Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, stated very briefly, and the statement which was submitted yesterday will amplify these comments, this legislation will eliminate the requirement that the Secretary of Education approve and review State plans. Secretary Riley has been very accommodating and cooperative. He has expressed some concerns about this legislation. There may be others who will have concerns, others who were involved in the original Goals 2000 legislation, and we will make an effort to work with them on those concerns. As a result of a public meeting which I participated in at Nashua High School back on September 9, an interesting thought was advanced, and that is to have funds go directly to local school boards for those States which decline to accept Goals 2000 funds. Mr. Ovide Lamontagne, the chairman of the New Hampshire State Board of Education, thought that was an idea which would be acceptable. I am not suggesting that he made a final commitment to it, but at least from his point of view, it had merit subject to the power of the State to intervene if something extraordinary was done which was contrary to the State's views. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to take a look at the legislation as a way to amend Goals 2000, as a way of seeking an adjustment and accommodation with the House on the appropriations process and encouraging States which are not now entering into compliance with the ultimate view that we have to better the education of school children in America. I thank the Chair and yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss further legislation which I introduced yesterday to amend Goals 2000 to make some changes which may satisfy a number of States which are concerned about excessive Federal intrusion under Goals 2000. It is my view that there are no excessive intrusions at the present time. But in order to eliminate any concern about that issue, it was my thought that legislation might ease the concerns of some in the country who think there are too many intrusions. The House of Representatives, in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill, has eliminated the funding for the Goals 2000 Program. President Clinton has asked for an appropriation of $750 million and the Appropriations Subcommittee, which I chair, which includes funding for Department of Education, has recommended an appropriation slightly more than one-half of what the President has requested. This is because of the overall budget constraints. But as we move forward in the legislative process and look ultimately to a conference with the House of Representatives, it is my view that we can ease many concerns, regarding Goals 2000, by a number of amendments which are incorporated into my proposed legislation, and at the same time make moneys available to a number of States which have not taken the funding. Last year, two States, New Hampshire and Virginia, declined to participate in the Goals 2000 Program, and this year notice has been given by Montana and Alabama that they will not be participating. The Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee held a hearing on September 12, 1995 to bring together Secretary Riley and Mr. Ovide Lamontagne, who is the chairman of the Board of Education of the State of New Hampshire, to consider the matter before we had the markup by the subcommittee. At that time, a number of suggestions were made which might bridge the gap. Again, I wish to emphasize my own personal view that there are not excessive strings, but in order to satisfy any concerns, we are seeking to move in a number of directions. One of them would be to eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, which was designed to certify national and State standards. Some view this as a national school board, which I do not think it is, but the Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, thought we [[Page S 14962]] might eliminate it and still maintain the central thrust of the legislation; and that is that there ought to be some standards and goals, but to let the States establish their own standards and goals. This program, Goals 2000, was very carefully crafted after a 1983 report by then-Secretary of Education Terrell Bell, a very conservative educator, who found something we all know: That the American educational system is in a state of disarray. Some schools are very good, like the high school I went to in Russell, KS, with 400 people, small classes, a good debating team, and a first-rate education. Notwithstanding other distinguished universities which I have attended--the University of Oklahoma, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale Law School--I think my best educational days were in high school, which underscores, at least my view, that some schools are very good. It also emphasizes the importance of elementary school. But educational standards across the country are in a state of disrepair. Remedial action is necessary. Some of the items coming out of our subcommittee involve experimentation with privatization to take over the public school system, not competing with private school systems, but trying to eliminate the bureaucracies in schools in cities like Washington, DC, or in Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Hartford, CT, some schools in Florida. I am not saying that privatization is the answer, or the charter school concept, which is also a program contained in the bill coming out of my subcommittee. But I think it is clear that the basic concept of goals is a valid one; that there ought to be a measurement, illustratively into the 4th year, at the end of the 8th year, at the end of the 12th year, but they do not have to be necessarily Federal standards. I compliment a distinguished legislator in the State of New Hampshire, the Honorable Neals Larson, who is the chairman of the house of representatives education committee. Representative Larson is trying very, very hard to see to it that New Hampshire would accept funding under Goals 2000 in its current form. Candidly, I agree with Representative Larson that there are no strings attached which are intrusive and that, if you take a look at other Federal funding for the disadvantaged, for school to work, that it is not unusual to have some articulation of standards. But notwithstanding all of that, let us see if we cannot move ahead and find a way to accommodate those who may have a contrary view.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I yield 1 minute 15 seconds to my cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER. Five minutes? Fine.

Mr. SPECTER. May I inquire of my colleague from Illinois how much time he intends to take? We have had some requests from other Senators.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the interest of time--and I understand my distinguished cosponsor, Senator Simon, will be arriving in the Chamber shortly--I will proceed with some of the opening considerations. This is a carefully crafted amendment which builds upon the work of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Kassebaum. It is responsive to concerns raised by the General Accounting Office to maintain the Job Corps Program in its current structural form with reforms addressing many of the needs identified by Senator Kassebaum and the GAO report. In my capacity as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee which has the responsibility for funding Job Corps, I have been intimately familiar with the operation of Job Corps. During the 15 years that I have been in the U.S. Senate, I have been an advocate for its implementation and have worked to secure funding of almost $1.1 billion for the program. It is my view, after seeing the application of the Job Corps in my home State of Pennsylvania and in other States, after working assiduously with my former colleague, Senator Heinz, for the opening of a major Job Corps center in Pittsburgh and having seen the successful implementation of the other three Job Corps centers in Pennsylvania, that the current requirements operating as a Federal program ought to be maintained. I appreciate the general concept of block grants, but it is a concern of [[Page S 14963]] mine that we may be going too far on the block grant concept at the outset, especially at a time when we have given the States great authority on welfare reform. To lump the funds for Job Corps with the other block grants which are being given to the States, in my judgment, is an open invitation to have these very important funds on job training diverted to other purposes. There is no question about the need for a well-trained American work force, and there is no question about the importance of people having the ability to find jobs. If there is one core answer for the problems of crime, it is that people are able to hold a job and support themselves. I have long been interested in providing early intervention including education, job training, and realistic rehabilitation for juveniles and for first-time offenders. I believe that Job Corps goes a long way toward achieving that objective. The legislation Senator Simon and I have crafted and introduced here incorporates many of, if not most of, the remedies which have been proposed by Senator Kassebaum, such the provision regarding zero tolerance on drugs, alcohol, and violence. We have also responded to integrating the Job Corps into the overall work force development scheme, which is part of Senator Kassebaum's legislation. This amendment works on issues identified by Senator Kassebaum, by strengthening State and local ties to the Job Corps, and by requiring that any plans to operate a center be submitted to the Governor for comment and review prior to submission to the Secretary of Labor. This allows for the integration of local interests of the Governor, but not total discretion to abolish the Job Corps or to abolish the great strides which have been made in so many Job Corps centers. The amendment also requires screening and selection procedures for participating at-risk youth to be implemented through local partnerships and community organizations with the local work force development corps and one-stop career centers, again being responsive to concerns raised by Senator Kassebaum. The Specter-Simon amendment relies on Chairman Kassebaum's national audit approach, but we submit that measure calls for the closing of five poorly performing centers by September 30, 1997, and five more by September 30 of the year 2000. We do allow discretion to the Secretary of Labor regarding this important provision which will allow him to close additional centers after an appropriate audit. In essence, Mr. President, what we are looking at here is very extensive work done by the Committee on Labor and Human Resources under the direction of my distinguished colleague from Kansas. The GAO has identified certain problems which this Senator acknowledges to be true. But in the context of block grants being made this year beyond welfare such as with Medicaid, it is my judgment and the judgment of the other cosponsors, and I think a large part of the Senate, that we ought not go too far too fast. The Job Corps has been an effective program that ought to be corrected, but we ought not allow the States to abolish the program at their own discretion. I have total confidence in my State of Pennsylvania. However, there are other States where that kind of confidence does not exist. Now, Mr. President, without really trying to filibuster or speak at any undue length, I note the arrival of my distinguished colleague, Senator Simon. However, first I yield to my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, 4 minutes.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, back in 1983, when President Reagan's Education Secretary, Terrell Bell, issued that now-famous report on the problems of education in this country he called that report ``A Nation at Risk.'' Not a school district at risk. Not a State at risk. But a nation at risk. Recognizing the need to improve educational achievement of this Nation's children, Governors of both parties launched a program to raise the achievement standards in American schools and a national education goals effort was embraced at the 1989 education summit in Charlottesville. That effort culminated early last year, when a bipartisan majority in Congress voted to approve Goals 2000 legislation. That legislation supports development of model national academic standards in 13 subjects, standards that any school district may use as guides. The Goals 2000 legislation also authorizes grants to States to help reform their schools so they can achieve their education goals. Participating States must develop challenging State content and performance standards and assessments aligned with those standards. Since the passage of Goals 2000, 48 States have applied for and received funding. Two States, Virginia and New Hampshire, have refused the funds and have taken issue with the intent of Goals 2000, citing fears of Federal intrusion. A third State, Montana, has declined to receive 2d year funding; and a fourth State, Alabama, announced last week that it was ending its participation. In addition, a number of organizations have leveled a wide assortment of charges against Goals 2000. Some say the legislation usurps State and local control over education. Others say it does no such thing and represents unprecedented flexibility in Federal legislation. All of the concerns expressed, however, ultimately focus on what is the most appropriate and effective Federal role in elementary and secondary education. By way of background and to help put this in context, let me review a few facts. States now contribute about 36 percent of the cost of running our schools; local agencies contribute 26 percent, and private institutions account for 30 percent. The Federal Government's financial stake amounts to less than 10 percent. If one agrees with the old adage that money is power, then it appears that the principal responsibility for running our schools continues to rest with the States and with local communities. [[Page S 14899]] Where the Federal Government has traditionally played an important role is in helping to build partnerships among States, communities, and private institutions; and in helping to disseminate information on what works in one part of the country to others which may be struggling with the same problem. In that regard, I have always believed that the Federal Government can play an important part in helping to ensure a degree of fairness and equity for all our children. The Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education Subcommittee which I chair recently held a hearing on the Goals 2000 issue. To help us better understand the controversy surrounding goals, the subcommittee heard from two witnesses. Our first witness was Education Secretary Richard Riley, who testified in support of the Goals 2000 legislation and the administration's request of $750 million for fiscal year 1996. Our second witness was Mr. Ovide Lamontagne, who chairs the New Hampshire State Board of Education. Specifically, Mr. Lamontagne raised concerns about the Secretary of Education's ability to review and approve a State's plan for its entire educational system, which he considered unprecedented. After much discussion with Mr. Lamontagne and Secretary Riley, the Secretary seemed to think he could live without that provision. Mr. Lamontagne also stated that eliminating secretarial review and approval would go a long way toward improving the legislation. We also addressed the issue of school districts receiving funds directly from the Secretary, if their States chose not to participate in Goals 2000. In addition, discussions were held concerning the National Education Standards and Improvement Council [NESIC] and both the Secretary and Mr. Lamontagne agreed that eliminating the Council would be desirable. The legislation which I am introducing today addresses the concerns of States that have chosen not to participate in Goals 2000. Specifically, the legislation: Permits school districts, in States that elect not to participate in the Goals 2000 Program, to apply directly to the Secretary of Education for Goals 2000 funding. Eliminates the requirement that States submit their plans to the Secretary of Education. Removes the authority of the Secretary of Education to review and approve State plans. Deletes the requirements for the composition of State and local panels that develop State and local improvement plans. Eliminates the National Education Standards and Improvement Council [NESIC], which was to certify national and State standards, and which some viewed as a national school board. Removes the requirement for States to develop opportunity-to-learn standards. These standards would specify the educational resources-- such as funding, facilities, and materials--deemed necessary for local schools to achieve State or national content and performance standards. It is my hope that this legislation will improve Goals 2000 so that all States will feel they are able to participate in this important program because it strikes the proper balance between State and local responsibility for education and Federal leadership.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, back in 1983, when President Reagan's Education Secretary, Terrell Bell, issued that now-famous report on the problems of education in this country he called that report ``A Nation at Risk.'' Not a school district at risk. Not a State at risk. But a nation at risk. Recognizing the need to improve educational achievement of this Nation's children, Governors of both parties launched a program to raise the achievement standards in American schools and a national education goals effort was embraced at the 1989 education summit in Charlottesville. That effort culminated early last year, when a bipartisan majority in Congress voted to approve Goals 2000 legislation. That legislation supports development of model national academic standards in 13 subjects, standards that any school district may use as guides. The Goals 2000 legislation also authorizes grants to States to help reform their schools so they can achieve their education goals. Participating States must develop challenging State content and performance standards and assessments aligned with those standards. Since the passage of Goals 2000, 48 States have applied for and received funding. Two States, Virginia and New Hampshire, have refused the funds and have taken issue with the intent of Goals 2000, citing fears of Federal intrusion. A third State, Montana, has declined to receive 2d year funding; and a fourth State, Alabama, announced last week that it was ending its participation. In addition, a number of organizations have leveled a wide assortment of charges against Goals 2000. Some say the legislation usurps State and local control over education. Others say it does no such thing and represents unprecedented flexibility in Federal legislation. All of the concerns expressed, however, ultimately focus on what is the most appropriate and effective Federal role in elementary and secondary education. By way of background and to help put this in context, let me review a few facts. States now contribute about 36 percent of the cost of running our schools; local agencies contribute 26 percent, and private institutions account for 30 percent. The Federal Government's financial stake amounts to less than 10 percent. If one agrees with the old adage that money is power, then it appears that the principal responsibility for running our schools continues to rest with the States and with local communities. [[Page S 14899]] Where the Federal Government has traditionally played an important role is in helping to build partnerships among States, communities, and private institutions; and in helping to disseminate information on what works in one part of the country to others which may be struggling with the same problem. In that regard, I have always believed that the Federal Government can play an important part in helping to ensure a degree of fairness and equity for all our children. The Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education Subcommittee which I chair recently held a hearing on the Goals 2000 issue. To help us better understand the controversy surrounding goals, the subcommittee heard from two witnesses. Our first witness was Education Secretary Richard Riley, who testified in support of the Goals 2000 legislation and the administration's request of $750 million for fiscal year 1996. Our second witness was Mr. Ovide Lamontagne, who chairs the New Hampshire State Board of Education. Specifically, Mr. Lamontagne raised concerns about the Secretary of Education's ability to review and approve a State's plan for its entire educational system, which he considered unprecedented. After much discussion with Mr. Lamontagne and Secretary Riley, the Secretary seemed to think he could live without that provision. Mr. Lamontagne also stated that eliminating secretarial review and approval would go a long way toward improving the legislation. We also addressed the issue of school districts receiving funds directly from the Secretary, if their States chose not to participate in Goals 2000. In addition, discussions were held concerning the National Education Standards and Improvement Council [NESIC] and both the Secretary and Mr. Lamontagne agreed that eliminating the Council would be desirable. The legislation which I am introducing today addresses the concerns of States that have chosen not to participate in Goals 2000. Specifically, the legislation: Permits school districts, in States that elect not to participate in the Goals 2000 Program, to apply directly to the Secretary of Education for Goals 2000 funding. Eliminates the requirement that States submit their plans to the Secretary of Education. Removes the authority of the Secretary of Education to review and approve State plans. Deletes the requirements for the composition of State and local panels that develop State and local improvement plans. Eliminates the National Education Standards and Improvement Council [NESIC], which was to certify national and State standards, and which some viewed as a national school board. Removes the requirement for States to develop opportunity-to-learn standards. These standards would specify the educational resources-- such as funding, facilities, and materials--deemed necessary for local schools to achieve State or national content and performance standards. It is my hope that this legislation will improve Goals 2000 so that all States will feel they are able to participate in this important program because it strikes the proper balance between State and local responsibility for education and Federal leadership.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. This is the amendment to strike the language which prohibits the expenditure of funds to pay for abortion for a woman in prison.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment which I have sent to the desk--I had not sought clearance from Senator Hollings because Senator Gramm objected to it so there was no point in seeking clearance. But the amendment provides we strike lines 1 through 7 on page 34. The amendment would strike the following language: None of the funds appropriated by this title shall be available to pay for abortion except where the life of the mother would be in danger if the fetus were carried to term, or in the case of rape, provided that should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null and void. Mr. President, the law at the present time is that a woman in prison may obtain an abortion under circumstances where the prison authorities think it is appropriate to do so. The use of this procedure has been very, very limited.

Mr. SPECTER. The procedures have been used on a very limited basis. [[Page S 14632]] From April of 1995 through July 18, only nine abortions were performed on Federal women prisoners. The restrictions on the ban were lifted in late 1993, but when language was not included in the appropriation bill, the Bureau took more than 1 year to reestablish procedures for funding abortion services. In 1994, I am advised that there were 73 live births to Federal prisoners. In 1995 there have been 21 births. The Bureau of Prisons advises that there are nearly 7,000 women incarcerated for Federal crimes, and about 70 percent of those are there on drug offenses. The situation would exist, if this language were to become law, the language which I seek to strike, that women in prison who have a serious medical need would be denied an abortion. They obviously are not in the position to pay for their own abortions when they are in jail and unable to earn any money. By way of background, in 1995, an amendment was offered to prohibit funding to the Federal prison system for abortions on pregnant inmates except when the life of the mother was in danger. A tabling motion failed on a 46 to 46 vote. Then the amendment was defeated on a constitutional point of order--may we have order, Mr. President?

Mr. SPECTER. I support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution because I think it is indispensable that advance approval be given by Congress before U.S. troops are deployed, absent the emergency situation described in subparagraph 2. When the distinguished Senator from Georgia talks about impeding the ultimate peace agreement, it seems to me that we ought to put everyone on notice that congressional approval is required before there will be a commitment of 25,000 U.S. personnel. What we are really involved in in modern times is that the constitutional authority of the Congress to declare war has been undermined by the conflict in Korea, which was really a war without a congressional declaration, and by the Vietnam war, which was really a conflict there without a congressional declaration, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution not really being a substitute. There was very serious debate on the floor of this body in January of 1991 when the use of force was authorized. I took the position, as did many Senators, that the President, a Republican President, George Bush, did not have the authority to go into the gulf war without congressional authorization. The questions which have been posed by the Senator from Georgia are very important questions for congressional debate. We should not have a decision made to obligate U.S. personnel without congressional authority. And everyone who is a party to the negotiations there ought to understand that that is the position of the Congress. Without support from the American people, the military action cannot be sustained. That support is determined by the action of the Congress of the United States. So this is a very important resolution to put everyone on notice, including the President of the United States.

Mr. SPECTER. And if there is a case of serious medical need, a woman ought to be entitled to have an abortion. These women are in prison. They are obviously not able in most cases--in many cases--to earn enough money to have an abortion. When the matter is left within the discretion of the prison officials considering all the circumstances, it has been used on a very, very limited basis, with the statistics showing that only seven abortions were conducted in a period of several months since they were begun in April 1995 through mid-July. I think this is a very reasonable position leaving the decision in the hands of the prison authorities, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or in the case of rape. It is entirely possible that a woman might be the victim of incest prior to the time she is incarcerated. It still takes 9 months from the time of impregnation to give birth to a child. Incest is a distinct possibility within that time limit. Contrary to what the Senator from Texas has said, this is not a matter of abortion on demand. This is a matter of abortion when the prison authorities permit the abortion to be carried out. It is not a matter that a woman can simply demand it.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of a very brief reply, the language in this bill is even more restrictive than the Hyde amendment. As the Senator from Texas has propounded, the language of the Hyde amendment limits abortion except for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, and that amendment does not even permit an abortion in the event of incest. Rather, the current language of the bill does not permit abortion even in the event of incest. The language is that none of the funds appropriated by this title--in prison, my colleague from Texas says. But a prisoner can be impregnated as a result of incest before coming to prison. This language is even more restrictive than the Hyde language. This language says that none of the funds appropriated by this title shall be available for an abortion except for the life of the mother----

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, continuing to reserve the right to object, the amendments that I have are right behind Senator Hatch and Senator Cohen. And if we proceed to further debate on the pending amendment, which we have been debating for hours, neither Senator Hatch nor Senator Cohen will have an opportunity to offer their amendments. If either was here, I would say, fine. But it is now 2:25 on Friday afternoon. We have accomplished almost no business today, and I suggest that if we take my two amendments, we could proceed to get something done.

Mr. SPECTER. Further reserving the right to object, if the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, would not re-re-re-restate--that is not stuttering; that is how many times he stated it-- we could move on to something else.

Mr. SPECTER. Minds are not going to be changed here. Why do we not move on with this bill? We have two amendments. Let us take them and get going.

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object. I would make one more effort to ask that the unanimous consent request be amended to ask unanimous consent to set aside the Domenici amendment, if the Senator from New Mexico agrees not to have further debate, and to set aside the other pending amendments, and in the course of the next 30 minutes to complete two amendments, 15 minutes equally divided on each side.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the majority leader. I consulted with the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles, who said that he would be willing to, at least speaking for himself, withdraw the amendment on striker replacement, which would set the stage for a voice vote. And here we are dealing again with a corpse that is a pro forma matter. It seems to me what the distinguished majority leader has said is preeminently correct, backed up by almost everybody, that we ought to voice vote these two bills and move on to the continuing resolution and conclude our business. For the bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, we are prepared to move in that direction right now.