[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]

 
  ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to return to the discussion of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act conference report, which we 
will shortly be voting on.
  I spoke earlier outlining reasons why I believe Senators should be 
concerned about passing this legislation, primarily because it sets in 
place education policy directed by the Federal Government for the next 
5 years. It inhibits a number of reforms that I think are taking place 
and should take place at the State and local level. Clearly, there has 
been disillusionment with the Federal role in education, and that 
disillusionment obviously is the result of the lack of progress and 
lack of success in our educational program that I think all Americans 
would like to see.
  One of the most persuasive reasons for Senators to vote against this 
bill was a presentation of how title I, formerly chapter 1, funds would 
be distributed to the various States. I asked the Congressional 
Research Service for the figures that they had compiled based on 
official runs which the conferees requested the CRS to run for this 
particular bill.
  The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] has apparently indicated that this 
Senator from Indiana cooked the figures or, as I think the quote was, 
``doctored'' the figures so as to skew the results. All this Senator 
did was present the figures as presented to him by the Congressional 
Research Service. It was the conferees in the conference between the 
Senate and the House that requested the Congressional Research Service 
to make the runs under the assumption that there would be a $400 
million increase in the appropriation. I did not make this request. The 
conferees made the request. So the only estimates available to us from 
the Congressional Research Service were the estimates available under 
the conferees' request and under the assumption that there would be a 
$400 million increase in the appropriation.
  When those numbers came back, they permitted a comparison of how each 
State would fare under the current law formula as compared with the 
formula in the conference report. The Congressional Research Service 
ran both the current law formula and the new conference formula based 
on the conferees' requested assumption of a $400 million increase in 
the appropriation. When those two formulas are compared, based on the 
estimates prepared by CRS, it indicates that 33 States would get less 
Federal education money under the conference formula than the current 
law formula.
  The Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, says that the Appropriations 
Committee will not increase education funding by $400 million. That may 
be the case because he is the chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee of 
the Appropriations Committee. He controls what will be increased and 
what will not be increased. But the only CRS estimates available to us 
assumed the appropriation increase of $400 million because that is what 
the conferees asked them to assume.
  I just recently asked CRS how States would be affected if the 
appropriation remained unchanged or was only increased, say, $100 
million or $200 million. They indicated to me that while they obviously 
did not have time to make the run, since that request was just as a 
result of discussion we had on the floor an hour or so ago, they 
indicated that a majority of States would still lose money as compared 
with the current law formula regardless of the amount appropriated.
  The Senator from Iowa talks about a fourth grant program in the bill, 
a new one, called ``effort and equity.'' This is the so-called 
``miracle cure'' with which they could go to Members and say, ``Well, 
we know that the CRS estimates indicate that 33 of your States are 
going to lose money. But we are going to make up that difference 
through the `effort and equity' program.'' The effort and equity 
formula is a new grant program that is separate from the traditional 
chapter 1 grants, which apparently gives new powers to the 
appropriators. Under those new powers, the appropriators can shift 
funds from one State to another, and depending on what they 
appropriate, they can move some money around to remedy some of the 
inequities created by this bill.
  I do not know how the Senator from Iowa or the appropriators are 
going to make this decision or if any funds will actually be 
appropriated--especially considering the House strongly opposes the 
effort and equity formula. But they apparently are going to have the 
power under this bill to move that money around. We will have to go to 
the appropriators and plead our case.
  So that is what the confusion is in terms of the presentation of the 
numbers. Once again, it was not this Senator, it was the Congressional 
Research Service that provided the estimates. These estimates are based 
on the explicit language of the conference report, which states that 
any appropriation above the fiscal year 1995 level ``shall be allocated 
in accordance with section 1125.'' That is what the bill says and that 
is what CRS based its estimates on. According to CRS, 33 States would 
receive less Federal education money under this formula than they would 
under current law.
  For the information of all Senators, I will insert these charts based 
on CRS estimates into the Record.
  There being no objection, the charts were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Estimated Title 1, Part A Grants Fiscal Year 1996-1999, Cumulative 
           Comparison of Current Law With Conference Formula

                                                      Fiscal year 1996-
        States that lose under                          1999 cumulative
        conference formula                                         loss
Ohio......................................................($22,657,000)
Puerto Rico................................................(20,371,000)
Pennsylvania...............................................(15,827,000)
Indiana....................................................(14,952,000)
North Carolina.............................................(11,324,000)
Wisconsin..................................................(10,937,000)
Virginia...................................................(10,630,000)
Minnesota..................................................(10,424,000)
Iowa........................................................(9,955,000)
Tennessee...................................................(9,937,000)
New Jersey..................................................(9,665,000)
Georgia.....................................................(9,110,000)
Oregon......................................................(8,318,000)
Missouri....................................................(8,199,000)
Oklahoma....................................................(7,562,000)
Kansas......................................................(6,743,000)
Alabama.....................................................(6,301,000)
Washington..................................................(5,839,000)
South Carolina..............................................(5,719,000)
Kentucky....................................................(5,319,000)
West Virginia...............................................(5,281,000)
Maine.......................................................(4,499,000)
Arkansas....................................................(4,216,000)
Montana.....................................................(3,789,000)
Colorado....................................................(3,729,000)
Nebraska....................................................(3,632,000)
Idaho.......................................................(3,133,000)
Rhode Island................................................(1,645,000)
South Dakota..................................................(664,000)
Massachusetts.................................................(606,000)
Michigan......................................................(328,000)
Connecticut...................................................(313,000)
New Mexico....................................................(184,000)
Utah...........................................................(95,000)

Source: CRS.                                          Fiscal year 1996-
        States that gain under                          1999 cumulative
        conference formula                                         gain
New York....................................................$70,970,000
California...................................................61,344,000
Texas........................................................23,344,000
Illinois.....................................................20,575,000
Florida.......................................................9,327,000
Vermont.......................................................8,795,000
Alaska........................................................8,711,000
Delaware......................................................7,447,000
Louisiana.....................................................7,289,000
Mississippi...................................................5,739,000
Wyoming.......................................................5,628,000
New Hampshire.................................................4,985,000
Maryland......................................................3,793,000
Arizona.......................................................2,409,000
Hawaii..........................................................812,000
Nevada..........................................................672,000
D.C..............................................................61,000
North Dakota..........................................................0
Source: CRS.


                ESTIMATED TITLE I, PART A GRANTS 1996-97                
               [Fiscal year 1996; in thousands of dollars]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Fiscal year  Fiscal year             
                                       1996         1996     Fiscal year
              State                current law   conference      1996   
                                     formula      formula    difference 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA..........................     $130,105     $129,412       ($693)
Alaska...........................       13,533       15,503       1,970 
Arizona..........................      102,005      102,382         377 
ARKANSAS.........................       77,951       77,649        (302)
California.......................      775,105      782,823       7,718 
COLORADO.........................       70,488       69,744        (744)
CONNECTICUT......................       53,581       53,225        (356)
Delaware.........................       14,548       16,015       1,467 
DC...............................       20,573       20,458        (115)
FLORIDA..........................      293,501      292,217      (1,284)
GEORGIA..........................      168,638      167,636      (1,002)
HAWAII...........................       19,508       19,363        (145)
IDAHO............................       22,671       22,337        (334)
Illinois.........................      323,930      326,295       2,365 
INDIANA..........................      109,336      107,734      (1,602)
IOWA.............................       52,179       51,159      (1,020)
KANSAS...........................       50,822       50,046        (776)
KENTUCKY.........................      129,023      128,572        (451)
Louisiana........................      196,729      197,556         827 
MAINE............................       25,590       25,185        (405)
MARYLAND.........................       88,255       87,808        (447)
MASSACHUSETTS....................      123,682      123,255        (427)
MICHIGAN.........................      310,734      310,276        (458)
MINNESOTA........................       85,304       84,157      (1,147)
Mississippi......................      129,414      130,282         868 
MISSOURI.........................      120,864      120,055        (809)
MONTANA..........................       26,793       26,396        (397)
NEBRASKA.........................       31,342       30,971        (371)
Nevada...........................       18,987       19,010          23 
New Hampshire....................       15,393       16,458       1,065 
NEW JERSEY.......................      144,175      143,840        (335)
NEW MEXICO.......................       61,451       61,434         (17)
New York.........................      635,985      642,095       6,110 
NORTH CAROLINA...................      130,895      129,346      (1,549)
North Dakota.....................       17,416       17,416           0 
OHIO.............................      306,802      304,437      (2,365)
OKLAHOMA.........................       86,859       86,094        (765)
OREGON...........................       65,917       64,913      (1,004)
PENNSYLVANIA.....................      314,180      312,234      (1,946)
PUERTO RICO......................      268,967      266,886      (2,081)
RHODE ISLAND.....................       21,775       21,736         (39)
SOUTH CAROLINA...................       94,422       93,638        (784)
SOUTH DAKOTA.....................       19,530       19,502         (28)
TENNESSEE........................      126,197      125,078      (1,119)
Texas............................      616,047      618,952       2,905 
UTAH.............................       33,360       33,009        (351)
Vermont..........................       13,351       15,418       2,067 
VIRGINIA.........................      102,685      101,907        (778)
WASHINGTON.......................       98,195       97,221        (974)
WEST VIRGINIA....................       69,220       68,774        (446)
WISCONSIN........................      123,406      122,244      (1,162)
Wyoming..........................       14,955       16,219       1,264 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--States in upper case do better under current law formula.        
                                                                        
Source: CRS.                                                            


                ESTIMATED TITLE I, PART A GRANTS 1997-98                
               [Fiscal year 1997; in thousands of dollars]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Fiscal year  Fiscal year             
                                       1997         1997     Fiscal year
              State                current law   conference      1997   
                                     formula      formula    difference 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA..........................     $137,597     $135,560     ($2,037)
Alaska...........................       14,315       16,406       2,091 
Arizona..........................      107,887      108,099         212 
ARKANSAS.........................       82,443       81,439      (1,004)
California.......................      819,845      835,840      15,995 
COLORADO.........................       74,569       74,200        (369)
Connecticut......................       56,695       58,386       1,691 
Delaware.........................       15,390       17,440       2,050 
DC...............................       21,759       21,421        (338)
FLORIDA..........................      310,465      309,245      (1,220)
GEORGIA..........................      178,263      176,041      (2,222)
Hawaii...........................       20,638       20,698          60 
IDAHO............................       23,980       23,332        (648)
Illinois.........................      342,652      345,969       3,317 
INDIANA..........................      115,673      112,120      (3,553)
IOWA.............................       55,196       53,038      (2,158)
KANSAS...........................       53,745       52,696      (1,049)
KENTUCKY.........................      136,471      134,930      (1,541)
Louisiana........................      208,073      208,679         606 
MAINE............................       27,042       26,161        (881)
Maryland.........................       93,340       93,850         510 
Massachusetts....................      130,853      133,522       2,669 
Michigan.........................      328,709      328,964         255 
MINNESOTA........................       90,213       88,334      (1,879)
Mississippi......................      136,878      137,939       1,061 
MISSOURI.........................      127,851      126,338      (1,513)
MONTANA..........................       28,316       27,395        (921)
NEBRASKA.........................       33,058       32,174        (884)
Nevada...........................       20,078       20,138          60 
New Hampshire....................       16,268       17,444       1,176 
NEW JERSEY.......................      152,194      151,341        (853)
NEW MEXICO.......................       64,994       64,635        (359)
New York.........................      671,737      685,673      13,936 
NORTH CAROLINA...................      138,356      135,940      (2,416)
North Dakota.....................       18,416       18,416           0 
OHIO.............................      324,537      319,182      (5,355)
OKLAHOMA.........................       91,867       89,914      (1,953)
OREGON...........................       69,740       68,308      (1,432)
PENNSYLVANIA.....................      332,374      329,821      (2,553)
PUERTO RICO......................      284,476      278,882      (5,594)
RHODE ISLAND.....................       22,958       22,683        (275)
SOUTH CAROLINA...................       99,852       98,445      (1,407)
SOUTH DAKOTA.....................       20,591       20,469        (122)
TENNESSEE........................      133,462      130,527      (2,935)
Texas............................      651,588      654,889       3,301 
Utah.............................       35,299       35,648         349 
Vermont..........................       14,124       16,328       2,204 
VIRGINIA.........................      108,099      106,096      (2,003)
Washington.......................      103,888      104,380         492 
WEST VIRGINIA....................       73,177       71,929      (1,248)
WISCONSIN........................      130,563      127,904      (2,659)
Wyoming..........................       15,820       17,167      1,347  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--States in upper case do better under current law formula.        
                                                                        
 Source: CRS.                                                           


                ESTIMATED TITLE I, PART A GRANTS 1998-99                
               [Fiscal year 1998; in thousands of dollars]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Fiscal year  Fiscal year             
                                       1998         1998     Fiscal year
              State                current law   conference      1998   
                                     formula      formula    difference 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA..........................     $145,079     $142,555     ($2,524)
Alaska...........................       15,093       17,323       2,230 
Arizona..........................      113,765      114,520         755 
ARKANSAS.........................       86,928       85,730      (1,198)
California.......................      864,520      889,464      24,944 
COLORADO.........................       78,628       77,614      (1,014)
Connecticut......................       59,785       61,194       1,409 
Delaware.........................       16,226       18,391       2,165 
DC...............................       22,945       22,525        (420)
FLORIDA..........................      327,383      325,333      (2,050)
GEORGIA..........................      187,903      184,870      (3,033)
HAWAII...........................       21,763       21,698         (65)
IDAHO............................       25,281       24,332        (949)
Illinois.........................      361,321      367,499       6,178 
INDIANA..........................      121,977      116,942      (5,035)
IOWA.............................       58,203       55,060      (3,143)
KANSAS...........................       56,651       54,881      (1,770)
KENTUCKY.........................      143,907      142,119      (1,788)
Louisiana........................      219,410      221,163       1,753 
MAINE............................       28,485       27,161      (1,324)
Maryland.........................       98,427       98,551         124 
Massachusetts....................      137,984      140,134       2,150 
Michigan.........................      346,622      346,891         269 
MINNESOTA........................       95,106       92,160      (2,946)
Mississippi......................      144,337      146,475       2,138 
MISSOURI.........................      134,818      132,672      (2,146)
MONTANA..........................       29,843       28,555      (1,288)
NEBRASKA.........................       34,786       33,503      (1,283)
NEVADA...........................       21,163       21,138         (25)
New Hampshire....................       17,133       18,430       1,297 
NEW JERSEY.......................      160,488      158,639      (1,849)
NEW MEXICO.......................       68,535       68,260        (275)
New York.........................      707,800      727,912      20,112 
NORTH CAROLINA...................      145,852      141,928      (3,924)
North Dakota.....................       19,416       19,416           0 
OHIO.............................      342,222      334,975      (7,247)
OKLAHOMA.........................       96,867       94,287      (2,580)
OREGON...........................       73,538       71,195      (2,343)
PENNSYLVANIA.....................      350,488      346,434      (4,054)
PUERTO RICO......................      299,977      292,738      (7,239)
RHODE ISLAND.....................       24,207       23,753        (454)
SOUTH CAROLINA...................      105,287      103,218      (2,069)
SOUTH DAKOTA.....................       21,657       21,504        (153)
TENNESSEE........................      140,723      136,806      (3,917)
Texas............................      687,087      694,277       7,190 
Utah.............................       37,223       37,267          44 
Vermont..........................       14,891       17,246       2,355 
VIRGINIA.........................      113,602      110,737       2,865 
WASHINGTON.......................      109,548      109,206        (342)
WEST VIRGINIA....................       77,134       75,549      (1,585)
WISCONSIN........................      137,679      134,012      (3,667)
Wyoming..........................       16,679       18,130      1,451  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--States in upper case do better under current law formula.        
                                                                        
Source: CRS.                                                            


               ESTIMATED TITLE I, PART A GRANTS 1999-2000               
               [Fiscal year 1999; in thousands of dollars]              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Fiscal year  Fiscal year             
                                       1999         1999     Fiscal year
              State                current law   conference      1999   
                                     formula      formula     difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA..........................     $152,551     $151,504     ($1,047)
Alaska...........................       15,820       18,240       2,420 
Arizona..........................      116,499      117,564       1,065 
ARKANSAS.........................       91,498       89,786      (1,712)
California.......................      894,835      907,522      12,687 
COLORADO.........................       82,913       81,311      (1,602)
CONNECTICUT......................       64,782       61,725      (3,057)
Delaware.........................       17,143       18,908       1,765 
DC...............................       24,220       25,154         934 
Florida..........................      344,516      358,397      13,881 
GEORGIA..........................      197,776      194,923      (2,853)
Hawaii...........................       22,900       23,862         962 
IDAHO............................       26,550       25,348      (1,202)
Illinois.........................      379,857      388,572       8,715 
INDIANA..........................      129,044      124,282      (4,762)
IOWA.............................       62,946       59,312      (3,634)
KANSAS...........................       61,257       58,109      (3,148)
KENTUCKY.........................      151,992      150,453      (1,539)
Louisiana........................      231,593      235,696       4,103 
MAINE............................       29,865       27,976      (1,889)
Maryland.........................      103,760      107,366       3,606 
MASSACHUSETTS....................      146,914      141,916      (4,998)
MICHIGAN.........................      365,040      364,646        (394)
MINNESOTA........................      100,220       95,768      (4,452)
Mississippi......................      151,975      153,647       1,672 
MISSOURI.........................      141,501      137,770      (3,731)
MONTANA..........................       30,601       29,418      (1,183)
NEBRASKA.........................       36,060       34,966      (1,094)
Nevada...........................       22,250       22,864         614 
New Hampshire....................       17,864       19,311       1,447 
NEW JERSEY.......................      170,645      164,017      (6,628)
New Mexico.......................       72,295       72,762         467 
New York.........................      747,979      778,791      30,812 
NORTH CAROLINA...................      154,438      151,003      (3,435)
North Dakota.....................       20,416       20,416           0 
OHIO.............................      357,465      349,775      (7,690)
OKLAHOMA.........................      100,830       98,566      (2,264)
OREGON...........................       77,628       74,089      (3,539)
PENNSYLVANIA.....................      372,979      365,705      (7,274)
PUERTO RICO......................      316,644      311,187      (5,457)
RHODE ISLAND.....................       24,945       24,068        (877)
SOUTH CAROLINA...................      111,787      110,328      (1,459)
SOUTH DAKOTA.....................       22,589       22,228        (361)
TENNESSEE........................      147,109      145,143      (1,966)
Texas............................      718,099      728,047       9,948 
UTAH.............................       39,035       38,898        (137)
Vermont..........................       16,234       18,403       2,169 
VIRGINIA.........................      118,801      113,817      (4,984)
WASHINGTON.......................      115,623      110,608      (5,015)
WEST VIRGINIA....................       81,095       79,093      (2,002)
WISCONSIN........................      147,437      143,988      (3,449)
Wyoming..........................       17,557       19,123       1,566 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--States in upper case do better under current law formula.        
                                                                        
Source: CRS                                                             

  Mr. COATS. The CRS estimates were provided at the request of the ESEA 
conferees. Those Members of the Senate and the House met in conference 
and said to CRS: Would you run the numbers on this assumption of a $400 
million appropriation increase? Those are the numbers they ran, and the 
charts I have are simply the result of the CRS' runs.
  Having said that, Mr. President, regardless of whether your State 
gets more money or less money under this new authorization versus 
current law, regardless, the substance of what is contained in this new 
thousand-page proposal, the provisions of that proposal ought to be 
disturbing to a great number of us.
  As I indicated earlier, two former Secretaries of Education, 
Alexander and Bennett, faxed a letter to each Senator urging them to 
defeat this legislation so that we could start again with the next 
Congress and provide a much more sensible approach to Federal 
involvement in education. In doing so, they pointed out, as I have 
pointed out, and others have pointed out, this does not deny funds to 
the States. This does not deny funding under this bill. There is a 
provision in the General Education Provisions Act which allows that 
funding to go forward regardless of whether Congress acts. So nobody is 
going to be denied their Federal education funds. In fact, if you go by 
the CRS estimates, 33 States will receive more money, because they do 
better under current law than under the new, revised formula, with the 
caveat that the Appropriations Committee may, under this new effort and 
equity provision, try to remedy some of that problem.
  But when you look at this particular piece of legislation before us, 
which we will be voting on in less than an hour, and when you 
understand the kinds of things that are in this thousand-page bill, I 
think many ought to think twice before they lock in place a 5-year 
Federal program that overregulates, oversupervises, 
overcontrols what State and local educational institutions are doing in 
education.
  Former education Secretaries Bill Bennett and Lamar Alexander had 
this to say about the bill before us:

       The bill deals with accountability in a perverse way, 
     essentially making schools and school systems accountable to 
     Washington for compliance with regulations. Under the 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, if this legislation 
     passes.
       The bill mandates the kinds of federally approved standards 
     that Goals 2000 said would be voluntary.

  They go on to say:

       The bill mandates the kinds of federally approved standards 
     that Goals 2000 said would be voluntary, because 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 the input standards was softened 
somewhat in conference, the bill takes a giant step toward reviving the 
legitimacy and Federal supervision of criteria that judge schools by 
their spending levels, by their pupil-teacher ratios, and so forth, 
instead of by their effectiveness.
  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. They point out that:

       By mandating State plans that are based on federally 
     approved standards, the bill moves the new National Education 
     Standards and Improvement Council ever closer to becoming the 
     national school board that critics warned of when Goals 2000 
     was enacted.

  Former Secretary Alexander, a former Governor of Tennessee, 
indicated, ``This means that Tennessee, for example, no longer has the 
final say over what young Tennesseans will learn in school. If the bill 
is enacted,'' he said, ``that power shifts to Washington, unless, of 
course, Tennessee wants to forfeit its Federal aid.'' And, of course, 
that is the sword hanging over the heads of our States and educational 
institutions. Washington has this big pot of money for you, but if you 
follow the Federal standards and comply with the Federal guidelines, 
this money will be available to you. For financially strapped school 
districts and financially strapped educational institutions, that is a 
tough choice. If they want the money, they have to comply with the 
Federal standards. If they want the Federal money, the Federal strings 
come attached. This bill, the thousand pages, very substantially 
increases the number of Federal strings and Federal standards.
  Secretary Bennett also noted that the National Assessment Governing 
Board is going to have its members chosen by education interest groups. 
Up to now, the board function has had 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 Federal bureaucracy, which has already made clear its intention of 
race norming the test scores and probing families for sensitive 
information.
  There are certain aspects from the bill itself that ought to be 
disturbing to us. Let me read: ``Both the House bill and Senate 
amendment say that if they do not already do so, aggregate State 
expenditures for the operation of elementary and secondary programs 
must equal or exceed the level of Federal expenditures for the 
operation of such programs by a time certain.''
  The way I read that is that this is yet one more unfunded mandate on 
the States. The bill also says that all laborers and mechanics employed 
in the performance of any contract and subcontract for the repair, 
renovation, alteration, or construction of any building or work that is 
financed in whole or in part by a grant under this title shall be paid 
wages in accordance with Davis-Bacon. We all know Davis-Bacon imposes 
on many areas higher wage standards than what would otherwise be 
applicable.
  So this is another high-priced win for mandating schools to perform 
contract work, repair work, mechanical work, renovations, alterations, 
or construction based on a federally dictated wage.
  Opportunity-to-learn standards are advanced in this bill. The text 
reads: ``Each State plan shall describe such other factors the State 
deems appropriate to provide students an opportunity''--it goes on to 
say--``which may include opportunity-to-learn standards''--``to provide 
students an opportunity to achieve the knowledge and skills described 
in the challenging content standards.''
  I ask the question: How likely is the Education Department to approve 
plans that do not include opportunity-to-learn standards?
  The bill goes on to say: ``Each local educational agency identified 
under paragraph 3''--that is as having failed to meet State student 
performance standards--``shall in consultation with schools, parents, 
and educational experts revisit the local educational agency plan. Such 
revision may include reviewing the local educational agency plan in the 
context of the opportunity to learn and standards or strategies 
developed by each State.''
  The text goes on to say that ``the term `performance indicators' 
means measures of specific outcomes that the State or local educational 
agency identifies as assessing progress toward the goal of achieving 
that all teachers have the knowledge and skills necessary.''
  That sounds like outcome-based education for teachers to me.
  I also spoke about the fact that the conference report eliminates 
what were some promising reforms. It undermines those promising 
reforms. It says that a local educational agency that chooses to 
implement a school choice plan shall first develop a comprehensive plan 
that includes assurances that both the sending and the receiving 
schools agree to the student transfer.
  What good, I would ask, is choice if the school you want to escape 
has the power to deny you an exit visa?
  The bill says that the Senate amendment but not the House bill 
provides that the ESEA shall not be construed to deny States or local 
educational agencies the opportunity to use Federal funds to contract 
with private management firms, and the Senate receded to the House in 
that provision.
  It goes on to define a number of provisions related to gender equity. 
It also deals with a number of social and miscellaneous issues that are 
tangential at best to the educational process. The conferees have taken 
some innovative ideas that were discussed, debated, and passed on the 
Senate floor and dismissed them in conference.
  I could go on and on with page after page of objections that have 
been raised relative to the legislation before us.
  So, regardless of where any individual Senator might come down on the 
subject of funding, on the subject of the Federal dollars that will be 
available to local educational agencies, regardless of where you may 
come down on that, whether or not you want to take CRS's view based on 
what they were asked to do by the conference, whether or not you think 
you can make your case with the appropriators and rebalance your 
State's deficiency by this effort-and-equity formula, regardless of 
where you come down on that, there are serious, serious questions about 
the expanded Federal role in the education of our children in terms of 
dictating to States and local governments and local educational 
agencies how education should be conducted.
  Frankly, it is a part of a significant debate going on in our country 
now as to how and whether and if we will be able to bring about reforms 
in our educational system that will truly make a difference, that will 
truly bring the results that we are all looking for.
  If there is one correlation that is true, it is that the more money 
the Federal Government spends and the more power and authority it 
exerts, the lower the results are from our public educational system. 
No case has been made that increased Federal spending and involvement 
in education improves the product. What we ought to be concerned about 
here are the results. We ought to be concerned about the product. We 
ought to be concerned about whether or not our children are getting the 
education they need and deserve in our public school systems.
  And while there are certainly school systems that are doing the job 
and while there are certainly courageous teachers that are trying to do 
the job and local authorities that are trying to bring about changes, 
it seems that every time they attempt to take a step forward, the 
Federal Government comes in and says: ``No, no, no. If you want to 
receive Federal dollars, you have to do it our way. We have the wisdom 
in Washington. We have the agency and the bureaucracy here and we have 
it all figured out. If you will just do it our way, we will achieve 
what we want to achieve in the educational process in this country.''
  Well, frankly, doing it Washington's way has had its day in the Sun, 
and it has not produced the results.
  I say let us give State and local educational agencies more 
flexibility and more authority to try something different and to bring 
about some real innovation and reform in our schools. Let us give 
parents some choices about their children's future rather than locking 
them into a system that they know has failed.
  Probably one of the most egregious abuses of power presented are the 
decisions that have been made to deny children from low-income families 
the opportunity to get an alternative education in some place other 
than their local public school.
  Every effort on this Senate floor over the past several years to 
allow even demonstration programs for school choice to low-income 
students has been defeated, defeated by a powerful lobby that says, 
``We do it our way or no way.'' We do not even want to experiment to 
see if the other way works. And the plea this Senator has been making 
for years is, what are you afraid of? All we are asking for is a 
demonstration program. If you are right, it will not work, and then you 
can stand on the floor and say, ``We tried that, and it does not 
work.''
  But we are saying, let us give it a chance. Parents who live in 
crime-infested neighborhoods, who have to send their children to crime-
infested schools with inadequate educational possibilities for those 
students are crying out for an opportunity for an alternative.
  We are saying why do not we set up 5 or 6 or 10, or whatever 
demonstration programs and give them some funds, and we will try it for 
2 years? And if it makes a difference in their lives, if it makes a 
difference in their performance, if it makes a difference in their 
educational opportunities, then we will have a model program to expand 
that. If the public educational lobby and those speaking for it are 
correct, then they will say: ``Look, you tried it, and it did not work. 
So let us not talk about it any more.''
  But they are even afraid to try it. They will not set aside one 
nickel to allow low-income children trapped in poverty, trapped in a 
failed educational system the opportunity to try something else.
  The tragedy and the shame is that those who are saying to try to 
advance opportunities for children trapped in inner cities that have no 
chance to do anything except to go to the rat-infested, lousy 
educational, violence-prone local public school are denied that 
opportunity by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress because they do 
not even want to take a chance that it might work. Why might it work? 
Because it would show up the public educational system for the 
bankruptcy that exists in parts of that system across this country.
  I think it is disgraceful that we cannot even try something 
different, because we are so locked in by a lobby that says ``our way 
or no way,'' or someone might show us up because they might do a better 
job than we do. So we need to protect our little fiefdoms here. So 
every attempt to try to do something different is taken into conference 
and the conferees sit there smugly and say: ``I do not care if the 
Senate voted for that 2 to 1; I do not care if the House voted for that 
proposal 10 to 1; we are going to decide in here what goes in that 
bill. The heck with what the House and Senate say. The heck with what 
the people are saying. We want more of the status quo. We want more of 
what has given us this great educational system in America over the 
past 20 years and, by golly, we are going to give it to you whether you 
want it or not.''
  That is what we are going to get here in less than an hour, it 
appears, based on the last vote, but I think this country ought to wake 
up and I think the Senate ought to wake up. Actually, the country ought 
to wake up to what the Congress is doing and the public educational 
lobby is doing in denying opportunities for educational advancement in 
this country.
  Perhaps when they do, they will demand that Congress give States and 
schools and parents and teachers and local administrators some 
flexibility to do something without hanging over them the Federal 
dollars saying, ``Oh, if you do not do it our way and dot every `i' and 
cross every `t' and make sure you run to Washington and comply with all 
the Federal standards and beg our bureaucrats and show them your plan 
and make sure it is just in accordance with everybody else's plan, 
unless we standardize education for Los Angeles and Baltimore and Miami 
and everybody gets on the same standard''--which I would contend is a 
standard of mediocrity that is a disgrace for the country with the 
wealth that we have--``unless you do that, you cannot play ball. You 
cannot get any Federal funds at all.''
  Maybe some educational institutions and maybe some States and maybe 
some localities will say, ``Look, even without the Federal money, we 
think we can do a better job for the people that we serve.'' There are 
courageous teachers, courageous administrators, courageous 
superintendents of education, and courageous Governors who are asking 
us to do it differently, and yet we look at them and say: ``No, no, no. 
We are going to do it our way, and if you want the Federal bucks you 
better play along.''
  So this bill now locks in the status quo for 5 more years. The 
country is demanding change. The country wants reform. The country 
wants to do it differently. But, no, we are going to lock it in for 5 
years. ``Do it our way 5 more years.''
  The same wonderful process that brought us lower SAT scores and that 
brought us a disgrace in public education in some areas, is going to 
continue for 5 more years. Well, that is not the way to address change 
and reform in America, and I do not believe that is the way to provide 
opportunities for our children.
  Mr. President, I just hope that our Members can come down here at 
5:30 and vote ``no'' on this bill, knowing that they are not going to 
lose a dime and knowing that we are going to have a much better 
opportunity next year to craft a bill that truly brings about 
educational reform in America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to address the issues of 
the pending Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Mr. President, I strongly support the conference report accompanying 
H.R. 6, a bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act.
  Before us is the single largest education program supported by the 
Federal Government. Yet, the debate we have had has really said little 
about education, but rather we have been distracted by important social 
issues which tend to distract us from emphasizing those things in this 
bill which do help to do what we must do to improve education in this 
country.
  We are graduating kids who cannot read, yet we are worried about 
whether they can pray in school. Let us let the schools try to teach 
them to read, and let their parents and churches worry about their 
religious instruction and observance.
  We rank last or next to last in the industrialized world in our 
children's math and science ability, yet instead of worrying about how 
we teach science and math, we are consumed by how we deal with 
sexuality.
  Our priorities in this debate are all wrong. We talk about one set of 
issues, while ignoring the more important issues. Instead of worrying 
so much about school prayer and sex education, we should be worrying 
more about how we are going to teach our children the skills they need 
to complete with the rest of the world.
  The priorities of this debate are not those of the people who care 
about education across the country. Over a year ago, when I held a 
hearing on this bill in Montpelier, VT, one Vermonter after another 
told me that they wanted greater flexibility, and with it greater 
accountability. And we have done that in this bill. Vermonters told me 
that they wanted good performance rewarded, and we have done that, too.
  What, really, is at stake in this debate? At stake, at the very heart 
of this bill, is $6 billion targeted to educationally and disadvantaged 
young people across this country, in both rural and urban areas.
  Last year alone, 4 million students were served by this program. 
According to the National assessment of chapter 1, the Achievement of 
Disadvantaged students has improved since 1965, especially in reading, 
relative to the achievement of the General population.
  Chapter 1 works. Students receiving chapter 1 services experience 
larger increases in their standardized achievement test scores than 
students who do not. And chapter 1 works because the poorest school 
districts are the ones least able to provide assistance to these needy 
children. They, more than most, need Federal help.
  The education challenges we face are enormous. Right now, between 30 
and 80 million Americans are either illiterate or functionally 
illiterate. They cannot read a story in a newspaper, balance their 
checkbook, or follow simple instructions on the job.
  A quarter of our children do not graduate from high school, and of 
those that do, more than one-third lack the skills needed for college 
or entry-level work. Fewer than 50 percent of our high school graduates 
can now meet the goals we have set for reading and math skills.
  As we sit in Washington bickering over provisions which have little 
bearing on education, millions of young people, teachers, 
administrators and parents, await critically needed Federal support. 
Let us put our narrow interests aside and recognize the real purpose of 
this program--to increase the academic achievement levels of all 
children, and especially those who need our help the most.
  This bill fundamentally changes the status quo by demanding high 
academic standards and encouraging the philosophy that all children can 
learn. And it states in no uncertain terms that poor children do not 
deserve a poor education.
  What is more central to a democracy than education? The prominent 
educator Horace Mann once wrote that education, ``beyond all other 
devices of Human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of 
men--the balance wheel of the social machinery.''
  I think what was true for him in Boston in the mid-1800's is just as 
true for us in Washington almost 150 years later. Look at any of the 
major problems we face today--the economy, crime, welfare--you name it. 
None of them will be solved with a single answer. But on each of them 
we do know the best single answer, and it is a better education.
  Who gets the best jobs in this country? Those people with the best 
education. Who populates our jails? High school dropouts, for the most 
part. And who makes up the welfare rolls? Those people with the poorest 
education.
  No act of Congress will cure all these ills. Their cure lies with the 
American people. But we will have failed if we do not give the people--
the parents, the teachers and the children--the best tools we can. And 
as time has taught us, the strongest tool is a stronger educational 
system.
  This conference report will help us move toward such a system. As 
reported by the conference committee, it retains much of the Senate 
bill Let me quickly outline some of the important provisions. And let 
me point out that many of these provisions were pushed by my Republican 
colleagues on the Labor and Human Resources Committee. This has been a 
bipartisan bill, a strong bipartisan effort.
  The conference report continues to give State and local educational 
agencies flexibility over school curricula and decisionmaking. While 
the bill requires States to ensure that our most disadvantaged young 
people receive the same high academic standards as all children, it 
requires states to develop standards in math and reading only for 
students served by title 1. It also allows States as many as 4 years to 
make the transition toward new testing systems based on performance 
measures rather than standardized tests.
  H.R. 6 retains the Eisenhower professional development section which 
authorizes $800 million toward increasing access by teachers and school 
staff to intensive, high-quality professional development activities. 
The conference report retains the much-needed and long-awaited Federal 
support for the development and purchase of educational technology and 
continues a program to encourage the transition from early childhood 
programs to elementary school.
  Finally, it continues what was known as chapter 2, now called title 
VI and increases the authorization to $370 million--well over the 
Senate passed level. As with the former chapter 2, title VI continues 
to provide schools the flexibility to respond to emerging local 
education priorities. The conference report does not eliminate all new 
programs created under S. 1513 but it does consolidate eight into an 
existing title and abolishes one of them.
  I have not been asked many questions about the education provisions 
of the conference report, though. Instead, the questions that I have 
been asked by many of my colleagues concern how do I do under the 
formula? What happened with prayer? What are the prohibitions on sexual 
behavior, opportunity to learn, guns and violence?
  Let me take a few moments to address these specific issues.
  The formula adopted by the conference committee targets more funds to 
higher poverty areas, but will do so slowly so that no State will lose 
funds. While all funds up to the 1995 appropriations level will go out 
under a slightly modified version of current law, a higher percentage 
of all new money will flow to areas most in need.
  In other words, it is the new money that will be distributed under 
the new formula, to ensure that more goes to the needy areas.
  A 100-percent hold harmless will apply to all States and school 
districts in the 1996-97 school year. No State or district will lose a 
single dollar between 1995 and 1996, and most will receive more funds 
than they do currently.
  The conference report retains the school prayer provisions of S. 
1513. The Kassebaum amendment, which passed by an overwhelmingly vote 
of 93 to 7 remains in H.R. 6. As my colleagues know, the Helms 
amendment was defeated on the Senate floor.
  The conference report does not drop the prohibitions on sexual 
behavior but modifies the Senate language. As my colleagues will 
recall, S. 1513 passed with two separate amendments regarding 
prohibitions on sexual behavior--the Smith-Helms amendment and the 
Kennedy-Jeffords amendment.
  The compromise prohibits any funds received under this act to be used 
to develop or distribute materials to encourage any kind of sexual 
activity. It further prohibits the distribution of obscene materials or 
condoms to minors. Finally, it includes a House provision which 
requires that any sex education program be age specific and include the 
health benefits of abstinence.
  The compromise is different than the amendment passed by my 
colleagues from New Hampshire and North Carolina in one fundamental 
way--it does not attempt to direct or control the use of State and 
local funds or control State and local decisionmaking. The compromise 
is consistent with the provisions that prohibit Federal control over 
education in this country, and with the Republican philosophy of 
federalism that we all embrace.
  H.R. 6 retains the amendment to require that States have in place a 
policy to expel for 1 year any child caught with a weapon on school 
grounds and contains a modification of the provision to discipline 
students with disabilities. That compromise requires the secretary to 
collect data on the incidence of disabled children bringing weapons to 
school and exhibiting life threatening behavior and to report to 
congress prior to the reauthorization of the individuals with 
disabilities education act, or IDEA, which is to be reauthorized next 
year.
  Further, it extends IDEA's current 10 day stay-put provision to 45 
days for students who bring guns to school. This compromise may not 
satisfy all the Members of this body, but it was a hard-fought battle 
with the House conferees to retain any provision addressing IDEA prior 
to next year.
  Finally, the bill takes out the ``teeth'' of the House opportunity to 
learn, or OTL, provisions by eliminating the requirement that States 
develop or include OTL standards in their State plan. This provision is 
reinforced by Senator Gregg's amendment which prohibits mandates or 
control over State and local spending or decisionmaking over curriculum 
and instruction. In other words, local control is maintained, so 
important to the Members of this side of the aisle in particular.
  Later today, we will be voting on final passage of H.R. 6. It is by 
no means everything I want. I was on the losing side in some arguments 
in conference.
  But those losses, in context, are minor. If we fail to pass the bill, 
the losers will not be this Senator or any other, they will be 
America's children. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this 
important legislation.
  Mr. President, let me also point out that this is just a follow-up to 
what we have done this past year in the Goals 2000 bill. When we look 
toward the future, it is clear that this Nation is at risk when it 
comes to our educational system. Our students are not reaching the high 
educational levels that are necessary to cope with the economic demands 
of the future. Study after study has demonstrated that we must raise 
the educational level of our students, not only of those in school, 
which we are dealing with here today, but also of the adult population. 
Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent by businesses just in 
remedial education.
  As I mentioned earlier, we have 30 to 80 million people in this 
country who are illiterate or functionally illiterate. In my mind, we 
cannot ignore this issue. Many of these citizens do not even have the 
skills to work in entry-level jobs. Clearly, if we do not provide them 
with an opportunity to gain the knowledge they need to succeed in the 
workplace, then this Nation will not be capable of keeping the jobs we 
have, creating new jobs, and bringing more higher-paying jobs into the 
country.
  As I look to the future, I see serious problems in the area of crime, 
in the area of welfare reform, with the economy. As we near the next 
century, the only hope for solving these problems seems to be to 
provide States with the necessary resources, in the form of planning 
grants or otherwise, to help them meet the goals we have set out by the 
year 2000. It is my hope that next time, in addition to reauthorizing 
and funding those existing programs, we will search for and find a way 
to reorder the Nation's priorities and we will increase the funding for 
those programs which are dedicated to improving educational 
opportunities for our Nation's children.
  If we can just take 1 percent of the budget each year, $15 billion, 
and for the next 8 years use that money to expand the funding for the 
Chapter 1 program, which incidentally is only funded about 50 percent, 
to fully fund Head Start, to fully fund the other programs we have, 
then we may be able to make the kind of inroads into solving the 
problems of this Nation's educational system in order to bring us into 
that next century.
  I was so pleased with the result of the votes we got for cloture and 
I expect we are going to have even a higher number of Senators voting 
for final passage of the bill. So we can, I think, demonstrate to the 
public and to the Nation that we are willing to shift resources to take 
care of the problems we are facing now in the economy, to decrease the 
number of people who are breaking our laws and filling our prisons, so 
that in the future, instead of building new prisons, we will be able to 
tear them down, and to restructure the fabric of our social welfare 
system so that those individuals who are now caught in that system will 
gain the skills they need to participate as productive members in the 
great society that we have in this country.
  So I look forward as we go on, Mr. President, to seeing that we do 
develop the tools necessary to reach the next century.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________