[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DANFORTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, is an amendment in order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a first- and a second-degree 
amendment pending at this time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent that 
those two amendments be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1368

  Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Jeffords, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth], for himself and 
     Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 1368:

  The amendment follows:
       At an appropriate place, insert the following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that the speech made by Mr. 
     Khalid Abdul Mohammed at Kean College on November 29, 1993 
     was false, anti-Semitic, racist, divisive, repugnant and a 
     disservice to all Americans and is therefore condemned.

  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I have been vaguely aware of the speech 
that is the subject of this sense-of-the-Senate amendment for some 
time, but I have to say that I just read excerpts from the speech this 
afternoon. I do not care to repeat them in this Chamber of the Senate, 
but I have and will have a copy in my hands for Senators who will be 
voting on this sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I do not want it to be, 
however, a total mystery as to what was in the remarks, and therefore I 
ask unanimous consent that excerpts from the speech be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   [Excerpts from remarks by Khalid Abdul Mohammad, Nation of Islam 
      National Spokesman, at Kean College, NJ, November 29, 1993]

       Brothers and sisters--the so-called Jew, and I must say so-
     called Jew, because you're not the true Jew. You are Johnny-
     come-lately-Jew, who just crawled out of the caves and hills 
     of Europe just a little over 4,000 years ago. You're not from 
     the original people. You are a European strain of people who 
     crawled around on your all fours in the caves and hills of 
     Europe, eatin' Juniper roots and eatin' each other.
       Who are the slumlords in the black community? The so-called 
     Jew . . . Who is it sucking our blood in the black community? 
     A white imposter Arab and a white imposter Jew. Right in the 
     black community sucking our blood on a daily and consistent 
     basis. They sell us pork and they don't even eat it 
     themselves. A meat case full of rotten pork meat, and the 
     imposter Arab and the imposter white Jew, neither of them eat 
     it themselves. A wall full of liquor keeping our people drunk 
     and out of their head, and filled with the swill of the 
     swine, affecting their minds. They're the blood suckers of 
     the black nation and the black community. Professor Griff was 
     right, when he spoke here . . . and when he spoke in the 
     general vicinity of Jersey and New York, and when he spoke at 
     Columbia Jew-niversity (sic) over in Jew (sic) York City. He 
     was right.
       The DeBeers mines, Oppenheimer, our people, our brothers 
     and sisters in South Africa, hundreds of them lose their 
     lives. Sometimes thousands in those mines. Miles underground, 
     mining diamonds for white Jews. That's why you call yourself 
     Mr. Reubenstein, Mr. Goldstein, Mr. Silverstein. Because you 
     been stealing rubies and gold and silver all over the earth. 
     That's why we can't even wear a ring or a bracelet or a 
     necklace without calling it Jew-elry. We say it real quick 
     and call it jewelry, but it's not jewelry, it's Jew-elry, 
     `cause you're the rogue that's stealing all over the face of 
     the planet earth.
       You see everybody always talk about Hitler exterminating 6 
     million Jews. That's right. But don't nobody ever ask what 
     did they do to Hitler? What did they do to them folks? They 
     went in there, in Germany, the way they do everywhere they 
     go, and they supplanted, they usurped, they turned around and 
     a German, in his own country, would almost have to go to a 
     Jew to get money. They had undermined the very fabric of the 
     society. Now he was an arrogant no-good devil bastard, 
     Hitler, no question about it. He was wickedly great. Yes, he 
     was. He used his greatness for evil and wickedness. But they 
     were wickedly great too, brother. Everywhere they go, and 
     they always do it and hide their head.
       We don't owe the white man nothin' in South Africa. He's 
     killed millions of our women, our children, our babies, our 
     elders. We don't owe him nothing in South Africa. If we want 
     to be merciful at all, when we gain enough power from God 
     Almighty to take our freedom and independence from him, we 
     give him 24 hours to get out of town, by sundown. That's all. 
     If he won't get out of town by sundown, we kill everything 
     white that ain't right (inaudible) in South Africa. We kill 
     the women, we kill the children, we kill the babies. We kill 
     the blind, we kill the crippled, (inaudible), we kill 'em 
     all. We kill the faggot, we kill the lesbian, we kill them 
     all. You say why kill the babies in South Africa? Because 
     they gonna grow up one day to oppress our babies, so we kill 
     the babies. Why kill the women? They, they . . . because they 
     lay on their back, they are the military or the army's 
     manufacturing center. They lay on their back and 
     reinforcements roll out from between their legs. So we kill 
     the women too. You'll kill the elders too? Kill the old ones 
     too. Goddamit, if they are in a wheelchair, push 'em off a 
     cliff in Cape Town. Push 'em off a cliff in Cape Town, or 
     Johannesburg, or (inaudible), or Port Sheppston or Darbin, 
     how the hell you think they got old. They old oppressing 
     black people. I said kill the blind, kill the crippled, kill 
     the crazy. Goddamit, and when you get through killing 'em 
     all, go to the goddam graveyard and dig up the grave and kill 
     'em, goddam, again. 'Cause they didn't die hard enough. They 
     didn't die hard enough. And if you've killed 'em all and you 
     don't have the strength to dig 'em up, then take your gun and 
     shoot in the goddam grave. Kill 'em again. Kill 'em again, 
     'cause they didn't die hard enough.
       We found out that the Federal Reserve ain't really owned by 
     the Federal Government. . . . But it ain't owned by the 
     Federal Government. The Federal Reserve is owned by, you just 
     touched on it a little while ago. (Jews.) It's owned by the 
     Jews.
       Brother. I don't care who sits in the seat at the White 
     House. You can believe that the Jews control that seat that 
     they sit in from behind the scenes. They control the finance, 
     and not only that, they influence the policy-making.
       No white Jews ever in bondage in Egypt for 400 years. 
     You're not the chosen people of God. Stop telling that lie. 
     Let's go a little further with this. Many of you put out the 
     textbooks. Many of you control the libraries. Lie-braries. 
     NBC, ABC, CBS, you don't see nothin', or makes sure we don't 
     see. Warner Brothers, Paramount, huh? Hollywood, period.
       But [they] also are most influential in newspaper, 
     magazine, print media and electronic media.
       These people have had a secret relationship with us. They 
     have our entertainers in their hip pocket. In the palm of 
     their hand, I should say. They have our athletes in the palm 
     of their hand.
       Many of our politicians are in the palm of the white man's 
     hand, but in particular, in the palm of the Jewish white 
     man's hand.
       The Jews have told us, the so-called Jews have told us, ve 
     (sic) ve, ve suffer like you. Ve, ve, ve, ve marched with Dr. 
     Martin Luther King, Jr. Ve, ve, ve were in Selma, Alabama. 
     Ve, ve were in Montgomery, Alabama. Ve, ve, were on the front 
     line of the civil rights marches. Ve have always supported 
     you. But let's take a look at it. The Jews, the so-called 
     Jews, what they have actually done, brothers and sisters, is 
     used us as cannon fodder.
       Go to the Vatican in Rome, when the old, no-good Pope, you 
     know that cracker. Somebody need to raise that dress up and 
     see what's really under there.

  Mr. DANFORTH. Madam President, we in the Senate do spend a lot of 
time making statements on one thing or another in passing sense-of-the-
Senate resolutions which really are just that, a basic statement of the 
views of Members of the Senate. It is not often that we offer 
amendments that we express ourselves by way of votes on matters that 
are not governmental and are so far from the works of Government as 
this speech in question. However, I think it is more that when there is 
a public furor that has arisen over what has become a very well-
publicized speech which is plainly anti-Semitic and in addition to its 
very strong anti-Semitic character also is anti-Catholic, antiwhite, 
anti whatever, I do believe it is important for Members of the Senate 
to speak out against bigotry whenever it occurs.
  I would like to say that I have just received a copy of a statement 
that was read in the House Press Gallery by Congressman Mfume, who is 
chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I would like to read 
one paragraph from that statement. The Congressman says:

       The Congressional Black Caucus appreciates the official 
     reply to our letter of 12 days ago and have been advised that 
     Minister Farrakhan has agreed to convene a press conference 
     here in Washington, DC tomorrow to address actions to be 
     taken regarding one of its spokespersons for making what we 
     consider to be evil and vicious remarks late last year at 
     Kean College of New Jersey, remarks that I have found since 
     the beginning to be racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, anti-
     Catholic, and homophobic. Nowhere in American life can we 
     give sanctuary to such garbage. He owes an apology to all 
     whom he has offended.

  I would like to say that I applaud particularly those words of 
Congressman Mfume.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask consent to cosponsor the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the remarks made by Mr. Muhammed at 
Kean College are deeply offensive to every American who abhors 
discrimination in all its ugly forms.
  America's motto is ``E Pluribus Unum''--Out of Many, One. We are at 
our strongest when we are united, free from the divisions caused by 
bigotry based on race, religion, or gender.
  The recent speech at Kean College sought to foster hatred, and to 
divide Americans one from the other. It ought to be condemned, and I am 
pleased to join Senator Danforth in sponsoring this amendment.


                       prejudice and free speech

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the limits of free speech, and civilized 
discourse, were sorely tested by the recent hate-filled address of 
Khalid Abdul Muhammad at Kean College in New Jersey. But the Framers of 
the Constitution had unpopular utterances in mind, when they drafted 
the first amendment to the Constitution.
  There is never a need to protect popular or majority opinion--but 
minority views that would otherwise be stifled by popular outcry.
  The speech in question is not protected, however, from well-deserved 
criticism of its loathsome premise and the blind hatred and ignorance 
that it substitutes for humanity and scholarship.
  Speeches designed to inflame audiences, evoke prejudice and denigrate 
minorities into scapegoats, have historically contributed to racial, 
religious, and ethnic violence not through the strength of argument, 
but by pandering to the most vulnerable elements of our society.
  I was only a child during the Second World War, but there are 
monuments to that dark period of our history in the graveyards and mass 
burial grounds in villages whose very names continue to fill us with 
horror at the crimes against humanity, that were committed there.
  After that war that claimed American lives of every creed and color, 
we began to look inward at our own unfinished business. We remembered 
how hate and prejudice had led to war, and we began to address our own 
history of racial discrimination and the civil rights movement chipped 
away at the prejudices that for too long had excused both legal and 
social barriers to equal opportunity.
  We are fortunate to live in a country that can find strength in its 
diversity among regions, peoples and racial, religious and ethnic 
backgrounds. We can each take pride in our own uniqueness.
  I am offended when prejudice shouts down justice and when hate is 
substituted for love of our fellow men and women. But I am more 
sorrowed at the effect of such speech on our young people who have no 
historical perspective to measure this vitriol.
  America is served by people working together to solve our 
differences, and not by groups or individuals, who seek to divide us 
through ignorance.
  The Kean College speech sank under its won absurdity. The truth 
prevails over rhetoric. Speeches, no matter how forcefully delivered, 
can only be measured in their written context.
  Stripped of forceful gestures, inflections and supporter led applause 
from the audience, Muhammad's speech is reduced to babble.
  It fails the test of being truthful.
  Under the brilliance of the first amendment's guarantee of free 
speech, these charlatans expose themselves, by their own words.
  Muhammad is by no means a benefactor of the first amendment. In the 
end, his right to free speech exposed his ignorance of the basic 
principles that have guided America well for 200 years.
  The first amendment only guarantees your right to speak--it does not 
confer wisdom on the speaker.
  I commend the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith for its efforts 
in bringing these recent remarks into public debate. Its publishing the 
offensive remarks verbatim in a full-page New York Times' advertisement 
exposed them to deserved ridicule.
  I commend the leaders of the African-American community who have 
spoken out and disassociated themselves with these remarks. I thank and 
commend those African-Americans who have spoken out in the wake of 
these remarks.
  I include Dr. Bill Gray, Dr. Ben Chavis, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Roger 
Wilkins, and Congressmen Lewis, Wynn, Rangel, and Mfume and others as 
contributing to this discussion.
  Mr. Muhammad had to raise his voice to get attention. But it was the 
voices of these members of the African-American community that the 
public will remember and respect.
  Mr. BRADLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, like most people in New Jersey and across 
this country, I was shocked and angered by the remarks of Mr. Khalid 
Abdul Mohammad on November 29, 1993, at Kean College, in New Jersey. It 
seems Mr. Mohammad digressed into an ugly, hateful set of stereotypes 
and racist remarks which painfully demonstrate that anti-Semitism is 
all too alive in New Jersey and in our Nation. Anti-Semitism knows no 
boundaries, and vitriolic remarks such as his should be examined 
critically and honestly.
  The remedy for verbal assaults such as Mr. Mohammad's can only be 
open, responsible dialog. Only when the abhorrent statements can be 
criticized, renounced, and challenged will they wither in the sunlight 
of debate. The Senate will take a vote, and it will condemn the remarks 
of Mr. Khalid Abdul Mohammad at Kean College on November 29, 1993.
  The Senate should condemn these remarks.
  Mr. President, to give you a flavor of what he said, let me give you 
just one or two quotes. One, he said:

       The so-called Jew, and I must say so-called Jew because 
     you're not the true Jew. You are a Johnny-come-lately Jew, 
     who just crawled out of the caves and hills of Europe just a 
     little over 4,000 years ago. You're not from the original 
     people. You are a European strain of people who crawled 
     around on your all fours in the caves and hills of Europe 
     eating Juniper roots and eating each other.

  (Mrs. Feinstein assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BRADLEY. Madam President, that is an example of the kind of 
statement that the Senate should condemn. At another point he said:

       We found out that the Federal Reserve ain't really owned by 
     the Federal Government * * * But it ain't owned by the 
     Federal Government. The Federal Reserve is owned by, you just 
     touched on it a little while ago. It's owned by the Jews.

  It makes you sick to your stomach. At another point he said:

       Brother, I don't care who sits in the seat at the White 
     House. You can believe that the Jews control that seat that 
     they sit in from behind the scenes. They control the finance, 
     and not only that, they influence the policymaking.

  Madam President, this is trash out of the Protocols of Zion. This is 
the kind of misinformation and the kind of lies that fuel hatreds that 
can flow to disaster. The Senate will condemn these words.
  A little over a year and a half ago, when the episode and disorder 
occurred in Los Angeles, the individual who was marked by that, Rodney 
King, in his first public statement made a comment in which he said, 
``Can't we all just get along?'' Not a tremendously ambitious hope, not 
``Can't we all have adequate housing and a job,'' and this and that, 
but ``Can't we all just get along?''
  Madam President, the words that were spoken on November 29 by Mr. 
Khalid Abdul Mohammad are directly in conflict with the hope expressed 
by Rodney King in the wake of his own beating.
  Madam President, there is enough pain to go around. There is enough 
pain to go around in our country and around the world. We do not need 
to inflict pain on each other by words, by words that can be 
characterized no other way but as Jew baiting. Just as I would stand on 
this floor and characterize words that were aimed at African Americans 
in a totally disrespectful and erroneous way as race baiting. And that 
is exactly how I would describe the words spoken at Kean College on 
November 29.
  The words flow from ignorance. The words flow from hatred. The words 
are repulsive. And the Senate has justly condemned them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Conrad). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the benefit of the Members, we 
anticipate a rollcall in the next 3, 4, or 5 minutes. In the meantime, 
the Senator from Mississippi wanted to make a comment. But we are 
anticipating a rollcall on the Danforth amendment in a very few 
minutes, for the information of the membership.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, pending the rollcall vote as described by 
the manager, I will make some comments in support of the legislation.
  First of all, I want to thank the managers of the bill for including 
some language to clarify the intent of this legislation to provide 
voluntary standards, guidelines, and challenges before our Nation's 
schools to elevate the level of excellence among students in our 
country.
  Senators will remember that after the historic education summit, 
which was held in 1989 in Charlottesville, VA, President Bush described 
the importance of these steps to America's future by saying:

       We must demand more of our students by imposing higher 
     academic standards in our classroom. If we are to improve our 
     standard of living, protect and defend our democratic 
     freedoms, and strengthen our moral character as a Nation, 
     nothing is more important than education.

  At this same meeting with the Nation's Governors, which included 
then-Governor Bill Clinton, a national strategy to expand educational 
opportunities was developed. Six national education goals were 
identified, and the America 2,000 plan was formulated.
  It has become the bedrock for Federal, State, and local education 
reform efforts over the last 4 years. Today, the Goals 2000: Educate 
America Act, S. 1150, which is the successor to President Bush's 
America 2000 plan, deserves our support. Low test scores, high dropout 
rates, and insufficient preparation for the work force cannot be 
tolerated in our country. They not only present a threat to our 
economic future but to individual opportunities to participate fully in 
our society.
  Two critical parts of S. 1150 seek to address these problems. They 
are the development of national academic standards based on the 
national education goals for kindergarten through 12th grade students 
and the increased integration of technology into the classroom.
  To accomplish this, the bill establishes a multistep process for the 
development and approval of national academic standards in core subject 
areas. Working together, teachers and education experts defined these 
standards--what students should know in each subject at each grade 
level. Once developed, a bipartisan panel reviews and certifies them. 
The national education goals panel, comprised of eight Governors, four 
Members of Congress, and two administration officials, gives final 
approval to these standards.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement of principles 
regarding voluntary national education content standards, which was 
unanimously adopted by the national education goals panel, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    National Education Goals Panel: Statement on Voluntary National 
                      Education Content Standards

       In 1990, the President and Governors agreed on six national 
     education goals and committed themselves to a decade of 
     sustained action to meet them. The National Education Goals 
     Panel was created to measure and support the nation's 
     progress toward meeting these goals.
       A consensus has emerged that to meet Goals 3 and 4 we 
     Americans must agree on the results we expect from students 
     in core academic areas, which is what ``content'' standards 
     define.
       The National Education Goals Panel strongly supports the 
     development of clear, rigorous content standards by States 
     and local communities, and it believes that voluntary 
     national standards are essential to this effort. The 
     following principles will serve as the foundation for 
     continuing Goals Panel involvement in establishment of these 
     standards:


                               Voluntary

       The Panel will participate only in the establishment of 
     voluntary national content standards that may serve as models 
     and resources for State and local school reform efforts.
       The Panel would oppose any federal effort to require States 
     and local schools to use such national standards.


                                Academic

       The Panel believes that voluntary national content 
     standards should address only core academic areas, such as 
     those stated in the National Education Goals.
       Voluntary national content standards should not address 
     non-academic areas such as student values, beliefs, attitudes 
     and behaviors.


                              World Class

       The Panel will endorse only those national content 
     standards which, though uniquely American, are at least as 
     challenging and rigorous as the academic expectations for 
     students in other countries of the world.
       Voluntary national content standards must not be 
     compromised or watered down for any reason. The Panel 
     believes that our focus should be on helping each student 
     reach higher levels of academic achievement.


                         Bottom-Up Development

       National and State content standards must be developed 
     through a consensus building process that involves educators, 
     parents and community leaders from schools and neighborhoods 
     across the country.
       For these voluntary national education standards to be 
     useful, they must be relevant to each community using them. 
     The Panel has no intention of developing content standards on 
     its own and would oppose any standards that were not 
     developed through a broad based, participatory process.


                          Useful and Adaptable

       National voluntary content standards must allow local 
     educators the flexibility to design their own curriculum 
     plans within the broad outlines of the standards. Standards 
     should focus upon a limited set of the most important and 
     lasting knowledge and skills, so they are useful for 
     teachers, parents and students, and represent the most 
     important knowledge, skills and understandings we expect 
     students to learn.
       Voluntary national content standards will not be a 
     ``national curriculum'' but, rather, provide a broad outline 
     of the kind of knowledge and skills necessary ``for 
     responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive 
     employment in our modern economy.'' (Goal 3)
       The establishment of national voluntary standards is an 
     effort that has received strong support from the business 
     community, Republican and Democrat Presidents, Governors, 
     members of Congress, local educators and citizens from across 
     the country.
       We believe that, if treated with care and wisdom, these 
     expectations of what students should know and be able to do, 
     will empower parents in every community in the nation to 
     demand more of themselves, their children, their schools, and 
     their government.

  Mr. COCHRAN, That is why I believe that States and local communities 
can use national academic standards on a voluntary basis as models to 
upgrade academic programs in their schools and to provide more 
information to parents about their children's education. I am convinced 
that States which use these national standards as models can develop a 
more challenging curriculum, one that will encourage students to stay 
in school longer and enable them to bring advanced skills to our 
rapidly changing and demanding workplace.
  I am pleased that the managers of the bill have adopted several 
amendments I proposed. Among them is an amendment to underscore that 
responsibility for education lies with State and local communities. 
Another stipulates that provisions of this bill will not restrict a 
State's eligibility for funding under other Federal programs if they 
choose not to participate in the activities outlined in this bill. The 
Federal role in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act is that of a 
partner, with a shared goal of improving the quality of education for 
all children.
  The National Governor's Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
the Business Round Table, as well as the Chief State School Officers, 
and most other State and local education associations, endorse the 
bill.
  The other aspect of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act I strongly 
support relates to technology in the classroom. It includes two 
provisions. The first would provide Federal funding for States to plan 
for the integration of technology into class-rooms for grades K through 
12. The second would establish an Office Of Technology at the 
Department of Education. It demonstrates the Federal commitment to 
develop a long-range strategy for using technology in the classroom to 
improve student learning and achievement.
  I am convinced that the integration of technology in elementary and 
secondary classrooms will improve students' educational opportunities 
and enable teachers to broaden the scope of the curriculum in their 
classrooms.
  Evidence indicates that creative uses of technologies by skilled 
teachers offer the promise to quickly and cost effectively restructure 
education. Technologies help teachers create an environment where all 
students are afforded rigorous, rich classroom instruction at a pace 
that suits their learning style and in a way that gives them a more 
active role in the learning process.
  For this reason, I have worked with Senators Bingaman and Kennedy and 
other members of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to add these 
two provisions to the bill. I am pleased to report that funding for 
both of these new programs was provided in the fiscal year 1994, Labor/
HHS/Education and related agencies appropriations bill, pending 
enactment of the goals 2000 legislation prior to April 1, 1994.
  Our Nation will not remain globally competitive without a work force 
that has a solid foundation in basic education. Our workers must have 
the skills to compete in a constantly changing world. To achieve this 
goal, we must be a nation where education is a priority, where families 
value learning, where teaching as a profession is honored, and where 
all students are afforded an opportunity to participate in rigorous and 
challenging educational programs.
  S. 1150, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act takes important steps to 
make us a nation of learners and the ultimate beneficiaries are our 
Nation's greatest resource--our children.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, if it is acceptable to the managers, 
I would like to speak just for a couple minutes on the underlying 
amendment.
  Mr. President, let me say that this is not the amendment by our 
colleague from Missouri, but the underlying amendment.
  Let me say I am given to understand there are negotiations going on 
right now to try to work out certain differences between the majority 
and the minority.
  Apropos of the comments by my colleague from Mississippi, let me say, 
Mr. President, that there is a concern by a lot of us as to the role 
that this Congress is going to play in the future of elementary and 
secondary education in this country. I think in my own State of 
Minnesota, maybe more than any other place in the country, it is pretty 
clear that there are a couple of different courses that we can follow. 
One of them is not the course suggested by the junior Senator from 
Minnesota, my colleague, Senator Wellstone, or my dear friend and 
colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon.
  People in Minnesota generally in education have decided that the way 
in which to improve the quality is by being able to measure the results 
of elementary and secondary education. I laud the goals that are set 
out in the amendment of my colleagues from Minnesota and Illinois, but 
I would have opposed their amendment had it been kept in its original 
form because it really does go against everything we are trying to do 
in elementary and secondary education in my State of Minnesota.
  The key to change in Minnesota has been giving people not 
opportunity-to-learn standards designed in Washington, DC, or the basic 
common denominator put together by those who estimate what it takes in 
this country, but instead measurement of result, measurement based on 
what students actually learn through the process of education.
  We did something neat in the city of Minneapolis recently, when we 
heard a school superintendent, who was really committed. He represented 
a whole lot of resources. He turned out to be simply a person who was 
so committed to improving and equalizing student performance in 
Minnesota that he ended up tying his own salary to how well the 
students in this huge city district were doing. Now, he is out 
challenging all of the students to do better than they did before, and 
to tell him and the other people in the school system how they can run 
the system better.
  His name is Peter Hutchinson, and Peter in one way or another has 
engaged everybody in the city of Minneapolis now in a crusade for 
improved student performance. He has gotten students and teachers, 
colleges and community leaders, to sign up on a covenant. This is a 
copy of the covenant, and it is a commitment by students, families, 
teachers, principals, school staff, superintendents, the school board, 
and the community to the education in Minneapolis. It is a set of goals 
on which students promise to attend school regularly, work hard to do 
their best in class, help to keep the school safe--a whole variety of 
goals and objectives set by students, set by the parent or caring 
adult, staff person, or superintendent.
  For everybody who signs up on this covenant, the superintendent has 
promised to sign the covenant, to deliver on his part of the 
commitment. So far, I think he has 20,000 people signed up in the city 
of Minneapolis, and he is going to have a lot of delivering he is going 
to have to do.
  But, Mr. President, I suggest that in the city of Minneapolis, people 
have decided to change education because they need a change. And it is 
a process in which they are determined to judge the quality by the 
result. So the notion that we can develop a standard for Minneapolis or 
we can develop a standard for any other place in the country better 
than they can in their communities, which I think is the underlying 
premise under the opportunity-to-learn standards, I reject.
  I certainly do hope in the discussion over a compromise amendment 
that these wishes expressed by people in our community and the people 
in this city can be adequately expressed.
  Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by my 
distinguished colleagues from Illinois and Minnesota.
  Although I oppose this amendment, I support its objectives--to 
guarantee a greater degree of equity and educational opportunity for 
every school and for every child in America.
  Our differences, Mr. President, are over how we achieve those common 
goals. And, we also differ on who should decide how those common goals 
should be achieved.
  Mr. President, I believe this amendment represents an important test 
of whether the Congress can play a constructive role in support of 
State- and community-based education reform.
  Our vote on this amendment also represents a critical crossroads in 
how we reform elementary and secondary education in America.
  We could head down one path I personally believe the President and a 
majority of the House and Senate would prefer--a path that responds to 
the need of an equal opportunity for every American child, but a path 
that also respects America's diversity and the strong direction that 
State- and community-based education reform is now taking, a path that 
empowers parents, teachers, and local communities and a path that 
encourages more educational choices, more diverse learning 
environments, and an increased emphasis on rewarding schools and 
students that succeed.
  Or, Mr. President, we could head down a second path that is promoted 
by this amendment--a path that could add billions of dollars in new 
obligations to already overburdened States and schools, a path that 
could produce an unprecedented level of prescriptive Federal 
involvement in individual school districts and schools and a path that 
would represent a major setback in the direction that State- and 
community-based reform is now taking.
  Mr. President, my views on this issue were reinforced during several 
meetings I had with educators in Minnesota during the month of January.
  One of those meetings was with Minnesota's new education 
commissioner, Linda Powell. A second was with the new Minneapolis 
superintendent of schools, Peter Hutchinson.
  Both these education leaders are strong proponents of change and 
improvements in education. They're also deeply committed to narrowing 
the huge gaps in student performance levels that are based on race, 
income levels, and other factors.
  But, both Commissioner Powell and Superintendent Hutchinson are 
deeply committed to educational strategies that focus on results--
strategies that reward teachers and schools based on improvements in 
what students actually learn.
  Following our meeting in January, Commissioner Powell wrote the 
following commentary on the opportunity-to-learn standards provisions 
of Goals 2000:

       Although there have been assurances made that the 
     opportunity-to-learn standards will not become the framework 
     for all future authorization of federal education programs, 
     there is concern that the standards will indeed become the 
     criteria upon which funding allocations will be made.
       Therefore, the key feature, from Minnesota's perspective, 
     is that the ``opportunity-to-learn standards'' remain 
     voluntary, not mandated.

  That position is not surprising considering the shift that Minnesota 
has been making over much of the last decade--away from accountability 
that's based on inputs--rules that require so many of this and so many 
of that--to accountability that's based on results--on what students 
actually learn.
  Nowhere is that policy shift more evident than the goals and 
commitments of Minneapolis' new superintendent, Peter Hutchinson.
  In fact, Peter Hutchinson is so committed to improving and equalizing 
student performance in Minneapolis that he is tying his own salary to 
achieving those very same goals. If student performance doesn't 
improve, he and his colleagues who are now running the district simply 
won't get paid.
  Superintendent Hutchinson is engaging the entire city of Minneapolis 
in this crusade for improved student performance by getting students, 
parents, teachers, employers, and community leaders to all sign 
something called the Minneapolis Covenant.
  And, he is showing his own commitment to these goals by promising to 
sign every single covenant he receives. So far, more than 20,000 of 
these covenants have been turned in by Minneapolis public school 
students, alone.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the 
covenant to which I referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Education Takes Everyone: The Minneapolis Covenant

       Join us on Thursday, January 20, at 5 p.m., Richard R. 
     Green Central Park School, 3416 4th Avenue South.
       Celebrate the commitment of students, families, teachers, 
     principals, and school staff, the superintendent of schools, 
     the school board, community and you to education in 
     Minneapolis.
       Come and share the excitement as schools bring Education 
     Takes Everyone: The Minneapolis Covenant pledges to a special 
     celebration of commitment with Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, 
     Hennepin County Commission Chair Mark Andrew, Peter 
     Hutchinson, Superintendent, and the children of Minneapolis.
       Covenant 1. a formal, solemn and binding agreement. 2. a 
     written agreement or promise usually between two or more 
     parties, especially for the performance of some action. It is 
     a declaration of intent by all parties who sign to help each 
     other achieve mutual objectives.
       These promises are voluntary commitments made by 
     individuals to themselves and to others.
       As a student:
       I promise to attend school regularly; work hard to do my 
     best in class and schoolwork; help to keep my school safe; 
     ask for help when I need it; and respect and cooperate with 
     other students and adults.
       I need teachers and school staff who care about me; people 
     who believe I can learn; schools that are safe; respect for 
     my culture and me as an individual; a family and community 
     that support me; and time with caring adults.
       As a parent/caring adult:
       I promise to have high expectations for my child as an 
     individual; help my child attend school and be on time; find 
     a quiet place for schoolwork and make sure work is done; help 
     my child learn to resolve conflicts in positive ways; 
     communicate and work with teachers and school staff to 
     support and challenge my child; and respect school staff and 
     the cultural differences of others.
       I need teachers and support staff who respect my role as a 
     parent/caring adult; clear and frequent communication with 
     school; respect for my culture, and me and my children as 
     individuals; and a community that supports families.
       As a staff person (teacher, support staff or 
     administrator):
       I promise to show that I care about all students; have high 
     expectations for myself, students and other staff; 
     communicate and work with families to support students' 
     learning; provide a safe environment for learning; and 
     respect the cultural differences of students and their 
     families.
       I need students who are ready and willing to learn; respect 
     and support from students, families, other staff and 
     administration; assistance from staff and administration in 
     removing barriers which prevent me from doing my best for 
     students; and respect and support from the community.
       As Superintendent:
       I promise to believe that all students can achieve; have 
     challenging expectations for students, families and staff; 
     remove barriers to improved performance on all levels; 
     promote education and the Minneapolis Public Schools; listen, 
     hear and respond to feedback from students, staff and the 
     community; and tell the truth in love.
       I need staff, students, families and community committed to 
     education and lifelong learning; a staff willing to challenge 
     old assumptions and look for new ways to solve problems; a 
     school board that is focused on what students need to 
     achieve; students, staff and community members to communicate 
     their needs and listen to one another; and a community that 
     supports youth and families.
       As a member of the School Board:
       I promise to do all I can to meet the needs expressed in 
     this pledge by students, families, staff, superintendent and 
     the community. I will work to the best of my ability to 
     create a school district and community where everyone can 
     keep their covenants with each other.
       As a member of the Minneapolis community:
       I promise to respect, encourage and support students, 
     families and teachers; be an active, contributing partner 
     with the schools; make Minneapolis a safe and exciting place 
     for students, families and teachers; support learning 
     regardless of where it occurs; and provide jobs and post-high 
     school opportunities.
       I need educated and responsible workers and fellow 
     citizens; an educational system that invites community input 
     and feedback; and opportunities to be involved in producing 
     educational results.

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Both Commissioner Powell and Superintendent 
Hutchinson told me during our recent meetings that the last thing they 
need to achieve improved student performance is another round of 
federally required mandates and rules telling them how to do their 
jobs.
  Educators in Minnesota want fewer mandates, not more. And, they want 
the flexibility to decide themselves how to produce the improvements in 
student performance that all of us--including the authors of this 
amendment--are so deeply committed to achieving.
  Mr. President, concerns about the role of opportunity to learn 
standards have been at the heart of the debate over this legislation 
since even before it was introduced.
  And, the administration, the Nation's Governors, and many Members of 
this body in both parties have worked hard to clarify the role that 
opportunity to learn standards will play in meeting the objectives of 
this bill.
  Quite frankly, Mr. President, my preference would be to strike 
opportunity to learn standards from this bill entirely. However, I 
realize--for too many of my colleagues--that represents a totally 
unacceptable option.
  With that reality in mind, I have supported the good faith efforts of 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and others, to agree on language 
that makes it clear that opportunity to learn standards are one of 
several strategies that may be used to improve school performance.
  I am pleased, Mr. President, that this effort has resulted in a 
reasonable agreement that is now embodied in this bill.
  It is also now clear that meeting opportunity to learn standards will 
not be a requirement for participating in any Federal program.
  This amendment, Mr. President, would upset the delicate balance that 
now exists between those who believe opportunity to learn standards 
have no place in Federal education policy, and those who insist that 
they be a part of more comprehensive reform.
  Upsetting that balance could make this legislation impossible to get 
passed. And, I agree, Mr. President, with those who will argue that 
``no bill is better than a bad bill.''
  Let us not ignore what is at stake here, Mr. President.
  As envisioned by their strongest supporters, opportunity to learn 
standards presume that every school, classroom, teacher, and student is 
the same.
  In the extreme, opportunity to learn standards also assume that a 
common set of inputs will result in greater equity and produce a higher 
common level of learning for every American student.
  These are objectives we all share, Mr. President, but opportunity to 
learn standards are the wrong way to go in trying to achieve them.
  In addition to their top-down approach to reform, these standards 
totally ignore the growing diversity of America's students and 
communities and schools.
  That diversity, Mr. President, can only be served through many 
different teaching and learning environments that each community is 
empowered to help design.
  One of the biggest concerns I have heard expressed about these 
standards, Mr. President, is what they might cost to achieve.
  If the Federal Government were to impose uniform opportunity to learn 
standards, States and local communities could be burdened with billions 
of dollars in new obligations needed to achieve a common set of 
conditions.
  Conditions like higher and equal funding levels, lower student-
teacher ratios, better trained or educated staff, more computers, new 
textbooks, more up-to-date facilities, more volumes in the library.
  But, this huge new unfunded mandate is not all.
  My single biggest fear of mandatory opportunity to learn standards is 
that schools would never be held accountable for improving what 
students actually learn.
  One national education leader who has helped me understand this 
reality, Mr. President, is Al Shanker, long-time president of the 
American Federation of Teachers.
  Al Shanker's view is that, if America is to compete in the world 
economy, we cannot afford to wait until every school meets a common set 
of input-oriented requirements.
  He makes the same point about tough academic standards that he argues 
should be applied to all students, regardless of the disadvantages they 
may face.
  If we avoid tough standards until all students can meet them, Al 
Shanker points out, the rest of the world will pass us by. And, if we 
excuse schools that do not yet have all the tools national standards 
claim they need to be successful, their students will get left behind.
  Shanker made that point forcefully at a hearing last spring sponsored 
by the National Governors' Association when he said ``It's totally 
wrong to hold the development of content and performance standards 
hostage until you solve all of the equity issues, or most of the equity 
issues, or even some of the equity issues.''
  Mr. President, because of the strength and logic of his arguments, I 
ask unanimous consent that a commentary by Al Shanker that appeared 
recently in both the New York Times and New Republic magazine be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Let's Suppose

    (By Albert Shanker, President, American Federation of Teachers)

       For a moment, let's suppose. Suppose the United States were 
     the only industrialized country that did not participate in 
     the Olympics., A number of reports informed us that this was 
     a major disaster. Fewer American kids engaged in sports than 
     youngsters in other countries, fewer exercised and fewer had 
     good eating habits. It was clear that the physical well-being 
     of our nation was at risk.
       Legislation was introduced to have the U.S. enter the 
     Olympics in the year 2000. First, there would be an American 
     Olympics to select the athletes to represent us. The business 
     community offered support. High school coaches applauded the 
     idea. Governors and the President met to proclaim Olympic 
     Goals: That the U.S. become first in the world in swimming 
     and diving, basketball, figure skating, the high jump. . . . 
     The President proposed legislation for a U.S. Olympic 
     Commission to establish the rules for participation, etc.
       Just as Congress was bout to vote on the bill, some members 
     had second thoughts. They pointed out that community 
     recreation facilities and schools, where most of the training 
     would take place, were under local or state control. So it 
     was wrong for the federal government to be involved in trying 
     to raise us to Olympic standards. Also, some didn't like the 
     idea of getting youngsters psyched up to compete with one 
     another. (Isn't cooperation and teamwork what we need?)
       The biggest problem was fairness. Critics said that some of 
     the kids competing would not have had as many opportunities 
     to run, jump and swim as others. Some youngsters might not be 
     able to complete because of poor prenatal care or because 
     they lacked adequate nutrition and health care as children. 
     Some might have spent their childhood in dangerous slums, 
     where they were kept inside for their own safety. They might 
     never have seen a well-equipped gym or had a chance to learn 
     a sport. But other youngsters would have had excellent 
     nutrition and health care, schools with fine athletic 
     facilities, even swimming pools of their won and private 
     coaching. On the whole, these youngsters would undoubtedly 
     perform better than kids who had not had their advantages.
       Some members of Congress therefore argued that we should 
     not start domestic competition until all likely contenders 
     had had the same opportunities. So the House Physical 
     Education and Athletic Committee amended the legislation The 
     U.S. Olympic Commission would not only set standards of 
     participation; it would also shut down any state or local 
     competitions in which some contenders hadn't had access to 
     good prenatal care or nutrition or adequate gyms or swimming 
     pools. Also, for the first five years, no one could be 
     declared a winner or loser in any competition. After five 
     years, Congress would reconsider this ban.
       Counterproductive? Yes, but this is how Congress is about 
     to deal with education. Congress is considering Goals 2000, a 
     bill that would get us academic standards and assessments 
     similar to those in other industrialized democracies whose 
     students routinely outperform ours. The system would include 
     consequences designed to get kids to work as hard as they do 
     in these countries because they know that something 
     important--like getting into college or getting a job--is at 
     stake. But supporters of ``opportunity-to-learn standards'' 
     say that the new standards and assessments should not count 
     for anyone until all our children have the same 
     opportunities.
       That's too bad. The Olympics example tells us we'd be 
     cheating poor kids if we denied them the right to compete 
     because they didn't have decent gyms. A lot of youngsters who 
     come from tough neighborhoods have been inspired by the 
     standards of Olympic competition, and they've overcome 
     obstacles and created their own opportunities. Something 
     similar would happen if we challenged disadvantaged 
     youngsters with clear and high education standards and 
     assessments they could study for. When held up to high 
     standards and shown the route to something they really 
     wanted, a lot of youngsters who now do nothing because 
     nothing is asked of them would begin working and succeeding--
     at the very least, doing better than they do now. And, as the 
     Olympic example also tells us, there would be a lot of 
     pressure to make sure that gyms were built and coaches 
     trained in places where they didn't exist before.
       The debate on equity has been wrong. The extreme right 
     talks as though willpower is all youngsters need to overcome 
     every obstacle. This has let conservatives off the hook for 
     improving children's circumstances. the extreme left speaks 
     only about equalizing circumstances and ignores what 
     youngsters themselves can do when quality is demanded of 
     them. In the real world, people participate in the game and 
     do the best they can--sometimes against great odds. That's 
     what we have to insist youngsters do as we insist that the 
     obstacles they face come down.

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, to repeat what I said earlier, we are 
now at a critical crossroads in designing a proper and effective 
Federal role in support of State- and community-based education reform.
  This Senator would like very much to be able to support a Goals 2000 
bill that achieves that objective.
  But this amendment heads us in exactly the wrong direction--down a 
path that this Senator--and, I believe, the President, the majority of 
this Congress, and the American people believe is just plain wrong.
  I intend to oppose this amendment, Mr. President. And, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it as well.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Bradley and Senator Dole be added as cosponsors of my sense-of-the-
Senate amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question occurs on amendment No. 1368, offered by the 
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth].
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
for debate on the pending amendment be limited to 6 minutes, with 4 of 
those minutes under the control of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. 
Lautenberg]; that following his remarks the remaining 2 minutes under 
the control of Senator Dole, the Republican leader; and that upon the 
completion of Senator Dole's remarks, the Senate proceed to vote 
without any intervening action on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for 
enabling me to respond to this very worthwhile amendment that has been 
proposed by the distinguished Senator from Missouri and by the junior 
Senator from Vermont.
  It is so appropriate that the Senator from Missouri is the one who 
would take the lead in this kind of a recommendation, to renounce the 
kind of ugliness and hate that is portrayed in the remarks made by Mr. 
Khalid Abdul Mohammad at Kean College in the State of New Jersey on 
November 29.
  It is particularly appropriate because the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
Danforth], is trained and is qualified and is ordained as a minister. 
Even though on occasion there is a disagreement about a particular 
matter because of partisan differences or maybe regional differences, 
he has always spoken up as a man of principle, a person determined not 
to permit emotions or bias to get in the way of logic. I thank him for 
it and I am here to support the amendment and to add my name to the 
list of cosponsors.
  I want to say, Mr. President, that we should never restrict free 
speech. But when we know that it is vicious, when we know that it is 
designed to separate, when we know that it is designed to punish a 
group or an individual, we ought to be prepared for that kind of 
vitriol and we ought to have someone standing right behind that person 
so that a rebuttal, if necessary, can be offered.
  The assertions, the accusations that were made by Mr. Mohammad were 
insulting not only to the Jewish community, because they were decidedly 
and deliberately anti-Semitic, but it was an insult to any group that 
he might have been talking about.
  Were this a comment, a speech made about African Americans, I am sure 
we would have heard just as vocally from the Senator from Missouri, 
just as the Senate is now hearing from me. It is just as ugly, just as 
unacceptable in this great society.
  Yes, you are permitted to speak and at times even make speeches that 
are painful. But the suggestions, the enormity of the disgrace that was 
heaped upon the Jewish community by this ugly speech was not repudiated 
by Mr. Farrakhan, the leader of this particular movement.
  I am glad to see that Congressman Mfume, the leader of the Black 
Caucus in the House, has stood up against this. So has Representative 
Rangel from New York City. And so has Rev. Jesse Jackson.
  Even as they speak of black pride, of black aspirations, even if one 
has to turn a cheek sometimes to help a group that may be 
disenfranchised or handicapped by discrimination, one cannot accept 
this kind of striking out that we heard from Mr. Mohammad.
  He is now invited to appear at Trenton State College, in my State of 
New Jersey, by a group of students anxious to bring him there, with the 
funds for his speech being raised out of the students' college funds.
  Once again, we cannot say no, but we can describe our anger and our 
distaste for this kind of speech. This is the kind of a speech that 
separates our country, that invites anger, that invites assaults, that 
invites hatred.
  Mr. President, he advocated in the speech the killing of whites in 
South Africa, hardly a way to reconcile differences.
  So Mr. President, I join with the distinguished Senator from Missouri 
in his condemnation of this kind of hatred.
  I thank the majority leader for the opportunity to speak on this 
matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague, Senator 
Danforth, for offering the pending amendment. I had originally intended 
to offer an amendment myself, so I am pleased that Senator Danforth has 
taken the lead on this important issue.
  Anyone who believes that Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam has 
undergone a moderate makeover should read the transcript of a recent 
speech given by Khalid Abdul Muhammad, the Nation of Islam's national 
spokesman.
  The speech, given to an audience of students at New Jersey's Kean 
College last November, is a hateful spew of anti-Semitic, anti-
Catholic, and racist bombast that is offensive to all decent Americans, 
regardless of race and religious background.
  According to the Nation of Islam's national spokesman, Jews ``are the 
blood suckers of the black nation and the black community,'' who 
control the Federal Reserve, our Nation's finances, even the White 
House.
  He claims that if the white population does not leave South Africa 
within 24 hours of majority rule, ``We kill the women, we kill the 
children, we kill the babies, we kill the crippled * * * we will kill 
'em all. * * *''
  Even the Pope does not escape Muhammad's hate-filled insults.
  To their credit, African-American leaders such as Jesse Jackson, 
Benjamin Chavis, former Congressman Bill Gray, and sitting Congressman 
John Lewis have all publicly denounced Muhammad and his racially 
divisive remarks.
  Unfortunately, the one person who has been strangely silent during 
the whole controversy is Louis Farrakhan himself, who allows Muhammad 
to continue to act on behalf of the Nation of Islam as national 
spokesman. According to news accounts, Mr. Farrakhan believes that the 
Government and the Jewish community ``Want to use [Muhammad's] words 
against me to divide the house.''
  If Mr. Farrakhan wants to enter the political and social mainstream, 
then his actions will have to speak louder than the words of some of 
his associates. If Mr. Farrakhan wants to participate in healing 
America's racial wounds, then he will have to disassociate himself from 
those who would use his name and his organization to preach a message 
of hate and intolerance.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Danforth  in 
supporting this important amendment.
  I think the matter is very clear. I am certain the vote will be 
unanimous. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on amendment No. 1368, offered by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. 
Danforth].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announced that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], 
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], and the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 19 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     McCain
     Nickles
     Stevens
  So the amendment (No. 1368) was agreed to.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask permission to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to take a cue from my 
colleague's remarks and from the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that we 
just passed. As you can tell, I am speaking extemporaneously. Events 
have a way of catching up with us sometimes, and we do not necessarily 
prepare written speeches. But I think it is important to speak to the 
issue of this resolution, and to speak to the whole question of the 
tenor in our country that gives rise to expressions of racism and 
expressions of anti-Semitism.
  I think in the first instance that it is important and appropriate 
that the Senate take the action that it just did because I think it is 
important and appropriate that every American of good sense and good 
standing renounce the rantings of a madman, that would spew such venom 
and such evil into our public discourse.
  Mr. President, I would make the point that we ought to call it 
exactly what it is. It is evil. It is evil to talk about killing 
people. It is evil to talk about racism, to be racist, to suggest 
racism as a course of action or the philosophy that someone can 
embrace. Certainly, the statements of anti-Semitism that my colleague 
just read and that we have all read at this point constitute such an 
evil. We need to renounce it. We need to reject it. We need to have it 
purged and expunged from our debate.
  Mr. President, I would go a step further. That is to say and to 
suggest to everyone that it is not simply enough that we take a 
position and make a stand and make a speech saying we renounce anti-
Semitism, we renounce racism, we renounce these statements as they are 
made because there are statements made in a lot of different quarters 
and on a lot of different occasions by a lot of different people of the 
same kind of import and in the same direction. We will not be able, Mr. 
President, to wipe out, to eliminate racism, to eliminate anti-Semitism 
unless we each and every one of us as individuals, and collectively 
undertake to attack the foundation that gives fertile ground to those 
kinds of evil expression.
  I submit to you, Mr. President, that that is the challenge that we 
are all called to in this town, to begin to take on these expressions, 
to take on the conduct that gives rise to them, and to say we not only 
reject the expressions but we reject the conditions that they are aimed 
at. We reject pitting people against one another in a fight for scarce 
resources or to suggest to people that their problems are the fault of 
someone else. We reject giving people the out of saying that I am 
better than you are because of my ethnicity or my race. We reject 
giving people the excuse for failure that racism and anti-Semitism so 
conveniently provides for all too many in our community.
  I submit to you that it is incumbent on each and every one of us to 
take a look at the entire picture, to address this issue as part of an 
evil that will only be allowed to grow if we do not do what we have to 
do to create a climate of opinion in our community, to create an 
environment in our community that says that coming together as brothers 
and sisters, coming together as Americans, coming together as human 
beings united in our humanity is the only route for us to take in this 
country and in this world.
  We have seen all over the world the sparks of xenophobia, the sparks 
of racism, polarizing people and setting up bloody horrible wars in 
some parts of the world. We certainly here in America have an 
opportunity and an obligation to nip in the bud any such sparks that 
would divide us as a people.
  Following the call that our President has issued to the American 
people, following the call that I think was expressed in the resolution 
that we just passed, as Americans, we have an opportunity, indeed an 
obligation, given our history to begin to heal such wounds as may 
exist, to break down such divisions as may have already been created, 
to come together as a humans, and to say that we are supportive, one of 
the other, of Americans, and that we are dedicated and we will dedicate 
our lives in the fight against racism, in the fight against anti-
Semitism, in the fight against those forces that would divide us, and 
set us one against the other in a futile pursuit of the evil such as 
was expressed in this speech that Senator Bradley just read on the 
floor.
  So, Mr. President, again, I hope that I have not rambled, and I hope 
that my words are taken in the spirit, in the context of an 
extemporaneous speech. But to say that I think that we need to make 
certain that we give no truck to the demagogs who would use racism and 
anti-Semitism as a way of building on something, that we begin to 
remove the very foundations of whatever it is that they think that they 
can address, that we begin to attack, aggressively attack the 
environment that anyone would for a moment think gives rise or gives 
fertile ground to the kind of racism as was expressed in that speech, 
and that as Americans we are very clear in coming together and saying 
that we have moved into a new age, and that new age says that we are a 
people, we are one people, and we are male and female, black and white, 
Jew and Gentile, Christian and Moslem, and that in that healthy mix is 
built the fabric of American society.
  As we come together as Americans we will build on our diversity, we 
will use our diversity as the basis from which we grow as opposed to 
the cauldron upon which we are pitted one against the other.
  That is the approach that I believe that this Senate has adopted 
today. That is certainly the approach that I stand for, and I know the 
Chairwoman believes in as well. And I hope that the message goes forth 
this afternoon loud and clear that that is the only acceptable 
approach, and the only acceptable position in these United States, in 
this time, and that working together we can build a stronger nation in 
which such expressions are absolutely cast outside of the realm of 
responsible conversation and discussion.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, several Senators have inquired as to the 
schedule for the evening. There are a number of amendments remaining to 
be considered on the bill. It is my intention that we will continue in 
session. Further rollcall votes will occur unless an agreement to the 
contrary is reached and announced. Therefore, Senators should be 
prepared to remain for the evening for some time yet to come as we 
continue to make progress on this bill.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience and cooperation.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set the 
pending amendment aside so that I might be able to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1369

       (Purpose: To provide for gun-free schools)

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 1369.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                       TITLE   --GUN-FREE SCHOOLS

     SEC.   01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Gun-Free Schools Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 02. GUN-FREE REQUIREMENTS IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY 
                   SCHOOLS.

       The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating title X as title IX;
       (2) by redesignating sections 8001 through 8005 as sections 
     9001 through 9005, respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after title VII the following new title:

                     ``TITLE VIII--GUN-FREE SCHOOLS

     ``SEC. 8001. GUN-FREE REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--No assistance may be provided to any 
     local educational agency under this Act unless such agency 
     has in effect a policy requiring the expulsion from school 
     for a period of not less than one year of any student who is 
     determined to have brought a weapon to a school under the 
     jurisdiction of the agency.
       ``(2) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the 
     term ``weapon'' means a firearm as such term is defined in 
     section 921 of title 18, United States Code.
       ``(b) Report to State.--Each local educational agency 
     requesting assistance from the State educational agency that 
     is to be provided from funds made available to the State 
     under this Act shall provide to the State, in the application 
     requesting such assistance--
       ``(1) an assurance that such local educational agency has 
     in effect the policy required by subsection (a); and
       ``(2) a description of the circumstances surrounding any 
     expulsions imposed under the policy required by subsection 
     (a), including--
       ``(A) the name of the school concerned;
       ``(B) the number of students expelled from such school; and
       ``(C) the types of weapons concerned.''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I offer this amendment for consideration 
this evening. I understand this legislation deals with America's 
schools, with learning, with students, and with our education system. 
It is hard to talk about learning and education unless, and until, we 
have a safe environment for students in our school systems.
  Let me just show you the headline from a Washington Post article 
from, January 27 of this year: ``School Shootings Break Out in the 
District of Columbia''--school shootings; not just shootings, school 
shootings.
  I recently visited schools here in the District of Columbia. It is 
probably not surprising to anybody anymore; but a decade ago we would 
have been shocked if we saw what I did when walking through the front 
door of the school. I did not see books or a smiling teacher with an 
apple. I saw a metal detector. Why do we need metal detectors at the 
front doors of our schools? Because all too often, we are finding that 
weapons are coming into our schools.
  Shootings are breaking out in the classrooms and in hallways of 
America's schools.
  I offer an amendment along with my colleague from North Dakota [Mr. 
Conrad] called the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994. My colleagues, 
Congressman Miller from California and Congressman Durbin, have offered 
this bill in the House of Representatives, and I offer the companion 
bill here in the Senate.
  It is a very simple piece of legislation. It simply says that school 
districts who avail themselves of Goals 2000 Funds shall have in place 
a policy that says if students bring guns to school, they are subject 
to a 1-year expulsion.
  Simply translated, all across this country students should 
understand, if you bring a gun to school, you are going to be expelled 
from school. Schools and guns do not mix. There simply is no place in 
America's schools for guns.
  This is the Washington Post front page that I described moments ago, 
January 27, less than a week ago; ``School Shootings Break Out In 
D.C.''
  Let us find a way, as a matter of public policy, to tell all students 
across this country, and to tell school districts across this country, 
that schools and guns do not mix. We want a uniform policy; if a 
student brings a gun to school, he or she is expelled from school. That 
is what my amendment does.
  I could give you more information about some of the tragedy that has 
occurred in our schools in recent years. Many of you have recited this 
and we have discussed it during the crime bill debate: Between 1986 and 
1990, 71 people, including 66 students, were killed by guns in schools; 
another 201 were severely wounded in schools; and 242 were held hostage 
at gunpoint in schools.
  I offer this amendment in the construct of creating a bill on 
education that I think has a lot to commend it.
  I appreciate very much the wonderful work of Senator Kennedy, and the 
work of Senator Jeffords, and so many others who spoke eloquently on 
this floor about what we need to do to create goals for education in 
this country.
  They are on the right track, and have brought to this country a 
public policy discussion that is long overdue.
  I simply added to it an amendment, and ask for its consideration: 
that we decide to separate guns and schools and send a message all 
across this country, if you bring a gun to school you are going to be 
expelled.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I understand the sense of my good 
friend from North Dakota about the use of guns in schools.
  We want to try and deal with the problems of violence in schools as 
we do violence in communities. Obviously, there should be no place for 
guns in the schools of this country.
  The tragic circumstance is that in many cases where children have 
guns in schools, it is for self-protection. They are not the ones who 
perpetrated the violence. Clearly, those individuals who have been 
exploited, who have been in some instances beaten and treated harshly, 
and who in many cases are extremely young--those individuals feel that 
their only way to protect themselves, tragically, is through the 
possession of a gun.
  We are sympathetic to their plight. I would like to try to see if we 
cannot work with the Senator on this issue. I have great respect for 
him. It is rarely in this body that I am put in a position of not being 
stronger on the issues of guns than my colleagues. But this is one that 
I would like to try to see if we cannot work out a process for dealing 
with the central thrust of the Senator's amendment. I would also like 
to demonstrate some sensitivity for what I saw, really in the last 10 
days, when I spent an afternoon with eight police officers in Boston 
who were in charge of working with gangs to disband them and to 
identify those who were involved in the greatest degree of violence, 
and treating them with the appropriate kind of tough law enforcement. 
The police officers also were attempting to use some of the 
preventative options in the omnibus crime bill, such as trying to wean 
young people away from gangs and move them into more productive 
lifestyles.
  So I have great empathy for the Senator's concerns, and I would like 
to try to work with him and see if we cannot accommodate his 
objectives.
  My only hesitation at this point is putting a mandate for children on 
this, which may very well not deal with the problems of violence and 
cause some serious injustice to younger people that might put them on a 
road towards a more difficult life. So I do not know if the Senator 
will permit us to perhaps set it aside and see what we might be able to 
work out. I certainly would be willing to do so.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if the Senator from Massachusetts will 
yield, I have no objection to setting it aside for the moment, and will 
be happy to visit about it.
  May I just respond to two points?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. As I said, I recently visited a couple of inner-city 
schools and there are metal detectors at the front doors. I do not 
doubt that there are students who will decide, maybe, to bring a weapon 
to school because they feel threatened. But that is precisely the wrong 
thing to have happen.
  We must find ways to keep all guns out of schools. It is hard to be 
moderate on this question. It is hard to be moderate because I have 
talked to kids in the schools. I just had a kid say to me a month ago 
``You do not understand.'' This is 16-year-old kid who said:

       You do not understand. You might look at someone sideways 
     and that person thinks you smirked at them, and you might get 
     a bullet after school. You might be the victim of a terrible 
     crime. You do not understand what this is all about. You've 
     got to avoid looking at people. You've got to avoid giving 
     somebody the impression you are giving them the wrong look. 
     You've got to stay out of trouble. You've got to avoid all 
     kinds of circumstances.

  ``It's a tough life,'' he told me.
  I do not know how I would react, nor do most of you in those same 
circumstances. But I tell you how we should react. No one who wants 
protection should be allowed to bring a gun to school for protection. 
We certainly ought to weed out those kids who would bring guns to 
school to terrorize others.
  The Senator from Massachusetts said it well, and no one needs to talk 
about his record on the issues. It stands above almost all others in 
this Chamber.
  I would just say there is a time when you say let us not be moderate 
on the issues. Let us make sure that we send a message all across this 
country at a time when crime is becoming epidemic and violent crime is 
epidemic in America--we must say to kids, ``Do not bring guns to 
school. To do so will bear certain consequences.''
  I wanted to make those points because I think this is the place to 
say it. I would be happy to set this amendment aside and be glad to 
visit with Senator Jeffords and Senator Kennedy in the ensuing hours. 
By that I mean the amendment will continue to lay before the Senate and 
set aside the vote I am talking about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment being set 
aside?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I certainly commend the Senator for 
bringing this amendment before us. Certainly we all are deeply 
concerned about guns in schools. However, the wording of it disturbs 
and it might be something we can work at.
  In Vermont I know, for instance, just the other day a kid got a 
birthday present when he was on his way to school. All sorts of 
problems followed. Most importantly, my philosophy is that this is a 
matter the State ought to control itself. We ought not to mandate gun 
laws on the States. Therefore, I have a hard time philosophically 
agreeing to amendments of this kind.
  For instance, I know other practices. In Vermont we bus kids from 
long ways. Sometimes they may go hunting in different places after 
school, and will end up driving with their friends to hunt deer. This 
is certainly not what should be considered at this time.
  I feel strongly this ought to be left to the States.
  However, I would be glad to work with the Senator with respect to his 
amendment to see if we can develop some sort of policy statement.
  And, with that, I would withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if it is agreeable with the Senator, 
then, we would temporarily set it aside and attempt to work with the 
Senator to see if we cannot accommodate the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am informed it is not necessary to formally 
set it aside; that that would just be the case.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has submitted it. I believe we have to ask 
consent to set it aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I interpret the Senator has requested 
unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the amendment.
  Is there objection?
  There being none, the amendment is temporarily set aside.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1370

 (Purpose: To strike all references to opportunity-to-learn standards)

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1370.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 2, in the table of contents, strike the item 
     relating to section 218.
       On page 4, line 6, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       On page 4, strike lines 7 and 8.
       On page 4, line 9, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 5, strike lines 6 through 9.
       On page 5, line 10, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 5, line 18, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(D)''.
       On page 7, strike lines 4 through 8.
       On page 7, line 9, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 7, line 15, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       On page 7, line 20, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(9).
       On page 7, line 23, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(10)''.
       On page 8, line 3, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(11)''.
       On page 8, line 5, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(12)''.
       On page 8, line 8, strike ``(14)'' and insert ``(13)''.
       On page 17, line 10, strike ``, voluntary'' and insert 
     ``and voluntary''.
       On page 17, lines 11 and 12, strike ``and voluntary 
     national opportunity-to-learn standards''.
       On page 22, line 10 insert ``and'' after ``standards,''.
       On page 22, lines 11 and 12, strike ``, and opportunity-to-
     learn standards''.
       On page 22, line 13, strike ``standards,'' and insert 
     ``standards and''.
       On page 22, lines 15 and 16, strike ``and voluntary 
     national opportunity-to-learn standards''.
       On page 24, lines 3 and 4, strike ``voluntary national 
     opportunity-to-learn standards,''.
       On page 24, line 6, strike ``213(e)'' and insert 
     ``213(c)''.
       On page 29, line 11, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       On page 29, strike all beginning with line 12 through page 
     30, line 2.
       On page 30, line 3, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       On page 36, beginning with line 23, strike all through page 
     40, line 5.
       On page 40, line 6, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       On page 43, line 24, strike ``content, student performance, 
     and op-'' and insert ``content and student performance''.
       On page 44, line 1, strike ``portunity-to-learn''.
       On page 44, line 12, strike ``content,'' and insert 
     ``content and''.
       On page 44, line 13, strike ``, and opportunity-to-learn''.
       On page 44, line 17, strike ``content, student 
     performance,'' and insert ``content and student 
     performance''.
       On page 44, line 18, strike ``and opportunity-to-learn''.
       On page 44, line 21, strike ``standards,'' and insert 
     ``standards and''.
       On page 44, lines 22 and 23, strike ``, and the voluntary 
     national opportunity-to-learn standards''.
       On page 45, line 24, strike ``voluntary national 
     opportunity-to-learn stand-'',
       On page 46, line 1, strike ``ards,''.
       On page 46, line 2, strike ``213(e)'' and insert 
     ``213(c)''.
       On page 49, strike all beginning with line 9 through page 
     51, line 7.
       On page 59, line 8, strike ``231(d)'' and insert 
     ``231(c)''.
       On page 63, strike lines 17 through 20.
       On page 63, line 21, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       On page 79, strike lines 6 through 17.
       On page 79, line 18, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       On page 79, line 21, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       On page 80, line 7, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       On page 80, line 15, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       On page 80, line 21, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(h)''.
       On page 81, line 1, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       On page 81, line 3, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       On page 82, line 21, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(j)''.
       On page 83, line 10, strike ``(l)'' and insert ``(k)''.
       On page 85, line 19, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       On page 88, lines 8 and 9, strike ``comprehensive State 
     opportunity-to-learn standards,''.
       On page 107, line 13, strike ``213(e)(1)(B)'' and insert 
     ``213(c)(1)(B)''.
       On page 113, lines 7 and 8, strike ``promote the strategies 
     described in section 306(d),''.
       On page 114, lines 24 and 25, strike ``to promote the 
     strategies described in section 306(d)''.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered in its present form as it amends a series of 
sections of the bill and that it be deemed in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, this amendment addresses the issues which 
have been talked about at some length already today on this bill, which 
are the opportunity-to-learn standards. I think that issue should be 
reviewed a little bit so everybody understands what we are talking 
about.
  What this amendment does is essentially eliminate the opportunity-to-
learn standards. Now that does not fundamentally undermine the bill, to 
eliminate those standards.
  Let us talk about what this bill does. This bill first and foremost 
sets out the goals--which were agreed to with a couple of additions at 
the Charlottsville Governors Conference, as called by President Bush 
and which, of course, then Governor Clinton was the chairman of the 
Governors Conference and was a major player in designing those goals, 
which goals, everybody agrees, are excellent and very appropriate--and 
takes those goals and makes them the goals of the Nation as designed by 
this bill, Goals 2,000.
  In addition, the bill, in an attempt to address those goals, sets out 
a variety of steps. It creates a fund which is available to the States 
to try to set up plans for the purposes of designing school systems and 
assisting in developing school systems within the States which meet the 
goals of the Nation as set forth at the Governors Conference. It has a 
section which, as part that effort, deals with assessment and deals 
with content. And in the assessment area, which I happen to consider to 
be critical, we are talking about assisting the States in designing 
methodologies which will allow them to determine where their students 
have ended up in the school in proficiency, so that a town in New 
Hampshire, third graders can be assessed in relationship to a town in 
California or a town in Massachusetts and, hopefully, even in a town in 
Japan and a town in Germany and we can get a sense of where we stand. 
That is a very important initiative which is appropriate.
  But in the effort to accomplish this, of instituting into the Federal 
language the goals of the Governors Conference and making sure those 
goals are attained, there was sort of a sidetrack that occurred here, 
and we went off on a tangent. And what that tangent became known as is 
opportunity-to-learn standards.
  Earlier in this debate, I pointed out basically the opportunity-to-
learn standards amount to the control over the methodology of manner 
which teaching occurs.
  We were successful, and I very much, of course, appreciated the 
chairman of the committee and the floor manager on the Republican side 
accepting a series of amendments which made it clear that in designing 
these opportunity-to-learn standards, they would not be mandated on the 
States.
  But the opportunity-to-learn standards still will exist and they 
still will be available for a variety of activities in the area of top-
down management of education. I believe there is a consensus in this 
Senate that the best form of education is that education which occurs 
and is controlled at the local level, where the local folks have the 
decision process in their hands--the teachers, the school boards, the 
principals, and the parents. It is essential that, in designing and 
addressing our educational system in this bill, we not do something 
which is fundamentally going to undermine that in an attempt to 
accomplish the goals.
  However, by having these opportunity-to-learn standards in this bill, 
we do something which I believe fundamentally undermines that local 
control over education. The opportunity-to-learn standards are 
pervasive. We went over this earlier, but I think it is worth 
reviewing. They affect almost all functions of education. They affect 
the curriculum, they affect class size, they affect the manner of 
education.
  Let me just review it again. Opportunity-to-learn standards shall 
address the quality and availability of curricula, instructional 
material, and technologies; that is, designing the methodology that is 
to be used to educate.
  It shall address the capabilities of teachers to provide high quality 
instruction to meet diverse learning needs.
  It shall address the extent to which teachers and administrators have 
ready and continuing access to professional development, including the 
best knowledge about teaching.
  It shall address the extent to which curriculum, instructional 
practices, and assessments are aligned to content standards.
  And, the catchall phrase, it shall address other factors that the 
council deems appropriate to ensure that all students receive a fair 
opportunity to achieve the knowledge and skills described in the 
voluntary national content standards and the voluntary national student 
performance standards certified by the council.
  It is a process for developing national standards on a methodology of 
teaching. Granted, because of the amendments that we have placed in 
here, they will not be mandates on the States, but still they will be 
denied this national standard.
  It is a standard which I think inevitably will be used at the local 
level to try to wrest control from the local level in designing 
curriculum.
  Why is it needed? It is not needed. That is the whole point. We do 
not have to take this step of Federal officiousness in order to 
accomplish what the basic thrust of this legislation is and what the 
goals were of the Governors Conference and what the goals are of the 
President, which is to improve education and reach the national goals.
  If we want to reach the national goals, let us leave it up to the 
imagination of the local communities to decide how they do it, but let 
us give them the standard to determine whether or not they got there 
through the assessment process.
  So you can eliminate this entire activity, this opportunity-to-learn 
activity, which is basically a grand scheme to design a national 
curriculum and create a national methodology. You can eliminate this 
one section and have absolutely no impact on the substance and the 
energy of this bill and you will in fact significantly improve this 
bill because you will make it clear beyond question that the goals are 
going to be obtained by energizing the local communities--the parents, 
the teachers, the principals, and the school boards--and not by having 
some Federal group designing a plan that the local communities feel 
they must adopt.
  And so this amendment, which has to some degree already been debated 
because the issue has been raised--and I know my colleague from 
Minnesota and my colleague from Illinois wish to go the other way and 
make it much more in the amendment which they offered, which has been 
set aside, which is now subject to a second degree by the chairman of 
the committee, to make these opportunity-to-learn standards much more 
of a mandatory event on the States and the communities--they raised the 
whole issue and they argued for where it should be mandatory. What I am 
arguing for is the fact it should not even be in here and it makes to 
sense to have it.
  And so, as a result, I have offered this amendment, which I believe 
improves the bill substantially, makes this bill a force for 
maintaining local control, while obtaining the Goals 2000 as they are 
outlined in the bill.
  Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise in somewhat reluctant 
opposition to the amendment. I do so primarily because this has been a 
very, very difficult area. In fact, I believe it was this area, more 
than anything else, which was in much different form, which caused the 
defeat of the conference report which came back after the last attempt 
to pass similar legislation
  However, we have worked tediously since that time to make sure there 
would be a compromise and an agreement on the opportunity-to-learn 
portions of the bill, so that it could be accepted at least a majority 
of the Members of the Senate.
  I hope and believe that we have done that. We have turned aside 
amendments to strengthen the opportunity-to-learn standards. We are now 
turning aside attempts to weaken them. And now, the ultimate is being 
offered and that is to strike the whole section.
  I think it is important to keep in mind why we are here. This is a 
crisis time. It was pointed out to us in 1983. That was more than 10 
years ago. Here it is, 10 years later and we are just getting around to 
establishing the goals. Time is running out. In fact, it has run out in 
a lot of respects. However, we have to deal with the situation as we 
see it. The situation, as I see it, is that we do not have time to wait 
and see if the local governments will have the ability, without 
assistance from a purview or review of national standards and national 
ideas and all, to get the minds that are working on this project to sit 
down and develop the kinds of standards that are necessary to ensure 
that when a child is in school, he or she will receive the education 
necessary to attain the goals.
  I see nothing evil about allowing groups to get together to establish 
recommendations--voluntary recommendations--on 
what could be done or should be done in order to meet the goals. On the 
opportunity-to-learn standards, opportunity-to-learn means that when 
kids get to school, they are going to have a chance to learn. Let me 
give an example of some of the problems we are dealing with.
  Right now, 31 percent of our schools were built before World War II. 
Whether or not those schools are adequate to provide an opportunity to 
learn is a very serious question in many, many of our areas. Almost all 
of our other schools were built before 1960, or in the 1960's. Thus, 
they are over 30 years old.
  That is just one example. There are many other examples of real 
barriers to the ability to learn. Another, which I think is very 
important is the huge disparity between suburban and urban areas on the 
utilization of modern technology and computers. Yet we should know what 
difference it makes, and what kinds of standards are necessary in order 
to provide the kind of education which will equip our young people to 
be ready for the next century--or to be ready for this century--with 
the ability to get into jobs that will require computer skills.
  These are some of the advantages we have been talking about. We have 
done everything we can to provide that these are totally voluntary; no 
one needs to follow them. They are there only as a result of the study 
of those who understand what is necessary in the modern day to share 
that information throughout the country, and help in that area. We have 
taken out all the requirements that were previoulsy in the bill 
requiring the use of these standards, to learn exactly what was going 
to be in the standards, and we have left it up to the people who will 
be establishing those standards. But they are all voluntary; totally 
voluntary. There is nothing at all that requires anybody to follow any 
of them.
  I think we have done everything we can to make sure this bill 
establishes the procedures and goals of providing help to our local 
schools so they are able to understand what they must do if they are 
going to be able to provide an adequate education or opportunity to 
obtain an adequate education. For this reason, I reluctantly will 
oppose it.
  I just want to say I think we have done everything we can to arrive 
at a compromise here which will really not--should not--offend anyone.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, what we have attempted to do in the 
legislation, as an important part of the legislation, among other 
matters, is to recognize that the real challenge today is to set world-
class standards for our schools. We have come to this conclusion as a 
result of extensive hearings and studies that have been done by a wide 
variety of different people--thoughtful parents, teachers, 
academicians, and others--they recommended we encourage what we call 
content standards, or agreements about what a child ought to know.
  The second step after content standards is the assessments, the 
methods to determine whether children know the material, at a 
particular time. This agreement has been generally, again, worked out 
over a very considerable period of time and will, I think, really can 
help us devise a way of evaluating what children know in a more 
effective way than the rote tests that are used in too many of our 
schools today. I think this has been a very constructive process.
  What we are hopeful of being able to achieve with this legislation is 
to urge States to go back a step as we are addressing content standards 
to make sure that the States are going to give some consideration to 
having all children start off, so to speak, at the same starting line. 
We had a discussion about this--Senator Simon, Senator Wellstone, and 
I--earlier. They would like to write in these opportunity-to-learn 
standards. A number of States, including my own, have developed 
approaches which very much move us in the same way that has been 
suggested when the opportunity-to-learn standards were initially 
proposed.
  Vermont has taken a certain way of doing this. My own State of 
Massachusetts is involved in this.
  In the areas which have the most difficult education challenges, 
communities like Brockton, MA; Holyoke, MA; and Chelsea, MA, teachers, 
school boards, and parents have been involved in this process and 
support this way of helping schools effectively even though it is not 
the tight opportunity-to-learn standards. We have worked out a process 
in which, so to speak, we can help students start out at the same 
starting line.
  It is important, I believe, that we have the States work this out--
through their own way, perhaps, and do it in a way which is relevant to 
their own situation. We believe--I do, and I think for the most part 
the members of the committee do--that addressing the opportunity is a 
very important ingredient.
  We have taken the position that States must address the issue, but 
that they ought to be able to do it in their own way. I think that is 
the appropriate course we should take. To abandon any kind of 
understanding of that concept I think undermines, in a very important 
way, what we are trying to do with the content standards, as well as 
the assessments, in terms of children.
  Though I understand the Senator's suggestion on this, I hope the 
Senate will not accept his amendment. The committee substitute 
incorporates a compromise on the question that is widely supported on 
both sides of the aisle. There are many approaches to the problem. 
While the OTL standards are just one approach, as I mention, they are 
nonetheless a valid one and should not be prohibited. It is important 
that the Senate continue to require the States to incorporate 
strategies for giving all students a chance to learn challenging 
academic content. To merely raise the academic standards may make us 
feel we are improving schools, but the reality may be, for all we do, 
students will be no better off than they are today.
  The National Governor's Task Force states:

       Our current system systematically deprives many students of 
     these opportunities. The reasons vary and include low 
     expectations, conflicting policies, and inadequate or 
     inappropriate resource allocation.

  So just as the reasons vary, so do the solutions. The OTL standards 
are a valid approach but some States, like Massachusetts, have 
foundation budgets which distribute their funds to schools based not on 
how much money they decide they have to spend on education, but rather 
on what they have determined are the necessary elements for a good 
education. Many approaches are valid, and so I think the issue has to 
be addressed.
  We have addressed it in the way I have outlined and which later we 
will consider again when we deal with the Simon amendment. If the 
amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire is accepted, we are taking 
that aspect of this whole concept and effectively eliminating it. Maybe 
some of the States will go ahead in any event, but we will certainly, I 
think, be undermining in an important way what experience has led us to 
believe to be an important element of this whole reform strategy.
  So I hope the amendment will not be accepted. I understand the 
Senator's position, and I respect that position. I acknowledge a number 
of States have moved in different ways to address some of these issues, 
but I do think that it is important as we are addressing the totality 
of this issue that we not accept the Senator's approach.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to briefly respond and get to 
a vote because I am sure everybody would like to get home this evening. 
Let me make a couple of points to respond to both the chairman and the 
ranking Republican on the committee who are managing this bill.
  I agree with three-fourths of what the chairman said. We want world-
class standards, we want world-class content and we want world-class 
goals. What this bill has in it is a definition of world-class goals. 
They are goals which were outlined by the Governors, agreed to now by 
the Federal Government. We have a couple of additions, which are 
positive.
  But what we do not need is to have the Federal Government tell the 
States and local communities how to get to those goals. The Senator 
from Massachusetts has characterized these standards, these 
opportunity-to-learn standards as a jumping off point or starting off. 
What we are interested in is the finish line. We want to know if a 
third grade student in a school in Epping, NH, knows how to multiply, 
subtract and add as well as a third grade student in California or in 
Illinois or in Massachusetts or in Japan. It is the finish line we are 
concerned about, and this bill addresses the finish line under the 
assessment standards; whether or not we are getting to the goals which 
we have outlined.
  But what we should not be telling the teachers and the parents and 
the students and the school board in Epping, NH, or in Freemont, CA, or 
in Rockville, IL, is how to design their curriculum or what they must 
have in place in order to run their educational system, the starting 
point as it is defined or the jumping off point.
  As the Senator from Vermont said, 31 percent of the schools were 
built before World War II. So what? There are a lot of towns in this 
country which probably have schools that were built before World War 
II. There are a lot of schools which have buildings built before World 
War II which have done a heck of a job in renovating those schools.
  In fact, there are a lot of buildings built in the seventies which 
are not working because they were built under the open concept and wish 
they kept the ones built before World War II. That should be up to the 
local communities as to whether or not the building built before World 
War II still works. It should not be an arbitrary starting line set in 
Washington saying any building built before World War II is not 
inhabitable by students. Obviously, it is a mistake.
  That is the implication of where we are going to end up with these 
opportunity-to-learn standards. That is the type of control over 
methodology and in the day-to-day life of teaching and education which 
are going to occur when you turn over to a Federal bureaucracy the 
obligation of designing a national set of standards for methodology in 
teaching. It makes no sense in obtaining the goals of this bill. The 
goals of this bill are superb.
  They were outlined by the Governors and they have been supported by 
this administration and they can be obtained by having assessment 
standards and content standards as designed in this bill and they will 
be undermined by taking control away from the local communities which 
is what will occur under the opportunity-to-learn standards.
  I present again my case that this is a mistake and that it sets off 
on a tangent which is unnecessary to accomplish the goals of this bill 
and will undermine the goals of this bill which is to improve education 
for our kids.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to 
Senator Gregg's amendment occur at 7:30, with no other amendments in 
order to the Gregg amendment or to the language proposed to be stricken 
by the Gregg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The absence of a quorum has been 
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are looking forward to the vote at 
7:30 on the Gregg amendment, and then I would hope that we might go to 
the Moseley-Braun amendment relating to the school facilities issue. I 
do not think that that will take a great deal of time.
  We are trying to move through these other amendments. Once again, if 
there are Senators who have amendments we hope they will come here so 
we will have an opportunity to address them and to work them out if we 
can, or otherwise to try and accommodate the Members.
  We hope to be able to continue to move along on the legislation. We 
have made good progress today even though we have not had a great many 
votes, and we know we have some other items to address, but I think we 
are moving along in terms of the major issues.
  Mr. COHEN, Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate 
Labor and Human Resources Committee has agreed to include language on 
health and physical education under the Goal 3 objectives of the Goals 
2000: Educate America Act. As you know, when the Senate was expected to 
consider the Goals 2000 legislation in the fall of last year, I was 
prepared to offer an amendment that would have strengthened the 
legislation's language with respect to the importance of health 
education. I am glad that the committee's members have agreed with me 
that health and physical education are areas that must be addressed if 
children are to learn and States are able to meet the national 
education goals.
  The health issues facing American children have changed dramatically 
in recent years. Thirty years ago, child and adolescent health was 
threatened predominantly by contagious disease. Today, children and 
adolescents are endangered primarily by their own behavior. Poor 
health, poverty, substance abuse, sexually transmitted disease, and 
unintended pregnancies have all limited the options and dimmed the 
features of millions of American children.
  Almost 60 percent of the deaths in the United States are attributable 
to cardiovascular disease and cancer. Unfortunately, American children 
are increasingly engaging in the three behaviors that contribute to 
these diseases: tobacco use, improper diet, and insufficient exercise.
  For instance, 40 percent of American children aged 5 to 8 are obese, 
inactive, or have elevated blood pressure or cholesterol--all risk 
factors associated with cardiovascular disease. These problems are 
particularly marked in inner-city areas, where children are often 
exposed to other factors that threaten their health--crime, drugs, and 
inadequate access to health care.
  Almost half of our elementary school students have tried smoking--the 
No. 1 preventable cause of death in the United States. What is 
particularly alarming is that children--especially girls--are smoking 
at younger and younger ages. Tobacco addiction is increasingly a ``teen 
onset'' disease: 90 percent of all smokers start before they are 21, 60 
percent before they are 14, and 22 percent before they are 9.
  I am particularly alarmed by the smoking rates for young people in my 
home State of Maine. The proportion of young people in Maine who have 
tried smoking is 53.1 percent--the highest of any State in the country.
  In a recent study, 39 percent of our high school seniors reported 
that they had gotten drunk in the previous week, and drinking and 
driving remains the No. 1 killer of our Nation's adolescents.
  Sexual behaviors established during youth also contribute to 
significant health and social problems. With the advent of AIDS, these 
behaviors may also prove fatal.
  As British essayist Samuel Johnson once observed: ``The chains of 
habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken,'' 
and there is a general recognition that people who learn healthy habits 
early in life are more likely to practice them as adults. Conversely, 
poor habits--tobacco and other substance abuse, poor nutrition, and 
lack of exercise may also have their roots in childhood.

  Because these problems do not respond to traditional kinds of medical 
treatment, effective health education programs in schools can be 
invaluable in helping our children to avoid high risk behavior and 
develop healthy habits that will carry over into adulthood.
  At the same time that our adolescent health problems have multiplied, 
student academic performance has declined. An unacceptable proportion 
of adolescents fail to complete high school, and even more young people 
are unable to achieve the high level of math, science, and 
communication skills they will need to function productively in the 
21st century.
  Too many young people are joining the growing ranks of the marginally 
unemployable every year, constituting a direct threat to our Nation's 
productivity and competitiveness.
  In the report ``Code Blue,'' the American Medical Association 
declared an ``adolescent health crisis,'' proclaiming that:

       For the first time in the history of this country, young 
     people are less healthy and less prepared to take their 
     places in society than were their parents. And this is 
     happening at a time when our society is more complex, more 
     challenging, and more competitive than ever before.

  The success of our future economy will demand the full participation 
of our entire population, and we must take action now to ensure that 
all young people, regardless of income, gender, or background, are 
prepared to be healthy, productive citizens.
  Quality school health education programs--programs that are 
integrated, planned and sequential, and taught by educators trained to 
teach the subject--are essential if our children are to develop the 
knowledge and skills they will need to avoid health risks and maintain 
good health throughout their lives.
  However, while health education alone can teach children about good 
health, a more comprehensive approach is necessary if we are to 
actually reduce health risks and change behavior. For these programs to 
be truly successful, in addition to providing information through the 
classroom, the school should also be a health promoting environment.
  While sound and up-to-date information about nutrition is important, 
it is equally important that the food served in the school cafeteria is 
consistent with what is learned in the classroom.
  In addition to teaching students about the hazards associated with 
tobacco use, schools should be smoke-free and should also offer 
programs for students, faculty, and staff who want to stop smoking.
  Regular physical activity and exercise opportunities should be 
available for both students and staff, and the emphasis should be on 
lifetime fitness activities such as walking, jogging, or swimming 
rather than interscholastic sports.
  Finally, it is essential that the school be a safe place, free of 
violence, drugs, weapons, or crime.
  No one disputes the need to improve the health status of our Nation's 
young people. However, many do question whether school is the 
appropriate setting for health promotion and education activities.
  Some educators argue that teachers are already overloaded, and that 
such efforts detract from the schools' primary mission of educating our 
Nation's youth. However, a student who is sick, who is malnourished, 
who abuses drugs or alcohol, or who has an unintended child to raise is 
not in a good position to learn.
  Just as America's children must be healthy to be educated, they must 
also be educated to be healthy. Our Nation's elementary and secondary 
schools have the potential of reaching more than 46 million students 
and 5 million faculty and staff each year--approximately 20 percent of 
our total population. Further, our schools are a microcosm of society 
and present the best opportunity for reaching young people of all 
races, nationalities, backgrounds, and income levels.
  However, we cannot expect the schools to do the job alone. Schools, 
families, communities, and businesses must all join in partnership to 
help our young people to develop the intellectual, physical, and 
emotional skills they will need to take them into the next century as 
healthy, productive citizens in an increasingly competitive global 
marketplace.
  I believe that the recognition of the importance of health education 
in the Goals 2000 legislation is a good beginning to help solve some of 
this country's health care problems. We need to educate our youth so 
that they know how to remain healthy and fit. It is my sincere hope 
that the National Education Standards and Improvement Council certify 
voluntary national standards on health and physical education and that 
the National Education Goals Panel monitor this country's progress 
toward ensuring that all students are healthy and fit.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The court will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Objection. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1370

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1370, offered by the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Gregg].
  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 Delaware [Mr. Biden] and 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], and the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 52, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.

                                YEAS--42

     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Durenberger
     McCain
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Stevens
  So, the amendment (No. 1370) was rejected.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to correct some statistics 
about South Dakota education that my distinguished colleague from 
Montana, Senator Burns mentioned earlier today during the debate on S. 
1150, Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
  South Dakota holds the following national rankings: 3d in SAT scores, 
10th in ACT scores, 6th in graduation rate, 42d in per pupil 
expenditure; and 51st in teacher salaries. These statistics speak for 
themselves; the correlations are obvious.
  Second, I would like to let Senator Harkin know that I agree with him 
about the importance of school facilities. Some schools in my home 
State are not in good condition. Leaking ceilings and drafty classrooms 
are an obvious deterrent to quality learning.
  I will be introducing shortly legislation to reauthorize Public Law 
81-815, School Construction for the Impact Aid Program. I hope that my 
colleagues will join me in showing their concern for school facilities.
  In listening to today's debate, Mr. President, I was very pleased to 
learn from the chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources, Senator Kennedy, and the ranking Republican of the 
committee, Senator Kassebaum, that S. 1150 does not contain OBE.
  I, like many of my colleagues, have been hearing from hundreds of my 
constituents who oppose OBE. I am pleased to be reassured this bill 
does not contain OBE.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled 
``Outcome-Based Education'' from the Family Research Council be 
inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          [From Family Policy]

        Outcome-Based Education--Dumbing Down America's Schools

                          (By Robert Holland)

       Under the Clinton Administration, the idea that the federal 
     government should pitch a new paradigm for public education 
     has gathered steam.
       Heaven knows, the current education model needs more than a 
     tune-up. It needs a massive overhaul driven by consumer 
     choice and competition among schools and genuinely high 
     academic standards.
       Unfortunately, however, the new paradigm many education, 
     business and government policymakers have in mind is 
     something euphemistically labeled Outcome--Based Education 
     (OBE). It is a radical form of restructuring being pushed on 
     local schools from the top down--from the Clinton Labor and 
     Education departments, teachers unions, well-heeled 
     consultants, state departments of education, and even high 
     corporate councils. OBE is a one-size-fits-all reform, the 
     antithesis of competition and choice. It encourages New Age 
     groupthink over the Jeffersonian ideal of individual merit.


                        the ideology of outcomes

       The merchants of OBE begin from an unassailable premise: 
     that schools should be judged by ``learner outcomes'' rather 
     than, say, the number of books in the library or percentage 
     of teachers with master's degrees. Indeed, most parents want 
     positive outcomes from their children's schooling. They want 
     evidence that kids learn to read and write and compute, and 
     know something of our common heritage as Americans. Likewise 
     lured by the prospect of outcomes, corporate supporters 
     consider OBE to be an extension of Total Quality Management 
     (TQM) to public education.
       But the outcomes that the gurus of OBE have in mind are 
     quite different from hard-headed pragmatism or TQM's emphasis 
     on customer satisfaction. They have less to do with whether 
     Johnny can comprehend the Federalist Papers or place the 
     Civil War in the current half-century than with his 
     acquisition of the desired attitudes on such issues as global 
     resource inequality, multiculturalism, homelessness, 
     alternative lifestyles, and environmentalism. Under OBE, 
     political correctness goes to grade-school.
       The new outcomes are supposed to make education 
     ``relevant'' to ``real-life problems.'' Relevance is an echo 
     from the fractious 1960s, when demands for student powers and 
     a cafeteria curriculum sent standards of excellence into a 
     nosedive. Indeed, many of the radicals from that era have 
     become today's education policymakers.
       The high priests of OBE knock the idea of knowledge for 
     knowledge's sake, the continuation of separate academic 
     disciplines such as English and history, paper-and-pencil 
     testing, and competition where some students succeed and some 
     fail. In assigning a false concept of self-esteem paramount 
     importance, they deny students the merited self-esteem that 
     comes from genuine achievement and the self-discipline that 
     comes from knowing that unyielding standards are in effect, 
     that failure is a possibility.
       OBE is egalitarian, utopian. All forms of ability-grouping 
     are to be abolished, in favor of the failed experiment of 
     ``mastery learning,'' which assumes that all children can 
     master the same common standard, if only they are given 
     virtually unlimited time to do so. Faster students are put in 
     a holding pattern or asked to tutor their slower classmates 
     until, in theory, all are on the same page again. This Robin 
     Hood approach to education has been a colossal flop in 
     districts like Chicago, that experimented with it years ago.
       Even before becoming President Clinton's Secretary of 
     Labor, Robert Reich was hawking the groupthink model. Under 
     his leadership, Labor has assumed a lead role in school 
     restructuring along the industrial ``outcomes'' model.
       In a paper commissioned in 1988 by the National Education 
     Association, Reich (then a political economist at Harvard) 
     opined that: ``Young people must be taught how to work 
     constructively together. Instead of emphasizing individual 
     achievement and competition, the emphasis in the classroom 
     should be group performance * * * (Students) must also learn 
     to negotiate--to articulate their own needs, to discern what 
     others need and see things from others' perspectives, and to 
     discover mutually beneficial outcomes.'' Ability-grouping, he 
     added must go because it reduces ``young people's capacities 
     to learn from and collaboarate with one another.
       Thus, Reich concluded, ``Rather than separate fast learners 
     from slow learners in the classroom, all children (with only 
     the most obvious exceptions) should remain together, so that 
     class unity and cooperation are the norm. Faster learners 
     would thus learn how to help the slower ones, while the 
     slower ones would be pushed to make their best effort.''
       So what are the outcomes of OBE--outcomes that, in some 
     states, have been projected to become the new graduation 
     requirements in place of Carnegie units in English, history, 
     math, and science? Typically, they require students to 
     acquire attitudes enabling them to: Appreciate diversity; 
     identify community problems and negotiate solutions 
     contributing to the public good; use the environment 
     responsibly; learn to be good citizens of the world; support 
     and defend civil and human rights worldwide; and develop 
     skills of negotiating with others to solve interpersonal 
     problems and conflicts.
       Those are some of the several dozen outcomes that have been 
     advanced in more than 40 states. In truth, the outcomes are 
     strikingly similar from one OBE state to another. That's 
     because many state departments of education are buying 
     national consultants' programs while pretending to be leading 
     a wholly local school reform drive.
       Who decides what the outcomes should be? And by what 
     criteria will a student's achieving an outcome be decided? 
     These are subjective calls: The Greenpeace and Mobil 
     Corporation concepts of responsible use of the environment 
     differ sharply. Likewise, definitions of ``public good'' and 
     ``diversity'' vary according to one's political philosophy. 
     If the outcomes of education are to be based on such 
     subjective criteria, that means some students will be given 
     remedial instruction for holding ``incorrect'' opinions.
       William Spady, one of the most prominent gurus of 
     ``transformation'' (or attitudinal) OBE, gave the following 
     insight on outcome-devising in an interview in the January 
     1993 issue of Educational Leadership magazine:
       ``We start with what the research suggests about the future 
     and we design down, or design back, from there. This is a 
     systematic process called Strategic Design: determining as 
     well as we can from studying the literature and available 
     data about future trends and conditions what our kids will be 
     facing out there in the world. Once we get a reasonable 
     handle on those conditions, we derive from them a set of 
     complex role performance outcomes that represent effective 
     adult functioning: to succeed as adults, people have to be 
     able to do this and that under these and those kinds of 
     conditions. This emphasis on complex role performance puts 
     the whole present curriculum content structure up for 
     grabs.''
       Thus, knowledge transmitted through the traditional 
     academic disciplines would play second fiddle to some 
     futurists' ideas of what the future might hold. Thematic 
     learning is central to OBE: the idea is to break the academic 
     disciplines and to replace them with ``real-life'' education 
     based on broad themes. That is similar to the demands for 
     women's studies and ethnic studies being pushed by radical 
     multiculturalists in the universities, and to the older fads 
     of progressive education and open classrooms. Bad ideas never 
     die in education, it seems; they are just recycled under new 
     labels.


                            no room to fail

       OBEists insist that time--clocks and calendars--should be 
     irrelevant in education. Given enough time, all students 
     should be allowed to take tests over and over and over again, 
     as many times as necessary, until they obtain a passing mark. 
     Failure is deemed to be a dirty word.
       The illogic in calling for real-life education on the one 
     hand and an end to all time limits on the other was exposed 
     in a paper presented by the Parent-Teacher Communication 
     Network in San Marcos, Texas, calling on local school 
     authorities to stop OBE on the grounds that it had been ``an 
     educational disaster.'' The paper stated:
       ``However inconvenient for those of us who might prefer it 
     otherwise, the real world is based on clocks, calendars, and 
     deadlines. Any educational system that fails to prepare 
     students for this aspect of life, especially students at the 
     secondary level, has failed them miserably.''
       Few persons in the nation have more first hand experience 
     in the folly of no-deadline, no-failure OBE than Cheri 
     Pierson Yecke, the 1988 Teacher of the Year in Stafford 
     County, Virginia. By accident, her two daughters provide 
     before-and-after case studies of OBE implementation.
       In August, 1991, the Yeckes moved to Minnesota and enrolled 
     their children in District 833's schools. They did so without 
     reservation because they had lived in that district from 1982 
     to 1984 and had found the schools to be excellent. Unknown to 
     the family, however, the district had been implementing OBE 
     during the seven years they had been away. To their 
     astonishment, they soon discovered that while living in 
     Virginia their daughters had progressed academically ``light 
     years'' ahead of their peers in Minnesota.
       Younger daughter Tiffany, who had always loved school, was 
     ``in a matter of days begging to stay home.'' Why? ``The work 
     was far too easy.'' But what was worse, ``[A]ny display of 
     intelligence was ridiculed in a cruel and demeaning way by 
     many of the other students. Hard work and self-discipline are 
     looked down upon, and status is often achieved by non-
     performance.''
       ``The prevailing attitude among many students is, `Why 
     study? They can't fail me, so who cares?' What sort of work 
     ethic is this producing in these children? No one fails, 
     regardless of how little they do. Instead, they receive 
     `Incompletes,' which can be made up at any time.
       ``The kids have the system figured out. When there is a 
     football game or show on TV the night before a test, a common 
     comment is: `Why study? I'll just take the test and fail it. 
     I can always take the retest later.'''
       Indeed, ``Incompletes'' appear to be the grade of choice. 
     At semester's end in January, 1992, more than 15,500 
     Incompletes were recorded in that OBE district's secondary 
     schools--or about one half of all grades awarded! Imagine 
     the Yeckes' concern when they moved back to Virginia in 
     the summer of 1992 only to find that the State Department 
     of Education was considering a mandatory OBE plan for all 
     schools.
       New forms of testing are critical to implementing OBE. Put 
     bluntly, the hand that controls the test can control all of 
     American education. The buzzwords to watch for are so-called 
     ``authentic tests,'' and the ``Three Ps'' of testing: 
     portfolios, projects, and performances of student work. 
     Standardized tests, which are knowledge-based, are under 
     massive assault by the OBEists. The new tests would be far 
     more subjective, and more amenable to the utopian goal of 
     equalized outcomes.
       The new assessments would delve much more deeply into what 
     the education bureaucrats call the ``affective'' realm--
     feelings, attitudes, emotions. For example, under one 
     assessment framework, a test for Personal Well-Being and 
     Accomplishment calls for ``students' completion of affective 
     inventories''--in other words, summaries of how students feel 
     about certain issues or situations. Another test of 
     ``Interpersonal Relationships'' asks for ``teacher 
     observation of student interactions''. (The shy but brilliant 
     youngster would seem to be at a distinct disadvantage in OBE 
     classrooms.) Other parts of the testing scheme call on 
     students to self-report on their ``responsible use of the 
     environment,'' to keep a journal of their leisure activities, 
     and to respond to a vignette requiring the analysis of 
     conflict and a discovery of cooperative resolution.
       That's a long way from computing the area of the triangle, 
     diagramming a sentence, or reciting the Gettysburg Address.
       OBEists denigrate current school testing as rewarding 
     memorization and ``lower-order'' skills. The new assessments 
     are supposed to determine the student's ability to engage in 
     ``higher-order thinking,'' especially by collaborating in 
     groups to address socially relevant problems.
       One of the leaders in devising new assessment tools is a 
     private-public partnership at the University of Pittsburgh's 
     Learning Research and Development Center known as the New 
     Standards Project. Supported by foundation money and about 16 
     states, the NSP has as its leaders' stated objective: ``to 
     develop a radically new approach to the assessment of student 
     progress that would drive fundamental changes in what is 
     taught and learned.
       The NSP also is a dagger pointed at the heart of 
     standardized testing. Current tests, say the NSP, are 
     ``designed to sort out those who would enter the elite from 
     those who would not.'' Thus, the project intends ``to destroy 
     the primary mechanisms of the sorting system in American 
     education that have lowered expectations and limited 
     opportunity for countless people over the years.'' Having one 
     standard for everyone to meet (and allowing them all the time 
     they need to meet it) will necessitate the abolition of 
     tracking or ability-grouping. Students who fall behind would 
     need not only more time but also ``more financial resources, 
     a more appropriate curriculum, and better prepared 
     teachers.''
       Thomas Jefferson believed in an aristocracy of merit. OBE 
     is a blueprint for the opposite: A mediocracy of uniformly 
     dim bulbs. This is especially troubling considering the fact 
     that NSP is developing standards for states to use for their 
     schools in order to receive federal money under Goals 2000.
       Perhaps even more ominous is the Labor Department's SCANS 
     system for assessing pupil and worker ``competencies.'' SCANS 
     is an acronym for Secretary's Commission on Achieving 
     Necessary Skills. SCANS has published a series of blueprints, 
     for which its intentions are not modest. `The nation's school 
     systems should make the SCANS foundation skills and workplace 
     competencies explicit objectives of instruction at all 
     levels,'' a report stated. ``All employers, public and 
     private, should incorporate SCANS know-how in their human 
     resources development efforts.''
       In ``reinventing education,'' the SCANSers also come up 
     with a new entitlement to school success. Youngsters have a 
     ``right'' to be educated up to an absolute standard of 
     performance ``without putting the burden of failure on the 
     backs of students.'' (Hey, Teach. You can't flunk me. I'm 
     entitled.) So much for the idea of individual 
     responsibility.
       Ironically, ``responsibility''is one of the ``personal 
     qualities'' the Labor factotums want educators to rate. 
     Indeed, SCANS furnishes a prototype student resume that is 
     offered as a replacement for traditional report cards. 
     Students would also be rated for their self esteem, 
     sociability, self-management, and integrity/honesty--and for 
     their ``workplace competencies,'' such as ``interpersonal 
     skills'' and ``systems'' thinking. There would be proficiency 
     levels (but no failing grades) for academic subjects, and 
     listings of portfolios of student work (typically on trendy 
     topics such as environmentalism), with the names of each 
     teacher for the parents to contact.
       The SCANS resumes have a place for the students' Social 
     Security numbers, as well as their names, addresses, and 
     phone numbers. One report states that the Educational Testing 
     Service is developing an ``employer-friendly'' system called 
     Worklink through which these students' assessments could be 
     shared with employers electronically. Electronic dossiers 
     surely don't sound very little-guy-friendly. Suppose you were 
     rated down for integrity/honesty somewhere during your school 
     career. That could dog you the rest of your work-seeking 
     life. And why should someone's opinions of your personal 
     traits be on a computer file? All this smacks of Orwellian 
     Big Brother government.


                           Who's Behind OBE?

       How did this nation get on such a prescriptive path of 
     school reform? Perhaps a chronology and a scoreboard of 
     players are in order.
       The National Center on Education and the Economy has been a 
     central player from the start. Its president, Marc Tucker, is 
     a professor of education at the University of Rochester (NY). 
     That city's 32,000-student system began in 1988 one of the 
     nation's most thorough OBE/TQM restructuring projects. So 
     far, costs have soared but student achievement has not. 
     Formed in the mid-1980s, the center grew out of a Carnegie 
     Foundation grant. Its board included Hillary Rodham Clinton, 
     then a Little Rock lawyer, and New York Governor Mario Cuomo.
       The center set up under the Labor Department's wing a 
     Commission on Skills of the American Workforce, with Ira 
     Magaziner as chairman. In 1990 (when Bush was still 
     President), this commission released a report, ``America's 
     Choice: High Skills or Low Wages,'' that is the seminal 
     document in the so-called World Class Education, or OBE, 
     movement. Although Hillary Clinton was not on the actual 
     commission, she was made co-chair for implementation, with 
     Magaziner.
       On the basis of an unscientific sampling of opinion, the 
     Magaziner Commission concluded that most employers are not so 
     much concerned about literacy and basic math skills as they 
     are that their workers have a good work ethic and appropriate 
     social behavior--a good attitude, a pleasant appearance, and 
     a nice personality. Those are all desirable traits, to be 
     sure, but should they be the basis of school reform? Should 
     schools be tools of utilitarian industrial policy as opposed 
     to places for cultivation of the intellect? Should students 
     be molded to business ``specs''? And is this what businesses 
     really want?
       The Magaziner Commission recommended specifically that:
       The educational system be geared to ensuring that virtually 
     all students acquire a Certificate of Initial Mastery at age 
     16. At this time, they would decide between work and college, 
     as students do in Germany.
       The assessment system should let students take and retake 
     tests as often as needed until they succeeded.
       Rather than objective tests, schools go to the Three Ps-
     portfolios, projects, and performances. Knowledge-based tests 
     ``sort out'' people too much. Assessments should emphasize 
     qualities like the ability to work in groups.
       Remarkably, parents were mentioned not once in this thick 
     document. Rather, the report called for the school system to 
     instill attitudes in children desired by governmental and 
     industrial elitists.
       The Magaziner report had a powerful impact on at least 
     three powerful bureaucracies: It caused state departments of 
     education to enlist the help of OBE consultants like Bill 
     Spady. It influenced the New Standards Project. And it 
     prompted the U.S. Labor Department to develop its SCANS 
     competencies. Several states, starting with Florida, have 
     already begun integrating SCANS into their curricula
       Is the federal government shy about intervening in 
     classrooms? It would appear not. SCANS supplies many 
     classroom assignments for teachers. For example, to teach, 
     ``interpersonal skills'' in English class, teachers are 
     advised to have students ``discuss the pros and cons of the 
     argument that Shakespeare's ``Merchant of Venice'' is a 
     racist play and should be banned from the curriculum.'' Thus, 
     instead of evaluating a great piece of writing on its own 
     merits, students are to consider becoming politically correct 
     censors.
       In science class, SCANS suggests this activity: ``Work in a 
     group to design an experiment to analyze the lead content in 
     the school's water. Teach the results to an elementary school 
     class.'' To teach the competency of ``Resources'' in history 
     class, teachers are advised to study the Vietnam War from the 
     standpoint of the war's impact on the federal budget. 
     Actually, SCANS does not suggest unfashionable studies of 
     rent control and the rise of homelessness or the connection 
     between illegitimacy and crime.
       Goals 2000 calls for the creation of a new bureaucracy, the 
     20-member National Education Standards and Improvement 
     Council (NESIC), members of which would be appointed by 
     President Clinton.
       According to a Department of Education analysis. ``[T]he 
     Nation needs clear standards of what it will take to provide 
     all of them the opportunity to meet these standards, 
     assessments, and opportunity to meet these standards.'' 
     Accordingly, the NESIC would be responsible for ``stimulating 
     and certifying'' content and student performance standards, 
     assessments, and opportunity-to-learn standards for the 
     states.
       Thus, NESIC becomes an unelected national school board with 
     power to determine local school curriculum, textbooks, 
     technology, and teacher qualifications. The NESIC also would 
     judge how curriculum, teaching methods, and testing were 
     being aligned with content standards. It would plug in to the 
     current projects--ie., NSP and SCANS--in promoting innovative 
     forms of assessments such as student portfolios.
       Goals 2000's creation of a National Skills Standards Board 
     (NSSB) shouldn't be overlooked either. This new bureaucracy 
     would develop a ``voluntary'' national system of occupational 
     skill standards and ways of certifying workers to meet those 
     standards. In evaluating whether Goals 2000 is compulsory or 
     voluntary, it also is a good idea to watch what the Clinton 
     Administration does, rather than simply relying on its 
     promises. In September, Secretary Riley presented to Congress 
     a massive plan to ``reinvent'' the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act (ESEA), the federal government's largest chunk 
     of aid ($10 billion a year) to K-12 education. ESEA is due 
     for reauthorization next year, and the Clinton's allies want 
     a 10-year reauthorization instead of the usual five. More to 
     the point they want the whole basis of program accountability 
     geared to state compliance with the standards and assessments 
     of Goals 2000.
       In its September 22 issue, ``Education Week'' summarized 
     the change this way:
       ``States that participated in the (national) goals effort 
     could use those standards to qualify for Chapter 1. Those 
     that did not would still be required to set content and 
     performance standards applicable to all students in order to 
     receive Chapter 1 funds under the Administration's ESEA 
     plan.''
       Bruce Hunter, associate executive director of the American 
     Association of School Administrators, put it more succinctly: 
     ``It just means what everybody's been saying all along about 
     the standards being voluntary: Baloney. They're mandatory, 
     and they're tied to money.''
       The 300-page ESEA ``reinvention'' plan spells out these 
     options:
       Requiring all states to adopt challenging curriculum 
     frameworks and performance standards, applicable to all 
     students, that would be the basis of accountability in 
     Chapter 1.
       Entering into a compact with the states that have adopted 
     curriculum, frameworks, and performance standards to give 
     them increased flexibility in aligning Chapter 1 with larger 
     reform efforts.
       Providing financial and technical assistance to states that 
     are developing and implementing standards.
       ``Establishing service delivery guidelines for the quality 
     of Chapter 1 services in such areas as depth and coherence of 
     the curriculum appropriateness of instructional materials, 
     and expertise of staff.''
       Plugging the ESEA plan before the House Education and Labor 
     Committee on September 23, Secretary Riley declared that 
     Goals 2000 ``would support efforts to align education systems 
     in school districts and States throughout the nation based on 
     common ideas about what all our students should know and be 
     able to do. Systemic reforms--changes in what students study, 
     how they are taught, and how their performance is measured--
     are already underway in schools, school districts, and States 
     across the country. Federal resources and national leadership 
     can help sustain the momentum of these critical, sweeping 
     reforms.'' Then he added this thought:
       ``A common understanding of what all our children should 
     know and be able to do should drive changes in all aspects of 
     teaching and learning. Textbooks, teaching practices, and 
     tests should all be geared to State content and performance 
     standards that set forth the knowledge and skills our 
     students need, and our diverse democracy and our complex 
     economy demand.''
       Secretary Riley, who led a widely-hailed reform of South 
     Carolina public schools as that state's Governor, no doubt 
     has good intentions. But this is prescriptive approach, and a 
     dangerous area for the national government to be seizing 
     command. Tremendous power is invested in the authority that 
     selects what children ``should know'' and decrees what in the 
     way of higher-order thinking, self-esteem, and coping skills 
     they should ``be able to do.''
       Goals 2000 is not trickle-down reform. It is more nearly 
     based on a totalitarian model that was employed by the 
     socialist regimes of the East. It tramples the local 
     educational autonomy that has been at the heart of American 
     liberty for more than two centuries.
       And, what is all the more chilling, it is being put into 
     place through a collaboration of Big Education, Big 
     Government, Big Labor, and Big Business without substantive 
     national debate, a consequence of an abdication of 
     responsibility by the Big Media.


                           OBE Can be Stopped

       Parents would be well advised to follow the principle of 
     ``buyer beware'' when encountering education bureaucrats 
     peddling outcome-based education. They should kick the tires 
     and get behind the wheel and see how this model handles. 
     Despite scant major-media coverage, some parents are learning 
     enough about OBE to conclude that it is a lemon.
       In New York City, the prospects of stopping the OBEish 
     ``Children of the Rainbow'' curriculum supported by the media 
     elitists and Manhattan sophisticates seemed bleak. Then a 
     feisty grandmother, Mary Cummins, went to work and a parents' 
     revolt toppled the schools chancellor, Joseph Fernandez.
       In Pennsylvania, Peg Luksik of Johnstown led a grassroots 
     coalition of 22,000 that succeeded in getting a bill through 
     the Pennsylvania House of Representatives that would empower 
     localities to ignore the state Board of Education's OBE plan.
       In Littleton, Colorado voters elected--by almost a 2 to 1 
     margin--a ``back to the basics'' slate of school board 
     candidates who promised to scrap one of the nation's vanguard 
     OBE experiments.
       In Virginia, parental protests motivated Governor Douglas 
     L. Wilder to shelve a ``transformational'' OBE proposal last 
     September.
       And inside the Beltway, Goals 2000 sailed through the House 
     but then stalled as Senators began to hear from constituents 
     who opposed the imminent takeover of public education by the 
     OBE brigade.
       Maybe there's hope for democracy yet.

  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 (Mr. Campbell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of S. 1150 at 10 a.m. on Thursday, February 3d, 
and that at 10:30 a.m. Senator Durenberger or Senator Hatfield be 
recognized to offer an amendment in their behalf regarding flexibility 
from Federal regulation, with 30 minutes for debate on the amendment 
with no second-degree amendments in order thereto.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I congratulate 
the managers on the good progress made on the bill today. As was stated 
when we began consideration of the bill, it was my hope that we could 
complete action on this bill by the close of business tomorrow. I 
understand that there remain several more amendments to be considered, 
which means that there will likely be recorded votes throughout the day 
tomorrow.
  There will be no votes prior to 11 a.m. tomorrow and no further votes 
this evening.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me underscore what the majority leader 
has said. I think the managers have done a spectacular job. I think 
they are well over half way to finish in a matter of 7 or 8 hours. I 
would hope they could conclude action on this bill by 6 o'clock 
tomorrow evening. We are working on this side to accommodate the 
managers. It is my hope that we can get all that done, squeeze it all 
in there, and make it work.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I thank the 
distinguished Senators from Massachusetts and Vermont.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to thank the majority and minority 
leaders. We have made good progress even though there were not a great 
many votes. Many of the issues we did discuss and were able to work 
out. There are a definable number of important measures that are left.
  We would like to finish with some of the measures that we left 
unfinished earlier today. But we have some amendments by Senator Coats 
and Senator Lieberman about private school choice that we will address 
tomorrow; a Grassley-Thurmond amendment on psychiatric counseling. 
Also, Senator Helms has several amendments that we have yet to deal 
with.
  There are amendments by Senator Stevens regarding Alaskan natives 
which we are working on. Senator Dorgan has a pending amendment with 
regard to guns in schools which we are working on; Senator Gorton has 
an amendment on the issue of school discipline which we hope to work 
out.
  There may be other amendments. We are not inviting them. But we would 
hope that if there are other amendments that Senators will have 
notified Senator Jeffords or me so we can make sure that we are 
attending to the interests of the Members. We will proceed through 
tomorrow, hopefully reduce the number of amendments, and move toward a 
successful conclusion.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I also want to thank the Members. I 
think we are making a great deal of progress and, hopefully, within the 
next few minutes we will be able to even make further progress. This is 
an extremely important piece of legislation.
  I commend the Members for their attention to it and their recognition 
that this is something that for every day, almost, in delay, it is 
setting this measure back further.
  So I am hopeful we will be able to continue this evening with some 
progress and tomorrow be able to bring it, as the minority leader said, 
to completion before 6 o'clock tomorrow evening. I am dedicated to 
that. I know the manager for the majority side is and, hopefully, with 
the cooperation of the Members we will do that.
  I will be here at least for another hour if anyone has any 
suggestions or can tell us how they are going to work with their 
amendments on my side of the aisle. I will certainly be here in the 
morning also.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order; we had set 
aside some of the amendments. There was an amendment earlier that the 
Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, had offered, on which I had 
offered a second-degree, No. 1367. Is the clerk familiar with that 
particular amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is a regular order amendment. 
If the Senator wishes, that amendment will be restored.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that it be restored. I ask that 
my second-degree amendment 1367 be withdrawn. Senator Simon has 
authorized me to ask that his amendment 1366 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1374

(Purpose: To amend the State improvement plan regarding opportunity-to-
learn standards and to provide technical and other assistance regarding 
                         school finance equity)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Mr. Simon and Mr. Wellstone, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachussetts [Mr. Kennedy], for Mr. 
     Simon and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 1374.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 68, line 15, strike ``and (b)'' and insert ``, (b) 
     and (d)''.
       On page 79, line 8, strike all beginning with ``, such 
     as'', through page 79, line 17, and insert a period.
       On page 105, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
       (a) Techncial and Other Assistance Regarding School Finance 
     Equity.--
       (1) Technical assistance.--(A) From the national leadership 
     funds reserved in Sec. 304(a)(2)(A) the Secretary is 
     authorized to make grants to, and enter into contracts and 
     cooperative agreements with, State educational agencies and 
     other public and private agencies, institutions, and 
     organizations to provide technical assistance to State and 
     local educational agencies to assist such agencies in 
     achieving a greater degree of equity in the distribution of 
     financial resources for education among local educational 
     agencies in the State.
       (B) A grant, contract or cooperative agreement under this 
     subsection may support technical assistance activities, such 
     as--
       (i) the establishment and operation of a center or centers 
     for the provision of technical assistance to State and local 
     educational agencies;
       (ii) the convening of conferences on equalization of 
     resources within local educational agencies, within States, 
     and among States; and
       (iii) obtaining advice from experts in the field of school 
     finance equalization.
       (4) Data.--Each State educational agency or local 
     educational agency receiving assistance under the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 shall provide such data 
     and information on school finance as the Secretary may 
     require to carry out this subsection.
       (5) Models.--The Secretary is authorized, directly or 
     through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements, to 
     develop and disseminate models and materials useful to States 
     in planning and implementing revisions of the school finance 
     systems of such States.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have worked out a compromise. This 
amendment makes it clear that every State plan must adopt strategies to 
provide every child an opportunity to learn. The language is 
streamlined and simplified. We also incorporate provisions for 
technical assistance for States that request help as they address the 
problem of school finance inequities. This amendment will help to make 
sure States do not ignore the issue. But it also will allow States to 
take many, many different approaches.
  I thank the two Senators for their cooperation. This is a very 
important issue. We have tried to deal with it in a fair way. It seems 
to me to be a sensible and responsible approach. I thank our colleagues 
for their assistance.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have looked at the compromise that was 
reached. I think some of the language which may have been offensive to 
our side of the aisle was modified sufficiently. So that in my own 
judgment it should not cause any problems in view of the fact that it 
would take language which might have indicated a utilization of the 
language to interfere with the ability to achieve standards in the 
State schools.
  So I do not believe that this side of the aisle has any objection. I 
have not heard of any.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment?
  The amendment (No. 1374) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1369

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand Senator Dorgan had an 
amendment that was offered earlier. Is the Chair familiar with that 
amendment that refers to the issue of discipline to students who have 
brought guns to schools?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is amendment numbered 1369.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have every intention of trying to work 
out a compromise with the Senator from Vermont and other interested 
Senators on this issue, particularly with Senator Dorgan as well. We 
want to work out some kind of understanding.


                amendment no. 1375 to amendment no. 1369

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the meantime I propose a second-degree 
amendment in order to preserve the position of discussion so that we 
will have a related matter being considered in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1375 to amendment No. 1369.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In the pending amendment, strike all after the first word 
     and insert the following:
       ``It is the sense of the Senate that school districts 
     should adopt policies which provide for serious sanctions 
     including the possibility of expulsion from school for no 
     less than one year, for students who bring weapons to 
     school.''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, again I thank all of our colleagues for 
their cooperation and attention to the debate today. There has been 
important progress. We still have some important issues tomorrow to 
debate with regard to the role of private schools and choice. We have 
addressed those issues on previous occasions. I think Members are 
basically familiar with those matters.
  We will have an opportunity to debate those matters, and as I 
mentioned, there will be some amendments with regard to psychiatric 
counseling, and then the Durenberger-Hatfield amendment which I think 
will be a welcomed addition. It provides flexibility to the States.
  What we have already done in the legislation is provide the Secretary 
to permit some wide discretion to States in terms of dealing with a 
variety of different rules and regulations to move this whole process 
of academic enhancement forward. We have also permitted a great deal of 
flexibility at the State level in the development of their own plan to 
develop high content standards and also assessments and also propose 
flexibility by the waiver of certain of their own regulations which 
might inhibit the ability to do reform.
  I think there are many reasons to pass this legislation, but I think 
one of the important reasons is the very significant additional 
flexibility that we give to the States and local school boards in 
working through this process.
  I must say I think many of us have had an opportunity to visit 
schools, as I mentioned in the earlier part of the day that I had when 
I visited the Fenway Middle High School. I saw how they have 
imaginatively utilized scarce resources to enhance the pupil-teacher 
ratio reducing those numbers, and also to improve because of the strong 
support from the teachers. They have been able to use some of their 
substitute teacher money in a creative way as well to enhance academic 
opportunities.
  So there are a number of innovations that are taking place that we 
want to support beyond the central thrust of this legislation.
  Senators Hatfield and Durenberger have been enormously interested in 
flexibility. Senator Jeffords has been a strong proponent of that view 
as well.
  I think we all have learned a good deal about some of the very 
innovative efforts that are taking place at the local level.
  So we will look forward to continuing this debate. I think for many 
of us this is one of the most important pieces of legislation. We are 
very hopeful that in short order we will be able to follow on with a 
school-to-work program which has had broad bipartisan support and also 
has the support of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association 
of Manufacturers, and they have been enormously helpful and 
constructive.
  We are beginning to see and we would hope the Members would 
understand is that there should be enhancement of our Head Start 
program, based upon a lot of the recommendations that were made by the 
President's Commission that was bipartisan in nature, they made some 
very important recommendations on enhancing quality for the young 
people already involved in the Head Start program, and our belief is 
that some of those enhancements will be made, and also that there will 
be some effort to move the attention to young children from zero to 3.
  I think we are finding in the earlier kind of interventions a better 
opportunity for building self-esteem and skills. So we are moving in 
that direction.
  We are moving in elementary and secondary schools in Goals 2000, and 
then moving into school-to-work. Important initiatives have also been 
made with regard to the direct loans programs and the repayment of the 
student loans as a percent of income. We have enhanced the opportunity 
for those who are financially encumbered and given them greater 
alternatives.
  We have also passed the national service bill, and part of that 
national service is to provide limited funds, small amounts of 
resources to children K through 12, to involve them in educational 
programs, service programs that are developed by students. We have 
talked about those efforts in the past. It is now called the serve-
America program. All this is a part of an overall effort.
  We also have some very important initiatives in the technology to try 
and ensure that young children are going to be exposed to the range of 
different technologies in schools. We have proposed a program so that 
there may be loans for schools that are in districts able to afford 
them but grants to other schools, and also programs to help the 
teachers to more effectively utilize technologies to enhance academic 
achievement.
  I think any of us who have had the opportunity to work with small 
children, as I have at home, and have seen them lap up the geo-safari 
programs and spend hours on electronic games know that not only that 
type of a game is excellent, but also to see what electronics and 
computers can mean for training.
  So we are making good progress in focusing on people and particularly 
on children.
  I thank the Senator and my friend from Vermont for all of his 
cooperation in these areas and others. I have great respect for him 
because I think the Senator from Vermont has also identified one of the 
macro issues which this Nation has to give more attention to, and that 
is the issue of the funding and support that we as a country are going 
to our educational effort.
  The Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Connecticut, Senator 
Dodd, as well as other Senators, have really focused our education 
committees and the full Labor Committee on that particular issue and we 
are grateful to them for reminding our committee of what is happening 
with our young people--they are basically falling farther and farther 
behind.
  We are gratified with the efforts that are being made in these areas, 
but we know that as a Nation we are still short changing the young 
people in our society.
  We look forward to working with Senator Jeffords, who has really been 
the leader on the Education Subcommittee on this issue of funding and 
the allocation of resources at the local, State, and Federal level to 
educate our children.
  I also thank my friend and colleague, Senator Pell. Senator Pell was 
here at the opening salvo earlier today and has been with us all during 
the course of the day, and his counsel is always greatly appreciated 
and valued. So I thank him, and all of us look forward to a busy day 
tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is 
recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to briefly comment and first 
commend the Senator from Massachusetts for outlining the things that 
are good about our educational system.
  The problem is that the things that are good only affect a small 
percentage of our students, and that is why we are still on the 
pessimistic side; 13 out of 15 countries that are competitors of ours 
in the world market as far as math and science and those critical 
areas.
  As much as we are doing for those few, we are doing so very, very 
little for many. It is now time when we establish the goals to be sure 
we find the resources to replicate and duplicate and bring to the 
attention of the school districts around this country of those things 
which are good and which need to be replicated.
  That is not going to be an easy task, but tomorrow I will spend some 
time outlining the cost to this Nation of not doing it for the cost of 
not reaching these goals far exceeds whatever resources will be 
necessary to reach those goals.
  Let me just give you a couple of examples to start you off. It is 
costing our businesses about $200 billion a year in remedial education. 
That is to provide education to repair the damage or the problems that 
were created by an ineffective educational system. We lose about $225 
billion due to a lack of productivity of those who have been school 
dropouts.
  We spend about $25 billion a year for incarcerated criminals who are 
school dropouts. I can go on and on and on, and I will tomorrow.
  But for now, I will leave it at that and just say that we have a long 
way to go. But, fortunately, we do have areas in this country that are 
going well and that give us that guiding light which will be necessary 
to bring this Nation up to a standard which it must have to face this 
next century.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________