that employers must justify any deviation from a Board-approved standard.3 Subsection 403(e)(2)(B) highlights the lack of confidence on the part of all parties (including, ironically, the Administration which strongly supports title IV) with regard to the quality of title IV's standard-setting process. That subsection provides that an endorsement by the Board cannot be used to establish compliance, or lack of compliance, with civil rights laws. (In an earlier draft, the provision would only have prohibited employers from relying on an endorsement to defend the use of standards; it now places limitations on both defendants and plaintiffs.) This provision provides some protection but, apparently, would still permit some use of an endorsement, or the underlying process which led to the development of a standard, as relevant (as distinguished from conclusive) evidence in a court proceeding. Unfortunately, if the Board composition and appointment process is not changed in this legislation, it is our sense that it will likely not produce standards useful to the employer community. Hence, the results may frequently be used by plaintiffs against employers who feel compelled to use different, more efficient, standards. We do believe, to reiterate, that majority representation on the Board from business would markedly improve its overall functions and result in better standards; hence such a majority would help alleviate our concerns with the way standards may be used in litigation. Finally, we are also concerned over the possibility that the Board may, in interpreting admittedly less than clear provisions of current civil rights laws, venture into entirely new directions never contemplated by the Congress. We hope this is a fear which will be proven unfounded but, in any event, caution that whatever the Board does in this area, its actions should have no precedential effect on the development or interpretations of any civil rights laws. This intent is reflected in subsection 403(e)(2)(A). Title VII provides that once an employer defends a job standard through proof of job-relatedness and business necessity, the plaintiff may still be able to provide (depending on other circumstances) a violation by demonstrating that the employer refused to adopt a different, yet equal effective, practice with less disparate impact. The precise contours of this line of argument are not well established and were left unclear under the CRA. CONCLUSION In conclusion, while we have varying opinions on whether or not the Federal government should be at all involved in the development of voluntary national skill standards, we are convinced that any success of this effort hinges on a careful partnership being established in the development of these standards, with the bulk of the work being done away and apart from the federal government, and being industry-led. More important in the long run is the creation of strong and lasting partnerships between business, labor, and education which will continue long after federal funding is available. The federal government can support the development of a skill standards system, but if that work is not "owned" by the people who will be using it, the standards will collect dust. BILL GOODLING. STEVE GUNDERSON. RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM. DAN MILLER. CASS BALLENGER. BUCK MCKEON. HARRIS W. FAWELL. THOMAS E. PETRI. SUPPLEMENTAL DISSENTING VIEWS Goals 2000 (H.R. 1804) does nothing to foster the real school reform America needs. This bill retains the business-as-usual agenda that has sabotaged the quality of American education for the past twenty years. H.R. 1804 increases the Federal education bureaucracy, and at the same time, slaps another Federal mandate on the states. It suggests that more money is the answer to our education woes. In reality, America spends more on education than any other country, yet American students have one of the lowest achievement ratings. Goals 2000 continues down a dead-end road by concentrating a new bureaucracy on factors unrelated to how much our children are actually learning. Instead, America needs a new style of thinking-a new style of reform. We don't need a national school board in the form of the National Education Standards and Assessment Council, nor the National Skills Standards Board, nor the codification of the National Education Goals Panel-but these panels are created by H.R. 1804. We also do not need opportunity-to-learn standards, which have everything to do with how much we are spending in our schools but nothing to do with how much our students are actually learning. Yet in H.R. 1804, these standards take precedence over quantifiable achievement standards, such as whether a student is getting an "A" or "F" in math and science. H.R. 1804 also does not ensure that schools actually use the funds in the bill for reform. The use of the funds only have to be "reasonably related" to school improvement. This ambiguous term would make any lawyer proud. It can mean funding school-based clinics, multicultural programs, outcome-based education, or any of the number of failed "reforms" attempted by the education establishment in the past twenty years. In short, funding from this bill will flow to the very people who have had the power to reform education but have an interest in the status quo-the entrenched education establishment. Another criticism with H.R. 1804 is that it fails to permit private and parochial school choice. The Committee rejected including these provisions and by doing so insists on telling the parents throughout this nation, especially the poor, that they cannot decide where to send their children to school-that this decision is best left in the hands of the education bureaucrats. For the poor, who do not have the financial ability to move, this means they will be forced to send their children to substandard schools because of artificial boundaries created by bureaucrats. School choice is catching on throughout the nation, yet this Committee insists on ignoring this movement by not allowing local communities to include private and parochial school choice in their reform plans. The Armey-Ballenger-Boehner substitute was offered in full committee specifically to address these concerns. The substitute, also called the "Parent and Student Empowerment Act," would target funds to the four most promising approaches to reform-merit schools, model schools (including charter schools), school choice programs, and site-based management (with an emphasis on alternative certification)—and requires that 25% of the Federal funds a local school district receives be spent on some form of a school choice program. The definition of school choice is left up to the local community, which can opt for public school choice only or some other approach to school choice. These provisions simply guarantee that Federal reform dollars are not squandered on unpromising approaches and go only to those schools that are really serious about reform. The Parent and Student Empowerment Act is preferable to H.R. 1804 in several other respects. To prevent the "goalposts" from constantly being moved, it establishes the six National Education Goals as the fifty state governors agreed to them, not the "revised and extended" seven Goals found in H.R. 1804. It places accountability for reform in each state's governor, an elected official, rather than the education bureaucracy. It pushes Federal funds down to the local level quickly: 75% in year one, and 90% thereafter. And it grants schools a broad right to request waivers from Federal regulations, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Education. Perhaps most importantly, the Parent and Student Empowerment Act strengthens the rights of parents in ways that will improve the schools. Specifically, it recognizes parents' inalienable right to withdraw their children from any activity they consider to be detrimental to their child's education, as well as their right to control who sees their children's school records, and to be informed in writing before their child is subjected to psychological testing or sex surveys. Throughout the Committee consideration of H.R. 1804, one certainty became clear-we are faced with a choice in America todaya choice between the old, discredited policies of the status quo, liberal education establishment, or something new, something that will empower parents and communities throughout this country with the ability to make their own decisions about who will educate their children. The Armey-Ballenger-Boehner substitute sends the message that education reform will not come from Washington nor the state capitols-but will come from the cities and towns of America. Now is not the time to say we are too afraid to try something different. Now is the time for bold innovation and courageous leadership. While the Parent and Student Empowerment Act was not adopted in full Committee, we look forward to carrying this debate to the floor of the House. DICK ARMEY. PETE HOEKSTRA. NATIONAL AVIARY IN PITTSBURGH JULY 13, 1993.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. STUDDS, from the Committee on Merchant Marine and REPORT [To accompany H.R. 927] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 927) to designate the Pittsburgh Aviary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as the National Aviary in Pittsburgh, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of H.R. 927 is to designate the Pittsburgh Aviary in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as the "National Aviary in Pittsburgh." BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION The Pittsburgh Aviary is the only free-standing, indoor aviary in the United States that is not associated with a zoo. The Aviary was one of the first independent public facilities in the United States solely dedicated to the exhibition of birds, and currently features nearly 450 birds, of over 250 species (including 15 endangered species and 25 threatened species). The aviary is comprised of 11 climate-controlled indoor exhibits and eight outdoor exhibits, and is used as a research center by ornithologists. It serves as an important bird-breeding facility, and has been the site of many "worldfirst" breedings of rare and endangered birds. It also hosts nearly 100,000 visitors each year: 60% come from outside the city limits of Pittsburgh. The Aviary first opened in 1952 and is accredited by the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, an organization whose membership encompasses almost every major zoological park, aquarium, wildlife park, and oceanarium in North America. |