[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 104 (Tuesday, August 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
SUPPORT OF AN AMENDMENT TO S. 1513 ADDING THE FAMILIES OF CHILDREN WITH 
  DISABILITIES SUPPORT ACT OF 1994 AS A NEW PART I TO THE INDIVIDUALS 
                    WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. HARKIN. On May 23, 1994, I introduced S. 2144, the Support for 
Families With Children With Disabilities Act of 1994, along with my 
colleagues Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Simon, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy 
Mr. Metzenbaum, and Mr. Wellstone. The legislation adds a new part I to 
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
  Today, I am offering this bill as an amendment to S. 1513, the 
Improving America's School Act of 1993. I would like to thank the 
managers of this bill for including my amendment in the managers' 
amendment.
  For the past 18 months, families of children with disabilities from 
Iowa and throughout the country, together with the Consortium for 
Citizens With Disabilities, have worked to develop recommendations for 
Federal legislation on family support for families of children with 
disabilities.
  Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank them 
for their effort. This is your legislation; congratulations.
  Let me briefly explain why I believe this legislation is necessary. 
When Congress enacted the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, we 
did more than pass comprehensive civil rights legislation. We also 
enunciated the fundamental precept of our national disability policy--
that disability is a natural part of the human experience that in no 
way diminishes the fundamental right of individuals with disabilities 
to live independently, enjoy self-determination, make choices, 
contribute to society, and enjoy full inclusion and integration in all 
aspects of American society.
  On the day the Senate finally passed the ADA, I made a dedication:

       All across our Nation mothers are giving birth to infants 
     with disabilities. So I want to dedicate the Americans With 
     Disabilities Act to these, the next generation of children 
     and their families.
       With the passage of the ADA, we as a society make a pledge 
     that every child with a disability will have the opportunity 
     to maximize his or her potential to live proud, productive, 
     and prosperous lives in the mainstream of our society. We 
     love you all and welcome you into the world. We look forward 
     to becoming your friends, your neighbors, and your coworkers.
       We say, whatever you decide as your goal, go for it. The 
     doors are opening and the barriers are coming down.

  The unfortunate truth is that our current so-called system of 
services does not empower families desiring to raise their children 
with disabilities at home and in their communities consistent with the 
precepts of the ADA.
  I believe this legislation will help us transform those current State 
systems, many of which foster dependence, separation, and paternalism 
into systems that foster inclusion, independence, and empowerment. The 
bill assists States, through systems change grants, develop or expand 
and improve family-centered and family-directed, community-centered, 
comprehensive, statewide systems of family supports for families of 
children with disabilities that are true to the precepts of the ADA.
  On May 10, 1994, I held a hearing before the Subcommittee on 
Disability Policy, which I chair. One of the witnesses was Allan 
Bergman who testified on behalf of the Consortium for Citizens with 
Disabilities Task Force on Children and Families. He shared with the 
subcommittee his understanding of the vision of the legislation:

       This bill declares a set of values and principles in 
     Federal law that sends a message throughout this country and 
     to all the States and to all families that we believe in the 
     family unit and we are prepared to support you as you go 
     forward in maintaining your rightful place in the community.

  Dave Novak, from Cedar Rapids, IA, stressed to the members of the 
Subcommittee the importance of enacting this legislation:

       Federal policy needs to support families. We don't need a 
     federal policy that would divide families. We need to have a 
     federal policy that is going to bring families together.

  Sue Swenson from Minneapolis, explained the need for this legislation 
to focus on systems change:

       We desperately need in this country Federal systems change 
     legislation to address family support for families who are 
     raising a child with, perhaps, extraordinary needs. The 
     systems, as they are right now, don't work. In fact, in many 
     instances, they hurt families. We cannot afford, as a nation, 
     to pour money into systems that hurt such a basic piece of 
     our democracy as the family unit, as the family structure.

  One of the important provisions in the legislation calls for the 
establishment of a State policy council for family support for families 
of children with disabilities. Cathy Ficker-Terrill of Elmhurst, IL 
voiced strong support for this provision:

       This legislation allows each state to have a council that 
     is not only family-centered but family-driven. We don't need 
     to create another system that is solely professionally-
     driven. The Council will allow each state to focus on the 
     entire family. It will respect changing family needs, and 
     most importantly, the council will respect cultural, 
     economic, and spiritual differences of families.

  I asked the witnesses whether they believed that this modest bill 
could truly make a difference. According to Donald Shumway, the 
director of the Division of Mental Health and Developmental 
Disabilities for the State of New Hampshire:

       This modest statute has the potential to influence 
     government policy, federal, state, and local, more positively 
     than do many of the federal government's largest pieces of 
     legislation. I know, because New Hampshire has taken its 
     first steps in this direction of family support, and it is 
     the best human services policy that we have made in at least 
     two decades.

  Mr. Shumway explained to the subcommittee that the proposed 
legislation is similar to New Hampshire's family support law supported 
by and signed by Governor Sununu in 1988, and strongly supported and 
expanded by Governors Gregg and Merrill. He then asked a rhetorical 
question about the nonpartisan nature of support for family support 
legislation:

       Why, you might ask, are three consecutive Governors of a 
     very conservative state wild about family support? The answer 
     lies first in the values that underlie family support. This 
     is a self-help program; however, it does not stop there. 
     Family support is a common-sense problem solver, and family 
     support is a community builder.

  These witnesses provided compelling testimony in support of this 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment adding family 
support for families of children with disabilities to our national 
disability policy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record 
following my remarks a brief description of the legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Families of Children with Disabilities Support Act of 1994 Brief 
                                Summary


                              introduction

       The major focus of the bill is to provide competitive 
     grants to States to develop or enhance statewide systems of 
     family support for families of children with disabilities. 
     The bill recognizes that States have different levels of 
     development of statewide systems of family support for 
     families of children with disabilities. For States that are 
     just beginning to develop family support systems for families 
     of children with disabilities, the bill allows them to apply 
     for State grants to ``develop and implement'' these systems. 
     States that have made significant progress in the development 
     of family-centered and family-directed approaches to family 
     support for families of children with disabilities may apply 
     for State grants to ``expand and enhance'' statewide systems 
     of family support for families of children with disabilities.
       The legislation is not intended to provide support for 
     direct services to families of children with disabilities or 
     to create a new entitlement. Rather, the legislation is 
     designed as a ``systems change'' bill to assist States and 
     families to work in partnership to develop statewide systems 
     of family support for families of children with disabilities 
     that are family-centered and family-directed and that use 
     existing resources more efficiently. It is intended to 
     address the priorities and concerns of those families who 
     want to raise their children with disabilities at home and in 
     their communities. Thus, under the legislation, ``family 
     support'' for families of children with disabilities is 
     intended to foster in-home care when it is desired by the 
     family and appropriate for the child with a disability.
       Findings. The findings of the bill recognize, among other 
     things, that: children, including children with disabilities, 
     benefit from enduring family relationships in a nurturing 
     home environment; many families experience exceptionally high 
     financial outlays and significant physical and emotional 
     challenges in meeting the special needs of their children 
     with disabilities; there are financial disincentives for 
     families to care for their children with disabilities at 
     home; supporting families to enable them to care for their 
     children with disabilities at home is efficient and can be 
     cost-effective; and there is a need for statewide, 
     comprehensive, coordinated, interagency systems of family 
     support for families of children with disabilities that is 
     family-centered and family-directed, easily accessible, and 
     that avoids duplication, uses existing resources more 
     efficiently, and prevents gaps in services.
       Purpose. The purposes of the bill are to (1) provide 
     financial assistance to States to support systems change 
     activities to assist each State to develop and implement, or 
     expand and enhance, a statewide system of family support for 
     families of children with disabilities and to ensure the full 
     participation, choice and control by families of children 
     with disabilities; and (2) enhance the ability of the 
     Federal Government to identify Federal policies that 
     facilitate or impede the provision of family support for 
     families of children with disabilities, provide States 
     with technical assistance and information, conduct a 
     national evaluation of the program of grants to States, 
     and provide funding for model demonstration and innovation 
     projects.
       Policy. The bill states that it is the policy of the United 
     States that all activities carried out under this Act shall 
     be family-centered and family-directed, and shall be 
     consistent with the following principles: Family support for 
     families of children with disabilities must focus on the 
     needs of the entire family; these families should be 
     supported in determining their own needs and in making 
     decisions concerning necessary, desirable, and appropriate 
     services; these families should play decision-making roles in 
     policies and programs that affect their lives; family needs 
     change over time, and family support for families of children 
     with disabilities must be flexible, and respond to the unique 
     needs, strengths and cultural values of the family; family 
     support for families of children with disabilities is 
     proactive and not solely in response to a crisis; these 
     families should be supported in promoting the integration and 
     inclusion of their children with disabilities into the 
     community; family support for families of children with 
     disabilities should promote the use of existing social 
     networks, strengthen natural sources of support, and help 
     build connections to existing community resources; youth with 
     disabilities should be involved in decision-making about 
     their own lives; and services and supports must be provided 
     in a manner that demonstrates respect for individual dignity, 
     personal responsibility, self-determination, personal 
     preferences and cultural differences.
       Construction. Nothing in this legislation shall be 
     construed to prevent families from choosing an out-of-home 
     placement for their children with disabilities, including 
     institutional placement for such children.
       Grants to States. The bill authorizes grants to States to 
     be awarded on a competitive basis. No grant shall be awarded 
     for a period greater than 3 years. A State shall be eligible 
     for not more than one grant. Grants may range from $200,000 
     to $500,000 based on the amounts available and the child 
     population of the State. The bill directs the Secretary to 
     award grants to States in a manner that is geographically 
     equitable and distributes the grants among States that have 
     differing level of development of statewide systems of family 
     support for families of children with disabilities.
       In order to receive a grant, States must submit an 
     application with specified information and assurances, 
     including:
       The designation of a lead entity in the State, which may 
     be an office or commission of the Governor, a public 
     agency, an established council, or another appropriate 
     office, agency, or entity.
       The establishment of a State Policy Council For Families of 
     Children with Disabilities, comprised of a majority of family 
     members of children with disabilities or individuals with 
     disabilities, as well as State agency representatives, and 
     others. Family member of children with disabilities are 
     eligible to serve on the Council whether the child is 
     currently in the home, in an institution, or in other 
     settings. The Council shall advise the lead entity in the 
     development and implementation of a statewide system of 
     family support for families of children with disabilities. 
     Established Councils or committees of such Councils may be 
     designated as the State Policy Council under specified 
     circumstances.
       A preliminary plan, and a description of the steps that the 
     State will take to develop a strategic plan. A State 
     receiving a grant must, within the first six months, prepare 
     and submit a strategic plan designed to achieve the purposes 
     and policy of this Act. The plan must be developed by the 
     lead entity in conjunction with the State Policy Council For 
     Families of Children with Disabilities, and must be updated 
     annually.
       An assurance that families are actively involved in all 
     aspects of the State program.
       An assurance that the State will expend at least 65% of the 
     funds made available on grants and contracts to conduct 
     authorized activities and expend not more than 5% for 
     administrative expenses.
       The bill describes a number of authorized activities that a 
     State may carry out to accomplish the purpose of the Act. 
     These activities include training and technical assistance, 
     interagency coordination, support of local and regional 
     councils, outreach, policy studies, hearings and forums, and 
     public awareness and education.
       The bill specifies that grant applications shall be 
     reviewed by panels of experts that are composed of a majority 
     of a family members.
       Technical assistance. The bill authorizes the Secretary to 
     provide, through grants, contracts or cooperative agreements, 
     technical assistance and information with respect to the 
     development and implementation, or expansion and enhancement, 
     of a statewide system of family support for families of 
     children with disabilities. The technical assistance and 
     information shall be provided to the lead entity, the State 
     Policy Council For Families of Children with Disabilities, 
     families, organizations, service providers, and policymakers.
       The entity providing the technical assistance must submit 
     periodic reports to the Secretary of HHS including, among 
     other things, recommendations regarding the delivery of 
     services, coordination with other programs, and integration 
     of the policies and principles described in the legislation 
     in other Federal legislation.
       Evaluation. The bill authorizes the Secretary to conduct, 
     through grants, contracts or cooperative agreements, a 
     national evaluation of the program of grants to States.
       Projects of national significance. The bill authorizes the 
     Secretary to conduct a study to review Federal programs to 
     determine the extent to which these programs facilities or 
     impede family support for families of children with 
     disabilities. The Secretary may also fund demonstration and 
     innovation projects to support the development of national 
     and State policies and practices related to family support 
     for families of children with disabilities.
       Authorization of appropriations. The bill authorizes to be 
     appropriated $10,000,000 for FY 1995 and such sums for FY 
     1996 and 1997.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, when the Senate first took up this bill, I 
expected to vote against it because I believe that people in 
communities across the Nation know best how to educate their children 
than do Federal Government bureaucrats in Washington, DC. The original 
bill, while well-intentioned, transfers too much control to Washington, 
DC.
  Centralized decisionmaking in Washington, DC, is not the answer to 
improving the education of our children. Before the Senate began its 
work, I was convinced that this bill would have increased the Federal 
Government's power and control over the education of our children.
  Substantial revisions to this legislation during our debate have 
removed many of my objections. Compared to what was originally 
introduced, this bill now has significantly fewer Federal mandates, 
increases local control and flexibility, protects home and private 
schooling, and addresses school violence. Because of these 
improvements, I will vote today in favor of the bill.
  One of the most significant improvements to this bill is the Gorton-
Lieberman school violence amendment. My top priority this year has been 
to deal with the issue of violence in our schools. In January, I held 
an education summit at which I listened to nearly 200 parents, 
teachers, administrators, and students share their concerns with our 
schools. Their No. 1 concern was violence in the classroom.
  To address this issue, Senator Lieberman and I offered an amendment 
to give parents, teachers, and administrators in local communities the 
authority to discipline violent students--without the heavy hand of the 
Federal Government interfering with their judgment. With this 
amendment, parents and school leaders in Seattle, Walla Walla, St. 
Louis, and Baltimore will decide how best to discipline violent 
children in their schools--not Federal Government bureaucrats in 
Washington, DC.
  The Gorton-Lieberman amendment is a strong first step toward making 
our schools safer. I am grateful that the Senate has begun to address 
the issue of school violence and I thank my colleagues for their 
bipartisan support of my amendment.
  But I must warn the chief backers of this reauthorization bill--while 
you have my support today, my vote comes with this caveat--strip the 
provisions which have been added to make this a better bill, and I will 
help lead the opposition to the conference report.
  Specifically, the provisions I want kept in the final version of the 
bill are:
  Amendments that protect home and private schools, and the freedom of 
local schools to choose not to participate in Goals 2000 programs.
  The Gorton-Lieberman amendment to let local people determine how best 
to stop violence in their schools, without interference from Federal 
bureaucrats.
  The Danforth amendment to create demonstration programs that allow 
for the development and study of same gender classes for low-income, 
educationally disadvantaged children.
  The Smith-Helms amendment to prohibit the spending of Federal 
taxpayer dollars for school programs that promote or encourage 
homosexuality as a positive lifestyle.
  The Hatch amendment to distribute fairly chapter 1 funds to schools 
in communities throughout the Nation, including my home state of 
Washington.
  Mr. President, there should be no negotiations over these provisions. 
These provisions have turned a bad bill into a piece of legislation for 
which broad consensus has been reached. These amendments must stay in 
the bill. If the bill is returned to its original form in the 
conference committee, I will be forced to vote against the conference 
report.
  Why am I sounding the alarm bells on the potential stripping of these 
provisions from the conference report? Because it has happened before. 
When the Senate passed the Goals 2000 bill, it contained my school 
violence amendment. But despite the Senate's clear support, it was 
taken out in the conference committee. I do not want that to happen 
again.
  If we are truly committed to improving our schools and the education 
of our children, the Gorton-Lieberman amendment, and the other 
provisions that improved this legislation, must stay in the final 
version of the bill.
  If they are not, we should vote it down when it comes back from the 
conference committee.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, with the passage of this legislation to 
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we have the 
opportunity to make this the most productive Congress in decades for 
precollege education. But the productivity of Congress as far as 
education is concerned cannot be measured by what we build, but in what 
we enable others to build.
  In our role, we may provide a few of the guidelines for the master 
plan, and we may also provide some of the basic tools needed to build 
the education program, but we here in Washington cannot build the kind 
of quality system that is desirable in each local community. We are 
dependent on the parents, the teachers, the local school 
administration, the State education officials, higher education 
representatives, and the business community to design and implement the 
plan that meets the needs of their children.
  Local and State school personnel must supplement the tools that we 
have provided with those of their own to construct a system that 
strengthens their community, their State and, ultimately, their Nation.
  Incorporated within this bill is a tool that has already proven its 
usefulness. It is one of the real success stories in Federal support to 
education, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education 
Act. It is also a story that is close to my heart due to my role in 
advancing math and science legislation and my sponsorship, along with 
Senator Kennedy, of the Excellence in Mathematics, Science and 
Engineering Education Act in 1990.
  The latter legislation contained two new programs--a national network 
of 10 regional consortia to provide assistance to local educators as 
they reform their math and science programs, and the National 
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 
Materials to serve as a central repository of all math and science 
teaching and curricular materials. The emphasis on reform that is in 
Goals 2000 and other recent legislation make these two programs even 
more vital than they were previously.
  After canvassing educators throughout the country, I introduced 
legislation during the first session of this Congress that refined and 
reauthorized the Eisenhower program including the consortia and the 
clearinghouse. The refinements placed a priority on elementary 
education, provided for a greater emphasis on informal education, and 
strengthened minority teacher recruiting and retraining. The Elementary 
Mathematics and Science Equipment Act of 1993, S. 232, that I had 
introduced earlier in the session was included in that bill. Also 
included was an idea contained in the original Kennedy-Hatfield bill 
which established demonstration projects for training in early 
childhood science education. This is a powerful program based on the 
experiences gained from an institute now in place at Marylhurst College 
in my own State of Oregon and termed ``Science Start.'' While Science 
Start is not included in this bill, I intend to pursue it in the future 
on an appropriate vehicle.

  What accounts for the success of the Eisenhower program? The 
essential component is that the money flows through very few hands 
before being put to work in professional development opportunities for 
math and science teachers. The professional development is focused from 
three essential directions--the State, higher education, and the local 
education agency with the local folks receiving the greatest share.
  I am sure that each of you has received, as I have, numerous letters 
from individual teachers that describe the changes that they have been 
able to make in their classrooms as a result of Eisenhower funds. I am 
extremely pleased that the majority of these letters came from 
elementary teachers. That indicates that the funds are getting to the 
area of greatest need. In addition, pilot projects and long-term 
programs directed at disseminating productive approaches for teaching 
math and science have been developed. The point is that the Eisenhower 
math and science program is starting to make a real difference, and we 
must continue to support it to the fullest extent possible.
  We must not lose sight of the need to evaluate, coordinate and 
disseminate the excellent programs being developed throughout the 
various regions and the nation. It is this area that the importance of 
the regional consortia and the national clearinghouse become evident. 
To avoid duplication and to learn from the efforts of others, a system 
must be put in place. The regional consortia are already providing an 
essential link, and the clearinghouse is building an impressive catalog 
of free materials available to schools.
  In addition, the vast majority of materials being developed for math 
and science education recognizes what outstanding teachers have known 
for decades and current research is verifying--students learn best by 
doing challenging hands-on activities that is related to their lives. 
Unfortunately, the typical elementary classroom does not contain the 
basic supplies necessary to carry out such activities. To make these 
materials available, this legislation contains the proposal I had 
introduced earlier as the Elementary Mathematics and Science Equipment 
Act. Again, if we ask teachers to build a better program, we should 
provide some basic tools which must include sufficient knowledge of 
subject matter and methods and the materials to apply those methods.

  Mr. President, we must strongly support the professional development 
sections of this bill for it is professional development that will 
drive our efforts toward effective school reform. I have directed my 
remarks toward math and science because of the greater need in these 
areas and because of the infrastructure that is already in place to 
address the national goal directed at math and science. Let us continue 
to move forward in the core subjects where progress is underway and, at 
the same time, initiate programs in the other subjects using what we 
have learned from the math-science model.
  I would also like to briefly comment on a provision which was 
included in the Manager's package of amendments--legislation to find a 
permanent home for the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator 
Fellowship Program. I introduced legislation this year to authorize 
this program within the Department of Energy. The Senate Energy 
Committee held hearings and is due to mark up the bill tomorrow. In the 
meantime, I have worked with Members of the Energy Committee and the 
Labor Committee to reach agreement so that this program could go 
forward on S. 1513. I firmly believe that the Nation will benefit from 
having outstanding secondary educators giving advice to Federal 
policymakers in the areas of math and science. This provision will 
allow for such counsel in the core Federal agencies which deal with 
math and science issues and in the Congress. I am grateful for the 
Senate's support.
  Finally, the legislation before us is quite comprehensive and 
provides assistance in critical educational areas. Already this year we 
have seen the Goals 2000 legislation signed into law. The national 
goals in that law are indeed lofty. Many say far too high to be 
attainable. But goals should always be beyond immediate grasp and 
perhaps should appear to verge on the impossible. These goals must 
challenge the talented, the enthusiastic, the dedicated among us to 
build an education structure in which all can thrive and succeed to the 
best of their ability. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that 
this is an easy task or one that we can foist off on others entirely. 
We must share the blame for failures, but we can rejoice in the 
successes for we have helped point a direction and have supplied some 
of the tools. Hopefully, we have also supplied encouragement toward 
positive change.
  Normally, Mr. President, I am skeptical of groups or individuals 
claiming to be the ``Education this'' or the ``Education that''. But 
when I consider the legislation that has already passed this session 
and all that will be added with the passage of this bill, there should 
be little doubt that this Congress deserves the title of the 
``Education Congress''. I am grateful for the leadership of my friends 
and colleagues on this committee, Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Pell, 
and Jeffords. Once again, they have moved the country forward with this 
comprehensive education program.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1513, the 
Improving America's Schools Act. Before making this decision, I took a 
long, hard look at the provisions of this most important piece of 
legislation, and I listened at great length to the wise and sensible 
counsel of the ranking member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
Committee, Senator Nancy Kassebaum. This bill has broad bipartisan 
support. It passed the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee by a 
vote of 16 to 1.
  The till which we are voting on today would increase funding for 
students that need it the most. I supported Senator Hatch's title I 
amendment. It adopted an equalization factor which would allow States 
to control the distribution of Federal resources among local school 
districts rather than leaving the distribution to the Federal 
Government.
  Wyoming received $13,473,000 in fiscal year 1994 under the current 
formula. Applying the committee formula, Wyoming would receive 
$14,916,000 in fiscal year 1995. Under the Hatch formula, Wyoming would 
receive $15,488,000 in fiscal year 1995
  The bill invests more in America's teachers. Under the new Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program, Federal grants will be made available 
to train teachers. Helping to improve the quality of our Nation's 
teachers is a critical component of education reform.
  Finally, the bill would advance the use of technology in our schools. 
This bill recognizes the need for young Americans to acquire the 
technological skills necessary to function in the 21st century 
workplace.
  Mr. President, some who opposed the final version of the Goals 2000 
legislation have said that this bill is cut from the same cloth. That 
is not so. Many months ago I supported the original Senate version of 
Goals 2000 only because I believed that it 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 administrators, local school boards and most 
importantly, the rights and responsibilities of parents in the 
education of their children.
  However, after reviewing the final version of the legislation, which 
is known as a conference report, I realized that the conferees made a 
major departure from the Senate's attempt to eliminate Federal mandates 
on local governments and also struck the provision allowing voluntary 
prayer in schools. Despite the recitation in the conference report that 
the bill only had voluntary guidelines and standards, it was my view 
that the standards were really, quite effectively, mandates saddled 
upon the States.

  I further opposed the Goals 2000 conference report because I have 
always believed that when it comes to education, we do not need more 
Federal government oversight and intrusion. What works best at the 
Federal level is encouragement and financial support for locally 
structured and locally developed strategies for education improvement. 
When the Goals 2000 legislation was reported from the House/Senate 
conference, it was no longer consistent with my philosophy and I 
opposed it.
  Now through town meetings, letters, and telephone calls, I have heard 
concerns that this bill before us restricts local authority, home 
schooling, and school prayer. Some Wyoming citizens also have fears 
that the bill takes steps towards implementing the controversial 
outcomes-based education [OBE] education reform initiative. That is not 
so either.
  There is nothing in this bill that would restrict home schooling. 
There is nothing in this bill that should be construed to advance the 
principles of the controversial Outcomes-Based Education [OBE] 
Education Reform Initiative. And Mr. President, constitutional school 
prayer will continue to be protected under Federal law. My father 
worked for that while in the Senate. I have carried on his work. The 
ranking member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, Nancy 
Kassebaum, and my own research has assured me in great detail that 
these concerns are unfounded.
  However, I am concerned with the impact aid provisions in this bill. 
Impact aid was created in order to neutralize the negative impacts on 
the local tax base caused by a Federal presence in local school 
districts. It is money that I believe school districts and local 
taxpayers rightfully deserve.
  In seven Wyoming school districts--Campbell, Fremont No. 9, Sublette 
No. 9, Sweetwater No. 1 and No. 2, and Uinta No. 4 and No. 6, civilian 
B children make up more than 25 percent of total daily enrollment. In 
Laramie County, civilian and military B's make up 15 percent of total 
enrollment. The House bill entirely eliminated funding for impact aid 
civilian B's. This bill, at least, salvages some of the funding for 
this program.
  I would always vote against any education reform initiative which 
endorses a philosophy of federalized education. I will be carefully 
watching the conference committee activity on this bill to make certain 
that the balance we have reached here today between Federal support and 
local control is not disrupted by the House. If that should happen, I 
will oppose the final conference report, just as I did in the case of 
the Goals 2000 legislation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to express my overall 
support for S. 1513. The Clinton administration and the Department of 
Education presented us with a cohesive bill designed to raise standards 
for all our Nation's children, and to ensure that those most in need 
have access to the high quality teaching and learning that will help 
them reach those standards. I am pleased that the Education and Labor 
Committee has further refined the administration proposal through 
several key changes, including: the addition of the Technology for 
Education Act, my S. 1040; adjustments to the administration's impact 
aid proposal; and the addition of several new programs designed to 
promote innovations in our schools, such as increasing the time spent 
on academic learning, creating smaller learning communities, health 
education and services integration, and easing transitions from pre-
school to school for title I children.
  Throughout the reauthorization process I have fought to ensure that 
the title I formula would realize the administration's goal of 
targeting resources to where the needs are greatest--high poverty 
schools and school districts. Research has shown that poor children in 
high-poverty schools are consistently outperformed by their peers in 
low-poverty schools. Our limited title I resources clearly must focus 
on those States, and schools and school districts within those States, 
with the highest poverty rates. An equitable and responsible title I 
formula should incorporate measures that accurately reflect where needy 
children are and the extent of their needs, as well as the most up-to-
date information on the numbers of such children in each area. I am 
afraid that the formula now in the bill does not accomplish that goal 
but I am hopeful that formula will be changed as the bill is considered 
further.
  This bill has the potential to radically improve education in our 
Nation's poorest schools. Lowering the eligibility threshold for 
schoolwide programs will empower those at the school level to design 
comprehensive, coordinated programs of instruction that best meet the 
needs of all the children in that school; results-based accountability 
mechanisms will help ensure that all children, especially those most in 
need, progress toward higher levels of performance.
  Schoolwide programs will challenge teachers and principals to break 
down categorical distinctions among children, and to organize and teach 
in new ways. I do not believe that innovation will come at the price of 
protection. Schoolwide programs will still have to meet the specific 
needs of all children served in that they must meet the intents and 
purposes--the underlying framework--of any program from which funds are 
used for schoolwide operation. Peer review and school support teams 
will provide a mechanism of both support and expertise in constantly 
improving schoolwide programs so that all children are taught to, and 
reach, challenging State standards.
  This bill also recognizes the importance of ensuring that our 
teachers are prepared to teach to the new state standards which are 
being developed under the Goals 2000 State reform initiative. The 
Eisenhower Professional Development Program will provide much needed 
resources for school districts to supply teachers with intensive and 
sustained professional development opportunities, and to develop 
professional networks and other means of sharing innovative teaching 
practices and strategies.
  By expanding the present Eisenhower Math and Science Program to 
incorporate professional development in all subjects, the committee has 
recognized that professional development will be crucial to all 
teachers, as emerging standards in each subject area call for greater 
depth of understanding on the part of both teachers and students. Title 
II will also establish a new technical assistance structure that 
consolidates disparate, categorically oriented technical assistance 
centers into integrated, comprehensive centers with expertise in ESEA 
programs and school reform in general. These comprehensive centers will 
maximize the reach of technical assistance by using electronic networks 
and other technologies to offer teachers, schools, school districts and 
States more immediate and thorough information about federal programs 
and educational innovations.
  Title III, parts A and B, of S. 1513 incorporates S. 1040, The 
Technology for Education Act which I introduced earlier this year along 
with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Cochran and Harkin.
  Part B is the Star Schools Program which has been so successful over 
the years. Part A is a new program, combining Federal leadership and a 
State grant program which, I hope, will lead the way to better 
education for our children, especially those who are disadvantaged.
  Over and over again I have stood here describing the benefits which 
technology can confer on education. A recent report by the Department 
of Education ``Using Technology to Support Educational Reform'' 
describes the impact of technology on improvements in education:

  Software, such as the Higher Order Thinking Skills Program which 
teaches disadvantaged students advanced thinking skills, is credited 
with producing substantial gains in achievement in reading and math by 
chapter 1 students over those such programs;
  Technology application can engage students in authentic, complex real 
life tasks which increase their interest in school and expand their 
abilities to think critically and solve problems;
  Use of word processing software in the classroom has proven valuable 
in teaching students higher-order thinking skills and improving their 
writing ability by focusing attention on ideas and ways to communicate 
rather than just mechanics. The revision process which is possible 
through computers encourages students to refine and edit their work 
with concomitant improvement in the final product; and
  Distance learning technologies have brought advanced classes to 
remote school districts and have opened horizons for rural students 
across the country. In my State of New Mexico, students in some of the 
most remote areas are able to take advanced classes through interactive 
video--classes that were unavailable to them only a few years ago.
  In sum, I think we no longer have any doubt that we are shortchanging 
our students and our future if we do not do everything we can to give 
our schools the same access to technology that most of us enjoy in our 
everyday lives--telephones, cable and satellite TV hookups, interactive 
services, video recording, PC's, modems and so forth.
  The question then is not whether technology is an effective tool for 
learning. It is instead, how can we give all students, no matter where 
they live or what their economic circumstances, access to that 
technology.
  The Department of Education report I referred to earlier notes that 
important equity issues are beginning to arise as technology plays a 
greater and greater role in schools across the Nation. Schools serving 
high socioeconomic status students report higher-computer-to-student 
ratios than do schools with low socio-economic status students. White 
students are more likely to have used a computer than Hispanic or 
African-American students. The Department points out that the problem 
is exacerbated by large differences in access to computers in the home. 
In 1991, a survey found that one third of white students had a computer 
in their homes, compared with a little over one-fifth of African-
American and Hispanic students having that access.
  Furthermore, there are important differences in the way in which 
computers are used in the classrooms for disadvantaged students versus 
higher-ability students. Lower ability students use computers for drill 
and practice while higher achieving students use computers in ways that 
are more congruent with our education reform goals--that is, to expand 
and develop order thinking skills, to learn to access and use 
information from outside the school, to perform authentic, real life 
tasks that hold their interest and motivate them, and to work 
cooperatively with others inside and outside the school.
  Title III seeks to remedy that disparity in access to and use of 
technology. It also addresses the issue of the place of education in 
the technological and information revolution which is now underway.
  Title III, part A addresses the issue of equity by providing Federal 
support for the integration and dissemination of technology, especially 
to the poorest schools. Part A--the former 1040--provides this support 
in two ways:
  First, the Office of Educational Technology--which was established 
pursuant to the Goals 2000 legislation--is given funding and authority 
to conduct leadership activities at the Federal level. This Office will 
coordinate with all the other Federal programs and Departments which 
deal with or consider technology policy to insure that education is 
included in that policy and the developments in technology which have 
applications for education will be brought to bear on education.
  The Office will also award grants to consortia for the development of 
curriculum-based software in support of the development and 
dissemination of professional development materials related to 
technology. These national efforts will produce resources available to 
all schools--but most importantly, the focus of the work which these 
grants support will be on advancing and achieving the high standards 
for all students, in all settings, which Goals 2000 and this bill, S. 
1513, seek to set for our students.
  The teacher training and curricular materials which we hope will 
result from the consortia supported by this act will have special 
benefits for schools which do not have the resources to provide or 
acquire such resources for themselves. Those resources will be 
developed with an emphasis on serving the disadvantaged.
  In addition to Federal leadership, title III, part A provides money 
to poor schools to acquire technology. Under this part, resource grants 
will be made which will enable schools with the highest numbers and 
percentages of disadvantaged students and with the greatest need for 
technology to acquire that technology. The resources targeted by this 
title are not just computers--but connections and linkages, such as 
cables, wiring, phone lines, modems, and software, professional 
development materials and other curricular materials.

  A very important part of this section is its requirements that the 
acquisition of technology be made in accordance with a plan. Too often 
technology, especially hardware, has been purchased by schools and 
districts, many times with Federal money through chapter 2, without due 
consideration for the need to educate teachers in the use of the 
technology or for the need for technical support. Too often 
insufficient attention was paid to issues of interoperability and 
compatibility of hardware and software. Part A encourages States and 
localities to think strategically about their technology purchases and 
plan for all aspects of technology so that they can take maximum 
advantage of developments in technology and the information highway as 
they evolve.
  Unfortunately, for this year at least, we are facing very limited 
funds for education--title III contains an authorization in excess of 
$300 million, $200 million of which is for State and local resource 
grants, yet on the House side the appropriation is only $20 million for 
education technology and here in the Senate we have been given only $50 
million for this part.
  In drafting title III we anticipated that initial funding for the 
program might be low--accordingly, part A provides that in the event 
appropriations for the year are less than $50 million, half the money 
shall be used for the Federal leadership activities described in the 
part, including funding for the product development and professional 
development consortia, and half will be used for local resource grants. 
It is our intent that at any level of appropriations, at least some 
schools will receive financial assistance to acquire technology. We 
have also provided that in the event of appropriations less than $50 
million, the resource grants will be awarded to local school districts 
on a competitive basis, with priority for districts with high 
percentages or numbers of disadvantaged students. At higher 
appropriations, the grants will be made on the basis of the title I 
formula and then awarded by States to local districts based on their 
poverty and need for technology.
  I hope that considerably more than the amount we see this year is 
appropriated next year for this part--technology is key to the success 
of the programs we are launching here with Goals 2000 and with title I. 
While establishing the Office of Educational Technology and getting 
demonstration projects and other leadership programs underway is 
important, we have to recognize that the Federal Government's role in 
ensuring equity in access to technology will only be fulfilled when we 
are able to make significant grants to States so that schools serving 
the disadvantaged can share in the benefits of technology. We run the 
risk in this area--as we do in so many others--of seeing the gap widen 
between the haves and the have-nots unless we step in to help.
  Which brings me to one last point about part A of title III. We need 
to be concerned not only with the have-not students but also with the 
fact that too often education itself is a have-not when it comes to 
technology and information--and threatened to become more so. Poor 
schools are especially disadvantaged, but the fact is that education in 
general is often at the bottom in terms of access to the technology we 
all take for granted in our lives--much less to advantaged 
applications. The great majority of classrooms do not have telephone 
jacks, much less cable connections, and many have insufficient 
electrical outlets to support computers or monitors or televisions. 
While many schools do have computers, a recent international survey of 
computers in classrooms showed that most computers in American schools 
are 8-bit machines--woefully out of date and unable to run the new 
software that is being developed to support school curricula.
  There is a lot of talk of making sure that schools are given on-ramps 
to the information superhighway and in various places across the 
country combinations of private industry and States and localities are 
trying to make this happen. But little concrete has been done at the 
national level to ensure schools' access. If we do not pay attention to 
this here we run the risk of perpetuating what we have seen so often in 
other areas--the affluent school districts and schools will be fully 
connected and equipped and rural America and the inner-city will be 
left behind.
  Title III, part A provides some help to these schools through the 
leadership role given to the Office of Educational Technology. That 
Office is charged with providing leadership at the Federal level to 
establish guidelines to ensure ease of access for emerging technologies 
so that no school system will be excluded from the technological 
revolution. I see the Office of Educational Technology taking an active 
role in discussions and plans at the Federal level for the deployment 
of the information highway and the development of national technology 
policy. This bill gives education a seat at the table when these 
matters are discussed and decided--education will no longer be sitting 
on the floor waiting for some crumbs to drop from the decisionmakers.
  As I said when I rose to speak here today--I have been talking about 
the benefits of technology for education for several years now--
finally, we are about to pass a bill that will for the first time 
provide meaningful and purposeful Federal support for technology in the 
classrooms of America. Title III, part A provides the structure for 
constructive Federal involvement in this crucial area of education 
reform. Its combination of creative and energetic Federal leadership 
and financial support for the neediest schools will, I believe, help 
all our students meet the 21st century with the education they need and 
deserve.
  I also appreciate the committee's inclusion of several measures I 
proposed to foster other improvements in teaching and learning. The 
Extending Time for Learning Program will help schools implement the 
recommendations of the Commission on Time and Learning. In its 
excellent report, ``Prisoners of Time,'' the Commission encourages 
schools to change the way they structure the school day, week or year, 
so that they maximize the amount and quality of time students spend 
learning the core academic subjects. The Commission reports that many 
Americans support a longer school year, while increased need for after-
school care for the children of working parents has also made extended-
day schedules more appealing and more imperative. The amount of time 
students spend in school will not help students excel unless the 
quality of that time is significantly upgraded as well. Mastery of 
world-class standards will require more time of students, as well as 
increased time for teachers in learning new and innovative methods of 
teaching to the new standards. Through the Extending Time for Learning 
Program, I hope to provide teachers, students, and parents the 
opportunity to redesign school schedules around high standards and 
achievement, instead of clocks and Carnegie units.
  I have also proposed the Creating Smaller Learning Communities 
Program, through which I hope to stimulate efforts to reduce class 
size, while promoting student-teacher interaction and strengthening 
students' connections to their school. Research and experience have 
shown that smaller learning communities, such as schools-within-schools 
can contribute to increases in student achievement, grade promotion and 
attendance, as well as decreases in violence and disruptions. I am sure 
my colleagues from Pennsylvania are familiar with Philadelphia's 
charter schools, which function as schools-within-schools in nearly all 
the city's comprehensive high schools. Smaller school size, increased 
interaction among teachers and students, and an emphasis on high-
quality academics have helped students in Philadelphia's charter 
schools become 7 percent more likely to advance to the next grade than 
their peers who are not in charters. Funds from this program would: 
provide grants for teachers, administrators, parents and other 
community stakeholders to design and create smaller learning 
communities; enable schools to offer students a variety of curricular 
and instructional themes and approaches; and help schools and school 
districts establish new administrative and managerial relationships.
  In many States, teachers, administrators and parents interested in 
testing new forms of management and administration are developing 
charter schools--public schools that operate independently of the 
school district. I have added several amendments to the charter schools 
provision of ESEA to ensure that charter school developers may also 
apply for funds to assist in the planning and development of charter 
schools that exist as schools-within-schools, in States where the law 
permits such charters. Smaller learning communities can promote the 
kind of variation in curricular and instructional approaches that will 
offer students greater educational choices within the public school 
system.
  I would also like to discuss some of the important changes the 
Improving America's Schools Act incorporates to the Impact Aid Program 
which provides funds to school districts which are fiscally impacted by 
the presence of Federal property.
  Federal property is not subject to State or local taxes and 
activities conducted on the property are frequently exempt from 
taxation. When that property has connected to it children who are 
entitled to receive a free public education, the State or locality 
providing that education is burdened with the expense of educating the 
child, often without the financial support which would otherwise be 
generated by the property on which the child resides or--in many 
cases--by other taxes related to that property.
  This is an especially acute situation in New Mexico where we have 
large Indian reservations occupying tens of thousands of acres. Ninety 
percent of the children who live on those reservations attend public 
schools funded by the State of New Mexico and the nearby localities. In 
9 of our 88 school districts, federally connected children--by and 
large children residing on Indian lands--constitute more than 50 
percent of the children served by those school districts. In 20 percent 
of our school districts those children constitute more than a quarter 
of the school population.
  Those school districts are required to provide a free public 
education to Indian children with virtually no financial contribution 
from the property on which their parents live or from activities on the 
property. State and local property may not be levied on Indian lands or 
other Federal property. But it is not just property taxes which are 
lost to the State and localities by reason of the Indian lands.
  The other taxes on which New Mexico relies to support education are 
also adversely affected by the presence of Federal property, including 
Indian lands.
  In particular,
  Gross receipts tax--also known as sales tax--is not collectible on 
sales on military posts or on any sales made on Indian reservations by 
Indians or to Indians on the reservations;
  Cigarette taxes are not payable on sales of cigarettes on the 
reservation or any tobacco products sold to the United States;
  States income tax is not payable by any member of a tribe living and 
working on a reservation;
  Indian owned corporations located on Indian lands are not subject to 
the corporate gross receipts tax;
  Severance taxes may not be imposed if a tribe is the interest owner 
and operator;
  New Mexico estate taxes are not imposed upon Indians living on 
reservations.
  In short, few if any of the traditional sources of revenue for 
schools are available to New Mexico or to school districts from Indian 
lands. Compounding the problem for schools 
educating Indian children are the high proverty rates among those 
children and their parents, their limited English proficiency and the 
additional costs of transporting children who live on reservations.
  New Mexico and other Western States bear a heavy financial burden in 
connection with the education of children residing on Indian lands--
contributions by the Federal Government to support the public schools 
serving these children is essential.
  Title IX of the committee substitute is well-crafted to achieve the 
goal of ensuring an appropriate education for federally connected 
children--particularly Indian children. The Senate has reduced the 
weight to be accorded the so-called civilian ``b'' children, leaving 
more of the resources appropriated for this program for the districts 
which are truly needy such as districts serving children residing on 
Indian lands.
  The committee substitute also includes a provision that is especially 
important to my State where we have several school districts enrolling 
substantial percentages of Indian children. In those districts Impact 
Aid makes up a large percentage of the district's budget; when 
appropriations are not enough to fully fund the program, these 
districts suffer acutely because they have nowhere else to turn for 
funds. The committee substitute includes a concept of a learning 
opportunity threshold to deal with this situation. The learning 
opportunity threshold determines the allocation of funds among 
districts where funds appropriated are insufficient to fully fund the 
program. Under this provision, districts which are more heavily reliant 
on Impact Aid funds receive a greater percentage of funds than do 
districts with less reliance on those funds. This is especially 
important because districts which are heavily reliant on Impact Aid do 
not have other, local sources of tax revenue with which to make up any 
shortfall in funding--there is simply no place left to turn.
  The committee substitute recognizes the disparate effects on school 
districts of less-than-full funding of Impact Aid. The committee 
substitute provides for reductions to be made on a sliding scale which 
avoids the cliff effect of current law wherein districts which derive 
20 percent of their budgets from Impact Aid are treated the same as 
those who derive 90 percent and those deriving 19 percent are treated 
differently still. I commend the National Association of Federally 
Impacted Schools for their help in producing this improvement to 
current law.

  I am also pleased with the revisions which have been made to the 
construction provisions of the law. Heretofore there were two 
construction programs, one for districts impacted by Indian lands and 
one for all federally impacted districts. Construction grants were made 
on an all or nothing basis based upon evaluations of need and a waiting 
list. Schools could remain on that waiting list for decades without 
receiving a dime of help. At most, two schools a year would receive 
funds under this law--all the others would have to wait. The schools 
serving large percentages of Indian students often have little or no 
bonding capacity, thus they must rely heavily on these Federal sources 
for construction moneys--but those moneys were very, very scarce.
  The committee substitute provides for only one program for all 
impacted districts, tightly constrains the districts which can 
participate, and provides each with an annual amount which can be used 
or accumulated for construction or repair. While annual grant amounts 
are not anticipated to be enough to construct an entire school, there 
will in many cases be enough to allow a district to accumulate 
sufficient funds to accomplish needed construction within a reasonable 
period of time and with some reasonable certainty--unlike the current 
situation, which, as I have said, results in only a couple of school 
districts being able to build or renovate a school each year.
  Finally, I would like to commend the committee substitute for the way 
in which it handles the issue of equalization. Payments under Impact 
Aid can create inequalities in States which equalize spending among 
school districts. New Mexico has such a law. It provides for State 
funding of education under a scheme in which students are weighted 
according to their grade level, special needs, and the density or 
sparsity of their districts. Among other things, in this way, the State 
seeks to provide appropriate levels of funding for all students, 
regardless of the district in which they live or the resources of that 
district. This system has been formed and refined over many, many years 
in New Mexico; it is intricately balanced to take account of the many 
differences in educational conditions that exist across our State and 
it recognizes that equivalence of dollars is not always equity for 
students.
  If my State could not take Impact Aid payments to districts into 
account in calculating amounts to be paid to local districts for 
education, the entire equalization system would be undermined and would 
undoubtedly have to be reformulated. That process would be a long one 
and once completed, those districts now heavily dependent on Impact Aid 
would be even more dependent because they could no longer look to a 
State equalization scheme to make up any shortfall in the event the 
Federal appropriations process does not provide enough funding in any 
year.

  Under current law and regulations, New Mexico has been allowed to 
take Impact Aid payments into account when calculating payments to 
districts under the equalization formula. The committee substitute 
continues the current law. It has been suggested that the law be 
revised in various ways to make it more difficult for States to take 
Impact Aid payments into account in their equalization formulas. The 
suggested changes would make the test for equalization more rigid--but 
rigidity in determining whether a State's school financing is truly 
equalized is inappropriate because of the very different conditions in 
each State. It is obvious that Alaska faces dramatically different 
costs to provide the same educational opportunity to children in 
extremely remote areas as it does to children in Anchorage. The same is 
true in my State where our State financing law has to take into account 
great differences in transportation costs, differences in costs 
attributable to scarcity or density, and the challenges of limited 
English proficient students.
  The current law is stringent enough--only three States are currently 
allowed to take these Impact Aid payments into account. There is no 
showing of any abuse or problem with the application of the law or that 
current law in any way discourages equalization of school financing. 
The committee substitute's approach to this issue should be adopted.
  Impact Aid is a crucial component of the Federal Government's 
responsibility to the States and to native Americans. The education of 
American Indian children is largely dependent on the Federal 
Government's contributions through this program--as I said when I 
began, over 90 percent of all American Indian children living on 
reservations attend public schools. The committee substitute is a 
thoughtful and responsible reworking of the current law which provides 
support for the education of those children. While there are certainly 
aspects of it which I would change--for example, an increased weighting 
for Indian children as opposed to other federally connected children--
on the whole it represents a reasonable compromise of many competing 
interests and is worthy of our support.
  The committee has also made two significant changes to title XIV of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which establishes the 
collection of national education statistics.
  First, the committee substitute includes a provision which I 
requested concerning the collection and analysis of data concerning 
school administrative expenses.
  Through Goals 2000 and this bill, we are providing greater Federal 
resources to the schools to assist them in reform and improvement of 
their programs, especially their programs for economically 
disadvantaged students. We hope that the funds which we are sending to 
the States will promote the activities we are seeking to affect--better 
teaching in the classroom, more services to kids. I think that all 
taxpayers want to see their money go to the classroom--to services to 
children--and they want those services to be provided efficiently.

  Yet we really know very little about exactly how education dollars 
are spent. There is a fair amount of data collection at the State level 
and even the district level--but it is exceedingly difficult to trace 
funds to individual schools and to the expenditures at the school 
level.
  In the reform movement--especially with charter schools and the kind 
of accountability we are building into the title I program--we are 
seeking to put more responsibility on the individual school. Yet, at 
the same time, we have very little information about the finances of 
individual schools.
  In an article last year, Education Week observed that we lawmakers 
have only a tenuous grasp of the real impact of our finance formulas 
and ``local school officials are in the dark about how their money is 
being spent and whether their programs are worth the cost.'' By the 
time funds get to a classroom, it is hard to retrace the logic of how 
and why they got there or what they buy.
  I have sometimes seen in my home State of New Mexico what appear to 
me to be wasteful spending practices--money being spent on nice offices 
for administrators while classrooms are ramshackle and lack even 
telephone connections. I am sure many of my colleagues have seen 
similar things--and we have all been told by members of the public that 
they question being asked to provide more funds for education until 
they are satisfied that the money is not going for unnecessary overhead 
or ``perks.'' But schools are hard-pressed to respond to that criticism 
or to streamline their operations because they do not know where the 
money went, either.
  Title XIV of the committee substitute now includes a direction to the 
Commissioner of Education Statistics to work with one or more of the 
few States which are working on collecting school level financial data 
to study, design, and pilot a model data system that will yield 
information about spending for administration at the school and local 
educational agency levels. Upon the completion of the pilot model data 
system, the Secretary of Education shall study the information gained 
through the use of such a system and or the relevant information and 
report to Congress on first, the potential for the reduction of 
administrative expense at the school and LEA level; second, the 
potential usefulness of such data to reduce such expenses; and third, 
other methods which could be employed by schools, LEA's or States to 
reduce administrative expenses and maximize the use of funds for 
functions directly affecting student learning and, if appropriate, 
steps which may be taken to assist schools, LEA's and State education 
agencies to account for and reduce administrative expenses.

  I want to see our education dollars go as far they can. I believe 
that more information about where our dollars actually go will help the 
schools in several ways--first, it will help them manage themselves 
more efficiently as they see better just how their money is spent and 
how other comparable schools and districts manage themselves fiscally; 
also, it will provide more information to the public about the use of 
their tax dollars, and, that those dollars are being spent wisely, that 
information will bolster public support for the schools and finally, 
that information may assist our reform efforts by helping us to 
understand better how results are influenced by funding decisions.
  Our schools need all the help they can get--one kind of help which 
the Federal Government is uniquely positioned to provide is information 
and analysis. I hope that with this modest change to the tasks of the 
Center for Education Statistics and of the Department, we can help 
States and localities make better decisions about their education 
dollars and drive more of those dollars to the level of the kids where 
they are most needed.
  I would also, however, like to indicate for the record my 
disagreement with the committee's decision, in title XIV, to prohibit 
the use of the National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP] exams 
at the school district level.
  The NAEP is a nationwide test administered to a sampling of American 
students in grades 4, 8, and 12 at least once every 2 years. NAEP is 
the best indicator we have to gauge the achievement levels of our 
children. This information helps parents understand what kinds of 
things American students know and can do, and it helps inform teachers, 
administrators, and policymakers about the areas in which progress have 
been made, and those that need improvement. The National Education 
Goals Panel, on which I serve, uses NAEP results to report on student 
progress toward meeting the national education goals, particularly 
goals 3 and 5, which call for higher levels of student achievement in 
the core academic subjects.
  International comparisons provide increasing evidence of the need for 
American students to be challenged by higher standards. These 
comparisons have helped spur educational reforms at all levels--through 
Federal efforts such as Goals 2000 and ESEA, State systemic reform 
initiatives, and local efforts to improve the quality of teaching and 
learning in schools. States can elect to administer NAEP exams, and can 
tabulate results at the State level, although they must help defray the 
costs of the examinations. Many States have begun to use NAEP to chart 
progress within the State, and to compare results with those at the 
national level.
  It is at the local level, however, that change is most critical, and 
often the most difficult to inspire. Too many parents feel that, while 
there may be a need for educational reform in our Nation, ``my school 
is OK.'' In too many communities, the same citizens that complain about 
the need for a better-trained work force veto school bonds, 
constricting already tight school budgets. Information at the local 
level about student achievement can break the pattern of complacency 
that enables community members to point beyond their own backyards when 
citing the need for reform.
  The administration originally proposed that NAEP be made available 
for assessing aggregate student achievement at the school or school 
district level. Under this proposal, school districts could, on a 
voluntary basis, use NAEP tests to gauge student progress in relation 
to student performance across the Nation. NAEP tests are developed and 
supported by public funds; thus they should be available for use at the 
local level.
  NAEP data collected at the school district level can provide parents 
with better information about the progress of schools in their 
community. Several school districts in our country are larger than some 
States; these communities in particular could benefit from a better 
gauge of student achievement. It is important to note, however, that 
NAEP tests could not be used to report individual student achievement--
local NAEP results would only be reported in terms a total of all 
student scores.
  Some have argued that the use of NAEP at the district level could 
result in its use for accountability purposes, which may in turn 
encourage teachers to base curriculum and instruction on the content of 
NAEP exams. Others have added that NAEP administration at the local 
level may erode incentives to develop innovative assessments called for 
in Goals 2000 and title I of ESEA. I do not find these arguments 
persuasive, for several reasons.
  The reasons described in Goals 2000 and title I of ESEA must be based 
on a set of standards developed by the State. NAEP exams are not--and 
will not be--based on a common set of standards, thus it would be 
difficult for schools to actually teach to the test or to substitute 
NAEP assessments for those necessary in Goals 2000 or title I.
  In addition, schools administering NAEP tests would have to follow 
certain security requirements and protocols that would considerably 
stem the risk of polluting the results of national NAEP achievement 
data. Several nationwide tests administered on a local level, such as 
the SAT and the ACT, have strict administration requirements school 
districts are careful to follow. There is no reason to think that the 
NAEP testing process would be less secure than any other exam.
  Local NAEP results would provide parents, teachers, and schools with 
a mechanism to gauge student progress in relation to other students in 
the Nation. At this time, it is the best such national indicator we 
have, and I believe that the Federal Government has an obligation to 
parents, teachers, and communities to supply these publicly funded 
exams to school districts who wish to use them within the guidelines 
established by the Department of Education. I hope that the Senate can 
revisit and reconsider its position on the local use of NAEP tests in 
the Conference on this bill.
  In closing, I would again like to reiterate my overall support for 
this legislation. The committee and the administration have done a fine 
job of balancing many competing concerns and priorities. This 
comprehensive bill addresses today's most pressing problems in a 
holistic fashion--by insisting that all children are taught to the same 
high standards, and then providing resources--such as professional 
development, technology, and drug and violence prevention funds--to the 
areas critical to ensuring that children are able to learn to those 
standards. This bill will benefit our children and it will benefit the 
Nation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the committee accepted 
a number of my proposals to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
to update the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 [FERPA]. 
FERPA provides parents the right of access to their childrens' 
education records. Unfortunately, the law is rather strict on schools 
and has historically been difficult for the Department of Education to 
administer.
  The suggestions I made to the committee were based on discussions 
with parents, educators, and the enforcement divisions at the 
Departments of Education and Justice.
  The changes I have proposed will provide greater parental access, a 
lighter burden on schools and ease of enforcement for the Department.
  The issue of parental access to a child's records has been widely 
accepted since FERPA passed in 1974. Under the law, a parent has the 
right to see their child's education records within 45 days of request 
and to modify the records if they believe the records to be misleading 
or inaccurate.
  Not only this, but if modification of the education record is not 
allowed, parents may appeal this decision and place a letter in the 
education record to accompany the information they believe to be 
inaccurate or misleading.
  These provisions are crucial to parental involvement in the education 
of their children, which we all agree is tied to student academic 
achievement. In my proposal, I made several suggestions concerning how 
to enhance parental access to their children's records.
  One of the limits of the law was that it only applied to local 
education agencies and schools. If State education agencies were 
keeping records on children, parents had no right of access to those 
records. My amendment provides for that access so that parents may 
review any records kept by the State on their individual children. To 
avoid burdens on the State, I modified my amendment so that parents are 
not trying to change State records; if they find something at the State 
level that requires modification, they will need to approach the 
officials at the local level.
  They may modify the local records and go through the appeals process 
outlined under FERPA. The key to this provision is that parents should 
always have access to records on their children, whether they are kept 
at a State or local level.
  Also under current law, a parent must typically be consulted before 
anyone has access to their child's education records. Again, the goal 
is to guard the privacy of the child and family. There are exceptions 
to the parental notice requirement, however, for specific occasions 
when it is decided that there is cause for that access. Confidentiality 
provisions were established to protect the child and family in cases of 
access without consent.
  One example of access without consent is when there is a ``legitimate 
educational interest.'' This provision of a ``legitimate educational 
interest'' has historically been interpreted as the big picture 
educational interest, meaning the education interest of all the 
children, not necessarily the educational interest of this particular 
child whose record is sought.
  I offered an amendment to require that the specific child's 
educational interest must also be considered with the big picture in 
cases where access to a child's record is obtained without parental 
consent.
  Another provision I proposed for greater protection for families is 
concerning third party organizations which receive information from a 
child's education record without parental consent. Organizations may 
receive information from student records for the purpose of developing, 
validating, or administering predictive tests, or for improving 
instruction.
  In order to receive this information, the organization must not 
permit the personal identification of students and their parents. 
Further, the organization must guarantee the destruction of the records 
when they are no longer needed for the particular purpose for which the 
records were obtained.
  Unfortunately, for 20 years since FEPRA's creation, there has been no 
enforcement mechanism against an organization which violates these 
requirements for confidentiality and destruction of records. My 
amendment provides that enforcement mechanism.
  If an organization violates its responsibilities to protect 
confidentiality and destroy records, the organization will be 
prohibited from access to any education records for a period of at 
least 5 years. By having an enforcement mechanism in the law, 
organizations will be more likely to live up to the responsibilities 
placed in the law since 1974.
  Additionally, under the original law, parents must be notified of 
their rights under FERPA. Unfortunately, there is no requirement that 
the notice actually get to parents.
  It is acceptable under the original law to simply put a notice in the 
local newspaper that may not ever reach parents. Rights that citizens 
don't know about are meaningless.
  Let me make clear, Mr. President, that there is nothing in my 
amendment that tells school districts how they are to make this notice. 
However, a school district must assure that the notice to parents 
concerning their rights under FERPA is effective.
  Finally, under the original law, the Department of Education was 
responsible to draft regulations ``to protect the right to privacy of 
students and their families in connection with surveys or data-
gathering activities conducted, assisted or authorized by the Secretary 
or an administrative head of the agency.''
  After 20 years, Mr. President, these regulations have never been 
drafted. The Department indicated in discussions with me that there is 
no need for new regulations because there are regulations concerning 
the National Center for Educational Statistics, the division that does 
most of the Department's data gathering activities. However, what about 
any other data-gathering activities performed by the Department or an 
administrative head?
  In light of the its response, I modified the language to say that the 
Secretary shall either adopt appropriate regulations, as mandated in 
the original law, or identify existing regulations which protect these 
rights of privacy.
  If, as the Department says, they already have regulations which 
provide for the protections, in every area of data gathering performed 
by the Department, I am happy to simply have those regulations 
assembled in a way that clarifies to parents how their family privacy 
is protected.
  However, Mr. President, as far as I am concerned, it is not an option 
for an administrative agency to simply ignore a specific congressional 
mandate for action. Congress had reason to pass this language 20 years 
ago, and the Department needs to comply with the requirements 
established.
  I have also made several suggestions, Mr. President, for ways to 
lighten the burden on local school districts.
  Unfortunately, parents occasionally bring claims never intended under 
FERPA. Because of specific language in the act, there is a loophole 
allowing for frivolous claims. FERPA provides that parents can 
challenge information in the student record that they believe to be 
``inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the privacy or 
other rights of students.'' Most of this language is very clear; 
however, what does ``or other rights of students'' mean?
  This particular provision, ``or other rights of students,'' has been 
used by parents to challenge provisions of a child's individual 
education plan under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 
[IDEA] and even to challenge grades. The problem with both of these 
true-life examples is that the enforcement office at the Department of 
Education has no authority to address these concerns. But because of 
the way the FERPA is drafted, parents continue to bring these claims.
  My amendment drops the language ``or other rights'' of students so 
that if parents have rights under other laws--like IDEA--they must 
bring their claims under the law that created the right, not under 
FERPA, which was not designed for this purpose.
  With this language dropped from the law, school districts and those 
in charge of enforcement at the Department will be free from dealing 
with these frivolous claims.
  Another problem that school districts have had under FERPA is in 
dealing with subpoenas issued by courts concerning students at their 
schools.
  Under the original law, a school district receiving a subpoena to 
release records without notice to any person is in a legal bind. Under 
FERPA, the district cannot release the records without notifying the 
parent or student. To do so, the district risks losing its Federal 
funds. But under the specific language of the subpoena, the district 
could be held in contempt of court for violating the subpoena if it 
obeys FERPA and notifies the student or parent.
  Unfortunately, with increasing crime among young people, this double 
bind is becoming more prevalent for school districts.
  What is a school official to do?
  My amendment addresses this dilemma by creating a bifurcated 
approach. If a Federal grant jury issues a subpoena for a student's 
records, the court is mandated, ``for good cause shown'' to issue the 
subpoena saying not to notify the student. In this case, the school is 
not in violation of FERPA.
  In the case of a State court subpoena, the amendment is permissive 
and simply allows the State court, ``for good cause shown'' to tell the 
school officials not to notify the student. In this case also, the 
school district will not be held in violation of FERPA.
  Note that in both the Federal and State examples, good cause must be 
shown for why a parent or student should not be told that records will 
be released.
  With the addition of this amendment to the law, school districts will 
no longer be placed in the double bind of deciding whether to violate 
Federal law and release the records without notice, or be held in 
contempt of court for providing notice.
  This provision was brought to my attention by counsel at the 
Departments of Education and Justice and was carefully drafted to avoid 
Congress telling State courts what to do.
  Finally, Mr. President, there was a specific provision of my original 
proposal that I dropped, reluctantly, after much discussion with the 
Department and committee members. My original proposal required that a 
parent should have access to any records maintained as the result of 
any social or health services provided to their child on school 
grounds.
  I want to make clear that I still believe parents have a right of 
access to any records kept on their children at school.
  It does not matter to me if those records are kept by school 
officials or by health or social services officials. I do not believe 
anyone should have a right to keep records on a child without a 
parent's knowledge or access.
  Understand that the provision I dropped did not require parental 
consent, which I personally believe should be the standard. No, it 
simply required that parents have access to the records after the fact.
  I still believe this is a reasonable requirement.
  Only in the case of child abuse or neglect allegations can I agree 
that a parent should not have access to health or social service 
records kept on their child. Even then, I believe the parent should 
have access to all of the records except for those records concerning 
the alleged abuse or neglect.
  Unfortunately, this provision was not accepted.
  Mr. President, I believe the suggestions accepted in the committee 
bill provide for greater parental access, a lighter burden on schools, 
and ease of enforcement for the Department of Education.
  I have made every attempt to provide a balanced proposal that 
addresses the concerns of all involved in the application of the Family 
Education Rights and Privacy Act. I commend these provisions to the 
Senate and the conference committee as important modernizing amendments 
to this crucial law.


        the equity in educational land-grant status act of 1994

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to give my support for an 
amendment which is included in the manager's bill to the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act [ESEA]. I am pleased to see the Equity in 
Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 attached to this year's ESEA 
bill, which will give 29 tribally controlled colleges the land-grant 
status they need and deserve.
  There are currently 14,000 students enrolled in the 29 tribal 
colleges and the student count continues to rise. Clearly, these 
colleges and students are a great resource in the communities where 
they are located, providing a unique learning experience that benefits 
not only the students, but community members as well. Because most of 
the tribal colleges are located in rural areas, they provide a general 
curriculum that is practical to students, but also need to be able to 
provide technical expertise and research opportunities that will 
benefit the community at large. It is for this reason that land-grant 
status should be extended to these schools, so that tribal colleges 
have the opportunity to provide the services that land-grant schools 
are already providing.
  Land-grant schools were established to develop programs that would 
deal with problems of the rural poor and to then study how to improve 
the economic situation for rural people. The native American population 
is by far the poorest and most rural of Americans. It is imperative 
then, that tribal colleges receive adequate funding and resources 
necessary to continue to operate programs of outreach and technical 
assistance which make up a large part of the schools curriculum. In 
fact, land-grant institutions were originally established for these 
types of programs. By extending this status to tribal colleges, 
graduating students will not only become productive citizens, but will 
also have gain the appropriate skills to better their community.
  The extension of land-grant status to tribal colleges would not 
affect the programs of existing land-grant schools. It would, however, 
authorize an endowment to tribal colleges payable in installments over 
a 5-year period. Namely, this status would provide $10 million, as 
provided under the 1862 Morrill Act, to operate ``colleges for the 
benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts'' and tribal schools would 
also become beneficiaries of annual appropriations in the budget of the 
Department of Agriculture. If fully funded, this legislation would 
bring these severely underfunded schools closer to the level of funding 
already enjoyed by other land-grant schools.
  This act will provide the tribal colleges with better resources 
needed to foster and develop programs in agriculture, natural resource 
management, and other related fields. In addition, the colleges will be 
able to seek technical assistance from the Department of Agriculture. I 
think it will provide an invaluable opportunity for native American 
peoples to fully develop their agricultural resources and realize self-
sufficiency through education. Understanding that there is no debate on 
this amendment, I would just like to share my support and appreciation 
for the Committee and my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, 
on his work with the Equity in Educational and Land-Grant Status Act. I 
am pleased to see this language attached to the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1994.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 
1513--Improving America's Schools Act.
  Americans have come to a consensus that the education of our children 
is the fundamental starting point in building a strong future for our 
country. Unfortunately, our schools cannot educate in a vacuum, by 
simply ignoring the problems that face our society. As a result, 
poverty, crime, drugs, hunger, and the condition of the family all show 
up in the classroom. S. 1513 recognizes this reality and provides some 
critical support to local schools in confronting these problems.
  In 1965, President Johnson recognized that Washington must provide a 
leadership role and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was 
created. Back then we recognized the inequities that exist from school 
district to school district. Since 1965, as the challenges to society 
have changed and in some instances worsened, so have the problems in 
the classroom. This reauthorization takes new strides to deal with 
these challenges and recognizes that, while Government cannot act 
alone, it can provide some needed leadership and funding.
  The leadership we are extending with this act reaches out in many 
directions. In the 1980's, we recognized the threat of drugs to our 
classrooms and attempted to assist local communities in creating drug 
free environments. Today we are continuing that fight and recognizing 
that we must include violence as a related challenge to the integrity 
of the schoolhouse. As the world economy has become more competitive so 
has the challenge to the U.S. work force, and this legislation makes a 
commitment to that challenge by increasing our support of professional 
development of teachers and by helping to bring technology into the 
classroom.
  Just as we have recognized the need to keep drugs and violence out 
and to bring training and technology into the classrooms, we also know 
that much of what we accomplish in America's schools is affected by 
what happens to the child before he or she sits down to learn. Efforts 
such as Even Start recognize the importance of adult literacy and 
parenting on a young child who has just entered the school system. 
Similar to earlier education legislation passed in this Congress, we 
are placing special emphasis on the involvement of parents in their 
child's education and their schools.
  Finally, this act reaffirms the fact that, although we are providing 
national leadership, the critical difference will be made by local 
school boards, teachers, community and business leaders, and parents. 
This country's education system is the most democratic and local form 
of government. We can lead from Washington, but it will be local 
people--especially parents--who will determine what ultimately happens.
  I commend President Clinton and Secretary Riley for their leadership 
on education. The enactment of this legislation will add to a growing 
list of accomplishments that now include: Goal 2000, the School-To-Work 
Act, reform of college student loan programs and--perhaps most 
importantly--the creation of a National Service Program that will 
extend, to college students, both an opportunity at higher education 
and require a commitment to our communities. The administration has 
strongly supported these programs and worked with Congress in 
developing the legislation and the needed funding. Let me also take 
this opportunity to commend Senator Kennedy and Senator Pell for their 
continued leadership and hard work on education issues.


           land grant status to tribally controlled colleges

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the managers have 
accepted an amendment to S. 1513, the Improving America's Schools Act 
that will provide limited land grant status for 29 educational 
institutes serving Native American students. I am pleased to have a 
distinguished group of original cosponsors, including, Senators Baucus, 
Campbell, Dorgan, Levin, Riegle, and Simon. In addition, I would like 
to thank Senators Daschle, Exon, Wellstone, Kerry, Conrad, Inouye, 
Burns, and Domenici, who have joined me as cosponsors.
  Of the 29 institutions that would become land-grant institutions, 24 
are tribally controlled community colleges, established pursuant to the 
Navajo Community college Act of 1970 and the Tribally Controlled 
Community College Assistance Act of 1978. These colleges offer 2-year 
degrees, except for Salish Kootenai College and Oglala Lakota College, 
which offer 4-year degrees, and Sine Gleska University, which offers 
both a 4-year and a graduate degree program. These colleges are located 
in 12 States and enroll more than 14,000 students.
  Two other institutions that would be designated are tribally 
controlled postsecondary vocational institutions--Crownpoint Institute 
of Technology and United Tribes Technical College--both of which offer 
2-year programs. Together the two have an enrollment of 675 students.
  Other institutions that would also be designated as land-grant 
colleges are the Haskell Indian Nations and the Southwest Polytechnic 
Institute [SIPI]. Enrollment in 1993 at Haskell was 906 students and at 
SIPI, 519 students. Both schools are operated by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs.
  The final college that would be designated is the Institute of the 
American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, an 
institution offering 2-year degree program. The institute, an 
independent agency governed by a Presidentially appointed board, 
currently enrolls 250 students.
  The amendment would provide additional resources to further the 
agricultural capacity of the tribes and their members through these 
colleges.
  In considering this amendment, it is important to understand the 
background of the land-grant program. In the middle of the last 
century, life in America underwent dramatic changes and many educators 
realized that an entirely new educational system was needed to provide 
accessible education suited to the needs of our citizens. In 1862, 
Congressman Justin Smith Morrill sponsored the Land-Grant Act which 
authorized states to use the income from certain public lands to 
establish and operate colleges or universities for students of 
agriculture and the mechanic arts.
  A major goal of the land-grant program has been to include equally 
all people of the United States and the trust territories in the 
educational benefits which these land-grant colleges and universities 
provide. This served as the impetus behind the 1890 Second Morrill Act 
which established numerous institutions for black students, to ensure 
that these students had equal access to higher education even in States 
which already had existing land-grant colleges. In addition to setting 
the precedent that land-grant colleges could serve special populations, 
the Second Morrill Act demonstrated that there could be more than one 
land-grant college established in each State. In 1968, Federal City 
College, now the university of the District of Columbia, in Washington, 
DC was included as a land-grant institution. It established that trust 
areas were to be included in the land-grant programs; this trend 
continued with the addition of colleges in Guam and the Virgin Islands 
in 1972. Finally, the addition of colleges in Micronesia, American 
Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands in 1980 demonstrated that 
community colleges are also eligible for land-grant funding.
  The original intent of the land-grant colleges statutes was the 
development of programs to deal with problems of the rural poor and to 
study means of improving economic opportunities for rural people.
  Presently 74 colleges in the United States and their trust 
territories receive money under land-grant programs. Of these, 50 had 
their origins in the Morrill Act of 1862. Sixteen black colleges were 
also designated as land-grant institutions pursuant to the 1890 act. 
The seven other colleges were designated pursuant to separate acts of 
Congress between 1968 and 1980. The Department of Agriculture annually 
appropriates over $700 million to these colleges and universities, with 
each institution receiving an average award of approximately $9 
million. This legislation confers on these schools some of the benefits 
now available to other schools.
  Granting limited land-grant status to the institutions would 
significantly assist the approximately two million Native Americans 
living in the United States, 800,000 of whom live on 314 reservations. 
The 29 colleges listed in the amendment are all located on or near 
reservations. Most are 2-year colleges and technical schools. However, 
three are 4-year institutions and one offers a master's degree program. 
The schools are the most important providers of higher education 
opportunities for Native Americans, and have been particularly 
successful at retaining students and sending them on to 4-year 
colleges. They also are a source of community support--operating 
programs of family counseling, alcohol and drug abuse programs, job 
training, and economic development. The tribal colleges also conduct 
numerous types of programs of technical assistance similar to that 
which the original land grant institutions were founded. Generally 
speaking, the schools are poorly funded, due in large part to the 
depressed economies in and around the reservations, but also due to a 
lack of adequate Federal support. This amendment would make the 
resources available to continue the technical assistance now provided 
by the schools as well as to allow the schools to enhance their 
agricultural program.

  Furthermore, land-grant resources would allow tribal colleges to 
ameliorate the gross funding inequities which they suffer. Presently, 
tribal colleges receive approximately $2,974 per full-time equivalent 
[FTE] student compared with approximately $17,000 per FTE student for 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities students and approximately 
$7,000 per FTE student at comparable mainstream community colleges. I 
would note that funding for tribally controlled community colleges has 
not been included but in fact has decreased over the last year while 
Federal support increases for other minority institutions continues to 
grow.
  In my home State of New Mexico, there are four tribal colleges that 
serve over 1,700 full-time equivalent students. These institutions 
provide their students with the education and technical skills 
necessary to dramatically improve their lives. With a land-grant 
college designation, the Crownpoint Institute of Technology, the Navajo 
Community College/Shiprock Campus, the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 
Institute, and the Institute of American Indian Arts, will have access 
to additional resources for the study of agriculture, traditional arts 
and culture, and ways to help Native American people become self-
sufficient. By enabling tribal colleges throughout the country to 
become participants in a variety of agriculture research programs, this 
legislation would assist them in developing research and extension 
services.
  This amendment also will provide an endowment payable in $4.6 million 
installments over 5 years. This endowment will be held in trust and its 
annual dividend will be used to supplement current educational programs 
of the schools.
  The amendment also makes clear that the series of these existing 
institutions will not be duplicating or competing with the existing 
State land-grant institution extension services or experiment stations. 
It provides for a separate annual authorization of $50,000 for each 
tribal institution to be used for instruction in food and agriculture 
sciences; the existing land grant schools would not have this annual 
allocation to them diluted by the addition of these new schools.

  The amendment also authorizes an institutional capacity building 
grant program of $1,700,000 per year for the next 5 years and a grant 
program of $5,000,000 per year for research and extension services to 
be administered through the already-existing land-grant institutions.
  The legislation was reported out of the Indian Affairs Committee in 
November 1993; the substitute bill which comprises the amendment was 
unanimously approved by the committee. The bill has full support from 
the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the National Association of 
State Land Grant Universities and Colleges endorses the legislation.
  The institutions which are listed in the amendment are similar in 
many ways to those institutions currently eligible for Department of 
Agriculture assistance under the Morrill Act to strengthen its 
commitment to equal educational opportunity for all Americans, 
including American Indians. Unfortunately, American Indians are too 
often last in educational opportunity and development. By providing 
equitable access to agriculture education-related programs, it is not 
too late to help remedy this situation.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, the Improving America's Schools Act will 
give our communities the tools they need to improve their schools. It 
will help schools strengthen basic skills--through an invigorated 
chapter I program and expanded staff development. It will also bring 
badly needed technology to schools around the Nation.
  I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes the Safe and 
Drug Free Schools Act--legislation I introduced to provide parents, 
teachers, and students with the tools they need to fight violence in 
our schools.
  A recent survey showed that only 29 percent of parents believe that 
their children are safe in school. According to the Centers for Disease 
Control, nearly 3 million crimes occur on or near school campuses very 
year--one every six seconds. It is estimated that over one hundred 
thousand students carry guns to school each day. Thousands of students 
and teachers alike are victims of physical attacks or threats of 
violence. It is a terrifying situation. And, it is a scandal.
  Marleihia Harper, a student at a Philadelphia high school, says that 
violence is an everyday occurrence. She says that even the hand-held 
metal detectors are not enough to keep guns and knives out of her 
school. And when it rains, the crack vials float in puddles in the 
schoolyard.
  Marleihia attends a large urban school. But school violence has 
infected our rural and suburban schools as well. I recently visited a 
smaller school in Wilkes Barre where a poll of students found that 52 
percent of students knew someone who brought a weapon to school and 72 
percent said they witnessed violence at their school in the part year.
  The seventh National Education Goal, established by the Nation's 
Governors, states, ``By the year 2000, every school in America will be 
free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment 
conducive to learning.'' The legislation we are considering today will 
bring us closer to that goal.
  The Safe and Drug Free School Act will help local school districts 
develop and carry out comprehensive programs to prevent destructive 
behavior. Schools will be able to attack their own individual problems 
head-on. Schools could use funds to fit their own unique needs to 
develop programs such as teacher training, conflict resolution training 
for students, antigang efforts, or they could use funds to develop a 
partnership with the police, or a mentoring program with members of the 
business community.
  Feelings of hopelessness, alientation, and cynicism that lure 
children into using drugs also lead to violent behavior. Since drug use 
and violence often go hand and hand, the most promising strategy is 
comprehensive, coordinated school and community efforts, efforts that 
bring together families, students, community organizations, and law 
enforcement. This legislation will support these efforts.
  This legislation does not create another Federal program and 
bureaucracy. Rather, it alters an existing program to better meet the 
challenges facing our schools today. It will not burden schools with 
rigid, top-down, bureaucratic rules, but will leave communities free to 
produce the best course of action and give them some of the resources 
needed to get things done.
  Many Pennsylvania communities have taken the lead in attacking 
violence in schools. In recent months I have met with students, 
parents, teachers, and administrators from all parts of Pennsylvania 
who told me their own stories of the violence they see in their schools 
and how this legislation will help them do something about it. In 
Pittsburgh, the school district formed a task force that's taking the 
ideas of parents to work to eliminate violence among young people. In 
Philadelphia, I walked with a group of concerned parents and clergy--
led by my friend Rev. William B. Moore--in the safe corriders program, 
which protects children on their way to and from school. Also in 
Philadelphia, Veronica Joyner, a caring and dynamic community leader, 
has created a parents program that brings activities into some of the 
cities most violent schools. In Reading, a peer mediation program is 
teaching children how to settle their own disputes without resorting to 
weapons, punches, and insults. In Wilkes-Barre, the district attorney 
is working with local schools to prevent youth violence. And in 
Harrisburg, parents have joined together to provide a daily presence in 
the schools.
  Education is the one sure path to a better life for every 
American child. But children cannot learn if they do not feel safe. The 
Safe and Drug Free Schools Act will help us to once again make our 
schools a safe haven of knowledge, hope, and security.

  I am also pleased that this legislation incorporates key provisions 
of the Service Learning Act of 1993, which I introduced with Senators 
Durenberger, Kennedy, and Wellstone. The Service Learning Act is based 
on a simple yet powerful truth: students learn best by doing, by being 
active and engaged in the process of learning.
  In 1990, the President of the United States and all 50 Governors 
recognized this approach as an integral part of our Nation's 
educational goals. In their Charlottesville Declaration, they proposed 
that all States and school systems act to ensure that by the year 2000 
``all students will be involved in activities that promote and 
demonstrate good citizenship, community service and personal 
responsibility.'' Service-learning was seen as an important way to 
achieve goal three: that all students are ``prepared for responsible 
citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our modern 
economy.''
  Service-learning can be a critical element in education reform. 
Active learning through community service, especially if it is 
curriculum-based, improves student achievement by making classroom 
learning more meaningful. It can reengage students turned-off by 
traditional teaching methods. Service-learning promotes teamwork, 
leadership, and problem solving. In successful programs of service-
learning, students replace alienation with engagement, exchange boredom 
with excitement, and learn the exhilaration of making a difference. In 
this active form of education, the community becomes the classroom and 
students become resources. Thus service-learning will help us achieve 
all of the national education goals set in Charlottesville--for better 
teaching and better learning.
  Mr. President, with this legislation we are also going farther than 
ever before in recognizing that the best ideas about how to improve 
schools do not come from Washington--but from communities across the 
Nation. I commend Senator Kennedy, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Pell, and 
Senator Jeffords for their leadership in crafting this bipartisan 
education bill, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in offering 
their full support for the Improving America's Schools Act.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1513, the 
Improving America's Schools Act. This the third major education bill 
that the Senate has passed this Congress. The legislation complements 
the Goals 2000 and School to Work acts that President Clinton signed 
into law last year.
  This legislation represents the Federal commitment to local 
education. The Federal commitment to education is an important one, 
although it is limited. The Federal Government provides only 7 percent 
of all funds for education. However, the Federal role has traditionally 
been one that helps disadvantaged children and promotes innovative 
education.
  This bill provides funds for such items as increasing the use of 
technology in the classroom, school-based violence prevention programs, 
public charter schools, gifted and talented programs, repairing school 
facilities, foreign language programs, and math and science programs. 
It also makes significant changes in the so-called chapter 1 program, 
which provides resources for our schools to help our disadvantaged 
children.
  The Federal Government cannot and should not run our public school 
systems. It can only provide them resources and encouragement to 
improve our education system. This bill provides approximately $13 
billion to our States and schools to better educate our children. It is 
now up to our parents, teachers, principals, and administrators to 
finish the job of improving our schools and empowering our children to 
learn and compete in the next century.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.


                      scholar-athlete competitions

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the amendment that I offered, and that the 
managers have agreed to accept, authorizes $1 million to support 
scholar-athlete competitions in 1995. I believe that competition can 
encourage greater understanding and friendship between the 
participants. Academic and athletic competitions can bring together 
economically and culturally individuals who might otherwise never have 
the opportunity to interact.
  In 1993, the University of Rhode Island hosted the World Scholar-
Athlete games. These games were an enormous success, with 2,000 young 
scholars and athletes participating from 125 different countries and 
all 50 States. Young people between the ages of 16 and 19 who are 
talented in art, creative writing, singing, poetry, and athletics met 
in Rhode Island to engage in healthy competition and performances. I 
have no doubt that life-long friendships were forged at the World 
Scholar-Athlete games. As we help to build these individual 
friendships, we help to dismantle the walls that divide us.
  The Institute for International Sport at the University of Rhode 
Island conducted the World Scholar-Athlete games. The same group 
created National Sportsmanship Day to bring attention to ethics and 
fair play both in athletics and in society at large. Now, the Institute 
for International Sport plans to host the Rhode Island Scholar-Athlete 
games in the summer of 1995. The Rhode Island games are intended to be 
a model for other States to replicate.
  Like the Scholar-Athlete games, the Rhode Island Scholar-Athlete 
games are designed to bring together young people from diverse economic 
and social backgrounds in educational, athletic, and cultural 
activities intended to foster mutual understanding and respect. The 
Rhode Island Scholar-Athlete games, with the cooperation and guidance 
of the Rhode Island Department of Education, will gather scholars with 
demonstrated proficiency in a particular sport or cultural activity, to 
participate in a program which will motivate them to achieve greater 
academic, athletic, and artistic excellence.
  The sports activities that are planned include: baseball, softball, 
sailing, basketball, volleyball, soccer, tennis, swimming, and track. 
The cultural activities will include: art, band, debate, choir, 
theater, poetry, and creative writing. The Institute for International 
Sport also plans to hold theme days on the subjects of ethics and fair 
play, the environment, and substance abuse.
  To qualify for participation in the games, students must have a 
record of academic excellence or must have demonstrated notable 
progress or improvement. Special attention will be given to encouraging 
students from high poverty areas to participate.
  Educators and civic leaders from every State will be invited to 
attend and observe the games. The Institute will offer training 
sessions to these individuals to enable them to emulate the Rhode 
Island Scholar-Athlete games in their home States.
  My amendment authorizes the Secretary of Education to provide $1 
million to an organization such as the Institute for International 
Sport to implement Scholar-Athlete games in 1995. The Institute is 
prepared to conduct the games and is uniquely qualified to do so. I 
appreciate the cooperation of the managers in ensuring acceptance of 
the amendment.


                    improving america's schools act

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I support the passage of this bill which 
reauthorizes nearly every Federal elementary and secondary education 
program and provides Federal support to supplement State and local 
efforts. It strives to improve the quality of education for all 
students through ongoing staff development, remedial assistance for 
disadvantaged students, and by encouraging the adoption at the local 
education level of course work that is challenging enough to enable 
America's students to achieve the National Education Goals. This bill 
is intended to promote effective and equitable education for all 
students. The bill recognizes that ongoing professional development for 
teachers and other educators must be an integral part of every 
educator's career; schools and school districts must be given 
flexibility to implement reforms geared to their individual needs; 
technology can be used as a powerful tool to improve student learning 
opportunities; and reaching high academic standards requires a strong 
partnership with parents and others in the community.
  I would like to commend the committee chairman, Senator Kennedy, the 
subcommittee chairman, Senator Pell, and the ranking members, Senator 
Kassebaum and Senator Jeffords for their hard work and commitment to 
the futures of our children and our Nation which is evidenced in every 
title of this bill.
  The Chapter 1 Program is probably the most important education 
program supported with Federal dollars. Its purpose is to improve 
educational opportunities for low-achieving, poor students by providing 
extra assistance to the Nation's over 5 million disadvantaged students.
  S. 1513 states that ``although the achievement gap between 
disadvantaged children and other children has been reduced by half over 
the past two decades, a sizable gap remains, and many segments of our 
society lack the opportunity to become well educated.'' I am 
disappointed the bill does not follow the recommendations of the 
administration, Government Accounting Office, or the assessment of 
chapter 1 by redirecting greater Federal resources to those States with 
the highest concentrations of poverty. However, the bill does introduce 
a better within-state targeting mechanism to focus resources within a 
State to areas where needs are greatest.
  Other changes to the program will allow more flexibility in the use 
of funds, particularly in schools where more than 50 percent of the 
students are from low-income families. The Chapter 1 Program continues 
to hold great promise for those children in our society who do not have 
the same opportunities students in wealthier schools have.
  This reauthorization also emphasizes the notion that schools can't do 
it alone. Ensuring the best education for children is a parent's 
responsibility and the community should and can make a big difference 
by placing a high priority on student achievement.
  Another successful Federal program reauthorized by this bill, which 
was first authorized with the 1988 amendments, is the Even Start 
Program. It has been important to Mississippi's efforts to combat 
illiteracy. Even Start combines early childhood education and adult 
basic education into a unified program. Its success is due in part to 
its ability to build partnerships within families and encourage family 
members to work together to improve literacy and learning skills. It is 
closely coordinated with other Federal programs including chapter 1, 
adult education, Job Training Partnership Act and Head Start. S. 1513 
extends the program for another 5 years and expands eligibility to a 
much neglected segment of our population--teen parents.
  Title III of the bill, ``Education Technology for All Students,'' 
includes many of the same provisions which were part of S. 1040, ``the 
Technology for Education Act,'' a bill I was pleased to introduce along 
with Senators Bingaman and Kennedy earlier this year.
  S. 1040 was developed over a 2-year period in consultation with 
students, teachers, school administrators, representatives of the 
technology industry and other experts. These provisions, now part of S. 
1513, will establish a Federal leadership role in promoting greater 
integration of technology into the classroom; support teacher training 
programs; encourage the development of curriculum specific software; 
and provide assistance to needy schools for the purchase of equipment 
and linkages necessary to become technologically connected. I am 
pleased to report that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $50 
million for this new educational technology program at last week's 
markup of the Labor HHS appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  Also included in title III is the reauthorization of the highly 
successful Star Schools Program. The Star Schools Program supports 
grants to telecommunications partnerships to enable them to provide 
distance learning services, including facilities and equipment, 
programming and technical assistance.
  Star Schools programs are designed to improve educational 
opportunities for students residing in areas of the country where there 
are teacher shortages by making available subjects such as mathematics, 
science, and foreign languages, as well as other subjects such as 
literacy skills and vocational education. First enacted in 1988, the 
Star Schools Program has supported various consortia which now provide 
satellite access to every region of the country. Changes made by this 
reauthorization allow grants to be made for a 5 year period, thus 
preventing disruption of services.

  I ask unanimous consent that an article which appeared in the The 
Journal, authored by Senators Bingaman, Kennedy and myself on the 
promise of educational technology be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  I appreciate also the committee's including in this bill the National 
Writing Project and extending this worthwhile staff development program 
for 5 years. First authorized in 1991, this program has received modest 
Federal support over the past 4 years and has made a significant impact 
on the teaching of writing in the Nation's classrooms and on student 
ability to use writing as a way to improve learning in all subjects. 
The bill I introduced in January 1993 to reauthorize the National 
Writing Project, S. 70, had 42 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle 
at the time the committee adopted it as part of S. 1513.
  The National Writing Project operates through 144 sites in 44 States, 
most of which are associated with universities. Last year, 105,009 
teachers voluntarily sought training in one of the National Writing 
Project intensive summer and school-year workshops.
  The National Writing Project has reached 20,000 students through 
summer young writers camp and over 7,300,000 students of all ethnic and 
linguistic background through their classroom teachers. In other words, 
in a single year 18 percent of the Nation's K-12 public school students 
benefited from a Federal investment that amounts to 34 cents per 
student.
  The National Writing Project is a teachers--teaching--teachers 
program which identifies and promotes productive techniques used in the 
classrooms of our best teachers. It is a positive program celebrating 
good teaching practice, one which through its work with schools, 
increases the Nation's corps of successful classroom teachers. When the 
project was funded for an unprecedented 10th year by the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, a spokesman said:

       I have no hesitation in saying that the National Writing 
     Project has been by far the most effective and `cost 
     effective' project in the history of the Endowment's support 
     for elementary and secondary education programs.

  In Mississippi, National Writing Project sites have contributed 
greatly to the remarkable improvement in the quality of teaching. 
Program participants include not only English teachers but also 
teachers of history, geography, math, reading, science and elementary 
classes. The result has been a measurable improvement in student 
performances and rekindling of teachers' enthusiasm, confidence and 
morale.
  For every Federal dollar, the National Writing Project has been able 
to garner 5 additional dollars from State, university, school district 
and other local sources.
  By improving writing instruction as part of a basic education, I 
believe this legislation will provide a very high return for a modest 
investment and will take us further toward our goal of improving the 
quality of education in our Nation.
  Another new program the bill includes will support a grant to 
demonstrate ``Mathline,'' a national telecommunications-based 
demonstration project to assist elementary and secondary school 
teachers in preparing all students to achieve State content in 
mathematics. The Senate Appropriations Committee included $3 million 
for fiscal year 1995 to support the initial phase of implementing this 
program.
  The ``Ready to Learn,'' television as teacher program is reauthorized 
to support the development and distribution of early education 
television programming and supporting written materials to help parents 
and daycare providers make the most of public television programming. 
The motivation behind this program was to reach preschool youngsters 
with high quality programs which are cost-effective and have broad 
availability in order to help them achieve the first National Education 
Goal, ``All children will enter school ready to learn.''
  Other sections of the bill--Elementary and Secondary School Library 
Media Resources Program, Foreign Language Assistance, Magnet School 
Assistance, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Committees and the new 
Targeted Assistance Program replacing the current chapter 2 program--
will make a significant contribution to the quality of education 
America's students receive.
  I urge other Senators to join me in support of this landmark 
legislation.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the T.H.E. Journal, Aug. 1993]

             A Blueprint to Revolutionize America's Schools

 (By Senator Jeff Bingaman, Senator Edward M. Kennedy and Senator Thad 
                                Cochran)

       New Mexico--In a cluster of nine small high schools 
     scattered across the plains of rural eastern New Mexico, the 
     classrooms, of the future are emerging. High school students 
     in San Jose, House and Grady--some of the most rural 
     communities in New Mexico--are taking advanced classes from a 
     college 50 miles away. Through a two-way interactive video 
     system, these students have been linked to each other and to 
     the Clovis Community College. Through this innovative 
     application of technology these students can participate in a 
     regional classroom and have access to educational resources 
     that do not exist in their small schools and communities.
       Mississippi--At the Hayes Cooper School for Math, Science 
     and Technology, a technology-centered K-6 public school in 
     the heart of the Mississippi Delta, each child has an 
     individualized educational program tailored to meet his or 
     her learning needs, using computer programs that have been 
     designed by the school's teachers to meet state curriculum 
     standards and the National Education Goals.
       As a result, teachers have more time to spend with small 
     groups of students, while other students work in teams at one 
     of the classroom's computer terminals. Classrooms are linked 
     by computer networks to enable teachers to share ideas and 
     participate in team-teaching activities. Computer-generated 
     reports on each child's progress are sent home to parents on 
     a monthly basis. After just one year in operation, Hayes 
     Cooper students report significant gains over last year's 
     standardized test scores. ``This school is harder,'' explains 
     one sixth grader, ``but it is a lot more fun.''
       Massachusetts--During the last five years, hundreds of 
     teachers in Boston Public Schools have observed the positive 
     impact of technology on their students' ability to learn, 
     especially in the area of mathematics. Each teacher involved 
     in the Elementary and Middle School Math and Technology 
     Project, which is funded by the National Science Foundation 
     and Boston Public Schools, received two computers, a 
     calculator and ``hands-on'' math materials for their 
     classrooms.
       Coupled with intensive workshops in mathematics and new 
     strategies for teaching math (cooperative learning, 
     interdisciplinary teaching, etc.), these materials have 
     provided rich and vastly different learning experiences in 
     math for Boston students. Listen to the comments from some 
     Boston area teachers.
       One teacher reported that ``I no longer use textbooks. All 
     lessons involve manipulatives, calculators and computers. I 
     teach to develop concepts, not techniques for getting 
     answers.''
       Another said that ``my students are always engaged in 
     problem solving. My students now work in groups, sharing 
     their ideas and knowledge. I love to listen to them develop 
     strategies as they work at the computer. They are always 
     thinking and sharing their knowledge.''
       Still another remarked, ``I have seen totally new ways to 
     use calculators and computers. I always saw computers as a 
     tool to reinforce or check skill work, but now I see that 
     they really engage my students in much more complex problem 
     solving.''


               effective examples, but not yet pervasive

       Powerful examples like these show that creative uses of 
     technologies by skilled teachers offer the promise to quickly 
     and cost-effectively restructure education as we know it. 
     These technologies can help teachers create an environment 
     where all students are afforded rigorous, rich classroom 
     instruction at a pace that suits their learning style and in 
     a way that gives them a more active role in the learning 
     process.
       The problem is that there are few examples of exemplary use 
     of technology in the classroom. Some of the reasons include: 
     Lack of resources to wire schools, purchase equipment and 
     develop technology plans; inadequate teacher training, both 
     pre-service and inservice; little support from school 
     administration; lack of availability of curriculum-specific 
     software; and no interest by teachers because they have not 
     had opportunities to become fully award of the vast resources 
     technology can offer.


                    leadership at the federal level

       On May 27, 1993, we introduced S. 1040, the Technology in 
     Education Act of 1993. It would authorize over $300 million 
     in federal funds to help integrate advanced technology and 
     communications systems into the classrooms of all the 
     nation's elementary and secondary schools. The motivation 
     behind this bill is to support state and local efforts to 
     reach, by the year 2000, the ambitious National Education 
     Goals established by the nation's governors. We want our 
     elementary and secondary schools to be the best in the world.
       We believe that these goals can be reached through the 
     creative use of instructional technologies. Without the 
     advantage of technology in the classroom, our students will 
     not be able to achieve the level of competence they need in 
     order to reach these goals or compete in a rapidly changing 
     workforce.


                the technology in education act of 1993

       The Technology for Education Act strives to make our 
     elementary and secondary schools a part of the information 
     technology revolution. In education, just as in technology, 
     we are on the verge of a major restructuring of the way we 
     live and learn. Americans have awakened to the need for 
     dramatic improvements in education and reform of our 
     educational system. We hope that the Technology in Education 
     Act of 1993 will energize this revolution to change the way 
     we teach our children and prepare them for the jobs of 
     tomorrow.
       In developing this legislation, we seek to provide much-
     needed federal leadership to integrate technology into K-12 
     classrooms. Although there are many technology-related 
     programs supported by various federal agencies, the 
     legislation will give the U.S. Department of Education a 
     stronger and more visible role. Its primary responsibility 
     will be to encourage state and local education agencies to 
     integrate technology in all education programs and to 
     coordinate technology efforts across all levels of the 
     federal government.
       The Office of Technology established by the bill will 
     oversee new programs to provide funding to support state 
     technology-in-education planning, staff development 
     activities and the acquisition of technology by poorer school 
     districts.


                providing vision, strategy and resources

       Technology can revolutionize the way we teach our children 
     and change the way they learn, just as profoundly as it has 
     altered the American workplace. Advanced information 
     technologies are obviously not the cure-all for America's 
     educational problems, any more than chalk and the blackboard 
     were cure-alls when they were invented. But technology can do 
     a great deal to extend educational opportunities to all 
     students and raise the level of performance of our schools 
     and our students. The classrooms of the future that will 
     utilize these educational technologies must be grounded with 
     the goal of equity and access for all students.
       We believe the Technology in Education Act of 1993 can 
     provide the vision, the strategy and the resources to make 
     that goal a reality.
                                  ____


         Summary: Technology in Education Act of 1993, S. 1040


                                title i

       Title I sets out the leadership function of the Department 
     of Education in the area of educational technology. It 
     establishes an Office of Technology within the Department of 
     Education to coordinate the technology-related activities in 
     all of the department's programs.
       The Office of Technology shall also provide the leadership 
     necessary, both inside the federal government and throughout 
     the country, to encourage the uses of technology that support 
     systemic school reform. Some of the ways it will provide this 
     leadership and encouragement is through:
       A system of grants and loans to support the programs 
     described in this bill;
       Encouragement and support of ongoing research and 
     development of new technology-enhanced software, programming 
     and the advanced technologies themselves; and
       Promotion of collaboration among business, educational 
     organizations and others to expand and improve the uses of 
     technology in education.
       The Office of Technology shall manage the Star Schools 
     programs and a new Division of School Library Media Services. 
     Leadership functions will also include exploring the 
     feasibility of interface guidelines to make technology truly 
     accessible for teachers and students in schools and annually 
     assessing the ``state of the art'' to make policy 
     recommendations for the future.
       An Assistant Secretary for Educational Technology is 
     established to direct the Office of Technology and to provide 
     leadership both inside the department and in working with 
     other departments and agencies of the federal government to 
     integrate technology into our schools.


                                Title II

       Title II provides federal funding to promote the state 
     planning necessary to use the ideas, skills and knowledge 
     provided by technology as one of the tools to support state 
     systemic reform.
       This title also establishes a Division of Elementary and 
     Secondary School Library and Media Services to fund media 
     center resource development, innovative library media 
     specialist and teacher partnerships, and programs to 
     electronically bring library media centers into classrooms. 
     Through a series of grants and loans, schools having the 
     highest percentages of children in poverty and demonstrating 
     the greatest need for technology in the classroom will be 
     eligible for funds to implement plans to integrate technology 
     into the curriculum by purchasing equipment, installing 
     wiring and training teachers.
       Title II also provides for the dissemination of information 
     of programs that have already successfully integrated 
     technology into the curriculum.


                               title iii

       Title III establishes a means to electronically disseminate 
     information that schools need to support their programs by 
     building on existing electronic networks and making them 
     easily accessible to users.
       This title also recognizes the need to provide long-term, 
     on-site staff development in order to integrate existing 
     technologies, and those yet to be developed, into the 
     curriculum. It will establish grants to regional consortia to 
     develop and implement these programs. The consortia will also 
     provide technical assistance to states and schools to help 
     them keep current with the newest information.


                                title iv

       Title IV supports educational technology product 
     development, production and distribution through competitive 
     grants for partnerships of businesses and educational 
     institutions to develop curriculum-based software. Using a 
     set of matching competitive grants, the Office of Technology 
     will fund research, production and distribution of 
     educational television programming that supports the National 
     Education Goals and is targeted to school-aged audiences. 
     Continuation and expansion of the successful Star Schools 
     programs will also be administered through the Office of 
     Technology.


                                title v

       Title V provides for the educational technology research, 
     development and assessment necessary to annually gauge the 
     effectiveness of technologies in our schools and also to look 
     to the future by supporting development of new and better 
     technologies through a series of grants.


                                title vi

       Title VI recognizes the continuing costs of maintaining and 
     upgrading technologies by requiring funding models to support 
     these costs in our schools.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleagues for their 
hard work on this critical piece of education legislation. In 
particular, the chairmen and ranking members of both the full committee 
and the Education Subcommittee, along with their staffs, have spent 
countless hours reviewing the recommendations and concerns that have 
been raised, and going over every detail in the bill. They deserve our 
thanks and our respect.
  More than a decade ago, the Department of Education published the 
milestone report ``A Nation at Risk.'' As the title suggests, the 
report raised grave concerns about the quality of American education. 
The intervening years have produced dozens more reports that echo these 
findings. Although these reports have raised awareness about the 
serious problems facing our system of education, our children, 
regrettably, are at no less risk now than they were at the time the 
original report was issued.
  Perhaps what is most remarkable--and most telling--is that despite 
the fact that ``A Nation at Risk'' was issued by an administration 
whose central aim was to curtail Government involvement in social 
issues, the report called for stronger Federal leadership in reforming 
education.
  These hopes have not been realized. The lack of action has led to 
heightened expectations for this administration, and this piece of 
legislation. While no one expects one President, or one bill, to 
instantly reverse more than a decade of neglect, this administration is 
to be commended for moving from rhetoric to action. In March, President 
Clinton signed into law his administration's blueprint for education 
reform, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. This legislation is a 
solid first step toward realizing the Federal commitment to high 
academic standards for all students.
  Along with the Goals 2000 bill, Congress also passed the School-to-
Work Opportunities Act, which I was pleased to sponsor in the Senate. 
This initiative, open to all students, will be particularly useful to 
the so-called forgotten half of high school students who do not go on 
to college. This bill will help thousands of students receive the 
training and education they need to compete in today's work force by 
setting guidelines and offering start-up venture capital for statewide 
school-to-work transition systems.
  President Clinton should also be commended for standing up to special 
interests to ensure that college will be a more realistic possibility 
for all Americans. With the passage of the new direct student loan 
program, both taxpayers and students will save billions of dollars. In 
addition, with the help of income-contingent repayment under the new 
student loan program and new funds under the National and Community 
Service Act, more citizens will be able to tutor those with limited 
literacy skills, assist the elderly, rebuild inner-city communities, 
and engage in other work that enriches our Nation.


                          esea reauthorization

  None of these measures alone will solve all our education problems, 
but each is an important piece of the puzzle. And the more than $9 
billion in this reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act represent several pieces.
  The original Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed nearly 
30 years ago as part of the Johnson administration's war on poverty. 
The central aim was to provide extra educational assistance to poor 
children to help them overcome the adversities of poverty. The heart of 
this legislation was captured recently by Secretary of Education Riley 
who quoted John Dewey:

       What the best and wisest parent wants for his [her] child, 
     that must be what the community wants for all of its 
     children: Any other ideal for our schools is narrow and 
     unlovely; it destroys our democracy.

  To determine what changes need to be made to the various ESEA 
programs, I chaired hearings in Chicago and East St. Louis, and we 
heard from numerous witnesses here in Washington. In addition, valuable 
input came from two blue-ribbon studies of Federal education programs, 
many smaller such studies, and letters and meetings with hundreds of 
parents, teachers, students, and education researchers.
  The Improving America's Schools Act includes many critical reforms, 
including: an increased emphasis on schoolwide approaches to encourage 
schools to abandon ineffective approaches that pull out and label 
students who need help; stronger accountability provisions to monitor 
schools' progress in educating economically disadvantaged students, and 
the elimination of perverse incentives that penalize schools that 
increase student achievement; an increasing emphasis on better tests 
tied to challenging content and performance standards rather than a 
dumbed-down curriculum; significant increases in funding for teacher 
training and professional development, and more flexibility for 
teachers and other staff to tailor these activities to the needs of 
their individual schools; and stronger parental involvement.
  An important aspect of the reforms in the bill is that schools are 
provided with more flexibility in exchange for increased 
accountability. I must mention, however, that I am not comfortable with 
the waiver language included in title I. I raised my concerns at the 
committee markup, and there are improvements in the committee 
amendment. But I am afraid that the language is still too broad and 
will result in some abuse--either a misuse of funds, or students not 
receiving the assistance that was intended by Congress. I am hopeful 
that we can look more closely at this in conference.


                        focusing on poor schools

  One of the most significant reforms the Senate has achieved is to 
refocus chapter 1, now title I, of ESEA on serving the needs of poor 
children. Title I, by far the largest program in the bill, is supposed 
to provide financial assistance to local education agencies with high 
concentrations of poverty. But the money is too thinly spread: More 
than 90 percent of school districts receive funding, while 13 percent 
of high-poverty schools get no money at all. Given the many obstacles 
they face in reaching their potential, economically disadvantaged 
students require special attention and extra support. While it is 
politically difficult to take away funds from some school districts, we 
have done the right thing by revising the current formula to target 
more heavily on the higher poverty districts and schools.
  We should not fool ourselves into thinking that we have solved the 
funding disparities faced by poor schools, however. In Illinois and 
many other States there are glaring disparities in school funding that 
can only be fixed by the States themselves--perhaps with some 
encouragement from the Federal Government. Last year, several of my 
colleagues and I held hearings to look at school finance and to explore 
the role of the Federal Government in encouraging States to equalize 
school funding. I held a hearing in East St. Louis, which has become a 
symbol of this problem, in part due to the vivid descriptions in 
Jonathan Kozol's book, ``Savage Inequalities.''
  Through these hearings, Mr. Kozol's book, and my visits to schools in 
East St. Louis, Chicago, other areas of Illinois, and New York City, I 
have seen the deplorable learning conditions of our poorest students. 
It is discouraging to visit a school where students have workbooks in 
which students from previous years have already penciled in answers. It 
is discouraging to visit a school with 730 students and only one half-
time counselor. During our hearings, Senator Dodd mentioned that his 
sister, an elementary school teacher in Hartford, buys pencils, paper, 
and even toilet paper for her students with her own money. Teachers 
from across the country have similar stories.
  Pencils, paper, and toilet paper--as well as textbooks, technology, 
competent teachers, and a safe and healthful learning environment--are 
basic and essential components of an effective education system. It is 
not fair to ask our students to meet world-class standards and then 
deny them the necessary resources.
  The heart of the problem is the way education is funded, which, in 
most States, is primarily through property taxes. In Illinois, the per-
student value of property ranges from $5,445 to $880,974. Our statewide 
annual average per pupil expenditure in 1990 was $4,200, with a high of 
$12,900 and a low of $2,100. Those that spend less do so because they 
have less. There are districts that could tax themselves to the point 
of ruin and still not be able to adequately fund their schools. It is 
interesting that Sweden, which does not have the extremes of poverty 
that we have, has a policy of spending two to three times more per 
student on education in the more disadvantaged areas. We have stumbled 
into a system in which we do exactly the opposite. This must change.


                        money makes a difference

  While opponents of school finance reform argue that money does not 
improve schools, we don't see them volunteering to send some of their 
money to the poorer urban or rural schools. It is interesting that in 
Sweden they spend more on the higher poverty schools, logically 
assuming that they will need more help.
  And we did learn from our hearings that money, spent the right way, 
can make a significant difference in student achievement. Parental 
education, parental involvement and training, significantly smaller 
class sizes, teacher experience, and access to reading materials and 
modern technology are among those factors shown to boost achievement. 
All of these things take money. Of course, money alone is not the 
answer. There has to be some degree of accountability that assures 
funds will be used appropriately. However, we must begin to provide the 
types of resources that make a difference.
  A few months ago, just after Robert Leininger resigned as the 
Illinois State Superintendent of Education, he lamented publicly that 
during his tenure very little had changed regarding education funding. 
``Adequate funding is the backbone of school reform,'' he said. ``We 
know the solution. However, our collective leaders lack the desire, the 
inclination, and the fortitude to take legislative action.'' I would 
like to prove him wrong. Pressure has been mounting for greater school 
finance equity, with court cases in 28 States and legislative and 
referendum efforts in many others. We have taken small, but significant 
steps in the right direction. But our political leaders must overcome 
their inability, or unwillingness, to address unfair systems of funding 
education and take the larger strides that are necessary.
  The Federal Government has two main roles to play in this process. 
The first is to lead the guide States toward reforming their own 
systems of funding. Under Goals 2000, the Federal Government will 
develop national opportunity to learn standards that describe the 
conditions and resources necessary for all students to achieve to high 
standards. States will develop their own standards as part of their 
plans for systemic reform. Goals 2000 also authorizes technical 
assistance grants to assist States in achieving greater equity in their 
distribution of education resources. That opportunity to learn 
standards were the most difficult issue to resolve in passage of the 
bill signifies the intensity of the debate. At the center of this 
debate is the tension between our tradition of local control of 
schools, and the national interest in a well-educated citizenry and a 
well-trained work force. Our passage of the bill shows that these 
issues can be resolved. While there will be many difficult fights 
ahead, we are clearly moving in the right direction.

  Also part of this leadership role, in this reauthorization the 
Federal Government has signaled its concern about school finance equity 
by including an equity adjustment directly in the title I formula. 
States that have more equitable systems of school finance will see a 
bonus in their title I funds, while inequitable States will see a 
reduction. This is phased-in over a 4-year period, to give States like 
Illinois a chance to improve their funding systems. Frankly, the way 
that equity is measured in the bill is far from perfect. My preference 
would have been for a different approach. However, the provision does 
send a signal to States that the Federal Government is seriously 
interested in the issue.
  The second role of the Federal Government is to identify specific 
areas of need, and to provide adequate funding to support these areas. 
Informed by the many studies both on ESEA programs and education in 
general, this bill does establish some clear priorities which are 
backed up with significant authorizations.


                            family literacy

  One area in which we have had significant success is in asking more 
of parents and providing them with the support they need to take a more 
active role in their children's education. I am pleased that this bill 
continues the Even Start Family Literacy Program, which combines early 
childhood education for children in low-income areas and adult basic 
education for their parents. Many impoverished parents see academic 
failure as inevitable for their children--just as their parents did 
before them. The home is the child's first classroom and the parent is 
the child's first teacher.
  Even Start, which was expanded and improved in my National Literacy 
Act, addresses the needs of the most at-risk families in the Nation 
through a family-centered approach, and it works because it gets at the 
root of school failure and undereducation. Working in coordination with 
other programs, including the Adult Education Act, the Job Training 
Partnership Act, Head Start, and volunteer literacy programs, Even 
Start builds partnerships within families so that members reinforce 
each others' learning. I am pleased that my amendment allowing title I 
funds to count toward the State match was incorporated in his bill, and 
I am hopeful that this will enable Even Start and title I programs to 
collaborate, resulting in greater learning gains for low-income 
children and their parents.


                            Teacher Training

  Another area in which this bill has made significant advances is in 
supporting high-quality teaching. The bill marks a milestone by 
establishing a new title II for the funding of teacher training and 
professional development, which expands the Eisenhower Math and Science 
Program to include all core subject areas. I am happy that we were able 
to include summer institutes for teachers to update their knowledge and 
hone their skills in a setting in which they have ample time for study 
and many opportunities for interacting with other teachers. I am 
particularly happy that these institutes will be undertaken in several 
core subject areas, including foreign languages.


                         Prejudice and Violence

  Our Nation's racial, religious, and ethnic diversity is increasing, 
and this trend--which will continue in coming years--is reflected in 
our Nation's classrooms. Unfortunately, many schools have experienced 
an alarming escalation in intolerance and conflict, according to a 
disturbing report by the Department of Education's Office for Civil 
Rights. In a 1993 report, the American Psychological Association 
documented the role of prejudice and discrimination in fostering 
conflict that can lead to violence. The APA found that education 
programs aimed at reducing prejudice and hostility are critical 
components in programs to prevent youth violence.
  In a hearing before my Judiciary Subcommittee, director Steven 
Spielberg emphasized the importance of school-based efforts to promote 
tolerance and reduce prejudice. For example, the Anti-Defamation 
League's A World of Difference Program, founded in 1985 and now 
operating in more than 30 cities, provides training and educational 
programming about the roots and consequences of prejudice.
  I am pleased that the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program in this bill 
includes provisions that I advocated to address this issue. First, 
schools participating in the program--most schools in the Nation--will 
include prejudice and intolerance in their evaluation of the problems 
they face. Second, if they find there is a problem, funding from the 
program can be used to address it, preferably in partnership with 
community organizations. Finally, violence-reduction efforts at the 
statewide level will also be able to be used for efforts to reverse 
trends toward prejudice and intolerance. In addition, the Civics 
Education Act recognizes that respect and appreciation for cultural 
differences are critical to a healthy democratic society.


                           foreign languages

  There are certain areas in which we have made some progress, but in 
which I hope we can do much more. One place in which it is clear that 
we must do more is in providing all students with instruction in 
foreign languages. It is significant that foreign languages are 
included as a core academic subject in the National Education Goals. 
Unfortunately, many States consider foreign language education a frill. 
And when budgets are tight, these courses are among the first to be 
cut. Over 95 percent of elementary students do not study a foreign 
language and 26 States face a shortage of foreign language teachers.
  The Foreign Language Assistance Program, which this bill 
reauthorizes, if the only Federal program that funds foreign languages 
in elementary schools. Revisions that I promoted include focusing more 
on encouraging learning at the elementary level and adding a new 
foreign language incentive program that will reward elementary schools 
that offer foreign language education that leads to communicative 
competency. We had two wonderful demonstrations of this at a hearing I 
held in April.
  Improving and expanding foreign language education is important 
because it contributes to cognitive and social growth of students. 
Children who have studied foreign language in elementary school score 
higher on standardized tests of reading, language arts, and mathematics 
than those who have not studied a foreign language. It also contributes 
to understanding and appreciating diverse people and cultures and our 
competitiveness in the global marketplace.


                               libraries

  We also need to do more to support our country's libraries. Access to 
adequate library facilities is essential to the effective education of 
our Nation's young people. A recent study showed that library and media 
spending was one of the best predictors of student achievement, even 
after controlling for other factors such as the social and economic 
status of parents.
  Yet in recent years, our school libraries have not received the 
funding they need to serve students and teachers effectively. The 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 provided separate 
funding for school library programs. During the seventies and eighties, 
however, Congress merged funding for all school programs into block 
grants. As a result of the merger, funding for school libraries 
declined dramatically. The lack of funding has taken a heavy toll on 
the State of our school libraries. In California, for example, more 
than half of all school libraries have closed during the last 10 years. 
In that State, a young person in a correctional institution has better 
access to library facilities than does the average student. In those 
school libraries which remain in operation, collections are hopelessly 
outdated. The average publication date of a school library book is the 
late 1960's. Our school library collections are so obsolete that over 
half of the books on space exploration were written before the United 
States put a man on the moon. While ESEA provides some funding for 
school libraries, it is clearly inadequate. I look forward to achieving 
better funding for school libraries in future efforts.


                      lengthening the school year

  I am also pleased that we have taken an important first step toward 
achieving a longer school year. Our children spend only about 180 days 
a year in school. In Japan students attend school 243 days a year. In 
Germany students attend school 240 days a year. If we want our children 
and future generations to do better and compete, we will have to give 
our students an education that is at least as rigorous as that of our 
competitors. Right now we are falling far short.
  Funding constraints, as well as the strong tradition of an agrarian 
economy, have made expanding the school year difficult for most States 
and school districts. I am pleased that my amendment, which provides 
grants to States or local school districts that want to include 
lengthening of the school year as one of their school improvement 
efforts, was adopted. I hope that in future years we can do much more.


                     gender equity in the classroom

  I am also pleased that my amendment to increase the authorization for 
the Women's Educational Equity Act was incorporated. I am concerned 
that many textbooks still stereotype women. Girls deserve to learn with 
curriculum and materials that provide positive female role models. 
Girls do not see their own lives, experiences, or accomplishments 
reflected in the curriculum. In fact, only 2 percent of people in 
history books are women. This shapes their expectations of themselves--
and having high expectations of themselves is absolutely crucial in 
achieving their potential. In addition to providing grants that can be 
used for introducing into the classroom materials that are free of 
gender stereotypes, grants under this program can be used for 
conducting research on ways to advance gender equity in classrooms, 
training teachers and other school personnel in gender-equitable 
teaching practices, and assisting pregnant and parenting students in 
remaining or returning to school.
  The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
presents us with an unique opportunity. Nothing is more important to 
our country's future than our children. If we want our children and 
future generations to do better and compete, we will have to ensure 
that they are well-educated. This means demanding more of our students, 
but at the same time demanding more of ourselves.
  Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not note the hard work of 
my staff who have put a great deal of time and effort into this 
legislation: Alice Johnson has developed an in-depth knowledge of 
education issues--particularly literacy and foreign languages--and 
contributed major improvements to the bill; Dr. Charles Barone's 
background as a psychologist working with schools and troubled youth, 
as well as his technical skills and inquiring nature, have made him an 
invaluable resource; Kristina Zahorik knows the role of libraries and 
technology in education and has contributed greatly; and Bob Shireman, 
though he is temporarily serving as my press secretary, continues to 
provide expert and superb overall direction for my efforts on 
education.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
compliment the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee 
on Education, Senator Pell, and the other members of the committee on 
the inclusion of title XV in the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Reauthorization Act. This title will provide much needed assistance to 
school districts facing overwhelming renovation and construction needs. 
Federal, state, and local funding for repairs, renovation, and 
construction of public elementary and secondary schools have thus far 
been insufficient to meet the need across the country.
  We are experiencing the devastating effect of insufficient 
educational facilities and a lack of resources for construction in my 
home State of Nevada. The Schurz Elementary School which is located on 
the Walker River Paiute Reservation in Nevada and is administered by 
the Mineral County School District has been determined unsafe for 
school purposes and condemned. This elementary school, built in 1938 of 
unreinforced block, is at a site affected by the highest level of 
earthquake potential, is located in the flood plain of the Walker 
River, and is within yards of highway and railway munitions transport 
to the Hawthorne Army Ammunition Depot. The children are currently 
being schooled in multiple classrooms and trailers throughout the 
campus under very crowded conditions. There is no communication system 
between these makeshift classrooms and currently no fire alarm system.
  It is my understanding that section 15004, subsection (B) of title XV 
specifies an eligible local education agency as one in which the United 
States owns Federal property of 90 percent or more. Since the Mineral 
County School District consists of 94 percent Federal land then it is 
my understanding that this title will make the Mineral County School 
District eligible for funds to build a new school at a safer site. I 
would like to ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education, Mr. 
Pell, if I am correct about the eligibility of the Mineral County 
School District under the provisions for funding in this title?
  Mr. PELL. The Senator is correct. The title specifically states that 
a local education agency is eligible under this title if the district 
consists of at least 90 percent Federal property owned by the United 
States.
  Mr. REID. I thank the chairman for that clarification and for his 
support of our Nation's educational infrastructure. The Senator from 
Rhode Island has worked diligently and admirably to improve the 
standards for education and educational opportunities for students 
across the Nation.
  Mr. PELL. It is my hope that the Secretary of Education will 
recognize the unique circumstances facing the Mineral County School 
District and the crucial need for a new school at Schurz when approving 
funds under this title. I would support the Secretary in approving the 
needed funds for Schurz as the Appropriations Committee has indicated 
it would in two separate places in its report accompanying the Labor, 
Health and Human Services and Education bill.


                       multiethnic placement act

  Mr. DURENBERGER. I have a question for the distinguished sponsor of 
the Multiethnic Placement Act, Senator Metzenbaum, related to the 
placement practices of my home State. Minnesota has a policy, absent 
good cause to the contrary, of first attempting to place a child with 
relatives. If that is not workable, the State agency attempts to place 
the child with a family of the same racial or ethnic heritage. If that 
is not feasible, the final preference is for a family of different 
heritage that knows and appreciates the child's racial and ethnic 
heritage. The search for relatives or families of similar race and 
ethnicity must be completed within a short and specified time period.
  Would the Multiethnic Placement Act prevent a State from implementing 
such a policy of preferences?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Consistent with the best interests of the child, the 
bill would not prevent such policies.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. COATS. As you know, the goal of ending discrimination in adoption 
placements is one which we both share, Senator Metzenbaum, as 
cosponsors of S. 1224, the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1993. I believe 
that this bill is an important step toward the goal of ending policies 
which categorically deny adoption placements on the basis of race, 
color, or national origin.
  ALthough the issue of transracial adoption is both controversial and 
complicated, you and I agree on certain basic principles. First, that 
it is generally preferable for children to be placed with families of 
their own ethnic origin when such homes are available and in the 
child's best interest. Second, that transracial placement is a positive 
and effective means of providing a child with a loving and permanent 
home, particularly when faced with the alternative of long term foster 
care. Finally, that children should not be forced into prolonged 
temporary care when good, stable families are ready, willing and able 
to adopt.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I have long been impressed by Senator Coats' 
dedication to helping children and protecting their best interests. I 
share his commitment to placing children in loving and permanent homes 
as quickly as possible. I also believe that transracial adoption should 
be encouraged when an appropriate same race placement is not available.
  Mr. COATS. I am glad that Senator Metzenbaum and I are in agreement 
on this issue. I would like to ask for clarification of one section in 
the bill that states that a covered agency may consider race, color, or 
national origin as a factor in making placement decisions if it is 
relevant to the best interests of the child involved and is considered 
in conjunction with other factors. Does the Senator intend that this 
section allow the use of race, color or national origin as a 
determining factor between two otherwise appropriate and available 
families, when to do so is in the best interests of the child? The 
reason I am asking this question is that the bill also prohibits denial 
of adoption based on race. This appears to be a contradiction.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Perhaps this could have been worded more clearly--but 
the intent is to allow race to be considered as one of many factors and 
to allow race to be the determinative factor between two otherwise 
appropriate and available families, if and only if the consideration of 
race is in the child's best interest.
  Mr. COATS. So, I gather from the Senator's response that the primary 
concern of this bill is the child's best interest.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. That is correct--and prolonged foster care is not in 
the child's best interest.
  Mr. COATS. I agree--but does the Senator intend that other factors 
such as religion, language, and cultural identify be considered when 
determining the child's best interests?
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Yes. Any factors which contribute to a child's 
development should be taken into consideration when making placement 
decisions and determining the child's best interest.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator for his response. S. 1224 also 
prohibits any delay in making an adoption placement. While I have 
expressed concern about the effect of this prohibition I have 
determined that it is the best legislative approach we can take at this 
time. I do however want to reiterate my concern that this not be 
perceived as an excuse for agencies not to aggressively recruit 
prospective adoptive parents. Agencies should, on an ongoing basis--
consistently, creatively, and vigorously recruit and study families of 
every race and culture of children needing adoptive families.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. The Senator is correct--and anyone who uses this bill 
as an excuse not to recruit will have gone against the very spirit we 
have intended here.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator.


                    CHARTER SCHOOL GRANT PROVISIONS

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a brief 
colloquy with my distinguished colleagues from Connecticut and 
Massachusetts, Senators Lieberman and Kennedy, on the new charter 
schools grant program authorized under title VIII, part C.
  Charter schools are public schools that are frequently exempt from 
input-oriented mandates, but are accountable to a public agency through 
a contract that commits them to achieving specified academic or other 
results. Although States laws across the country vary, charter schools 
must be nonsectarian, may not charge tuition, and may not discriminate 
in admitting students.
  What is the current status of State legislative activity authorizing 
charter schools? How broad a movement has charter schools now become?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Charter schools have now been authorized in 10 
States--Minnesota, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Georgia, New 
Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Kansas, and Arizona. In addition, 
Governors and legislators in my own State of Connecticut and a dozen or 
more other States are actively considering legislation to authorize 
charter schools.
  Charter schools enjoy growing, bipartisan support. Advocates include 
both President Clinton and Education Secretary William Riley, as well 
as a number of leading Governors including Roy Romer of Colorado, 
William Weld of Massachusetts, John Engler of Michigan, Pete Wilson of 
California, and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin.
  The idea behind charter schools is to encourage innovation within 
public schools by allowing school staff, parents, and others in the 
community to apply for a charter to run their own public school. 
Charter schools are free from many onerous regulations and 
administrative burdens and at the same time, are dedicated to providing 
high quality and effective education. Charter schools foster and enable 
creativity. They allow educators who have ideas about how to teach 
students more effectively, to step outside the education bureaucracy to 
set up new schools. Charter schools will give students opportunities to 
learn in ways that better meet their needs. They will also establish a 
competing force that should help encourage ongoing improvements through 
out the rest of the public education system. Indeed, charter schools 
can point the way toward successful education reform and improved 
academic achievement for all students.

  What are the origins of the charter school grant program authorized 
by S. 1513?
  Mr. DURENBERGER. The new grant program authorized under title VIII is 
based in part on S. 429 and H.R. 1113, the Public School Redefinition 
Act, a charter school grant proposal that I introduced in February 1993 
along with a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives that 
included Senator Lieberman, along with Senators Bob Kerrey, and Slade 
Gorton and Representatives Dave McCurdy, Tom Petri, Tim Penny, and Tom 
Ridge. It also enjoyed bipartisan support on the Labor Committee, 
including support from Senator Bingaman who made several suggestions 
for improvement in this new program that I am pleased were also 
accepted.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. And, how do the charter school provisions in the House 
and Senate versions of the ESEA reauthorization differ?
  Mr. DURENBERGER. During its consideration of ESEA, the House retained 
the administration's proposal for the new charter school grant program 
with one very important and limiting change--a requirement that charter 
schools receiving grants be authorized and in partnership with their 
local school district.
  The House requirement that charter schools be authorized by local 
school districts is of particular concern to States like Massachusetts, 
Michigan, New Mexico, and Arizona. In those four States, some or all 
charter schools would not be eligible for Federal grants under the 
House bill since they are chartered by public bodies other than local 
school districts.
  In addition, Minnesota and California make it possible for State or 
county boards of education to charter schools ``on appeal'' if they are 
turned down at the local level.
  And, legislation adding postsecondary education institutions as 
possible chartering authorities passed the Minnesota Senate this year, 
but was not included in the final education conference committee 
agreement.
  To make sure that all charter schools are eligible for grants under 
this new program, I offered an amendment in the Labor Committee that 
does two things:
  First, States are given authority for making grants to individual 
charter schools.
  One goal of this change is to encourage States to adopt charter 
school laws. Hopefully, having authority to administer the program and 
award grants would also encourage States to put their own funds into 
this program. And, if encouraged in this manner, States are more likely 
to promote the charter idea and offer technical assistance to groups of 
parents, teachers, or others who are interested in starting a charter 
school in their community.

  This change is also consistent with the Goals 2000 legislation under 
which States make subgrants to districts and schools for local reform 
initiatives. By placing the State in the grant-making role, a charter 
school program could be better integrated with other State/local 
initiatives funded by Goals 2000 that are designed to meet the 
education goals and standards each State is pursuing.
  Second, States are given more discretion to decide who may charter 
schools.
  The Federal Government should not be dictating to States how charter 
schools should emerge as a part of systemic reform. With that in mind, 
the Senate bill now allows schools receiving grants to be chartered by 
``a State education agency, local education agency, or other public 
agency that has the authority pursuant to State law to authorize or 
approve a charter school.''
  Beyond these two changes, the Labor Committee added several 
``allowable uses'' for grants that schools receive, including minor 
renovation or remodeling needed to meet health and safety codes. And, 
the Senate bill now explicitly allows States to make cash flow loans to 
new charter schools for their initial operations. These loans would 
have to be paid back once regular operating funding from State and 
local sources begins flowing to the charter school.
  In addition to these two changes, the Senate bill now gives more 
explicit direction to the Secretary of Education in using the 
Secretary's ``bully pulpit'' to provide national leadership to this 
aspect of State-based education reform.
  To do this, this legislation authorizes the Secretary to engage in 
capacity building activities including developing and disseminating 
model State charter school laws and model contracts between schools and 
their sponsors; to collect and disseminate information on successful 
charter schools; and to use conferences, publications and 
telecommunications, and other means to share ideas and information 
about charter schools.
  Overall, the Senate's version of the charter school grant program 
follows an important principle about the role of various levels of 
government in education reform: The national government should be 
providing overall leadership to education reform initiatives, but 
should defer to the States on how to authorize the elements of reform 
that are--in turn--best designed and carried out by each local 
community.
  By following that principle, States and local communities will claim 
greater ownership of the elements of reform. And, those elements of 
reform are more likely to be implemented and more likely to result in 
improved student performance.

  Senator Lieberman has been a strong advocate of charter schools as 
one element of systemic reforms at the State and local level. How does 
the Senator respond to concerns that charter schools will attract only 
the brightest and most highly motivated students? Isn't there a danger 
that charter schools will discriminate against some students and favor 
others?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The legislation makes it clear that charter schools 
are public schools and must abide by the same fundamental requirements 
as all public schools. They are bound by Federal and State statutes 
that prohibit any discrimination on the basis of race, religion, 
disability, or any other factor. They must be open to all students 
interested in attending and if they are over-enrolled, must provide for 
admission by lottery. Finally, they must be nonsectarian in their 
programs and employment practices, and cannot be affiliated with a 
nonpublic sectarian school or religious institution. They simply cannot 
discriminate against any students.
  Senator Kennedy has also been a strong supporter of the 
administration's proposal for a new charter school grant program and 
the changes in its authorizing language proposed by Senator Durenberger 
in the Senate Labor Committee. What has been the experience so far with 
Massachusetts' charter school program? And, based on that experience, 
will the Senator work with Senator Durenberger and me and others to 
support the Senate's charter school provisions in conference?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Since the Massachusetts Legislature passed charter 
school legislation in 1993, there has been a great deal of interest in 
starting new charter schools among parents, teachers, and others 
throughout the State. This past February, the Massachusetts Secretary 
of Education received a total of 64 applications to start charter 
schools. Fifteen applications have been approved in this year's 
application cycle and applicants are now preparing for a 1995 school 
opening. An additional 10 charters will be granted under a competitive 
process to be conducted early next year for start-ups in the fall of 
1996.
  The 15 charters approved so far in Massachusetts include a number of 
schools designed to serve at-risk students, students who have dropped 
out of traditional public schools, and students with special needs.
  For example, the Neighborhood House Charter School in Boston will 
integrate school-based services into its program--joining classroom 
education, social services, and parental enrollment. Each family with 
children enrolled in the school will be required to participate in the 
family cooperative--creating a social infrastructure among families and 
offering GED and ESL classes, as well as other support services. This 
school will have an enrollment of 135 at-risk students with histories 
of academic, emotional, and behavioral problems. It will operate for 
227 school days a year.

  Overall, Massachusetts first 15 charter schools will have initial 
enrollments ranging from 35 to 700 students. Most will initially serve 
a limited number of grade levels, but have plans to expand by adding 
more grades and students in subsequent years.
  I'm pleased that several of the Massachusetts charter schools will be 
employing teaching and learning methods supported by earlier Clinton 
administration initiatives already passed by this Congress.
  For example, the City on a Hill Charter School in Boston will 
emphasize a commitment to community service and internships--the kind 
of service learning opportunities encouraged by President Clinton's 
National and Community Service Act that we adopted last year.
  Several of Massachusetts charter schools will also use internships 
and youth apprenticeship opportunities encouraged by a second Clinton 
initiative we approved earlier this year--the School to Work 
Opportunities Act.
  And, a number of charter schools in Massachusetts will make extensive 
use of computer and telecommunications technologies supported by 
provisions in President's Goals 2000 legislation as well as other 
titles of this ESEA reauthorization.
  As Senator Durenberger pointed out, none of these charter schools in 
Massachusetts would be eligible for grants under the House version of 
ESEA. The same is true for charter schools in a number of other States 
where some public agency other than local school districts is 
authorized to grant charters. As long as all the other protections that 
Senator Lieberman discussed are guaranteed, I don't believe we should 
be second guessing the determination States make on what public 
agencies should be authorizing charter schools. Therefore, I intend to 
support the Senate's version of the charter school grant program during 
the conference committee's deliberations on ESEA.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman and 
others to attain adequate funding for this new grant program in the 
next year's Labor, Education, HHS appropriations bill. It's my 
understanding that the administration proposed that the new program be 
funded at its authorized level--$15 million. The House cut that amount 
to $6 million. And, while the full Senate has yet to act on the 
administration's recommendations, the subcommittee decided on a funding 
level consistent with the House.
  A total of 10 states have now authorized charter schools and the 
strong interest on the part of parents, teachers, and others in this 
opportunity in those and other States suggests strong demand for this 
program, once authorized. I believe it is only prudent and fair that 
this new opportunity to support State- and local-based reform be fully 
funded at the Federal level.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I agree. On behalf of Senator Durenberger and others, 
I commend Senator Kennedy's leadership on this and so many other 
aspects of education reform. We look forward to working closely with 
him as this legislation is finalized in conference committee.


          title ii: comprehensive technical assistance centers

  Mr. KENNEDY. This Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
reauthorization bill creates a new training and technical assistance 
system to support States' and schools' efforts to improve teaching and 
learning. This is a positive measure in that it will simplify and 
enhance access to help that is needed in the field. Further, it has the 
potential for cost savings and a streamlined array of services.
  There are also risks in this new system, and in the process of 
effecting a smooth transition from the old system to the New. First, it 
is critical that the Congress ensure that States and schools will have 
the high-quality, hands-on assistance they need while they work to make 
the shift into a new, more results-oriented education environment. 
Second, it is critical that the expertise among existing technical 
assistance providers, built over 7 years with Federal dollars, is 
effectively transferred into the new system. Third, we must guarantee 
that our attacks on the problems of crime, violence and drugs remain 
strong while the new systems are shaped. We must not reduce the level 
of vital technical assistance support for this national priority 
objective.
  I know that there is great concern in my own State about the 
potential loss of a valuable resource, specifically the services of the 
Northeast Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities. That 
center's training and technical assistance is helping schools to make 
significant reduction in student's involvement with these destructive 
behaviors.
  I want to ask the Senator from Rhode Island if the provisions of this 
bill will respond to my concerns. Will this bill assure that the 
services of the regional centers for drug free schools and communities 
center remain available, and will this effective service continue to be 
available to States and schools during the critical transition period?
  Mr. PELL. I want to assure the Senator that this bill includes 
provisions for the continuation of that service and through centers 
like the Northeast Regional Center. In my State as well, there is 
strong evidence that the centers, for drug-free schools and communities 
are effective. This is an entity which has a record of demonstrated 
effectiveness. We do not want lose the skill that has been developed 
and successfully applied over the past 7 years.
  In section 2307 of the bill, we have included language which provides 
for the continuation of the services of these centers through fiscal 
year 1996, where appropriate and feasible in order to ensure that 
services will not be interrupted, curtailed or substantially 
diminished. During that time of transition, these centers will be able 
to continue to serve the States, and help local schools, to address 
their problems with drugs and violence. We are happy to include this 
language. It reaffirms the commitment of the Senate to programs which 
promote safe and drug-free schools and communities for the youth of 
this Nation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. As one of the members of the committee who worked to 
see that the new technical training and assistance was phased-in in an 
orderly and effective manner, I am pleased to express my support for 
the language included in section 2307. The work of regional centers for 
drug free schools and communities should be retained and extended to 
violence prevention as the Federal technical assistance system 
undergoes a period of restructuring.
  This bill provides for the continuation of this assistance, 
indicating the concern of the committee about maintaining a strong 
national capacity to assist the prevention efforts of local schools. It 
is the intent of the committee to ensure that the Secretary of 
education draw upon the demonstrated effectiveness of the current 
technical assistance providers in establishing the new technical 
assistance system, rather than reinventing the capacity to carry out 
these new responsibilities.


               Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to ask my distinguished 
colleague from Rhode Island some questions regarding the amendment that 
would add the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Act of 
1994 to S. 1513, the Improving America's Schools Act. This amendment 
would establish a fellowship program for elementary and secondary 
school mathematics and science teachers within the Department of 
Energy. The amendment is very similar to a bill introduced by Senator 
Hatfield earlier this year--S. 2104, the Albert Einstein Distinguished 
Educator Fellowship Act of 1994. S. 2104 was referred to the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I chair. I would like to 
ask the Senator from Rhode Island, who chairs the Subcommittee on 
Education, Arts and Humanities, which has jurisdiction over the 
Improving America's Schools Act, whether he was aware that this 
amendment deals with a matter currently pending before the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee?
  Mr. PELL. I appreciate the question of the Senator from Louisiana. As 
a committee chairman, I am sensitive to other committees dealing with 
matters currently pending before my committee. To answer his question--
yes, I am aware that the amendment authorizes a program very similar to 
one that would be created by S. 2104, which is currently pending before 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I have been assured, 
however, by Senator Hatfield, the primary sponsor of this legislation, 
that he has worked with you and the other members of the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee in crafting the amendment. Am I correct in 
my understanding?
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct. I, and other 
members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have worked 
closely with Senator Hatfield to craft this amendment, which reflects 
the input of witnesses who testified before the committee and from the 
administration. The amendment, as currently crafted, is one I support 
adding to the Improving America's Schools Act. I would like, however, 
the assurance from the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, who has 
been so instrumental in the work of his subcommittee in crafting the 
Improving America's Schools Act, that oversight of and any future 
amendments to the Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Act 
will remain within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. PELL. Both the amendment and S. 2104 would create an elementary 
and secondary mathematics and science teacher fellowship program within 
the Department of Energy. S. 2104 was, I believe, appropriately 
referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. As this 
amendment is very similar to S. 2104, I believe it too is within the 
jurisdiction of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Thus, 
oversight of and future amendments to the Albert Einstein Distinguished 
Educator Fellowship Act would be within the jurisdiction of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee.


                         gender equity training

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I understand that part G of title VIII 
of this bill provides funding for gender equity training for educators, 
counselors and other school personnel. I am certainly not insensitive 
to the need for fair treatment for all students in the classroom, but I 
have a particularly strong view about the importance of encouraging 
young women to pursue the broadest range of subject matter in their 
studies, including mathematics and the sciences. I have discussed this 
concern previously with the distinguished Senator from Maryland who was 
one of the original sponsors of the amendment, and I would appreciate 
it if she would clarify her intent about the implementation of this 
provision.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from Texas is correct in her understanding 
of the provision in question. I would say to her that she and I are in 
agreement about the importance of encouraging all young people, girls 
and boys, to consider the widest possible range of alternatives in 
their studies and preparations for careers and adults lives.
  Gender equity training has been an authorized purpose since 1974. It 
is intended to promote the letter and spirit of title IX which 
prohibits discrimination in education. I appreciate the Senator's 
concerns and when this provision is implemented, I would welcome 
working with the Senator from Texas to encourage the Secretary of 
Education to place an increased emphasis on encouraging young women to 
excel in math and science.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy and her very 
helpful comments. I welcome her suggestion and look forward to working 
with her further on this important issue.


                       multiethnic placement act

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I introduced the Multiethnic Placement 
Act, S. 1224 with one goal in mind--encouraging transracial adoption 
when an appropriate same race placement is not available. I strongly 
believe that it is better for children to be adopted by parents of 
another race than not to be adopted at all. Policies that virtually 
prohibit multiethnic foster care and adoption are unconstitutional, 
harmful and must be stopped.
  There has been an explosion in the number of children in the foster 
care system, from 276,000 in 1986 to 450,000 in 1992. The goal for 
these children is a loving and stable home. This goal can be achieved 
by placement in either an appropriate same race or interracial home. 
Although interracial foster and adoptive families may face a variety of 
problems that same race families do not, the evidence indicates that 
transracial adoption is often a positive experience for all involved.
  Despite this evidence, formal and informal policies against 
multiethnic placements still persist. S. 1224 would prohibit any agency 
which receives Federal funds from denying a foster care or adoption 
placement solely on the basis of race, color, or national origin. For 
example, it would prohibit child welfare agencies from categorically 
denying anyone the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent 
on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
  The bill would provide for injunctive and equitable relief and 
require HHS to withhold adoption assistance funds from any agency that 
violated the law. S. 1224 has the support of Senators Carol Moseley-
Braun, Daniel Inouye, Dan Coats, Nancy Kassebaum, Paul Simon, Dianne 
Feinstein, and Dave Durenberger. It also enjoys the support of Marian 
Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund, The Reverend Jesse 
Jackson of the National Rainbow Coalition, and the National Council for 
Adoption.
  Although an appropriate transracial placement is often a positive 
experience, it is also true that a same race, language, or ethnic group 
placement can go a long way in helping children make the psychological, 
social, and cultural adjustment to their new family. Given the obvious 
benefits of same race placement, the Multiethnic Placement Act also 
makes it clear that race, color, or national origin can be a factor in 
making foster care and adoptive placement, if and only if: First the 
consideration of these factors are in the child's best interest, and 
second, race, color, or national origin is considered along with other 
factors, such as age, sex, member of a sibling group, religion, 
disability, language, and whether the child has already bonded with the 
prospective parents.
  This commonsense approach to the consideration of race in making 
foster care and adoption placements is in keeping with long standing 
Federal adoption legislation that encourages the recruitment of 
prospective parents of all races. Federal and State case law and HHS 
guidelines also specifically allow race to be one factor in making 
foster care and adoptive placements. In addition, every single major 
child welfare and adoption organization advocates the consideration of 
race as one of many factors in making out of home placements if such a 
consideration is in the child's best interests.
  Many child welfare and adoption advocates also believe that the 
permanent placement of a child may be postponed, but not for an undue 
period of time, in order to affect a same race or ethnic group adoptive 
placement. They recognize that recruiting prospective parents of all 
races of children in need of homes requires time and effort.
  I would prefer that no child be required to spend any extra time in 
foster care limbo in order to effectuate a same race placement. 
Ideally, appropriate prospective parents of all races should be waiting 
to care for a child the moment he or she needs an out of home 
placement. But given the difficulties in finding appropriate same race 
placements, S. 1224 was amended at an executive session of the U.S. 
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, to state that agencies 
receiving Federal funds may not unduly delay in making foster care and 
adoptive placements on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
  The amended version of the Multiethnic Placement Act also contains 
additional findings that stress the importance of eliminating racial, 
ethnic, and national origin discrimination and bias in adoption and 
foster care recruitment, selection, and placement procedures. Child 
welfare agencies are encouraged to use active, creative and diligent 
efforts to recruit parents from every race and culture for chilren 
needing out of home placements. The amended bill was adopted by voice 
vote by the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources on 
October 6, 1993.
  The lack of definition for the term ``unduly delay'' in S. 1224 has 
caused some concern among the foster care and adoption community. Some 
who otherwise support S. 1224, fear that the term ``unduly'' will not 
or cannot be defined in a manner consistent with the goals of the bill. 
In order to make it clear that appropriate out of home placements 
should be made as soon as possible, the latest version of S. 1224 has 
eliminated the term ``unduly.''
  The passage and enactment of the Multiethnic Placement Act is my 
highest legislative priority of my remaining time in the Senate. I 
realize that this bill will not solve all the problems of the child 
welfare system. But S. 1224 can make a difference in the lives of 
thousands of children who languish in foster care and temporary 
placements because of policies against transracial placements. I thank 
my Senate colleagues for their support of this legislation and will 
work hard for its passage in the House.
  Mr. COATS. I would like to ask the chairman a question regarding 
opportunity-to-learn standards. As the chairman will remember, the 
following language was added in the Labor Committee markup of S. 1513:

       Page 476, lines 6-11; section 1111(b)(1)(A)(iii):
       ``Each State plan shall describe the steps the State will 
     take to help each local educational agency and school 
     affected by the State plan develop the capacity to comply 
     with each of the requirements of sections 1112(c)(3), 
     1114(b), and 1115(c) that is applicable to such agency or 
     school.''

  While I understand that the chairman is not opposed to opportunity-
to-learn standards, I wonder if he might respond to a question I have 
about this language.
  Does this language require States to develop opportunity-to-learn 
standards, either mandatory or voluntary, or impose unfunded mandates 
on States to develop these standards under this bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. As the Senator has noted, I do not oppose opportunity-
to-learn standards. I agree, however, that the language cited does not 
mandate these standards under this bill.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the chairman for his courtesy and his response to 
my question.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
Senator Kennedy, the distinguished chair of the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee regarding clarifications of some terms used in S. 
1513.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would be pleased to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa and chair of the Subcommittee on 
Disability Policy.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for 
allowing this inquiry. As the Senator is well aware the passage of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act has set forth a national disability policy for the full 
inclusion and integration of individuals with disabilities in the 
educational, social, economic, political, and cultural mainstream of 
society. Furthermore in the passage of Goals 2000 legislation we worked 
toward building a unified education system and away from distinct 
systems of regular and special education which we find too often 
existing in our Nation's schools.
  It is in this spirit of pursuing a more comprehensive and unified 
system of education that I have the following inquiries.
  In titles II and III of the act the term ``other public early 
childhood programs'' is used frequently. Is it understood that the term 
is meant to include early childhood special education programs funded 
under section 619 of part B of IDEA and early intervention programs 
funded under part H of Part B?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes that is correct the term ``other public early 
childhood programs'' does encompass early childhood special education 
programs and early intervention programs funded under section 619 of 
part B of IDEA and part H of IDEA respectively.
  Mr. HARKIN. The term ``teachers'' is also used frequently throughout 
the bill. Am I correct in understanding that the term includes special 
education teachers. Assuring their inclusion would remove any doubt of 
Congress's intent to have all educators fully participate in functions 
described in the act, such as school support teams, distinguished 
educator awards, and professional development activities.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct, the intent is to have all instructional 
staff encompassed in the term ``teachers'' and therefore includes 
special education teachers.
  Mr. HARKIN. I would like to thank the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts for these clarifications and I would like to commend him 
and my colleagues on the Labor and Human Resources Committee for their 
efforts in developing this act and for making sure that students with 
disabilities are fully included and that their rights as established in 
ADA and IDEA are fully recognized.


                           migrant education

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to emphasize the 
importance of migrant education and to clarify the committee amendment 
to the Improving America's Schools Act that pertains to this program.
  Over one-third of the children served under the Migrant Education 
Program reside in my State of California. These migrant pupils have 
very unique educational needs that result from their migratory 
lifestyle. For example, Mr. President, many migrant students most often 
do not attend school during the regular school year and require special 
summer school or intersession programs.
  I understand that included in Senator Kennedy's committee amendment 
is a provision that maintains the quality of the migrant education 
program, and I thank him for including this language. It is my 
understanding that, even if a school participates in the schoolwide 
program, the program that allows schools to commingle Federal education 
funding, Migrant education Program funds must be used to continue to 
meet the unique identified needs of migrant children which result from 
their migratory lifestyle or are needed to permit migratory children to 
participate effectively in school.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct. I know that the Migrant Education 
Program is important to Senator Feinstein and the State of California. 
Migrant education is also important to my State of Massachusetts.
  Madam President, the committee amendment to the Improving America's 
Schools Act requires schools which receive Federal migrant education 
funding--even those who have chosen to participate in the schoolwide 
program--to first attend to the very special needs of this population 
that are a direct result their migratory lifestyle and that will help 
them participate effectively in school.
  Those needs, and how they will be met, are to be determined by the 
school, the State educational agency, and the local operating agency 
and may include: First, instructional services outside of the regular 
school day and school year; second, heath and support services; third, 
services to preschoolers, 18-21 year olds, and dropouts; and fourth, 
secondary credit accrual for interstate migrant students.
  The committee amendment assures that these and other services which 
are necessary to address the specific needs of migrant pupils--services 
that help them overcome the barriers associated with their mobile 
lifestyle and become effective learners in the classroom--shall be 
provided by the States and schools that receive Federal migrant 
education funding.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Does this pertain to all migrant children who are 
being served under the Migrant Education Program?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, under the Improving America's Schools Act, eligible 
migrant children shall be served for up to 4 years.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for his clarification.


                      indian demonstration schools

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator 
Conrad to offer an amendment to S. 1513, the Improving America's 
Schools Act of 1994. Our amendment authorizes the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], to 
establish therapeutic model demonstration schools at two off-
reservation Indian boarding facilities. The purpose of these 
therapeutic models is to bring healing and positive change to the lives 
of Indian students with very special needs.
  Recent hearings I have held in North Dakota have given me a vivid and 
disturbing picture of the problems of high-risk Indian students. One 
facet of this picture is that off-reservation boarding schools, such as 
the Wahpeton Indian School, have become last-resort facilities for 
troubled Indian kids. Youth from broken homes, youth with learning 
disabilities, and youth with discipline and chemical dependency 
problems.
  Regrettably, these schools have been operating for too many years as 
traditional boarding schools, even though it is clear to all that a 
more therapeutic, healing approach to the students' needs is required. 
Hearings of the Indian Affairs Committee here in Washington, DC, also 
have shown this in grim detail.
  By contrast, the therapeutic model proposed in our amendment would 
provide a safe, alternative residential environment. In this secure 
setting, troubled youth could get special help while building a strong 
identity as Indian youth. The staff would no longer include only 
educators and dorm monitors but also health and social service 
professionals--including child psychologists and substance abuse 
counselors.
  While our amendment establishes two demonstration schools which would 
receive priority in 1994-96, it would assist any off-reservation 
boarding schools in eventually making the transition to a therapeutic 
model. It initially targets one BIA-run and one tribally controlled 
grant school and provides the additional resources these schools need 
to implement the model. But the overall purpose of the amendment and 
the demonstration schools is to develop a model that could be 
replicated at the other five off-reservation boarding schools.
  Mr. President, I would advise my colleagues that this amendment 
requires no new appropriations. It authorizes the Secretary to provide 
resources to meet this critical need in Indian country. The amendment 
also grants the Secretary the authority to limit the student enrollment 
at the demonstration projects to ensure that each institution accepts 
only as many students as it can effectively serve.
  In closing, I want to commend Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman 
McCain of the Indian Affairs Committee for their support of the 
amendment. I also thank Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Pell, and Jeffords 
for accepting this amendment on behalf of the Labor and Human Resources 
Committee. I further express my indebtedness to Senators Conrad, 
Hatfield, and Simon for their support of this amendment.
  In addition, I appreciate the support of Assistant Secretary of 
Indian Affairs Ada Deer and her staff in developing this legislation. 
Finally, I appreciate the assistance of the professional staff--
particularly Bob Arnold of the Indian Affairs Committee--in drafting 
this amendment.
  I believe that acceptance of this amendment not only improves the 
bill but also meets a special need in Indian education. I urge my 
colleagues to retain this provision in the conference.


                compromise immigrant education amendment

  Mr. GRAHAM. This is an amendment offered on behalf of Senator 
Feinstein and myself.
  Our amendment would assert the Federal responsibility for assisting 
States and local school districts with the cost of educating immigrant 
students and increase the authorization for the Emergency Immigrant 
Education Act [EIEA] program from $75 to $150 million.
  I would also like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their 
assistance on this issue.
  Immigrant education is yet another example of the failed Federal-
State partnership. In the case of Plyler versus Doe, the Supreme Court 
held that States have a responsibility to educate all children, 
regardless of immigration status. Since that ruling more than a decade 
ago, however, the Federal Government has not provided adequate funds to 
reimburse States for these mandated services.
  Individual States have no capacity, either under law or in resources, 
to control access of illegal entrants to our Nation. Unfortunately, 
when the Federal Government does not adequately address its 
responsibility for illegal immigration, State and local governments are 
left with the burden of that failure.
  In April 1994, Florida Governor Lawton Chiles and the Dade County 
School Board sued the Federal Government for the unreimbursed costs of 
serving the State's immigrants, primarily the 345,000 which are living 
there illegally. Education is the largest of those costs.
  In 1993 alone, the Florida Department of Education and local school 
districts spent an estimated $517 million to provide education to legal 
and illegal immigrants. However, Florida received only $1.6 million in 
EIEA funding.
  An estimated $180 million was spent to provide educational services 
to undocumented students alone.
  The current EIEA authorization level of $75 million results in less 
than $100 per eligible student and would do little to assist either the 
students and the school districts involved. It costs Dade County alone 
an estimated $68.2 million per year to educate the district's 16,395 
undocumented students.
  I had originally intended to offer an amendment which would authorize 
the Secretary of Education to provide full reimbursement to States and 
local school districts for the costs of educating undocumented 
students. I ask that a copy of the original amendment be included for 
the Record.
  However, there is currently no agreed-upon method for calculating 
either the number or the costs of undocumented aliens in the country. 
Each State uses its own methodology, and the figures are often in 
dispute.
  That is why the Office of Management and Budget hired the Urban 
Institute to determine a standard methodology for calculating the costs 
of illegal immigration. That report is due within the next few weeks, 
and I intend to revisit this issue after we have a more accurate 
estimate of the costs of illegal immigration.
  This is not simply an ``immigration State'' issue. Although the 
majority of illegal immigrants reside in just seven States, every State 
is providing education services to some number of immigrant students.
  The Federal Government has complete constitutional responsibility for 
both the protection of our national borders and the immigration laws. 
When there is an egregious failure of the Federal Government to carry 
out those responsibilities, then the community in which that failure is 
projected should not have to pay the cost.
  I thank the chairman, and urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:
                    TITLE VI--UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Undocumented Student 
     Federal Responsibility Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the education of our Nation's children and youth is one 
     of the most sacred of government responsibilities;
       (2) local educational agencies have struggled to fund 
     adequately education services in the face of prolonged 
     economic stagnation and increased public safety needs;
       (3) in the case of Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court held 
     that States have a responsibility to educate all children, 
     regardless of immigration status;
       (4) since the Plyler v. Doe ruling more than a decade ago, 
     the Federal Government has not provided adequate funds to 
     reimburse States for such mandated services;
       (5) such services represent short-term costs to the 
     affected communities;
       (6) to fund education, local school districts often rely 
     primarily on local property taxes, and immigrants are likely 
     to contribute less for local property taxes than for Federal 
     taxes, such as social security taxes;
       (7) immigration policy is solely a responsibility of the 
     Federal Government; and
       (8) there is a Federal responsibility for reimbursing 
     States and local school districts for costs associated with 
     educating undocumented students.

     SEC. 603. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title to authorize the Federal 
     Government to reimburse State educational agencies and local 
     educational agencies for providing education services to 
     undocumented students who are enrolled in public elementary 
     and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of such 
     agencies.

     SEC. 604. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Average per-pupil expenditure.--The term ``average per-
     pupil expenditure'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 10101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (2) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given such term in section 10101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (4) State educational agency.--The term ``State educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given such term in section 10101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       (5) Undocumented alien.--The term ``undocumented alien'' 
     means an individual who is present in the United States in 
     violation of the immigration laws.
       (6) Undocumented student.--The term ``undocumented 
     student'' means an individual who--
       (A) is an undocumented alien; and
       (B) is attending a public elementary or secondary school.

     SEC. 605. STATE ALLOCATIONS.

       (a) Allocation.--Except as provided in subsection (f) the 
     Secretary shall allocate to each State educational agency for 
     each fiscal year an amount equal to the product of--
       (1) the estimated number of undocumented students who are 
     enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools under the 
     jurisdiction of each local educational agency within that 
     State determined in accordance with subsection (c); and
       (2) the net average per-pupil expenditure in the State for 
     such students determined in accordance with subsection (d).
       (b) Use of Allocation.--Each State educational agency 
     receiving an allocation under paragraph (1) only shall use 
     such allocation to reimburse such State educational agency 
     and local educational agencies in the State for the estimated 
     cost of educating undocumented students who are enrolled in 
     public elementary and secondary schools under the 
     jurisdiction of each such agency within that State in amounts 
     based on--
       (1) the respective contributions of each such agency toward 
     the education of such students; and
       (2) determinations in accordance with the methodologies 
     described in subsections (c) and (d).
       (c) Determinations of Number of Undocumented Students.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     which prescribe the methodology by which a State educational 
     agency will estimate the number of undocumented students who 
     are enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools under 
     the jurisdiction of each local educational agency within such 
     State.
       (2) Consideration.--In prescribing the methodology, the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       (A) estimates from the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service regarding the undocumented alien population;
       (B) the percentage of undocumented students who are of 
     school age;
       (C) public school enrollment rates among undocumented 
     aliens of school age;
       (D) in consultation with the Director of the Bureau of the 
     Census, the geographic distribution of foreign-born students 
     among school districts; and
       (E) such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate 
     to provide for equitable distribution of assistance under 
     this title.
       (3) Prohibition against specific counts.--For the purposes 
     of this Act, State educational agencies and local educational 
     agencies shall be prohibited from gathering immigration 
     status information from student populations in order to 
     determine the number of undocumented students in States or 
     local school districts.
       (d) Determinations of Net Average Per-Pupil Expenditure.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     which prescribe the methodology by which a State educational 
     agency will calculate the net average per-pupil expenditure 
     for students who are enrolled in public elementary and 
     secondary schools under the jurisdiction of each local 
     educational agency within such State.
       (2) Consideration.--In prescribing such methodology, the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       (A) the Federal contributions to the State average per-
     pupil expenditure; and
       (B) such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (e) Data Sources.--All calculations under this section 
     shall be based on official statistics of the Federal 
     Government, such as those reported or estimated by the Bureau 
     of the Census, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 
     and the National Center for Education Statistics.
       (f) Ratable Reductions.--
       (1) Insufficient appropriations.--If the sums appropriated 
     for any fiscal year prior to fiscal year 1999 are not 
     sufficient to pay in full the total amount of all State 
     educational agency's allocations under this section, such 
     allocations shall be ratably reduced.
       (2) Additional appropriations.--If additional funds become 
     available for making payments under this section for any 
     fiscal year after allocations have been made under paragraph 
     (2) for such year, the amounts reduced under such paragraph 
     shall be increased on the same basis as such amounts were 
     reduced.

     SEC. 606. STATE APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Submission.--No State educational agency shall receive 
     an allocation under this title for any fiscal year unless 
     such agency, in consultation with the Governor, submits an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing or accompanied by such information, as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require. Each such application 
     shall--
       (1) provide an estimate of the State's and LEA's proportion 
     of the average per-pupil expenditure in the State;
       (2) contain an estimate of the average per-pupil 
     expenditure for all local educational agencies in the State;
       (3) provide assurances that such allocation will be 
     distributed among local educational agencies within that 
     State on the basis of the number of undocumented students 
     determined in accordance with the methodology described in 
     section 605(b); and
       (4) provide assurances that the State educational agency 
     will not finally disapprove in whole or in part any local 
     educational agency application under section 607 for funds 
     received under this title without first affording the local 
     educational agency submitting such application reasonable 
     notice and opportunity for a hearing.
       (b) Application Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall review all 
     applications submitted pursuant to this section.
       (2) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve any application 
     submitted by a State educational agency that meets the 
     requirements of this section.
       (3) Disapproval.--The Secretary shall disapprove any 
     application submitted by a State educational agency which 
     does not meet the requirements of this section, except that 
     the Secretary shall not finally disapprove an application 
     under this section unless such agency has been provided 
     reasonable notice, technical assistance, and an opportunity 
     for a hearing.

     SEC. 607. LOCAL APPLICATIONS

       Each local educational agency desiring assistance from a 
     State educational agency under section 605(b) shall submit an 
     application to the State educational agency at such time, in 
     such manner and accompanied by such information as the State 
     educational agency may reasonably require.

     SEC. 608. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

       The Secretary is authorized to pay to each State 
     educational agency for a fiscal year an amount equal to the 
     amount expended by such agency for the proper and efficient 
     administration of such agency's functions under this title 
     for such year, except that the total of such payment for any 
     fiscal year shall not exceed 1.5 percent of the allocation to 
     such agency for such year.

     SEC. 609. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 1995 through 1999 to 
     carry out this title.


                immigrant education amendment to s. 1513

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as you know, California has a large 
number of undocumented immigrants, both adults and children, who pose a 
financial burden on the State because of the mandated services provided 
to them. The education of illegal immigrant children is costing 
California some $1.4 billion dollars this year.
  The amendment to the Emergency Immigrant Education Aid program, that 
I am pleased to cosponsor with Senator Graham, asserts the Federal 
Government's financial responsibility to assist States with the costs 
associated with educating illegal immigrant children, and raises the 
authorization level of this immigrant education assistance program in 
order to meet this responsibility.
  The Emergency Immigrant Education Assistance program was enacted in 
1984 to address the 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler versus Doe, 
that stated that illegal immigrant children are entitled to an 
education. The Emergency Immigrant Education Aid program address the 
financial impact of educating newly arrived immigrants, both legal and 
illegal.
  When the immigrant education program was first enacted, lawmakers 
intended to provide $500 per eligible pupil. However, this goal has 
never been met. In fact, when the program was first funded in 1984, $30 
million was appropriated for 350,000 eligible students, amounting to 
$86 per student. This year, the appropriation was raised to $39 
million, but now over 800,000 students are eligible for this program. 
This amounts to less than $50 per student, about the cost of one 
textbook.
  The Senate appropriations committee mark increases funding for this 
program to $50 million for fiscal year 1995--for which I would like to 
thank Chairman Harkin and Chairman Byrd--but $50 million still only 
means $61 per student. This is a mere drop in the bucket when it costs 
approximately $5,000 annually to educate a child.
  For the past year, I have been working to address the problem of 
illegal immigration. First and foremost, I have consistently asserted 
the need to prevent illegal immigration by improving the enforcement of 
our borders. The immigration bill, which I introduced on June 15, 
addresses the need to improve the border patrol through increased 
personnel and vastly improved infrastructure and equipment. It stiffens 
penalties for producing or using false work documents or for knowingly 
hiring undocumented workers.

  The fact is, there are illegal immigrants in this country, and until 
our border is fully enforced, and until there is immigration reform, 
illegal immigration will continue to be a problem for States and 
localities that bear the financial burden of providing federally 
mandated services to undocumented aliens.
  Those States who have a large number of illegal immigrant children 
have fulfilled the responsibility of providing them with an education, 
but at a cost. A recent Urban Institute report stated:

       The single largest components of immigrant-related public 
     sector costs is the cost of providing public primary and 
     secondary education, which is approximately $11 billion 
     annually for immigrants.

  Using Department of Education data and the Urban Institute's 
methodology for calculating the number of illegal immigrant children 
attending school, the estimated total cost of educating illegal 
immigrant children is $3 billion nationally. For California, the 
estimated cost of educating illegal immigrant children this year is 
$1.4 billion, and according to Governor Wilson's estimates, could rise 
to as much as $1.7 billion in the next year.
  During a recent visit to a California school, teachers told me that 
funding was so low and that class sizes were much too large that they 
were not able to properly serve their students. The rising number of 
undocumented students is stretching already scarce resources.
  California, of course, is not alone in dealing with this problem. Let 
me share with you the estimated costs to a few other States. New York 
educates 89,000 illegal immigrant children at a cost of $466 million. 
Texas educates some 76,000 illegal immigrant children at a cost of $395 
million and Florida educates some 69,000 illegal immigrant children at 
a cost of $358 million.
  It is not the States' responsibility to control our borders. That is 
the responsibility of the Federal Government. And yet, the States must 
pay the costs associated with providing an education to illegal 
immigrant children.
  Just over a week ago, the Senate faced its financial responsibility 
for failed Federal immigration policy by voting to assist States with 
the cost of incarcerating criminal illegal aliens. Today, the Senate 
again has the opportunity to act on the financial responsibility of 
providing services to illegal immigrants, by amending the existing 
immigrant education assistance program.
  Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy and the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriation Committee, Senator Byrd, for supporting 
the need to address the costs of educating immigrant children. This 
amendment is the first step toward reimbursing States and local school 
districts for the costs of providing education to illegal immigrants. 
The second step, of course, will be to obtain the necessary funding.
  Mr. President, I ask that supporting material be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objections, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

        Estimated Costs of Educating Illegal Immigrant Children


                           National Estimates

       The total number of illegal immigrant student is 
     approximately 690,000
       The total cost of their education is approximately $3.6 
     billion.
       The total cost to states and localities is approximately 
     $3.4 billion.


                          California Estimates

       The total number of illegal immigrant students is 
     approximately 297,000
       The total cost of their education is approximately $1.5 
     billion.
       The total cost to state and localities is approximately 
     $1.4 billion.


                            Tables Provided

       Cost estimates for 7 states using April 1994 INS data.
       Cost estimates for 20 states using October 1992 INS data.


                              Methodology

       Use INS data, Department of Education per pupil 
     experditure, and Urban Institute methodology for calculations 
     (background material provided).
                                  ____


                        ESTIMATED STATE AND LOCAL COSTS OF EDUCATING UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS                        
                                       [Using October 1992 INS estimates]                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of       Number of                                          
                 State                     undocumented    undocumented      Total cost of      State and local 
                                              aliens         students         education          contribution   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States...........................       3,379,000         614,359      $3,189,750,003      $2,998,365,003
California..............................       1,440,700         261,943       1,360,009,716       1,278,409,133
New York................................         449,300          81,690         424,135,743         398,687,599
Texas...................................         357,000          64,909         337,005,253         316,784,938
Florida.................................         322,000          58,545         303,965,523         285,727,591
Illinois................................         176,400          32,072         166,520,243         156,529,028
New Jersey..............................         115,700          21,036         109,219,910         102,666,715
Arizona.................................          57,000          10,364          53,807,561          50,579,108
Massachusetts...........................          44,900           8,164          42,385,255          39,842,139
Virginia................................          35,400           6,436          33,417,328          31,412,288
Washington..............................          30,400           5,527          28,697,366          26,975,524
Georgia.................................          28,100           5,109          26,526,184          24,934,613
Maryland................................          27,400           4,982          25,865,389          24,313,466
Colorado................................          21,500           3,909          20,295,835          19,078,085
Oregon..................................          20,400           3,709          19,257,443          18,101,996
New Mexico..............................          18,700           3,400          17,652,656          16,593,497
Pennsylvania............................          17,800           3,236          16,803,063          15,794,879
Nevada..................................          17,700           3,218          16,708,664          15,706,144
North Carolina..........................          16,800           3,055          15,859,071          14,907,527
Connecticut.............................          15,300           2,782          14,443,082          13,576,497
District of Columbia....................          14,100           2,564          13,310,292          12,511,674
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology: Using October 1992 INS data and Urban Institute methodology, the above table outlines the estimated
  costs that states and localities must incur for providing K-12 education to undocumented aliens.              
The number of undocumented students is calculated by multiplying the INS estimated number of undocumented aliens
  by the percentage of that population who are of school age (21.65%--Urban Institute). This number is then     
  multiplied by the percentage of the school age undocumented alien population who are attending school (83.98%--
  Urban Institute).                                                                                             
The costs are calculated by using the nationwide average annual per pupil expenditure of $5,192 (National Center
  for Educational Statistics, 1992-93 data, not yet released). The state and local contribution is calculated by
  subtracting the nationwide average federal contribution to the per-pupil expenditure (6%--Congressional       
  Research Service).                                                                                            


                        ESTIMATED STATE AND LOCAL COSTS OF EDUCATING UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS                        
                                        [Using April 1992 INS estimates]                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Number of       Number of                                          
                 State                     undocumented    undocumented      Total cost of      State and local 
                                              aliens         students         education          contribution   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States...........................       3,800,000         690,903      $3,587,170,764      $3,371,940,518
California..............................       1,634,000         297,088       1,542,483,429       1,449,934,423
New York................................         494,000          89,817         466,332,199         438,352,267
Texas...................................         418,000          75,999         394,588,784         370,913,457
Florida.................................         380,000          69,090         358,717,076         337,194,052
Illinois................................         190,000          34,545         179,358,538         168,597,026
New Jersey..............................         114,000          20,727         107,615,123         101,158,216
Arizona.................................          64,600          11,745          60,981,903          57,322,989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodology: Using April 1994 INS data and Urban Institute methodology, the above table outlines the estimated  
  costs that states and localities must incur for providing K-12 education to undocumented aliens.              
The number of undocumented students is calculated by multiplying the INS estimated number of undocumented aliens
  by the percentage of that population who are of school age (21.65%--Urban Institute). This number is then     
  multiplied by the percentage of the school age undocumented alien population who are attending school (83.98%--
  Urban Institute).                                                                                             
The costs are calculated by using the nationwide average annual per pupil expenditure of $5,192 (National Center
  for Educational Statistics, 1992-93 data, not yet released). The state and local contribution is calculated by
  subtracting the nationwide average federal contribution to the per-pupil expenditure (6%--Congressional       
  Research Service).                                                                                            

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts and the 
Senator from Vermont for their floor leadership on this bill. I would 
also like to thank all the staff members that worked on this bill. They 
worked very hard to draft a bipartisan bill in record time--about 1\1/
2\ months. It then received an almost unanimous vote in committee and I 
hope that we can duplicate such a vote here today on final passage of 
S. 1513.
  I would particularly like to thank some of the staff: Lisa Ross, 
Wendy Cramer, and David Goldfarb of my own staff;
  Pam Devitt and Katie Henry with Senator Jeffords;
  Ellen Guiney, Matt Alexander, Stephanie Goodman, and Clayton Spencer 
with Senator Kennedy;
  David Evans, Margaret Smith, Michael Dannenberg, and Barbara Bennison 
with Senator Pell; and,
  All the other committee staff that participated in drafting this 
bill.
  As we pass this bill and move on to conference, I hope that we can 
continue to work in a bipartisan manner to preserve the provisions of 
this bill that are the most essential to ensuring swift and final 
passage of the conference bill later this year.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I should be following the senior Senator 
from Rhode Island for whom I have the utmost praise and admiration. He 
worked for so many years with my predecessor, Senator Stafford. Their 
bipartisanship, to which Senator Kennedy referred, began and hopefully 
is continuing. He is a role model for all of us, and has made a great 
difference in my life as well as that of Senator Stafford.
  Mr. President, I also want to commend the staff and the Members that 
I have worked with. This has been an incredible time for me. It has 
been 2\1/2\ days we have been on this floor continuously. It has been a 
great amount of effort. As always, we have some of the most 
controversial and sensitive issues to deal with than we ever get in the 
Congress. And so we have had a difficult time with those. But I have to 
say that we had an ``Olympic moment'' when Senator Helms and Senator 
Kennedy agreed on one of the amendments in a sensitive area. We had 
also progressed in making concessions and agreements on many of these 
issues.
  I also thank Senator Kennedy for his incredible work and leadership 
in these areas of education, as well as the other ones I have dealt 
with. The Senator, on behalf of the people of Massachusetts, and I for 
Vermonters, have worked together with families, and I deeply 
appreciated his guidance.
  Also, as has been spoken of, we oftentimes fail to give our staffs 
the full recognition they should have, and we have tremendous staffs. 
Without them, we could not go anywhere or do anything like we do. I 
want to say that Ellen Guiney, Matt Alexander, Clayton Spencer, and 
Stephanie Robinson on Senator Kennedy's staff have been very helpful to 
us. We have been able to get through the bill much quickly because of 
that. Lisa Ross, Wendy Cramer, and David Goldfarb of Senator 
Kassebaum's staff have been very helpful. Senator Kassebaum, my ranking 
member, has allowed me to have the responsibility of these bills and 
has offered her leadership. Her ability to get very difficult 
amendments through and approved is amazing and a pleasure to follow.

  Senator Pell and his staff, who I have worked with for 6 years now--
David Evans, Michael Dannenberg, Margaret Smith, and Barbara Bennison--
were a tremendous help. I am amazed at my own staff and how well they 
are able to keep me informed. Pam Devitt, in particular, works 
constantly to be well ahead of where we need to be on these issues. 
Catherine henry is a specialist on formulas, and formulas are 
incredibly difficult to deal with. Kelly Kivler and Reg Jones of my 
staff have also worked very hard on this.
  Madam President, I do not know if people are anxious to leave, and 
some are anxious to speak, but I have tried to retain my brevity in the 
custom of New England throughout this bill.
  I would like to spend a few minutes to focus attention not just on 
the bill we passed but why it is important to handle education in this 
difficult time in our history.
  We have come a long way in this reauthorization. We have thrown out 
many of the old notions of teaching--which often have had the effect of 
dumbing down curricula for disadvantaged students--and embraced new 
concepts, such as demanding high standards for all students, regardless 
of their backgrounds. S. 1513 incorporates new programs to encourage 
greater teacher training and the purchase of new technology, funds for 
infrastructure repair, and renovation and programs to address migrant 
and bilingual children. It sets out a framework for the future of our 
education system which will direct the future of our next generations.
  Passage of S. 1513 comes on the heels of the Goals 2000 bill which 
outlines the national education goals for this country to reach by the 
year 2000. Those goals outline what we as a country expect of our 
present and future generations and what they can demand in return. The 
goals underline how essential education is to the well-being of every 
child in this Nation. Those goals--which have been embraced by 
educators, parents and policymakers--detail basic expectations of our 
country. They state that by the end of the decade:
  All children will start school ready to learn. That sounds easy, but 
if you realize that 70 percent of the eligible children for Head Start 
go unserved, and that less than half of all of the 3-5 year olds from 
families with incomes less than $30,000 are enrolled in a preschool, 
you see how far we have to go on that very important goal, as I will 
talk about later.
  The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. 
In 1992, 86 percent of black and 59 percent of Hispanic youth had 
received a diploma by age 24, as compared to 92 percent of white youth. 
That may not seem too bade until you compare it with goal three.
  Goal three is that an American student will leave grades 4, 8, and 
12, having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter. But 
right now, fewer than one-in-four fourth and eighth grade students are 
able to meet those standards of performance in math or reading on the 
National Assessment of Education progress. In addition to that, 50 
percent of these young people that graduate from our high schools now 
are essentially functionally illiterate. If you say you have a 90 
percent graduation rate, but 50 percent of those are functionally 
illiterate, it is hardly something to be proud of.

  U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics. 
In a 1991 comparison, U.S. students were outperformed by students in 
seven other industrialized nations in international math and science 
assessments. Even worse, in 1993, a study was done of 12-year-olds 
across the world in 13 countries. We came out 12th in science and 13th 
in math. We have a long way to go.
  Every adult will be literate and will possess the knowledge and 
skills necessary to compete in a global economy. The census indicates 
that 20 to 30 million adults in this country cannot read, write, or 
calculate. In other words, they are totally illiterate. Another 45 
million cannot effectively handle an entry-level job. That is, 75 
million Americans are either functionally illiterate or totally 
illiterate. We have a long, long way to go.
  Every school will be free of drugs and violence. Approximately 3 
million thefts and violent crimes occur in or near our Nation's schools 
every year, the equivalent of more than 16,000 incidents per school 
day.
  The Nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the 
continued improvement of their professional.
  The last goal is that every school will promote partnerships that 
will increase their parental involvement and participation.
  These are elemental provisions of a sound education. I think all of 
us would certainly expect and believe that our children are, and should 
be, taught these things. Sadly, for the majority of our young people, 
this is not the case.
  The 1993 National Education Goals Report described our progress in 
improving our educational achievement as wholly inadequate.
  Elementary and secondary students still do poorly in math and reading 
when compared to the National Education Goals standards. There has been 
little improvement in the high school graduation rate of 19- and 20-
year-olds over the past decade. Nearly one-half of all infants born in 
the United States begin life with one or more risk factors to their 
long-term educational development.
  These problems and concerns affect not only the present needs of our 
young people, but also the future economic competitiveness of this 
Nation.
  Hedrick Smith in a recent commentary said:

       One stunning act about America's efforts to compete in the 
     global economy is that U.S. businesses spend $200 billion a 
     year on remedial education for young people hired out of high 
     school.

  That is the estimate of the Business Roundtable, and on top of that, 
another $225 billion that business economists estimate it costs 
American business in lost productivity caused by less than adequate 
training and education of American workers.
  We have a serious challenge on our hands, and it is time for America 
to wake up to the challenge because of cost of not doing anything will 
be far greater than the cost of implementing these programs.
  Let me give you a quick sketch of what I mean. Health and Human 
Services, Housing and Urban Affairs, Department of Education, and the 
Department of Labor, spent over $208 billion while the States spent 
another $82 billion on means-tested entitlement programs--collectively 
referred to as welfare programs. The programs consist of medical 
benefits, cash aid, food benefits, housing benefits, education 
benefits, job training, and other benefits.

  However, according to the Department of Education, improved education 
of these needy individuals would have a significant effect on reducing 
the need for these programs.
  In the book, ``Winning the Brain Race,'' a study of low-income 
disadvantaged children in Michigan indicated that early intervention 
with the Head Start Program could have a major impact on improving the 
prospects of these children. Compared to a control group, children who 
were given comprehensive preschool support were twice as likely to hold 
a job, be in college, or in a vocational program after high school. 
Their high school graduation rate was one-third higher, their pregnancy 
rate was 50 percent lower, and their arrest rate was 40 percent lower.
  We need to help these individuals all through the education process. 
Right now, approximately 20 percent of our students drop out of high 
school.
  Of those that have dropped out of high school, less than half are 
employed. A total of 52 percent of high school dropouts are unemployed 
or receiving welfare assistance. A recent study put the cost of 
providing benefits to this group of recipients at $75 billion per year.
  The Institute for Health Policy at Brandeis University in its 1993 
report entitled ``Substance Abuse: the Nation's Number One Health 
Problem,'' estimated the cost of illegal drug activity at $238 billion 
per year. This represents the cost of lost productivity, premature 
death, inability to perform usual activities, cost of criminal justice 
system, destruction of property, and other causes.
  Another sad example of the failure of our ability to nurture our 
young people is the fact that over 65,000 children are in correctional 
facilities around the country. It costs about $300,000 per year, one-
third more than an adult, to pay for detention of a child.
  An estimated 15 percent of the population is not covered by health 
insurance. These individuals are primarily working poor and would be 
helped by increased educational opportunities.
  With improved educational attainment, one can assume that there will 
be two positive effects on the costs of health care. First, a better 
educated populace that is earning higher wages can be expected to have 
a healthier existence. This would result from better wellness habits 
and from improved living conditions. The second effect would come from 
the fact that many of these individuals would move from minimum wage 
jobs with no benefits to jobs with health coverage. We could expect our 
improved education system to make a significant reduction in the pool 
of uninsured individuals.
  Mr. President, imagine what a different problem health care reform 
would be, if we found a way to cover the 37 million Americans who do 
not have health insurance.
  Education is the way. By investing in the education of the at-risk 
population, we can give these people the skills to get the kinds of 
jobs that will provide health coverage.
  Approximately $400 billion of Federal spending is for programs--
welfare, unemployment, crime, health care, housing, and training--that 
were created to assist low-income individuals. These programs would be 
highly sensitive to increased literacy and higher educational 
attainment. If we could reach the goals set out in Goals 2000, we could 
expect major savings in these programs. If one assumes that savings 
amount to 30 percent, that would translate to a reduction in annual 
Federal spending of $120 billion.
  The largest impact clearly comes in the form of increased economic 
activity and the resultant growth in corporate and personal income. 
With full attainment of Goals 2000, I think we could expect to see 
increased economic activity of at least $250 billion.
  It is for these reasons and the fate of our future generation that 
passage of this bill is so critical. I urge my colleagues to join me as 
they did in supporting it.
  Mr. President, I thank you for listening and I thank my colleagues 
for listening, and I yield the floor.


           FUNDING FOR EDUCATION AT MIGRANT STOPOVER CENTERS

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts for including a provision in the manager's amendment to 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which will aid the education 
component of migrant stopover centers.
  I am pleased that the committee recognizes the special function these 
centers perform for the migrant community. Stopover centers provide 
basic services to migrant families that are only going to be in the 
area a short time. The migrants are not there to work; they are just 
traveling through on their way to another State.
  This provision directs the Department of Education to develop a 
budgetary formula to ensure reliable funding for educational services 
provided at stopover centers. It recognizes that stopover centers do 
not provide the same type of services as an ordinary classroom. 
Typically, the children being served at stopover centers are only at 
these sites a few days.
  Currently, there is no provision to fund educational services 
provided at stopover centers. In fact, the term stopover center is not 
even mentioned. This provision will address the unique nature of 
educational services at stopover centers. It provides for the 
educational needs of migratory children as they travel through an area.
  Migrant families traveling through my home State of Arkansas can go 
to a stopover site in the city of Hope for a few days to rest and 
refuel. Hope, AR, is about 1 day's travel between south Texas and 
northern States where these families look for work harvesting crops. 
Often, these children are out of school for weeks at a time as they 
move with their families to a new State. It takes time to get settled 
in a new home and registered in a new school. There are similar 
stopover centers in Ohio and Illinois.
  At the site in Arkansas there is a coordinated effort to provide 
services to migrant families. There is a health clinic, temporary 
housing, and laundry services. Emergency assistance is given if the 
family needs food, or their car repaired so they can find work. There 
are also educational and recreational services available to migratory 
children at the site.
  Mr. President, over 10,000 students each year are served by the 
educational service center in Hope. Since 1978, the center has been in 
operation providing books and educational materials to eligible 
students. It also provides school supplies so when a child gets to a 
new school, he or she has the materials needed--scissors and crayons 
for younger students, pens and notebooks for the older students. You 
can't imagine how much it means to these kids when they get a new 
school--they don't know anybody--that they have the supplies the other 
students do.
  In addition, the Hope center provides tutoring services so the 
students don't fall further behind in school. They are given career 
counseling and information on both education programs and other migrant 
services throughout the country. Mr. President, I can not emphasize how 
beneficial the education service center is for these children. It 
encourages them to continue with their education and register for 
school in their new location. This is important, so let me repeat it, 
it encourages them to finish school. Migrant farming is a hard life, 
and these kids will have few opportunities without an education.
  In my view, the recreation provided for these children at the Hope 
center is also important, Kids cannot learn, or just be kids, when they 
have been cooped up in a car or truck all day. The supervised 
recreation available at the center gives them a productive outlet for 
their energy, something both the host community and the parents of 
migratory children want.
  The center also records the students in the Migrant Student Record 
Transfer System and provides advance notification to the States where 
these families are headed. With advance notification, the school 
systems in other States know that the students are coming and can 
prepare to register them in classes. In some States the students can 
even preregister, so they can start school as soon as they arrive. This 
is one of the unique benefits of stopover centers.
  Mr. President, I would like to place in the Record a letter to The 
Honorable Jose Serrano, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, 
from a young woman in Hope, AR, who wanted to express her support for 
the migrant center. Jessica Covas grew up in a family of migrant 
workers and dropped out of school when she was 16 years old. The staff 
at the Hope center encouraged her to finish high school. She is living 
proof of the valuable services these stopover centers provide. I am 
happy to report that Jessica now has a nursing degree and is working 
with other migrant families at the stopover site.
  At this point Mr. President, I want to specifically applaud the men 
and women who staff and support the Hope stop-over center.
  The educational services provided to migrant children at stopover 
centers is invaluable. This provision will, for the first time, 
recognize that fact and develop a method to fund these services. It 
charges the Department of Education with working out a funding formula 
that is fair and equitable. I am proud to say that this provision has 
the support of the president of the National Association of State 
Directors of Migrant Education, and I thank my colleagues on the 
committee for working with me to include it in the manager's amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Hon. Jose E. Serrano,
     Congressional Hispanic Caucus,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Serrano: My name is Jessica Covas, maiden 
     last name is Capetillo. My present job title is Case Manager 
     at The Hope Migrant Center in Hope, Arkansas. I am very 
     thankful to the Lord above for this job. Not a day goes by 
     that I don't say ``Thank you Lord. Thank you for giving me 
     the strength, the power, and this wonderful opportunity.''
       I think back to my migrant days when my parents, my 
     brothers, and sisters and I used to get up early in the 
     morning and go to bed late at night to earn a living out in 
     the fields. I am the youngest, the baby, in a family of six. 
     I was very excited at first, going out in the fields with my 
     family. I remember thinking, this is fun, I am outside with 
     my siblings, having a good time. When I got old enough to 
     really work, and not being able to take a break every time I 
     got tired or bored, it was no longer as fun. It wasn't 
     ``fun'' at all. I knew then why my brothers, sisters, and 
     parents would be so tired at night when they got home. Why 
     they didn't feel like playing with me or reading to me, or 
     why they would complain of aching all over. Boy, did I ever 
     know why!
       Years went by, traveling from state to state seeking for 
     work. I remember my father asking other ``companeros,'' 
     partners, ``Do you know where we can find some work?'' It was 
     very difficult for all of us. It wasn't so much the finding 
     work part, but the school part. I do not ever remember 
     starting school and finishing a school year in one school, or 
     should I say, in one state. It was very hard for all my 
     brothers and sisters, but especially for me. It was hard for 
     me to make friends. I guess it was because I was shy, not to 
     mention, because I was different. I was ``Mexican.'' As time 
     went by in the new schools, the other students would realize, 
     (I guess) that I was only human. I was just like them. I 
     tried getting into sports and different school activities, 
     just to be liked and like anyone else, anything but 
     different. But that was another difficult task, because most 
     of the school activities and sports were held after school, 
     and I had to hurry home after school in order to go out in 
     the fields and help my family. It seemed that when I finally 
     would make friends and feel comfortable in a school, it was 
     time for us to pick up and move. There was no more work for 
     us there. Leaving friends behind was one thing, or should I 
     say nothing. Trying to catch up with schoolwork, keep up with 
     schoolwork, and find out what the heck they were talking 
     about, was the problem, the major problem, the reason why I 
     finally dropped out of school just as soon as I turned 
     sixteen. When we would move to a different setting, a 
     different state, we'd wait 'til we got settled down before my 
     parents would go and register us in school. Weeks would go by 
     sometimes. As a child, I enjoyed that ``vacation'' time, but 
     as I got older, I was getting more and more behind with my 
     studies. Every school was different, so I would barely pass 
     my classes. There were times when I thought the teachers 
     passed me just because they felt sorry for me, they would see 
     how hard I had to struggle. Until one day I decided to stop 
     struggling. ``Who needs school anyway'' I would tell myself. 
     ``Working in the fields is the way to make a living 
     anyway.'' Needless to say, my two oldest sisters and 
     oldest brother had already dropped out of school. When I 
     told my parents that I wanted to drop out of school, they 
     just said, ``O.K., you know what that means.'' Yes, I knew 
     exactly what that meant.
       Close to a year went by, and I was still working out in the 
     fields. I tried seeking for work elsewhere, but no one wanted 
     to hire me. I tried groceries stores, but they didn't want a 
     drop out. During the summer they would hire students to sack 
     groceries, but not me. I did not have a high school diploma. 
     So I continued to work out in the fields, I would see them 
     studying, clean and comfortable, and there I was tired, 
     sweaty, and dirty. I envied them, I missed studying and I 
     missed school. Not only that, but I had realized that I did 
     not want to work out in the fields the rest of my life. I 
     wanted a different life for myself, I wanted to be able to 
     get a job where I can work indoors, with decent hours. So I 
     enrolled back in school. It was not easy because I was almost 
     a whole year of studying backed up. But with some hard work, 
     dedication, will power, summer school and help from above, I 
     caught up and graduated from high school.
       Throughout our traveling from state to state seeking for 
     work, we would hear other migrant families talk about how 
     they would stop in Hope, Arkansas at the Migrant Center to 
     rest and shower and about all the services they offered 
     there. How they would give books to school age children, 
     toiletries and assistance with food or gas as needed, or as 
     able. But we never did stop here because we were always in a 
     hurry to get where we were going, and because my father would 
     say that it was too out of the way. I remember thinking how a 
     good shower and even a good book would be wonderful since we 
     were on the road two to three days at a time, straight. When 
     my father got tired of driving we would stop at a rest area 
     so that my father would get him enough sleep to continue our 
     journey. While my father slept, my brothers and sisters and I 
     would stay awake to make sure that nothing happened to us 
     while we were there. Until one year, it was the summer of 
     '87, that we finally did stop at the Migrant Center. We were 
     on our way up north to work, we didn't really know where we 
     were going, just somewhere where there was work for us. The 
     lady who registered us at the Migrant Center was very nice. 
     She talked to all of us as if she had known us for years, not 
     as the strangers that we really were. After registering 
     there, we showered and got cleaned up. Then my little niece, 
     who lived with us, and I went across the street to register 
     at the Migrant Education Dept. I was going to be a senior 
     that year, and my niece had passed to the third grade. The 
     people there were extremely nice also. We received books and 
     other school items. My niece and I looked at one another, 
     with that excited look on our faces, as if we had received a 
     new toy. After registering there, my mother accompanied us 
     and we went to the Migrant Mission Center, where we there 
     received other goodies and toiletries. I could not believe 
     all their courteousness and kindness.
       After resting a while in the trailers with bunk beds 
     provided at the Migrant Center, my parents had talked to the 
     lady who registered us there. My parents asked her if she 
     knew of anyone who was needing some help, some workers. And 
     it just so happened that there was someone who was needing 
     a helping hand here in Hope, Arkansas. My father looked in 
     to it and thought it was a wonderful opportunity. It was 
     then that we settled down here and I am proud to say, that 
     we are still living here.
       That school year, I enrolled at the high school. A new 
     school, my senior year. ``What a bummer,'' I thought to 
     myself. Your senior year is supposed to be the best year of 
     your entire life, and here I was at a new school and knew 
     absolutely no one! But I am glad to say that it did not take 
     me long to make friends there and feel comfortable. Even 
     though it was a whole different atmosphere and the people 
     here seemed somewhat different, but I was used to that. The 
     very next year, I graduated from high school! I was so very 
     proud! My family was very proud of me also. I was the only 
     girl in our family that had graduated from high school. Three 
     out of six of my brothers and sisters had graduated. Though 
     one of my sisters and my oldest brother had gone back to 
     school and received their GED. We were all very proud of them 
     too.
       During my senior year, I had met someone very special, who 
     shortly after graduation, we exchanged vows. We were both 
     very happy. But we had realized that we both needed to work 
     in order to make a decent living. Yet even after having my 
     diploma, it was still difficult finding a job. My husband was 
     working at a body shop and I finally got a job. I took a job 
     at The Migrant Center cleaning the trailers after occupancy. 
     Even though it was not a job that I had hoped to get after 
     graduating from high school, but it was a job. Not only that, 
     but I was very tickled to have gotten a job where I was 
     working and relating with migrants. People I'd take my hat 
     off to, people I respected and looked up to. I knew that 
     after getting married I would no longer work in the fields. 
     It was something that I had talked to my husband about and he 
     respected my wishes and desires. My migrant days and working 
     out in the fields were over. I wanted a better life for 
     myself, and I set that goal out for myself, with my husbands 
     help. Yet, that part of my life will always be a part of me! 
     The work was not easy, especially during the busy season, but 
     being able to talk to the migrants and sharing different 
     stories was all worth it. There were even times when I would 
     see people I knew from The Valley, people from my home town, 
     Edinburg, and people I know from going up north. It was a 
     great job, but I realized that I still wanted a better life 
     for myself. I decided to go back to school and make something 
     out of myself. My husband was very supportive of my wishes. I 
     wanted to go back to school and become a NURSE! Something I 
     had always dreamed about.
       Just like everything else, it was not a very easy task. 
     Going to college was going to take money, something we did 
     not have. I went and talked to the recruiters at the Migrant 
     Education Dept. and they told me about the different grants 
     and loans that were available. I received all the information 
     needed and some applications that were available. That was 
     not too bad, I thought. I filled out the applications and 
     sent them off. Then I had to look for a college that I wanted 
     to attend that offered nursing classes. Luckily enough there 
     was one here in Hope. I went to The Red River Vocational 
     School and talked to counselors there. There was a nursing 
     class available, but I was not the only one that was 
     wanting to become a nurse. I was told that there was a 
     long list of students but that a class could only hold so 
     many. So I was told to fill out some papers and that I has 
     to take some tests to see if I qualified to take the 
     nursing program. And that if I did pass the instructors. 
     ``WOW'' I thought to myself, all that? Where do I start, I 
     asked.
       After all was said and done, there was a waiting period, 
     where all I could do was wait. My friends at the Migrant 
     Center and Migrant Ed. Center and my family kept telling me 
     not to give up hope, when they could see that I was. And sure 
     enough, that day had was accepted into their nursing program. 
     Then shortly after I had grant and that most of my tuition 
     would be paid. I was so happy! ``Thank You Lord!''
       Shortly into the nursing program, I realized that getting 
     there was the easy part, getting through the program was 
     going to be the challenge. But with some very hard work and 
     my families encouragement, I made it through the year. During 
     my hard times and studying, I think what really kept me going 
     was the thought of having had worked out in the fields. How 
     very hard that was and how someday when we had a family of 
     our own, how I did not want to put them through all the 
     suffering that I had gone through. I graduated in May of 1989 
     with my LPN license. I think I was the proudest one there on 
     that stage.
       Shortly after graduation I started working at Medical Park 
     Hospital in Hope. I worked there for approximately 4 years. 
     During that time I did a lot of interpreting for migrants and 
     Hispanic families. They would be so thankful to me for 
     helping them. And I would just tell them ``El placer fue 
     mio,'' it was my pleasure and it was!!
       A job opportunity came up this year, 1994, where a case 
     manager was needed for the Migrant Health Center. It was like 
     a prayer answered from up above. After reading the 
     qualifications required, I realized that I did not quite meet 
     them, but I was willing to give it a try. I wanted to be able 
     to work with migrant families and help them in every which 
     way I could. Even though my migrants years were not very 
     pleasant ones, they are still a part of my life that I am now 
     thankful that I experienced. After my interview with my now 
     director, I had a fairly good feeling about the job. And sure 
     enough, I received a call from here soon after that telling 
     me that I had gotten the job. I was so very grateful I was 
     now going to have the opportunity to do something that could 
     not give me more satisfaction. I was going to be able to help 
     the migrants, like being a migrant helped me to get where I 
     am now, I had an indoor job, with decent hours.
       Since I started working here, March of this year, I have 
     seen how the Migrant Center and the Migrant Education Center 
     has helped many other families and not just mine. Not a day 
     goes by that I don't hear a migrant say ``Thank you all 
     very much.'' I have talked to some parents and they tell 
     me how grateful they are of all the programs and services 
     that are offered here. How much the kids enjoy the books 
     and other school supplies and how that keeps them 
     entertained during their long journeys. They tell me how 
     much they appreciate the fact that they do register the 
     school age children here and how that helps them get 
     registered where they are going. I think back to the times 
     when we were migrating from state to state, and how it may 
     not have taken as long to register at our destination and 
     how maybe not so much time would have gone by in between 
     and we would not have gotten so far behind in school like 
     I did. If we would have only stopped here sooner, before 
     we did, things may have been different, not as difficult 
     for us, for ME!
       Coming from a migrant family and knowing what all these 
     families are going through, I am very honored and grateful to 
     be part of the Migrant Health Center to where I can help them 
     in their time of need. I am very proud to be a part of the 
     team that help the migrant families. Seeing the children's 
     grateful faces and cheerful smiles, and seeing how grateful 
     the parents are is enough to tell me that I am doing my job, 
     that we are all doing our jobs out here. A smile is worth a 
     thousand words, even a thousand dollars.
       During the time that I have worked out here, I have heard 
     people talk about how the Migrant Education Department is in 
     danger of losing their funding. That concerns me because I 
     know how helpful the services that are offered here help 
     every single migrant family that passes through here. The 
     books that are offered, the PFP program that is offered for 
     the preschool children to help them get prepared for school, 
     student counseling, continuing education that also provides 
     information for those who have dropped out of school that 
     would like to get their GED, and lots of other information 
     and brochure on difficult topics. Some of the families that 
     come through here tell me that when they first arrive at the 
     Migrant Center that all the children and sometimes even the 
     parents want to cross the street first, over to the Migrant 
     Education Center, before they even take a shower to get 
     registered for school and receive more books. I had one 
     mother tell me that her children keep and take care of every 
     single book that they have received and that they have been 
     passing through here for 6 years now. There is even a 
     supervised recreation building where the children can play 
     and entertain themselves while the parents rest. And the 
     parents have told me that they really like that because they 
     know that they can rest peacefully without having to worry if 
     they are running round in the streets where they could hurt 
     themselves. The Migrant Center without the Migrant Ed. Center 
     would just not be the same. Every family has a different 
     opinion on why they like the Migrant Ed. Center, but the 
     majority of them say that yes, they do stop to rest and 
     shower but one of the main reasons to go is the Education 
     Center to register the kids for school. And I can sure see 
     when they do!
       I am also concerned about there being no more national 
     registry of migrant students should MRSTS close. That was one 
     of our main problems as migrants, enrolling in school where 
     ever our destination may have been. With MRSTS the state, or 
     even the location of each families destination, is notified 
     that the particular family is heading their way. That way the 
     children can be enrolled in school as soon as possible 
     without losing valuable time. I think that is wonderful! 
     Again, I wish we would have had these services when we were 
     migrating, that is if we would have stopped here before we 
     did.
       I believe these issues should all be addressed and 
     considered on behalf of all migrants and migrant students. 
     There are so many things that we would all like to do to help 
     mankind, I am just very glad that I am in the position to 
     help those in need just like yourself. Let's all please unite 
     to help the migrants and their needs.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jessica Covas.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as we achieve final passage of S. 1513, I 
believe it important that we step back and take a look at the 
comprehensive nature of this reauthorization bill. It is, without 
question, landmark legislation.
  Building on the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, it stresses that all 
children in America should be taught to high academic and performance 
standards. In particular, it contains a new focus on helping those 
students most in need learn to the same high standards as all other 
students. It targets Federal funds in a more precise fashion than ever 
before, and sends money to those communities where poverty today robs 
children of the educational opportunities that ought to be provided.
  But that is only the beginning. We have a new focus on professional 
development to insure that our children are taught by highly qualified 
personnel. We have a new emphasis on making sure that the classroom is 
a safe place in which to learn, and that our children are safe not only 
from drugs and violence but also from the dangers of inferior 
facilities. We have a new priority on educational technology, and on 
making sure that our children have access to the latest, state of the 
art methods of instruction.
  The legislation is also a blend of established, proven programs and 
new, innovative approaches to education of our children. We continue, 
for example, the Dropout Prevention Program that has been so 
successful, and we have new initiatives in areas such as arts 
education, which seeks to bring the rich benefits of the arts, 
humanities, and museums into the education of more of our children.
  Mr. President, I want to acknowledge the leadership of President 
Clinton, Secretary Riley, and Assistant Secretary Payzant in 
formulating this legislation and submitting it for our consideration. I 
also want to thank the majority leader for his steadfastness in setting 
and keeping us on course. And I especially want to recognize Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Jeffords for the magnificent job they have done in 
guiding this legislation through floor debate and consideration.
  There are many other people who deserve a special word of thanks: the 
Education Subcommittee Senators and their staff members; Wayne Riddle 
and the Congressional Research Service; mark Sigurski and the 
Legislative Counsel staff; Russell Jackson and the Senate Service 
Department. From a personal point, I want to thank the members of my 
staff on the Education Subcommittee: David Evans, Barbara Bennison, 
Michael Dannenberg, Daniel Ritter, Jason Rothenberg, Margaret Smith, 
Rachel Reinhardt Kristin Olivera and our other interns. In particular, 
David Evans, Michael Dannenberg, and Margaret Smith spent many, many 
hours putting the legislation together and helping shepherd it through 
subcommittee, committee and the floor. We owe then a great debt of 
gratitude.
  Mr. President, from the outset, this bill has enjoyed strong 
bipartisan support. Throughout the development and consideration of 
this bill, partisan interests have time and again given way to an 
overarching concern for the education of our children. To my mind, that 
is the way it should be, and I am sure the bill is better and stronger 
because we have worked together.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise to support final passage of 
S.1513, as amended.
  This bill represents the last major piece of education legislation we 
will consider in a Congress that has already completed a great deal of 
work, including the Head Start reauthorization, Direct Lending, 
National and Community Service, Goals 2000, and the School to Work 
Opportunities Act.
  I am proud to have been deeply involved in all these major 
initiatives, Mr. President. And, I'm pleased to support the ESEA 
reauthorization now before us.
  I also want to take a moment to thank the Chairs and ranking members 
of the Labor Committee and its Subcommittee on Education, Arts and 
Humanities. This has been a truly bipartisan initiative. All of us on 
both sides of the aisle are indebted to our colleagues from 
Massachusetts, Kansas, Rhode Island, and Vermont for their leadership 
and for their commitment to improving the quality of education for 
every child in America.
  Mr. President, I want to begin by commenting briefly on several of 
the major themes in this legislation and by pointing out several 
specific initiatives that I believe help make this proposal deserving 
of our support.


      focus on low-income kids, links to other reform initiatives

  Historically, the Federal Government's role in education reform has 
been to expand access to educational opportunities for low-income 
students and students with disabilities. I am concerned that in trying 
to expand access, we have made the mistake of creating more narrow 
categorical programs and funding streams that in fact have the very 
opposite effect.
  This legislation envisions significant increases in funding for some 
Federal education programs. It recognizes the reality that the large 
majority of financing for this country's elementary and secondary 
schools will continue to come from State and local sources. Finally, it 
supports the notion that Federal education programs and funding must 
support school reform initiatives that are designed and carried out at 
the State and local level.
  Those realities, Mr. President, are reflected in a number of 
provisions scattered all through this legislation. They include:
  Better targeting and greater flexibility of title I and other funding 
for schools and districts that have high concentrations of low-income 
children.
  Direct links between title I and other Federal education programs and 
the move toward meeting high content and performance standards--but, 
appropriately, not opportunity to learn standards--stimulated by the 
Goals 2000 legislation.
  More flexibility for districts to seek and use waivers of Federal 
rules and regulations when they stand in the way of State and local 
school reform initiatives.
  An increased emphasis on teacher training and other forms of 
professional development in all subject areas--and increased 
flexibility to use Federal funds from several different programs for 
professional development activities.
  An effort to consolidate and better coordinate a variety of technical 
assistance programs--both to achieve greater efficiencies and to 
encourage stronger links between various programs that may be serving 
many of the same children.
  An increased emphasis on parent involvement and on positive links 
between schools and the larger community that surrounds them. This 
includes several important additions to the bill--proposed by Senator 
Wofford and myself--that forge links between Federal education programs 
and community service and service learning.


        charter school program supports state reform initiatives

  One provision in this legislation that deserves special mention, Mr. 
President, is a new $15.0 million Charter Schools Grant Program 
authorized under title VIII, part C. Charter schools are public schools 
that are frequently exempt from input-oriented mandates, but 
accountable to a public agency through a contract that commits the 
schools to achieving specified academic or other results. Although 
State laws across the country all vary, charter schools must be public, 
non-sectarian, may not charge tuition, and may not discriminate in 
admitting students.
  Charter schools enjoy growing, bi-partisan support. Advocates include 
both President Clinton and Education Secretary William Riley; as well 
as a number of leading Governors including Roy Romer of Colorado, 
William Weld of Massachusetts, John Engler of Michigan, Pete Wilson of 
California, and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin.
  Charter schools have now been authorized in 10 States--Minnesota, 
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Georgia, New Mexico, Wisconsin, 
Michigan, Kansas, and Arizona. In addition, Governors and legislators 
in a dozen or more other States are actively considering legislation to 
authorize charter schools.
  I'm particularly pleased that the Labor Committee agreed to accept my 
proposed changes in this program which will ensure that all charter 
schools throughout the country will be eligible for grants. And, it is 
my hope that we maintain these provisions as this bill moves to 
conference with the House.
  The new grant program authorized under title VII is based in part on 
S. 429 and H.R. 1113, the Public School Redefinition Act, a charter 
school grant proposal that I introduced in February 1993 along with a 
bi-partisan group of Senators and Representatives that included 
Senators Joseph Lieberman, Bob Kerrey, and Slade Gorton, and 
Representatives Dave McCurdy, Tom Petri, Tim Penny, and Tom Ridge. It 
also enjoyed bi-partisan support on the Labor Committee, including 
support from Senator Bingaman who made several suggestions for 
improvement in this new program that I am pleased were also accepted.
  The Federal Government should not be dictating to States how charter 
schools should emerge as a part of systemic reform. With that in mind, 
the Senate bill now allows schools receiving grants to be chartered by 
``a state education agency, local education agency, or other public 
agency that has the authority pursuant to state law to authorize or 
approve a charter school.''
  Overall, Senate's version of the Charter School Grant Program follows 
an important principle about the role of various levels of Government 
in education reform: The National Government should be providing 
overall leadership to education reform initiatives, but should defer to 
the States on how to authorize the elements of reform that are--in 
turn--best designed and carried out by each local community.
  By following that principle, States and local communities will claim 
greater ownership of the elements of reform. And, those elements of 
reform are more likely to be implemented and more likely to result in 
improved student performance.


     community schools partnerships (formerly dollars for scholars)

  I am also pleased that the Community Schools Partnerships Act has 
been accepted as part of this legislation. Senator Kennedy and I 
previously introduced this legislation which involves support for 
grass-roots, community-based organizations that promote academic 
excellence through scholarships for graduating high school seniors.
  The Community School Partnership Act will establish and support area 
program centers to foster the development of local affiliated chapters 
in high poverty areas that promote education goals for students from 
low-income families. These students will receive academic support and 
post secondary scholarship assistance.
  The act calls for a one time authorization of $10,000,000 to set up 
an endowment fund. Local chapters will use the interest from that 
endowment to leverage private and public funds which in turn will 
support academic achievement for low income students.
  I continue to be a strong supporter of the Pell Grant and Guaranteed 
Student Loan programs. I also believe it's a wise investment to support 
private sector activity that promotes and rewards solid academic 
achievement. I hope that we can maintain the Community School 
Partnership Act as we move to conference with the House.
  Let me repeat what I said earlier, Mr. President, about how proud I 
am of what's already been accomplished in this Congress to enhance the 
role the education can play in positioning this Nation for the 21st 
century.
  From pre-school to graduate school and beyond, Americans to again 
become a Nation of learners--rewarded when they do well and assisted 
when they fall short. The legislation now before us is an important 
part of achieving that important and essential goal.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.


                national environmental education center

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a topic of 
importance to education. In a 1991 nationwide survey, the Carnegie 
Commission on Science, Technology and Government determined that 67 
percent of all elementary science teachers have inadequate course 
preparation in science, and 69 percent of science teachers and 71 
percent of biology teachers have substandard preparation in their 
subjects. Looking at these statistics, there would seem to be a 
connection with the finding of the Educational Testing Service's 
International Assessment of Educational Progress, which has ranked our 
students near the bottom in a 15-country assessment of science 
achievement.
  This year, we have stated goals we want the Nation to achieve by the 
year 2000, and one of those goals reads ``By the year 2000, United 
States students will be first in the world in mathematics and science 
achievement.'' Today, I am happy to describe a project which once 
completed will help our students attain the science achievement goal.
  That project is called the National Environmental Education Center, 
and will represent an expansion of the Wildlife Conservation Society's 
education facilities at the Bronx Zoo. This center will contain state-
of-the-art technology and will be used to train 8,000 teachers from 
around the United States annually. These teachers will bring the finest 
environmental education curricula home to more than 500,000 students, 
and many more will be served from a computer linkage with schools and 
science institutions across the country. The National Environmental 
Education Center will provide the opportunity for families to study 
ecology together, and will utilize unparalleled wildlife collections 
and award-winning natural habitat exhibits to teach basic biology and 
conservation ecology.
  If we are to make progress toward our National Education Goals, we 
must be willing to invest in innovative projects which build our 
educational infrastructure and help our students reach our National 
Education Goals. This is such a project, and I would hope that the 
members of the Labor Committee will keep it in mind when they take the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act to conference as well as in 
future legislative opportunities.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                  educational administrative spending

  Mr. D'AMATO. I want to commend the managers to the bill for adopting 
in the manager's amendment package language I proposed that will ensure 
that the Secretary of Education takes action to better understand how 
funding provided under this act is used, and to ensure that it is 
better targeted to classroom instruction as opposed to administrative 
spending.
  As I pointed out when I address the Senate on this subject last year 
during consideration of the fiscal year 1993 supplemental 
appropriations bill, there is alarming evidence that growing 
educational bureaucracies across the country are siphoning scarce 
education dollars from classrooms where they are needed most.
  One of the most startling examples of this came from the New York 
City school system, where one recent study of spending in the high 
schools during the 1988-1989 school year showed that less than one of 
every three education dollars actually reached the classroom. The rest 
was used to pay for administration at the district's central office and 
high school division, as well as at the individual school level.
  And New York City is not alone. A recent audit of spending in the 
Indianapolis public schools, for example, found that less than 36 
percent of education funding actually reached the classroom. A similar 
study of spending in the Milwaukee public elementary schools found that 
only one quarter of every education dollar was spent on actual 
classroom instruction.
  Clearly the time has come to examine the extent to which Federal 
education dollars are being spent to fuel the growth of State and local 
education bureaucracies.
  Last year, the Senate unanimously adopted my amendment to the fiscal 
year 1993 supplemental appropriations bill, which, for the first time, 
would have capped the amount of chapter 1 funds received by local 
school districts that could be used for administrative activities.
  While this amendment was narrowly defeated in conference, it remains 
more vital than ever that we understand where our scarce education 
dollars are going and then make sure that they are targeted on students 
in need--and not wasted on unnecessary layers of administrative 
bureaucracy.
  My amendment to the Improving America's Schools Act will achieve this 
objective by strengthening a provision that was already included in the 
committee bill. Specifically, this amendment will require the Secretary 
of Education to conduct and complete the administrative funds study 
called for under section 10204 of this bill within 1 year of the bill's 
enactment. This study will examine how funds provided to State and 
local education agencies under this act are used by these agencies for 
the administration of programs such as title 1, the Eisenhower 
Professional Development Program; and the Drug Free Schools and 
Communities Program. This study will also determine what percentage of 
grant funds made available to State and local education agencies under 
these programs is used for administrative purposes.
  The amendment will require the Secretary of Education to complete the 
study within 1 year of the date of enactment of this bill. More 
important, it will set a deadline of 1 year from the time the study is 
completed for the Secretary to implement final regulations establishing 
limitations on the amount of funds that may be used for administration 
under title 1 and other programs covered under this act.
  Again, I commend the distinguished managers of the bill for including 
this provision in the manager's amendment package. By mandating a 
comprehensive review of administrative spending in our Federal 
elementary and secondary education programs, to be followed within 1 
year by final regulations establishing clear limits on such spending, 
this amendment will help assure that hard-fought education dollars are 
spent not on bureaucratic excess--but children in need.


                       the helms-smith amendments

  Mr. CHAFEE. I want to take a moment to discuss the substance of the 
Smith amendment adopted today, and the Helms amendment adopted 
yesterday. They are virtually identical.
  The amendments say that any local educational agency that carries out 
a program that has the effect of supporting or encouraging 
homosexuality shall lose its Federal funding.
  This sounds simple enough. But in practice, I think the vagueness of 
the amendments' wording could prove troublesome for schools. It is hard 
to define what ``support'' or ``encourage'' means.
  Indeed, it would be possible that the following situations could 
cause a school to risk losing its funds for supporting or encouraging 
homosexuality:
  A guidance counselor counseling and comforting a young teen who is 
confused and distressed about his or her sexuality, and who may be 
considering suicide;
  A teacher assigning works of Shakespeare as a reading assignment, and 
in whose class arises a discussion of Shakespeare's life and times;
  A class discussion about ``Brideshead Revisited,'' and some of the 
characters in which are homosexual;
  A school production of the play ``The Importance of Being Ernest'' by 
Oscar Wilde, whose homosexuality was well-known.
  I doubt that we want to prevent our schools from the above 
activities. We absolutely must make sure our teachers and guidance 
counselors are able to help any confused teens--a group already highly 
susceptible to suicidal tendencies--when they need it, before they do 
themselves some harm. We need to make sure that important works of art 
and literature are not kept from the classroom just because of the 
sexual orientation of the author, or of the characters involved in the 
work.
  It may be that the Helms-Smith amendments are not meant to encompass 
the above situations. But it is by no means clear. And if there is any 
debate about what the Helms-Smith amendments mean, then the matter will 
probably end up in court. And every dime our schools spend in court is 
one less dime that goes for textbooks, band equipment, sports 
activities.
  I feel very, very strongly that we must be careful to keep from 
causing needless litigation problems for the schools. Let's let 
administrators and teachers get on with the task at hand: educating our 
children. Let's not approve vague amendments that create a risk for our 
schools of losing of all Federal funds.


                            guns in schools

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk 
about a possible solution to a critical challenge that--regrettably--is 
faced by our Nation's educators today: the widespread presence of guns 
in the schools.
  When I was the Governor of my State some years ago, school children 
never had to worry that another student might have a gun in his or her 
bookbag or locker. Certainly, students always had their share of 
arguments and fistfights, but at worst, these disputes usually resulted 
in nothing more than a black eye.
  Now, however, although the number of annual incidents remains fairly 
small, guns--especially handguns--are showing up more and more 
frequently in our State's school systems. Indeed, some schools have 
begun to install walk-through metal detectors, or to use metal-
detecting wands to check students as they enter the building, or hire 
security guards to patrol the corridors.
  In an attempt to address this challenge, Senators Feinstein and 
Dorgan introduced a proposal last month that would require every school 
system that receives Federal funds to adopt a gun-free-school policy. 
Such a policy must provide for the 1-year expulsion of any student that 
brings a gun onto school grounds. While this idea may merit 
consideration, I want to bring my colleagues' attention to the work we 
have done in our State that relates to this matter.
  I am pleased to say that the State of Rhode Island is ahead of the 
game on this issue. Under the leadership of Rhode Island Attorney 
General Jeffrey Pine, and the Task Force to Prevent Violence in the 
Schools that he created, police and school officials in two-thirds of 
Rhode Island's cities and towns have adopted a memorandum of 
understanding that implements a zero tolerance policy toward guns and 
violence. To the best of my knowledge, no other State has made such 
progress, and so I congratulate Attorney General Pine and the task 
force on their fine efforts.
  Moreover, these memoranda of understanding strive to push this 
strategy to rid schools of guns and violence one step further by 
firming up the lines of communication between the schools and local 
police departments. Under the agreement, all school staff members are 
required to report to principal any possession or use of a weapon or 
any assault that occurs on school grounds. The principal, in turn, will 
notify the police department. For its part, the police department is 
obligated to notify school officials of any arrests made of juveniles 
outside school hours, if those students attend the same school.
  Now, our task force raised a concern about the potential long-term 
consequences of mandatory year-long expulsion, an approach set forth in 
the Feinstein-Dorgan amendment. Specifically, the task force members 
wondered whether putting a student who has been expelled from school 
for gun possession on the street without supervision would do either 
the child or the local community much good. Accordingly, the task force 
recommended that each school system work with State government 
officials to establish alternative educational programs for expelled 
students that will help them become productive members of society.
  It seems to me, Mr. President, that this is a thoughtful, well-
reasoned approach to a very difficult problem, and I hope my colleagues 
who have crafted this education bill, and will go to conference with 
the House Members on it, will take a look at the Rhode Island approach 
as they work on the issue of weapons in schools. For the information of 
Senators, therefore, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 
memorandum of understanding crafted by the task force be placed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Memorandum of Understanding

       Between (Name of Police Department) and (Name of School 
     Department) meant to be distributed to all superintendents, 
     principals and teachers.
       This document represents an agreement between the (name of 
     police department) and (name of school) to engage in 
     cooperative efforts aimed at the reduction and eventual 
     elimination of violence in schools. It is only through this 
     cooperation that we may restore safety in our schools and 
     promote a secure learning environment. This effort has been 
     supported and will be monitored by the Attorney General's 
     Task Force Against Violence in Schools.
       In order to ensure success, the parties to this memorandum 
     include superintendents, principals, teachers, school 
     personnel, school bus drivers, local police, said parties 
     agree that:
       1. All school staff members are under obligation to report 
     any and all incidents of the possession or use of weapons by 
     any juvenile on school grounds to the principal. Police will 
     be notified by the principal immediately. (see definitions 
     sheet)
       2. All school staff members are under obligation to report 
     any and all incidents of aggravated assaults on other 
     juveniles or school staff to the principal. Principals will 
     determine whether an assault is aggravated so as to 
     constitute police involvement. Police will be notified by the 
     principal accordingly.
       3. The principal or his designee will coordinate all 
     procedures in these matters with police and will report said 
     incidents to the superintendent or designee.
       4. Upon a report of said incidents, the police department 
     will conduct an investigation with school officials to 
     determine what course of action will be taken. The parents of 
     juveniles subject to an investigation will be notified by the 
     school officials immediately.
       5. Where appropriate, and in accordance with the 
     recommendations of the Attorney General's Law Enforcement 
     subcommittee's policy, police will pursue criminal action 
     against said juvenile.
       6. School staff members will cooperate with prosecuting 
     authorities as juveniles are charged with such offenses. This 
     includes revealing information to police and testifying at 
     proceedings when necessary.
       7. The Juvenile Department of the police will record all 
     such occurrences in a log entitled ``Violence in Schools.'' 
     Such record will include the nature of the incident, school 
     official and law enforcement efforts and the disposition of 
     the case, if any.
       8. The school will keep a running log of all such 
     incidents.
       9. The police department will be obligated to notify school 
     officials of arrests of juveniles made over the weekend if it 
     appears the person arrested and victim attended the same 
     school. Police will notify school officials the first school 
     day following the weekend.
       10. Any suspicions of weapons or assault incidents must be 
     reported to the principal immediately. The principal will 
     share this information with the local police when such 
     suspicion presents a dangerous situation.
       11. School administration and Law Enforcement will share 
     such important information in prevention of future violence.
       12. The procedures contained in this Memorandum should be 
     consistent with a zero tolerance for violence in schools.
       (Signed)
       Chief of Police.
       Superintendent.
       Principal.
       Juvenile Chief.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendment to be 
proposed, the question is on agreeing to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee is discharged from further consideration of H.R. 6, 
and the Senate will proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

        A bill (H.R. 6) to extend for 5 years, authorization 
     appropriations for the programs under the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for certain other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the 
enacting clause of H.R. 6 is stricken and the text of S. 1513, as 
amended, is inserted in lieu thereof.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is--the Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 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 the passage of H.R. 6, as 
amended.
  The majority leader, Senator Mitchell.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, this will be the last rollcall vote 
today. The Senate will, immediately following this vote, proceed to 
consideration of the VA/HUD appropriations bill on which I anticipate 
there will be extensive debate this evening and then a vote early 
tomorrow.
  We will not be able to announce the time of the vote at this time. We 
will do so as soon as possible later this evening.
  I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I especially thank the 
Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Vermont for their 
diligence in pursuing and aiding enactment of this very important 
measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Arkansas, Senator Bumpers.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I could have the majority leader's 
attention for just a moment?
  I understand this is the last rollcall vote?
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We are getting ready to go to the space station 
amendment? We are going to stand here and debate by ourselves and then 
vote on it tomorrow?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Perhaps we could discuss that in private here as the 
vote is occurring.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am not trying to cause the leader any 
difficulty. I do not mind starting this amendment, but there should be 
some time tomorrow, because you know what is going to happen the minute 
this vote is over. I do not know it would change any votes. It might 
not, but it might. But there ought to be some time in the morning to 
debate this before a vote is set.
  Has the majority leader set a vote?
  Mr. MITCHELL. No, I have not. Precisely for the reason I wanted to 
consult with the Senator from Arkansas before making an announcement in 
this regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The question occurs on final 
passage of H.R. 6, as amended.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--6

     Brown
     Faircloth
     Helms
     Nickles
     Smith
     Wallop
  So the bill (H.R. 6), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
issue of the Record.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the bill, as amended, was passed.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This legislation represents another main part of our 
efforts in this Congress to improve American education. Already, this 
year, we have enacted the Head Start reauthorization bill, to help 
prepare children more effectively for school. We have enacted the 
School-to-Work Opportunities Act to provide more effective job training 
and career counseling for the 75 percent of American students who go 
directly into the work force without a college degree. And we have 
enacted Goals 2000, to help schools set and meet high standards for 
teaching and learning.
  The pending bill is designed to overhaul the major Federal aid to 
education programs to help all students--especially those students who 
are disadvantaged--to reach high academic standards.
  A key reform in this bill is that States must use the same academic 
standards and assessments for all students. No longer will schools 
receiving Federal aid be permitted to ask less of low-income students 
than of other students. Disadvantaged students will be held to the same 
academic expectations as every other student in a school.
  In addition, rather than pulling individual students out of their 
classrooms for remedial help that often leads to a watered-down 
curriculum, schools will be encouraged to take a schoolwide approach to 
reform.
  A second key reform in this bill is to direct funds where they are 
needed most. Current Federal education funds are spread too thin to 
make a difference in the poorest schools. The new formula for 
distributing title I money will send a significantly greater percentage 
of the funds to high-poverty schools, so that these schools will have a 
realistic chance to improve.
  Third, the bill cuts red tape and gives schools the flexibility to 
implement their own locally developed reforms. The burdensome and often 
conflicting requirements of different Federal programs will be eased, 
by permitting schools to consolidate their funds, implement local 
reforms, and meet the needs of their pupils more effectively.
  Fourth, the bill provides significant help for teachers, who are the 
most important part of education, and who must be a central part of any 
effort to improve schools. One of the principal provisions of the bill 
expands the Eisenhower Math and Science program to include teachers in 
all academic subjects.
  Finally, the bill invests in educational technology. Advanced 
technology is commonplace in many parts of society. But too often, 
schools are unequipped to train students for the modern world. Under 
this bill, assistance will be available to enable poor schools to pay 
for computers, links to networks, and teacher training.
  We are on the threshold of a new era in Federal education policy and 
support for local schools. This reauthorization, which builds on the 
framework established in the Goals 2000 legislation, provides Federal 
aid while giving local teachers and administrators greater freedom and 
flexibility to determine how to improve their schools and provide 
greater opportunities for the neediest students. I urge the Senate to 
approve this important step toward school reform.
  I commend my colleagues on the Labor Committee for their constructive 
and bipartisan work on this bill. We reported it out of committee by a 
strong bipartisan vote of 16-1. Throughout the process, we have worked 
closely with Senators from both sides of the aisle. In particular, I 
commend the distinguished chair of the Education Subcommittee, Senator 
Pell, who has demonstrated once again why he is Mr. Education in the 
Senate. I also commend Senator Kassebaum and Senator Jeffords for their 
tireless efforts on this bill. In addition, the Senate leadership--in 
particular Senator Mitchell--deserves a great deal of credit for moving 
this legislation effectively through the Senate.
  I also commend the staff members who have worked so hard on this 
legislation: on my staff, Ellen Guiney, Clayton Spencer, Stephanie 
Goodman, Matt Alexander, Bonnie Leitch, Jerry Hauser, and Susan Shin; 
on Senator Pell's staff, David Evans, Margaret Smith, and Michael 
Dannenberg; on Senator Kassebaum's staff, Lisa Ross, Wendy Cramer, and 
David Goldfarb; and on Senator Jeffords' staff, Pam Devitt and Katie 
Henry. Thank you all for your help.
  Madam President, I want to take 2 minutes of the Senate's time to 
first of all thank my friend and colleague, Senator Jeffords, for all 
of his very constructive and helpful work in our committee, and also on 
the floor. I want to pay a special tribute to my colleague, the 
chairman of our education committee, Claiborne Pell, who has been ``Mr. 
Education'' in this body for years and years, and is really the 
architect of the bipartisan approach on education which has marked this 
body over a period of the 30-odd years that I have been in the United 
States going back to the early 1960's. He has been at his post from the 
earliest morning to the latest of evening, and his counsel and his 
insight into all of these matters that we have been considering and 
other education matters has been absolutely invaluable to all of us.
  To Senator Kassebaum, who is one of our very really important leaders 
in education and education policy, and who was instrumental in helping 
us reach the point where we are today, has differed with us in some 
areas, but her interventions have always been constructive and have 
always given the Senate the opportunity to make a better informed 
judgment on these matters.
  I will extend these remarks in identifying the best I can a little 
later this evening, and not to interfere with the forthcoming debate, 
some of the various contributions of all Members, Republican and 
Democrat. This vote could not have taken place unless we had their 
strong bipartisan support.
  But I want to at this time again acknowledge the work of some of the 
finest staff that we have in the U.S. Senate, and they are on our 
committee. I want to take the time to acknowledge their extraordinary 
work. They are Democrats and Republicans. But I must say they have been 
really enormously helpful and valuable to all of us in helping, 
assisting, and finding common ground to keep our focus on what is 
really important; that is, to try to strengthen the education of our 
young people.
  I want to mention on my staff Ellen Guiney and Clayton Spencer, 
Stephanie Goodman and Matt Alexander, Bonnie Leitch, Jerry Hauser, and 
Susan Shin; on Senator Pell's staff, David Evans, Margaret Smith, 
Barbara Bennison, and Michael Dannenberg.
  I know that our Republican colleagues will mention their staff. But 
in many respects I would like to thank Senator Kassebaum's staff with 
Lisa Ross, Wendy Cramer, David Goldfarb; and on Senator Jeffords' 
staff, Catherine Henry, Kelly Kivier, and Pamela Devitt, have really 
worked for us individually. But more importantly, they have really 
worked very closely together.
  There are a number of other Members and staff I would like to thank.
  I would also like to recognize the important contributions to this 
bill of my colleagues on the Labor Committee. In the difficult work of 
arriving at a formula, Senator Simon, aided by his able staff Charles 
Barone and Bob Shireman, was instrumental in helping us reach a much 
better, more targeted in-state formula. Senator Bingaman was the 
original author of S. 1040, which was ultimately incorporated as the 
technology title, title III, and he and his staff Marjorie Steinberg 
and Brett Scholl deserve great credit. Senator Dodd, as always, worked 
with us on early childhood issues, along with his staff Suzanne Day and 
Sarah Flanagan, specifically the transition program that will make a 
great difference to young children. Senator Wellstone and his staff 
person Sherry Ettleson helped us to strengthen parent involvement 
provisions, and Senator Harkin and his staff Bobby Silverstein and Bev 
Shroeder helped work out several difficult amendments, as did Senator 
Metzenbaum and his staffperson Cheryl Birdsall and Senator Wofford and 
Julia Frifield. Senator Mikulski and her staffer Anita Harewood 
reviewed many provisions to ensure that girls and women were treated 
fairly in this bill.
  Of the committee, I want to thank Patricia Zell, Bob Arnold, Noelle 
Kahanu of Indians Affairs, Kim Wallace and Jill Ward of Senator 
Mitchell's office, Sue Hildick of Senator Hatfield's office, Carol 
Mitchell and Leslie Staples of Senator Byrd's office, David Medina of 
Senator Mosely-Braun's office, Amy Abraham of the Budget Committee, Ed 
Long, Bettilou Taylor and Bill Cordes of the Appropriations Committee, 
Alexander Russo and Lanie Horowitz of Senator Feinstein's office, David 
McMillen of Senator Lieberman's office, Chris Wasulla of Senator 
Graham's office, Kay Davies of Senator Domenici's office and Steve 
Kroll of Senator Dorgan's office.
  I see Senator Jeffords on his feet. I see Senator Pell on his feet 
and others that want to address the Senate briefly on these measures. I 
want to thank all of them for their cooperation and all of the Members 
for helping us reach what I think will be an important piece of 
legislation that will make an important difference to many of the 
economically disadvantaged children in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendments, requests a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 6, and the Chair is 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The Presiding Officer (Mrs. Feinstein) appointed Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Pell, Mr. Metzenbaum, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Simon, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, 
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Wofford, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Jeffords, 
Mr. Coats, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Durenberger 
conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 1513 is indefinitely postponed.
  The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________