[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]
CALL OF THE ROLL
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair now directs
the clerk to call the roll to ascertain the presence of a quorum.
The legislative clerk called the roll, and the following Senators
answered to their names:
[Quorum No. 1]
Boxer
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Cochran
Dorgan
Durenberger
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Grassley
Hatch
Hatfield
Inouye
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Leahy
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Thurmond
Wellstone
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
The clerk will call the names of the absent Senators.
The legislative clerk resumed the call of the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at
Arms to request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Maine. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the
clerk will call the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
Hollings], the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston], and the Senator
from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], are necessarily absent.
Mr. DOLE. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the
Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
Faircloth], the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], the
Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from Alaska [Mr.
Murkowski], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Simpson], the Senator from
New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], the
Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop], and the Senator from New Hampshire
[Mr. Gregg], are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 9, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]
YEAS--75
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Conrad
Coverdell
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Specter
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--9
Bond
Brown
Coats
Craig
Kempthorne
Mack
McConnell
Nickles
Pressler
NOT VOTING--16
Bennett
Cohen
Faircloth
Gramm
Gregg
Helms
Hollings
Johnston
Lieberman
Lott
McCain
Murkowski
Simpson
Smith
Stevens
Wallop
So the motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, the American inventor, Charles Kettering,
once said that ``if you want to kill any idea in the world today, get a
committee working on it.'' Unfortunately, those words still ring true
today, and help explain why Goals 2000 cannot bring needed education
reform.
Like many Americans, I am concerned about the quality of education
and believe that improvement must take place. The Goals 2000 measure
could have been strengthened by providing families with a greater
choice of educational opportunities, by slashing bloated bureaucracies
that take educational dollars way from classrooms, and by freeing
schools from excessive Federal mandates so that teachers can
concentrate on improving academics.
With that said, it is proper for Congress to set high educational
goals and standards for American students. But the real work should be
left to the dedicated community members, teachers, and parents. They
know best how to accomplish these goals. If Congress usurps local
control through mandates, which Goals 2000 does, I am afraid history
will tell us we do more harm than good.
key problems with goals 2000
Impact of Goals 2000 will be negligible. Some say that Goals 2000's
$400 million Block Grant Program will provide leverage for needed
reform. Now that's a lot of money. But let's face it, this amount
represents less than one-half of one percent of State primary and
secondary education budgets. If reform is so cheap, why hasn't
increased education spending over the last decade improved academics?
Pay for what is due, before you start something new. For far too
long, Congress has shirked its obligation to help educate disadvantaged
youth. For instance, last Wednesday a few of my colleagues rightly
pointed out that we have not made good on our commitment to cover 40
percent of the cost to educate children with disabilities. In effect,
we short changed our Nation's schools by $8 billion this year.
But instead of getting our fiscal house in order, the Senate has gone
on an education spending spree in the last year. And none of it was
paid for. It is time to set our priorities and stick with them. If we
don't, we will be forced to cannibalize the very programs that help
disadvantaged students most.
Now don't get me wrong. I support spending money for education. But
if we had kept our promises, schools would have had more resources to
pay for needed reforms.
Fear that Goals 2000 will lead to Federal intrusion into local
education policy making. Throughout this debate, it has been emphasized
time and time again that Goals 2000 participation is voluntary. While
this may be true, we all know that the House wanted to use the upcoming
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to force
the States to participate in Goals 2000 or face more stringent
requirements. And the States would have had to go along if they were to
remain eligible for chapter 1 funding. Now that may not be a mandate in
name, but is has the same effect.
Madam President, while the intend behind Goals 2000 was good, it will
not bring reform. For schools to succeed, we must look beyond
Washington to our hometowns, to our classrooms, and to our families. It
is there that actions, not words, will bring about necessary reform.
Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, I, too, rise to express my opposition
to the conference report accompanying Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
I have been a strong supporter of education and of the Federal
Government's efforts to improve the educational system of our country.
I firmly believe that without a well-educated and well-trained work
force, not only does our country jeopardize its competitiveness with
other countries but also fails to fulfill the obligation to provide
equal opportunity for all.
Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that many of our Nation's
youth leave school ill-prepared to become productive and self-
sufficient citizens. Reform of our public education is essential. The
question, however, is how such reform should proceed.
I support many provisions contained in this legislation and voted in
favor of the Senate version of the bill. I especially favor the notion
of setting high standards and expectations for our Nation's youth and
our schools, without them we will be unable to realize our fullest
potential.
I do not favor burdensome Federal bureaucracies which may serve to
impinge on reform efforts rather than facilitate such endeavors. The
creation of partnerships among the Federal Government, States, and
local educational agencies to assist in this regard is laudable. The
partnership must not be one in which Federal requirements stifle
creativity or flexibility at the local level. These elements must be
maintained.
I also share the concern voiced by many others with respect to the
inclusion of opportunity-to-learn standards. The inclusion of such
standards increases the likelihood of litigation with regard to school
financing and equity issues. I do not share the view that increased
spending will necessarily insure better performance and achievement on
the part of students. The distribution of resources with regard to
school financing is a matter of local concern and one in which the
Federal Government should not be enmeshed.
For these reasons, I will vote in opposition to the conference
report.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise to day in opposition to the Goals
2000 conference report.
There are some very positive provisions in this bill--for example,
technology in education, increased professional development.
But there are several reasons just as compelling why I cannot support
this measure.
First, I have a real problem with the new Federal bureaucracies that
are created in this bill.
These bureaucracies are charged with approving or disapproving
content standards, certifying opportunity to learn standards and
performance standards, and writing reports.
These bureaucracies will cost the taxpayers $3 million apiece in the
first year alone, to operate.
I see from the conferenced bill that the National Education Standards
and Improvement Council [NESIC] is not a bipartisan panel. The
President appoints seven people at the suggestion of the Secretary of
Education. Twelve others are nominees from the Speaker of the House,
the Senate Majority Leader, and from the Goals Panel.
It is my reading of this language that there is no requirement for
bipartisanship.
I also concur with the comments made by my colleague from Kansas,
Senator Kassebaum, about the fine line between voluntary and mandatory.
The word voluntary appears in this bill many times. Voluntary
performance standards, submitted voluntarily, voluntary content
standards.
Yes, indeed--participating in Goals 2000 is voluntary. But then, so
is participating in the National Highway Program. I think there are a
lot of parallels between these two programs.
States do not have to take money from the highway trust fund. But
only States that voluntarily comply with the requirements from Congress
can get the money.
My colleagues will remember the tussle that took place when the
Government required speed limits of 55 miles per hour. States that
didn't comply would lose their highway money. Guess who won?
I just know that bureaucracy is an animal that is hard to control.
Given an inch, they'll take a mile.
Another area of concern to me is the focus on what goes in, rather
than what comes out. I am speaking specifically of opportunity to learn
[OTL] standards.
OTL standards are the inputs needed to give all students the chance
to learn. On a generic level, I think people agree that students need
certain inputs--a teacher, a classroom--to learn. But who defines these
inputs?
Inputs could be extended to any number of areas, including school
building standards, spending per pupil, or class size. In fact, I see
on page 47 of the bill that the national OTL standards submitted to
NESIC are to address how well the school's facilities provide
opportunity to learn.
I am also disappointed that the conferees did not see fit to include
the amendment to the bill that I proposed. This amendment said that
nothing in the bill shall be construed to mandate any curriculum
framework, instructional material, examination, assessment, or system
of assessments for private, religious, or home schools.
There are some who say that this bill will not have any effect on
home or private schools. I hope that that is indeed the case.
Montana is a State that is hospitable to those who choose to educate
their children at home. In a rural State like mine, in fact, home
schooling is sometimes that only practical option.
There are other places where the environment for home schools and
religious schools is not so friendly. I just wanted the bill to say
clearly that nothing in the bill would have any effect on these folks.
I support efforts to improve our country's schools. I just question
the method in this bill. I personally question whether reform can occur
simultaneously from the top down and the bottom up.
Reform efforts are being undertaken as we speak without Federal
control or interference. I think we should encourage it as much as
possible. But we need to trust parents and schools to work out their
own solutions without the heavy hand of the Government.
I also must say that I have a real, serious problem with the way that
my colleague from North Carolina's amendment to this bill was handled
in the conference.
To me, it was crystal clear that the guidance from the House was to
accept the Helms amendment. And the vote on the Helms amendment was 2
to 1 in favor.
Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the conference
report to accompany Goals 2000: Educate America Act. I took a long hard
look at the provisions of this most important piece of legislation, and
I have concluded that the conferees, in coming up with their final
product, have gone beyond the limits which the Senate imposed on the
Federal Government's role in the traditional State and local authority
over public education.
I supported the Senate version of Goals 2000 because I believed that
the bill retained the extremely important element of local authority
over the education of our children. I have always strongly supported
the power and authority of State education administrations, local
school boards and most importantly, parent's rights and
responsibilities in the education of their children.
The conference report recites that the bill only has voluntary
guidelines and standards to measure the quality, strength, and scope of
our children's education. It says it encourages--but does not require--
States to develop ``State improvement plans,'' to ``enhance'' public
education.
However, the conferees made a major departure from the Senate's
attempt to eliminate mandates. Despite the recitation in the conference
report, it is my view that the standards are effectively mandated on
State plans. If the State plans do not conform to the Federal approach,
States will not receive Federal funds to implement their strategies.
This reminds me of the controversy concerning highway funds and speed
limits. We were told then that our States would receive no Federal
highway funds unless the speed limits were reduced to 55 miles per
hour. I opposed that policy. It may not appear to be a mandate--but it
is the Federal Government saying: If you don't do something, you will
lose your money. It is intrusive and violates the spirit of the
traditional Federal respect for local education authorities.
I am further concerned that at the end of the day we will have spent
scarce Federal dollars on collecting a warehouse full of State plans
and no progress will be made in reforming our Nation's education
system.
What education in our country primarily needs from the Federal
Government is not increased ``oversight'' and intrusion, but
encouragement and financial support for locally structured and
developed strategies for improvement.
At the very center of this bill are the ``goals,'' and it is
important to know how they came to be. In 1989, former President George
Bush called on all 50 Governors to work together to identify ``goals''
for the improvement of our Nation's public schools. Following that, six
goals were identified. They were specifically intended to be general in
scope in order to allow plenty of room for State and local initiative.
I strongly support these goals and that policy.
The goals were intended to be national guidelines and benchmarks and
not a foundation for additional unfunded mandates. It is so very
important to keep in mind that the Senate version of this bill included
absolutely no required compliance with these goals. However, the
conference report requires States to establish and include in their
State plans strategies for meeting the national education goals.
In the final analysis, what is this legislation all about? The
Federal Government has come up with a fairly comprehensive list of what
is wrong with the present system. Congress has allocated funds to help
solve these problems. However, the funds will only be available to
those States who abdicate their traditional role over public education
decisions to the Federal bureaucracy in Washington.
That is what concerns me, and why I am going to follow the wealth of
experience and great expertise in the education area possessed by
Senator Nancy Kassebaum, our very distinguished ranking member of the
Senate committee with jurisdiction over this bill. I agree with her
that the conference report has gone too far. The Senate version of the
bill was about as far as I could ever go.
Unfortunately, it is not unusual around here for House conference
members to take the driver's seat in a legislative vehicle and steer it
too far to the ``left'' for my tastes. That is what I believe has
happened here.
However, I am surely not assessing blame for the conference report on
Secretary Richard Riley. I have known him for 15 years. He is a fine
man. I am always impressed with his competence, his integrity, and his
bipartisan accessibility. But this is a situation on which people of
good faith who truly do want to improve public education in America,
can have reasonable differences. Senator Kassebaum, I, and others of my
colleagues disagree with those who believe that this is not a mandate
on local school authorities. I oppose the passage of the conference
report.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I very much regret that I am prevented
from casting my vote regarding the conference report to the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act.
Early last month, I joined with 70 of my colleagues to support the
Senate-passed version of the Goals 2000 legislation. At the time, I was
pleased that the Senate substantially improved the legislation by
adding provisions to ensure that the Federal Government would not usurp
State control. Education has long been a State and local matter, and I
believed that the Senate bill kept it that way.
Were I able to vote, I would support cloture so that we may vote on
the conference report. I should note, however, that I am concerned
about several aspects of the conference report. Unlike the Senate-
passed version of the Goals 2000 legislation, the conference report
creates a bigger role for the Federal Government. Because the
conference report requires States desiring Goals 2000 money to develop
content and performance standards, I am concerned that financially
strapped States will be coerced on this matter. If this occurs, the
Federal Government will be overstepping its grounds by requiring States
to develop content and performance standards.
Notwithstanding these concerns, I continue to believe that it is
important for us to set national education goals. I worry about the
talk of America's schools and the growing perception that our schools
are failing. The Goals 2000 legislation, while not perfect, will help
lead our Nation's schools toward improvement.
With my colleagues, I will work to ensure that the Goals 2000 program
maintains the traditional role of States and localities in the
education arena. I will be watching the implementation of this
legislation closely to safeguard against Federal over-reaching.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, it is my understanding that titles I, II,
and III of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act are not intended to
authorize the imposition of standards on institutions of higher
education. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources if he concurs in my
interpretation.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Senator from Rhode Island is
correct. The first three titles of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act
are not intended to authorize the imposition of standards on
institutions of higher education.
Mr. PELL. I thank the chairman of the committee for clarifying this
important matter.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am pleased to reaffirm my support for
Goals 2000: Educate America Act as we consider this conference report.
It is critical that the Senate take swift action to pass this
conference report so that funds already appropriated can be used to
help States and school districts begin the process of improving
American education as outlined in this legislation. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this report.
This legislation sets eight important education goals for our Nation;
establishes voluntary, academic, and occupational standards to make
U.S. workers competitive; and provides grants to States and schools
districts to implement systemic reform. In addition, the bill calls for
the development and adoption of voluntary opportunity to learn
standards to ensure all students have a chance to reach the high
academic and vocational standards. Participation in this program is
voluntary and nothing in this legislation will undermine local and
State control of our Nation's schools.
In my January statement, I spoke at length about the importance of
making sure that all children start school ready to learn. This bill
directs the national education goals panel to support the efforts of
its early childhood groups to improve the methods of assessing the
readiness of children for school.
The groups are developing a model that calls for valid and reliable
data on children's readiness along five dimensions. They have also
found that, because the new system they proposed differs substantially
from previous assessment efforts, no instruments currently used meet
all the needs of the new assessments system. They concluded that
existing instruments would have to be substantially modified, and in
some cases, new instruments developed. The proposed assessment system
is to provide information regarding the collective state of young
children that would help guide public policy and not to assess, provide
information on, or make decisions regarding individual children or
specific programs.
By supporting the work of the goal's panel groups to develop new
assessments to meet the needs of its new system, we encourage the
improvement of existing early childhood assessments, to meet those
other purposes. By deleting references to ``norm referenced tests'' we
wanted to assure that we were not suggesting that any particular
assessment or assessment format currently in use may not be appropriate
for certain purposes, or prejudging what forms of assessment will
eventually prove most effective.
In addition, the legislation is clear that members of the National
Education Standards and Improvement Council must meet certain standards
to protect against a possible conflict of interest. It is my
understanding that staff, consultants, and experts employed by NESIC
are also subject to Government ethics requirements as executive branch
officers or employees.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I would like to
comment on the implications this legislation has for students with
disabilities.
On July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] was
signed into law. The ADA is an omnibus civil rights law that prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability by, among others, entities
providing public and private preschool, elementary, and secondary
education.
The ADA is premised on a system of values that forms the basis of our
national disability policy. Under the ADA, disability is recognized as
a natural part of the human experience that in no way diminishes the
right of individuals to live independently, enjoy self-determination,
make choices, contribute to society, pursue meaningful careers, and
enjoy full inclusion and integration in all aspects of American
society.
In short, the ADA established the basis for a national policy that
focuses on the inclusion, independence, and empowerment of individuals
with disabilities.
The ADA has provided the Nation with the impetus to reexamine how it
is treating individuals with disabilities in all aspects of American
life, including public education. At the same time, we are now in the
process of reassessing our educational systems for all students. It is
therefore critical to include students with disabilities in our
nationwide effort to promote systemic educational reform.
Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]
ensures all students with disabilities the right to a free appropriate
public education based on the unique needs of the child. Placement
decisions must be based on a child's individualized education program
[IEP] in which appropriate services are described. To the maximum
extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be educated with
children who are not disabled. Special classes, separate schooling, or
other alternatives for removing children with disabilities from regular
educational environments should only occur when the nature or severity
of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the
use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily.
The promise of part B of IDEA is consistent with the precepts of the
ADA. Reports issued by the U.S. Department of Education and others
indicate that in certain respects the promises of part B of IDEA have
been realized for many students with disabilities. For example, the
number of preschool students receiving a free appropriate public
education has increased from 266,000 to 433,000 since 1986.
In far too many other cases, however, the lack of or improper
implementation has resulted in little progress. For example, data
contained in the Department of Education's ``Fourteenth Annual Report
to Congress'' indicate that little, if any, progress has been made in
ensuring that children who can benefit from education in the regular
class, with necessary supplementary aids and services, are in fact
receiving such an education.
In far too many districts around the country, two separate
educational systems have developed with little or no coordination--one
system for regular or general education and a separate and distinct
system for special education. This isolation and lack of coordination
creates artificial barriers to achieving the promise of part B of the
IDEA, the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
I believe this legislation sends the clear and unequivocal message
that the Goals 2000: Educate America Act is fully consistent with the
ADA and implements the values and precepts of the ADA in the context of
education reform. This legislation is fully consistent with and
complements the spirit and intent of part B of IDEA and section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act is expected to serve as a vehicle for
making the promise of IDEA's part B a reality for all students with
disabilities. Therefore, under this legislation, students with
disabilities, including lesser known and newly emerging disabilities
and students with significant and multiple disabilities, must be an
integral part of all aspects of education reform. This includes the
application of the national education goals and objectives, the
establishment of national and State content, performance, and
opportunity-to-learn standards and the use of assessments and
assessment systems.
The exclusion of individuals with disabilities from any aspect of
State or local education reform is unacceptable. This means that
students with disabilities are entitled to the same high expectations,
treatment, and leadership offered to their nondisabled peers.
An important part of this legislation is the development and adoption
of assessments. The legislation calls for the certification of
assessment systems that include other measures and requires assessments
to provide accommodations and adaptations to enable full participation
by all students.
An assessment system which does not rely on a single assessment is
important for all students, but it is vital for students with
disabilities. Likewise, the provision of appropriate accommodations or
adaptations is important for all students, but is critical for students
with disabilities.
There is evidence of considerable exclusion of students with
disabilities from national and State data collection programs. Research
conducted by the National Center for Education Outcomes at the
University of Minnesota has found that 12 States currently include
fewer than 10 percent of students with disabilities in their
assessments while 21 States include fewer than half of these students.
It is estimated that the National Assessment for Educational Progress
excludes 50 percent of students with disabilities.
We know that students with disabilities can successfully be included
in a system of assessments. For example, in the State of Kentucky 98
percent of all students participate in the regular assessment provided
to nondisabled students and the remainder participate in alternative
portfolio assessments which permit student to demonstrate their
educational proficiency by other means, including real life activities
such as communication with peers, using community supports, maintaining
friendships with nondisabled peers, and demonstrating actual work
experience.
It is also possible that accommodations may be required and should be
provided. These accommodations may include such things as extended time
limits, testing a student in a separate room, large print or braille
versions of assessments, or use of a reader, scribe, sign language
interpreter, or technology. Generally, a student should be provided the
same accommodations in assessment that are provided in instruction.
It is critical to ensure that all students are part of a State
assessment system and are included in assessment reports. The system
must facilitate and in no way impede this participation.
Madam President, this is sound, progressive, legislation that will
enhance the backbone of our society--the education of our children. I
urge its speedy adoption.
Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, I am pleased to add my voice in
support of passage of the conference report to accompany S. 1150, the
Goals 2000 legislation. While I share some of the reservations
expressed by my colleagues regarding this bill, I believe in balance it
represents an opportunity for States across this country to engage in
systemic school reform. My State welcomes this challenge, actively
supports Goals 2000, and looks forward to the opportunity to enhance
their ongoing reform efforts with a Federal compliment.
This legislation includes two pieces of legislation that I have held
near and dear to my heart for several years. The bill embraces a new
National Education Goal--Goal Number Eight--focused on the involvement
of parents and families in education. I was pleased to introduce
legislation earlier this Congress, S. 1118, calling for increased
participation by families in the education process. This goal sets the
foundation for achieving the other National Education Goals and I, for
one, will consider starting from the back of the list when reading the
goals in priority order. Goal number eight should certainly be goal
number one for most educators and their partners all across this
country.
In addition, the conference report we are currently considering
contains broad provisions for regulatory flexibility in education.
These provisions will allow States, local education agencies and
schools to seek waivers of Federal regulation so that they may
ultimately spend more time in the classroom with our students. This has
been a long-fought battle; I would like to take a moment to review the
history of education flexibility in the Senate.
In January of 1991, this body voted 95 to 0 to support an amendment I
offered to S. 2, the Neighborhood Schools Improvement Act, to establish
a demonstration project in education regulatory flexibility. When S. 2
emerged from conference with the House however, it failed to reflect
the true intent of my amendment, causing me to vote against the
conference report. The conference report never emerged from the
Congress.
I then turned to the appropriations process to do what I could to
encourage regulatory flexibility. In 1992, language on education
flexibility was included by the Senate Appropriations Committee in H.R.
5620, a supplemental appropriations bill providing disaster relief
assistance to parts of the country devastated by disasters. Specific
provisions were included in that act to allow the Secretary of
Education to waive Federal regulations in a variety of education
programs in those areas substantially affected by Hurricane Andrew,
Hurricane Iniki and Typhoon Omar. In addition, in the 1993 Labor, HHS,
Education Appropriations bill, the Senate included report language
indicating our support for authorization efforts to enact ed-flex. The
Committee directed the Secretary of Education to report on State
initiatives in this area prior to the fiscal year 1994 appropriations
hearings.
In 1993, I introduced S. 525, legislation to enlarge the scope of my
amendment from S. 2 to establish broad flexibility authority. As the
same time, the Clinton administration put forward Goals 2000 and
included within it major components of S. 525. I held a field hearing
of the Senate Appropriations Committee in Oregon on this issue and
received testimony from many educators in my State who believe in the
innovation which flexibility will afford their reform efforts. In
addition, I joined Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum in requesting a
report by the Government Accounting Office on the efforts in regulatory
flexibility currently ongoing across the country.
This February, when S. 1150 came to the floor, I applauded the ed-
flex provisions included in the legislation and joined with Senator
Durenberger to establish an additional ed-flex demonstration program
which would essentially grant six States the authority to waive Federal
regulations in concert with waiving State regulations--all with the
same goal of enhancing systemic reform efforts. The demonstration
amendment, which I refer to as ``ed-flex plus'' passed the Senate by
vote of 97-0. During conference with the House, this amendment survived
nearly intact. The final language included in the conference report
makes this demonstration, entitled the ``Education Flexibility
Partnership Act,'' permissive, rather than mandatory.
I had the opportunity to raise this issue on Tuesday of this week
when Secretary of Education Richard Riley appeared before the Labor,
HHS, Education Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I
asked Secretary Riley to describe his level of support for the
demonstration and to state for the public record his intentions in
terms of its implementation. He told me and the other members of the
subcommittee that he is fully supportive of the demonstration and will
implement the program.
Finally, 3 years from when we started, our States will be given the
opportunity to ask the Federal Government for relief from certain
regulations. This is long-overdue and much anticipated by many States,
including progressive havens of reform like my own State of Oregon. Our
State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Norma Paulus, and her
capable staff, Joyce Benjamin, have my unwavering support for their
dedication to the vision of education flexibility and the personal
attention they have given to this cause.
In addition to the provisions I have outlined, I am pleased that this
legislation will support ongoing reform efforts in the States, rather
than require new processes and plans. The bill contains language
regarding preexisting State plans which permits the Secretary of
Education to accept a preexisting State plan as a Goals 2000 reform
plan. I worked with Senators Kennedy and Jeffords on this language to
ensure that maximum consideration will be given to preexisting State
plans. Senator Kennedy and I engaged in a colloquy on this issue during
Senate consideration of S. 1150 and I refer my colleagues to that
exchange.
The concerns I have related to this bill regard the compromise on
Opportunity-To-Learn standards and the mandatory nature of content and
performance standards. I believe all of these types of standards should
be voluntary, however, because my State has already addressed most of
these issues, I am not willing to oppose this legislation and stand in
the way of the rest of Goals 2000 coming to bear in Oregon.
Orienting Federal involvement in education to system inputs rather
than outcomes is a slippery slope for us as policymakers. We are
bordering dangerously close to dictating educational approaches and
environments in the States. We must observe caution in going any
further down this path and I will be watching the development of Goals
2000 carefully in this regard to insure that it does not become overly
intrusive into the traditional domain of the States in education.
At this point in time I would like to extend my gratitude to the
members of the Labor Committee who worked with me on my priorities
relating to Goals 2000. I am particularly grateful to Senators Kennedy,
Kassebaum, Pell, Jeffords, and Durenberger. I would also like to thank
Ellen Guiney, Lisa Ross, David Evans, Pam Devitt and Susan Heegaard for
their tireless efforts to work with my staff on this bill.
I urge the support of my colleagues for passage of this conference
report.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act is a
very important step toward achieving the improvements in education that
our Nations children deserve and for which we have been striving for a
decade. We have spent far too long focusing on what is wrong with
education. This bill encourages States, local education agencies, and
individual schools to look at what is right in education and to use
that as a model for improvement and reform.
One of the most troubling problems that has plagued many of our
Nation's schools is violence. There are children who are literally
afraid to go to school because of the presence of weapons on school
grounds. Imagine trying to learn in an environment of fear. This bill
takes steps to address this unacceptable situation. It includes the
Safe Schools Act, as well as my amendment to expand one of the goals to
read ``By the year 2000, every school in the United States will be free
of violence, drugs, and the presence of unauthorized firearms.'' This
is an important step in the right direction.
The role of our schools has changed drastically in the past three
decades, and schools have taken on extraordinary new burdens. Today, we
are seeing youngsters with learning disabilities; youngsters who don't
get enough to eat; youngsters born with a drug or fetal alcohol
problem; youngsters from totally shattered families. As a society we
expect that our schools will take in these children and help make their
lives better through education, and many schools have met these
expectations. Yet, we now have an element that makes our work even more
difficult; and that element is guns.
Children of all ages, in every State across the Nation, have access
to guns. When I was Governor in my State, the worst one might hear of
at the schools was a fistfight. A gun incident, or shooting, was
unheard of. Rhode Island is not a major urban area. Yet this year we
have seen a dozen gun incidents in our schools.
What is the only route for school administrators to take? To ensure
the safety of all who are in the school, administrators are forced to
divert scarce funds from books to $4,000 metal detectors. In July 1992,
25 percent of the 45 largest school districts were using metal
detectors; today, 69 percent are using them.
The Safe Schools amendment authorizes Federal grants to school
districts to fight violence in their schools. The money may be used for
planning strategies to prevent violence, conducting safety reviews,
developing violence prevention activities, providing counseling for
victims of violence, and even purchasing metal detectors and other
security equipment. This is an important step toward ensuring our
schools are safe.
The presence of guns in schools diminishes the work of educators
across the country. This bill takes steps to ensure that our heavily
burdened schools are free of guns and the violence that results.
I am also pleased to be here this morning to ensure passage of this
important legislation because my State of Rhode Island is working very
hard to develop the kind of education reform plan that this bill
encourages.
The National Education Standards and Improvement Council will develop
national opportunity-to-learn standards, content standards, and student
performance standards and assessments, but it will be up; to the States
to determine the content of their education reform plans and to decide
what provisions will be implemented.
This bill takes a bold and positive approach by recognizing that
every child has the ability to learn and by taking steps to assure that
the tools are available to enable all children to reach their full
potential. Setting high standards for teaching and learning and making
sure that students have mastered the material presented to them is long
overdue.
Earlier, I spoke about the new challenges that face our Nation's
schools. As those challenges have increased, parental participation in
education seems to have dropped off in many areas. Goals 2000 makes
clear that parents play a key role in the education of their children.
It seems to me that without parental involvement in education, there
will be no real reforms and improvements. This legislation includes a
goal that calls upon parents to become partners with their children's
schools. Experience has taught us that children whose parents are
actively involved in the educational process simply do better in school
than children whose parents or families are disengaged.
This bill includes other important provisions related to parental
involvement that I cosponsored: the Parents as Teachers Program [PAT]
and the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters [HIPPY]. Both
of these programs operate successfully in Rhode Island and across the
Nation. Their purpose is to ensure that all children start school on
the right foot.
In sum, Madam President, the Goals 2000 legislation is right in line
with reform efforts that are underway in Rhode Island and many other
States. Passage of this legislation brings us one step closer to
forging a new and constructive partnership between every school, school
district, State, and the Federal Government. It is through this
partnership that our children will receive the world class education
they deserve.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to explain why I will vote for
the budget for 1995 now before the Senate. I view this budget as a
major achievement, but I will work to improve our financial picture
still further. I'd like to let my colleagues know the stand I am taking
and why I am taking it.
CONTINUING DEFICIT REDUCTION
The most important thing to note about this budget resolution is that
it continues the deficit reduction that President Clinton and Congress
began last year. Those of us who voted for the Clinton deficit
reduction plan--even though the plan was painful--can take pride in the
fact that next year's deficit will be cut by nearly one half from the
record deficit of 1992.
If you look at the deficit as a percentage of our economy, which is
the most useful way of determining how large the deficit is, you find
that we have cut the deficit in half in 3 years. The last
administration to cut the deficit 3 years running was that of President
Truman.
I do not mean to suggest that we can rest on our laurels. Next year's
deficit--at $171 billion--is still too high. And I will mention later
some of the further steps I think we can take. But we should remember
that the 5-year deficits projected in January 1993 by the Congressional
Budget Office have since shrunk by $548 billion. That is a cut of 37
percent. And this budget that we are now considering would make still
more cuts.
THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
Most of these cuts were originally proposed by President Clinton, and
I want to salute him for his continuing commitment to cut the deficit.
President Clinton's budget request, submitted to us in early
February, contained a domestic discretionary spending freeze.
Discretionary spending includes all Federal spending other than
interest, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps, and
civilian and military retirement. The administration budget did not
even request increases to keep discretionary spending level with
inflation.
The President proposed to eliminate 115 programs. He also proposed to
cut hundreds of programs. And he suggested only one tax increase: on
cigarettes, to pay for health care reform.
The President proposed to use some of these savings to make
investments in transportation, education, technology, environmental,
public health, and community policing programs. Head Start, WIC, worker
retraining, and child immunizations all receive substantial increases
under this budget. I think these are important investments in our
country's future, and I believe they are wisely chosen.
north dakota's concerns
The Senate Budget Committee has made some changes to the President's
budget request. Some of these are very important to the people of North
Dakota, so I would like to mention them.
Most importantly, the Budget Committee has gone on record to oppose
drastic cuts to the Nation's fleet of B-52 bombers. This is a crucial
matter. If the Congress accepts the proposed cut to the B-52 fleet, we
will not have enough bombers to handle two regional conflicts. This is
the standard for defense capabilities that the Defense Department set
for itself in the Bottom Up Review. And the strategic mission of our
bomber fleet would suffer as well. The proposed B-52 cut is another
example of the Pentagon's tendency to retire weapons systems that still
have useful service lives and are combat-proven. The B-1 is not fully
operational, the B-2 is not yet online, and yet the administration has
proposed B-52 cuts that contradict its own force structure guidelines.
Let me quote the sections of the Budget Committee's report that touch
on this question.
The Committee is particularly concerned that the administration chose
to recommend a reduction of 30 B-52H bombers when the B-52 is the only
reliable and combat-proven long-range bomber in the inventory. The B-52
represents a cost-effective way to retain force structure, and the
Committee strongly urges the administration to reassess its
recommendation to cut the B-52 force.
I salute the Budget Committee for this statement about the importance
of the B-52 bomber. This is my view too. As Congress considers the
defense spending bills later this year, I will work to ensure that we
not drastically cut the B-52 fleet.
In another area, the Budget Committee recommended restoring $520
million, or 70 percent, of the proposed cut to the Low Income Heating
Energy Assistance Program. Everyone knows that North Dakota winters are
among the most severe in the country. I want to stress that in North
Dakota, this funding will save lives.
The Committee also restored $63 million in funding for Rural Electric
Administration loans and loan guarantees. Ever since the 1930's, the
REA has helped provide telephone service and electricity to rural
America--a part of the country that otherwise might not get that
service, and would not be able to afford it as easily.
So I want to acknowledge these efforts by the Budget Committee, and I
particularly want to salute the Chairman of the Committee, Senator
Sasser, for his fine efforts during the Committee's consideration of
this budget.
indian affairs funding
As a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I am deeply
concerned at the cuts that this budget would still impose on Indian
affairs funding. The budget before us would cut funding for the Indian
Health Services by $247 million, or 12.7 percent, from last year's
level. This is a drastic cut to a program that serves a population that
is particularly at risk of certain health problems.
Even worse is the proposed cut in Indian Health Service personnel.
Under this budget, the IHS would assume 49 percent of the personnel
reductions at the Department of Health and Human Services in fiscal
year 1995 and 83 percent of the Department's personnel reductions in
1996. When you consider that the IHS accounts for only 2 percent of the
total Health and Human Services budget, you realize that these
personnel cuts are unfairly skewed.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Indian Affairs
Committee to correct this proposal as Congress considers this year's
spending bills.
further spending cuts
Last, I want to make further reductions in other Government spending
in order to come closer to balancing the budget. In fact, I voted just
last month for a balanced budget amendment, and I voted the month
before that, during our rescissions debate, to make $43 billion in
spending cuts over the next 5 years. So I think there is more deficit
reduction to be done.
One particular area where we can cut further is foreign aid. I
support the Clinton Administration's foreign aid reform efforts, but I
am concerned that the foreign aid budget is still too driven by
military aid considerations. I believe that this is something that
Congress should scrutinize closely when we debate the foreign aid
appropriations bill.
Second, as Chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee's
Special Task Force on Government Waste, I want to let my colleagues
know that I will pursue a number of avenues to cut wasteful spending.
These include a moratorium on Federal building projects, which is a
step that Vice President Gore endorsed in his National Performance
Review; a civilian facilities closure commission, which would operate
like the base closing commission but would target wasteful civilian
facilities; and a cut to overhead spending, which is the first place
that a private business in financial difficulty would cut. I want to
let my colleagues know that I will act on these issues on the Senate
floor.
overall, a good budget
In summary, let me just salute President Clinton and the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. Sasser] on their leadership in proposing this budget. It
allows us to continue down the path of deficit reduction that we
charted last year. This proposal cuts unnecessary spending, makes
targeted investments in needed areas, and addresses many of the needs
of my State.
As I have made clear, I do not view it as a perfect budget. In fact,
I will work to change some of its recommendations. But on balance it is
a good budget, and I will therefore vote to approve it.
I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his courtesy, and I yield the
floor.
____________________