[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]

 
           GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to address concerns about Goals 
2000. While there will be differing views as to whether or not to 
include the provision with regard to prayer, I am sure every Senator in 
this body joins me in looking for a dramatic change in the way our 
education system works.
  Everyone must have asked themselves why Americans seem to fall behind 
in this category. It is particularly amazing because the American 
experience is one which has resulted in excellence in almost every 
discipline. Indeed, our educational achievements at the graduate level 
and postgraduate level are remarkable and lead the world. The United 
States remains the place to come for graduate school and advanced 
degrees. Yet, for some reason our K-12 education experience has not 
remained competitive with many other countries around the world, some 
of the same countries that supplied the population that makes up 
America.
  Do people lose intellectual capacity when they cross the water to 
come to America? I think not. Is there something inferior about this 
Nation that would result in the lack of achievement in the K-12 area? I 
think not, Mr. President. Everything we can look at seems to indicate 
exactly the opposite. The freedom and democracy that has blessed this 
shore has showered achievement in almost every area of human endeavor. 
To be sure, it has brought out the best in all of us.
  Then why the failure of achievement in the K-12 area? Many of the 
comparative studies seem to indicate that our high school graduates may 
be as much as 2 years behind their counterparts in Europe or Japan or 
China or other countries around the world. Some would say it is because 
we attempt to educate the entire population while others are more 
restrictive and selective. Yet the figures do not seem to bear that 
out. While that may well be a factor, it is not by any means the only 
factor. In fact, there are some studies that show that other countries 
have very broad educational policies as well. No, the answer lies 
somewhere else. I do not pretend to be the Nation's expert in this 
area, but the studies have shown some differences in the K-12 area, and 
I think those differences are worth looking at.
  The first is the number of school days. Quite simply, how many days a 
year do our children go to school and how does that compare with their 
competitors around the world? The studies are very dramatic and quite 
clear. Our children go to school a significantly fewer number of days 
per year than other students around the world. Could this be part of 
the explanation? I think so. We simply are not going to have the same 
educational achievement if our students are not in school.
  One of the things that clearly needs to change if we are to become 
competitive again is that the length of the school year must be 
extended. We must be competitive in the length of time our students 
commit to education if we are to be competitive in their achievement 
levels.
  The second dramatic difference between the American schools and 
others is the length of the school day. Several months ago I had the 
privilege of chatting with a young man in a school in Adams County, CO. 
He had endured difficult problems. Indeed, he was a year behind those 
people in school of similar age. At one point, he had dropped out. 
Thanks to what I thought was a very progressive program, he had been 
recruited to come back to school and was finishing the 8th grade.
  He is a delightful young man. When I chatted with him about the 
program, he expressed optimism about his future because of the special 
attention he received. I asked him many questions about the program, 
but I remember one of his answers particularly well. I asked him when 
his school day was completed. He finished school at 1:15 in the 
afternoon.
  He attended somewhere around 4 hours of classroom instruction a day 
and he was free from 1:15 p.m. on. Interestingly, he did not have 
homework, or at least any significant amount he felt compelled to spend 
a meaningful amount of time doing. His day, in terms of academic 
preparation, ended at 1:15 in the afternoon. His mother did not get 
home until 6 o'clock. While he was clearly an active, vigorous young 
man with lots of energy, he led an unstructured and unsupervised life 
between 1:15 and 6 o'clock.
  That is the comparison between ourselves and other countries. Their 
school days are longer. One of the reasons we do not achieve the same 
way other countries achieve is simply because we ask our children to 
stay in school a shorter amount of time. Can we learn more on less 
time, fewer hours? I think not. As creative and productive as Americans 
are, they still have to put in the time and the effort to compete. So, 
the second difference is not simply matching our competitors with the 
number of school days, but it has to be asking our children to put in 
the same amount of time during the school day.
  Mr. President, I particularly believe that length of time in the 
school day is extremely important. Young men and women who are going 
through our school system are filled with energy and enthusiasm, and if 
their time is not filled with productive pursuits, it may well be 
filled with pursuits that result in trouble and, yes, even crime.
  The explosion of violence in our society and the increase in the 
number of gangs is in part related to the fact that there are not 
productive, active pursuits available for our children during the 
daytime. This particular young man is free from 1:15 to 6 o'clock. He 
is filled with energy and excitement. He has the potential for getting 
into trouble.
  We have restricted children from working part-time jobs, even ones 
that would help them when their family needs help, even ones that would 
help fill time in productive pursuit. Perhaps there is something we can 
do to allow young men and women who want to work part time to fill 
their time with work. Perhaps we ought to look at the restrictions we 
have on such jobs. I, for one, am convinced that good healthy work can 
help fill time in a productive way and serve a useful productive 
function for our society. It can also constitute the some of the 
strongest and best training that a young person can receive. Learning 
how to work is every bit as important as any single academic enterprise 
that we have. Tragically, some of our laws at the State level, perhaps 
even at the national level, restrict that opportunity.
  Mr. President, there was another difference between our schools and 
those of our competitors, that is the lack of homework in American 
schools. While we have some schools that provide significant and 
meaningful homework responsibilities and assignments, a large majority 
of our public schools simply do not have purposeful, challenging 
homework assignments for our students. However, I can guarantee you the 
Japanese do. The Japanese care about their children; they care about 
their academic success. And part of that caring is the assignment of 
homework that both challenges the student and brings out the best in 
them.
  There is nothing wrong with Americans. We can compete with the best 
in the world. But we cannot compete if we do not show up for the race, 
and we are not showing up for the race when there is no homework.
  A fourth area that I am convinced is very important is discipline. It 
is clear that while levels of discipline and methods of discipline vary 
dramatically around the world, the United States may be at the bottom 
rung in terms of imposing discipline upon their students. Certainly 
discipline is a function that must go far deeper than our schools. It 
must begin with the family and parents; it must involve society as a 
whole. But our schools have a part to play, and tying the disciplinary 
hands of the teachers and the principals, who are required to 
administer those schools, is a disservice to the students. No one would 
accept cruel or hateful treatment of our students, and there is no 
question that discipline can be overdone. But it also can be underdone. 
Lack of discipline invites chaos in many of our schools.
  Those are four differences, Mr. President, that I think make a 
difference in American education. As we talk about the future of 
education, we see many plans drawn up and many suggestions made. That 
is part of the richness of this country. It is part of the value I hope 
will come forth. But this Senator believes that until we deal with 
these four basic fundamental differences between our schools and our 
competitors' schools, we will not have addressed the reason why 
Americans fall behind in K-12 education.
  I am one who believes that there is nothing wrong with Americans; 
that we are capable of competing and excelling. We have the ability not 
only to catch up with the rest of the world in K-12 education, but to 
outshine them all as, indeed, we have through much of our history. But 
it must involve fundamental changes and, at a minimum, it must involve 
a longer school year, a longer school day, more homework and stronger 
discipline. Those four pillars will help support a resurgence of 
education in this Nation.
  Mr. President, I cannot help but recollect the very enlightening and 
helpful discussions that you have brought to this Chamber in your 
discussions of the history of Rome and of world history. The University 
of Colorado library has chiseled over it a saying I think is 
particularly appropriate, particularly since I have had the pleasure of 
listening to your many eloquent talks on the floor concerning Roman 
history. It says: ``He who knows only his own generation remains always 
a child.'' Indeed, I believe it is so.
  As America faces troubling times, it perhaps is worthwhile for us to 
take a moment to look back at the lessons of history.
  One particular interesting story from William Durant I want to 
relate. It involves a period of French history just prior to the French 
Revolution. These were tumultuous times not only for France but also, 
as the President knows well, the United States. This was a time, during 
and after our revolution, where we held the torch of liberty aloft for 
all to see. And those stirrings of independence and liberty swept the 
European continent as well. No, they did not change governments 
immediately, but they did something just as important or perhaps more 
important. They influenced and impacted the minds of the men and women 
who would direct the future.
  France had enormous problems during this period. They had a runaway 
budget deficit. Expenditures exceeded income in dramatic fashion. They 
had a huge military. They had a queen that, while beautiful, was 
extravagant. The annual budget for jewelry was a horrendous sum by any 
measurement.
  They had tolls on the roads, ones that restricted commerce and 
industry throughout France. Those tolls made it more difficult for 
imports and exports to go through the country, made it much more 
difficult for farmers and merchants to deliver their goods and compete 
throughout the country. They had enormous trade barriers. So, as a 
result, many of their industries were not competitive.
  Further, the guilds within Paris and other parts of France restricted 
competition; restricted competition not just for the benefit of the 
guilds but to the detriment of consumers. Moreover, the French found it 
more and more difficult to compete in world markets, such as they were 
at that time, because lack of competition within the country made it 
more difficult for them to compete outside the country.
  The French also had a tax code that was dreadful by any measurement. 
It imposed on the working men and women of the country a horrendous 
burden. Yet the church lands, which were numerous and significant, and 
the royalty of the country were largely exempt from paying taxes. The 
burden paying fell on those who could least afford it and on those who 
were called upon to do the work.
  The country went from bad to worse. The deficit skyrocketed. Unable 
to face the various interest groups that plagued them even in that day, 
the problems rolled on and grew. Finally, the French had incurred such 
horrendous problems in financing their debt that they were forced to go 
to the Dutch to refinance it. They got to the point where, to finance 
that debt, as Durant relates, they drew interest rates of 12 percent, 
14 percent, and even 16 percent as the problem spiraled out of control.
  In desperation, the King turned to a new finance minister, and gave 
him very broad powers. Turgot was brought in as finance minister and 
given wide powers to deal with the economic and fiscal problems of the 
country. What he did was to bring tough medicine to France. But he 
established a model for what one must do to bring an economy in line 
and to straighten out a country's fiscal crisis.
  What Turgot did was address the problems. He took on all of the 
interest groups. The toughest interest group of all was the Queen. He 
eliminated her budget for jewelry; it was a major item, and it was not 
unnoticed by the King and the Queen. He cut back on household expenses 
for the King. He went to the military and cut it back significantly. He 
eliminated the tolls on the roads so competition and commerce could 
expand. He eliminated the trade barriers and, indeed, while they 
received many imports from England, they were able to export more wine 
and other products.
  France, when they eliminated their trade barriers, instead of 
becoming less competitive, became more competitive. Turgot restricted 
the ability of the guilds to corner markets and restrict trade. He was 
an early forerunner of our antimonopoly concept, pioneered by 
Americans. It was not called that. Trusts were not involved. But Turgot 
quickly understood that the concentration of economic powers under the 
guild system harmed and dramatically injured the competitiveness of the 
French economy.
  Turgot took on the exempt areas of taxation and, indeed, insisted 
that the royalty pay taxes. At any rate, he took on many of the 
exemptions that they held. And while he did not go as far as he wished, 
he did make some progress in broadening the tax base.
  In short, in 18 or 19 months Turgot was able to balance the budget, a 
task that people had thought impossible. He was able to dramatically 
reduce the trade deficit. He was able to significantly spur and 
increase the competitiveness of their economy. He was able to refinance 
the debt. Astoundingly, a debt that was loaned or borrowed at 12, 14, 
and 16 percent was refinanced at 4\1/2\ percent after only 18 or 19 
months.
  After he achieved the refinancing, he found that every single 
interest group that he had offended, or taken on, had teamed up against 
him. The Queen, the military, those who owned the toll highways, the 
guilds, the royalty, even the church, they took Turgot and threw him 
out of office. Within a brief time, the French Revolution occurred.
  There are many reasons the French Revolution occurred. I do not mean 
to pretend that the return to the old ways of tax and spend were the 
only ones, or the unwillingness to live with competitiveness, or the 
unwillingness to curb appetites for military, jewels, and other 
household trappings. But one has to wonder how different history might 
have been if Turgot had not been thrown out of office but had stayed.
  What happened, of course, is the inflation that Turgot had quieted 
returned; inflation came back, the economic instability returned, 
shortages occurred, and the economic crisis facilitated a political 
crisis.
  The reality was that Turgot had the right answers. Turgot's instinct 
or willingness to make sacrifices and to bring budgets into line, his 
willingness to make tough choices, his willingness to take on special 
interests, his willingness to broaden the tax base, his willingness to 
stand up for good, for what his country was and for what the special 
interests were against, could have saved France a bloodbath.
  Perhaps, in all, the democracy that eventually came to France was 
worth it. But one has to wonder if there was not a better way. One 
wonders if Turgot 's vision and foresight and courage could not have 
saved many lives and meant a different destiny for Europe than the 
years of bloody wars brought on by Napoleon and the instability that 
spread far beyond French borders. It is an answer no one will know, but 
I cannot help but think this country, with our inability and our 
unwillingness to face up to the terrible budget deficits that lie 
before us, does not face great instability as well.
  The blessing of liberty and the enormous outpouring of spirit and 
creativity that have come from the American people are part and parcel 
of what I believe our freedom is all about. And yet this last year we 
had over 70,000 pages of new regulations published in the Federal 
Register. We have adopted a form of central planning in this Nation 
which may be more efficient than any country in the world has ever 
placed upon its people. It may be more efficient because it is more 
numerous and more detailed with stricter enforcement.
  The creative spirit of this country will not be dampened by thousands 
of pages of new regulations, or even 70,000 pages of new regulations, 
or even 20 years of 70,000 pages of new regulation per year. But it 
will be impacted. The spirit and the enterprise of this country will 
not be eliminated by taxes that rise higher and higher and penalize 
people for working harder and harder. But it will be affected by it. 
The willingness of our citizens to save and plan for the future and 
prepare for their children will not be eliminated by a Tax Code that 
penalizes savings, but it will be impacted.
  The fact that we have the lowest net savings rate of any major 
industrialized country in the world speaks volumes about what we have 
done to incentives in America. There are those in this Congress who 
come here with a deep and abiding commitment to make sure that the 
wealth of the Nation is redivided in a way that gives all a chance and, 
indeed, this Nation is committed to make sure each one has a chance.
  But in our enthusiasm to redivide the wealth in the Nation, we must 
never forget the engine that drives America is that spirit of free 
enterprise. It is that ability to keep a fair share of what one 
produces for themselves and their family, that ability to make 
decisions about their own lives--yes, even when they might make 
mistakes. We do not want to kill off the engine that sparks this 
Nation, that drives this Nation, that makes this a creative phenomenon, 
with our enthusiasm for giving all a chance.
  In the last analysis, giving all a chance is a valuable and important 
goal, but it is dramatically different than making everyone equal in 
the final result. Our Founding Fathers and our leaders, since the time 
this Republic began, believed that America was all about giving 
everyone a chance and an opportunity. Our commitment to education is 
part and parcel of that concern. We have long believed, and I believe 
rightly so, that education should be available to all of this land 
because it is fundamental to having a chance to make it up the rungs of 
the ladder of success, to climb the rungs that provide greater 
opportunity.
  But making all come out the same, is not making them the same. Those 
who work harder deserve to live better, and if they do not, we send a 
message that hard work and achievement are not to be rewarded in 
America. Have we gone too far? Have we begun to slow the engine of 
creativity of progress? The numbers sometimes tell the story.
  Our rate of growth of productivity has lagged and lagged for many 
years now. True, we are still the most productive people on the face of 
the Earth. But the rate of our productivity growth is slow when you 
look at it over the long-term. That has to be reversed. Our rate of 
savings has fallen from one of the highest in the world to one of the 
lowest in terms of the large industrialized nations.
  Our willingness to face up to tough problems has also suffered in 
recent years. The reality is that those who would be concerned about 
America's future and draw from the lessons of history should be 
concerned about our failure to deal with the problems that are before 
us.
  I would add this: That the observations of Polybius and Cicero about 
the cycles of government can apply to America just as they applied to 
ancient Greece and to ancient Rome. The observation is that the 
tendency toward a greater and greater concentration of power occurred 
both in Greece and later in Rome. Now it indeed applies to the United 
States. We have gone from a country where power was widely spread to 
where it has become more and more and more concentrated in the hands of 
a few.
  When Washington begins to control the details of our daily lives, 
when a small number of men and women take on the power to spend the 
fruits of what working men and women produce in our country, when they 
take on the power to decide how we live our daily lives in detail, when 
they issue 70,000 pages of new regulations in the Federal Register last 
year, we begin to see a society where the power of the Nation is taken 
from the individual citizens and concentrated more and more in the 
hands of a few elite in Washington, DC.
  Polybius and Cicero knew what was going on when they saw the same 
tendencies and the same cycles appear in their societies. They also saw 
the danger and the lack of vigor, trust, and creativity result when a 
few try and control the majority.
  I, for one, am convinced that the tendency of our Government in 
Washington to concentrate the power of this Nation in the hands of a 
few in this city is a great mistake. There is a valuable and important 
purpose for our levels of local and State government, there is a 
valuable reason for the tenth amendment of the Constitution. The best 
repository of our power and our strength is in the hands of the 
individual citizen, not in the hands of the elite who decide how their 
money is spent, how they live their daily lives and the details of 
their daily work.
  My impression is that the economy shows that same tendency. Giant 
businesses are often not as competitive as ones of individual 
entrepreneurs, who have the flexibility and creativity to move quickly 
on opportunity and with the motivation coming from having your own 
destiny in your own hands.

                          ____________________