[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 3, 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.


                    Amendment No. 1382, as modified

  Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, first let me say that a lawyer, 
particularly a constitutional lawyer, would say that Senator Packwood 
has made a real contribution and that the Helms amendment, as modified, 
is not as pernicious as its original form because of the adding of the 
words ``constitutionally protected.'' However, I am concerned about the 
effect of this amendment, not on constitutional lawyers, but on real-
world school board members and real-world school administrators.
  I think that even as modified, what this amendment says is, if you 
are on a local school board, you better watch out. If you are on a 
local school board, you better watch out because the Feds are after 
you. If you are on a local school board and you make a mistake of law, 
we are going to come and get you and we are going to take your money 
away from you.
  I do not think in some of our smaller school districts and some of 
our poorer school districts the constitutional lawyers are going to be 
consulted. I believe there is going to be some vague threat that, if 
you do not have school prayer, you are going to lose your money. 
Therefore, I think this is still a bad amendment.
  I would prefer my own amendment. I would prefer to have a sense of 
the Senate that a period of silence is a good thing to have. But once 
we get into the business of mandates, we have created a real problem 
because there is only one reason to have Federal mandates, and that is 
to change the way of operation at the local level. The only reason to 
have a Federal mandate is to have a weapon held at the head of people 
at the local level and in this case held at the heads of people in the 
local school districts.
  That is the reason to have mandates. That is the reason for the heavy 
hand of Government. That is the reason for those of us in Washington 
saying we are going to give you money if you do things our way, and we 
are going to withhold money if you do not.
  What we are saying in this amendment is Federal education money is 
not going to be available. And, Mr. President, where does that money 
go? Where does Federal education money go? Does it go to the wealthy 
school districts which have access to the sophisticated constitutional 
lawyers who can say this is not as big a threat as it looks? No. The 
education money goes to those school districts that are least likely to 
hire the constitutional lawyers.
  We are saying to those most vulnerable school districts, Big Brother 
has spoken on the subject of school prayer. I do not think they are 
going to make the fine distinctions. I think they are going to say that 
We are really going to lose something that is crucial to the lifeblood 
of this school district if we do not start opening up to all types of 
prayer. They are not going to make distinctions between 
constitutionally protected and constitutionally permissible. These 
school boards are not going to make that kind of distinction. They are 
going to be scared sick.
  I mean, there is something scary in the minds of a lot of people 
about Uncle Sam. We think we are very benevolent around here with great 
largess in Washington, we are concerned about the values and the morals 
of the American people. But there are a lot of people out there who are 
scared of us. They are frightened about Washington, and they are going 
to be frightened about this. They are going to say: ``Let us start 
having our prayer clubs and our prayer groups. Let us start Balkanizing 
our school. Let us start having Christian groups and Jewish groups and 
Catholic groups, all joining in our schools offering prayers because, 
if we do not, we are going to lose our money.'' And the fine 
distinctions will not be there.
  So I continue to oppose this. I really think it is pernicious, and I 
really think it is divisive, and I really think that the fine 
distinctions do not apply.
  There are a lot of times in legislating when we look for the fine 
distinctions and we try to cut some kind of compromise. But when we 
talk about the religious lives of our people, it is very hard to make 
those kinds of minute distinctions and small compromises on the floor 
of the Senate. We are dealing with how people perceive themselves as 
human beings, how minority kids perceive themselves, how kids who are 
not in the group perceive themselves, how kids whose religious values 
come from their families and their churches or their synagogues 
perceive themselves, 8-, 10-, 12-year-old kids, how they perceive 
themselves when the school is being Balkanized.
  I do not think that those who are running the schools are going to 
know the difference between ``permissible'' and ``protected.'' I think 
it is all going to be lost. It is typical of us to make these kinds of 
fine distinctions, but in the real world it is not going to amount to 
anything at all, and it is just very, very threatening.
  I do not think we should be shoving people around like this. I do not 
think we should be shoving the school districts around. I think we 
should let them manage their own problems.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Chafee be added 
as a cosponsor to my amendment, which is the alternative amendment, 
which is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and which does not use the 
power and the wealth of the Federal Government to push the school 
districts around.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I agree with the very excellent remarks 
by the Senator from Missouri. I think I cannot improve upon the way he 
explained it.
  But I would like to explain how we are reversing present law. Present 
law states that no funds, no Federal funds, may be used to prevent the 
implementation of programs in voluntary prayer and meditation in the 
public schools. That means the school boards are free to implement it. 
There is nothing to be done to prevent that.
  What we are doing now is to say the other way around; that the school 
boards cannot control whether school prayer is implemented in the 
public schools. In other words, we have created a huge hammer over the 
local school boards who will be faced with a dilemma of a group that 
comes forward and says that they want voluntary prayer every morning, 
every noon, whenever else, and you better implement it or else they 
will make sure that all your Federal funds are gone.
  I think we ought to understand what we are doing here. That is an 
incredible change in existing law. It may be what is desired and, 
apparently, it is what is desired.
  But I would also remind everybody, we are not talking about the loss 
of the planning funds under this bill, which are very minimal, in fact, 
almost nonexistent as far as the school boards are concerned. We are 
talking about all programs under the Education Act. That means the 
Elementary and Secondary Act, all of those acts which the school 
districts are so dependent upon for a large part of their funding, 
special education, all of those would be gone. It would create a crisis 
for that local school district.
  In addition to that, there are NASA grants, National Science 
Foundation grants, the school lunch program under the agriculture 
program, school breakfast programs, the HHS, such as Medicaid funds, 
all of these would be lost.
  Now, granted, probably those will never get lost because there is 
such a huge hammer now that we will end up with school districts over 
the country bowing to the pressure of those who want to have school 
prayer in the schools.
  And whether that is right or wrong--obviously, the author of the 
amendment thinks that is right, that is good--but I would wonder what 
would happen, depending if your religious balance shifts in these 
schools. If you get into a school where your child is a Protestant and 
you are in San Francisco where there are other predominant religions or 
Asian religions, would you want that? That is the question. And that is 
the question the flip side asks.
  I just want to make sure we know what we are voting on here. It has 
been nicely corrected from the perspective of constitutional lawyers, 
as has been pointed out. But it has not been explained correctly in the 
sense of what it will do. And the power of the Federal Government will 
be used to change what is now considered a well-working system with 
respect to when and where voluntary school prayer will be used in 
school.
  Mr. President, I will be opposed to the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Did the Chair say, ``Who yields time?'' Are we under 
controlled time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, we are not. The Chair stands corrected.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I do not know precisely how to say what I am about to 
say. I do not mean it in any mean-spirited way, but I am puzzled.
  I met the objections of Mr. Justice Danforth and perhaps Mr. Justice 
Metzenbaum, and Mr. Justice Simon of Illinois. We have a court of 13 
Justices now telling us what the Constitution is.
  I am just a country boy doing the best I can trying to respond to the 
wishes of 75 percent of the people polled on this question time after 
time. They want to see school prayer restored in their schools, and 
this amendment of mine will do it.
  Now, if you want nothing to be done about the school prayer 
situation, then vote down the Helms amendment. That is very simple. You 
can leave it just like it is, because, with all due respect to my 
friends Senators Danforth and Kassebaum, and I understand Senator 
Chafee wants to cosponsor it, they are acting as surrogates for Senator 
Kennedy, who has opposed this amendment every time I brought it before 
the Senate.
  The amendment that they propose, which is now the Danforth-Kassebaum-
Kennedy-Chafee amendment, is a nothing amendment. It is a nothing 
amendment. It does nothing. It means nothing. And nothing is ever going 
to happen if it is adopted, if the Helms amendment is not adopted.
  So if you want something done about the school prayer situation, if 
you want to respond to those 75 percent of the American people who want 
something done, you better vote for the Helms amendment.
  Now I am not going to go home and cry if the Helms amendment is not 
passed, because I have been around the track a few times and I win some 
and I lose some. But the losers in this will be the 75-percent of the 
American people who are fed up with the things that Senator Lott 
described in Mississippi, and I described other things that have gone 
on which are perfectly outrageous with respect to school prayer.
  So the Helms amendment, which will be voted on first, is a response, 
as I have said over and over again this afternoon, to the 75-percent of 
the American people who want constitutionally protected, as it now 
reads, school prayer restored. It is virtually identical to a provision 
adopted by the House of Representatives by a vote of 269 to 135.
  So, if you want something done, it is OK with me if you vote for both 
amendments. I may do exactly that, because the second amendment means 
nothing.
  But make no mistake about the implications or the reality of my 
amendment. My amendment refers only to constitutionally protected 
prayer. I had it constitutionally permitted. I am not sure I understand 
the difference between protected and permitted, but I agreed readily.
  My amendment does not, despite what has been said on this floor, 
force school districts to allow school prayer the Supreme Court has 
determined to be prohibited. No way. My amendment does not prohibit 
school districts from establishing the time and place restrictions on 
prayer. My amendment does not--does not, I say for emphasis--mandate 
school prayer or mandate participation in school prayer, nor does it 
require schools to establish particular prayers.
  What my amendment does is assure students their right to 
constitutionally protected voluntary prayer by providing that school 
districts which prohibit constitutionally protected prayer will have to 
do without that free money from Washington.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from Massachusetts, 
the manager of the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, first of all, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent that the vote on the Helms amendment occur at 5:40 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I intend to support the amendment of 
the Senator from North Carolina, as amended, and for these reasons. 
Under the modification, the amendment only applies, actually, when a 
court determines that a school district has a policy that effectively 
prevents a student from engaging in a constitutionally protected 
prayer. The way I read it, a court would have to make that judgment. So 
it is only those situations where a student has a constitutional right 
to pray, as determined by a court, that would be implicated by this 
amendment. This is, obviously, a difficult balance to be struck in the 
area of free exercise and the establishment of religion. It is a 
delicate balance. The modification protects only those situations that 
the free exercise clause protects.
  We withhold funds here if we find that there is going to be 
discrimination on the basis of race. We withhold funds if there is 
going to be discrimination on the basis of religion. We also have done 
that with regard to disability.
  The way I read this amendment, as changed, the amendment would say 
that if they are going to deny, as a matter of school board policy, 
constitutionally protected rights, then that school district will lose 
funds under this act.
  So I have enormous respect for my friend and colleagues--the Senator 
from Missouri and the Senator from Vermont--in terms of their 
positions; the uncertainty that might be out there in terms of the 
schools and understanding what is appropriate or what is not 
appropriate, and the arguments that are made in terms of the issues of 
public policy that are raised. But it does seem to me, as this 
amendment has been changed now for the constitutionally protected 
speech, that basically we are just saying if a school board is going to 
violate that as a matter of policy, it would be ineligible to receive 
money under this provision.
  As one who has supported that position with regard to race and 
religion and disability, I think the amendment is not inconsistent with 
that policy. So when the time comes to vote, I will vote in favor of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. PACKWOOD. Madam President, I hope the vote on this amendment will 
not be close. I am delighted the Senator from Massachusetts is going to 
support it. But I want to add my voice as one who has opposed most of 
the school prayer amendments, either statutory or constitutional, that 
we have had in the past, in support of this.
  A little bit of background and history as to school prayer in this 
country is worthwhile at this stage.
  When we had the first Supreme Court decisions 30 years or so ago 
limiting school prayer, there were some interesting studies done as to 
what geographic areas of the country prayed and did not. It was 
interesting. It was not a uniform breakdown.
  Heavily in the South it was common to have prayers in public schools. 
In some cases they were a common prayer each day. In some cases it was 
a different prayer each day. In some cases, they were picked by the 
teachers; in some cases, by the school boards. But it was heavily in 
the South, and you found it in urban public schools that were heavily 
Catholic.
  They were basically a geographic prayer that represented the 
predominant religion in the area.
  I think unconsciously, probably--I do not think it was meant to be a 
proselytizing prayer for Catholics in urban areas or for Baptists in 
the South--but it was unconsciously a reflection of the predominant 
religion of the area.
  Interestingly, in the West prayer was not common. I take this not 
only from my own experience but from the study. I went to public grade 
and high schools in Portland, OR and we did not pray. We said the 
Pledge of Allegiance everyday but we did not pray. It turns out that 
was common in the West, common throughout the State of Oregon.
  The Court started striking down prayers where there was an obvious 
sectarian overtone, or where there were objections from students who 
were not of that sect and felt they were being compelled to participate 
in a prayer that was not of their religion. Initially, the schools 
thought they could take care of that by having the students who did not 
want to pray go in the cloakroom or go out in the hallway. The Court, 
in essence, felt it was unfair pressure, if you are 7 years old or 8 
years old, and everybody in the class is praying but you, and the 
teacher says, ``Johnny, you go outside,'' well, 7- or 8-year-old kids 
are not going to do that so they stayed there when the prayer was held.
  The courts, in some people's minds, went too far then--not in mine. I 
thought the decisions, by and large, were quite consistent. But I do 
applaud the Court when it came to the place where it said voluntary 
prayer, individual prayer, is constitutional. This is not something you 
try to impose on others. This is you. And the school board or the 
schoolteacher or the school principal cannot take away your rights to 
say your prayer so long as you are not interfering with other people.
  I am one who thinks we ought to push to the outer limits of 
constitutionality prayer in public places. It is not going to hurt a 
single one of us. It may do more good than most of the policies we 
adopt. But to the extent it is constitutional, then this Senate should 
do everything possible to protect that right. If that means that on 
occasion we are going to say to some school district you will be 
threatened with the loss of your money if you do not let Sally or Jimmy 
constitutionally pray, that is no greater a threat than saying to the 
school district we may threaten to take away your money if you 
discriminate against women and girls; we may take away your money if 
you racially discriminate; we may take away your money if you 
discriminate against the disabled or the aged.
  So let us add one more. We will threaten to take away your money if 
you are possibly going to discriminate against constitutionally 
protected prayer.
  It is a good amendment. I hope the Senate will adopt it and I 
congratulate the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, locally elected school boards ought to have 
the right to adopt a policy providing for constitutionally protected 
voluntary school prayer. However, that is not the effect of the Helms 
amendment.
  Instead, the Helms amendment is an example of the Federal 
Government's, in effect, imposing on locally elected school boards the 
requirement that they allow voluntary prayer in school as long as it 
would not violate the Constitution. In other words, it could override a 
locally elected school board's decision not to allow voluntary school 
prayer if that school board seeks any funding from the Department of 
Education.
  At a time of increasing concern about Federal mandates and the 
overriding of local decisionmaking, this amendment is particularly 
troublesome because it is in the context of our first amendment 
freedoms. it is for that reason that I will vote against it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, improving our educational system is a 
top priority. Yet, it has not gotten the attention it rightfully 
deserves.
  But today we consider legislation, Goals 2000--Educate America Act--
that gives a boost to States and local communities for education reform 
initiatives.
  And at the same time, this legislation suggests an education 
framework for the entire Nation by establishing national goals.
  Of these goals, here are my top three: getting kids ready to learn, 
making sure United States students will be first in the world in 
mathematics and science, and making every school safe and drug free.
  First, it is vitally important for American children to start school 
ready to learn. How can we tackle school reform without tackling school 
health?
  Health is a major concern in this country for everyone including our 
youth. Sadly, less than 40 percent of 2-year olds receive complete 
immunizations. This is not satisfactory.
  Every student must start school healthy not just in the first grade 
but in every grade because we know that healthy students have better 
attendance and are more productive. This legislation supports 
developing healthy young minds and healthy bodies.
  Second, we must strive to make United States students first in the 
world in mathematics and science.
  As Chair of the subcommittee that funds the National Science 
Foundation, I have worked to strengthen math and science education for 
all children, especially in the early grades.
  Mr. President, by age 13, the math and science achievement of 
American students lags behind that of students in other countries. Yet, 
if we are going to keep pace with the rest of the world in developing 
new technology, our students will need strong math and science skills.
  It is critical that both girls and boys get the math and science 
skills necessary to compete for the high tech jobs of the future.
  And finally, Mr. President, we must do all we can to make every 
school in America free from drugs and violence. This is an extremely 
important goal.
  And I am especially pleased that my amendment was accepted to make 
this goal better. My amendment asks every school to make the 
elimination of sexual harassment a part of its mission to create a 
healthy school environment. It will help make the school environment 
more conducive for learning all students--girls and boys.
  Mr. President, it is important to have safe, disciplined, and drug-
free schools.
  I have seen the way that crime has infiltrated our schools and our 
community. In January of last year, I held a town meeting with students 
at Canton Middle School in Baltimore.
  I asked these assertive 12-, 13-, and 14-year-olds: ``If you could 
talk to President Clinton, what would you tell him?'' They gave me an 
earful. But of all the issues they asked about, crime was their 
greatest concern.
  Just yesterday, a Baltimore school teacher, Julie Lombardi, who 
worried about the safety of her kindergarten class, was shot in the 
face as she left the school parking lot near Reisterstown Road.
  Mr. President, we cannot tolerate any more of what is happening on 
our streets and in our schools. We need to make investments in our 
youth before the trouble begins.
  For many young people in our cities today, gangs are the only option 
if they want a social life or want to feel like they belong. We need to 
show them that there are other things to do.
  These students come to school every day in fear of crime. They want 
gun control, safer streets, and more programs like community policing 
that get the police officer out of the car and into the neighborhood.
  Mr. President, to prevent crime in our schools, we need good public 
schools, good teachers, good resources, and the ability to learn. And I 
think we can do that.
  That's why I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Safe Schools Act being 
offered as an amendment to this bill by Senator Dodd. We need to say 
``yes'' to kids who say ``no'' to drugs and ``yes'' to homework. We 
need to give a good guy bonus for those who stay in school, work hard, 
and participate in community service.
  In my State of Maryland, we have made a commitment to community 
service and a commitment to improving education.
  Maryland has established an innovative education reform plan called 
``Schools for Success.'' It is aimed at comprehensive school 
improvement and reform.
  The Maryland Schools for Success Program encompasses--and exceeds--
the seven national goals that this bill puts into law. It provides a 
framework for schools to measure their progress and to make any needed 
adjustments in order to keep pace with changes in technology.
  The support that Maryland could get from this bill would add the 
financial spark that Maryland's schools need to keep their plans going 
and to keep change coming.
  My State is a pioneer in many ways; education reform is one of them. 
But some States are not so lucky. They, in fact, could use the guidance 
that this bill provides.
  With this legislation, States and schools develop and try their own 
innovative reform methods because States do not want their hands tied 
when it comes to school reform. They want to do it their way in order 
to get the job done.
  Mr. Chairman, education reform is one of the most important issues in 
America today. Our youth must have the knowledge and know-how to 
compete in today's work force. By helping them get that education, we 
will have bright and articulate workers of tomorrow.
  Mr. President, the Government cannot do everything. But, clearly, it 
can give an opportunity structure by supporting good health, good 
schools, and a safe environment.
  We must build our communities by bringing down violence and bringing 
about change. The education of our youth is an investment we cannot 
afford to overlook. It is what is best for our children and our future.


 amendment directing a study of goals 2000 school reform and students 
                           with disabilities

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the bill managers for 
including in their package my amendment which directs the Secretary of 
Education to conduct a study of how well students with disabilities are 
served by the Goals 2000 school reforms. The National Academy of 
Sciences was selected as the contractor because of its reputation for 
both independence and excellence.
  Mr. President, there are three reasons why this study is important 
and, in my view, way overdue.
  First, I am concerned that students with disabilities will miss the 
bus when it comes to school reform. Whether one agrees with Goals 2000 
or not, the national debate over education sparked by the 1983 report 
``A Nation at Risk'' has been important and sometimes riveting.
  Regrettably, in the past 11 years there has been little attention to 
students with disabilities, although they comprise 10 percent of all 
students and are among those most in need of education reforms. For 
example, Goals 2000 aims for a 90-percent high school graduation rate. 
Even without reform, the graduation rate among nondisabled students has 
been growing, to 83 percent today. But among students with 
disabilities, whose graduating with either a diploma or a certificate 
dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent between 1986 and 1989.
  Mr. President, I know that the bill contains many references to 
students with disabilities, and I commend the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources for its strong report language in this regard. But 
neither bill or report language can make up in one fell swoop for a 
decade of neglect. At the very least, I hope this study will jump start 
attention to this issue.
  Second, there are many unanswered questions about Goals 2000 school 
reforms and students with disabilities. Although I do not intend or 
expect this study to rewrite Goals 2000, we must be sure that goals, 
standards, and assessments work for students with disabilities, not 
against them by promoting their exclusion.
  Lastly, I hope that this study will also provide ideas for the 
upcoming reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act, and help spur a badly needed, careful review of how well this 
Nation educates its students with disabilities and the challenges faced 
by the States and by schools in serving such students.
  Mr. President, when it comes to disability, we live in a new world. 
In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans With Disabilities Act, 
determined to make full participation by people with disabilities our 
national policy, and committed to the proposition that we can create a 
fully accessible society. I expect this study to be carried out in that 
spirit.
  In closing, Mr. President, almost 25 years ago, in November 1969, I 
gave my first speech to this body on the education of students with 
disabilities. At that time I said, ``In our Nation, education has 
become the major route to full participation in society. [But] the 
simple stark truth this is: We have not committed ourselves to the 
concept of providing equality of educational opportunity * * *.'' Since 
then, we have worked hard to close the opportunity gap. This study will 
help ensure we keep moving forward.


                     the goals 2000 education bill

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the legislation we 
are considering today, the Goals 2000 education bill.
  I believe it is important to address the idea of school readiness, 
and this legislation does that. Its first goal is that by the year 
2000, all children in America should start school ready to learn, 
thereby increasing the graduation rate to at least 90 percent. Another 
important goal is that our students would leave grades 4, 8, and 12 
having demonstrated competency over basic but challenging subjects like 
English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and 
government, the arts, history, and geography.
  In addition, it is time that we make increasing adult literacy a top 
priority so that individuals will possess the knowledge and skills 
necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and 
responsibilities of citizenship.
  One of the six goals contained in this legislation pertains to drug-
free schools. This is an extremely important goal and one in which I 
feel education can play a vital role. We have held hearings in the 
Judiciary Committee pertaining to drug abuse, and almost every 
individual who is involved in law enforcement tells us that if we are 
going to win the war against drugs, we have to win it through 
education.
  These officials have impressed upon us the idea that you must win 
this battle on the demand side. We must decrease the demand for drugs, 
and education is the best method for conveying to young people the ills 
of drug abuse.
  We can take pride in setting as a goal by the year 2000 that every 
school in America will be free of drug and violence and offer a 
disciplined environment conducive to learning. The Federal Government 
will take steps to ensure that all students receive drug abuse 
prevention education and counseling services.
  Goals 2000 will support the development of work skills and standards 
to identify those skills required to enter different occupations. These 
standards will help individuals in their transition from school to 
work, as well as influence the education they receive in secondary 
schools.
  Perhaps the most serious concern regarding those students who do not 
pursue formal education beyond high school is that entry level workers 
with a high school education or less have experienced real decreases in 
their earning power. Also, we have to be concerned that those youths 
who do not go to college may face difficulty moving from school to the 
adult work force.
  Although many high school students work, their jobs are usually low-
skilled, low-wage, and occasional. Many young adults never move into 
real careers. Some of the possible causes for this problem are skill 
deficiencies, particularly in academic areas, low student motivation in 
high school, and increases in job-skill requirements. This legislation 
responds to these concerns by establishing the National Skills 
Standards Board to serve as a catalyst in stimulating the development 
of a national system of voluntary occupational skills standards.

  The Board is to be composed of members representing the business 
community, labor, education and training, community-based 
organizations, State and local governments, and civil rights 
organizations. The Board will identify broad clusters of major 
occupations involving industries in the United States which share 
characteristics that make them appropriate candidates for the 
development of a common set of skill standards.
  In Alabama, Governor Folsom's task force on education reform has 
drafted a similar plan for the reform of Alabama public schools. The 
plan, entitled ``Alabama First: A Plan for Academic Excellence,'' calls 
for the adoption of learner goals and objectives, the restructuring of 
secondary education, and the development of student assessment 
strategies. The Alabama reform plan also calls for a leadership and 
mentoring program, teacher assistance teams, and learning resources 
teams for educators.
  The legislation we are considering today will strengthen and improve 
teacher training, textbooks, instructional materials, technologies, and 
overall school services so students will have the tools to achieve 
higher standards.
  This bill will create new partnerships in which parents, schools, 
teachers, business and labor leaders, the States, and the Federal 
Government all work together to benefit and educate all students. As I 
mentioned before, the National Skills Standards Board to be established 
by Goals 2000 will promote the development of occupational skills 
standards that will define what workers need to know and will ensure 
that American workers are better trained and internationally 
competitive.
  Goals 2000 will encourage the development of innovative student 
performance assessment to gauge progress and increase flexibility for 
States, school districts, and schools by waiving rules and regulations 
that might impede local reform and improvement.
  Our schools must prepare young people of all ages for a wide array of 
jobs and careers. During the coming years, with the explosion of 
technology and a corresponding demand for specialized education, 
emphasis on skills will play an increasing role in the training of the 
young people of this country and in preparing them for the role they 
must play in our economic future.
  It is said that America is losing its competitive edge. How well 
prepared are we to enter the 21st century? In the past, America has set 
standards for the world. It is now time to determine that we should 
enter the next century having achieved a level of excellence 
unsurpassed in history.
  We will meet this challenge by providing young people of this Nation 
with the advantages which result from programs setting goals and 
achievement targets in education. The quest for excellence begins in 
the classroom, but must proceed into the workplace. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I come before this body today to voice my 
support for S. 1150, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. It is long 
past time to strengthen our national commitment to the most important 
natural resource this country possesses--its children who, after all, 
are our future. The bill we consider today represents a comprehensive 
national attempt to promote that end by helping our local schools 
educate their students in the best manner possible.
  The Goals 2000: Educate America Act establishes a framework for 
ensuring that our educational system helps all students realize their 
full potential. It begins by codifying the national educational goals 
that were adopted by President Bush and the Nation's Governors in 1990, 
and then authorizes $400 million in Federal aid to States and 
communities to develop and implement local education reform 
initiatives.
  The National Education Goals endorsed by this bill are:
  First, that by the year 2000, all children in America should start 
school ready to learn;
  Second, that by the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will 
increase to at least 90 percent;
  Third, that by the year 2000, American students will leave grades 4, 
8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject 
matter and will be prepared for responsible citizenship, further 
learning, and productive employment in our modern economy;
  Fourth, that by the year 2000, United States students will be first 
in the world in mathematics and science achievement;
  Fifth, that by the year 2000, every American will be literate and 
will possess the skills and knowledge necessary to compete in a global 
economy;
  Sixth, that by the year 2000, every school in America will be free of 
drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive 
to learning; and
  Seventh, that by the year 2000, every school will promote 
partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation 
in promoting the social, emotional and academic growth of children.
  These goals are the cornerstone for the establishment of a system of 
academic and occupational standards designed to improve teaching, 
learning and occupational skills across the country. While an ambitious 
undertaking, the attainment of these goals is, given the quality of our 
educators and potential of our children, certainly well within our 
reach.
  In addition to setting concrete goals for which to shoot, the Goals 
2000: Educate America Act establishes a true partnership between the 
Federal Government and local communities in the education of America's 
youth. The legislation is designed to stimulate a community-based 
reform effort by providing the greatest amount of flexibility to states 
and local school districts in designing their curricula while 
allocating the Federal dollars needed to implement locally-initiated 
reform in our schools.
  Some concern has been raised at the local level that Goals 2000 
promotes ``outcome-based'' education [OBE] and shifts a school's focus 
from how much students know to how well they are socialized. On the 
contrary, Goals 2000 focuses on academic performance and results. It 
supports the development of high standards that define what students 
should know and be able to do in core academic subjects, such as 
English, math, the arts, science, history, civics, and geography. The 
legislation does not endorse nonacademic outcomes.
  More specifically, Goals 2000 does not encroach on the right of 
parents to guide their children in the development of personal values. 
In fact, greater parental involvement is an integral part of the 
educational improvements that this legislation envisions.
  Simply stated, Goals 2000 is intended to help us, as a Nation, focus 
on the skills that will be needed by students in their future workplace 
and commit greater national resources to that effort. This is not an 
attempt to impose particular values or educational philosophy in each 
community. It is not an attempt to overtake local control. Rather, it 
provides a national framework for grassroots education reform and 
provides Federal funds to support State and local improvement plans, 
written at the local level.
  Finally, I want to commend President Clinton and Education Secretary 
Dick Riley for crafting this ambitious concept and making it an 
Administration priority. Both men are former governors who understand 
the importance of education to the future of our communities and 
States, and who have a longstanding interest in the role of our local 
communities in the education of our children. Their experience as 
governors clearly contributed significantly to the formulation of this 
bill.
  Mr. President, approval of S. 1150 is only a beginning. Once we take 
this step, we can build on its achievements, confident in the knowledge 
that the quest for learning is the fight for our future.


                education goals 2000 and the environment

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Goals 2000 
legislation because it is important to the effort of preserving our 
natural resources and environment. A strong educational system has many 
ripple effects--even on the environment. Environmental leaders have 
universally urged that the educational system be strengthened. In this 
way, the citizens of this country will have the knowledge and 
understanding to grapple with today's more complex and subtle 
environmental challenges.
  Russell Train, a former EPA administrator and the current chairman of 
the World Wildlife Fund, articulated the goal of environmental 
education in his report entitled ``Choosing a Sustainable Future'' 
published last year. He called for an American with an environmentally 
literate citizenry that has the knowledge, skills and ethical values to 
achieve sustainable development. I could not agree more that literacy 
is key to preserving our environment as well as our economy and our way 
of life.
  Unfortunately, with respect to educating the public and our children 
about the environment, we still have a long way to go. Last year the 
Environment and Public Works Committee held a series of hearings to 
take stock of our environmental policies. During those hearings, we 
heard repeatedly that environmental literacy is now in the United 
States.
  Thomas Jorling, who heads the New York Department of Environmental 
Conservation, provided the committee with a gripping example of the 
need for greater environmental education. He told the story of one 
polluted site in his State in which a very advanced treatment system 
was rejected by the local citizens because it of its technical 
complexity. Jorling chalked up this environmental defeat to the lack of 
people conversant in chemistry and physics.
  So, the result of this environmental illiteracy is that sometimes 
fear and misinformation drive decisions regarding environmental actions 
and priorities. We cannot allow that to happen. Too much is at stake--
both in terms of the cost of environmental regulation and in terms of 
the risks to human health and the environment. We can require cost-
benefit analysis in environmental policy-making. But it won't make a 
bit of difference if the public does not truly understand the risk and 
costs involved. We must be able to communicate these things to the 
public, and they must be able to make informed choices about what is 
best for their communities and this country.
  The goal of improving education in this country cannot end with this 
legislation. I plan to hold a hearing on the subject of environmental 
education later this year. I hope that we can focus more attention on 
the need to build environmental education into science and geography 
curriculum standards. And there is a great need to educate adults, as 
well as our children, about the environment.
  The Goals 2000 legislation is a good starting point. Environmental 
literacy is woven into some of the goals, and that is good for the 
environment. It will ensure that students are prepared for responsible 
citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our 
Nation's economy. The legislation also calls for U.S. students to be 
first in the world in math and science. That is critical to the U.S.'s 
ability to compete in the global economy. Nowhere is this more true 
than in the burgeoning envirotech industry. Without smart and capable 
young scientists and engineers the growth of envirotech business, and 
therefore the U.S. economy, will be stunted. So I plan to vote for this 
bill because I care about education and because I care about the 
environment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Sixth National Education Goal states 
that by the year 2000 every school in the United States will be free of 
drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive 
to learning. The Safe Schools Act will provide funds to local education 
agencies to reduce violence in schools and make this important goal a 
reality. I rise to offer my strong support for this legislation. The 
Appropriations Subcommittee I chair provided $20 million in funds for 
this program for fiscal year 1994. However, expenditure of those funds 
is contingent on this authorization.
  There has been a rash of violence by youth sweeping our Nation and no 
community or school is immune. In my home State of Iowa, juvenile crime 
is on the rise and many people are frightened. Beginning in the mid-
1980's an increasing number of Iowa juveniles have been charged with 
murder, rape, aggravated assault, and kidnaping. While the juvenile 
population declined by 26 percent during the past decade, violent crime 
committed by this group has increased 27 percent. This is a crisis and 
we must take immediate action to deal with this serious problem.
  Many of us have difficulty understanding what is happening. I am 
shocked every time I hear about a young person settling an argument 
with a weapon. Don Conway, the chief juvenile officer in Sioux City 
said this in a recent article in the Des Moines Register on violence by 
youth in Iowa. He said:

       It's coldblooded, without any remorse. ``Bang, bang, you're 
     dead.'' I mean, it's scary what these kids are doing these 
     days.

  I would like to thank the chairman of the Education Subcommittee, 
Senator Pell, and the lead sponsor of the legislation, Senator Dodd, 
for accommodating concerns I raised about the limitation that only 
schools eligible for chapter 1 concentration grants could apply for 
these funds. I think we reached a reasonable compromise by giving these 
schools a priority, but allowing any school that can show need to apply 
for these grants.
  This bill will help some of our most troubled schools come to terms 
with youth violence. It sends the important message that we are not 
going to tolerate violence in our Nation's schools. The very least we 
can give our children is a safe learning environment.
  In September, the Des Moines Register published an excellent four 
part series on juvenile crime in Iowa. As I mentioned earlier, the 
number of violent crimes committed by youth is on the rise in Iowa. The 
articles dramatically show the pervasiveness and seriousness of this 
problem which touches communities in all corners of my State. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in 
the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   A Chilling Wave of Teen Brutality


                    Iowa juvenile crime on the rise

       On a freezing early morning in February, a day when 
     emergency calls would flood the Sioux City police 
     switchboard, Tonya Rubottom attempted to help her friend push 
     his car, stuck hopelessly in the snow.
       Two people walked up to the car in an alley and helped push 
     it free. In a city full of disabled cars, the help was a turn 
     of good luck. Or so it seemed.
       To show his gratitude, Rubottom's friend invited the good 
     Samaritans to his apartment for a few drinks. Within hours, 
     police reports say, Rubottom, 16, was raped and strangled at 
     the apartment.
       Charged with first-degree murder is Carlos Medina of Sioux 
     City, who had helped push the car. He is 16 years old.
       If police are correct that the teen-ager was involved, the 
     death of Tanya Rubottom becomes another footnote to a 
     troubling story: More Iowa teens are participating in violent 
     crimes. Many are picking up guns, knives, ropes and bricks 
     and killing people, often with no provocation.
       Unlike some other states facing a growing problem with 
     violent juvenile crime, Iowa's litany of violence occurs as 
     the state's juvenile population plummets.
       Dan Conway, chief juvenile officer in Sioux City, says: 
     ``It's cold-blooded, without any remorse. `Bang, bang, you're 
     dead' stuff. I mean, it's scary what these kids are doing 
     these days.''
       Some recent examples are chilling.
       In 1992, Bryant Cook, then 16, took a .22-caliber rifle off 
     the wall of the small house near Woodburn where he was living 
     with his father, leveled the weapon near his father's head 
     and pulled the trigger, investigators said.
       Daniel Cook, 37, died instantly. His body was taken to the 
     basement and left there for days until a relative found it.
       The teen-ager pleaded guilty of second-degree murder.
       ``We don't know exactly what triggered him,'' says Clarke 
     County Attorney Gary Kimes. Bryant had no criminal record. 
     Records show that before the shooting he had told friends, 
     ``I wish my dad were dead.''
       Also last year, 18-year-old John Allan Holmes was found 
     guilty of killing Luann Simms, 39, in her apartment in 
     West Burlington. Her head had been battered seven times 
     with a brick.
       Police Chief George Rinker says Holmes entered her 
     apartment looking for money. ``He told a number of friends 
     that she looked like a girl he had dated, so he beat her 
     until she didn't look like her anymore,'' Rinker says.
       ``I don't believe he had to kill her. There was no 
     indication he was forced to kill her,'' the chief says.
       Holmes, who just three weeks before Simms was slain had 
     been released from the State Training School at Eldora when 
     he turned 18, is now serving a life sentence without parole.


                              Told Friends

       Rinker adds, ``What really alarms me is that she was killed 
     on the 13th of June, and by the first part of July, he told 
     seven of his close friends that he did this murder. None of 
     those people came forward.''
       The random nature of these vicious acts puzzles police and 
     juvenile authorities.
       Even some of the juveniles caught up in the events have 
     been unprepared for the violence.
       ``it's crazy,'' says Clyde Edwards, who has begun serving a 
     50-year sentence for second-degree murder. ``I'm 15 years 
     old. I never thought I would be locked up. Six months ago, I 
     was in school playing sports.''
       In Davenport in April, Edwards fired the handgun that 
     killed Lawrence Brown during a neighborhood argument. He is 
     now at the Oakdale prison to begin a long sentence.
       Dressed in a blue prison jumpsuit, Edwards looks no older 
     than some of the children visiting other inmates. He recently 
     discussed his future while sitting at a table in a meeting 
     room.
       ``They think a bit like Al Capone,'' Edwards says of his 
     ``associates'' outside.
       ``They like drive-by shootings, like in the movies. They 
     want to be cool. They want to be noticed. They want to get 
     themselves noticed by doing something big so people can have 
     something to talk about and say, `Oh, that's that dude who 
     did that.'''
       To be sure, the number of slayings by Iowa teen-agers is 
     only a sliver of teen-age crime.
       For instance, in 1990 alone, more than 7,700 juveniles were 
     arrested for crimes from car theft to murder. During the 
     1990s, an examination of several sources--police reports, 
     court records, newspaper clippings--shows 27 juveniles have 
     been taken into custody on homicide charges.
       What troubles authorities is that even though changes in 
     the way the state compiles crime statistics prevent precise 
     comparisons, the homicides appear to be occurring at a record 
     pace.
       Compared with official records of previous periods, the 
     number of teen-agers accused of murder in the 1990s is 
     unmatched. Notably, many of the killings have been in rural 
     corners of the state, in villages like Derby, population 135, 
     and Woodburn, 240.
       In fact, one-third of the juvenile homicide arrests during 
     the 1990s have been in communities with fewer than 5,000 
     people. One in four juveniles sent to prison in 1992 was from 
     a rural county, Department of Corrections figures show.


                         Escalation of Violence

       The statistics underscore some gloomy developments: Several 
     of the alleged killers are barely into their teens, some as 
     young as 14. The homicides have sprung from a disturbing 
     escalation of violence among the young.
       Historically, Iowa's teen-agers rarely went to jail for 
     anything more than stealing or other crimes against property. 
     Beginning in the mid-1980s, more teens began being charged 
     with murder, rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping--brutal 
     crimes against people.
       Juvenile crime against property fell 26 percent in the past 
     decade. Vicious ``personal'' crimes, including rape and 
     aggravated assault, jumped 27 percent. The switch took place 
     while the state's juvenile population fell 26 percent.
       Some of the killings have been linked by police to gang and 
     drug activity. But the influence of gangs has surfaced in 
     only a few of the state's larger cities. Overwhelmingly, 
     authorities say, the violent acts have been solo encounters 
     with no hint of gang involvement.
       The numbers also show that more Iowa teen-agers are being 
     slain.
       Of the three major types of teen-age violent deaths--
     suicides, traffic accidents, homicides--only homicide has 
     increased in the past decade.
       The Child and Family Policy Center in Des Moines says the 
     rate of teen-age homicide deaths more than doubled, to six 
     per 100,000, in the 1980s, while the rate of traffic deaths 
     fell and suicides stabilized.
       ``Homicides stick out,'' says Mike Crawford, director of 
     data management for the center. ``More children are exposed 
     to violence not only on television and in the movies, but in 
     their daily lives and in their homes and neighborhoods.''
       There would likely be more deaths and more murder charges, 
     suggests Polk County Attorney John Sarcone, had it not been 
     for improved skills aboard rescue ambulances and inside 
     hospital emergency rooms. New techniques have saved many 
     victims who faced certain deaths only a few years ago, he 
     says.
       The recent growth in slayings is in sharp contrast to 
     Iowa's touted low-crime, low-stress image, a picture of 
     health the state projects well beyond its borders. In many 
     ways, it's a reputation well deserved.
       As far back as numbers go, the state has been near the 
     bottom of the nation's crime summaries. In 1990, Iowa was 
     ranked 49th in its murder rate, tied with New Hampshire. It 
     was 49th in rapes, 41st in robberies and 40th in overall 
     violent crimes.
       Zero Population Growth, a Washington, D.C.-based 
     organization, recently listed three Iowa metropolitan areas--
     Cedar Rapids, Omaha-Council Bluffs, Des Moines--among its 50 
     best places to raise a family.
       It isn't likely that Iowa will go higher in the nation's 
     crime summaries. But the wide gap that once distinguished it 
     so much from other places has begun to narrow.
       For example, the rate of forcible rape among the nation's 
     juveniles was seven times greater than Iowa's rate in 1980. 
     By 1990, the difference was five times greater.
       There were 15 rapes by Iowa juveniles in all of 1980, or a 
     rate of 1.5 per 100,000 juvenile population, state reports 
     show. By 1990, the figures more than doubled to 32 rapes, and 
     a rate of 4.5 per 100,000.


                           from fists to guns

       District Judge George Stigler of Waterloo added his concern 
     at a recent Iowa State University symposium.
       ``When you were in school and had a fight, you might meet 
     in a parking lot and punch the guy in the nose once or 
     twice,'' said the Waterloo judge. ``It wasn't an enjoyable 
     event, but at the very least you could go home and clean up.
       ``Nobody does that any more,'' Stigler told the hushed 
     audience. ``If you insult a kid, he will come up with a knife 
     or a gun or God only knows what. His intent will not be to 
     hurt you, but to kill you or give you very serious or lasting 
     injury. Violence is the way of dealing with differences 
     now.''
       The new violence has prodded Polk County Attorney Sarcone 
     to boost efforts to put juveniles away for a long time. In 
     three years, Sarcone's get-tough policy has resulted in four 
     times the number of juveniles ``waived'' for trial in adult 
     court, where longer sentences await them.
       State law says that anyone under 18 and as young as 14 can 
     be tried as an adult if a judge agrees. If the young 
     defendant avoids adult court and is declared a delinquent, he 
     or she must go free at age 18.
       Says Sarcone, ``What's most alarming about this is that 
     many kids believe that you can't do anything to them until 
     they are 18. They think they're going to be taken home and 
     have their wrists slapped.
       ``We've sent the message that people who commit forcible 
     felonies are not going to be tolerated,'' he says ``What they 
     have done to the victim is wrong. They know better. They're 
     not going to hide behind the fact that they're only 16 or 
     17.''
                                  ____


        Armed and Dangerous--Many Culprits Behind Teen Violence

                          (By Frank Santiago)

       After a defenseless, elderly Dubuque woman was fatally 
     stabbed in her home, police asked a 15-year-old suspect why 
     he did it. ``Well, she got in my way,'' the youth replied.
       That answer, says psychiatrist Greg Roberts who analyzed 
     the boy's reactions for police, was chilling because of its 
     ``raw sense of human nature.''
       ``In the past you'd hear the excuse like, `I don't know why 
     I did it. I can't imagine myself doing it.' But this guy 
     didn't even have the gumption to tell a story,'' says 
     Roberts, former director of Sioux City's Grehill Academy for 
     Boys, a treatment center for delinquents.
       Why more Iowa teens are killing, and why vicious crimes by 
     teens are escalating have sent Roberts and other experts 
     searching for answers.
       To be sure, the violence could be a passing thing, an 
     unsettling blip of history destined to disappear in more 
     uneventful times.
       But the numbers are escalating and the message they carry 
     is a bleak one:
       Twenty-seven juveniles have been arrested in Iowa for 
     homicide since 1990, including Sean Rhomberg, who was found 
     guilty last fall of first-degree murder for the 1991 Dubuque 
     stabbing.
       The aggravated assault rate by teens has tripled in the 
     past decade.
       The rape rate has doubled.
       So why the violence?
       University of Iowa psychology professor John Knutson, an 
     authority on child abuse and aggression, says, ``It's not a 
     single behavior and not a single problem and it isn't 
     controlled by a single variable.''
       Teen violence, say experts who work with children, has a 
     wide range of culprits: The proliferation of guns and drugs; 
     the broken family; widespread violence in the culture and in 
     the media; a lost sense of belonging; the lack of services in 
     rural areas to help teens.
       ``Iowa? Why not Iowa?'' asks Knutson.
       Roberts, the psychiatrist, says the intensity of the 
     aggression has been disturbing.
       ``These kind of things happened in New York City when I was 
     growing up. You wouldn't expect them in Iowa.''


                              lack remorse

       Many teen-agers in trouble, Roberts says, lack remorse or a 
     sense of being part of something.
       ``It is a blatant narcissism where they can only see 
     themselves. They lack bonding with anyone, be it a family or 
     school or society. They have no ability to care for anybody 
     or anything but themselves.''
       Dan Conway, chief juvenile officer in Sioux City, blames 
     television and movies.
       ``You wonder if it isn't the violent stuff they see. There 
     are people dying and shooting and blood and gore. There's no 
     way to prove it, but, my God, those things desensitize 
     kids.''
       John Burns, assistant state appellate defender in Des 
     Moines, agrees.
       ``It's trite, but you turn on television and you see men 
     who show their masculinity using handguns. Arnold 
     Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone movies are big hits. 
     You can bet 20 to 30 people are killed in these films.''


                              More weapons

       More guns and more knives add up to more violence, computes 
     West Burlington's Police Chief George Rinker.
       ``There are a lot more kids who have weapons and who don't 
     hesitate to use them. These kids don't have the experience of 
     life, so to speak, to support good decision-making.''


                      why teen violence is on rise

       Louis Wright, psychologist at the State Training School in 
     Eldora, says the aggression is imitating the violence that 
     surrounds teen-agers in and beyond the home.
       ``It's hard to establish a long-term goal with that 
     student. You ask, ``Where are you going to be five years from 
     now?'' They'll respond, `Probably dead.'''
       Teen-agers tend to duplicate the abuse they see at home, he 
     says.
       Indeed, the breakup of the family gets a good share of the 
     experts' blame.
       For instance, more children are growing up in poverty in 
     the state, and more households are headed by single parents, 
     many of them poor families.
       Michael Crawford of the Child and Family Policy Center in 
     Des Moines, notes that 14 percent of Iowa's young live in 
     households that have incomes below poverty levels. That's 
     less than the nation's 17.9 percent. But the percentage 
     increase in Iowa in the past decade outpaced the nation's, 
     21.7 percent to 11.9 percent.
       Households headed by a single parent soared 53 percent in 
     the past decade, from 12.9 percent of all families to 19.7 
     percent. Iowa remains below the nation's average of 22.9 
     percent of households headed by one parent, but the 
     percentage increase in the decade far outpaced the nation's 
     22 percent rise.
       Poverty and single-parent families--40.2 percent of them in 
     poverty in Iowa during 1990--are suspected breading grounds 
     for crime, but the extent of the influence isn't clear, 
     Crawford says.
       Certainly, he adds, poor youngsters and those with one 
     parent stay out of trouble and grow up to be successful. But 
     the risks are higher.
       Polk County Attorney John Sarcone connects the violence to 
     indifferent parents.
       ``What really bothers me, is there is no teaching of right 
     and wrong coming from home. Parents are too wrapped up in 
     their own lives to care for their own kids,'' he says.


                          Follows Adult Crime

       Teen crime, says Sgt. Michael Leeper, juvenile services 
     coordinator for the Des Moines Police Department, often 
     follows adult crime.
       ``If you have a mom and dad who are fighting and there's 
     domestic abuse, the kids will pick up on it,'' he says.
       The teen violence, contends Drake University sociologist 
     Dean Wright, reflects trends that have finally arrived here.
       ``Beginning early in the 1970s, there was a shift in murder 
     patterns from places like New York that has since spread out 
     across the nation. These were killings of strangers for 
     essentially no reason. Murder has been common among 
     associates, but we're seeing more and more of the random 
     stranger stuff.''


                             Not Surprized

       Drake's Wright isn't surprised the violence has spread to 
     Iowa's smaller communities.
       ``You have no safety nets, no crisis lines, no counseling 
     in many rural areas. They don't want the services. They are 
     telling the individual to take care of yourself.''
       The ``loss of sense of community''.--the isolation of 
     families and individuals from others--has kindled the law-
     breaking, the experts assert.
       ``The biggest social mechanism in the past has been thee 
     community,'' Wright says. ``It was the community's 
     involvement that made people feel guilty and remorseful when 
     the committed a crime. Now, there is the lack of grounding of 
     people to the community.''
                                  ____


                 Teen Criminals Tell of Anger, Mistrust

                          (By Frank Santiago)

       At the age of 15, Clyde Edwards, inmate No. 1054271A at the 
     Iowa Medical and Classification Center at Oakdale, is 
     beginning a 50-year sentence for second-degree murder. He 
     isn't happy about a long stay in prison, but he says it may 
     be the safest place for him.
       ``They are going to come after me,'' he said of the 
     relatives and friends of a Davenport man he shot dead in 
     April. ``I'd rather be locked up right now than be out there 
     to face being killed. I don't want to bring heat on me or my 
     family.''
       Edwards is one of 14 juveniles--inmates 17 years old or 
     younger--now in the Iowa prison system for serious crimes 
     including first-degree murder.
       Teen-age violence in Iowa has been rising sharply. In 1992, 
     24 juveniles were sent to prison throughout the year, almost 
     double a typical year.
       The growing number of teen prisoners raises a number of 
     questions. Who are these youngsters? Why the violence?
       If interviews with three of them--all involved in 
     homicides--are an indication, they are brimming with anger 
     and a mistrust of friends. They blame others for their 
     circumstances and they are wary of what's ahead.
       ``I don't know if these kids are getting desensitized or 
     what,'' said assistant Dubuque county attorney Ralph Potter, 
     who prosecuted some of the juveniles. ``But a lot of them 
     show no remorse.''
       Three young inmates, whose names were on a randomly 
     selected list submitted to the Department of Corrections, 
     agreed to discuss their crimes and their lives:


                             clyde edwards

       Edwards believes he's a marked person. Barely 150 pounds, 
     this slight, youthful figure in a blue prison jump suit is 
     easily noticed among the inmates, many twice his age.
       One day Edwards was in the ninth grade. A few days later he 
     was in jail on a murder charge.
       It began during an April evening. Police said gang members 
     were harassing residents of a Davenport neighborhood. Edwards 
     was in the fracas but claims he wasn't part of a gang. He 
     says someone came at him with a knife.
       He shot a .25-caliber handgun three times. One shot hit 
     Lawrence Brown in the forehead. Brown died later.
       ``I didn't even know him,'' said Edwards, who contends 
     Brown walked into the weapon's path. ``I was just in the 
     wrong place at the wrong time.''
       With earlier minor scrapes with police behind him, and now 
     a long imprisonment ahead, Edwards says he's taking things 
     one day at a time.
       ``You don't think about the future. You think about it day 
     by day. After this day is over with, you go on to the next 
     day. I don't know if I'm going to be living that long but 
     that's just the way I think.''
       On the outside, his friends, he says, were fascinated with 
     power and money.
       ``They say, `I want to be like you. You got gold. You got 
     money. You got a woman. You got a car.'''
       But he rarely uses the word ``friend'' to describe those he 
     hung around with. He prefers ``associate.''
       ``You don't trust anybody except yourself. Soon as you get 
     into trouble your friends go with another crowd and talk 
     behind your back. You're there by yourself.''
       Edwards says it isn't easy to be 15 in Davenport these 
     days.
       ``Times are hard. You have to watch yourself. It ain't like 
     the old days when you could walk down the street at night. 
     Now you got to watch your back. People come to you and heat 
     you up just for the fun of it.
       ``I'm going to get my education in prison. I don't want to 
     make $4.65 an hour minimum wage when I get out. I want to 
     make at least $7 or $8 an hour.''


                             jammi reinier

       On March 24, 1990, David Conley Scott, 32, a Des Moines 
     convenience-store clerk, was beaten to death with a hammer, 
     Jammi Reiner, raised on Des Moines' east side and a member of 
     the ``Young and Wasted'' gang, pleaded guilty to second-
     degree murder and was sentenced to 50 years. A friend who 
     wielded the hammer was convicted of first-degree murder. 
     Reinier scooped up the cash, which he estimates was less than 
     $100.
       ``It was money to party with,'' he said.
       Now 19, Reinier is an inmate at the State Men's Reformatory 
     at Anamosa. He is soft-spoken and has long, blond hair that 
     reaches his shoulders.
       ``I've missed out on life--period,'' said Reinier, who was 
     15 years old when arrested. ``I haven't gone to parties, 
     graduated high school or gone to a prom. I'll never be able 
     to tell anybody what it felt like because I wasn't part of 
     it.''
       He dropped out of school when he was in seventh grade.
       ``I was bored like a lot of my friends. They could sleep in 
     and watch television. They had freedom. Being in school you 
     had to get up every morning and stay in school all day. I 
     wanted to be like everybody else.''
       Reinier says the thinks about the robbery a lot. ``We were 
     all drinking that day,'' he said.
       He says street gangs have gotten more violent and more 
     racist, situations he insists didn't exist when he 
     belonged.
       ``Everybody in the gang had money. They always had a place. 
     We'd party but nothing like what I read about today.''
       At Anamosa, he shares a 6-foot by 9-foot cell with a man 
     much older than he.
       ``I really don't announce what I'm here for. It's my own 
     business. I'm not proud of what I did. People don't ask. They 
     mind their business here.''
       ``The young kids seem a little more rowdy. The older 
     inmates just basically want to do their time and settle down. 
     Everybody has their own pals and they hang out with them. 
     It's like you have to pick a crowd that ain't going to get 
     you into trouble.''
       He is studying landscaping and working toward a high school 
     diploma. ``Time passes fast. It seems like a year ago I was 
     on the streets. I'm apprroaching four years here. My life is 
     just flying by.''


                             Gabriel Hudson

       Gabriel Hudson called Mason City police at about 6 p.m. on 
     Dec. 1, 1988, to report he had just shot his brother in the 
     head while his brother was washing dishes.
       ``He talked about his brother calling him names and that he 
     got mad at him and he is laying on the kitchen floor,'' a 
     police report said.
       Hudson was 12 years old at the time. He has been in 
     institutions since.
       Now 16, he is an inmate at Anamosa serving a 75-year 
     sentence for kidnapping and attempted murder. The charges are 
     from an attempted break-out at the Grehill Academy, a locked 
     residential home for delinquent boys in Sioux City.
       Reports say Hudson beat a female worker with a bar to get 
     her keys.
       ``Me and another resident were having a lot of problems. 
     One of the consequences were we had to write a 1,000-word 
     essay. We decided we didn't want to put up with that. I 
     wanted to get out.''
       The plan was to take the keys from the woman. But, Hudson 
     says, the accomplice got cold feet.
       Hudson exhibits no remorse about his actions. ``I don't 
     want to become another person. I want to be different. I like 
     being a criminal. It's interesting,'' he said with a slight 
     smile, looking through his heavy-framed glasses.
       He claims he has no friends, only ``buddies.''
       ``I don't trust people. Nobody is ever for you. There's 
     always something to break the trust.''
       He thinks about the attempted Grehill break-out but the 
     thoughts aren't about the victim.
       ``I think about the situation, what I did wrong. How come I 
     didn't escape?''
                                  ____


          Steering Youths Headed for Crime to Straighter Path

                          (By Frank Santiago)

       A look at efforts to redirect the course of wayward youths 
     wraps up an examination of teen crime.
       It's late in the afternoon and Jason Davis is uneasy and 
     showing the effects of being grilled for more than an hour.
       Across the table at the Mediation Center at 1200 University 
     Ave. sit David and Diane, whose Sears credit card was stolen. 
     Jason, who is 19 and an East High School dropout, faces them. 
     He's relating how he used the credit card to buy $200 worth 
     of blue jeans and shoes.
       ``You know what?'' says Diane with a bit of anger. ``I feel 
     you did it on your own.''
       Jason shakes his head slowly to say ``no'' but refuses to 
     disclose the young accomplices he claims gave him the card 
     that was in David's wallet in his locked truck.
       ``I had no idea where the credit card came from,'' he 
     pleads with David and Diane.
       So unfolds another confrontation in the Victim/Offender 
     Reconciliation Program.
       By sitting down crime victims and perpetrators to face each 
     other, the Polk County attorney's office, which sponsors the 
     program, hopes to help those who have been hurt and to reduce 
     crime.
       It is one of a growing number of efforts by Iowa 
     authorities in the last few years to head off a chilling 
     increase in violence and vicious crime among teen-agers.
       In the Polk County program, explains Fred Gay, an assistant 
     county attorney, victims get the rare opportunity to vent 
     their anger at the person who disrupted their lives, either 
     violently or through lesser ways, such as stealing credit 
     cards.
       Offenders look straight in the eyes of the people they have 
     victimized. They sweat it out and agree to a plan of 
     restitution.
       ``Until the sessions, most of the offenders truly didn't 
     give any thought to what impact they had and that they were 
     hurting somebody,'' says Gay. ``They can go through the whole 
     system and never realize that they had hurt someone.''
       The program is for offenders of all ages but many 
     participants are teen-agers, who agree to see the victims in 
     exchange for a lighter sentence.
       Although approaches differ, the Polk County and other Iowa 
     programs have in common their attempt to intercept the teen-
     agers, defuse their hostilities and show them the right way 
     out.
       Most of these programs are too new to measure results. But 
     supporters contend the work is showing some signs of success: 
     Teens who participate often return to school or find a job.
       Waterloo has the Second Chance Youthful Offender Program, 
     operated jointly by the juvenile court and state job-training 
     authorities. It is a 16-week program aimed at so-called 
     ``high-risk'' youths from 14 to 18.
       Each week for 1\1/2\ hours the teens meet in a group to 
     wrestle with several topics, including controlling anger or 
     applying for a job or staying away from drugs.
       ``It's kids helping kids,'' says spokeswoman Jane Patton. 
     ``They look more at their own behavior in terms of changing 
     it.''
       In Davenport, a day-treatment program intervenes to help 
     12- to 14-year-olds and their families. The teens and 
     families meet each day after school at the Friendly House, an 
     inner-city community center, where they participate in 
     recreation and get counseling.


                           stabilize families

       A more important part is getting the family situations 
     stabilized,'' says Pat Hendrickson, chief juvenile officer. 
     ``Sometimes it's as simple as finding housing or as complex 
     as dealing with substance abuse.
       ``Many of these families are so dysfunctional that they 
     don't know how to have fun together. They've never been to a 
     potluck.''
       In Cedar Rapids, the ``Hands Off'' program by juvenile 
     authorities is aimed at youngsters who shoplift.
       ``Shoplifting seems to be the first crime a lot of kids 
     do,'' Carol Thompson, chief juvenile officer says.
       The offenders attend classes with parents. ``We figure the 
     parents have already told them it's wrong to steal. Our focus 
     is that there are consequences to this. You lose your right 
     to privacy, for example. An officer has the right to look in 
     your pockets when you're suspected.
       ``About 75 percent of the children who participate in these 
     classes don't show up again in our system in the next two 
     years,'' estimates Thompson.


                           rarely out of hand

       Gay says the victim-offender confrontations, moderated by a 
     staff member from the county attorney's office, get emotional 
     but rarely get out of hand. One burglary victim, though, 
     threw a punch at the burglar.
       One of the anticipated successes is that the victims ``gain 
     relief,'' he says.
       ``A Vietnam veteran who was 50 years old related how he 
     went out and brought a gun after a burglary. He said, `Now I 
     can go home and tell my wife he wasn't an ogre.'
       ``Even adults have this bogeyman image,'' Gay says. ``When 
     they don't know who did it they create this child-like image 
     of who did do it. When he saw it was this punk, he felt 
     relieved.''
       But Hendrickson says the programs are only a Band-Aid where 
     major surgery is required.
       The root causes of teen violence are numerous and go very 
     deep, she says.
       ``The best thing that could happen is that every child 
     would be born to a functional family. That's the solution, 
     but how to get there is absolutely beyond me. That's why we 
     have to have a variety of approaches.''
       One of those may be intervening at a younger age.
       ``A lot of advocates are saying you should be able to go 
     way back when these youngsters are 5 and 6, when they are 
     first identified in school, and then intervene intensely. 
     Then you might have a shot at success. If you wait until he 
     or she is 14, it can be real hard to turn it around.''
       Back at the Mediation Center in Des Moines, Jason Davis is 
     telling David and Diane that he got involved in the wrong 
     crowd and wants to turn his life around.
       He had been charged with two counts of forgery for signing 
     David's full name--which Jason misspelled--on the Sears sales 
     slips. If he successfully completes the Youthful Offender 
     Pre-Trial Intervention Program, which includes drug 
     rehabilitation and the victim confrontation, Jason would 
     likely get probation. Each of the forgery convictions could 
     have sent him to prison for five years.
       It was the loss of the family photographs from the wallet 
     and the fear that ``someone out there knew where we lived'' 
     that bothered Diane the most.
       ``They had our address, and I said, `Oh, my gosh, they know 
     where we live.'''
       Did Jason realize the anguish he had brought to the family?
       ``You should have the right sense to know right from wrong. 
     You're getting off pretty easily and should be charged with 
     forgery,'' Diane tells him.
       He responds, ``I don't want to be in trouble. I don't feel 
     too good about myself.''
       He also contends it would be dishonorable and dangerous to 
     name accomplices. ``They would be jumping out of cars . . . 
     shoot at me without a blink of the eye,'' he says.
       Jason eventually agrees to pay about $100 in restitution, 
     most of it to cover the cost of replacing the car's broken 
     window. Sears didn't bill the couple for the items Jason got. 
     He says he turned the items over to a friend.
       David tells Jason, ``You know you've got to get yourself on 
     the right track?'' He also notes that when he was Jason's age 
     he also got into trouble but that his wife had turned his 
     life around.
       ``I think you're pretty lucky. I wish the best for you,'' 
     says Diane.
       Jason says: ``I want to apologize. I know it doesn't mean a 
     lot.''
       ``If you really mean it,'' David says, ``it does.''
       And they shake hands.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, was leaders' time reserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has been reserved.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask my comments not interfere in the debate on this 
particular amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________