[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]

 
           IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are approximately 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, 2 weeks of near continuous debate and 
extraordinary dedication on the part of Senate and House conferees have 
produced a compromise on the reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. Although I was not a member of the conference 
committee, I did have serious concerns regarding the Senate Chapter 1 
formula. Chairman Kennedy was well aware of my concerns about New 
York's treatment under the Senate-passed bill, and I am pleased that 
the conference agreement includes a principled Chapter 1 compromise. 
The formula agreed to by the conferees corrects the inequitable 
allocation for New York contained in the Senate bill, which would have 
increased funds to 38 States at New York's expense.
  Under the conference committee formula, New York's substantial needs 
will be addressed by allocating more to New York than would have either 
the House- or Senate-passed bills. New York received $578 million in 
Chapter 1 funds in fiscal year 1994. The Senate Labor and Human 
Resources Committee estimates that under the conference committee 
formula, New York will receive $599.9 million in fiscal year 1995 and 
$642.1 million in fiscal year 1996. This is a much needed improvement.
  I would remind my colleagues that the principle upheld in this 
legislation is not a new one. It was established with the original bill 
enacted by Congress in 1965. That principle holds that the money should 
follow the children. But I would ask, ``Which children?'' The history 
that answers that question is a simple one.
  President John F. Kennedy established a task force in the Executive 
Office of the president to study the issue of poverty and whether 
general education programs of the kind he was seeking would be more 
successful if focused on a specific problem. With these findings, he 
proposed the first Federal aid to education bill of a general nature, 
which neither House of Congress passed until after his assassination.
  President Johnson, immediately upon taking office, saw the viability 
of that measure and the justice of it. In 1963, he declared a war on 
poverty, and by the following year, the Economic Opportunity Act was 
adopted. Thereafter, children and aged persons in poverty were to be a 
special concern of Federal legislation. And since then, the Federal 
Government has made such matters its particular concern.
  In 1965, consistent with pledges made in the 1964 Democratic platform 
and The 1964 campaign generally, the administration and the new 
Congress understood their mandate to be: adopt aid-to-education 
legislation. The Presidential campaign of 1964 had been fought on just 
such issues. And, on April 11, 1965, the new Congress having no more 
than just come into office, President Johnson had the bill on his desk 
and signed it, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
  As an Assistant Secretary of Labor in the Johnson administration, I 
had been involved in the Government's efforts in the war on poverty and 
in Federal aid to education. President Johnson proposed this new 
program of financial assistance to public schools serving children in 
``low-income families[,] . . . with the assurance that the funds 
[would] be used for improving the quality of education in schools 
serving low-income areas.'' This became chapter 1 of title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
  Now, to which children was that act directed? It was to children with 
family incomes below the Federal poverty standard, a statistical 
standard developed in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
now the Department of Health and Human Services--which continues its 
use today in various ways, as it ought to do.
  The legislation before us upholds that just principle by focusing 
funds on high poverty areas. Under this legislation, school districts 
with a poverty rate of less than 5 percent will not receive targeted 
funds appropriated above the fiscal year 1995 level in fiscal year 
1996. And in that same fiscal year, school districts with a poverty 
rate of less than 2 percent will no longer receive title I money.
  The time has come to return this program to the principled ground on 
which it was founded, and this conference report begins that 
transition. Chairman Kennedy, Chairman Pell, and the other conferees 
have done excellent work. I wish to commend them and to thank them. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This 
legislation provides funding for all major Federal elementary and 
secondary programs. It is a good bill and an important one.
  The primary purpose of this legislation is to improve the old Chapter 
1 Program that provides money to help educate our poorest and most 
disadvantaged children. We certainly know how important that is.
  But, this bill also contains smaller provisions that I must take this 
time to mention because they help create a new social intervention, not 
a new social program.
  This legislation helps eliminate the problem of school violence. It 
contains a pilot program on character education, and it includes my 
legislation to help abolish every element of bias in our society--that 
is, it promotes gender equity in education for boys and girls.
  First, this legislation expands the Drug Free Schools and Communities 
Act to encourage school safety programs. It gives States and local 
officials $630 million to boost their efforts to make their schools and 
communities safe and drug free. It will help fund violence prevention 
programs in our schools, such as early intervention programs, 
counseling, mentoring, and before and after school programs.
  Mr. President, I have seen the way the crime has infiltrated our 
schools and our communities. Students in Baltimore have told me that 
crime is one of their main concerns.
  Students should not be concerned about crime. They should be 
concerned about getting their homework done, not about running from 
gunfire on the playground or on their way home from school.
  This is an extremely important section of this legislation that 
should be noted and recognized. We cannot afford to tolerate any more 
of what is happening on our streets and in our schools. We need to say 
yes to kids who say no to drugs and yes to homework.
  We need to make investments in our youth before the trouble begins, 
before they join a gang, and before they drop out of school.
  That is why I strongly support the creation of the Character Counts 
pilot program.
  Character Counts is an initiative to bring back some of the community 
building spirit that this country has lost. It encourages building 
individual capacity among our young people so that they can be a 
productive part of a larger community.
  To me, character education means trustworthiness, fairness, justice 
and caring, civic virtue and citizenship; those aspects of continuity 
that will help us to not only cope with change, but to embrace change, 
and lead us into the 21st century.
  For our students sake and for our sake, we need to advocate for a 
society based on virtue and value and not a society where every aspect 
or our cultural communication rewards and exploits violence and 
vulgarity.
  People have known this for years. It is the habits of the heart that 
de Tocqueville spoke about. It is habits of the heart and habits of the 
mind that shape character. We need to teach it first in the best 
classroom we have--it is called the American family.
  We need to teach in the homes. We need to teach in the neighborhoods; 
and, we need to teach in our schools.
  It is about neighbors caring for neighbors, personal responsibility, 
personal respect for yourself and respect for others. It is about 
social responsibility, the desire to be part of a neighborhood, a 
community, and to truly be a citizen of the United States of America.
  So, I am happy to see that this education bill supports this cause 
that I believe transcends party and geographic lines. Next week is 
designated Character Counts week and I am happy to be a part of the 
Character Counts initiative.
  Third, Mr. President, I am especially pleased that this bill 
incorporates a package of bills introduced by myself and my colleagues 
to help make sure that we create an environment more conducive to 
learning. It is an initiative on gender equity.
  Our agenda is to make sure that all Americans are given equal value 
in our society and to make sure that with equal value we have equal 
opportunity.
  I, and my colleague, Senator Harkin, have included language in this 
legislation to make sure that teachers are sensitive to the needs of 
all students. I know teachers do the best job they can.
  We want to be sure, however, that no student is overlooked and that 
all students are treated equally in the classroom--girls and boys. In 
this legislation, teachers will have access to professional development 
programs and materials on gender equality in the classroom.
  I added language to this bill to build on the concept of making our 
schools safe. The language I added allows schools to make the 
elimination of sexual harassment and abuse a part of its mission to 
create a healthy school environment for girls and boys.
  Let me give you one example of why this language is important.
  Students, parents, and teachers in Maryland, and across the country, 
have expressed concern about disturbing incidents of harassment between 
staff members, between staff and students, and peer harassment--among 
students.
  Eighty-five percent of all girls and 76 percent of all boys reported 
being sexually harassed in some way. One result has been that one-third 
of the girls who have been sexually harassed reported not wanting to go 
to school, compared to 12 percent of the boys.
  The purpose of my bill is to support our coordinators out there who 
are already working to address this issue of sexual harassment. Instead 
of teaching young girls and boys how to handle harassment, let us teach 
our students character and behavior that encourages mutual respect for 
each other.
  My goal is to make every classroom and every school in the United 
States conducive for all students--through violence prevention, equity 
training and character building.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairs of the 
Labor Committee for their work on revamping the Chapter I, now Title I, 
distribution formula. I know it was not easy. It is a complicated 
formula and it is difficult to satisfy the needs of all states and 
districts.
  I know that in Maryland Title I helps Maryland's disadvantaged 
students to get the education they need and deserve. This formula will 
help Maryland's efforts and is a step in the right direction.
  I have only mentioned a few of the good things in this bill. It helps 
eliminate school violence and bias in our educational system and it 
helps to build character in our students.
  I believe these are just some of the noteworthy programs that will 
create again the habits of the mind, the habits of the heart, and 
provide the social glue that will hold us together.
  The education of our youth is an investment we cannot afford to 
overlook. It is what's best for our children and our future. I am 
pleased to support this legislation and I look forward to its passage.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, because I believe that this legislation is 
extremely important for all American students. I am delighted that even 
in the final days of the 103d Congress, when partisanship is running 
high, we have been able to rise above politics and accomplish something 
which will benefit this Nation's schools. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  H.R. 6 should not be misinterpreted as an attempt by the Federal 
Government to usurp State and local control. Rather in recognition of 
the daunting task of educating students at world-class standards, the 
Federal Government has developed a mutually benefitial relationship 
with local education authorities. I am impressed by the number of 
school districts and education professionals in my State that have 
contacted me in support of this legislation.
  Today we are reauthorizing many successful Federal programs, such as; 
chapter I, assistance for disadvantaged students; chapter II, State 
block grants for school improvement; professional development programs; 
and Impact Aid. This bill also includes new anti-gun provisions which 
will make our schools safer and more productive. I strongly believe 
that by improving opportunities for every American student, we improve 
the quality of life for every American citizen.
  Among the most controversial aspects of this bill has been the 
formula by which Chapter I funding will be distributed. I would like to 
thank Senators Kennedy and Pell and the other members of the conference 
committee who have worked tirelessly to devise and fight for a fair 
formula. When President Clinton initially proposed targeting chapter I 
funds toward the most needy school districts. I must admit I understand 
the logic of this argument. The Federal government has very limited 
resources, and it makes sense that we should try to put these resources 
where they are needed most.
  However, President Clinton's formula did not result in a reasonable 
allocation of our funds. His formula would have hurt many school 
districts in the interest of helping others. I believe that we have an 
obligation to do better than that. I worked very hard with my 
colleagues in the Senate to improve upon President Clinton's idea. I 
wanted to make sure that we did not waste our limited resources. Yet, I 
did not want to penalize States which had invested in education. I was 
very pleased with the formula that the Senate passed in August.
  Now, I realize that the formula we are voting on today is not as 
generous to States like Wisconsin as the Senate's formula had been. 
However, that is what compromise is all about. And in order to pass 
this bill we needed to compromise with the House. I believe that the 
conference committee's formula is reasonable. And it is clearly an 
improvement upon current law. For that reason, despite the fact that it 
is not my favorite formula, I will support this bill.
  This bill is larger than any one program; any one provision; or any 
one formula. This bill is about improving all of America's schools. And 
I am pleased that the 103d Congress, despite being unable to agree on 
solutions for so many of this Nation's problems, will be able to do 
something for our students, and for our schools. I urge my colleagues 
to join me by voting yes on H.R. 6.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about H.R. 6, which 
reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA].
  As my colleagues know, this bill reauthorizes important programs such 
as chapter I and the Eisenhower Program. These programs are all 
important to my State of Montana, as they are to the whole United 
States.
  I would like to make a few comments about provisions in the bill. 
First, while I am pleased that more effort is being made to send title 
I dollars to the neediest districts, I am not sure the conference 
formula fully accomplishes that goal.
  In looking at the winners and losers under this formula, and 
comparing the child poverty rates of the two, I see some serious 
discrepancies. I do not want to pick on any particular State, but some 
examples deserve attention.
  For example, my State of Montana has a child poverty rate of 18.6 
percent. Yet, under the new formula, Montana does not get as much title 
I money as it would if the current formula stayed in place.
  Fifteen of the 20 States that gain under the new formula have child 
poverty rates less than that of Montana. For example, New Hampshire 
gains significantly yet has a 7.1 percent child poverty rate. Vermont 
and Delaware have a 11.1 percent rate.
  Maryland has a 10.8 percent rate. Connecticut has a 10.2 percent 
rate. On the other hand, States with significantly high child poverty 
rates end up losing funds--New Mexico, South Dakota, West Virginia, 
Kentucky, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia all will get 
less than they would have under the formula already in place.
  I would also like to touch on Impact Aid. This program is very 
important to my State of Montana, for there are seven native American 
reservations there. Many of the schools rely heavily--if not almost 
exclusively--on impact aid, for they receive little or no revenue from 
property taxes.
  I am pleased that many of the provisions in Senator Pressler's bill, 
which I cosponsored, were included in the final version of H.R. 6. 
Funding constraints this year will mean that districts will see 
significant reductions, but I believe the formula itself is much more 
equitable to heavily impacted school districts.
  I remain concerned about opportunity to learn standards. I am 
relieved that the conference language is less prescriptive than the 
original House-passed language on OTL standards. It is a matter of deep 
concern to me that policymakers here in Washington think that they 
should be able to have input into matters like class size, building 
standards, and textbooks to local school districts.
  The locally elected members of Montana school boards do the very best 
they can to see that our children receive an excellent education. In 
many communities, there are not a lot of resources to work with, but 
the job gets done. These folks do not want more heavy-handed Federal 
intervention.
  And as an original cosponsor of the Gorton amendment, I was 
disappointed that it was stripped from the bill. This language would 
have been a positive step forward for schools, teachers, and students 
who are being held hostage by violent students shielded from discipline 
by the well-intentioned but flawed Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act [IDEA]. I am sure the Senate will be revisiting this 
issue in the 104th Congress, when IDEA will be reauthorized. I look 
forward to that debate.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, 2 months ago I voted in support of the 
Senate version of the Improving America's Schools Act, but my vote came 
with this caveat, if the conference committee strips the provisions 
that have been added to make this a better bill, I will help lead the 
opposition to the conference report.
  I regret to say that the conferees did just that, and so today I 
withdraw my support for this legislation.
  I am outraged that the Gorton-Lieberman ``Local Control Over School 
Violence'' amendment, which passed 60 to 40 with strong bipartisan 
support and support from the five national education associations, was 
struck during conference on the Improving America's Schools Act. 
Educators in my State are upset the language was struck.
  My top priority this year has been to deal with the issue of violence 
in our schools. In January, I held an education summit at which I 
listened to nearly 200 parents, teachers, administrators, and students 
share their concerns about our schools. Their primary concern was 
violence in the classroom.
  More specifically, here's what they asked for--freedom from the 
Federal red tape that ties their hands when it comes to school 
violence, freedom from Federal laws which prohibit them from 
implementing their own school discipline policies, and freedom to do 
what they need to restore safety in our schools.
  Time and time again, I have come before my colleagues in the Senate 
asking for passage of an amendment that will protect our students from 
the violence that is tearing our society apart. Time and time again, 
the Senate adopts my school violence amendment with overwhelming 
support, but the conferees ignore the wishes of the Senate by striking 
the language during conference.
  The bipartisan fight for school safety has simply been ignored.
  This time, my amendment was replaced with a watered town version that 
fails to target the discipline problems our local school officials on 
the front lines experience daily. Last time, they replaced it with a 
study on school violence.
  Educators in our schools across the Nation do not need or want their 
school policies dictated by Washington, DC bureaucrats. How can D.C. 
bureaucrats possibly come up with an effective solution for the 
violence that hit Ballard High School last year? How can D.C. 
bureaucrats come up with an answer to get weapons out of schools in 
Federal Way? Why should a Senator from Massachusetts be allowed to 
dictate the discipline policies for schools in Yakima, WA?

  The answer is--they simply can't.
  The solutions to the violence problems in our schools will not be 
found by D.C. bureaucrats who are so far removed from the problems that 
they simply don't understand them. They will come from those on the 
front lines--those who deal with children day in and day out, those who 
have been struggling with these problems, and those who hold the 
greatest stake in solving them.
  What I find most frustrating is that the majority in this body think 
that all the wisdom in the world resides here, in Washington, DC, and 
none of it with the teachers and administrators we trust to educate our 
children at home. The message being sent by this conference report is 
that we in Congress do not trust our local educators and school board 
members and that we don't believe that authority should be restored to 
the local level.
  That is the wrong message.
  Educators must be allowed to address the problems of violent and 
criminal behavior in their schools. They must be given the ability to 
restore discipline, reduce violence in our schools and in our 
communities. My amendment would have done just that. It would have 
returned authority to school officials to address serious disciplinary 
problems so they can do their jobs.
  We are not going to provide the proper educational atmosphere for our 
students until we restore authority to our school authorities to do 
their jobs. Our schools and educators need our help now, and their 
pleas have been ignored twice.
  The Gorton-Lieberman amendment was a strong first step in making our 
schools safer and restoring much needed local disciplinary control. The 
House and Senate conferees had a chance to increase the safety and 
protect our children in schools by incorporating the Gorton-Lieberman 
local control over school violence amendment. Instead, they stripped 
one of the few amendments in the education bill that would actually 
improve our Nation's schools.
  Let me restate for the record the provisions and the action taken on 
these provisions that I declared must be kept in the conference report 
to retain my support. These provisions should not have been 
compromised.
  The Gorton-Lieberman amendment to let local people determine how best 
to stop violence in their schools, without interference from Federal 
bureaucrats.
  This language was struck and replaced with a watered down version 
that evades the discipline problems our local school officials on the 
front lines experience daily.
  The Danforth amendment to create demonstration programs that allow 
for the development and study of same gender classes for low income, 
educationally disadvantaged children.
  This language was struck.
  The Smith-Helms amendment to prohibit the spending of federal 
taxpayer dollars for school programs that promote or encourage 
homosexuality as a positive lifestyle.
  This language was struck.
  The Hatch amendment to distribute fairly chapter 1 funds to schools 
in communities throughout the Nation, including my home State of 
Washington.
  This language was struck and replaced with a new funding formula that 
actually reduces funding for title 1 in the upcoming years in 36 
States, including Washington State.
  Mr. President, negotiations should not have occurred on these 
provisions, and especially on my school violence amendment that would 
have made it safer to walk the halls and sit at the desks of our 
Nation's schools. The fact that my school violence amendment was 
stripped from the bill leaves me no choice but to vote ``no'' on the 
conference report.
  The conferees could have done much better. Our Nation's children 
deserve better. We can do much better by coming back next year to 
rework this bill to restore decisionmaking and disciplinary control to 
those who must deal with them every day--our local teachers, 
principals, and administrators.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, prior to the vote on cloture earlier today, 
I spoke briefly on the need to enact the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act this year. As we approach the 
vote on final passage later this afternoon, I thought it might be 
helpful to focus on some important aspects of this legislation that I 
was either unable to address this morning or cover only in the most 
cursory fashion.
  Perhaps one of the most important features of this legislation is the 
way in which we tie title I assistance to the achievement of 
challenging academic and student performance standards. The need for 
all children to be taught to the highest standards is critical if 
America and her people are to be adequately prepared for the challenges 
of the 21st century. We began to address this in the Goals 2000 
legislation enacted earlier this year. We continue it with renewed 
emphasis in this bill.
  Nowhere is the need for improvement more necessary than in the 
education of disadvantaged children--most particularly those in areas 
of considerable poverty. I believe it very significant that this 
legislation moves away from a focus just on compensatory or remedial 
education.
  Children who are educationally disadvantaged must be taught to the 
same high academic standards as all other children. Children who are 
educationally disadvantaged must be afforded the opportunity to learn 
and advance in the same manner as all other children.
  Some children may need more help than others, but the help should be 
directed to the same objective, namely an education of the highest 
quality for all children. This legislation has been fashioned to ensure 
that this objective is within the reach of those children most in need. 
In doing so, it builds upon and strengthens the very foundation upon 
which this program was based when it was first enacted almost 30 years 
ago.
  The first National Education Goal commits our Nation to ensuring that 
by the year 2000, all children will start school ready to learn. To 
accomplish that objective, we must provide a strong transition from 
preschool and early childhood education programs to instruction in the 
elementary grades. Both Senator Dodd and Senator Kennedy have provided 
important leadership in this area, and I believe the provisions in this 
bill are crucial to moving us toward achievement of this goal.
  The new Eisenhower Professional Development Program is also a 
provision that deserves mention. Another of the National Education 
Goals is to have our children first in the world in science and 
mathematics achievement by the year 2000. To reach this goal, we must 
constantly improve the quality of math and science in our Nation's 
schools. This bill protects the math and science program in current 
law, and ensures that we will neither lose sight of nor relax our focus 
on the imperative need to improve instruction in these areas.
  Yet, if we are to achieve another of the National Education Goals, 
that of making sure that all students will be competent in the core 
subjects, we need to move beyond mathematics and science and bring the 
benefits of professional development to other disciplines as well. What 
we have begun to do for math and science must also be done for areas 
such as English, history, and civics and government.
  In this area we are particularly indebted to the leadership provided 
by Senator Hatfield. He played an instrumental part in putting these 
provisions together and, as the ranking member of the Appropriations 
Committee, in seeing that the program was adequately funded.
  If we are to prepare our students for the 21st century, we must 
dramatically change the 19th century classrooms in which too many of 
our young people learn. Without state of the art instruction, our 
students will be at a disadvantage in the workplace, and America will 
most certainly suffer in the international marketplace. Access to the 
very latest advancements in technology is essential if we are to 
achieve the National Education Goal to have every American possess the 
skills necessary to compete in a world economy.
  Learning cannot occur, however, unless the classroom is free from 
fear, and the health and safety of our children are protected. Making 
sure that our schools are safe from drugs and violence is yet another 
of the National Education Goals, and it is one to which the Safe and 
Drug Free Schools title in this legislation is directed.
  We must also make sure that our education facilities are adequate, 
and contribute to our children's education. A child's education should 
not be placed at risk because of inadequate facilities. Our children 
should not be placed in harm's way of faulty plaster, poor wiring, or 
dangerously outdated buildings. The Facilities Infrastructure Act is an 
important part of this bill, an accomplishment due in no small measure 
to both the eloquence and the determination of Senator Moseley-Braun. 
She brought to our attention the sad plight of school after school in 
this country, and of the need for a program that would address this 
truly serious problem.
  I spoke this morning about the importance of the Dropout Prevention 
and Assistance Program. At that time, I did not refer to the fact that 
another of the National Education Goals pertains to increase the high 
school graduation rate to 90 percent by the year 2000. That is a goal 
which, quite frankly, we cannot reach unless we get a handle on the 
very severe school dropout problem that has plagued our Nation for over 
a quarter of a century. The Dropout Prevention Assistance Program is 
very important to reaching that goal by identifying and assisting 
innovative approaches to solve this serious problem.
  Mr. President, as we prepare to vote on final passage, it is also 
important that we give credit where credit is due. This 
administration--President Clinton, Secretary Riley, Assistant Secretary 
Payzant, the talented staff at the U.S. Department of Education--have 
all provided strong leadership in moving us in the direction of 
positive change, and in staying the course. This is, as I said earlier 
today, landmark legislation, and a bill that surely merits the strong 
bipartisan support so clearly evident in the cloture vote. My own 
belief is that we should move now to overwhelming approval of this 
conference report so that we can all get along with improving America's 
schools and strengthening American education.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, there is a great deal at stake in this 
debate on the conference report to the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, H.R. 6.
  I supported this bill in the Senate, and voted for the Senate version 
of the bill. However, much of what was good in that bill was either 
weakened or deleted in conference.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I am here today to speak against the 
conference report.
  This is not a decision that I made lightly. There are some good 
things in this bill--provisions that I supported throughout the 
process. The most important of those provisions was the language 
reauthorizing the Impact Aid Program.
  I have long supported a limited Federal role in education. The 
responsibility for education lies primarily with State and local 
governments, not with the Federal Government.
  Since my days in the Idaho State Senate, I have been a strong 
advocate of State funding for education and control of curriculum.
  Local school boards, teachers, administrators, and parents must 
continue to put pressure on their State legislators to support high 
quality in education.
  Having said that, there is also a role for the Federal Government to 
play. There are certain areas of Federal responsibility that should be 
priorities for Federal education funding.
  One such area is redressing the educational disadvantages caused when 
the presence of the Federal Government directly affects a local school 
district's ability to raise revenue. Such is the case with impact aid.
  When the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 81-874 in 1950, it 
recognized the need to provide high quality education to children whose 
parents live and/or work on Federal lands.
  These federally secured properties are not taxable by local units of 
government, preventing school districts from generating revenue through 
property taxes.
  The effect of this tax exemption hits Idaho school districts 
particularly hard because approximately two-thirds of our State is 
owned by the Federal Government. In Idaho, 41 school districts are 
federally impacted and qualify for impact aid.
  Without these funds, the students they educate would be greatly 
disadvantaged. The local property tax base simply would not be able to 
provide the necessary funds for a basic education.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I would like to share some of the 
concerns I have with the conference report that led me to oppose 
passage.
  As I mentioned before, a lot is at stake in this debate. This bill 
authorizes the programs that the Federal Government runs, to assist 
States with the education of our children. It is very important to the 
families of Idaho, including my own family.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 6 is not a step forward in education, but a side-
stepping of reform by responding with greater Federal regulation.
  The road to improving our schools is not the Washington Beltway. 
Rather, we should be working to increase local control and authority 
over education and provide education funds with fewer strings attached.
  In short, Mr. President, I have grave concerns about the general 
direction this bill would take our education system.
  Another issue that, disappointingly, was rewritten in conference was 
the title I--formerly chapter 1--funding formula.
  Title I provides financial assistance for the education of 
``educationally disadvantaged children.'' With overall funding at $6.7 
billion for fiscal year 1995, it is the largest Federal program for 
elementary and secondary schools.

  Mr. President, I cosponsored two amendments on the title I funding 
formula during the Senate's debate on this bill.
  Both of those amendments would have ensured more equitable title I 
funds for my home State, Idaho.
  The conference report has not only deleted any increase Idaho would 
see in title I funds, it would now actually decrease the funds we 
receive in comparison to the current funding formula--resulting in a 
significant loss in title I money.
  According to figures provided by the Congressional Research Service, 
the cumulative loss for Idaho from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 1999 
would be $3.1 million.
  This may not sound significant to those Members coming from heavily 
populated States, but it is a significant loss for Idaho--especially 
when States like New York and California will have cumulative gains of 
$72 million and $62 million respectively.
  An additional concern I have with the conference report is the fact 
that the Gorton-Lieberman local control over school violence amendment, 
which I cosponsored, and which passed with strong bipartisan support--
60 to 40--in the Senate, was struck during the conference.
  The amendment was replaced with a watered-down version that will not 
serve the needs of our local school officials in their efforts to make 
schools safe for our children.
  Again, the conference committee took a strong provision that 
guaranteed local control over a problem and rewrote it to keep control 
in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
  The original amendment would have simply put local officials in 
control of the violence in our schools, including incidents involving 
children with a disability.
  The conference language directs the Secretary of Education to widely 
disseminate the current policy on disciplining children with 
disabilities and to collect data on the incidence of violent or life-
threatening behavior.
  The Department of Education would then provide this information to 
the Congress so that this issue can be looked at again, next year, when 
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is reauthorized.
  Mr. President, this is not a solution, it is a stalling tactic that 
will not make our schools safer.
  Mr. President, there is another portion of H.R. 6 that I would like 
to talk about for a moment--the provisions containing the Multi-Ethnic 
Placement Act, which is strongly supported by myself and others in the 
Senate and House.
  The sponsor of the legislation, Senator Metzenbaum, has already 
spoken to this issue, and I agree with most of what he had to say. In 
fact, I would like to underline some of his comments and go into a 
little more detail about the issue.
  As we all know, the purpose of this legislation is to end 
discriminatory practices that prevent or retard the placement of 
children in loving homes. Since the legislation was introduced, 
however, changes have been made to it.
  There is a difference of opinion among experts in adoption policy as 
to the effect of those changes. Some believe that the changes may 
actually work against the goals of the legislation.
  Because of that controversy, I think it is important to make a record 
of the arguments on both sides of this question. I ask unanimous 
consent to insert in the Record a letter from the National Council for 
Adoption and a letter and attachment from a number of legal scholars, 
explaining their concerns about this section of the bill.
  I also ask unanimous consent to insert a ``Dear Colleague'' letter in 
the Record, giving the other side of the debate from several of our 
colleagues, including the bill's sponsor and the co-chairman of the 
adoption coalition.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                National Council For Adoption,

                                                  October 4, 1994.
       Dear Senator: The National Council For Adoption wants to 
     set the record straight regarding our position on Senator 
     Metzenbaum's MultiEthnic Placement Act (MEPA) which was added 
     to the Conference Report on H.R. 6, the Elementary and 
     Secondary School Reauthorization Act Amendments.
       The National Council For Adoption which represents 
     voluntary, non-profit adoption agencies was the ONLY national 
     adoption organization to testify in support of the 
     legislation before the Senate Subcommittee on Children, 
     Family, Drugs and Alcoholism in July, 1993. In fact, not one 
     of the groups who now claim to support the hijacked MEPA was 
     at the hearing testifying in support of it over one year ago. 
     The National Council For Adoption has spent the past year 
     working closely with Senator Metzenbaum to ensure that the 
     bill that passed would do what it purports to do: i.e., move 
     minority children out of the limbo of foster care and into 
     permanent, loving adoptive homes.
       The position of The National Council For Adoption has not 
     changed over the past year--what has changed is the 
     legislation. The Administration has hijacked the legislation 
     by making amendments that do not advance the purpose of the 
     Act. The amendments: will not result in finding homes for the 
     estimated 40,000 African American children who are waiting 
     for loving adoptive families; will not, according to a bi-
     partisan group of legal scholars, end discrimination in the 
     child welfare system; will not close legislative, regulatory 
     and procedural loopholes that act as barriers to the adoption 
     of black children; and will not provide for stiff mandatory 
     penalties for discrimination violations.
       The National Council For Adoption urges you to cast a vote 
     for providing more children of color with parents who are 
     color-blind. Vote against Senator Metzenbaum's MultiEthnic 
     Placement Act as currently amended.
           Sincerely,
     William Pierce,
       President.
     Carol Statuto Bevan,
       Director of Public Policy.
                                  ____



                                            Harvard Law School

                                   Cambridge, MA, October 4, 1994.
     To: United States Senate
     c/o Senator Larry Craig
       We urge the Senate to reject the current version of Senator 
     Metzenbaum's Multiethnic Placement Act, as embodied in H.R. 
     6. Recent Amendments weaken the Act, turning it from an Act 
     designed to eliminate race discrimination in adoption and 
     foster care placement, to one which endorses race matching.
       The Act as it now reads permits the use of race to delay 
     and deny placement, so long as agencies do not act 
     ``categorically'' and ``solely'' on the basis of race. This 
     language would enable, if not invite, agencies to continue 
     the very practices which were the target of Senator 
     Metzenbaum's original concern--holding African-American 
     children in foster care for years at a time rather than 
     placing them with waiting white families.
       The Act as it now reads mandates race-conscious recruitment 
     of adoptive and foster parents with the goal of achieving a 
     prospective parent pool that matches the racial composition 
     of the foster child pool. So while the original Metzenbaum 
     bill was designed to eliminate the rigid race matching 
     practices that are responsible for locking black children 
     into foster limbo, the amendments are designed to encourage 
     race matching.
       As we said in a Dec. 1, 1992 letter to Congress signed by 
     dozens of law professors from around the nation, attached 
     hereto, ``what parentless children need most are not `white' 
     parents or `black' parents or `yellow' parents but loving 
     parents able to raise children in a nurturing environment.''
       We appreciate the concerns that inspired Senator Metzenbaum 
     to develop this legislation but it is our strong conviction, 
     based on our experience with civil rights legislation 
     generally, and with race matching policies and practices in 
     the child welfare system in particular, that this 
     legislation, in its current form, will make the problem 
     worse, not better, from the perspective of the minority race 
     children condemned to the foster care system.
       We urge the Senate to reject this bill.
           Sincerely,
     Elizabeth Bartholet,
     Randall Kennedy,
     Laurence Tribe,
     Charles Fried,
     Robert Mnookin,
                                                Professors of Law.
                                  ____



                                           Harvard Law School,

                                  Cambridge, MA, December 1, 1993.
     Re the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1993.

     To: The Congress of the United States.
     From: The undersigned Teachers at American Law Schools.
       If enacted into law, the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1993 
     (S. 1224) would give Congressional backing to practices that 
     have the effect of condemning large numbers of children--
     particularly children of color--to unnecessarily long stays 
     in institutions or foster care. These practices involve a 
     commitment to ``racial matching'--the dubious notion that 
     authorities should seek to place parentless children of a 
     given race with adoptive parents of that same race.
       The Multiethnic Placement Act states that its purpose is 
     ``to decrease the length of time that children wait to be 
     adopted'' and ``to prevent discrimination in the placement of 
     children on the basis of race, color, or national origin.'' 
     Yet, the bill then proceeds to undercut its own laudatory 
     goals. It provides that ``if . . . efforts fail to produce an 
     appropriate placement of a child with a parent of the same 
     race, color, or national origan, a transracial or multiethnic 
     placement may be a preferable alternative to long-term foster 
     care.'' (emphasis added). In other words, the Act assumes the 
     legitimacy of racial matching, presumes that authorities will 
     seek same-race adoptions in the first instance, conveys a 
     willingness to countenance at least some degree of delay for 
     the purpose of racial matching, and then portrays a 
     transracial or multiethnic placement as decidedly inferior by 
     asserting that for a parentless child such a placement may be 
     preferable to prolonged foster care.
       Intended as a sensible compromise, this provision may seem, 
     at first blush, like a reasonable acknowledgment that we 
     continue to live in a society grievously scarred by racial 
     stratification. This provision may seem, initially, like a 
     sensible measure which merely posits that it is at least 
     permissible for agencies to prefer to place children of a 
     given race with adults of that same race when doing so can be 
     accomplished without undue delay. The cruel fact of the 
     matter is, however, that the bill will not have this effect. 
     Rather, the bill will provide new legitimacy--Congressional 
     approval--to the widespread custom of holding racial minority 
     children while social workers seek prospective parents of 
     ``the right'' race. This policy, which virtually always 
     exacts the cost of delay, is justified by nothing more than a 
     stubborn, reflexive, racialist impulse about which we should 
     be profoundly troubled.
       Across the nation, racial minority children account for as 
     many as half of the minors in need of placement in adoptive 
     homes. Despite successful efforts by racial minority adults 
     to adopt such children and increasing efforts to encourage 
     and facilitate adoption within minority communities, the 
     population of parentless minority children is increasing 
     dramatically. Against this backdrop, and considering that the 
     bias in favor of racial matching is already ingrained in many 
     social welfare bureaucracies, the provision of the 
     Multiethnic Placement Act that would expressly authorize 
     delays for the purpose of racial matching is unwise, 
     intolerable, and unconstitutional. There is simply no 
     compelling reason to delay even briefly, for the purpose of 
     racial matching, placing parentless children in permanent 
     homes. What parentless children need most are not ``white'' 
     parents or ``black'' parents or ``yellow'' parents but loving 
     parents able to raise children in a nurturing environment.
       Although proposed with good intentions, the Multiethnic 
     Placement Act should be rejected. At the very least, 
     additional hearings should be held to explore the many 
     troubling issues this legislation raises.
       Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law School.
       Charles Fried, Harvard Law School.
       Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law School.
       Joseph Goldstein, Yale Law School.
       Sonya Goldstein, Yale Child Study Center.
       Boris Bittker, Yale Law School.
       Anita Allen, Georgetown University Law Center.
       Albert W. Alschuler, University of Chicago Law School.
       Anthony Amsterdam, New York University School of Law.
       Bruce Ackerman, Yale Law School.
       Elizabeth Bartholet, Harvard Law School.
       Lee Brilmayer, New York University School of Law.
       Robert Burt, Yale Law School.
       David Chambers, Harvard Law School.
       Elizabeth Chambliss, University of Texas School of Law.
       Christine Desan, Harvard Law School.
       Norman Dorsen, New York University School of Law.
       Nancy Dowd, University of Florida.
       Cynthia Estlund, University of Texas School of Law.
       Samuel Estreicher, New York University School of Law.
       Richard Fallon, Harvard Law School.
       Gerald E. Frug, Harvard Law School.
       Lino Graglia, University of Texas School of Law.
       Jon Hanson, Harvard Law School.
       Joan H. Hollinger, University of California, Berkley.
       Samuel Issacharoff, University of Texas School of Law.
       Jay Katz, Yale Law School.
       Duncan Kennedy, Harvard Law School.
       Michael Klausner, New York University School of Law.
       Lewis A. Kornhauser, New York University School of Law.
       Sylvia Law, New York University School of Law.
       Sanford Levinson, University of Texas School of Law.
       Richard & Inga Markovits, University of Texas School of 
     Law.
       Harry S. Martin, Harvard Law School.
       Michael McConnell, University of Chicago Law School.
       Michael Meltsner, Northeastern University.
       Roy Mersky, University of Texas School of Law.
       Frank Michelman, Harvard Law School.
       Martha Minow, Harvard Law School.
       Thomas Nagel, New York University School of Law.
       Daniel D. Polsby, Northwestern University School of Law.
       Robert Post, University of California, Berkeley.
       Lucas Powe, University of Texas School of Law.
       Robert L. Rabin, Stanford Law School.
       Margaret Jane Radin, Stanford Law School.
       Todd Rakoff, Harvard Law School.
       Susan Rose-Ackerman, Yale Law School.
       Edward Rubin, University of California, Berkeley.
       Lawrence Sager, New York University School of Law.
       Frank Sander, Harvard Law School.
       Peter Schuck, Yale Law School.
       David Shapiro, Harvard Law School.
       Jeffrey Sherman, Harvard Law School.
       William Simon, Stanford Law School.
       Jordan Steiker, University of Texas Law School.
       Henry Steiner, Harvard Law School.
       Arthur von Mehren, Harvard Law School.
       James Vorenberg, Harvard Law School.
       David Westfall, Harvard Law School.
       Zipporah Wiseman, University of Texas School of Law.
       Bernard Wolfman, Harvard Law School.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 1994.
       Dear Colleague: We are writing to clarify certain 
     misinformation you may have received pertaining to amendments 
     made to the Multiethnic Placement Act which is a part of H.R. 
     6, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
       Our deep and sincere commitment to the goals of ending 
     discrimination in making foster and adoptive home placements 
     and eliminating the barriers to adoption have long been 
     known. As members of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption 
     and sponsors of the legislation, we are deeply disturbed by 
     reports which have mischaracterized the amendments made to 
     the Multiethnic Placement Act in conference.
       In approaching the issue of multiracial placements we have 
     been guided by the principle that a transracial placement is 
     a valid method of providing a child with a loving home when 
     an appropriate same race placement is not available. The 
     amendments made to the Multiethnic Placement Act do not in 
     any way detract from this principle. In fact, the amendments 
     in several respects enhance it.
       First, the amendments further limit the use of race in a 
     placement decision to only permit consideration of the 
     racial, ethnic or cultural background of a child and the 
     capacity of the prospective parent to meet the needs of a 
     child of this background as one of a number of factors used 
     to determine the best interests of a child. Second, the 
     amendments emphasize the recruitment of prospective foster 
     and adoptive families from various racial, ethnic and 
     cultural backgrounds. Increasing the pool of appropriate and 
     available prospective parents will be a significant step 
     toward decreasing the amount of time that children wait for 
     out of home placements. Third, the amendments broaden the 
     penalty provisions of the Act by allowing the Department of 
     Health and Human Services to penalize noncompliance with 
     termination of all Federal funds where warranted.
       The amendments made to the Multiethnic Placement Act enjoy 
     strong support from key child welfare, civil rights, and 
     foster care and adoption organizations. These groups include 
     the Children's Defense Fund, the Child Welfare League of 
     America, Adoptive Families of America, the North American 
     Council on Adoptable Children, and the American Civil 
     Liberties Union. A letter of support from these organizations 
     is attached.
       We believe that passage of the Multiethnic Placement Act 
     will move us one step closer to ensuring that all children 
     are provided with permanent and loving homes.
       Thank you once again for your commitment to America's 
     children. We look forward to your continued support for this 
     important initiative.
           Sincerely,
     Dan Coats,
     Nancy Kassebaum,
     David Durenberger,
     Howard M. Metzenbaum,
     Carol Moseley-Braun,
     Paul Simon.
                                  ____

                                               September 28, 1994.
     Hon. Howard Metzenbaum,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Metzenbaum: Adoptive Families of America, the 
     American Civil Liberties Union, the Child Welfare League of 
     America, the Children's Defense Fund, and the North American 
     Council on Adoptable Children share your concerns about the 
     over-representation of minority children in the foster care 
     system and delays in placing them with adoptive families and 
     appreciate your efforts to address these problems. Our 
     organizations believe that the technical amendments added to 
     the Multiethnic Placement Act in H.R. 6, the Improving 
     America's Schools Act of 1994, strengthen the Act's goal of 
     ensuring that race, color and national origin are not used 
     inappropriately in delaying or denying the placement of 
     children with foster or adoptive families, and will help move 
     children into adoptive families. They also advance the best 
     interests of the children affected and will broaden support 
     for the Act among parents, professionals, and organizations 
     that seek to ensure children permanent families through 
     adoption.
       The amendments agreed to by the conference committee on 
     H.R. 6, among other things, emphasize the importance of 
     recruiting foster and adoptive parents from all racial and 
     ethnic groups. They also clarify the relevance of the child's 
     best interest in making foster care and adoption placement 
     decisions, so that children will not remain in foster care 
     unnecessarily. The penalties imposed will also assure prompt 
     attention to the failure of agencies to comply with the Act's 
     provision.
       Our organizations strongly prefer the Multiethnic Placement 
     Act of 1994 as amended and included in H.R. 6, to the Senate-
     passed version of the bill. Without these amendments, the Act 
     could unintentionally undermine good child welfare practice 
     and deny children appropriate foster and adoptive homes that 
     best meet their needs.
           Sincerely,
       Adoptive Families of America.
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       Child Welfare League of America.
       Children's Defense Fund.
       North American Council on Adoptable Children.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, what all these letters show is that no 
matter what the technical controversy, there is no question whatsoever 
about the intent of these provisions. By passing this legislation, 
Congress is demonstrating its commitment to the position that children 
should be provided with permanent and loving homes, and race should not 
be raised as a barrier to that goal.
  I was very pleased to hear the bill's sponsor say that he has 
obtained reassurances from the administration and others that they 
would adhere strictly to the clear intent of these provisions.
  But I would submit, Mr. President, that the way to measure our 
success in achieving the goals of this initiative is to look at the 
numbers of children who are still caught in the limbo of foster care a 
year from now. If this legislation works the way we all want it to 
work, we will see a reduction in those numbers.
  I hope the administration and all State agencies involved in these 
decisions will take note of the strong sentiment of Congress on this 
issue.
  Mr. President, in closing, I would ask unanimous consent that a 
letter sent to Senators from two former Secretaries of Education, Lamar 
Alexander and William Bennett, outlining problems with this conference 
report. The sentiments and concerns expressed in this letter reflect 
concerns I have received from many of my constituents.
  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 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.
       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-teachers 
     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 the 
     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 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 grantor equivalent sums--
     on, yes, ``professional development.'')
       The heretofore-independent National Assessment Government 
     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 forming'' 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. * * *
                                                   ------  ------.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this conference agreement also includes a 
number of important technical amendment to the Higher Education Act. 
One such provision will ensure that students of hospital-based, diploma 
schools of nursing do not lose Pell grant funding under a new 
regulation pertaining to the conversion of course credit hours to clock 
hours. There are approximately 130 such schools in the United States 
who prepare young men and women for careers in registered nursing. In 
the absence of this amendment, many of these students would no longer 
be eligible for the maximum Pell grant, simply because the public or 
private, non-profit school they attend awards a diploma, rather than an 
associate or baccalaureate degree.
  To ease the burden of student loan repayment for those who pursue a 
career in nursing, another provision of this conference report will 
permit recipients of HHS nursing loans to consolidate those loans with 
the loans they received pursuant to title IV of the Higher Education 
Act.
  This conference report will also ensure that, consistent with the 
intent of Congress in the 1992 Amendments to the Higher Education Act, 
borrowers with a very significant Federal education debt burden, 
relative to their level of income, shall be considered to have economic 
hardship. As such, these borrowers will be eligible for a deferment on 
their federally subsidized student loans for a period of up to 3 years. 
This provision is of particular importance to students who are forced 
to take on significant debt in order to complete costly professional 
programs, such as medicine and dentistry.
  This legislation further ensures that students who received their 
first title IV student loans prior to July 1, 1993, will not lose the 
deferment opportunities provided under the Federal Family Education 
Loan [FFEL] Program with respect to the loans they receive under the 
new, direct student loan program. This amendment is especially 
important to schools of medicine and dentistry, including Brown Medical 
School in my State of Rhode Island.
  Another provision of this conference agreement removes an impediment 
to institutional participation in the Historically Black College and 
University Capital Financing Program authorized under title VII of the 
Higher Education Act. This program was initially enacted in 1992 to 
provide HBCU's with access to affordable loan capital for critical 
capital improvements and expansions.
  Mr. WOFFORD. Mr. President, I strongly support the Improving 
America's Schools Act. This legislation is a down payment on a better 
future for our children. It provides needed resources and puts more 
power where it belongs: in the hands of parents and local school 
boards.
  This act is based on the fundamental truth that real school reform 
doesn't happen in Washington. It's not legislated in these Chambers. 
Real reform happens in schools and homes and PTA meetings.
  The Improving America's Schools Act gives communities the tools they 
need to improve their schools. It will help schools strengthen basic 
skills through an invigorated Chapter I Program and expanded staff 
development. And it will bring badly needed technology to schools 
around the Nation.
  I'm particularly pleased that this legislation includes the Safe and 
Drug Free Schools Act--legislation I introduced to help parents, 
teachers and students end the violence in our schools.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly three million 
crimes occur on or near schools every year--one every 6 seconds. Every 
day, an estimated 100,000 students carry guns to school, some of them 
as young as 8 and 10 years old. Thousands of students and teachers 
alike are victims of physical attacks or threats of violence. It's a 
terrifying situation. And, it's a scandal.
  The seventh National Education Goal, established by the Nation's 
Governors, states that ``by the year 2000, every school in America will 
be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment 
conducive to learning.''
  I can't guarantee that passing this bill will enable us to meet that 
goal on time. But I do know that doing nothing will only push our goals 
further out of reach.
  The Safe and Drug Free School Act is not a cookie-cutter approach. It 
will help schools tailor programs to fit their own specific needs. Some 
schools may want to develop after-school programs. Other schools might 
choose to concentrate on anti-gang efforts. Still others may decide to 
develop partnerships with local police or mentoring programs with 
members of the local business community.
  These programs work. I know because I've seen them work in 
communities across Pennsylvania. In Erie, the school district has 
developed an alternative education program that is a national model. 
Working with community groups such as the Boys and Girls Club, students 
attend classes, receive job-training and counseling from 8 in the 
morning until 8 in the evening. In Carlisle, peer mediation programs 
are in every elementary school. In Lancaster, the teachers and parents 
at McCaskey High School provide evening activities for students. And in 
Williamsport, the Walkway of Hope Program helps young people learn 
acceptable ways of resolving conflicts. The legislation we are 
considering today will enable these programs to grow.

  I'm also pleased that this legislation incorporates key provisions of 
the Service-Learning Act, which I introduced with my distinguished 
colleagues, Senators Durenberger, Kennedy, and Wellstone.
  The Service-Learning Act is based on a simple yet powerful truth: 
students learn best by doing, by being active and engaged in the 
process of learning.
  That is another of our Nation's education goals: that ``all students 
will be involved in activities that promote and demonstrate good 
citizenship, community service and personal responsibility'' by the 
year 2000 so that they are ``prepared for responsible citizenship, 
further learning, and productive employment in our modern economy.''
  Service-learning promotes teamwork, leadership and problemsolving--
all the skills young people need to succeed in school, and in life. 
When it is one well, service-learning replaces alienation with 
engagement, boredom with excitement.
  If you want to see what service-learning can do, come to Abraham 
Lincoln High School in Philadelphia where students from the 
Horticulture and Environmental Technology Academies learn botany and 
natural science by creating their own gardens in vacant lots around the 
city.
  Mr. President, education, to me, is more than an issue. It is a cause 
to which I have devoted years of my life. I've been a teacher and a 
college president. Perhaps more important, I am a grandfather.
  My grandson, Nathaniel, is 3 years old now. Two years from now, when 
Nathaniel starts kindergarten, I want him to learn. I want his teachers 
to be well trained. And I want him to be safe in his classroom.
  Parents and grandparents all over Pennsylvania want the same 
opportunities for their children. And that's what this bill will help 
to deliver.
  I commend Senator Kennedy, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Pell, and 
Senator Jeffords for their leadership in crafting this bipartisan 
education bill, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in offering 
their full support for the Improving America's Schools Act.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman for his 
leadership on this important legislation. H.R. 6 reauthorizes a number 
of programs established under the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act which have contributed greatly to the services and benefits offered 
to our schoolchildren. The safe and drug-free schools and communities 
programs, authorized in H.R. 6 support activities designed to help meet 
the national education goal of making all schools in America free of 
drugs, guns, alcohol, and violence by the year 2000.
  Many States are developing and instituting innovative programs to 
combat drug abuse and youth violence and are on their way toward 
meeting this important education goal. One State has undertaken a 
comprehensive, statewide drug abuse and youth violence prevention 
program. The program provides teaching materials, interactive video, 
teaching guides and community resource and outreach activities to every 
classroom, from K-12. The program is designed to reach every student 
and every parent in the State with comprehensive and coordinated 
messages. The program is provided directly to the classrooms and 
leverages the support and involvement of local, regional, and statewide 
community resources.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that statewide programs such as 
that which I just described will be eligible for funding under title IV 
of ESEA as reauthorized by H.R. 6. Am I correct in this interpretation?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes the Senator is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chairman, and I commend him again for his 
work on this important legislation, and in particular this provision. 
The problems of youth violence and drug abuse are no longer contained 
within urban school districts, and are rapidly spreading to suburban an 
rural communities. By making a program available for statewide 
distribution, we can better ensure that each student in a State will be 
reached by a program, and that students throughout the State will 
receive the same messages.
  I was extremely impressed by Jonathan Kozol's ``Savage 
Inequalities,'' and I know the Senator from Utah has also done 
considerable research on school equalization. Is it his view that the 
concept of equalizing resources among school districts as public policy 
is supported by experts in the field?
  Mr. HATCH. The Senator from Iowa is correct. The literature in the 
education field is loaded with recent articles suggesting that 
equalization is an important means of addressing inequalities. In a 
statement I gave on July 28, 1994, I outlined the reasons, which are 
supported by the literature in the education field, why I support 
equalization as a sound policy.
  Mr. HARKIN. Does the Senator from Utah therefore support effort and 
equity as factors in determining the allocation of title I money?
  Mr. HATCH. Yes, I do, provided that it is not mandatory. If effort 
and equity were factors driving education dollars, states would be 
encouraged to take steps toward equity on their own. Education is 
primarily a state and local responsibility to begin with. The equity 
factor included in this authorization, unlike the State per pupil 
expenditure--which I believe is an extremely poor and terribly unfair 
measure of effort--can benefit a State even if its needs are great and 
its tax base is small. This is because an equalization incentive is 
based not on how much a State has, but on how it distributes what it 
has. I confess that in many areas of public policy I do not favor such 
an approach. In many areas, I believe this type of allocation destroys 
incentives to work hard and to do more that contributes to our economy 
overall.
  But, education is a legitimate function of State and local 
governments. We do not need to be concerned with hindering private 
sector incentives. Educational equalization--based on a plan developed 
by the State itself--should be encouraged.
  Some of our colleagues have expressed concern regarding the equity 
factor. Does the Senator from Iowa believe that the equalization of 
resources within a State is inherently consistent with the premise of 
the title I program?
  Mr. HARKIN. I would respond to the Senator from Utah that yes, I 
believe the equalization of resources is consistent with the premise of 
the title I program which is to give disadvantaged students additional 
help by directing supplemental resources to them. If federal resources 
are not supplementary, then States have absolutely no incentive to deal 
effectively with education financing problems in their own States. The 
Federal Government should not subsidize this kind of inaction.
  Mr. HATCH. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Iowa. Many 
States have recognized the need to more fairly redistribute their 
resources. I am very proud that Utah has been a leader in just about 
every aspect of education--achievement, graduation rates, school 
finance. Utahans long ago developed a workable plan for school 
equalization. It is working in our State.
  I believe the title I formula should reward real effort and real 
progress toward serving every child in a State equally.
  I obviously would have preferred that the effort and equity 
provisions that were included as an integral part of the Senate-passed 
title I formula. However, it was the final decision of this conference 
to include these factors in the title I formula but to include them as 
a separate authorization that is, based on the Senate-passed version of 
the bill. This, I believe, is a step in the right direction.
  I hope that this will not be a hollow authorization, that is, one 
with no money. While I do not want to put my colleague from Iowa on the 
spot because I know he is as committed to this idea as I am, I wonder 
if he would comment on this last point? He is in a position of some 
influence on that subcommittee.
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from Utah is correct. I share his commitment 
to education finance reform and I favor the establishment of this 
effort and equity incentive in title I of ESEA.
  The Senator from Utah mentioned that he was proud of the efforts his 
State has made to equalize resources among schools. The State of Iowa 
revamped its State aid formula to equalize funding in the 1970's. I am 
equally proud of efforts in my State to provide a quality education for 
all students.
  I will do what I can as chairman of the Labor, Health, and Human 
Services Appropriations Subcommittee to support this new authorization.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Iowa for his analysis and 
support.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to 
express some concerns I have about this conference report, and why I 
will be voting against it.
  Obviously, I am disappointed that an amendment that I had attached to 
this bill in the Senate was dropped by the conference committee. This 
amendment would have prohibited Federal funds from being used to 
support prohomosexual school programs. I had hoped that the Senate's 
position would prevail in conference, but must content myself with 
knowing that I have helped raise public awareness on this important 
issue. I have since received letters from all over the country from 
parents who watched the debate on the Smith amendment and were 
motivated to find out exactly what their children were learning in 
school.
  I would also like to take special note of the efforts of my good 
friend Senator Helms on his school prayer amendment. The purpose of the 
House-passed Helms amendment, which the Senate passed as well on the 
Goals 2000 bill, was to encourage local school districts to permit as 
much voluntary participation by students in school prayer, the content 
of which is not prescribed the government, as is possible consistent 
with governing Supreme Court precedents. Notwithstanding the fact that 
the Helms amendment has passed both the Senate and the House, albeit on 
separate legislative vehicles, in this Congress, the conference 
committee chose to adopt the weaker language of the Kassebaum 
amendment. I share Senator Helms' strong sense of disappointment, and 
even anger, at this unfortunate result. Our Nation's schoolchildren 
deserve more from this Congress.
  These are battles that I am sure will be fought on another day. The 
decisions to drop the Smith language and the Helms language by 
themselves would not be enough to lose my vote on this bill. A more 
serious matter has lost my vote.
  I believe this bill represents a continuation of one of the most 
dangerous trends in our society: the increased federalization of 
decisions that traditionally have been left to lower tiers of 
government, or even to private citizens. Whenever things are not 
working quite properly, the instinct is to turn responsibility over to 
the Federal Government, which I suppose is supposed to know best. It 
isn't just in education; witness the health care debate.
  As a U.S. Senator and as a private citizen, I feel this trend needs 
to be reversed. As a former school board chairman, I feel especially 
strongly that this trend needs to be reversed in our public schools.
  Make no mistake, this bill will work in concert with the Goals 2000 
legislation already signed into law to further undermine local control 
of our schools. More money will flow to our schools through Washington, 
and our schools will have to live up to more mandates to get at that 
money. I say, why not get rid of the middle man? Keep the funding at 
the local level, and with it the decisionmaking. We can move toward 
that goal by defeating this bill this year, and working next year 
toward true reform by establishing school choice.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. I am so very concerned that the 
legislation we are considering takes us even further down the road 
toward the federalization of our public schools. I feel it would 
ultimately result in a limitation on the autonomy of local school 
districts.
  This $12 billion bill authorizes title I--the single largest Federal 
elementary and secondary education program--for 5 additional years. It 
includes a new formula for title I spending that targets more funds to 
disadvantaged children than under the current law. However, there is a 
provision in the bill which ensures that no State, for 1 year after 
enactment, would experience a decline in funds in comparison with the 
old formula.
  Many Members are upset about the formula. Thirty States will 
ultimately fare worse under this formula. Wyoming is one of the States 
that would actually fare better. For the next 5 years, my State will 
receive an additional $1,264,000 annually for the education of its 
disadvantaged students. Of course, I am pleased with that aspect of the 
bill.
  In this Congress we passed the ``Goals 2000'' bill. That bill 
essentially delivered this message to local school boards, ``If you 
would like to have some of this education money to develop education 
strategies, you will have to adopt our guidelines.'' Unfortunately, 
this bill follows that same flawed philosophy.
  Similar to ``Goals 2000,'' States, in this legislation, are not 
required to submit their plans to the Secretary for approval. However, 
in order to receive title I funds, States must ``voluntarily'' describe 
and submit the strategies it will use to develop academic standards to 
the secretary of education in Washington, DC, and obtain his or her 
approval.
  Local education agencies [LEA's] desiring to receive title I funds 
would be required to submit local plans to the State for approval. 
Since some LEA's do not have the financial capacity to carry out the 
measures required in State plans, the bill requires States to help 
LEA's and schools achieve compliance with their obligations under the 
bill.
  That may be satisfactory when school districts are financially able 
to make a choice to do without these funds. But, the fact is that most 
school districts are severely hamstrung for resources.
  My concern is that we are eliminating the funding for less intrusive 
programs, such as impact aid, in order to ``free up'' money for these 
new, so-called ``voluntary'' initiatives. In the final analysis we are 
effectively leaving our schools without ``choice.''
  The impact aid reform provisions in this legislation are another 
example of the movement toward the federalization of education. This 
legislation drastically reduces a significant portion of the funding 
for ``section B'' students.
  Impact aid was created in order to neutralize the negative impacts of 
the Federal presence in local school districts. It is money that I 
believe some school districts and local taxpayers rightfully deserve. 
The reductions in this program simply make more room for expensive new 
Federal initiatives.
  When a school district faces a $900,000 decrease in impact aid--as 
does one district in my State--naturally, the administrators are going 
to strongly consider complying with the ``voluntary'' guidelines in 
order to recapture some of that lost revenue. That is the reality.
  This administration is embarking upon a course of a Federal education 
policy that is highly intrusive and which violates the traditional 
Federal respect for the primacy of local education authorities.
  I just do not believe this administration is listening to the 
American people. Americans do not want more ``strings attached,'' 
Washington controlled Federal programs. They want Washington to control 
less of their lives, not more. And when initiatives like this are 
presented to Congress, I believe they expect us to have the discipline 
to say ``no.'' Many of them will be saying just that on November 8.

  I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources to enter into a 
colloquy with me to correct the record with respect to certain language 
contained in the statement of managers accompanying H.R. 6, Improving 
America's Schools Act of 1994.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Education, Arts, and Humanities for bringing this 
matter to my attention, and I am pleased to have the record corrected.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, as the chairman knows, this act contains a 
provision, numbered section 568, with respect to which the conferees 
agreed to managers' language explaining the provision in certain 
respects.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes that is my understanding.
  Mr. PELL. Is the chairman's understanding that the conferees intended 
that the managers' language accompanying section 568 be placed in the 
statement of managers in a position corresponding to that section in 
the act?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, that is my understanding.
  Mr. PELL. Is it the chairman's understanding that the conferees 
agreed that the managers' language should contain the notation ``The 
House recedes with an amendment,'' following the first paragraph of the 
statement of manager's concerning section 568?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, that is my understanding.
  Mr. PELL. I thank the chairman for helping me to clarify this matter.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
committee report on H.R. 6--legislation reauthorizing the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act [ESEA].
  I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Pell and Jeffords for 
their leadership during this long and at times, contentious process. 
They hung tough during conference meetings in spite of very strong 
opposition from the House of Representatives and from some members in 
this body as well.
  It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve with my colleagues on 
this committee. Our ability to work together on a bipartisan basis has 
resulted in legislation we can all be proud of. From direct lending and 
national and community service to Goals 2000 and ESEA, we have made a 
contribution to reforming education in this country.
  While some provisions in this bill concern me, overall I am pleased 
with its final form. Unfortunately, when it comes to formulas, there 
will always be winners and losers. The title I formula in this bill 
seems to focus Federal money to the poorest children and to the 
communities and States most in need of assistance. My own State of 
Minnesota tells me that this is a formula they can live with.
  Reasonable compromises were reached on a number of difficult social 
issues including school prayer and school health related issues.
  Senator Gregg's amendment regarding unfunded mandates, which is now 
part of this legislation, clearly states that if any requirement in 
this bill results in an unfunded mandate, affected States and 
communities do not have to comply.
  We prevented inclusion of mandated opportunity to learn standards in 
this bill.
  There are two provisions in this bill I want to briefly mention. I am 
very pleased that my recommendations on the Charter Schools Program 
were accepted by the conference committee. The changes I proposed allow 
States to subgrant funds received from the Department of Education to 
local education agencies or other public entities authorized under 
State law, thus putting the State in the driver's seat.
  I am also excited about inclusion of the Community Schools 
Partnership Act which will expand a network of locally based 
organizations and allow them to leverage funds for scholarships and 
mentoring programs to help disadvantaged youth.
  Even though I do not agree with every item in this bill, I respect 
that process that produced it. I feel I had a fair opportunity for 
input--many of my own ideas were incorporated. I believe it now 
deserves to become law.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use.
  During the course of this debate, I heard those who are opposed to 
the legislation characterize it in ways which are really completely 
unrelated to the substance of the important educational legislation 
which we are addressing this afternoon. I would like to, for the 
remaining few moments, highlight briefly what this legislation will 
achieve for the young children of this country.
  I am pleased that we are finally coming to this point where we will 
act, and I am confident, act positively, in support of the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It was 
approved last Friday in the House by a vote of 262 to 132, a margin of 
2 to 1, and it deserves a similar majority in the Senate. This 
legislation is the result of weeks of bipartisan negotiation and 
cooperation, and has the strong support of Senator Kassebaum, Senator 
Jeffords, Senator Durenberger, and Senator Gregg on the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.
  This bill is a major reform in Federal aid to help improve elementary 
and secondary education throughout the Nation. It is the most important 
reauthorization of ESEA since that landmark act was first passed in 
1965.
  It is a very significant step forward, because it puts the Federal 
Government squarely behind the reform efforts that are taking place in 
States and school districts throughout the country. The truly 
innovative feature of this legislation is that it encourages these 
local reforms without dictating them from Washington. Let me describe 
this bill.
  First, this bill creates a new title I program based on high 
standards for all students. Over 90 percent of the school districts in 
the country have been receiving these funds for years. But their use 
has been focused on bringing some low-income children only up to the 
standard of other low-income children not in the program. This 
misguided emphasis has had the unintended effect of creating thousands 
of separate, watered-down programs that have been found ineffective. We 
set our sights too low.
  The core of this bill will scrap that dead-end low-standard approach 
and establish high academic standards for all students. It will hold 
disadvantaged students to the same standards that all other students 
are held. Why should we target disadvantaged children for special aid, 
and then educate them to a lower standard than other children? The 
American dream is open to all. Education is the key that opens the 
golden door, and this legislation can help millions of children use 
that key the way it should be used.
  Second, and related to the first, this bill offers unprecedented new 
flexibility in the use of Federal funds to achieve this goal. It makes 
it far easier for schools to serve disadvantaged students in regular 
classes, rather than in separate, pull-out classes. For too long, for 
example, too many students have missed out on regular reading classes, 
because they have been pulled out for low-level drills.
  Half the teachers in these classes have not been teachers at all, but 
uncertified teacher's aides. This reform will enable schools to end 
this practice and use Federal funds for all students.
  In addition, there are also important new waiver provisions as well, 
which will enable schools to request exemptions from particular 
requirements of programs if they can show in their plans how the needs 
of the students can be met in other ways.
  Third, this bill offers an unprecedented new investment in the 
Nation's teachers. All of title II in the bill is dedicated to 
professional teacher development. It makes no sense to provide Federal 
aid for education, and then neglect the single most important part of 
any education program--the teachers. This bill offers generous new 
support for the Nation's teachers, and will help them learn new 
strategies that will enable their students to reach higher academic 
achievement.
  Fourth, the bill encourages the use of modern technology in the 
schools. Technology is transforming all sectors of our economy, from 
health care to manufacturing to retailing. Yet most public school 
classrooms lack even a telephone, let alone a computer. If students are 
to acquire the skills they will need to function effectively in 
tomorrow's workplace, we must give them the opportunity to work with 
today's technology in their schools. Title III of the new ESEA is a new 
education technology program that will help the poorest schools pay for 
new computers and electronic network links, and encourage the 
development of new educational software and programming.
  Fifth, the bill offers new Federal support for violence prevention. 
It makes substantial improvements in the Safe and Drug Schools Program. 
Violence prevention becomes a key element of all programs. The new 
provisions also set measurable goals, such as a decrease in drug use, 
violent behavior, and illegal gang activity.
  Sixth, the bill improves current bilingual education programs. The 
new provisions focus on English-language skills and on how well the 
students meet high standards--rather than how many years they stay in 
the program.
  It also creates several worthwhile new programs important to many of 
us in Congress, such as charter schools, character education, and 
incentives to lengthen the school day and school year.
  Seventh, the bill makes substantial grants available for school 
construction. For the first time, the Federal Government is finally 
recognizing the third-world conditions in which thousands of children 
go to school every day. For the first time, real Federal help is on the 
way.
  Finally, and by no means least, this bill contains a better formula 
for targeting Federal funds to schools most in need.
  For the first time in the ESEA's 30 year history, significant changes 
are made in the formula to do a better job of carrying out the historic 
purpose of the landmark 1965 act, to target Federal aid to schools and 
pupils who need help the most.
  The formula is phased in so that the changes will take place 
gradually and enable school systems to adjust to the changes. For the 
next 2 years, virtually every school district in the country is 
guaranteed at least as much funding as it currently receives. In later 
years, funds are increased for districts in a formula that has the 
greatest increases for districts with the highest numbers and 
concentrations of poor students.
  In my view, this formula is our best effort to act responsibly in the 
highest interest of our Federal system. Some States will gain, and 
other States will not do as well as they hoped. It is true that many 
States will not do as well as if the current formula is retained.
  But the current formula is badly flawed, and it would be 
irresponsible to continue it. The new formula is a fair compromise that 
makes better use of scarce Federal dollars by better targeting funds to 
States with the greatest need, while mitigating the dislocation to 
States that have benefited for so long from the old, failed, and flawed 
formula. No State will lose unduly, and the Nation will gain immensely.
  For all of these reasons, I urge the Senate to approve this 
legislation. It is a bill that all of us, Republicans and Democrats 
alike, can be proud of, and proud to take home to our constituents as 
one of the genuine bipartisian achievements of this Congress.
  Finally, Mr. President, I wish to draw attention to another section 
of the bill for those who have talked about what authority is in this 
legislation that could impact local school districts: section 14512, 
the Prohibition on Federal Mandates, Direction, and Control:

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an 
     officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, 
     direct, or control a State or local education agency, or 
     school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of 
     State or local resources, or mandate a State or any 
     subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not 
     paid for under this Act.

  The ball is in the local school's court, where it should be, and it 
is as clear as can be stated in the English language that is both the 
intent and the law in this legislation.
  Finally, I commend, Mr. President, not only my colleagues on our 
committee, our Democratic colleagues, all of whom were involved in 
various provisions of this legislation, certainly the Senator from 
Rhode Island, Senator Pell, who has been chairman of the Education 
Committee for so many years, and whom history will record as being one 
of the great giants in terms of strengthening the educational and 
academic achievement of the young people of this country, and also many 
other of my colleagues on our committee. We had virtually unanimous 
support for the development of this legislation, and virtually 
unanimous votes except for one important vote, but virtually unanimous 
efforts. Republicans and Democrats worked together in the committee, 
and there was overwhelming bipartisan support in the enactment of the 
legislation. Conference was difficult, and we tried to represent the 
Senate's position as well as we could. This is good legislation, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  I wish to thank in particular our staff members who have worked so 
hard: On my staff, Ellen Guiney, Clayton Spencer, Stephanie Goodman, 
Matt Alexander, Bonnie Leitch, Jerry Hauser, and Susan Shin; on Senator 
Pell's staff, David Evans, Margaret Smith, Barbara Bennison, and 
Michael Dannenberg; on Senator Kassebaum's staff, Lisa Ross, Wendy 
Cramer, and David Goldfarb; on Senator Jeffords' staff, Pam Devitt and 
Katie Henry; and on Senator Simon's staff, Charlie Barone.
  I thank in particular the majority leader for his perseverance in 
ensuring that this legislation was finally going to be enacted. We 
faced a filibuster in the last Congress, and were unable to get 
enactment of legislation, and also in the Congress before, both times 
in the final hours. I will not spend time in reviewing that history, 
but that was the case. And we were dangerously close to that kind of 
counterproductive action on this legislation.
  It is really by the perseverance of the majority leader in insisting 
that we take and complete action on this legislation that the 
educational opportunities of millions of children in this country will 
be enhanced for years to come. We give great tribute to the majority 
leader for many, many reasons which we will outline in these remaining 
hours of this session, and I do not want to write off how much more he 
is going to achieve and accomplish. But when we pass this legislation, 
it is a major achievement for his legislative leadership.
  I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, after reflection on the chapter I 
formula colloquy I had with Senator Harkin earlier today and 
discussions with Senator Coats and Congressman Lightfoot, I am 
convinced that my statement earlier today was correct.
  I said earlier today that Iowa would lose almost $10 million between 
1966 and 1999. Those figures came from the Congressional Research 
Service. The conferees requested that CRS issue numbers based on a $400 
million increase in the appropriation.
  When you compare the current law formula with the basic formula in 
the conference committee, 33 States lose money, including Iowa.
  The effort and equity provision in the conference report is a totally 
separate authorization. The only way that Senator Harkin's evaluation 
that Iowa will not lose money would be correct is if he can find $200 
million somewhere in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education appropriation's budget.
  In my experience, that budget is always so tight that we cannot fund 
even the programs that are already in existence. That means that the 
appropriators will have to cut some other important Labor, Health and 
Human Services or Education program in order to be able to fund that 
extra $200 million for the effort and equity authorization.
  To reiterate, the only way Iowa will not lose money under the chapter 
I formula in the conference report is for the appropriation's committee 
to take money from some other valuable program and give it to the 
effort and equity formula of this bill.
  As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the basic chapter I formula in 
the conference report is a loser for 33 States. Thirty-three States are 
better off under the formula in existence today.
  Congressman Lightfoot  reports to me that in his district alone, 26 
out of 27 counties will lose money under the conference report formula 
for a total loss of $203,000 per year.
  I wanted to make this clarification for the Record after further 
evaluation and discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 5:30 
p.m. having arrived, the question is on agreeing to the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 6, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] and 
the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] are absent because of attending a 
funeral.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 321 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

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

                                NAYS--20

     Bond
     Brown
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Danforth
     Dole
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Helms
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Heflin
     Shelby
     Stevens
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, 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. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________