[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.
____________________