wrongdoing concerning 
     loans not related to Whitewater, unsuccessfully tried to 
     negotiate a deal with the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock in 
     exchange for the information he has now made public. Both 
     Clinton and McDougal deny the meetings took place, but the 
     loan to Susan McDougal is not questioned.
       4. Did Clinton in 1984 pressure Madison owner and 
     Whitewater Development partner James McDougal to hire Hillary 
     Clinton to represent the S&L, which allowed her to promote a 
     stock issue plan to a newly hired state securities 
     commissioner, whose brother managed Clinton's campaign?
       McDougal told the Los Angeles Times (11/7/93) that Clinton 
     asked him to give some of Madison's legal work to Hillary 
     Clinton because of tight finances at the Clinton home, 
     specifically requesting $2,000 per month. Hillary Clinton 
     received a $2,000-a-month retainer for 15 months, and helped 
     Madison win approval from state regulators regarding the 
     novel stock issue plan that was never carried out.
       5. If Governor and Mrs. Clinton were merely ``passive 
     shareholders'' in Whitewater, how do they explain the fact 
     that Mrs. Clinton in 1988 sought broad powers-of-attorney 
     over Whitewater, and the fact that published reports indicate 
     the Clintons ``took an aggressive part in the management of 
     Whitewater's affairs''? (Washington Times, 11/4/93)
       6. Did the Rose law firm in 1989, which then was managed by 
     now-former Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, 
     violate FDIC rules by failing to disclose to regulators its 
     earlier representation of Madison Guaranty by senior law 
     partner Hillary Rodham Clinton?
       One of the Rose law firm's senior partners, Vincent Foster, 
     signed a letter to the FDIC seeking the job of prosecuting 
     the failed Madison Guaranty S&L. Therein, he claimed that the 
     Rose firm did not represent any S&L associations in any state 
     or federal regulatory matters. Rose's then-managing partner, 
     Webster Hubbell, claims to have told the FDIC about the Rose 
     firm's dealings with Madison. The FDIC disputes that. The 
     FDIC hired Rose (without knowing of its earlier 
     representation) and paid the firm $400,000.
       7. Did U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 
     Paula Casey, in 1993 violate Department of Justice rules 
     regarding conflict-of-interest by initially deciding to 
     concur with Justice Department recommendations not to pursue 
     a criminal referral from the Resolution Trust Corporation, 
     which specifically mentioned Bill and Hillary Clinton?
       Casey has a long history of involvement with Clinton, 
     including volunteering in his gubernational bids. Two weeks 
     after her concurrence, after the matter became public, she 
     then recused herself. (Washington Post, 11/11/93)
       8. Have laws or rules been violated by White House 
     officials in the handling of Whitewater files that were in 
     the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster 
     following his apparent suicide on July 20, 1993, but were not 
     turned over to the Justice Department until January 18, 1994, 
     nearly six months later? And, where are the Whitewater files 
     which James McDougal claimed he personally delivered to the 
     Arkansas Governor's Mansion in 1987 at the request of Hillary 
     Clinton that now apparently cannot be found?
       9. How much did the Clintons actually lose or gain in 
     Whitewater Development?
       An ``audit'' prepared for the 1992 Clinton campaign by 
     Denver attorney, and Clinton friend, James Lyon, claimed the 
     Clintons lost $68,900 from their Whitewater investment. 
     However, a recent Time magazine article, and published 
     comments by James McDougal, suggest the loss was much less. 
     Also, the Clintons claimed a $1,000 capital gain from their 
     sale of Whitewater in their 1992 tax return, and never 
     reported a loss in previous returns. (Washington Post, 4/16/
     93)
       10. Why did the Clintons' and McDougals' corporation, 
     Whitewater Development, fail to file tax returns for three 
     years?
       During the early months of the Clinton Administration, 
     Vince Foster oversaw the preparation of three years worth of 
     delinquent tax returns, which were filed in June 1993, a fact 
     not made known to the media or the public until after Vince 
     Foster's death.
                                  ____


            New Questions Arise About Madison Investigation

       Congressman Jim Leach (R-IA), in his statement to the House 
     of Representatives yesterday, disclosed copies of certain 
     electronic mail messages written by employees of the 
     Resolution Trust Corporation, and correspondence by RTC 
     officials, that raise new questions about the failure and 
     resolution of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association 
     of Arkansas.
       This material deals with the criminal referral made to the 
     Department of Justice by the Resolution Trust Corporation 
     about Madison.
       These messages seem to indicate that Washington-based 
     appointees involved themselves in monitoring, and perhaps 
     influencing, any Madison investigation.
       Why did the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, ask 
     that all correspondence on Madison referrals be copied to the 
     Department of Justice here, with summaries of ``sensitivity 
     issues'' attached? [RTC-Kansas City employee electronic mail 
     message written September 23, 1993]
       Why did the Department of Justice request to have copies of 
     all future Madison referrals? [RTC-Kansas City employee 
     September 29, 1993, electronic mail message]
       Why did an RTC-Kansas City employee state that she had been 
     removed as lead investigator on Madison by ``The Powers That 
     Be''? [electronic mail message on November 10, 1993]
       Why did an RTC Washington lawyer tell the former RTC-Kansas 
     City lead investigator on Madison on February 2, 1994, that 
     ``The `head people' would like to be able to say that 
     Whitewater did not cause a loss to Madison, but the problem 
     is that no one has been able to say that to them''? [Notes of 
     conversation]
       What other contacts did regulators and career RTC and 
     Treasury Department employees have with Washington-based 
     bureaucrats and/or political appointees about Madison?
       Congress has a responsibility and a duty to look into these 
     and many other questions surrounding the failure and 
     resolution of Madison Guaranty.
       Attached is a relevant excerpt on these issues, and others, 
     from Congressman Leach's statement yesterday to the House of 
     Representatives.

           Statement of Congressman Jim Leach, March 24, 1994

        Administration Claim: Whitewater caused no losses to 
     Madison.
       Fact: As reflected in the minority-developed charts and 
     evidenced by supporting documentation, Madison and affiliated 
     companies transferred significant resources to Whitewater. In 
     addition to being a modest sized real estate company, with a 
     cash flow derived from land sales, Whitewater appears to be 
     one of a dozen so companies with direct or indirect access to 
     Madison and its taxpayer guaranteed deposits.
        Administration claim: The Clintons lost money in 
     Whitewater.
       Fact: To have lost money in Whitewater implies that the 
     Clintons invested sums which were unrecovered. Their 
     Whitewater partner, James McDougal, claims at most the 
     Clintons over the years put in $13,500 in Whitewater. The 
     Minority has provided evidence that one land transaction 
     alone returned more than this amount to the Clintons and 
     published reports indicate tax deductions of some value were 
     taken. The Lyons report, as well as a review of land sales, 
     indicates substantial sums were taken out of Whitewater over 
     the years. It is not clear how disbursements were arranged. 
     What is clear is that infusions of capital from land sales, 
     from Madison affiliated entities and possibly from others 
     appear to have covered loans the company and the Clintons 
     took out. The company may have had a negative value when the 
     Clintons sold their half interest in 1992, but that neither 
     means the Clintons themselves lost money, nor that questions 
     ought not be asked about how direct or contingent liabilities 
     may have been disposed of as late as 1992.
       Adminstration claim: The President and his staff would 
     fully cooperate with Congress.
       Fact: The Executive branch is actively working to prevent 
     full disclosure of documents and committee access to 
     witnesses.
       Administration claim: It has done nothing wrong in relation 
     to the RTC investigation into the failure of Madison and is 
     fully cooperating with Special Counsel Fiske's probe.
       Fact: Officials of an independent regulatory agency (the 
     RTC) immediately notified the White House of the probe of 
     Madison by its Kansas City office and attempted to put in 
     place procedural techniques to undercut the traditional 
     independence of its regional offices.
       Fact: In January, 1994 RTC Washington met with Kansas City 
     staff. After the meeting the Kansas City office filed a 
     formal complaint with Washington RTC.
       Fact: On February 2, 1994, the day Roger Altman briefed the 
     White House on Madison Guaranty, RTC Senior Attorney, April 
     Breslaw visited the Kansas City office and said that 
     Washington would like to say that Whitewater caused no losses 
     to Madison. Kansas City employees protested that this was not 
     the case.
       Fact: On September 29, 1993, before the new criminal 
     referrals were sent to the Justice Department, Treasury 
     General Counsel Jean Hanson briefed White House Counsel on 
     them. Nine days after the meeting, the referrals were sent to 
     the Justice Department. On October 14, Jean Hanson with 
     Secretary Bentsen's Press Secretary and Chief of Staff met 
     with Presidential Advisors ostensibly to discuss press 
     inquiries related to Madison Guaranty.
       Fact: On February 2, right after the appointment of Special 
     Counsel Robert Fiske, Roger Altman gave the White House a 
     ``heads up'' briefing on Madison. At the Senate Oversight 
     Board hearing, Roger Altman revealed his February 2 meeting, 
     but no others Several days later, the September and October 
     White House briefings were revealed. On March 9, the 
     Washington Post reported that there were numerous other 
     contacts between the Treasury and the White House on Madison. 
     After subpoenas are issued it is revealed that there are 
     over 3,500 pages of pages of documentation surrounding 
     these contacts which the White House terms as 
     inconsequential.
       Fact: After the appointment of Special Counsel Fiske, 
     Washington RTC officials imposed censorship guidelines on 
     Kansas City RTC employees. NO discussion with Fiske could be 
     made without going through Washington. No meetings between 
     Kansas City office and Fiske could take place without 
     accompaniment of Washington officials. No materials could be 
     forwarded without going through Washington. All information 
     concerning attorney-client privilege was to be redacted, with 
     Washington RTC determing the scope.
       Administration claim: No fundraising improprieties 
     occurred.
       Fact: On April 4, 1985, Jim McDougal hosted a fundraiser 
     for Governor Clinton. The Clinton's repeatedly asked McDougal 
     to host the fundraiser to pay off the $50,000 personal loan 
     that Clinton had taken out in the final weeks of his 1984 
     campaign. The question at issue is whether some of the money 
     appears to have been diverted from Madison Guaranty, which 
     would then, with the failure of Madison, imply deferred 
     federal financing of a gubernatorial election. For example, 
     one cashier's check for $3,000 was made in the name of 
     Charles Peacook III, then a 24-year-old college student who 
     disclaims any knowledge of having made a contribution. Mr. 
     Peacock's father was a major Madison borrower and served at 
     one time on Madison's board. Other checks that the RTC is 
     reviewing include a $3,000 check from the late Dean Landrum, 
     an employee of Charles Peacock, and one from Susan McDougal. 
     In the former Governor's defense, candidates are not always 
     in a position to verify their campaign contributions.

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will be voting in opposition to the 
conference report accompanying Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and I 
would like to take this opportunity to explain my reasons for doing so.
  As a former school board member, I care deeply about education. 
Everybody here in this Chamber does. There is simply no question that a 
sound education, particularly at the elementary and secondary levels, 
provides the foundation for success for an individual and, indeed, our 
society.
  No one in this Chamber would disagree with that observation. And I 
know there is no one more dedicated to education than the Secretary of 
Education, Richard Riley. He brings to his post the experiences that he 
had as a former Governor of South Carolina. I bring my own less lofty 
experiences to my views regarding education. However, serving as a 
school board member, participating in school activities when my own 
children were going through school, and talking with countless teachers 
and school officials has reaffirmed to me the critical role which local 
community commitment plays in assuring educational quality.
  We might talk here at great length about designing some initiative 
for meeting goals, for meeting standards, and for assessing them. 
However, if there is not a commitment on the part of the family and the 
community to quality education, and if students themselves do not 
recognize why it is important, then we simply are not going to improve 
education with more committees and more guidelines which may make us 
feel better but will not assure educational quality.
  I have encountered situations where outside help intended to improve 
classroom teaching and the students' education, serves instead to 
disrupt classroom time and bury teachers in paperwork. The further up 
the chain of bureaucracy offering the help, the greater the likelihood 
that the focus will shift from the needs of individual students to the 
needs of government auditors.
  Involving Federal Government in general aid to education requires the 
establishment of a difficult and delicate balance. This is a balance 
that I struggled along with others to achieve in working with the 
Senate bill through the committee and on the floor. It is a balance 
which, in my view, did not survive the conference between the House and 
Senate on Goals 2000.
  Throughout the conference deliberations, there were repeated 
expressions of a vision for extensive Federal involvement in education, 
which I do not share. One needs to draw the line somewhere, and it 
became increasingly clear to me that I could go no further than the 
provisions of the Senate bill.
  I would like at this point, Mr. President, to say that I know there 
were many conferees, including the chairman of the Senate Labor 
Committee, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Pell, the chairman of the 
Education Subcommittee, who gave a great deal of thoughtful guidance 
and effort to that conference to achieve a product which was far better 
than it might have been.
  But I supported the Senate version of this measure with a certain 
amount of misgiving even at that time, recognizing that the line 
between welcome support and inappropriate interference could easily be 
crossed over the long-term.
  However, during the course of the Senate consideration of the bill, 
some important changes were made, particularly eliminating lengthy 
lists of requirements on the States. Unfortunately, some of the 
progress made in this area was eroded in conference with the addition 
of required activities relating to State content and student 
performance, standards, and assessment.
  However, Mr. President, I would like to make sure that people who 
might be listening to our observations on Goals 2000 understand that 
the model national standards are drawn up by professional teachers in 
the area of their expertise. For example, the math standards have been 
developed by teachers of math. This is not something that is going to 
be drawn up by somebody working in the bureaucracy here in Washington. 
They will be laid out by those who have experience in their own 
professional fields.
  So, while there are many of us who have worried about who would 
design these standards and whether they would become mandatory, I think 
it is important to reiterate that the national standards are voluntary. 
But clearly, there is a line, as I mentioned, that will be very easy to 
cross. And for me, that became very apparent as this conference 
progressed.
  Another area of real concern for me, which probably is not as much of 
a concern for others, relates to job skill standards. I was 
particularly disappointed in the provisions relating to the 
establishment of the National Skills Standards Board. I worked very 
hard in the Senate to address some serious concerns about the board.
  Frankly , I believe it is a mistake to move headlong into the 
creation of a national system of skills standards and certification, 
given that there is little if any evidence to demonstrate they make a 
difference either for workers or for their employers.
  What we do know is that such standards and certification will have no 
value at all unless they have the support and involvement of employers 
who are supposed to use them.
  I offered a substitute amendment in the Labor Committee which was 
designed to address at least some of these concerns. My substitute 
would have strengthened business involvement, and offered an 
opportunity to review the effectiveness of the effort before it became 
yet another inconsequential, but entrenched, Washington institution.
  That substitute was defeated in committee. But, subsequently, through 
a series of conversations with Labor Secretary Reich, we agreed to 
compromise language, which was incorporated in the Senate bill. I 
believe that was a good compromise. However, it did not survive 
conference.
  I remain concerned, as well, Mr. President, about provisions relating 
to opportunity-to-learn standards, a subject which does not belong in 
the bill at all. These standards are of grave concern and overshadowed 
much of our debate during the conference. Although the bill includes 
safeguards against the Federal Government's becoming entangled in the 
complex issues related to the distribution of resources among schools, 
the fact of the matter is that this clearly is an area of State 
responsibility.
  I feel it is very important that we not allow this to progress to the 
point where we are developing mandatory opportunity-to-learn standards.
  Following the work of the State legislature in my own State of Kansas 
as they have tackled the school finance issue, I am more convinced than 
ever that the Federal Government is not in the position to make 
constructive contributions in this area. So if there are problems and 
there is a desire to make a change, that is where it can be changed.
  The potential danger in having Federal legislation address this 
subject at all is that Congress will ultimately be unable to resist the 
temptation to prescribe the remedies and send the bill to the States. 
This is not to say that I believe the ``worst case'' scenarios painted 
about this legislation will materialize.
  The real potential danger of this legislation is not that it will 
lead to a uniform, federally controlled system of education. Clearly, 
while there are those who would push such an agenda, the majority 
sentiment in Congress is not to impose education mandates on States and 
localities. Nor is this the intention of one of the bill's strongest 
advocates, Secretary of Education Riley who was a real leader in reform 
of education as Governor of South Carolina, and for whom I have the 
greatest respect. To me, the most worrisome aspect of this legislation, 
Mr. President, is that it will distract from the real work on behalf of 
reform through the institution of endless bureaucracy and the 
imposition of mindless requirements, none of which bear any 
relationship to student achievement. I cannot tell you how strongly I 
feel that all the requirements and paperwork that a teacher will have 
to engage in will only distract from the ability to educate.
  As I was leaving the final conference meeting that we had between the 
House and Senate on this bill, I expressed my concerns to one of the 
individuals standing outside the room--an educator --and he said to me, 
``Don't worry, Senator, you can rest assured that this bill will never 
make it down to touch one school child in America.''
  I am concerned that we really will be distracted--teachers, students, 
educators and administrators--from the real world of day-to-day quality 
education. To the extent that Goals 2000 is to serve as a framework 
guiding other Federal education efforts, particularly the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, it should do so as a statement of high 
expectations. Using it as a foundation upon which to heap additional 
Federal mandates and to build new bureaucracies will serve none of us 
well--least of all, our Nation's elementary and secondary students.
  Before closing, I want to take a few moments to discuss the school 
prayer issue, which has dominated much of the debate on the 
legislation. Many times Members reach the same point, but for very 
different reasons. That is the case with this bill, and I want to 
clarify that my opposition is not based on disappointment that the 
school prayer language included in the Senate bill was substantially 
modified in the final version.
  In fact, I was among the 22 Senators who opposed Senator Helms' 
school prayer amendment, because I believed it would put school 
administrators around the country in a position of having to determine 
questions of constitutional law.
  Again, we are attempting to express a strongly held belief, which I 
am sure we all share, about the importance of prayer and religion in 
our lives. The general issue of school prayer is important. I do not 
believe that because there is opposition to this particular amendment, 
it means that our country has developed an antagonism toward religion 
or toward God. Rather, the real question is how, through legislative 
language, we can design something that will be meaningful to those who 
have a strong feeling about the importance of faith, their religion, 
and of prayer.
  I believe what this amendment would do is simply tie this issue up in 
a far more legalistic web than we had ever imagined, further embroiling 
the issue in the courts. When all is said and done, we would miss the 
very key element we were trying to address. It is for those reasons, 
Mr. President, relating to education, that I have serious concerns and 
will be voting against the Goals 2000 legislation.

                          ____________________