[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.

                          ____________________