[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the conference report accompanying the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act occur at 5:30 p.m. today, and that the time between now 
and then be equally divided in the usual form and under the control of 
the majority leader and minority leader or their designees, and that 
the time for the cloture vote on the conference report accompanying S. 
349, the lobbying disclosure bill, be set by the majority leader 
following consultation with the minority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I thank my 
friend, the distinguished Republican leader for his cooperation. I 
designate Senator Kennedy to manage the time on our side. Senators now 
should be aware that a vote will occur on the education bill at 5:30 
p.m. today. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Who yields to the Senator from North Carolina?
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am authorized by the minority leader to 
designate myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina may proceed.
  The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, 10 or 12 years ago there was an expression in the 
Senate, ``Win another one for the Gipper.'' This vote this morning was 
``Win one for Bill.'' And Bill even came up to the prayer breakfast 
this morning, Mr. President, and he shared with those present a few 
opinions about who was demonizing whom, I understand. But in any event, 
we have witnessed a remarkable degree of discipline on the other side, 
and I congratulate him.
  And now the American people will be the ultimate judge of what 
happened this morning--not only with regard to the wisdom of putting 
more and more responsibility for education in the hands of Federal 
bureaucrats here in Washington, but also about cementing in the bill, 
Senator Kennedy's version of a ``do nothing'' prayer amendment--an 
amendment which he worked out with Senator Kassebaum and others to 
thwart the will of 80 percent of the American people who want voluntary 
prayer returned to the classrooms in America.
  As I was saying this morning, all of us are doing a lot of thinking 
these days in terms of the problems plaguing this country, and on 
occasion I reflect that I am glad I was born when I was, between the 
two world wars. I was a child during the Great Depression. As a result 
of that, I have seen, I suppose, the best of America in terms of 
people's character and their will to practice personal responsibility.
  Those were also days when a Federal bureaucrat in Washington, DC, 
could not dictate to a local principal or superintendent or school 
board. But some years ago, those who believe there is such a thing as 
free money from Washington arranged to get the camel's nose under the 
tent by dreaming up something called Federal aid to education, They did 
not realize that what they are doing when accepting Federal aid is the 
same as getting a transfusion from one of their arms to the other--
spilling a good part of their blood in the process.
  Mr. President, the Federal Government has no money to dish out. The 
Congress has no money to deliver to constituents back home except the 
money taken from the constituents in the first place.
  So, what has occurred over the 30 years or so has been a 
disintegration of the kind of Government Thomas Jefferson and others--
whom we refer to as the Founding Fathers--envisioned when they pledged 
their lives and their property to make this Nation possible. Thomas 
Jefferson probably spins in his grave every time we pass a bill--such 
as this one--to increase and expand Federal control over State and 
local governments. What Thomas Jefferson said about the least 
government being the best government will be pushed aside again--as it 
is time after time--this afternoon when this bill passes.
  And yet there will be Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners all over this 
country--just as there are Lincoln dinners. But to tell you the truth, 
I like Thomas Jefferson better than I do Abraham Lincoln. Of course, 
both of them were pretty good Americans. But Thomas Jefferson is sort 
of a hero of mine because he understood the nature and character of 
man. He also understood the meaning of tyranny. And he certainly 
understood freedom--and all of the responsibilities and sacrifices 
required of those who want freedom.
  Mr. President, thoughts about the future of our country and the state 
in which it now finds itself, go through my mind with increasing 
intensity when I think about my three children and seven grandchildren 
who are very special to me. I shudder sometimes when I think of what 
may lay ahead for America and for them. I am very proud of them. But 
when I compare what they face in the future with the good life that I 
enjoyed so far, I cannot help but feel I got the better deal. Now we 
were poor as church mice when I was a boy, but I did not know we were 
poor at the time.
  Mr. President, votes such as the one we had this morning puzzles me. 
Here we are in an America that is in the midst of an historic struggle 
for survival in terms of restoring traditional values, family values--
whatever you want to call them--and then we vote down time after time 
every attempt to restore those values. The struggle in this Nation--as 
a very fine editor out in Oklahoma wrote 20, 25 years ago--is for the 
soul of America.
  That is what we are struggling through right now. You can stand on 
the Capitol steps and almost throw a rock into neighborhoods where you 
cannot walk at night because of the violence that takes place nightly. 
As Members of Congress, we pass great big expensive crime bills--but 
they do no good. Then we go home and say, boy, we really took care of 
it this time. There is not going to be any more crime because we are 
going to kill it with money. We are going to appropriate enough money 
to solve this problem.
  Mr. President, we have been passing crime bill after crime bill 
almost ever since I came here in 1973. And what has been the result?
  There is more crime than ever before, and crimes are more heinous 
than ever before. There has been, in short, an absolute disintegration 
of morality.
  For instance, we now have homosexuals dictating what the Agriculture 
Department of the U.S. Government can and cannot do in personnel 
matters. But, what does the media write about? It is like a ship 
passing in the night. They are too busy reporting on imaginary 
conspiracies of the so-called ``religious right.'' They are not 
interested or they do not care about the disintegration of America--and 
I say that as one who comes from the news media. Fortunately, there are 
more and more Americans every day who are aware of what is at stake.
  Mr. President, I have met with several groups in the last 10 days. 
One of them was the Concerned Women for America. They know what is 
going on because they have an organization that furnishes them with 
information on a constant basis.
  These women, as individuals, are now getting involved in specific 
political campaigns. I am glad to see them do it. They are operating 
phone banks already in certain States where Senators are running for 
reelection. They have targeted those Senators who have trampled on 
traditional values time after time. Some of them have winked and nodded 
in conference and helped plow under the Helms-Lott school prayer 
amendment even though it was adopted overwhelmingly--and approved 
overwhelmingly--by the House and the Senate. One Senator running for 
reelection has done that kind of thing over and over and over again.
  But these ladies operating the phone banks--on their own time--are 
getting involved and they are making calls to voters because they are 
sick and tired of all the crime, the blatant pornography which some 
people call art, the mediocre schools, and especially the politicians 
who cater to every fringe group and perverted lifestyle. It may not 
happen in this year's election, but there is a growing realization, and 
I pray that it grows even more, that Washington is the problem and not 
the solution to America's concerns.
  As I said this morning, Reader's Digest published an article a year 
or so ago which was titled ``Let us Pray.'' In that article, Reader's 
Digest reported the results of a poll taken by the Wirthlin group--
which is a widely recognized and respected polling organization. The 
Wirthlin folks found that 75 percent of the American people strongly 
favor prayer in the public schools and want it restored.
  Mr. President, the subtitle of that Reader's Digest article was what 
caught my attention. The article said at the top ``Let Us Pray,'' and 
then right below that in smaller print it said, ``Why can't the voice 
of the people be heard on prayer in schools?'' Why indeed, Mr. 
President? Well we just had a manifestation of why right here in this 
Chamber this morning.
  The Reader's Digest pointed out that opinions in favor of school 
prayer ``were expressed by Democrats, Republicans, blacks, and whites, 
rich and poor, high-school dropouts and college graduates--reflecting a 
profound disparity between the citizenry and the [Supreme] Court.''
  Yet, despite this massive outcry, the liberals in Congress and in the 
media claim that the Constitution somehow forbids governmental 
establishment of religion, and, ipso facto, prayer in school cannot be 
permitted. Horsefeathers.
  Of course, they never point out that the Constitution specifically 
forbids governmental restrictions on the free exercise of religion. You 
never hear that mentioned. But they talk incessantly about separation 
of church and state even though it is not even in the Constitution. The 
first amendment says ``Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' 
It certainly does not say anything about separation of church and 
state.
  Something else the Constitution says that nobody mentions very often. 
The Constitution protects students' rights to free speech, whether 
religious or not, and that student-initiated, voluntary prayer--
expressed in an appropriate time, place and manner--has never been 
outlawed by the Supreme Court. But try telling that to school 
principals and school superintendents--or the teachers' unions.
  But back to the question asked by Reader's Digest: ``Why can't the 
voice of the people be heard on prayer in schools?'' The simple answer 
is that many of the Nation's politicians have deliberately mislead, and 
continue to mislead, the voters about where they really stand on the 
issue of school prayer. Oh, they go home and say, ``Yes, ma'am. Yes 
ma'am. I favor school prayer,'' and then they come right back up here 
and vote for cloture on this bill. They come right back up here and 
pass the Goals 2000 bill as they did back on March 25-26--after their 
fellow liberals knocked off school prayer in conference.
  Mr. President, most of the education bills were altered by one 
Senator in conference, one Senator who in effect said, I am not going 
to have school prayer. And he has made some comments in the past to the 
effect that it does not matter how the House and Senate vote; that 
House and Senate votes are meaningless and he will do as he sees fit in 
conference.
  I do not know if that is the case under the Senate rules. But, I do 
know that for any Senator to say that is arrogant. I also know that 
politician after politician--when they are in Washington--knowingly and 
willingly allow their leadership to beat back the restoration of 
voluntary school prayer time and time again.
  It does not matter how hard Dan Coats works, or Trent Lott, or 
anybody else. It does not matter how many votes are cast in favor of 
the restoration of school prayer. This one Senator, in a conference 
between the House and the Senate, winks and nods, and out school prayer 
goes. And they substitute some intentionally meaningless language for 
it and then receive awards from the ACLU and other liberal groups for 
cleverly blocking school prayer again.
  Mr. President, school prayer has been killed not once, but twice this 
year--both times despite overwhelmingly strong votes, 3 to 1, in favor 
of it in both the House and Senate. But I have to say again, as one who 
made his living in and with the news media for most of my life--save 4 
years in the Navy during World War II--the news media just will not 
tell the whole truth about what goes on in Washington and where 
politicians really stand on this issue. They will not do it this time.
  We have three guys and one lady sitting up there in the press 
gallery. I will bet you they will not give the other side--and if they 
did write it, their superior will knock it out. So the liberal 
leadership in the Congress is permitted to beat back school prayer time 
after time, and it is just like that ship passing in the night, it gets 
just a fleeting mention with no specifics and that is it.
  The same is true about how Dr. Mertz, the USDA employee down in 
Atlanta, has been treated. You cannot find a line in the newspaper, nor 
a syllable in a newscast, about how this man committed an unpardonable 
sin in a television interview while he was off duty in Biloxi, MS. He 
had just attended a USDA conference where officials discussed plans to 
indoctrinate USDA employees in homosexual propaganda and to extend 
special rights to homosexuals in the workplace. The reporter asked what 
he thought of the proposed new policies and he responded--and I think 
this is verbatim--``At a time when we ought to be reaching for Camelot, 
we are instead grasping for Sodom and Gomorrah.''
  Before nightfall, Dr. Mertz was removed from his job--a job in which 
his work had been praised time and time again, formally and informally, 
for 7 or 8 years. His superiors moved him over to a do-nothing job, 
just sitting there.
  Well, I heard about it and I called him up. He told me the story and 
I checked on it. What he told me was entirely accurate, USDA did not 
dispute it at all. So, I called the Secretary of Agriculture--soon to 
be the former Secretary of Agriculture--Mr. Espy, and told him about 
this and he said he would look into it. But I did not hear from him for 
quite a while. So I wrote him a letter and I said, ``You are too nice a 
guy to be trapped in this sort of a mess. Reinstate this man Mertz and 
then give him a public hearing--a public hearing--so the homosexual 
militants cannot try him in private. Let him be heard in a public 
hearing where he can tell his side of the story, and anybody who wants 
to testify against him can do so as well.''
  Well, I got nothing from the USDA in response to that letter--
nothing. So I put holds on every piece of Agriculture Department 
legislation that was on the Senate calendar and I sent word to the USDA 
that my holds are not coming off until you treat Dr. Mertz fairly. 
Well, that woke them up and we negotiated back and forth. They wanted 
this condition and that. I said, ``Just be fair to Dr. Mertz; reinstate 
him pending a public hearing at a place of his choice; and then I will 
give you what you want.''
  You know, the night before last, I finally got a letter, hand 
delivered from Secretary Espy, agreeing in writing to do what I said he 
ought to do from the outset. I took the holds off the legislation and 
the nominations, and they were approved.
  Mr. President, the homosexuals can climb up on the top of my house, 
as they did one time, and hoist up a 35-foot canvas condom, but they 
are not going to deter me. And to the best of my ability and to the 
limit of my strength, they are not going to successfully take over any 
Department of the Federal Government without my raising hell about it. 
I give the people of America my word about that.
  Now, Mr. President, Senators who voted for cloture a while ago--and a 
lot of them are my good friends, most of them--but I have to say to my 
good friends who voted for cloture: You are not a true friend of 
restoring voluntary school prayer. You did what the President wanted 
you to do. You did what your leader told you to do. But you did not 
help the cause of restoring school prayer.
  Let me go back and review what happened earlier this year when we had 
another Federal education bill--the Goals 2000 bill--before the Senate. 
I was somewhat encouraged back on February 3 when the Senate voted by a 
margin of 75 to 22 to approve an amendment offered by Senator Lott of 
Mississippi, and this Senator from North Carolina, to prevent public 
schools from prohibiting constitutionally protected, voluntary, 
student-initiated school prayer. Oh, you know that was an easy vote.
  But there was one Senator who winked and nodded and said: Go ahead 
and vote for it, I will take care of it in conference. Well, it was 
made a little stickier for him to do that, I thought--dumb old me--when 
the House voted 367 to 55 to instruct the House conferees on the Goals 
2000 bill to keep the Senate's Helms-Lott amendment in the bill in 
conference.
  But then came March 17 and, Mr. President, despite the 75-to-22 vote 
in the Senate, and the 367-to-55 vote in the House of Representatives, 
in favor of the restoration of voluntary school prayer, one Senator and 
a few of his liberal friends from the House, dropped the Helms-Lott 
amendment. By every honorable tradition of this Congress, that was not 
permissible, because there used to be an understanding--and I have 
served on many conference committees between the House and Senate--that 
whatever you do to an amendment in conference has to be within the 
scope of both the House and the Senate version of the legislation.
  But, not anymore. It just takes a wink and a nod between one Senator 
and his counterpart from the House, and they can drop an amendment 
voted for overwhelmingly in both Houses and put in its place ridiculous 
do-nothing school prayer language--written by Congressman Pat 
Williams--which neither body had ever seen, much less voted on.
  Of course, I was dismayed when the Goals 2000 conference did that, 
and so was Senator Lott from Mississippi. Our amendment had been 
dropped in the last 60 seconds of the conference between the House and 
the Senate. Everybody else had gone home and then came that wink and a 
nod: ``How about this, Senator?'' ``How about this language?'' ``Yes, 
that suits me fine. Put it in there.'' And the deed was done.
  But there was nothing in the media about that. That is OK. See, a 
liberal did it--so it is OK. The Senator from Massachusetts and his 
counterpart on the House side had prearranged to drop the Helms-Lott 
amendment and replace it with do-nothing language. The following 
Monday, March 21, the House of Representatives refused to add that do-
nothing language--by a vote of 179 to 239.
  The distinguished majority leader comes in and says the Senator from 
North Carolina cannot have his way, and so forth and so on. But, I am 
not insisting on having my way. I am insisting that the House and the 
Senate ought to have their way when they pass amendments 
overwhelmingly.
  The Senator from Massachusetts does not own this Senate. There should 
not be a process which enables any Senator, or any Member of the House 
of Representatives, to ignore the will of the majority of both Houses. 
But that is what happened on both the Goals 2000 education bill, and on 
H.R. 6, that is before us now.
  Mr. SIMON assumed the chair.
  Mr. HELMS. The Goals 2000 conference report, with the ``do-nothing'' 
language in it came back on the Senate floor for approval on March 25. 
That was right before the Easter break. It also happened to be the 
birthday of Mrs. Helms.
  At that time, some of us were highly critical of what had gone in 
conference with the Helms-Lott amendment. But the distinguished 
majority leader kept the Senate in until after midnight so as to impose 
cloture on the discussion of the Goals 2000 conference report.
  He managed to do it because Senators wanted to get home for Easter. 
They had plane reservations and everything all set to go home for the 
holiday.
  But perhaps the Senator from Massachusetts has it right when he 
said--as he was quoted as saying in the Washington Post--that the 
Senate vote on an issue is meaningless as long as he presides over a 
conference between the House and the Senate.
  He was not elected, and I was not elected, to do that kind of thing, 
or to take that kind of position, or adopt that kind of attitude. I 
shall never do it.
  I do not mind losing, Mr. President. I am accustomed to it. I try to 
get a lot of things done to defend moral principles that should 
survive--and deserve to survive. I win some of them and I lose some of 
them. But I do mind losing in the way that school prayer has been 
defeated this year. And I resent the way one of the reporters in one of 
the papers put it, that bills were being held up by so trivial a matter 
as school prayer. Trivial? Ask 80 percent of the American people if it 
is trivial.
  I can even respect the Senators--and do respect them--who disagree 
with me on this issue and are straightforward about it. A number of 
Senators who I count as close friends vote against me on a number of 
things. But the point is that the voters deserve to know where their 
Senators stand on issues--and what happened on school prayer this year 
keeps the voters from finding out.
  And that is the reason I am so pleased that women's organizations, a 
number of them, are working on phone banks between now and election day 
in November, because they are calling voters and telling them how their 
Senators and Congressmen really stand on key issues--and the impact is 
showing. And I say God bless those women.
  Bill Bennett, the former Secretary of Education under President 
Ronald Reagan, and Lamar Alexander, who held the same post when George 
Bush was President, held a meeting up here yesterday, and they urged 
Senators to take a close look at this monstrosity of an education bill 
and vote against it. But Senators did not take the time to read it, 
because they had already been instructed by their President, and by 
their leader, to vote this thing through and to vote for cloture. And 
they did it 75 to 24.
  However, the American people, if I have anything to do with it, are 
jolly well going to find out how everybody voted on this issue--and 
where they really stand on school prayer.
  I do not know how many years I have remaining. By all actuarial odds, 
I have been going downhill for a long time. Anybody who is 73 is in 
that fix. But I will say that I feel mighty good for that age. And then 
I look at Strom Thurmond and I say I have a lot of years ahead of me.
  When Bill Bennett came by not long ago, he commented to me that 
America has become the kind of country that civilized countries once 
dispatched missionaries to centuries ago--that is to say we are 
becoming more and more uncivilized every day, and we are approaching 
the character of countries to which, for years and years and years in 
the past, we sent missionaries.
  Mr. President, if we really care about cleaning up the streets and 
the classrooms, if we care about the long-term survival of our Nation, 
is there anything more important for the Senate to protect than the 
right of America's children to participate in voluntary, 
constitutionally-protected prayer in school?
  My friend from Illinois, who is presiding over the Senate right now, 
will acknowledge that this Senate begins its daily session with a 
prayer. True enough, not many Senators show up for it, but it happens. 
So does the House of Representatives and the courts. The members of 
every one of those branches of Government take their oaths of office on 
the Bible.

       I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United 
     States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, 
     one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice 
     for all.
  They do it so fast in school that children say, ``What did they 
say?'' It has become a ritual without meaning.
  Now, I noticed a number of Senators predicated their votes on how 
much money their respective States were going to get out of the pot of 
money this bill hands out. Boy, with all due respect to any Senator, to 
pass judgment on a piece of legislation solely on such a basis tells 
you something about the political process in this country.
  Well, we already spend more money per pupil than any other 
industrialized country in the world and what has it bought? We have the 
lowest math scores, the lowest English scores, and the highest crime 
rate of any of our major trading partners. And this has happened to 
education since Federal aid to education began. We should be No. 1 
based on the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent on education 
in this country at the Federal, State, and local levels.
  The point being, Mr. President, we can spend all the money we dare 
tax out of people and it is not going to improve our children's 
achievement, or happiness, or well-being one whit unless and until we 
take traditional morality out of Government-imposed exile and bring it 
back and put it back in the place of prominence and respect it once 
enjoyed in our lives and in our schools.
  Michael Novak said it pretty well. Michael is with the American 
Enterprise Institute. He said:

       There is no issue in American life in which the public will 
     is so clear and the political establishment is so heedless. 
     The cultural and political elites have simply ignored the 
     overwhelming support of the American people for voluntary 
     school prayer--indeed for the role of religion and faith in 
     the Nation's life.

  And he is exactly right.
  And, of course, every schoolboy knows about George Washington's 
counsel 200 years ago or more. He said:

       Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political 
     prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. 
     In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who 
     should labor to subvert these great pillars of human 
     happiness.

  George Washington said that, and it is as relevant today as it was 
when he said it.
  Mr. President, may I inquire how much of my 1 hour of time I have 
used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina has spoken for 
40 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. For 40 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. I believe that I will reserve the 
remainder of my time and yield the floor so somebody else can speak.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of this important education bill. I 
know that the Senator who is presiding played a very important role in 
that bill.
  I was very pleased to see my Republican friends decided to join with 
the Democrats, although not a majority of them, and vote for cloture so 
we were able to get on with this debate.
  I agree with the Senator from North Carolina on one statement he 
made, and that statement was that the American people will be the judge 
on this particular issue. And that is correct. The American people will 
be the judge. The American people will decide if education is an 
important issue. The American people will decide whether they want to 
have gun-free schools and safe schools and schools that foster quality 
education. They will decide, and they will watch and they will judge, 
because we will cast a vote today.
  You know, I really have to say, I was so pleased that I had a few 
minutes to speak before the cloture vote and make a couple of points on 
school prayer. I want to again underscore those points.
  I think that any reasonable person who has followed this debate on 
school prayer would support the language in this bill. And what is very 
interesting to me, Mr. President, is that the language in the bill that 
survived the conference between the House and the Senate is in fact the 
language that passed this Senate overwhelmingly with more than 90 
votes.
  So it is very difficult for me to understand why the Senator from 
North Carolina is upset about the prayer language that is in this bill. 
I know the Senator believes in democracy. He believes that majority 
rules. And yet, on his prayer amendment, he could not prevail in this 
Senate. He failed.
  Senator Kassebaum, my Republican friend from Kansas, put on her 
thinking cap and came forward with an excellent amendment. It got 
almost unanimous support. You do not usually see amendments getting in 
excess of 90 votes. This is the amendment that survived conference and 
comes back here to us, and the Senator from North Carolina says, 
essentially, this is a terrible job done by the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Kennedy. This is terrible.
  Senator Kennedy prevailed. He got the Senate's position on prayer. 
And it is a sensible provision.
  All this talk about needing to debate this issue until 5:30, because 
the Senator from North Carolina says 80 percent of the people want 
prayer in schools and this bill does not address it, is, frankly, in 
this Senator's view, nonsensical. It does not make sense.
  The Senate voted for the Kassebaum amendment, which says if a school 
interferes with constitutional prayer and a court gets involved in it, 
the school will lose its funds.
  The Senator from Massachusetts brings it back as it went from the 
Senate--by the way, as the occupant of the chair knows, it is very rare 
that the Senate will prevail like this. There is usually a compromise.
  It comes back to us intact. The 93 Senators who voted for it should 
be very happy. And, I might add, the Senator from North Carolina voted 
for the Kassebaum prayer amendment. It survived intact. It is in here. 
And if a court says to a school district, you are interfering with 
constitutionally protected prayer and there is a court order, that 
school will lose funds.
  Now, what I also find interesting about this debate is that the 
Senator from North Carolina is very eloquent about how, when he went to 
school in the thirties, the Federal Government had no role. Those were 
the good old days. It was terrific. The Federal Government had no role 
and no Federal bureaucrat ever told a local school official what to do.
  But yet, in the Senator's prayer amendment, he gives complete 
authority to a Federal bureaucrat to withhold funds from schools. I 
find that really hard to understand. He decries Federal bureaucrats on 
the one hand; on the other hand, in his amendment, he gives a Federal 
bureaucrat the right to make the decision if a school is acting in 
violation of constitutionally protected prayer.
  In the Kassebaum amendment, which the Senator from Massachusetts 
brought back to us, that decision is left to the court and you keep it 
out of the hands of the Federal bureaucracy.
  I think the Senator from North Carolina should be applauding that 
particular amendment as it came back to us.
  When I spoke before the cloture vote, I pointed out that I am a 
product of public schools, all the way from kindergarten through 
college. I am a very fortunate person. I am a first generation American 
on my mother's side. We never owned our own home; I grew up in a little 
tiny apartment. I am a U.S. Senator.
  Today some people might say, ``Big deal.'' I think it is a big deal. 
I am proud to be here. I owe so much to the people of California for 
putting their faith in me. I did not go to fancy schools. The kids in 
my school were mostly first generation Americans.
  I was able to get a good college education at a free university, and 
I was able to get a job as a stockbroker at a time when no women ever 
did that, because I had the skills. And even though I could not get 
into a Wall Street firm because they did not hire women, I studied for 
the exam on my own and I passed it and I became a stockbroker. Why? 
Because I had the skills I needed to compete because I had a quality 
education.
  I understand it is very tempting for those of us who are pleased with 
our life to get up and say, ``Those were the greatest times when I grew 
up. Those were the best times. Let us bring back those times.''
  The Senator from North Carolina wants to bring back, in many ways, 
the 1930's. He said those were the greatest times. It is a tribute to 
him that he survived the life of poverty he described to get to the 
U.S. Senate. But I have to tell you, I am not so sure I want to bring 
back the 1930's--the Depression years, the years the Senator from North 
Carolina says were so great to be in school because no Federal 
bureaucrat was involved.
  My dad told me about the Depression years. I was born after the 
Depression years. He said it was the hardest, hardest times. People 
were distressed about their lives. People were jumping out of windows 
and killing themselves, or selling apples on the street to make a 
living. And they feared for their families and their children. Frankly, 
it took a Democratic President to get us out of it and give us the hope 
and the tools that we needed.
  Then, in the 1950's, when I was a kid, it took a Republican President 
named Dwight David Eisenhower to tell us that education was key to our 
national security. Indeed, he put forward the National Defense 
Education Act and said: Yes, there is a role for the Federal 
Government, because if our young people are not educated, do not have 
the tools, it does not matter how many bombs we have because they will 
not want democracy and they will not want capitalism--unless they have 
the education and the ability to rise to the top.
  So I think those were good days. Were they the greatest days? Were 
they perfect days? No. But I think the important point is that each 
generation has its success stories and its failures. We have to pick 
the best of each generation before us as we try to legislate for our 
people. I think what this bill tries to do is discard the things that 
do not work, to try some new things that might work, and to keep some 
of the things that have been excellent. And some of those things, by 
the way, were brought to us by Republican legislators. For example, 
there is a Javits program in the bill, there is an Eisenhower program 
in the bill--I will explain those in a minute.
  This bill is crucial. We can fight all day about prayer in the 
school, but the fact remains this is the toughest school prayer 
language that we have ever voted on, and this is the school prayer 
language that the Senate supported, including the Senator from North 
Carolina. I, frankly, am at a loss to understand why he would wish to 
hold up this bill until 5:30 instead of voting on it now.
  Title I, education of poor children, is in here; teacher training in 
math and science, dropout prevention, school construction and 
improvement, safe schools, computers for the classrooms--I do not think 
there is anyone who is alive who has a pulse beat and a heartbeat in 
America today who does not understand the need for safe schools, the 
need to get guns out of the schools.
  Senator Feinstein and Senator Dorgan did an excellent job of bringing 
this issue to our attention and we have a gun-free schools provision in 
this bill. I would say to the Senator from North Carolina, if we could 
listen in to the prayers of a lot of our kids and their parents, if we 
could listen in on those prayers, they would be prayers for safe 
schools and safe streets and safe lives for them. We do something about 
it in this bill. Let us get it done.
  Improving teaching and learning. I told my colleagues before, two 
Republicans are in this bill by name--the Eisenhower professional 
development program devotes an entire title to the professional 
development of teachers, and teachers are key.
  Technology For Education. If you have a pulse beat and a heartbeat, 
if you are alive today, you know our young people need to understand 
how to use computers. We have some wonderful people in the business 
world who have donated computers. I have been to schools all over 
California and seen the excitement on those kids' faces when they learn 
how to use computers. We cannot go back to the fifties or thirties and 
say it was great and not recognize the technological revolution we have 
had in the meantime.
  When I was a young mother I started an organization that helped high 
school dropouts learn skills for the workplace. What were those skills? 
Answering the phone, learning how to type, and the big thing was to try 
to get enough electric typewriters at that time. Answering the phone, 
learning how to type, learning how to use adding machines, basic 
filing--that was it. Today it is a different story. Computer skills are 
necessary and this bill answers that need.
  Drug-free schools and communities--in this bill.
  School dropout prevention programs are in this bill. It costs us so 
many hundreds of billions of dollars when all these children drop out 
of school. I do not have to tell the occupant of the chair. He has 
dedicated his life to education. Let us get on with it.
  If we could listen to those prayers, we would also hear from the 
parents, ``I hope those kids stay in school and get that education so 
they can get a good job.''
  School construction and infrastructure. We have a terrific woman in 
our California assembly, Assemblywoman Eastin. She made a wonderful 
speech once and she said: You know, when our kids go to the store and 
they go shopping and they look around at the beautiful stores--for 
example we have Nordstrom's and we have Macy's and other stores--they 
see the beauty and the cleanliness. Then they walk into their public 
schools and they are a mess. ``What is the message,'' she asks, ``that 
shopping is more important than schooling?'' Perhaps that is the not so 
subtle message that is getting through to our kids.
  Schooling is crucial to their future and the buildings need to be 
safe and painted and made attractive. They cannot continue to 
deteriorate. That is part of this bill.
  I talked about the gun-free schools. We have seen it too much in 
California, little kids bringing guns to school, using them to kill 
themselves or injure other people. We need to do something about it. It 
is in this bill.
  So, let me wind down here. There is no need to delay this vote. We 
had a terrific vote on cloture. I am so proud of that. But the reason I 
wanted to speak out is I do not want the people of America who could be 
listening to this debate to think that this bill attacks school prayer 
or does not include it. It does. It was a difficult issue for some to 
come to agreement on. But Senator Kassebaum deserves a lot of praise, 
as I said earlier. I do not think the Federal Government should be 
involved in telling us where to pray, whether to pray, what to pray, or 
how to pray. I do not think we need such laws.
  As I said, I prayed all through public school. There were times when 
I was nervous the teacher might call on me and I was not prepared. I 
did not need a constitutional amendment. I was able to do that. But the 
fact is we have come to a good compromise here. We have language that 
is clear.
  It says if any school interferes with constitutionally allowable 
prayer, then the court can issue an order and that school will lose its 
funds. The good thing about this is that it does not leave it to a 
bureaucrat or a politician to make the decision, Mr. President. It 
leaves it to the court. Americans know we have a separation of church 
and State. There is a fine line, and the court will decide if that fine 
line is being crossed. That is the way we should legislate and make 
sense out of these difficult issues. That is what Senator Kassebaum 
did.
  So I hope the American people who are watching this debate understand 
that the issue of school prayer has been dealt with very fairly; that 
the chairman of this committee brought back exactly what the Senate 
told him to do. I do not think that was easy. This is a complex issue. 
But the Senator from Massachusetts brought this school prayer language 
back the way the Senate voted for it, and he should be praised for 
that.
  This bill is worthy of a lot of praise. What could be more important 
than educating our young people? It is not a Democratic issue or a 
Republican issue, it is an American issue. We all know that with a 
great education you can rise to the top in this global economy, and 
that is all we want for all our children.
  So, I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, this Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act contains a number of things that are important to our Nation. Let 
me just mention one that I think could have a real impact on our 
future.
  The Senate was good enough to accept an amendment that I offered, 
cosponsored by Senator Pell, Senator Byrd, Senator Jeffords, and I am 
sure I am leaving off some, that when it passed the Senate would have 
authorized $100 million to schools that go from 180 days to 210 days.
  Right now in Japan, they go to school 243 days a year. In Germany, 
they go to school 240 days a year. We go to school an average of 180 
days a year. Why do we go 180 days a year? In theory, it is so that our 
children can go out and harvest the crops. The Presiding Officer is 
from Marin County in California. There are not too many children going 
out harvesting the crops there. I live in rural southern Illinois. My 
address is Route 1, Makanda, IL, population 402. That is as rural as 
you get. Even in rural Makanda, IL, there are not very many children 
going out harvesting the crops. That was another era, and yet we have 
not adjusted our schools to the current reality, that we have to be 
competitive with the rest of the world.
  If we were to go from 180 days in a school year to 210--and we would 
still be well behind Germany, Japan and many other nations --that 
would, over the course of 12 years of school, mean you get 2 more years 
of school. This may not be a popular move with the pages who are here, 
and some young people and maybe some teachers who are watching this, 
but the reality is, we cannot learn as much in 180 days as our friends 
in Japan, Germany and other countries learn in the longer period. That 
is the simple reality.
  One other benefit of going to 210 days, particularly in elementary 
school when you have a 3-month hiatus, you forget what you learned in 
the third grade and when you start the fourth grade, the fourth grade 
teacher has to spend a lot of time reminding people what they learned 
in geography, in math, English, or whatever it was.
  By having this additional money--and in conference the $100 million 
was compromised to $72 million, and I understand that is what 
conferences have to do. We cannot all get everything we want. In a 
Nation of 250 million people, that is not very much money, but it is a 
little carrot out there for school boards and school administrators and 
PTA's to start talking about are we really doing the right thing by our 
young people by having school 180 days a year? This is a step forward.
  I have written about the need for a longer school year, and the 
intent of my amendment, in a column I publish weekly. I ask unanimous 
consent that the column be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Longer School Days Would Boost U.S. Standard of Living

                        (By Senator Paul Simon)

       Without fanfare, the United States Congress has adopted a 
     small amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     that could have a far-ranging impact on our nation.
       A few weeks ago the Senate adopted an amendment I 
     proposed--co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators 
     including Claiborne Pell, Robert Byrd, Herb Kobl, Jim 
     Jeffords, John Chafee and Carol Moseley-Braum--authorizing 
     that $100 million a year be given to schools that move from 
     our present 180 school days a year to 210 days a year. The 
     dollars were reduced in conference with the House of 
     Representatives to $72 million, not a large amount in a 
     nation of 45 million elementary and high school students, but 
     enough to start us on the road to improvement.
       It is enough to get school boards and school administrators 
     across the nation talking about our problem.
       In Japan, students go to school 243 days a year, in Germany 
     240, and in most other industrial nations numbers that are 
     greater than ours. Can we learn as much in 180 days as they 
     do in 240 and 243? Obviously not.
       Why do young people in our nation attend only 180 days? In 
     theory, so that they can go out and harvest the crops. Even 
     in smalltown, rural America--where I live--that is not true 
     for most young people. Our world has changed, but our 
     educational system has not changed.
       The schools that move to 210 days in order to qualify for 
     the extra federal dollars will find that their students learn 
     more, and do better, whether they go on to college or not.
       Increasing attendance from 180 days to 210, still far 
     behind Japan and Germany, is the equivalent of adding two 
     additional school years of study by the 12th grade.
       The few who will lead on this, and see their students do 
     better on the average than other American students, will soon 
     be followed, I believe, by many other schools who recognize 
     the improvement such a change will bring.
       This is not the federal government forcing any local 
     schools to do anything, but it is a message from the federal 
     government that if we want our young people to compete with 
     the rest of the world, we will have to be better prepared.
       Increasingly, we will compete with others either with 
     better prepared personnel, or lower wages.
       The answer to what we should do is obvious, but we're not 
     doing much about it. This legislation is a start.
       Some months ago, in one of the committees on which I serve, 
     we heard the story of a U.S. corporation trying to decide 
     where to locate a small manufacturing plant. Their choices: 
     Mexico, the United States or Germany. Mexico had the 
     advantage of the lowest wages, the United States of better 
     prepared workers than Mexico and lower wages than Germany, 
     and Germany--with better trained workers and an average 
     hourly manufacturing wage now $6 higher than the United 
     States. They chose Germany because the workers are better 
     prepared.
       Recently, I visited Motorola headquarters, located in 
     Illinois. Motorola is adding workers at its Libertyville, 
     Ill., plant and they require that applicants be at least high 
     school graduates. Motorola then tests them but finds only 1 
     in 10 applicants meets its minimum requirements.
       Motorola also has plants in Scotland, Germany, Japan, 
     Singapore and Taiwan. In those countries they do not even 
     give the tests, because they find the educational background 
     of the workers has prepared them adequately.
       The lesson for us should be clear. We're going to have to 
     do much better. A 210-day school year is not the sole answer, 
     but would be a step toward doing better.

  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, this bill is also important in that it 
begins to lead us in the direction of better targeting of chapter 1 
funds. While I would like to have seen the funds focused to an even 
greater degree on children living in areas with high concentrations of 
poverty, the new formula is an important step in the right direction. 
Editors of the Chicago Tribune wrote cogently on this subject in an 
editorial published 2 days ago. I ask unanimous consent that their 
comments be reprinted in the Congressional Record.
  Thre being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 3, 1994]

                    Chapter 1 Still Misses the Mark

       In its inimitable way, Congress has once again passed up an 
     opportunity to make a significant change for the betterment 
     of all in favor of a modest change for the political comfort 
     of a few.
       There was cause for celebration when in August, the Senate 
     approved a measure that would reallocate Chapter 1 education 
     funds for disadvantaged children so that the money would be 
     going to the poorer school districts that need it most.
       So-called Chapter 1 funding, established 30 years ago as a 
     tool against poverty, was intended to boost the learning 
     levels of poor children through enhanced, specialized 
     educational programs. But by last year, 9 out 10 school 
     districts in the country were getting a portion of the almost 
     $7 billion annually provided under Chapter 1. Many schools 
     didn't need the money; many schools needed far more than they 
     got.
       The reallocation measure, spearheaded by Sen. Paul Simon 
     (D-Ill.) and passed by the Senate, excluded from the funding 
     pool schools where fewer than 5 percent of the students are 
     poor. Such a sensible step would restore Chapter 1 to its 
     original purpose of targeting at-risk children for special 
     help.
       Under Simon's proposal, Chicago schools would have received 
     an additional $183 million in Chapter 1 funding. True, 
     communities like Highland Park and Palatine would have lost 
     their funding, but Chapter 1 was never designed to enhance 
     educational programs in the nation's upper-middle-class 
     suburbs.
       Unfortunately, a House-Senate subcommittee, last week 
     gutted the measure, moving the student poverty cutoff from 5 
     percent to 2 percent and, thus, restoring to eligibility many 
     communities that don't need anti-poverty funds and--more to 
     the point--letting off the hook many politicians who didn't 
     want to see schools in their districts uncoupled from the 
     gravy train.
       But there is good news, as well. A portion of the original 
     bill--which would have penalized states for not allocating 
     enough money for education and not distributing it 
     equitably--has been reworked to reward states that provide 
     adequate funding for schools and do it most equitably.
       Offering incentives for states like Illinois to do the 
     right thing in school funding is far more productive than 
     withholding funds, a tactic that would ultimately harm the 
     schools most in need.
       And if the committee's funding formula passes the House and 
     Senate, Chicago schools still stand to benefit from the 
     change, as will other needy districts throughout the 
     country--just not as much as they could have if the narrow 
     vision of political gain had not won out over the larger goal 
     of a better education for a new generation of Americans.

  Mr. SIMON. Second, Madam President, we are at that point in the 
session where we are kind of getting bogged down and tempers are a 
little short and we want to get out of here. Humanity is inconsistent. 
We work like mad in California or Illinois to get elected, and then 
after we get elected, we want to get out of here.
  One of the things that I think has been lost for this past 2 years is 
that while we did not do what I think we should have done in health 
care and some other things, in the area of education, there really has 
been substantial improvement. The Goals 2000 bill has been talked about 
and talked about somewhat negatively. Here I just remind those who 
think the Federal Government is trying to impose curriculum and 
standards on States, that Goals 2000 simply says to the States: You 
establish your own goals. You establish the standards. The Federal 
Government does not do that.
  That bill has passed. And whole series of things passed. The school-
to-work legislation and the Direct Lending Program, which is just 
catching on in our colleges and universities, now will be of great help 
to students in the future. Five percent of the colleges and 
universities have it this year; next year it will be 40 percent.
  A person who deserves great credit, along with Senator Pell, the 
chair of the Subcommittee on Education, is the chairman of our full 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Kennedy. He has been a 
real leader in this whole field of education. He and the people of 
Massachusetts and the people of this Nation can be proud of what 
Senator Kennedy has contributed through his leadership in this field of 
education.
  I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to print in the Record the 
list of the nine major bills, and a brief description of them, that 
have passed the 103d Congress.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                 Education Agenda of the 103d Congress


     legislation enacted from the labor and human sources committee

       1. Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1994, S. 2000--PL-
     252:
       Authorizes $30 billion in appropriations for fiscal years 
     1995-1998 to carry out the Head Start Act and the Community 
     Services Block Grant Act. Expands Head Start to reach all 
     eligible children, and guarantees $1 billion over five years 
     for new initiatives to reach pregnant women and young 
     children in the 0-3 age group. Reauthorizes other essential 
     programs including funding for Community Action Agencies, 
     Community Development Corporations, and the Low Income Home 
     Energy Assistance Program.
       Date enacted--May 18, 1994.
       2. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, H.R. 1804 (S. 1150, 
     originally S. 846)--PL 103-227:
       A. Standards and School Reform--Authorizes nearly $5 
     billion in grants over the next five years for local schools 
     to carry out their own locally developed school reform 
     programs. Encourages the development of voluntary standards 
     for school courses so that parents and local communities will 
     know what students should learn in core subjects such as 
     English, history, math and science. Also, supports teacher 
     development and training to revitalize teaching in American 
     schools, and provides greater and long overdue flexibility in 
     the use of federal dollars to support schools and students.
       B. National Skill Standards Board (Title IV)--Establishes 
     standards for skills training.
       Date enacted--March 31, 1994.
       3. Safe Schools Act of 1993, S. 1125 (Incorporated in H.R. 
     1804, Goals 2000: Educate America Act)--PL 103-227:
       Supports efforts by local school systems to achieve Goal 
     Six of the National Education Goals,which provides that by 
     the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs 
     and violence and offer a disciplined environment conductive 
     to learning.
       Date enacted--March 31, 1994.
       4. Office of Educational Research and Improvement 
     Reauthorization Act of 1993, S. 286 (H.R. 856) (Incorporated 
     in H.R. 1804, Goals 2000: Educate America Act)--PL 103-227:
       Reauthorizes funding for the Office of Educational Research 
     and Improvement which coordinates and disseminates 
     information on successful school reform strategies.
       Date enacted--March 31, 1994.
       5. Improving America's Schools Act (H.R. 6) (Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act Reauthorization):
       Reforms the major federal aid-to-education program, the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), building on 
     the reforms of goals 2000. Provides over $60 billion over the 
     next five years for local education and targets new funds to 
     middle and low income communities that need it most. 
     Eliminates bureaucratic restrictions that have hindered the 
     use of ESEA funds for school wide reform. Under the proposed 
     reforms, teachers, parents and administrators will have the 
     power to decide how federal dollars can be used most 
     effectively to promote local school reform and provide a 
     stronger education for disadvantaged students.
       House agreed to the ESEA Conference report on September 30, 
     1994.
       6. Technology for Education Act of 1993, S. 1040:
       Provides schools throughout the United States with 
     technology-enhanced curriculum, instruction, and 
     administrative support, resources, and services to create a 
     competitive and technologically literate workforce.
       Incorporated into ESEA, House agreed to Conference Report 
     September 30, 1994.
       7. National Service Trust Act, H.R. 2010 (S. 919--PL 103-
     82:
       Creates the Corporation for National and Community Service; 
     establishes AmeriCorps, the domestic volunteer service corps, 
     and authorizes vouchers and loan forgiveness for higher 
     education and job training in return for service; supports 
     service earning in schools and colleges.
       Date enacted--September 21, 1993.
       8. School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993, S. 1361--PL 
     103-239:
       Establishes a national framework for the development of 
     school-to-work opportunities systems in all States bringing 
     together the business, education and labor communities to 
     assist young adults in making the transition from school to 
     the workplace. The legislation will fund apprenticeship 
     programs and innovative partnerships between schools, 
     colleges, businesses, and unions to develop coordinated 
     programs integrating classroom learning and actual work 
     experience.
       Date enacted--May 4, 1994.
       9. Student Loan Reform Act, S. 920 (H.R. 2055) 
     (Incorporated in H.R. 2264, the Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993)--PL 103-66:
       Restructures the federal college student loan program. 
     Saves taxpayers $4.3 billion by expanding the direct student 
     loan program and streamlining the loan process; saves 
     students $2.4 billion by reducing student loan origination 
     and insurance fees and allows more flexible repayment 
     options.
       Date enacted--August 10, 1994.

  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, finally, let me just comment briefly on 
the matter that Senator Boxer talked about and Senator Helms talked 
about: The question of religion and morality. We know we are not doing 
what we should be doing in this country. We have to do better. I think 
we are looking in the wrong direction when we say prayer in schools 
will solve this problem.
  My father was a Lutheran minister, my brother is a Lutheran minister. 
I have grown up in a home and a background that believes in the 
efficacy of prayer. But I believe it is the job of our homes, our 
churches, our synagogues, our mosques to promote religion and not the 
job of schools.
  That does not mean that schools cannot get into the issue of 
morality. That is a different question. Here, and I mentioned this on 
the floor before but I will mention it again, our former colleague--he 
still serves in the House--Congressman Dan Glickman. The Presiding 
Officer served with him. I served with him in the House. Once when this 
issue of school prayer came up, he told me of his experience. He grew 
up in Wichita, KS. Congressman Glickman happens to be Jewish by 
background. When he was in the fourth grade, every morning he was 
excused from the room while they had a school prayer. And after the 
prayer, he was brought back in. Every morning Dan Glickman was being 
told, you are different, and all the other fourth graders were being 
told the same thing.
  That should not happen in a democracy. When we talk about prayer, we 
have to realize we are a very diverse nation today. We have, believe it 
or not, today more Moslems than Presbyterians in the United States, 
more Buddhists than Episcopalians. And when you say let us have school 
prayer, you have to also ask then: Whose prayer? And you get into some 
very, very difficult situations.
  If religion, teaching religion in schools, or school prayer, would 
solve the problems--I think we have to remind ourselves that in Germany 
under Hitler they had religion taught in the public schools. That is 
really not the way to convey real religion. We have to do it in our 
homes, in our religious institutions. But that does not mean we cannot 
deal with problems of morality. There is no nation on the face of the 
Earth in which family values is a phrase that is tossed about by 
politicians more than in the United States, and yet we do not do much 
about family values.
  What are the things we could do? Well, Madam President, one of the 
things, a very basic thing, is to reform welfare. Our welfare policy, 
believe it or not, discourages families from living together. We ought 
to change those welfare policies. I think we need a massive overhaul of 
welfare policies generally. But that is a very practical area where we 
in the Senate can do something about family values.
  In the area of crime, we have far, far more people per 100,000, or we 
did have far more people per 100,000, in prison than any other country. 
Russia has just passed us in numbers per 100,000. South Africa is third 
now. We are now second.
  But if you really want to do something about crime, make fewer 
speeches and do something about education. Eighty-two percent of the 
people in our prisons today are high school dropouts. In 1970, 
interestingly, 82 percent of the people in our prisons were high school 
dropouts. The majority of people in our prisons today were unemployed 
when they were arrested. You show me an area of high unemployment, I 
will show you an area of high crime.
  Let us have a jobs bill for this country. There may be a few people 
in the gallery who are old enough, along with me, to remember something 
called the WPA. Madam President, you cannot remember the WPA. But what 
we did was we took the liability of unemployment and turned it into a 
national asset. We did all kinds of things--1.5 million Americans 
learned how to read and write under the WPA. I remember when I was 10 
or 11 or 12 reading Richard Wright's book ``Black Boy.'' It is not his 
most famous book, but it caught me at the right time. It moved me. It 
was not until many years later that I learned Richard Wright learned to 
be a writer as a result of the WPA project. Arthur Miller, the 
playwright, learned to be a writer as a part of the WPA project. We 
enrich this Nation by tapping our human resources, and we ought to be 
doing that again.
  When we discourage dropouts, we also discourage parenthood at too 
early an age. A disproportionate number of both mothers and fathers 
involved in teenage pregnancies are high school dropouts. You really 
want to do something about abortion, for example--and that is another 
big issue that is talked about. We have about a million teenage 
pregnancies each year, about 400,000 of which end up in abortions. You 
work on the problem of high school dropouts and you will reduce the 
problem of teenage pregnancies and the number of abortions in our 
country. And then you will also do something about problems of poverty 
and other things.
  It is very interesting that people who are teenage mothers, who are 
single at the time they are mothers, 78 percent of their children end 
up in poverty. For those who are married and at least 20 years of age 
before they have their first child, 9 percent of their children end up 
in poverty. The problems of morality and poverty are intertwined, and 
we have to work on these.
  Madam President, I have digressed some from the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, but we have in the process of this gotten into 
the question of morality and religion and other things. There is no 
question but we as a nation can do better. But I do not think we should 
be looking for some kind of magic bullet.
  I agree with you, Madam President, in your remarks earlier that 
Senator Kassebaum is to be commended for working out a provision on 
school prayer that is generally satisfactory. I happen to have been one 
of the very few who voted against that because I think we are better 
not enmeshing that in legislation at all. But this is a practical, 
well-crafted compromise that certainly offends no one and I think moves 
us in the direction probably we ought to be going.
  If no one else seeks the floor, I question the presence of a quorum. 
My understanding, Madam President, is that the time is equally divided 
during the quorum call. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, it is so ordered. 
The time will be equally divided. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the floor open 
for discussion on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I rise to speak on the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, H.R. 6. I want to emphasize that I think that 
there are some good provisions in this legislation. Education is a very 
important component of the future advancement of our country and 
certainly of my State of Mississippi.
  In Mississippi we have been working and we have been struggling to 
improve the infrastructure of our schools. We have been trying to 
improve the quality of our education. We have been trying to improve 
the salaries of our teachers. In short, a major effort is being made to 
advance education in our State. I think we are making some real 
progress. Our teachers' salaries are still not up, certainly, to the 
national average. We are still way below that. But I think the State 
should be commended for the efforts that have been made and that are 
being made.
  We are trying to have a better literacy program. We are also trying a 
separate effort to deal with illiteracy in our State. If we are going 
to move forward in a positive way and a role in the national agenda, we 
are going to have to continue to focus on education and try to improve 
its quality.
  Some of the provisions in this bill I like--I think the formula is 
better because I think the formula is written in such a way where 
States that have educational needs, high poverty levels like many 
sections in my State of Mississippi, would actually get a higher 
percentage of the funds.
  I understand that 30 States lose under this formula, and 20 States 
gain. Mississippi is one that would have some gain. So, naturally, I 
think it is a little better. I think the important thing is how it is 
targeted. We should use this program to try to help get education to 
and improve education in areas where because of poverty, primarily, and 
other considerations, the educational level has not been up to the 
standards it should be.
  I have always been a supporter of impact aid, the so-called H-74 
funds. We have Federal installations in our State in certain 
communities, where those people do not actually live in the community. 
They live on the base, and they buy their supplies on the base. They, 
in other words, use the schools but do not contribute to the tax base 
in that community. So we have had the impact aid to try to address that 
for years and years and years. We do have funding for that authorized 
in this particular program.
  So I think that we need to find ways to work out our disagreements on 
this legislation and move it forward. Let me talk a little bit about 
the situation we find ourselves in right now. What does invoking 
cloture mean? We have sort of, I think, lost sight of that. The 
majority leader complains that, well, he has to lay down a cloture 
motion on every bill that comes up now. I have noticed that many 
times--most times recently--before we even get to debate a bill, before 
one word is said, a cloture motion is laid down. Maybe that is the way 
it has evolved over the years. Maybe both sides have done that in 
recent years. But when you invoke cloture, you are saying that you are 
cutting off debate.
  I think when you vote not to invoke cloture--if you vote not to cut 
off debate, you are not voting against a bill. You are saying, look, I 
want to know more about it, talk more about it, and I want to hear 
other Senators speak on it. I would like the opportunity to try to find 
a way to improve this bill. That is what is happening with GATT now, 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We are having more time to 
consider it.
  I do not think any one Senator, or the administration, should 
necessarily be criticized for that. What we are saying is: Look, let us 
take the 45 days and have hearings in the Commerce Committee and in 
other committees. Let us make sure we understand all that is in this 
massive new global trade agreement. I think it actually improves its 
chances of passing if, in fact, it is as good as the U.S. Trade 
Representative, Mickey Kantor, said it is. He did a very good job this 
morning before the Commerce Committee in making his case. I still have 
some questions. But the same is true here. We are not saying that we 
should not have, necessarily--or I am not saying we should not have--
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; I am saying there are 
problems with it. We need to talk about that and see if we can find 
ways to further improve it.
  My mother taught school for 19 years, so I have always considered 
myself a product of education in our State. Unfortunately, she wound up 
having to move to another line of work because she could not make 
enough money teaching school. She wound up being a bookkeeper, a radio 
announcer, and several other things. I am a product of public education 
in my State of Mississippi. My own children went to public schools from 
kindergarten all the way through college. And I worked for the 
University of Mississippi for 2 years. I was a member of the Guidance 
Counselors Association. I know the significance of education.
  I do not believe necessarily that the Federal Government has all the 
solutions to the needs of education in America, or my State, or any 
other State, for that matter. But on this bill, by not invoking 
cloture--or, in fact, by invoking cloture, but by having additional 
time to talk, we want the opportunity to raise some reservations and 
hopefully find a way to make some changes.
  The second point I want to clarify is that there is this argument 
made, in effect, that once you pass a bill in the Senate--and this 
passed overwhelmingly--you have to support the conference report. I 
voted for this bill when it came through the Senate, and I think the 
vote was 93 to 6 or something; It was overwhelming--now the bill after 
conference is beyond our reach. We have had our chance, we have had our 
say, and now it has gone to conference: Goodbye. Well, in conference 
after conference after conference, whether it is the crime bill or the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or the Lobbyist Disclosure and 
Gift Ban Act, it goes off to conference and it is completely 
overhauled. It is significantly changed. In several instances, we have 
had these negotiations going on between the Democratic leaders on both 
sides, without including Republicans or without including people on 
their own side that do not agree with them. They have these 
negotiations and they cut a deal, and that is just inserted into the 
conference and it comes back to the Senate, and we are told: Well, we 
cannot amend it. You voted for it. You have to still be for it.
  Yet, in this case, you see an example where a totally arrogant, out-
of-control chairman from the other side just said: Look, this is in and 
this is out; I do not care whether this guy offered it or that lady 
offered it or whether it is a Democrat or Republican. If I do not like 
it, it is out of there. If I want to put it in, I will put it in.
  When I first came to Congress, the way it sort of worked was that the 
Senate would pass a bill at one spending level, and the House would 
pass it at another level, usually one above the other, and you kind of 
split the difference, go between the two. And in one of those rare 
occasions this year on the crime bill, we saw that spending was not at 
the House level or the Senate level; it was above them both.
  In the past, the general rule was, and the effort was, that something 
had to be in the House bill or in the Senate bill and you might mix the 
two, you might take one or the other. But now we have another deal. It 
does not make a difference whether it was in the House bill or in the 
Senate bill, either one of them at all. If we decide in conference, 
some chairman can just stick it in there. It may not have been in 
either bill. It may not be a marriage of anything that was in either 
one of the bills. So bills go off to the deep, dark hole of these 
conferences, and then they come back completely different bills, 
significantly overhauled, or those bills may have very little 
resemblance to what the Senate originally passed.
  So I think when it is inferred that because you voted for it when it 
passed the Senate, you have to vote for the conference report, that is 
totally ridiculous. It depends on what is in the conference report. I 
think the conference rules or the conference conduct in more and more 
instances are being severely abused and violated. It does not make any 
difference if there was a prayer amendment that passed the Senate 
earlier this year, and in the House, overwhelmingly. No. If we do not 
like that, we will just change it. That is the way it happens in the 
conference now.
  So at the last part of the session in what supposedly will be the 
last week, in instance after instance, a bad conference report is 
brought back to the Senate and we are told: Take it or be 
obstructionists. I say that is ludicrous. I am going to look at it and 
weigh it. Most every bill has some good and some bad and you are faced 
with the choice: Is there enough good to offset the bad? It is one of 
the unfortunate things about legislating. You never get 100 percent of 
what you want, so you try to get as much as you can. In many instances, 
there is a point or two that outweighs a lot of good in the bill.
  So I want to just completely debunk the idea of conferences where 
autocratic, arrogant chairmen basically almost write these conferences 
in longhand, without consulting anybody, without considering the votes 
in either body. We should not tolerate that.
  Now the argument is made: What do you want us to do? Maybe you are 
right; maybe on this point or that point, the conference made a 
mistake.
  But if we change it, it has to go back to the House. It has to go 
back to conference. So what? That is the way it works.
  I have been in the House and the Senate for several years, and I have 
seen bills bounce back and forth like a tennis ball. The House will 
make a change and send it back to the Senate. The Senate will throw 
that change out, maybe put another change in there, and kick it back to 
the House. We can do it.
  The argument is made, an argument that I might make sometimes, ``Hey, 
time is short. We cannot keep doing it.''
  I have seen miracles work in the last hours of the session. I have 
seen bills go back and forth you would think they were being 
electronically communicated, and not carried by hand.
  We should change these conference reports when we feel like a change 
should be made. We should be able to offer an amendment, or we should 
be able to stop a conference report and insist on some changes. And the 
leaders can always work that out.
  So again the fear that it might have to go back to the House is not 
well founded. For one thing, the House has a Rules Committee. If they 
do not want additional amendments, if they want to limit the time of 
debate, if they do not want to make a change, or if they do, they just 
protect it with the Rules Committee.
  We do not have that, but we do have a very powerful instrument. It is 
called unanimous consent. It is amazing to me the things we can get 
agreed to in this body by unanimous consent when we get tired enough.
  This leads me, also, to comment just briefly on another bill that we 
will be considering later on today, and that is the lobbyist disclosure 
bill. That is another example where we are presented with a fait 
accompli.
  Most Senators are perfectly prepared to vote for the gift ban--part 
of it or all of it. Most Senators do not have great problems with most 
of the lobbyist disclosure.
  But when these bills come back, when you start reading them, very 
often you find there are problems. There are little rotten eggs hidden 
away in these conference reports, and questions are raised in this case 
of lobbyist disclosure. We see now there is language in the conference 
report that is very ambiguous, very unclear. Would it mean this or 
something else? Would some Federal bureaucrat be able to make a 
decision that maybe in some way our constituents would be limited in 
how they could petition their Government, how they can contact their 
Congressmen and Senators? Would it mean that individuals who sent $50 
to an association or an organization that is fighting a piece of 
legislation, would they then have to have their names reported, their 
names and addresses, and how much they gave?
  People are worried about that. The argument against changing that is, 
well, again it will have to go back to the House. It is even argued we 
can address that question with language in the debate. We can respond 
to those questions.
  My argument is if there is an ambiguity and it is not clear what it 
means, then let us clear it up. Let us make sure that some bureaucrat 
cannot come up with a system that clearly has a chilling effect on 
people's ability and, in fact, their right and responsibility to 
contact their Congressmen and Senators.
  These are questions not being raised just by conservative religious 
groups but by the ACLU and people at both ends of the philosophical 
spectrum. They are saying, ``Oh, wait. We do not want those provisions 
and do not think we should have to reveal our supporters. In fact, it 
is a violation of the Constitution that we have to reveal all the 
people who might be involved in the process of dealing with legislation 
or fighting legislation.''
  So here again I think it relates to the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act in that we have a problem and we can fix it. We can fix 
it by unanimous consent. We can make clear what our intent is, and the 
House will surely accept that because they had a very, very close vote 
on the rule on this same point in the House. In fact, I think the vote 
was like 215 to 206, and they got it through after only keeping the 
voting time open for an extended period of time so that Members of the 
House could change their vote. So there is strong support for clearing 
up this question about what has to be revealed and would it have a 
chilling effect and would people be limited in how they could, in 
effect, lobby their Congressmen and Senators.
  You know this word ``lobbyists'' seems to scare a lot of people. Then 
I ask myself who are they? Maybe it is a big special interest group. 
Maybe it is a group representing companies or labor unions. But 
lobbyists can also be nurses. Lobbyists can also be small business men 
and women. A lobbyist can be just the average Joe out there on the 
street who wants to express himself or express herself by association 
with the National Federation of Independent Businesses; for example, as 
a way to amplify their voice.
  I think we should not be taking actions that would limit that. But 
again we can fix that problem if we just make up our minds to do it.
  Madam President, earlier this week there was a joint press conference 
by two former Secretaries of Education, former Secretary of Education 
William J. Bennett and former Secretary Lamar Alexander, talking about 
their concern about this bill. I would like to read a part of what they 
said in that press conference, and I ask unanimous consent at this 
point to print in the Record the letter of September 30 that they sent 
to all Senators.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              Empower America,

                               Washington, DC, September 30, 1994.
       Dear Senator: Earlier today, the House accepted the 
     conference report on the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act (H.R. 6). Next week, you will consider the same report.
       A lot is at stake in this debate. And as secretaries of 
     education for Presidents Reagan and Bush, we want our views 
     on this issue to be clear and emphatic: H.R. 6 is the kind of 
     pernicious legislation which, if it is enacted, will make 
     American education worse, not better. H.R. 6 is hostile to 
     the best reform ideas in education; overly regulatory and 
     intrusive; imposes new federal controls on states and 
     localities; and is morally obtuse. In many ways, it embodies 
     the worst and most arrogant tendencies we see in modern 
     legislation: the kind of ``Washington-knows-best'' thinking 
     which has contributed to the worst decline in the history of 
     American education.
       We are convinced that America's parents and children would 
     be better served if the 103rd Congress were to allow this 
     bill to die, extend present laws for a year, and start over 
     again in 1995. At the very least, we would urge Congress to 
     recommit the bill to conference for substantial revision. 
     Here are some of our reasons:
       The bill is more than a thousand pages long. It contains 
     much mischief that was inserted behind closed doors and has 
     not been exposed to the sunlight. It is a safe bet that 
     virtually nobody voting on the conference report will 
     actually have read the final text, and the country has had no 
     time to examine its myriad provisions. Only a few staffers 
     and lobbyists really know what's in it or how it will work. 
     For example, how will Congress explain what its jury-rigged 
     Title 1 formula will actually do to particular state and 
     local budges in ``out-years'', or how it interacts with other 
     measures, especially the new ``Goals 2000'' program?
       Every state and community in the land is affected. This 
     bill authorizes more than $12 billion a year in federal 
     spending. That's enough to force state and local officials to 
     follow its dictates, even when state and local officials know 
     better. And that means the content of this bill needs the 
     closest public scrutiny before it takes effect. Killing this 
     version doesn't mean that federal education aid vanishes; it 
     simply means that the current law is extended for another 
     year.
       The bill is the quintessence of top-down, big government, 
     ``Washington-knows-best'' thinking. It tightens myriad 
     federal controls and imposes new ones on what states and 
     localities can do with their schools. It is totally 
     ``producer-centered,'' favoring the education establishment, 
     giving money and power to school administrators, not to 
     parents, not to governors and legislators, not to mayors, not 
     to teachers--in other words, not to those actually involved 
     in educating the young.
       Other than a bit of lip service, it's oblivious--or worse--
     to the most promising reform ideas that are percolating in 
     American education: choice, charter schools, privatization 
     and decentralization, among other things.
       H.R. 6 deals with accountability in a perverse way, 
     essentially making schools (and school systems) accountable 
     to Washington for compliance with regulations and with a new 
     federally-imposed version of ``outcome-based education'' that 
     applies--for now--to disadvantaged children. Schools will be 
     even less accountable to their consumers, their communities 
     and their states than is the case today.
       The bill mandates the kinds of federally-approved 
     ``standards'' that Goals 2000 said would be voluntary. Only 
     with those approved ``content'' and ``student performance'' 
     standards in place can a state or community get its federal 
     aid. Although language having to do with input standards 
     (today's trendy term is ``opportunity to learn'') was 
     softened in conference, the bill takes a giant step toward 
     reviving the legitimacy--and federal supervision--of criteria 
     that judge schools by their spending levels, pupil-teacher 
     ratios, and suchlike, instead of their effectiveness. And 
     since Goals 2000 authorized the Education Department to 
     develop national ``opportunity to learn'' standards, we can 
     expect that these will soon exist--and will be used.
       By mandating ``state plans'' that are based on federally-
     approved standards, this bill moves the new National 
     Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) ever 
     closer to becoming the ``national school board'' that critics 
     warned of when Goals 2000 was enacted. This means that 
     Tennessee, for example, no longer has the final say over what 
     young Tennesseeans will learn in school. If H.R. 6 is 
     enacted, that power shifts to Washington--unless, of 
     course, Tennessee wants to forfeit its federal aid.
       Incorporated into this bill is something called the 
     ``Gender Equity Act,'' which--among many provisions--mandates 
     training for teachers in gender ``sensitivity'' and ``gender 
     equitable teaching and learning practices.'' Senator Nancy 
     Kassebaum tried to get this dropped in conference, noting the 
     spurious ``research'' on which the whole concept is based, 
     but she was outvoted.
       Though conferees agreed to ban the use of federal funds for 
     education programs that ``directly promote sexual activity,'' 
     they refused to deny funds to schools that distribute 
     instructional material portraying homosexuality as an 
     acceptable lifestyle. Hypocrisy and political correctness 
     characterize much of this bill: evidently it is fine with the 
     conferees to force schools to practice ``gender equity,'' but 
     it is not okay to discourage them from promoting 
     ``alternative'' lifestyles. This, of course, is precisely why 
     Washington should not even be trying to make education 
     decisions for America's schools.
       Also lost in conference was the ``Johnson-Duncan'' language 
     denying federal aid to school systems that bar 
     ``constitutionally protected'' prayer. Instead, 
     ``compromise'' language was agreed to that cuts off funds 
     only if a federal court finds that a court order allowing 
     such prayer has been ``willfully violated.'' As the Christian 
     Coalition rightly observes, that language ``places such 
     hurdles on aggrieved individuals whose constitutional rights 
     to school prayer have been violated that for all intents and 
     purposes it is meaningless.''
       The bill constitutes a huge windfall for colleges of 
     education. Not only will they get hundreds of millions in new 
     ``professional development'' funds under the totally-
     overhauled ``Eisenhower program,'' but they also get 
     additional bonuses as well. (For example: a requirement that 
     schools whose disadvantaged students score below average must 
     spend 10 percent of their Title 1 grant--or equivalent sums--
     on, yes, ``professional development.'')
       The heretofore-independent National Assessment Governing 
     Board will henceforth have its members chosen by education 
     interest groups. (Up to now the board has functioned as its 
     own nominating committee.) Within a year or two, that will 
     turn the country's most important and sensitive testing 
     program into an appendage of the school establishment and the 
     federal bureaucracy, which has already made clear its 
     intention of ``race norming'' the test scores and probing 
     families for sensitive information.
       Two years ago, when a bad, big government, ``Washington-
     knows-best'' education bill was nearing the end of its trip 
     across Capitol Hill, Senators who saw its folly were able to 
     stop it. That is what should happen now. The country has 
     minimal regard--and rightly so--for those who rationalize the 
     enactment of a bad bill by saying, ``It could have been 
     worse.''
       Even senior officials in the Clinton Administration 
     recognize that the whole approach embodied in H.R. 6 is 
     mistaken. O.M.B. director-designate Alice M. Rivlin, for 
     example, recently wrote a Brookings book arguing that 
     Washington should get out of elementary/secondary education 
     altogether. ``The federal government,'' she observed, ``is 
     not well suited to take responsibility for improving 
     education. . . . These are function of government that 
     require experimentation, adaptation to local conditions, 
     accountability of on-the-scene officials, and community 
     participation and support.''
       We agree. That's why H.R. 6 should perish. To reiterate: 
     current education laws should be extended for a year so as to 
     give the President, the Congress and the country a chance to 
     start afresh in 1995. Then--following Dr. Rivlin's advice--we 
     should put states and localities back in the education 
     driver's seat. Insofar as the federal government retains any 
     role, it should focus on parental choices, deregulation of 
     the classroom, the acquisition of essential skills and 
     knowledge, and good, objective tests that tell us how the 
     country is doing. The time has come to turn this train 
     around. Anyone who needs evidence that today it is heading in 
     the wrong direction should take a look at this fundamentally 
     flawed bill.
           Sincerely,
     Lamar Alexander.
     William J. Bennett.

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, this is from a press conference, and these 
views sum up the position of these I believe very respected gentlemen, 
authors, leaders. Lamar Alexander certainly has established a very 
credible, respected record as a Governor of the State of Tennessee, as 
a former Senate staff member, as a president of the University of 
Tennessee system, and as Secretary of Education. He has a very 
respected record in the area of education. He is a very innovative 
thinker, and he is not one who would easily criticize an education 
bill, certainly not the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, an area 
in which he put a lot of time and work when he was Secretary of 
Education. But these leaders begin to raise a lot of questions that 
people are interested in and that I am hearing about back in my own 
State.
  There were some good provisions in the Senate bill that were taken 
out, for instance. I believe that it might have been Senator Coats, but 
others offered an amendment with regard to violence in schools. Almost 
every day now in my State of Mississippi it is hard to believe, but in 
my own State of Mississippi there is violence in our schools, in our 
high schools, and our junior high schools. And in Jackson, MS, students 
are assaulted, students are shot, students are stabbed in the schools. 
What have we come to?
  I remember when I was in high school most of us were afraid of being 
caught chewing gum or running in the hall. Nobody thought about buying 
and selling drugs on the school premises. Nobody thought about even 
smoking cigarettes on the school premises. Nobody thought about 
carrying a gun or getting stabbed. Nobody was afraid to go to school.
  Now it is an every day occurrence and on the front page of the 
Jackson, MS, newspaper.
  So there was some language in the bill when it passed the Senate that 
would help our schools deal with this problem of violence in schools.
  That language was knocked out summarily, inexplicably, just knocked 
out in conference, because Chairman Bill Ford, I guess, did not like 
it. I do not know. How do I explain that?
  I had to meet with students from Sardis, MS, that came to my office 
about 10 strong, and one of the young women in the group looked up at 
me with tears in her eyes and said, ``We are scared to go to school. 
What can we do about violence and guns in our school?'' That is in 
Sardis, MS, a community of maybe--I do not know--maybe 2,000 people. 
The school there is a consolidated school now, so they probably have 
pretty good attendance there.
  Yet we finally get a little provision that is not going to break the 
bank but it is not going to solve the problem either. It is an effort. 
It is a start. They took it out of conference. Why? I would like for 
someone to explain that before we have another vote on this issue.
  And then another area that really bothers me is that provisions were 
knocked out that allowed more choice in how education is conducted at 
the local level. It imposes more Federal bureaucracy and standards. A 
lot of what was supposed to be voluntary in the Goals 2000 is mandated 
under this bill.
  Senator Danforth from Missouri had an amendment that said on an 
experimental basis--I do not remember exactly how many areas where it 
would be applicable--that schools could try gender-based education. Is 
there something fundamentally wrong with having all-girls classes or 
all-boys classes? I do not know. Maybe that is not the way to go. Maybe 
there are problems with it. But give it a shot. Let the local schools 
try it. Why not? I do not understand that.
  So there are so many things that we had in this bill that were good 
things that disappeared.
  Let me read some of the reservations that are pointed out in this 
letter from former Secretary Bennett and former Secretary Alexander. It 
says:
       H.R. 6 is hostile to the best reform ideas in education; 
     overly regulatory and intrusive; imposes new Federal controls 
     on States and localities; and is morally obtuse. In many 
     ways, it embodies the worst and most arrogant tendencies we 
     see in modern legislation: The kind of ``Washington-knows-
     best'' thinking which has contributed to the worst decline in 
     the history of American education.
       We are convinced that America's parents and children would 
     be better served if the 103rd Congress were to allow this 
     bill to die, extend present laws for a year, and start over 
     again in 1995. At the very least, we would urge Congress to 
     recommit the bill to conference for substantial revision. 
     Here are some of our reasons:
       The bill is more than a thousand pages long.
  It is something that you can go over--and I have been looking through 
a copy of the bill that is on my desk--but it is pretty hard to get 
through 1,000 pages, let alone understand all that is done here. It is 
a major problem with the way we legislate.
  A lot of things can be put in a bill like this at the last minute and 
you never know about it until years later. Because, even if you read 
it, sometimes it refers back to another law. And if you are going to 
understand it, you have to read this passage and go back to the 
previous law and see how it relates to this one. So it is 1,000 pages 
long.
  Reading further, their communication to the Senate said:
       It contains much mischief that was inserted behind closed 
     doors and has not been exposed to the sunlight. It is a safe 
     bet that virtually nobody voting on the conference report 
     will actually have read the final text, and the country has 
     had no time to examine its myriad provisions. Only a few 
     staffers and lobbyists really know what's in it or how it 
     will work. For example, how will Congress explain what its 
     jury-rigged Title 1 formula will actually do to particular 
     state and local budgets in ``out-years'', or how it interacts 
     with other measures, especially the new ``Goals 2000'' 
     program?
       Every state and community in the land is affected. This 
     bill authorizes more than $12 billion a year in federal 
     spending. That's enough to force state and local officials to 
     follow its dictates, even when state and local officials know 
     better. And that means the content of this bill needs the 
     closest public scrutiny before it takes effect. Killing this 
     version doesn't mean that federal education aid vanishes; it 
     simply means that the current law is extended for another 
     year.

  And we have done that sort of thing in the past.

       The bill is the quintessence of top-down, big government, 
     ``Washington-knows-best'' thinking. It tightens myriad 
     federal controls and imposes new ones on what states and 
     localities can do with their schools. It is totally 
     ``producer-centered,'' favoring the education establishment, 
     giving money and power to school administrators, not to 
     parents, not to governors and legislators, not to mayors, not 
     to teachers--in other words, not to those actually involved 
     in educating the young.
       Other than a bit of lip service, it's oblivious--or worse--
     to the most promising reform ideas that are percolating in 
     American education; choice, charter schools, privatization 
     and decentralization, among other things.

  We saw on the news in the last couple of days where a school system 
in Connecticut has hired a private company to run their school. I do 
not know whether that is a good idea. I do not know how it would work, 
but certainly we ought to see how it works. Maybe it will save some 
money. Maybe it will improve education. That is the type of innovative 
thinking that is happening at the State and local level, and I want to 
make sure at the Federal level we do not stop that or undermine it.
  Back to the letter now:

       H.R. 6 deals with accountability in a perverse way, 
     essentially making schools (and school systems) accountable 
     to Washington for compliance with regulations and with a new 
     federally-imposed version of ``outcome-based education'' that 
     applies--for now--to disadvantaged children. Schools will be 
     even less accountable to their consumers, their communities 
     and their states than is the case today.
       The bill mandates the kinds of federally-approved 
     ``standards'' that Goals 2000 said would be voluntary. Only 
     with those approved ``content'' and ``student performance'' 
     standards in place can a state or community get its federal 
     aid. Although language having to do with input standards 
     (today's trendy term is ``opportunity to learn'') was 
     softened in conference, the bill takes a giant step toward 
     reviving the legitimacy--and federal supervision--of criteria 
     that judge schools by their spending levels, pupil-teacher 
     ratios, and such like, instead of their effectiveness.

  I think the most I ever learned in any school was when I was in the 
second, third, and fourth grades at Duck Hill, MS. I still remember the 
names of my three teachers. They were great. They made us work hard. 
But they really dealt with us on an individual basis.
  As I recall, our classes were rather large. We had six grades and we 
had six rooms in the school building, three on each floor. So they did 
not meet the pupil-teacher ratio. They would not meet the spending 
levels that are called for in this bill. And yet, they did the best job 
of any teachers I ever had. Their effectiveness is what we should 
measure. They were not paid well. They had too many students. The old 
building was about to fall down, had lots of problems.
  So I worry about these mandates and these formulas that can be used 
to determine whether or not a school system gets Federal aid.
       And since Goals 2000 authorized the Education Department to 
     develop national ``opportunity to learn'' standards, we can 
     expect that these will soon exist--and will be used.
       By mandating ``state plans'' that are based on federally 
     approved standards, this bill moves the new National 
     Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) ever 
     closer to becoming the ``national school board'' that critics 
     warned of when Goals 2000 was enacted. This means that 
     Tennessee, for example, no longer has the final say over what 
     young Tennesseans will learn in school. If H.R. 6 is enacted, 
     that power shifts to Washington--unless, of course, Tennessee 
     wants to forfeit its federal aid.
       Incorporated into the bill is something called the ``Gender 
     Equity Act,'' which--among many provisions--mandates training 
     for teachers in gender ``sensitivity'' and ``gender equitable 
     teaching and learning practices.'' Senator Nancy Kassebaum 
     tried to get this dropped in conference, noting the spurious 
     ``research'' on which the whole concept is based, but she was 
     outvoted.
       Though conferees agreed to ban the use of federal funds for 
     education programs that ``directly promote sexual activity,'' 
     they refused to deny funds to schools that distribute 
     instructional material portraying homosexuality as an 
     acceptable lifestyle. Hypocrisy and political correctness 
     characterize much of this bill: evidently it is fine with the 
     conferees to force schools to practice ``gender equity,'' but 
     it is not okay to discourage them from promoting 
     ``alternative'' lifestyles. This, of course, is precisely why 
     Washington should not even be trying to make education 
     decisions for America's schools.
       Also lost in conference was the ``Johnson-Duncan'' language 
     denying federal aid to school systems that bar 
     ``constitutionally protected'' prayer.

  And, of course, we have had that debate here in the Senate several 
times in recent months.

       Instead, ``compromise'' language was agreed to that cuts 
     off funds only if a federal court finds that a court order 
     allowing such prayer has been ``willfully violated.'' As the 
     Christian Coalition rightly observes, that language ``places 
     such hurdles on aggrieved individuals whose constitutional 
     rights to school prayer have been violated that for all 
     intents and purposes it is meaningless.''

  That is exactly what was intended.
  Even though the House and Senate have both voted by large margins in 
the last year on this legislation to have language that allows 
voluntary prayer led by the students in schools, this language really 
is intended to be meaningless and to be frank, not allow for prayer to 
be offered in the schools like we had in Jackson, MS, at Wingfield High 
School.
  The bill constitutes a huge windfall for colleges of education. Not 
only will they get hundreds of millions of dollars in new 
``professional development'' funds under the totally overhauled 
Eisenhower Program, but they also get additional bonuses as well. For 
example, a requirement that schools whose disadvantaged students score 
below average must spend 10 percent of their title I grant--or 
equivalent sums--on, yes, professional development.
  The money is not spent directly on the students that are in the title 
I Program.
  So, I have included the entire letter in the Record. I just wanted to 
list the points that they have made here and urge my colleagues to read 
them over and think about the points that are raised by these very 
distinguished former Secretaries of Education.
  One of my major problems with this education bill this year is that 
it did take out or change very important provisions. That particularly 
is true with regard to prayer in schools. The numbers are overwhelming 
in my State and, I think, across the country of people who think we 
should allow voluntary prayer, certainly one that is written by the 
students, proposed by the students, urged by the students, delivered in 
such a way that nobody is offended or in jeopardy.
  We do it here in the Senate. Right over the back of that door as we 
go out of the Chamber it says, ``In God We Trust.'' On the front of the 
Chamber in the House, right over the Speaker's chair, ``In God We 
Trust.''
  Every day we open with prayer in the Senate and in the House. Maybe 
it is a Jewish rabbi, maybe it is a Greek Orthodox priest, maybe it is 
a Baptist preacher, maybe it is a Methodist minister, but we do it 
every day. We say our students cannot do it. I do not understand that.
  We have had vote after vote after vote on that issue over the past 
year:
  February 3, 1994, the Senate voted 75 to 22 in favor of the Helms-
Lott school prayer language as an amendment to H.R. 1804, the Goals 
2000 bill. The House voted 367 to 55 for the same language, to instruct 
the House conferees on the Goals 2000 bill to accept that language. On 
March 17, 1994, the House and Senate Goals 2000 conferees dropped the 
language altogether. Even though the Senate had voted for it 75 to 22 
and the House had voted overwhelmingly to instruct their conferees to 
include it, the conference threw it out.
  On March 21 of this year the House voted 345 to 64, to add language 
identical to the Helms-Lott language, and I referred to it by its 
sponsors in the House earlier as an amendment to this bill, H.R. 6, the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act. That vote came 
after the House voted 171 to 239 to reject Representative Pat Williams' 
attempt to add a ``do nothing'' language amendment to the bill. So the 
House, on March 21, voted overwhelmingly, over 3 to 1, to add the 
language that I am advocating to this bill--not to some other bill, to 
this bill--and rejected the language of the Representative from 
Montana, Representative Williams, that basically is now the language we 
have in the bill, or close to it, to render it meaningless. That is 
what he wanted to accomplish, but he failed.
  On March 23, the House voted 232 to 195 not to recommit the Goals 
2000 bill and to insist that the bill include the school prayer 
amendment.
  March 25, the Senate voted 62 to 23, just before Easter, to invoke 
cloture to cut off the effort to put the prayer amendment back in Goals 
2000 after it had been knocked out in conference.
  July 27, the Senate voted 43 to 57 on H.R. 6, this bill, against the 
amendment that would have put the school prayer language I am 
supporting into this bill.
  The House voted 369 to 55, on September 20, to instruct the House 
conferees to include the language.
  Finally, on September 30, the House voted 215 to 184 to recommit the 
conference report on H.R. 6 in order to have this important prayer 
language included.
  I read all this just to point out this is not something that just 
happened. We did not just bring this up today on this conference 
report. We have voted repeatedly in the House and the Senate throughout 
this year, with the House insisting by wide margins every time to 
include the prayer language. The Senate did vote not to put it in, in 
July. But at least 43 Senators--and at one point 75--have voted to put 
this prayer language in the bill. Yet when we had a key amendment 
earlier here today on whether or not we were serious about insisting on 
having the prayer language in this bill, a lot of Senators who voted 
for it earlier, some Senators who are even talking about it in their 
campaigns, switched and went the other way.
  So make no mistake about it. This debate involves a lot of things. 
But one of the linchpins is whether or not we are going to have 
language that allows our students, our children, to have prayer in 
schools. That is what it is all about. That is why a number of us voted 
against invoking cloture, because we think this is an important enough 
issue we should have it discussed further and we should have it in the 
legislation.
  To teach in our schools right from wrong, to allow reference to the 
Bible, to have prayer, I do not think it will solve all of our problem 
but I think it will help. Maybe it would help. Should we not be able to 
make that decision at our local levels? I think we should. Here is what 
the language we have had included earlier, and we are still trying to 
have included, says. It is not that scary.

       Notwithstanding any provision of law, no funds made 
     available through the Department of Education under this Act 
     or any other Act shall be available to any State or local 
     educational agency which has a policy of denying, or which 
     effectively prevents participation in, constitutionally 
     protected prayer in public schools by individuals on a 
     voluntary basis. Neither the United States nor any State nor 
     any local educational agency shall require any person to 
     participate in prayer or influence the form or content of any 
     constitutionally protected prayer in such public schools.

  It says we cannot use these funds to require prayer or what is in the 
prayer, form or content. It just says that schools will allow students 
to participate in constitutionally protected prayer.
  I have told the story before in the Senate but I will repeat it 
because I think it is worth repeating. Last year the students at 
Wingfield High School, in Jackson, MS, decided they wanted to have a 
prayer read over the PA system. The President of the senior class, or 
the student body--a young lady--read a prayer over the PA system that 
said, basically, ``Oh Lord, we ask that You bless our country, our 
schools, and our parents. In Your name we ask. Amen.'' Something about 
like that. Not exactly those words.
  The principal, an African-American principal named Bishop Knox, 
supported the students' right to do that; allowed them to do it. And he 
lost his job. He was removed by the school board. They said, ``Oh, my 
goodness, you could put us in violation of Federal court decisions. You 
should not have done that.''
  The students started going on strikes and standing up for a principal 
who stood up for them; a principal who stood for principle, that is a 
unique idea.
  In the end, he is going to get his job back with back pay, in a 
preliminary ruling of a judge. It may be appealed. But I ask you, what 
was wrong with that? Why should the students not be allowed to do that? 
Why should the principal not allow the students to do that? Why should 
his job be in jeopardy?
  The language in this bill, though, shifts the burden. Say we want 
students to be allowed to do that, the presumption, the burden is sort 
of on the school board and the principal and the school officials and 
the parents and everybody to explain why they cannot do it. The 
language in the bill turns that around. The pressure is going to be not 
to do it. That is the intent.
  So, I think this is a mistake. It is something our people feel very 
strongly about, and I think it should be included in this legislation.
  Madam President, I do not have much more to offer at this time.
  There are three points I would like to make in conclusion. One, I 
think we need to remember that up until I think it was maybe 1964, but 
during the 1960's, we had no, none, zero, Federal aid for education. 
And yet, over the last 30 years, we have seen a steady funding of 
Federal assistance to State and local education. It has been basically 
rising every year.
  Now, I support Federal aid to education. Unlike some of my 
constituents, I think clearly we have a role. There are some places 
where we can help, where States and local governments just do not have 
the ability financially or for other reasons. I do think we need 
Federal financial aid for higher education--loans, grants, scholarship 
programs, work study programs. I think they are certainly a good 
investment in our future. I have already pointed out that I support 
funds for impact aid in communities that have Federal installations 
that impact those schools without the tax base revenue.
  I believe programs for children that need special help in reading, 
arithmetic, compensatory education, are worthwhile; gifted and talented 
programs so that our students that are exceptionally talented can have 
an opportunity to take some classes beyond sort of the lowest common 
denominator. Those are all programs which I think are worthwhile.
  However, one thing which continues to baffle me is that every year 
since the 1960's, we have spent more money for education and the test 
scores have been sliding all the time. Our students seem to be learning 
less. When I hire young students now, some of them out of college, they 
do not know good grammar. They say, ``Him and me went to the movie.'' 
What? ``Him and me went to the movie.''
  What is happening? I am not going to rely on the old classic argument 
that what we need to do is go back to the basics, but I think it is a 
good argument and I think we need to do more of it. I think education 
would be a lot better. I think our students would be better. Yes, we 
need Federal contribution to education. But I think we should question 
why we are not getting better results for what we have invested.
  My second point is, as is always the case in a bill like this, you 
have a number of programs included that cost millions, maybe billions, 
of dollars and you really just have to question whether or not that is 
the way you want your money to be spent. Programs going into video 
programming for preschool children, maybe that will help, maybe it is 
good, but there is a lot of money in this bill for that.
  Grants for correctional facilities. I wonder if we could not make a 
better investment of our education money than to put it in the 
correctional facilities--in not just one area. They have it in two 
different areas.
  There is language in here which says Federal education spending shall 
take up to 10 percent of the Federal budget. Well, I ask, why? Maybe 
not quite that much. Maybe we should spend more. But if it is 10 
percent, it would be $150 billion, and if we did that over a 5-year 
period, that would cause certainly a lot of disruptions in other areas. 
We would have to make some tough choices. That is OK. That is what we 
are here for. But I just wonder if we want to make that kind of 
commitment at this time.
  It also creates the 156th Federal job training program. We have 155 
job training programs paid for, sponsored by the Federal Government. 
Job training programs, great. We need that. But I think it is again 
Senator Kassebaum who has made the point: We need to consolidate these 
programs and get rid of the overlap. Stop the competition, if you will, 
between the job training programs. Let us focus on what can best be 
done and let us do it and probably do a better job for less. But we 
have the 156th Federal job training program as a result of this bill.
  These are some principles I hope we will consider with this 
legislation--three of them. I hope Congress will preserve State and 
local authority over these key areas and not try to take it over by the 
Federal Government. First, preserve local and State authority over 
standards or curriculum content and student performance. I just do not 
think it can be dictated from Washington. I just do not believe some 
person sitting down here in the Department of Education in Washington 
can know what is best in the area of curriculum all over this country. 
I think that should be decided at the local level, by the teachers and 
by the students and by the parents and by the administrators without 
being dictated by the Federal Government.
  I think Congress should preserve for the State and local governments 
authority over student assessment, including how testing results are 
used by States and localities. I just do not think, again, that what is 
in tests and how they are conducted and how the scores are used should 
be mandated from the Federal level. But in this bill, they certainly 
will make an effort.
  I think that Congress should protect State and local authority over 
the resources that States and communities spend on education and over 
the school and classroom processes that provide students with an 
opportunity to learn.
  Think about that. Is it asking too much to allow the people at the 
local level to have the authority and the control over the resources 
that States and communities spend on education and not try to mandate 
that they have to meet some Federal process of determining how the 
opportunity to learn will be run?
  Those are the areas that really bother me about this bill. There is 
some good. And in the end, I plan to vote for it. But I think we should 
raise the points about the excesses of this legislation, the Federal 
mandates, the fact that the prayer language is not in there, and the 
fact that there is some spending in this legislation which could be 
better used in other areas. I hope we will make some changes before we 
pass the final legislation. If we do not, I fear we will continue to 
spend more but get less in results from our students.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, first let me acknowledge my 
appreciation to the Senator from Mississippi for his courtesy in 
permitting me to have the floor for a few minutes. I rise in support of 
the conference report on the Improving America's Schools Act. I think 
it is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have 
dealt with during the course of this Congress.
  Although there may be some portions with which some of us may have 
some differences and probably would have wished to change a bit, but 
overall I think it moves us strongly forward as far as improving the 
elementary and secondary education system of this country.
  Surely no issue is more important to the future of our Nation than 
the education of our children. This measure represents the commitment 
of the Federal Government to helping our Nation's elementary and 
secondary schools revitalize and improve.
  Since 1965, the heart of this effort has been the title I program 
which provides help to schools to improve the achievement of 
disadvantaged children. The bill makes a number of important changes in 
this program, including a new emphasis on ensuring that participating 
students are taught to the same high standards as other children, so 
that they will have the opportunity to obtain the advanced skills they 
will need to succeed in life.
  The legislation also recognizes that the involvement of parents is 
key to student success and incorporates a number of new provisions 
designed to strengthen the parent involvement requirements of the title 
I program. I am pleased that the conference report includes several of 
my proposals in this area.

  The conference report also includes important new initiatives to 
assist schools in their efforts to provide professional development for 
teachers, upgrade their technology, prevent violence, and improve their 
facilities.
  I am of course very pleased that the conference report incorporates 
S. 996, legislation which I introduced regarding disclosure 
requirements for educational programs.
  The disclosure provisions will improve the quality and type of 
information students and their families receive before paying to 
participate in Government study programs and other types of educational 
programs which are offered to young people for a fee.
  My legislation will require the groups running these programs to 
disclose honestly how students are recruited and what their money will 
go for. These requirements will ensure that students and their families 
have the facts they need to make an informed decision before spending 
their hard earned money for an education program.
  I have been concerned for some time about the recruiting and 
marketing techniques employed by some of those who bring students to 
Washington for Government study programs--organizations that send out 
letters to young people and say to the young people, ``You have been 
chosen, you can come to Washington and you can participate in a 
congressional youth conference,'' and give sort of an official feeling 
about it.

  One group that has done that has been the Congressional Youth 
Leadership Council. At one point, the Senator from Kansas, Senator 
Dole, had raised some questions about the manner in which they 
operated, and I have also raised some questions. I am pleased to say 
that they have moved in the right direction. Maybe not quite as far as 
I would have hoped they might move, but I think that they have taken 
some action in response to the concerns that I had previously 
expressed, and that the minority leader had expressed.
  So I think we have made some headway, not quite as much as I would 
have hoped, and I hope that in the future the Congressional Youth 
Leadership Council, and other organizations that bring young people in 
will tell them exactly how they have been selected, and will see to it 
that there is full disclosure of any profitmaking aspects of their 
conduct.
  But I do say that the CYLC has taken some steps in the right 
direction.
  Let me speak about another part of the bill that reflects really the 
most determined effort that I have made in connection with any bill for 
a long period of time. This Senator has been disturbed about the fact 
that when young black children are up for adoption, some black social 
workers in this country, as a policy matter, have opposed transracial 
adoptions for these children because the social workers believe that 
somehow such adoptions would adversely affect the child's ability to be 
proud of his of her heritage and the history of blacks in this country 
and in the world.
  Neither I nor any other right-thinking person I know would want to do 
that. Every race, color, or ethnic group has value and should look back 
to its ancestors with a source of pride.
  But that does not mean that when a black child comes up for adoption 
that somebody should stand in the way of that child being adopted by a 
white family if the white family is fully capable, and in a position to 
provide loving care and wholesome guidance for that young person, and 
there is not a black family of equally capable characteristics also 
wanting to adopt that black child.
  Let me make my position clear: If there is a white family and a black 
family that want to adopt the black child and they are equal in all 
respects, then the black family ought to have preference. But time and 
time and time again social workers of this country, as a policy matter, 
have opposed transracial and multiethnic adoptions. As a consequence, 
children have been sent from this foster home to that foster home, from 
this group home to that group home, and remain in foster care limbo. 
When the foster care ends in a particular State, no matter what age the 
child might be, the child is then homeless and out on the street. I do 
not have to tell you what happens.
  So I said we cannot permit this kind of discrimination to occur. I 
introduced a bill with Senator Carol Moseley-Braun to put an end to 
such discriminatory policies. We held hearings and passed it out of 
committee. We then sent the bill to the floor. I must say that I not 
only had my transracial bill added as an amendment that is on this 
education bill--I also added my bill as an amendment to the minority 
health bill that is presently in conference with Congressman Waxman, 
who is very supportive of our concerns. I did all these amendments and 
work because I wanted to be sure before I left this body, which I will 
be doing shortly, that we addressed ourselves to this issue and did not 
walk away from it and all the many children who need our help.
  When my bill went to the House, some changes were made that the 
Department of Health and Human Services concluded were necessary to 
make the bill pass constitutional muster and to get the job done 
better. It is with some regret that I acknowledge the fact that one of 
the groups that has been most supportive of the bill as originally 
introduced, the National Council for Adoption, and was kind enough to 
present me with an award some months ago, felt that the changes that 
were made by the House did some damage to the legislation and as such 
this organization changed from being supporters to opponents. I cannot 
tell you how sad I feel about that.
  However, I do not agree with their conclusion that the House and HHS 
changes weaken my bill. I believe that Donna Shalala, the Secretary of 
HHS, and those who are working at that agency, are determined to 
enforce my bill and to make it possible and easier for black children 
to be adopted by white families if there is not a black family of equal 
characteristics and stature available.
  If HHS does not, I say to you that as a private citizen I will raise 
all kinds of problems if this act does not work by reason of the HHS 
failure to or incorrect implementation of it. I will not sit silently 
on the sidelines. I have been assured in every way possible that this 
administration will see to it that the bill works in accordance with 
the intent of this Senator and so many others who are supportive of it. 
I am proud of the fact that Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's 
Defense Fund, the National Child Welfare League, the ACLU, and Adoptive 
Families of America, all strongly support this bill. But I want to be 
certain and will monitor the situation to see to it that this bill 
works in a way that I originally intended it work.
  I want to say that I attached my transracial adoption bill to just 
about every single piece of legislation or conference report that was 
pending in the Senate, I was determined that I would not leave the 
Senate before the bill was passed by the House and Senate. I have no 
doubt that the President will now sign the bill because he publicly and 
strongly endorsed the bill and addressed the very concerns that I have 
expressed here in these short remarks.
  We would not be where we are today had it not been for the devoted 
effort of Gail Laster who worked so closely with me with respect to the 
transracial adoption bill, and Cheryl Birdsall, who worked so 
diligently and continues to work diligently with respect to all issues 
having to do with education.
  Madam President, it is one of the proudest moments of my Senate 
career that I had a part in making transracial adoptions to be 
permitted and fought for, and in making it illegal to stand in the way 
of a transracial adoption just because some social workers have a 
policy objection to them. I support adoptions of all kinds, for all 
children, and I am a very happy man.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that I be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I listened to the comments of the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi. I must say I find myself in agreement with 
many of them. As one who does not serve on the committee, I find it 
sometimes very difficult to have input on what is really happening out 
in the streets and communities with respect to education. But I rise 
now to support particularly the chapter 1 formula in the H.R. 6 
conference report which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  I want to particularly thank the committee, the committee staff, the 
chairman, Mr. Kennedy, and others who have at least been responsive to 
my concerns as best they could be because during the last 2 years I 
have tried very hard to participate in the chapter 1 debate. I think 
you know how important the chapter 1 formula is to States and 
particularly to my State, California, and many other States that have 
not received their Federal fair share in the past.
  While it does not represent as much change as I supported, the new 
formula I believe is a clear improvement over current law and will 
provide more funds where they are most needed and help the overburdened 
school systems in high-growth States like California.
  One of the things that we must all come to grips with as 
discretionary funds decrease and demand for domestic spending increases 
is that it is critical the dollars really go where the need is. I think 
we all have to become less parochial and more involved in where the 
need is if we are really going to improve public education throughout 
this great country.
  I think it is widely known that the existing chapter 1 formula is 
unfair and ineffective, especially for the high growth States of this 
Nation such as California, where the population of poor children grew 
38 percent between 1980 and 1990. The current formula provides 
different amounts of funds to poor children depending on where they 
live rather than treating all poor children equally for the purposes of 
the distribution of these funds.
  The current formula spreads funds to so many school districts with 
very low levels of poverty that it undercuts the effectiveness of the 
program in high poverty areas. Most importantly, the current formula 
uses outdated poverty data to distribute funds to States long after 
students have moved to the other places. That is one of the basic 
problems.
  I have introduced legislation called the Poverty Data Improvement Act 
which is very simple. It says that every 2 years the formula 
allocations shall be recalculated based on up-to-date census data, so 
that dollars can follow where the children are. A modified version of 
this requirement is included in the new chapter 1 formula, as I will 
describe later.
  While I pushed for even more substantial revisions, it is important 
to note that the new formula does contain several beneficial reforms, 
and I am grateful for them. After the first year, key new provisions 
will be phased in, including more targeting of funds to high poverty 
areas, and the use of updated poverty data.
  Beginning in 1996, instead of sending funds to State and school 
districts with very low levels of poverty, the new formula will 
distribute a growing share of funds to the most poverty stricken States 
and schools in the Nation. That is after all the way it should be. 
Every year thereafter the most high poverty schools can receive more of 
the funds that they desperately need to help their children succeed in 
school and in life.
  Beginning in 1997, instead of relying on decade-old census data, the 
new formula approved in the ESEA conference report will also use 
updated poverty data. As a result, States with growing numbers of poor 
children will not have to wait until after the next census is released 
in order to have their allocation increased.
  The new formula means that California schools--with over 5 million 
students--can finally have hope of receiving the fair share of chapter 
1 funds, which has been denied in the past. Each year under the new 
formula, the benefits will become more and more apparent, as changes 
are phased in and California receives a larger share of chapter 1 
funds.
  In fiscal year 1995, the last year in which the current funds formula 
will be used, California will receive an estimated $729 million in 
chapter 1 funds, up $35 million from the prior year, based on an 
appropriations level of $6.7 billion. I support this increase in 
chapter 1 appropriations and will continue to support increases as long 
as funds are targeted where they are needed.
  In fiscal year 1996, the first year of the new formula provisions, 
California will receive $782 million in chapter 1 funds, an increase of 
$53 million over the previous year and more than $7 million above what 
the State would get under current law based on an appropriations 
increase of $400 million in the targeted formula.
  In fiscal year 1999, when updated poverty data will have been 
included in the chapter 1 formula, California will receive much more 
than the $907 million that is projected without poverty data updates--a 
$13 million increase over what the State would have gotten under the 
current formula.
  This sounds very complicated. But what it all boils down to is that 
there is some improvement.
  However, there are remaining inequities, especially the gap in how 
different States receive aid for poor children. I think a poor child 
should be treated the same no matter where he or she attends school.
  Under the new formula, as in current law, allocations range widely, 
from over $1,000 per poor child for Alaska, Delaware, New Hampshire, 
Rhode Island, New York, Wyoming, and Vermont to less than $700 per poor 
child for many States, including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Utah, and 
Oklahoma.
  California's allocation will be $752 per child, which is still below 
the national average of $775. So, while the new formula has the 
potential to target more funds and make use of updated data, the 
underlying problem of differences in funding between States remains.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a chart that shows the 
distribution of funds be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  ESTIMATED TITLE I, PART A GRANTS FOR 1995-96 (FISCAL YEAR 1995) UNDER 
                    THE CONFERENCE VERSION OF H.R. 6                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Average
                                                                  grant 
     State         Total grant     Basic grant   Concentration     per  
                                                     grant       formula
                                                                  child 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........    $122,416,000    $106,911,000   $15,505,000    $676.13
Alaska.........      14,586,000      13,389,000     1,197,000   1,239.03
Arizona........      95,960,000      83,080,000    12,880,000     690.36
Arkansas.......      73,358,000      64,178,000     9,180,000     675.25
California.....     729,198,000     637,751,000    91,448,000     751.94
Colorado.......      66,330,000      60,653,000     5,677,000     775.80
Connecticut....      50,417,000      47,097,000     3,321,000     947.78
Delaware.......      15,064,000      13,880,000     1,184,000   1,184.22
District of                                                             
 Columbia......      19,354,000      16,752,000     2,602,000   1,022.88
Florida........     276,129,000     244,741,000    31,387,000     784.67
Georgia........     158,806,000     140,673,000    18,133,000     672.58
Hawaii.........      18,363,000      16,548,000     1,815,000     834.44
Idaho..........      21,337,000      19,517,000     1,820,000     646.27
Illinois.......     304,764,000     270,831,000    33,934,000     870.76
Indiana........     102,912,000      94,964,000     7,948,000     747.45
Iowa...........      49,136,000      46,504,000     2,632,000     713.10
Kansas.........      47,862,000      44,416,000     3,446,000     739.39
Kentucky.......     121,382,000     106,167,000    15,214,000     742.63
Louisiana......     185,072,000     160,190,000    24,882,000     681.92
Maine..........      24,185,000      22,370,000     1,815,000     859.33
Maryland.......      83,107,000      76,710,000     6,397,000     960.43
Massachusetts..     116,644,000     106,557,000    10,087,000     967.44
Michigan.......     292,349,000     261,139,000    31,210,000     965.20
Minnesota......      80,330,000      73,929,000     6,401,000     799.18
Mississippi....     121,746,000     105,699,000    16,047,000     679.85
Missouri.......     113,721,000     101,472,000    12,249,000     725.94
Montana........      25,235,000      22,273,000     2,962,000     833.95
Nebraska.......      29,642,000      27,330,000     2,312,000     739.06
Nevada.........      18,010,000      16,323,000     1,687,000     745.10
New Hampshire..      15,472,000      14,395,000     1,078,000   1,128.06
New Jersey.....     136,542,000     124,821,000    11,720,000     977.82
New Mexico.....      57,809,000      50,048,000     7,761,000     681.77
New York.......     599,856,000     531,628,000    68,229,000   1,004.56
North Carolina.     123,358,000     113,202,000    10,156,000     666.04
North Dakota...      16,416,000      14,601,000     1,815,000     795.23
Ohio...........     288,644,000     256,044,000    32,599,000     867.07
Oklahoma.......      81,721,000      71,592,000    10,128,000     674.20
Oregon.........     62, 026,000      57,199,000     4,827,000     877.61
Pennsylvania...     295,622,000     267,079,000    28,543,000     980.06
Puerto Rico....     253,030,000     219,011,000    34,019,000     451.36
Rhode Island...      20,666,000      18,433,000     2,233,000   1,006.17
South Carolina.      88,865,000      79,188,000     9,676,000     662.89
South Dakota...      18,467,000      16,583,000     1,884,000     670.71
Tennessee......     118,799,000     103,608,000    15,191,000     677.68
Texas..........     579,564,000     505,461,000    74,103,000     721.48
Utah...........      31,391,000      29,451,000     1,940,000     629.12
Vermont........      14,500,000      13,407,000     1,093,000   1,228.10
Virginia.......      97,265,000      88,995,000     8,271,000     745.28
Washington.....      92,395,000      84,857,000     7,538,000     783.02
West Virginia..      65,154,000      56,656,000     8,498,000     808.60
Wisconsin......     116,136,000     107,937,000     3,198,000     914.04
Wyoming........      15,256,000      14,059,000     1,197,000   1,167.61
                --------------------------------------------------------
  U.S. Summary.   6,566,372,000   5,840,300,000   726,072,000     775.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Summary--Basic and concentration grant totals are equal to the     
  level of funding provided in H.R. 4606, in the same proportions as    
  fiscal year 1994 appropriations (i.e., approximately 11 percent       
  concentration grants, 89 percent basic grants). Estimates prepared by 
  CRS. The only change in the basic and concentration grants from       
  current law is an increase in the State minimum to the lesser of 0.25 
  percent or the average of this plus 150 percent of the national       
  average grant per child.                                              

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to particularly thank Senator 
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota who sponsored the gun-free schools 
amendment. I cannot tell you how important I think this amendment is. 
If we cannot guarantee that our schools are safe places, if we persist 
to worry about the youngster who brings the gun to school and not worry 
about the good children who do not bring guns to school and the 
education they are getting, we just continue with misplaced priorities.
  The gun-free schools provision is part of the conference report. I am 
hopeful that every school district all over this Nation will put it 
into effect immediately, and I hope that parents that learn about this 
will see that their school districts put it into effect.
  What this legislation is meant to do is ensure zero tolerance for 
guns in school. If you bring a gun to school, no matter what the 
excuse, you are expelled for a year. This is a strong, tough, no-
nonsense message. Schools must be safe places. They are for learning; 
they are not for getting shot in the back; they are not for being big 
man on campus with a .38 tucked in your pocket; they are for learning, 
and they must be safe places.
  Mr. President, when it comes to education, I am one that very much 
favors a decentralized system. I am hopeful that in the coming years, 
on a bipartisan basis, we might really begin some major conversations 
in this body as to how we can make our schools work for our young 
people, what we can do to be helpful to the States. I suspect one of 
them is to see that the States really have the ability to do what is 
necessary.
  I am one that very strongly believes there should be achievement 
levels set which are mandatory achievement levels in each of the 
grades. And if a youngster does not achieve that level, instead of 
rewarding that youngster with promotion, one ought to find out why that 
youngster is not learning, address the problem, and do what is 
necessary to deal with it.
  I am also one who believes very strongly in chartered schools. 
Recently, I visited a school by the name of Vaughn Elementary School in 
Sylmar, CA, a large school of 4,000 students--a school that has had the 
lowest test scores in the district, a student body that is dominantly 
minority--which became a chartered school, with a new principal, who 
brought in parents and teachers and they worked together and planned 
together. They decided on their curriculum. Guess what? Test scores are 
going up. The parents handle the budget, and they have saved money. 
They have more books and supplies than they have ever had, and they 
have instituted--because they want it--a uniform policy, which is now 
going into effect. It is working in that school.
  I have also been a supporter of bilingual education because we have a 
diverse educational student body. But one of the problems now in 
California schools is there are up to 80 different languages in a 
school. So there are new challenges. How do you handle youngsters that 
are not proficient in English, not able to learn English, when you have 
so many languages in a school? Is it not better to teach them first a 
learning ability in English so they can go ahead and learn and think in 
English? I am beginning to think that the answer is ``yes,'' because if 
there are so many different languages and if the teachers have to spend 
so much of their time coping with this, then the learning for each 
youngster decreases.
  These kinds of new problems of the day are brought on by changing 
demographics. I think local school boards and State school boards, and, 
yes, even U.S. Senators, have to begin to look again at what is 
happening in our schools.
  I think, overall, this is a bill that moves us forward, and I am 
proud to support it. It is not a perfect bill, but I would like to 
conclude by thanking the members of the conference committee for their 
indulgence and by thanking our Senate committee and by indicating my 
support for this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we are under controlled time. 
Could the Chair indicate to me what is the present allocation of the 
time that remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has approximately 2 hours on his 
side.


                         privilege of the floor

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that George Jesien, a Kennedy 
Foundation fellow with the Labor Committee, be granted floor privileges 
for the remainder of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. When the 103d Congress adjourns later this week, the 
American people will begin their assessment of our accomplishments. We 
started this Congress with an ambitious agenda. While we have not met 
all of our goals, the 103d Congress has been extremely productive on 
education, and we can be proud of our achievements. Fortunately for 
school and college students and their parents across the country, the 
gridlock that has affected Congress on so many other issues has spared 
education.
  The passage of ESEA later today will be the culmination of 2 years of 
impressive bipartisan cooperation and accomplishment in all aspects of 
education. President Clinton can be proud of this record, and so can 
Democrats and Republicans alike in Congress. In this Congress, after 
ESEA passes, the Senate and the House will have completed action on six 
major bills that will strengthen all aspects of education for all 
students--preschool through college.
  In years to come, this Congress may well be known as the education 
Congress.
  A decade ago, the report of the National Commission on Excellence in 
Education called for urgent action to improve the quality of education. 
We all heard the warning--a ``rising tide of mediocrity'' was eroding 
our schools and undermining our national strength.
  Despite this warning, there was little immediate progress in 
rethinking the Federal role in improving education. President Reagan 
tried to eliminate the Department of Education altogether. President 
Bush called himself the education President, and his administration 
established an impressive agenda of goals, but the emphasis instead was 
on smaller-scale private school projects.
  In the last 2 years, under the leadership of President Clinton, we 
have enacted an unprecedented series of bills with broad bipartisan 
support to restructure the Federal role in education and make existing 
Federal programs much more responsive to the Nation's critical needs in 
the years ahead.
  First, we expanded Head Start, so that more young children will have 
access to these highly successful educational activities. We set aside 
25 percent of all new funds to be used in quality improvement projects, 
such as better training of staff and better working conditions.
  As part of that legislation, we also created a new Early Start 
program--a zero-to-three initiative for infants and toddlers to provide 
prenatal care, training in parenting, and comprehensive and continuous 
social services to families with very young children.
  We have learned that for many children, Head Start starts too late. 
If we wait until the age of 4, when Head Start begins, we have already 
lost the battle for many children. The goal of Early Start is to give 
them and their families the support they need when they need it the 
most.
  Second, to support local school reform, this Congress enacted the 
landmark Goals 2000 bill. This legislation is already helping schools 
across the country develop their own plans for improving the curriculum 
and set high standards for student achievement.
  Over the next 5 years Goals 2000 will help schools to carry out 
reforms such as extending the school day and school year, reducing the 
size of classes, increasing parental involvement, and integrating 
various subjects into fewer courses. The legislation encourages 
voluntary standards for courses, so that parents and communities will 
know what students should learn in core subjects such as English, 
history, math, and science. It also supports teacher development and 
training to revitalize teaching in American schools.
  Third, today, with the passage of the pending major revisions in the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we are overhauling the largest 
single source of Federal aid to education. This massive bill will 
provide $60 billion for schools across the Nation over the next 5 
years.
  The reforms we have made in ESEA will target more funding to middle-
income and low-income communities that need it most.
  We give schools much more freedom to take aid earmarked for 
disadvantaged students and apply it to school-wide reforms.
  The bill also contains important initiatives to encourage the 
professional development of teachers, as well as significant steps to 
prevent violence in schools and fight drug abuse among students.
  ESEA also includes the Technology for Education Act, to assist 
teachers in their efforts to bring computers and other new 
telecommunications tools into the classroom. Computer software, video 
equipment, electronic networks, satellite broadcasting, and other 
technologies are revolutionizing learning in the best schools, and we 
need to make them more widely available in all of our schools.
  Fourth this year, we also broke new ground in helping students enter 
the workforce with the academic and occupational skills needed to hold 
a good job. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act is designed to close a 
key education gap with other countries and end the relative lack and 
ineffectiveness of work-based learning programs in the United States.
  Japan and European nations have extensive apprenticeship and company-
based training programs that give graduates the skills to hold good 
jobs. The United States has done too little to ease the transition from 
school to work, especially for the so-called forgotten three-quarters--
the 75 percent of American students who do not earn a 4-year college 
degree. The School-to Work Act addresses this problem by encouraging 
coordinated programs that link classroom learning with actual work 
experience.
  Fifth, we also took a far-reaching step to make college more 
accessible and affordable for large numbers of students. The Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993 established a new direct student loan 
program that will save students $2 billion in loan fees and give them 
more flexible repayment options. Direct lending will also save 
taxpayers $4 billion in reduced subsidies to banks and other loan 
guaranty agencies. Mr. President, that is enormously important.
  This is a very important and significant assistance to students as 
well as to families that need to find resources through loan programs 
to send their sons and daughters or themselves through the college and 
university systems in our country.
  Sixth, finally, we passed the National and Community Service Act, 
which encourages Americans of all ages to become more involved in their 
communities. Key activities include service-learning programs in 
schools, senior citizen efforts, and the new AmeriCorps project, which 
offers vouchers for college tuition in return for community service. In 
the long run, this new lay may be the most important education reform 
of all, because it encourages citizens and communities to restore the 
ideals of civic duty and service to others to their rightful place in 
education. Congress cannot solve the profound problems we face in 
education, but involved citizens can.
  Six bills in 2 years. It has not been easy. At times we have had to 
fend off filibusters from our opponents. We have had to work hard to 
find common ground. We have threaded many needles, and adopted many 
compromises that were painful to achieve. But in the end we have 
succeeded in building a new bipartisan consensus on the basic 
principles that must guide Federal education reform.
  We need to start early. If we wait until children come through the 
schoolhouse door, it is already too late for many of them. They have 
fallen behind and will never catch up.
  We need to emphasize high standards for all students. For too many 
years, we have been willing to accept too little from students and from 
schools. We need to set goals for what children should learn in school, 
and we need to give schools more resources to help meet those goals.
  We must emphasize local responsibility for results. In the past, 
Federal education programs have too often tried to micromanage local 
decisions on schools. Teachers and parents know local needs best. I 
don't intend to try to dictate local school reforms and neither should 
Senator Helms. The best Federal role is to let States set their own 
performance standards and give schools greater freedom to decide how to 
use Federal money most effectively.
  We need to invest in teachers. Good teachers are at the heart of good 
schools. But too many of today's teachers are overburdened and receive 
little backing in their effort to learn new teaching methods. With 
adequate time and support, they can be more effective in developing new 
ways to teach.
  We must bring more schools into the future with new technology. 
Technology is transforming all other sectors of the economy. Yet most 
classrooms today lack a computer. For students to acquire the skills 
they need, they must have more opportunities to work with technology in 
school.
  Communities and businesses must work in partnership with schools, and 
schools must work with them. Schools will not succeed as long as they 
are isolated from the rest of the world. Communities and businesses 
must take greater responsibility for the success of local schools and 
find new ways to work with students and teachers. Schools can teach 
more effectively and better prepare students for future careers by 
integrating community service and work experience into the curriculum.
  We need to keep college affordable and accessible. The road to a 
college degree should never be barred by a dollar sign. Students who 
succeed in high school and want to continue their education should not 
be discouraged by the costs, or saddled with repayments so large that 
they cannot afford the career they prefer.
  If college becomes the preserve of a wealthy few, the Nation will be 
losing the talents of millions of its citizens who could contribute 
immensely to our society in numerous and satisfying professions where 
the chance for the chase for the almighty dollar is not the overriding 
and driving concern.
  Our education system is and should be locally based. But as we have 
seen in this Congress, there is much that the Federal Government can do 
to assist education reform. Federal spending may constitute only 6 
percent of the Nation's education budget, but the Federal Government 
can offer urgently needed seed money for innovative projects.
  Through research and targeted incentives, we can provide leadership 
and essential aid to improve all aspects of education.
  In a sense we have only just begun. As we look to the future, I hope 
we will continue the reforms we have begun so successfully in this 
Congress. Above all, let us never lose our grip on the bipartisan 
spirit and commitment by Senators, Representatives, and the 
administration alike that have made this unusual trend of achievement 
possible. We have kept gridlock at bay on education, and the Nation is 
the winner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North 
Dakota [Mr. Dorgan].
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while the Senator from Massachusetts is on 
the floor, let me say that there are many in politics these days who 
look for prevailing winds in which to raise their sail. I was struck, 
as I sat here and listened once again, that Senator Kennedy has in good 
times and bad, no matter which way the wind is blowing, represented the 
timeless truths about what is important in this country. Investment in 
this country's children represents this country's future. Senator 
Kennedy has spent many years in this Senate, in all kinds of different 
political climates, fighting for exactly the same thing, the 
opportunity to give our kids a chance to lead this country to a better 
future.
  I compliment the Senator for his wonderful work on the Improving 
America's Schools Act.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on some remarks 
that were made by Senator Feinstein. First however, let me thank 
Senator Kennedy for helping Senator Feinstein and I preserve an 
important provision in this conference--the Gun-Free Schools Act of 
1994.
  I know that this provision caused some consternation in conference, 
but I think the final result is the right result. In this piece of 
legislation, we send a message in the form of a national standard that 
we want our schools to be safe. The Gun-Free-Schools Act, which is 
included in this piece of legislation, says to schools all around this 
country that we want to be sure when children go through the front door 
of their school each morning, they are going into a place of safety.
  As we have discussed this Gun-Free Schools provision over the past 
several weeks, I was interested to learn from some people that they 
think the Federal Government has no business discussing the issue of 
guns in schools. Some would say, ``Keep your noses out of that. That is 
none of your business.''
  Well, sadly, the epidemic of violent crime in this country has moved 
from city streets to America's classrooms. There are no national 
statistics, even though the Centers for Disease Control is beginning to 
record them, documenting the number of shootings in schools. However, I 
know of at least 41 people who have been killed in shootings in 
schools, or on school grounds, in the last 2 years.
  It cannot escape the notice of people that our schools, especially in 
large cities, are now having to put metal detectors and security guards 
at the doors. And still guns are getting in to our schools.
  I would say to those who believe this is none of our business, do not 
give me five reasons, or even two reasons--rather give me just one 
reason why anyone should ever be allowed to bring a gun to school. Just 
one reason.
  Schools are places of learning and they must be safe. Children cannot 
learn if they do not feel safe. And that is what this issue is about.
  Some say, ``Well, the Federal Government has no business telling 
anybody anything.'' In this amendment we preserve--even as we establish 
a national standard of expulsion for kids who bring guns to school--
local control by saying in the law itself that the head of the local 
school agency can make a case-by-case exception and modify the 
expulsion requirement, if they think it is necessary. We are saying 
that we want a national standard. And we also say in the law that there 
can be a case-by-case exception when the local school authorities think 
that is necessary.
  Additionally, people say, ``Well, if you expel some kid who brings a 
gun to school, the kid is going to be out on the street terrorizing 
people.''
  If some kid brings a 9-millimeter or a .38 to school, and decides to 
threaten some other kid, and is therefore expelled when caught with the 
weapon, some people say, ``Well, what is going to happen to that 
kid?''. I will tell you what is not going to happen to that kid. That 
kid is not going to be in school with other kids. He is not going to be 
in the classroom with that gun. That kid is either going to be expelled 
and on the street, or the school can, as our law provides, set up an 
alternative setting in which they can educate that kid. But that kid 
will not be back in the classroom during the 1-year expulsion. That is 
what our law says.
  Let me reiterate, we have not taken control away from the local 
school authorities. We have set a national policy, that says if you 
bring a gun to school you will be expelled. But the head of the school 
agency can make a case-by-case exception if they think the expulsion 
policy is not appropriate for a specific case.
  I have mentioned this to my colleagues before, and I want to do it 
one more time, this is not an abstraction. I toured an inner city 
school this year. I went through the metal detector at the front door. 
I saw the police officer watching the front door. I talked to the 
principal, superintendent, and students at that school.
  Just a month after I visited that school a tragedy occurred. One 
student bumped a second student at the water fountain down near the 
cafeteria. The student then pulled out a pistol and shot his schoolmate 
five times and left him lying on the floor critically wounded.
  I have met that youngster who was shot five times while in school. 
Fortunately, he survived. His name is Jerome. My guess is that Jerome 
understands. I think all the other kids like him who fear for their 
safety in school understand. I think Jerome's parents understand. And I 
think teachers understand that we cannot use excuses to tolerate such 
dangerous behavior. We must say that you cannot bring a gun to school. 
We must say if you do, you will be expelled. If we can't do that, our 
schools won't be safe.
  This policy is not inappropriate. Thirty years ago the biggest 
problem in schools was truancy and chewing gum. Today the biggest 
problem in our schools is drugs, guns, and teenage pregnancies.
  We already have some national standards for our schools. It makes 
sense to have a similar standard for guns. For example, when a school 
district decides it wants to use Federal funds, do you know what it 
must certify on the application? I have a copy of the application. 
Right in the middle of the application a school district must certify 
that its schools are a drug-free-workplace. If the school district does 
not certify that it is a drug-free-workplace, it cannot access Federal 
funds of any kind. Every school district must certify that it has a 
drug-free-workplace policy. Everyone agrees that it is fine to require 
schools to certify that they are a drug-free-workplace. But what kind 
of logic is it that some people feel we should not require gun free 
schools.
  We also have told schools they must be equal opportunity employers. 
We tell them they must meet OSHA workplace safety requirements. We tell 
them they must establish drug-free school zones, and drug offenses 
within these zones carry double penalties. Schools have to be 
handicapped accessible. Schools are required to have a minimum number 
of school days each year.
  So what the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] and I did was 
simply say, ``Let us also recognize the change in our times and the 
danger to our kids and decide that schools must be safe and establish a 
national standard that says guns shall not come to schools.''
  We are not eclipsing local control. Our law says the local agency can 
make an exception where appropriate. But we do believe all across this 
country there ought to be one simple, clear, message to students and 
parents alike--you shall not bring a gun to school. If you do, there 
will be a certain penalty.
  Again, I want to, as I close, commend the work of Senator Feinstein, 
Representative George Miller, and the others who helped enact the Gun-
Free Schools Act. To enact this law in this conference report is one 
day going to save the lives of children. We are probably not going to 
know their names, and we will not know the circumstances. But if we can 
decide all across this country that kids can be safer in schools if we 
will not allow guns in school, then we will have done something for our 
kids.
  I have a young son in a classroom right now. I hope that classroom is 
safe. And I hope every child in school today in this country is sitting 
in a classroom that is safe. Sadly, I know that is not the case.
  And at least part of the reason for that is some kids today have 
walked in the front door of their schools with guns. Some kids have 
done that because they do not believe they will have to pay for their 
behavior. They believe that this society will tolerate everything. They 
believe the society will make excuses for everything. In this instance, 
I say, let us decide no more excuses. Let us have a zero tolerance 
policy on the issue of guns in schools. Let us tell the young people 
who would think about bringing a gun to school tomorrow, ``Don't even 
think about it. It is not appropriate. There is a uniform policy and 
certain penalty. If you don't want to pay the price, then don't even 
think about bringing a gun to school.''
  I hope those who misunderstand this provision, those who say, ``Well, 
you have taken all the authority away from the local school 
districts,'' now understand that is simply not the way the law is 
written. It is written for one important purpose--to establish a 
national standard to tell everyone we do not want guns in our schools 
and we are serious about it. I am convinced that one day this law will 
save lives and that it is the right thing to do.
  This Congress has taken many steps to improve our elementary and 
secondary schools. I am proud to have supported the Goals 2000: Educate 
America Act, the Safe Schools Act, and other important education bills. 
We now have before us perhaps the most important piece of education 
legislation to be considered by the 103d Congress.
  The House and Senate have labored long and hard to complete this 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I 
commend the Labor and Human Resources Committee, as well as the House 
Education and Labor Committee, for their leadership on this bill. Under 
the guidance of Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Pell, and Jeffords, the 
Senate conferees have brought back an excellent bill.
  Most Federal aid for elementary and secondary education programs, 
totaling more than $12 billion in fiscal year 1995, will be 
reauthorized by this legislation. In addition, this bill will 
significantly improve education law and set new directions for the 
education partnership between Federal, State, and local governments. 
The bill will restructure many Federal programs to help schools use 
Federal funds more productively and help students meet high standards 
of achievement.
  This act will provide approximately $60 billion in Federal education 
aid for schools across the Nation. It will also help make our schools 
safe for learning. Finally, the reforms in this bill will make Federal 
educational programs work better for our students. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa, 
Senator Grassley.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there are a couple of points in this 
bill that I would like to address.
  I am concerned that the language in the bill requires that school 
officials act willfully in order for Federal funding to be withheld. I 
am convinced that in the real world the willfulness standard will be 
meaningless. No school district anywhere will have its funds withheld 
for violating students' first amendment free exercise right to pray. 
That is probably why the conference committee adopted the language in 
the first place.
  In the context of a violation of rights, willfulness legally means 
that the individual has acted to voluntarily and intentionally violate 
a known legal duty. Consideration of these requirements will show that 
willful violations will never occur. The first issue under the 
conference report willfulness standard is whether there is a legal duty 
to allow schoolchildren to pray. The law clearly states that if schools 
are opened to extracurricular activities, access cannot be denied to 
certain groups because of their religious content. Other content-based 
religious speech distinctions also violate legal rules. But, 
intentional violations of these legal rules are already actionable 
under section 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. So the conference 
report creates no new rights protective of religion.
  The second issue is whether the school official knew of the right. 
For a school official cannot intentionally violate a legal right unless 
he or she knows of the existence of the right. If the school official 
either is ignorant of the law, or misunderstands the law, or has a 
good-faith belief that he or she was not violating any legal right, 
then the official cannot willfully violate the right. One cannot intend 
to violate a right if one is ignorant of it, misunderstands it, or 
believes that the right does not exist. In the end, the question is a 
factual one, and would require any aggrieved parent or an education 
department lawyer to bring a lawsuit that would take a long time and a 
great deal of money to resolve. Innocent mistakes will not result in a 
cutoff of funds, yet the violation of the students' first amendment 
rights is just as evident as if the official intentionally violated a 
legal right.

  It would be easy for a school official to take any action against 
religion, but in doing so, violate no legal right that he knew of. Any 
lawyer could provide some basis for a good-faith belief that the 
official was in compliance with the law. So long as the official could 
show that he subjectively believed that his action violated no right, 
he could never willfully violate anyone's rights.
  Under the standard in the conference, funds would never be cut off 
unless the administrator knew of the right to engage in religious 
activity, and intentionally decided to violate that right. That will 
virtually never happen. Even if it did, the funds would not be cut off 
unless there was proof that in fact the administrator acted in this 
fashion.
  So I want my colleagues to know that the language we passed to 
safeguard first amendment rights of students had teeth. The conference 
report does not. This bill will not enhance in any way the ability of 
the Federal Government to make sure that school officials respect the 
first amendment free exercise rights of students.
  We expect our school administrators to know the Civil Rights Law on 
the risk of losing Federal funding. We do not require a willfulness 
standard for those funds to be cut off. We should be equally adamant 
that our school officials protect students' first amendment rights.
  I am also concerned, Mr. President, with the chapter one formula that 
came out of the conference committee. I supported the Senate language 
added by Senator Hatch, which removed the restrictions on the equity 
bonus. Under the change made by Senator Hatch's language, each State 
received the full benefit of its equalization effort.
  Under the Hatch chapter one formula which passed the Senate, 38 
States would have received increased chapter one allocations. Iowa 
would have received $2.5 million more than the original formula in S. 
1513.
  Unfortunately, according to the Congressional Research Service, Iowa 
is among 31 States to lose funds from 1996 to 1999 under this 
conference passed formula. Iowa loses almost $10 million in funds from 
1996 to 1999. The big winners under the formula changes are New York, 
California, Texas, and Illinois.
  Mr. President, I worked very hard to have seven amendments included 
in the Senate bill, which I supported. But the concerns I have on the 
school prayer language and the chapter one losses bring me to the 
position where I believe we can do better next year. Though some have 
said that funds will be lost if we do not complete action on this bill 
before this Congress adjourns, that simply is not true. All programs 
will continue under the previously approved programs and authorization 
levels.
  I think we can do better next Congress and I voted against cloture 
for this reason.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Harkin].
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Labor and Education 
Committee and also as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee that 
appropriates money for the Department of Education, including title I, 
I would like to correct the record. I have the greatest respect and 
friendship for my colleague from Iowa. However, sitting here listening 
to his remarks and comments, I certainly wish the Senator, my 
colleague, had talked to me before he made those comments. Maybe I 
would not have to stand up to correct them. Because, frankly, what my 
colleague just said simply does not comport with the facts.
  The chart that Senator Coats sent out this morning, and used this 
morning, it is like that old saying: In the Bible it says ``There is no 
God.'' It says that in the Bible.
  But the sentence before it says, ``The fool hath said in his heart, 
There is no God.''
  So, if you take things out of context you can prove the Bible says 
``There is no God.'' That is what Senator Coats did this morning.
  Senator Coats sent this notice around to our offices this morning, 
``Urgent, Members Attention Only,'' and it says, ``Senator Harkin: 
Reasons to Vote No on Elementary-Secondary Act; Iowa Would Lose $9.95 a 
million.'' I assume that is where my colleague got that figure.
  Senator Coats is only telling half the story. He is sort of it says, 
in the Bible, ``There is no God,'' but he does not tell you what the 
sentence before it says.
  I tried to get the floor this morning to correct it. We were under a 
time agreement, the time ran out and I could not get the floor. 
Fortunately, I was able to talk to Senators as they came to the well to 
let them know that the figures that Senator Coats was putting out were 
wrong.
  Let me correct that Record now. Iowa does not lose $10 million. I 
happen to chair the Appropriations Committee that funds the money. 
There is no way this would have gotten through if my State was going to 
lose $10 million, I can tell you that, Mr. President. No, what we did 
and what is not being said here and what is not understood--and I say 
this to my friend from Iowa, my colleague--there are two parts to this 
formula on title I. There is the targeted grant formula. That is what 
Senator Coats is using. If you only look at the targeted grant money, 
yes, Iowa and a lot of other States lose money. But what we added in 
conference was another portion of the formula called effort and equity, 
something I feel very strongly about. I debated it on the Senate floor. 
So when we went to conference, in trying to strike a deal with the 
House, they only wanted targeted grants, but I insisted that we also 
have a second formula for effort and equity, and that is what we did.
  So under the bill itself, there is money that goes for targeted or 
for effort and equity. New moneys that we will appropriate can be split 
by the Appropriations Committee. Some can go to targeted, some can go 
to effort and equity. The Appropriations Subcommittees will decide. 
First of all, next year we have already appropriated the money for 
fiscal year 1995. That is already done. For fiscal year 1996, there is 
a hold-harmless clause. So no States are going to lose money in 1996, 
not Iowa nor any other State can lose money in 1996. So, again, Senator 
Coats used this from fiscal year 1996 to 1999. You cannot use 1996 
because there is a hold-harmless clause.
  Beginning in fiscal year 1996, the Appropriations Committee, under 
the authorization of this bill, is allowed to use whatever new moneys 
we appropriate, up to $200 million in 1996, for effort and equity. 
Beyond that, such sums as are necessary.
  Senator Coats used a figure from CRS of $400 million. I can show you 
the record in conference. They were talking about $400 million 
increases in title I. I said, ``I don't know what you are talking 
about.'' The average over the last 5 years has been $275,000, and under 
the budget caps and the ceilings we have, there is no way over the next 
5 or 6 years that we are going to have a $400 million increase in title 
I. I would like to see it. If you are asking me if we can get the 
money, would I like to put $400 million in title I, absolutely; but we 
are not going to have that kind of money.
  So in title I then, assuming we can get a $200 million increase, the 
Appropriations Committee can put all of it into effort and equity, 75 
percent of it into effort and equity, half of it into effort and 
equity--whatever we want to do.
  So what we did is we prepared a chart showing what would happen to 
the States if just half of the money went into the effort and equity or 
if all of it went into effort and equity.
  Under either one of those scenarios, Iowa, instead of losing money, 
makes money. In fact, I do not have the runs for anything other than 
$400 million, but even under $400 million, Iowa would gain about 
$400,000 a year; and if we put the whole thing into effort and equity, 
Iowa would gain about $1.8 million a year.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be delighted to yield.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be delighted to yield.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Prior to the question, if I can just say, first of all, 
I compliment the Senator because I know when it came out of committee 
the first time, that he got the formula that was in the original bill 
introduced improved dramatically. So our State would be helped and 
probably a lot of other States would be helped. So I compliment him on 
that.
  I do not know anything about his activity in conference or any other 
process, but I did notice his work in that area, and he did improve it 
and I compliment him for it.
  My question is only this: Senator Coats and I are both relying upon 
the work of the Congressional Research Service. I have not found the 
Congressional Research Service to be wrong very often, if at all, that 
I can recall. Has my colleague from Iowa discussed this with the people 
in the Congressional Research Service to see if they made a mistake and 
how they made a mistake? Can you tell me how they made a mistake?
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the question. I will try to respond to it. 
The figures I am using come from the Congressional Research Service. 
What I am saying is that Senator Coats only took one column.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I think I have that chart here.
  Mr. HARKIN. If you look at the chart, what he did was he took the 
second column over, which just says $400 million under targeted 
formula. Senator Coats used that column. He did not take the other two 
columns. The other two columns add effort and equity; the third column 
over showing what would happen if we split it in half; the last column 
showing if we put it all into effort and equity.
  I cannot in any way tell my colleague how much we will put in. I can 
assure him it will be a minimum of 50 percent. I suggest, knowing the 
members of the Appropriations Committee and that 33 States will be 
helped by effort and equity, it stands to reason that the bulk of the 
money will go into effort and equity. So I would say we are probably 
close to the column on the right-hand side, which shows Iowa getting 
$54 million.
  Keep in mind, that is based on $400 million. There is no way we are 
going to get $400 million, but it gives you an idea of what happens 
under this thing.
  So what Senator Coats did is he simply took out of context what CRS 
came up with. He took one column, and that is why I tried to get the 
floor this morning to explain that is not so. That is just not the way 
the Appropriations Subcommittee is going to operate, and that is why we 
put the effort and equity thing in there.
  In no way is Iowa going to have their moneys reduced under this 
effort and equity formula. That is the point I tried to make this 
morning and I tried to make it in the well to the Senators. As I said 
about my Biblical example, about taking something out of context, sure 
you can take one column, but that is not what we are operating under.
  I hope that clears it up. Does my colleague have any further 
questions on that?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I do not have any further questions, Mr. President. I 
will say, I hope it clears it up because I would like to think we are 
passing legislation that will be more fair to more States than that 
original chart that I saw. But I also suggest that I have been informed 
that Senator Coats is going to come over and try to discuss what 
interests my colleague from Iowa in some further depth, and I think I 
will defer to his discussion of that.
  Mr. HARKIN. I will be glad to. I talked about this with Senator Coats 
in private. I will discuss it with him on the floor and have him 
respond as to what CRS put in the other columns because he just used 
one column, he did not use the other two.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the CRS table to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 FISCAL YEAR 1996 CHAPTER 1 ALLOCATION ESTIMATES                                
                                    [All runs include $400 million increase]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   $200 m under                 
                                                                   $400 m under      targeted                   
                                                                     targeted       formula and    $400 m under 
                     State                         Current Law        formula      $200 m under     effort and  
                                                                     (Costs)        effort and        equity    
                                                                                      equity                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Alabama.......................................          $130.1          $129.4          $129.2          $129.1
  Alaska........................................            13.5            15.5            15.6            15.7
  Arizona.......................................           102.0           102.4           102.1           101.8
  Arkansas......................................            78.0            77.6            77.5            77.3
  California....................................           775.1           782,8           778.2           773.7
  Colorado......................................            70.5            69.7            70.6            71.6
  Connecticut...................................            53.6            53.2            54.3            55.3
  Delaware......................................            14.5            16.0            16.1            16.1
  District of Columbia..........................            20.6            20.5            20.5            20.4
  Florida.......................................           293.5           292.2           293.3           294.4
  Georgia.......................................           168.6           167.6           168.2           168.9
  Hawaii........................................            19.5            19.4            19.8            20.2
  Idaho.........................................            22.7            22.3            22.8            23.3
  Illinois......................................           323.9           326.3           324.2           321.9
  Indiana.......................................           109.3           107.7           110.2           112.6
  Iowa..........................................            52.2            51.2            52.6            54.0
  Kansas........................................            50.8            50.0            51.1            52.1
  Kentucky......................................           129.0           128.6           128.1           127.5
  Louisiana.....................................           196.7           197.6           195.5           193.3
  Maine.........................................            25.6            25.2            25.8            26.3
  Maryland......................................            88.3            87.8            89.1            90.4
  Massachusetts.................................           123.7           123.3           123.9           124.6
  Michigan......................................           310.7           310.3           308.9           307.5
  Minnesota.....................................            85.3            84.2            85.9            87.8
  Mississippi...................................           129.4           130.3           128.3           126.5
  Missouri......................................           120.9           120.1           120.5           121.0
  Montana.......................................            26.8            26.4            26.5            26.7
  Nebraska......................................            31.3            31.0            31.6            32.3
  Nevada........................................            19.0            19.0            19.4            19.8
  New Hampshire.................................            15.4            16.5            16.8            17.1
  New Jersey....................................           144.2           143.8           145.9           148.0
  New Mexico....................................            61.5            61.4            61.0            60.6
  New York......................................           636.0           642.1           633.8           625.4
  North Carolina................................           130.9           129.3           131.4           133.4
  North Dakota..................................            17.4            17.4            17.4            17.5
  Ohio..........................................           306.8           304.3           305.2           306.1
  Oklahoma......................................            86.9            86.1            86.5            87.0
  Oregon........................................            65.9            64.9            65.8            66.8
  Pennsylvania..................................           314.2           312.2           312.7           313.2
  Puerto Rico...................................           269.0           266.9           264.0           261.1
  Rhode Island..................................            21.8            21.7            22.0            22.2
  South Carolina................................            94.4            93.6            94.3            94.9
  South Dakota..................................            19.5            19.5            19.6            19.7
  Tennessee.....................................           126.2           125.1           125.6           126.2
  Texas.........................................           616.0           619.0           613.8           608.7
  Utah..........................................            33.4            33.0            34.2            35.4
  Vermont.......................................            13.4            15.4            15.5            15.5
  Virginia......................................           102.7           101.9           103.8           105.6
  Washington....................................            98.2            97.2            98.7           100.3
  West Virginia.................................            69.2            68.8            68.7            68.4
  Wisconsin.....................................           123.4           122.2           123.5           124.9
  Wyoming.......................................            15.0            16.2            16.3            16.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if my colleague wanted to make the point 
that what we came back with from conference was not quite as good for 
certain States, including my own, as was in the bill passed by the 
Senate, he is absolutely right. But the reality is that the House would 
not accept that. So we had to work it out with the House, and I think 
we worked it out in a reasonably fair manner, I must say.
  The original formula that came out of the Clinton administration, 
what they had advocated, was devastating for Iowa and for a number of 
other States.
  But we worked with Senator Pell, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, 
Senator Kassebaum and Senator Jeffords. We worked this whole thing out 
in committee on a bipartisan basis to come up with a better formula. We 
did that. We had votes on it. We had debates. We even had a debate here 
on the Senate floor. We had a vote. But in going to conference it was 
clear that the House Members were not going to accept in totality what 
we had done in the Senate. And thus we came up with this new formula. 
And, quite frankly, I must say I think the new formula is fair.
  I just want to say the Congressional Research Service, again, will do 
any run that Senators ask for. If you ask for a run on $500 million a 
year, they will do that. You can do a run on $1 billion a year. They 
will do that. But just because these tables are prepared does not mean 
that is actually what is going to happen. As I said, they ran these 
tables based upon a $400-million-a-year increase in title I. As the 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds this program, I 
can tell you right now, unless somebody comes up with some magic money 
someplace, we are not going to have that kind of money. We will be 
lucky to get the average of the $275 million that we have gotten over 
the last 5 years.
  So we tried to do two things with title I: target our scarce 
resources to areas where they have a high concentration of eligible 
children, but then also to be fair to rural States such as Iowa where 
we may not have high concentrations but we certainly do have needy 
children, children in poverty, title I eligible children, but they may 
be in small towns and communities scattered around the States and thus 
the formula does address that.
  (Mr. WELLSTONE assumed the chair).
  Mr. HARKIN. On the issue of school prayer, the language that we have 
in the Senate bill is almost identical to what passed the Senate in the 
first place. There was a debate on an amendment I think offered by 
Senator Helms, if I am not mistaken. That amendment was soundly 
defeated here on the Senate floor. And thus what we went to conference 
with and what we came back with from conference is basically the same 
language on prayer in the schools as was contained in the Senate-passed 
bill. So I cannot understand how someone--if they voted for the bill 
when it left the Senate, I cannot now see why they would vote against 
this bill based on school prayer. There may be other reasons, but I do 
not see why there would be a reason to vote against it on that basis.
  So, Mr. President, I wanted to clear up these questions on title I 
funding because I simply did not have the opportunity under the time 
constraints this morning.
  I think Senators can refer to the table and you can see what States 
come out as winners under the effort-and-equity formula. I am told 
there were 33 States that so come out--Iowa being one of those, I might 
add. Now, some States did not fare as well. But again, we tried to take 
our scarce dollars and allocate them in the best way we could.
  I have asked many times in many audiences around this country, Where 
is it written in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the 
Declaration of Independence, where in any of those documents or any 
amendment thereto, where is it written that education in this country 
is to be funded by property taxes? I dare anyone to find anywhere, in 
any of our documents that set up the foundation for our country, that 
it says primary and secondary education is to be funded out of property 
taxes.
  It is nowhere to be found. It has just sort of sprung up, and this is 
the way education funding developed in our country.
  Well, of course, we did not have an income tax, as we know, prior to 
1917. So basically all we had before that was Federal excise taxes and 
some tariffs and things like that. And so as States and local 
communities saw the need for general education, the only source they 
could go to was the property taxes and that is what they did. So the 
system built up.
  Now, just because that is the way it was built, does that necessarily 
mean it is right for today? Should we simply adhere to a system of 
funding for elementary and secondary education that sprung up in the 
18th and 19th centuries as a means of funding elementary and secondary 
education in the 20th and 21st centuries? I think that is a fundamental 
question we ought to be asking ourselves because, you see, if you fund 
education based upon property taxes, then clearly you get the 
inequalities we have today. Very rich areas with very beautiful homes 
and high property taxes have great schools. Inner cities, low-income 
areas, poor housing, low income have poorer schools. And as Jonathan 
Kozol said in his book, we have savage inequalities in our country 
today in schools and in education.
  Why is it that 12 miles from this Capitol where I happen to reside, 
in Virginia, Fairfax County, and where my children have attended public 
schools--I still have one in public school; one just graduated from 
public high school--we have great schools. We have great teachers, 
great facilities, the best schools. They are wonderful. We have 
equipment. We have computers. That is 12 miles from the Capitol. But in 
other parts of Viriginia, the situation is not as rosy. That is what 
happens when you have a system of education based upon property taxes.

  So I think that what we ought to be examining is how we rectify this, 
how we start to change that system, or we will continue to have these 
savage inequalities. Lest anyone think, ``Well, what is wrong with 
that? We have a poor school district, poor students, poor schools. So 
what?'' The fact is that when that child goes through that poor school 
and he receives an inferior education and cannot get a good job and 
earn a decent income, when that young person goes to a dilapidated 
school, and they see on television, they read in the papers, they know 
the good schools are out there, these kids are not stupid. These kids 
that go to these poor inner city schools know that nearby there are 
great schools, and they get stuck in schools where the roof is leaking 
and they do not have computers, and they do not have the best of 
education. They know. And the message it sends to them is, you do not 
count. This is what we think of you because this is the school you go 
to.
  When that child becomes a teenager, and they say ``Well, that is what 
society thinks of me, I am not good. They gave me a bad education, no 
good schools, what the heck, I might as well drop out. I am not getting 
anything out of my school anyway, I might as well drop out.'' That is 
where we have the highest dropout rates.
  Then that dropout does not just affect that local school district. 
That student who has dropped out affects all of us. It affects the 
entire United States because that young person who drops out will not 
become a participating, productive member of society. Thus, the welfare 
rolls go up, crime goes up and dependency goes up. Then we respond by 
building more prisons, you see. That is the end result. We just build 
more prisons and lock them up.
  So we cannot escape. There is no escape from this. We may live in the 
suburbs. We may live in great areas and we may think our schools are 
great and we do not have to worry about those poor schools. Yes, you 
do. You better worry a lot about those poor schools.
  So that is why we need to rectify this. Thus, we have Federal aid to 
education to try to get funds down to help disadvantaged students, to 
try to get some money into these schools. That is why we built into 
this formula what we called ``effort in equity.'' What we are trying to 
say is there are some States that do a great job of equalizing funding.
  In other words, through the State income tax systems or other forms 
of State revenues, they have taken money and put it down into local 
school districts so that the poorer school districts are brought up to 
the level of the best and the richest school districts. That is called 
school equalization formulas.
  Some States have done a great job at this. I am proud of my State. We 
started at it nearly 20 years ago. We are one of the best in the 
country.
  Some States do not. Some States do not have an income tax system. 
That is fine. We cannot tell a State what kind of State tax system they 
have. That is up to the State. But what we can do is say to that State 
if you want Federal dollars for education, we will give you a bonus, we 
will give you an incentive. If you have better equalization formulas, 
if you have a better effort, first of all to fund education, and then 
if you have equalization, we will give you some more money.
  That is what the formula does for title I. That is the way it ought 
to be.
  I do not think that we ought to take taxpayer dollars from around 
this country and give it to, say, Texas where they have a lot of 
inequality in their schools, where they do not have a State income tax 
system and we bail them out. I do not think taxpayers in Iowa, 
Minnesota, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, or New York or anyplace else 
ought to bail them out. But if they want to equalize, to have a better 
effort, then we will be glad to help a little bit more.
  So that is sort of in response to the comments of the Senator from 
Mississippi about Federal aid to education. We live in one Nation. 
Primary and secondary education still is a function of local 
governments as it ought to be, in the States as it ought to be. But I 
believe we have an obligation to the children of this country, 
regardless of where they live, to ensure that they get the best 
possible elementary and secondary education.
  I was told, Mr. President, about a study that was commissioned by the 
Government of Singapore. The government of Singapore commissioned a 
study and wanted a recommendation on what kind of education system they 
should establish for Singapore. A group of educators, business people, 
and others were commissioned to do this study. They came back after a 
worldwide study and they recommended that the state of Singapore, the 
Government of Singapore, adopt the elementary system of Japan, the 
secondary system of Germany, and the college system of America because 
that was the best. I think if you look at it, and you look at what we 
do the best in this country, postsecondary education is the best in the 
world. People come from all over the world to go to college here or to 
post graduate school. Guess where we put the most Federal dollars? 
Postsecondary education.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. We have Pell 
grants that we give to students to go to college, poor students, so 
they can have access to college education. We also have student loans. 
We have all kinds of moneys that flow out to our colleges and 
universities.
  I just wonder what would happen in primary education if we spent per 
pupil in the primary education what we spend per pupil on college 
students, from the Federal Government. It might be a little bit 
different in this country. That is why I think the nation of Singapore 
said yes, we will adopt the United States system of postsecondary 
because it is the best. I think we need to reverse it. We need to not 
reverse it--I do not want to become less than the best in 
postsecondary. But we ought to become the best in primary education.
  I daresay it is going to take the same kind of involvement that we 
have done with Pell grants and guaranteed students loans, the same kind 
of investments we made in our Land Grant Colleges, the same kind of 
research that we put into postsecondary education research in our 
colleges around the country. If we do that, then we will equalize it. 
Then we will not have these poor school districts with poor students 
and poor equipment and poor teachers.
  So that is why we need this Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
It does not do it all. It does not even really do what I think we ought 
to start doing. It begins as one small step in that right direction. I 
hope in the next few years we will start reversing our priorities in 
this country and we will start seeing that if we want to spend less on 
building prisons and we want to put less into crime bills and hiring 
100,000 more policemen for our streets, the best thing we can do is to 
put the money into elementary and secondary education.
  An ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure. I do not know 
how many times we have to learn that lesson but maybe we have not 
learned completely yet because we still have those who say Federal 
Government should not have any vote.
  I will close on this note, Mr. President. Twenty years ago when I 
came to Congress, I remember that the National Education Association--I 
think at that time there was a team--a proposal that was put forward. 
It was called the one-third, one-third, one-third proposal. I thought 
it had a lot of merit and I supported it. Quite frankly I still do. The 
idea behind it was that primary, elementary, and secondary education 
ought to be funded: One-third local, one-third State, and one-third 
Federal.
  At that time--I may be off a percentage point or two--but it seems to 
me that at that time in the late 1970's the percent of total funding 
for elementary and secondary education that came from the Federal 
Government was right around 10 or 11 percent. That was in 1978, about 
10 or 11 percent. We were talking about taking it up to 33 1/3 percent, 
one-third. What happened in the 1980's? We turned around and went in 
the other direction. If I am not mistaken, it is right around 5 or 6 
percent now. So we have gone in the opposite direction from where we 
were in the 1970's, when many educators, school boards, PTA's, and 
others, were saying we should have one-third, one-third, one-third. We 
are not even at 10 percent, where we were in 1978. We are down to 5 or 
6 percent in terms of Federal help for local schools. So we have gone 
in the wrong direction and we have to turn it around. This bill is a 
small step in the right direction to start turning it around.

  Mr. President, this effort took a long time this year. I know the 
occupant of the chair serves on our committee and has been a great 
force in getting this bill through and making sure that we address the 
needs of our kids, and elementary and secondary education. It was a 
long struggle, with a lot of debate and a long conference, but we got 
it through and now we are going to vote at 5:30.
  I thank the Iowa education community, including the Iowa Education 
Association, the Iowa School Board Association, the School 
Administrators of Iowa, Iowa Parent-Teachers Association, Iowa 
Department of Education, and members of the Iowa Legislature. We were 
in contact with them constantly. They were very helpful to me and my 
staff throughout the reauthorization process.
  I want to state for the record how much I appreciate the help of all 
of those organizations and others from the State of Iowa.
  Mr. President, it is October and children are back in school. It is 
also a very appropriate time to take up the conference report for the 
Improving America's Schools Act. This bill reauthorizes the major 
Federal programs that impact our Nation's schoolchildren, including the 
largest single program--title I.
  Contrary to popular opinion, the 103d Congress has passed a number of 
very important pieces of Federal education legislation. Last spring, 
President Clinton signed two important education initiatives--Goals 
2000: Educate America Act and the School To Work Opportunities Act.
  Those bills responded to important concerns about our Nation's 
educational system. Goals 2000 established the framework for 
comprehensive, systemic reform of elementary and secondary education. 
The School to Work Opportunities Act responded to the critical issue of 
making sure that all of our students are well prepared for the 
workplace. Goals 2000, School to Work, and Improving America's Schools 
Act are integrally linked. Together, they form the most extensive 
examination of elementary and secondary education since 1965 when the 
first Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act was enacted.
  While I cannot stress the importance of the earlier legislation, I 
believe they were setting the stage for this conference report. 
Improving America's Schools Act, authorizes the bulk of Federal 
education programs. Put quite simply, it is where the money is. This 
legislation authorizes $13 billion in spending for our Nation's 
elementary and secondary school children.
  The bill is quite lengthy so it is impossible to comment on all of 
its many provisions. I would like to use my time to talk about just 
some of the important features of this legislation.

  The bill reauthorizes the title I Compensatory Education Program for 
5 years. It significantly restructures the program to ensure that 
students targeted by title I will be taught to the same high standards 
as other students. Report after report has told us about the tremendous 
need to improve American education so we can effectively compete with 
other nations. This legislation makes many needed changes aimed at 
assuring a high quality education for all American students.
  The legislation also rewrites the formula for distributing funds 
under the title I program to make more effective use of these limited 
Federal funds. While the formula has changed from the bill we passed 
last summer by a 94 to 6 vote, it still contains some very important 
elements of the original Senate formula.
  Mr. President, I think most Americans are familiar with the glass 
ceiling--that invisible barrier that often keeps competent and capable 
women from ascending to top jobs. Many of us are less aware that early 
in life it isn't the glass ceiling of the corporate suite but the 
plaster walls of the classroom that keep female students from realizing 
their potential.
  The inclusion of the gender equity in education package will ensure 
that girls receive a share--an equal share--in the American dream by 
requiring equal treatment in the classroom. I am very pleased that the 
bills gender equity in education bills sponsored by myself, Senator 
Mikulski, Senator Simon, and Senator Moseley-Braun have been included 
in this legislation.
  I am also pleased that conference report also includes the Elementary 
School Counseling Demonstration Program as part of the fund for 
improvement in education.
  Elementary school counseling programs can make a big difference in 
the lives of young children. Children today face enormous challenges. 
Some live with a drug-addicted or alcoholic parent, some are suffering 
from the trauma of a divorce, some are victims of physical, sexual, or 
mental abuse. And they need our help.

  By making contact with a child early on, these students have a better 
chance of developing the self-esteem and problem-solving skills that 
will benefit them during their teenage years. This principle has been 
put into practice in the Des Moines Independent School District with a 
program called smoother sailing.
  Smoother sailing provides professional counselors to work with 
students in groups on self-esteem and conflict resolution activities. 
These professionals are also available to work with students on an 
individuals basis. And it works.
  Attendance is up, classroom disruptions are down and test scores have 
improved since smoother sailing began in the Des Moines public schools. 
Elementary school counseling demonstration grants will provide grants 
to establish and expand counseling programs in elementary schools to 
focus on prevention and early intervention at a critical time in the 
development of children.
  Title III of the legislation focuses our attention on the need to 
improve technology in our Nation's schools. I cosponsored the 
Technology for Education Act which has been incorporated into this 
legislation.
  Walk into any workplace today and it is a much different place that 
of 30 years ago. The same is true of our homes, highways, grocery 
stores, and shopping centers. But, enter most of our schools and it 
still looks very much the same. Desks are in orderly rows and much of 
the work being done on blackboards with chalk and on paper with pencil. 
And these are the tools educators are expected to use to help train the 
future work force. There is a huge disconnect between the worlds of 
school and work. We must bridge these gaps in order to be competitive 
and this legislation will help us meet those goals.

  The State of Iowa has established an outstanding statewide distance 
learning network for education. The Iowa Communication Network links 
secondary schools, with the colleges and universities of the State in a 
unique interactive system.
  I am also aware of the Community Learning Information Network, a 
national, nonprofit consortium. CLIN provides community-based 
technology and information delivery systems and interactive distance 
learning to link elementary and middle schools, employers, social 
service agencies, and other community organizations to provide a safe 
and enriched full day environment for children including at-risk and 
limited-English-proficient children.
  These distance learning programs are good examples of activities that 
need to be supported in the future through improved education 
technology.
  Mr. President, in closing, I have often spoken about the importance 
of education--it is vital to the future of our country. The economic 
health of our Nation and well-being of our children depends on the 
education of our citizens.
  One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson, spoke eloquently about 
the importance of education for a strong and lasting democracy. He 
said, ``a democratic society depends on an informed and educated 
citizenry.''
  Thomas Jefferson's words remind us about that it is in the national 
interest to have a strong educational system. Improving America's 
Schools Act will help build the educated citizenry that forms the 
strong foundation for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, this is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
the conference report. Also, at the conclusion of my remarks, I would 
like to include a statement in the Record on the implications of this 
legislation for students with disabilities.


 IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT FOR CHILDREN WITH 
                              DISABILITIES

  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy, I would like to 
take this opportunity to comment on the implications of the Improving 
America's School Act of 1994 for children with disabilities.
  The passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990 and our 
recent celebration of the law's fourth anniversary highlight the 
national policy path on which our country has embarked which focuses on 
the inclusion, independence, and empowerment of individuals with 
disabilities.
  Part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act extends to 
all students with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate 
public education based on the unique needs of the child. To the maximum 
extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be educated with 
children who are not disabled. Separate classes, separate schooling, or 
other removal of children with disabilities from regular educational 
environments occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability 
is such that education in the regular classes with the use of 
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
  Although major strides have been made in educating students with 
disabilities, in far too many schools around the country, separate 
educational systems have developed with little or no coordination--one 
system for regular or general education, a separate and distinct system 
for special education. This isolation and lack of coordination creates 
artificial barriers to achieving a world class education for all 
disabled students.
  The Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 is fully consistent with 
the ADA. In addition, it is also consistent with Goals 2000: Educate 
America Act and complements the spirit of part B of the Individuals 
With Disabilities Education Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973.
  This legislation is significant because it takes this Nation's 
educational systems one step closer to viewing all of our children as 
having the potential for achieving excellence according to their 
abilities. The term ``all students'' is defined as students from a 
broad range of backgrounds and circumstances, including students with 
disabilities. The legislation recognizes the need to provide additional 
support to these students where appropriate, so that they can achieve 
the challenging State content standards and challenging State student 
performance standards in the core academic subjects. The legislation 
makes programs for students who are disabled as accountable as other 
educational efforts by holding children to the same high standards and 
by providing the necessary accelerated curricular programming to make 
those standards attainable.

  The legislation also encourages parental involvement and encourages 
schools to reach out to parents, including those with disabilities, and 
identify barriers to increased parent participation. Provisions in the 
legislation encourage school personnel to remove potential barriers to 
parental involvement and to provide training and support to facilitate 
meaningful parent participation in school activities and the education 
of their childern.
  The legislation also directs local school personnel to coordinate 
their programs for educationally disadvantaged children with other 
educational services agencies and Federal programs, including resources 
provided under IDEA. Rather than building separate programs, this 
legislation encourages greater coordination among programs so that 
children with a wide range of challenges can be more fully integrated 
in the general education program and provided the necessary supports to 
make that integration effective and facilitative for learning.
  The legislation recognizes that much-needed change and lasting school 
reform will not occur unless teachers are provided with opportunities 
to learn, study, and discuss new strategies for working with students 
with diverse learning needs, including students with disabilities. 
Therefore, title II enhances professional development opportunities for 
our Nation's educators through a series of activities. First, the 
legislation encourages institutions of higher education to improve the 
teaching and learning of all students by, among other actions, 
incorporating effective strategies, techniques, methods, and practices 
for meeting the educational needs of diverse student populations, 
including students with disabilities, in order to ensure that all 
students have the opportunity to achieve challenging State student 
performance standards.
  Second, the legislation authorizes the use of funds to disseminate 
models of high quality professional development activities that train 
educators in strategies, techniques, methods, and practices for meeting 
the educational needs of historically underserved populations, 
including individuals with disabilities, and to develop activities to 
prepare all teachers, and, where appropriate, paraprofessionals, pupil 
services personnel, and other staff in the collaborative skills needed 
to appropriately teach children with disabilities in general education 
settings, consistent with their individual educational programs, in the 
core academic subjects. Third, the legislation requires that State and 
local educational plans describe how programs in all core subjects, but 
especially in mathematics and science, will take into account the need 
for greater access to, and participation in, such disciplines by 
students from historically underrepresented groups, including 
individuals with disabilities, by incorporating pedagogical strategies 
and techniques which meet such individuals' educational needs.

  Lastly, States are authorized to carry out professional development 
and recruitment activities designed to increase the numbers of 
individuals with disabilities teaching in the core academic subjects.
  These activities will help assure that America's teaching force is 
better prepared to address the needs of students from diverse 
populations and is trained in the collaborative skills need to work 
with their educational colleagues to assure that all students meet the 
high standards that are set for them and that the true promises of IDEA 
and the ADA are achieved.
  Consistent with the focus on establishing and maintaining high 
expectations for all students, including students with disabilities, 
the conferees believe that it is critical that all students, including 
those with disabilities, participate in school assessments. The 
legislation includes provisions for the participation of all students 
with diverse learning needs and the adaptations and accommodations 
necessary to permit such participation. The conferees emphasize the 
importance of these provisions because of evidence of considerable 
exclusion of students with disabilities from national and State data 
collection programs. For example, it is currently estimated that the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress excludes 50 percent of 
students with disabilities.
  Based on evidence from States such as Kentucky, Maryland, and others, 
the conferees believe that all children can participate in assessment 
efforts. Most students--over 98 percent in Kentucky's experience--will 
be able to participate in the regular assessment provided to 
nondisabled children with accommodations such as extended time limits, 
use of large print or braille versions of assessments, or use of a 
reader, scribe, sign language interpreter, or technology. The remainder 
may need adaptations to participate such as the use of information 
provided by an individual who has extensive knowledge of the student's 
performance or portfolio assessments which permit students to 
demonstrate their educational proficiency.
  The conferees also believe that the IEP, required by part B of IDEA, 
serves as an excellent source for identifying the necessary adaptations 
and accommodations for students with disabilities to fully participate 
in assessments. The supports provided in the instructional environment 
will also serve the student in the assessment process and will help 
provide valid information on student progress and achievement.

  I'm pleased to inform my colleagues that the legislation allows a 
local educational agency to use title I funds to pay the excess costs 
of providing services to children with disabilities. This will allow 
local educational agencies to utilize funds under this legislation for 
the provision of special education and related services described in a 
disabled child's IEP. Heretofore, this practice was prohibited.
  As my colleagues will remember, the Senate bill contained two 
amendments regarding disciplining students with disabilities. The 
Gorton amendment would have modified the ``stay put'' provisions of 
IDEA by allowing school districts to remove a child from their 
educational setting and be placed in an alternative setting for up to 
90 days for bringing weapon to school or asserting that the child was 
engaging in life-threatening behavior. If the parent appealed, the 
child would stay in the alternative setting pending all appeals. The 
Jeffords amendment would allow a child to be removed and placed in an 
alternative setting only for bringing a weapon to school.
  The House Education conferees were vehemently against the Gorton 
amendment as were many national parent and educational organizations. 
Many of the House conferees felt that we should postpone any potential 
changes until next year when we reauthorize IDEA.
  The legislation agreed to in conference includes compromise language. 
First, the legislation directs the Secretary of Education to 
disseminate widely the existing discipline policies for students with 
disabilities with the present provisions for changing a student's 
placement if deemed necessary. Second, it directs the Secretary to 
gather data on the incidence of children with disabilities engaging in 
life-threatening behavior or bringing all types of weapons to school. 
The data to be collected by the Secretary will provide us with useful 
information to determine what types of changes, if any, are needed for 
the reauthorization of IDEA. Third, the legislation directs the 
Secretary to submit a report to Congress by January 31, 1995, analyzing 
the strengths and problems with the current approaches regarding 
disciplining children with disabilities.
  The compromise language also includes a modified Jeffords amendment. 
This amendment alters the ``stay put'' provision of IDEA in order to 
provide discretion to school officials to remove any child who brings a 
weapon to school and who has a disability or alleges he or she is 
disabled and place such child in an alternative educational setting for 
up to 45 days. The term ``weapon'' is defined as a firearm as defined 
in section 921 of title 18, United States Code. If a parent objects or 
appeals to the courts, the child remains in the alternative placement 
and not in the original placement. This process is identical to the 
process included in the Gorton amendment, except 90 days was changed to 
45 days.

  Second, the Jeffords amendment codifies an interpretation by the 
Office of General Council of the U.S. Department of Education regarding 
the relationship between the Gun Free Schools Act and IDEA, as modified 
by this amendment. Third, the Jeffords amendment sunsets the amendment 
made to IDEA on the date the reauthorization of such legislation is 
signed into law.
  Although I, and many parents and educational groups, would have 
preferred to postpone making any changes to IDEA and the safeguards it 
offers to students with disabilities until the law is reauthorized, I 
believe the provision incorporated into the legislation provides school 
officials additional flexibility while we can obtain the critically 
important information on the extent and types of problems facing our 
schools.
  Lastly, I'm particularly pleased that the bill incorporates S. 2144, 
the Support for Families With Children with Disabilities Act of 1944, 
which I sponsored along with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, 
Simon, Dodd, Leahy, Metzenbaum, and Wellstone. The bill adds a new part 
I to IDEA. This is a critically important new program.
  The purposes of the legislation are to: First, 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 second, 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.
  The legislation 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 be consistent with the following principles: 
Family support for families of children with disabilities must focus on 
the needs of the entire family; families should be supported in 
determining their own needs and in making decisions concerning 
necessary, desirable, and appropriate services; families should play 
decisionmaking 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; 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 
resources of support, and help build connections to existing community 
resources; youth with disabilities should be involved in decisionmaking 
about their own lives; and services and support must be provided in a 
manner that demonstrates respect for individual dignity, personal 
responsibility, self determination, personal preferences, and cultural 
differences.

  This legislation will help us transform current State systems, many 
of which foster dependence, separation, and paternalism into system 
that foster inclusion, independence, and empowerment for American 
families with children with disabilities who have chosen to raise their 
children at home. The legislation helps 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. As a witness at our hearings 
testified:

       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 the State of 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 
     the last two decades.

  I am pleased to have been able to join with parents in Iowa and 
across this country in developing and passing this legislation which 
will now begin to give this message of support and empowerment to 
families with children with disabilities across all of our States.
  In summary, the provisions in this legislation will serve as an 
effective vehicle for strengthening our overall efforts to meet the 
needs of all children in the United States and ensure that children 
with disabilities are included in the mainstream of educational 
progress and reform and their families are treated with dignity and 
respect.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in 
morning business for a period of 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. PELL. Could the Senator repeat the request?
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. PELL. Is the time coming out of the time of the minority?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. This would be time, it is the Chair's 
understanding, coming out of the minority side on the conference 
report. I ask the Senator from New Hampshire if that is the case.
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.

                          ____________________