[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 9 (Friday, February 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
remaining first-degree amendments to S. 1150 must be offered by 5 p.m. 
today; that they be subject to second-degree amendments, if relevant to 
the first-degree amendment; that there be a time limitation of 60 
minutes equally divided on Senator Helms' amendment regarding school 
health clinics; that upon the completion of the debate on that 
amendment, Senator Kennedy be recognized to offer an amendment dealing 
with the same subject matter; that it also be under a 60-minute time 
limitation; that no second-degree amendments be in order to either the 
Helms or Kennedy amendments; that when the Senate votes on the 
amendments next Tuesday, the first vote be on the Helms amendment, to 
be followed without intervening action or debate by vote on the Kennedy 
amendment; that upon disposition of all amendments to S. 1150, the bill 
be read a third time; that the Senate then proceed to the consideration 
of the House companion, H.R. 1804; that all after the enacting clause 
be stricken and the text of S. 1150, as amended, be substitute in lieu 
thereof, the bill be read a third time and a vote occur on final 
passage of H.R. 1804, as amended; that the Senate insist on its 
amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses, the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees, 
and the Senate bill then be indefinitely postponed, with the preceding 
all occurring without any intervening action or debate.
  Madam President, I would modify my request. I stated the Helms 
amendment as school health clinics. I am now advised that the proper 
title is school health services.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, will the floor leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Can the leader tell me in his own words how it applies 
to my amendment; how it is meant to apply to my amendment?
  Mr. MITCHELL. All remaining amendments to this bill must be offered 
by 5 p.m. And the votes on those amendments will occur on Tuesday 
morning.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mine has been offered. Is there any restriction on 
debate or consideration of my amendment?
  Mr. MITCHELL. No; the debate can continue so long as it has been 
offered. It is the intention--of course we rely on good faith that the 
debate will be completed today. Senators will remain, and that we 
will--that all action other than the votes themselves will be completed 
today. We then proceed to the school to work bill on Monday.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the leader. I have no objection.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, reserving the right to object--I do 
not intend to object--I intend to be here as long as people want to 
talk. But all amendments must be offered by 5 p.m. today. That is the 
way I understand it--and that there be no votes until next Tuesday.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I also have the authority to speak for the minority 
leader. We have no objection to the unanimous-consent request. I remove 
my reservation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to indicate there were Senators 
who want to address the School to Work Program. We have indicated to 
leaders that at the conclusion of the discussion of the debates this 
afternoon on Goals 2000, we can begin that discussion and we will also 
consider amendments for those individuals who cannot be here on Monday. 
Senator Jeffords and I will be here until there is no further 
discussion of amendments, and to accommodate those that will be unable 
to be here on Monday.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object--I have no 
intention of objecting--I not sure the agreement the majority leader 
propounded has to do with the pending measure or with the school to 
work bill.
  Mr. MITCHELL. This agreement deals with the pending bill. The School 
to Work measure was covered by an agreement entered earlier.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the majority leader. I have two amendments. I 
understood the majority leader said there would be no amendment to any 
amendment. Or did I?
  Mr. MITCHELL. The first-degree amendments may be offered until 5 p.m. 
today, and they are subject to second-degree amendments providing the 
second-degree amendment is relevant to the first-degree amendment with 
the exception being the amendment to be offered by Senator Helms on 
school health services, and Senator Kennedy on the same subject.
  Mr. BYRD. Did I understand that the leader's agreement would include 
a final vote on the measure on a specified date?
  Mr. MITCHELL. It does not. The votes will be next Tuesday.
  Mr. BYRD. That does not include the final vote on the measure next 
Tuesday?
  Mr. MITCHELL. There will be a final vote on the measure next week.
  Mr. BYRD. Next Tuesday.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Next Tuesday.
  Mr. BYRD. Is paragraph 2, rule XII being waived?
  Mr. MITCHELL. This agreement does not set the final vote. It is my 
intention to have the final vote, and when we get the agreement to set 
a final vote, we will accommodate that rule.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished majority leader. I have no 
objection. I do have two amendments which I believe the managers will 
accept.
  So I do not have any concern about the provisions in the leader's 
agreement affecting my amendments.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the previous request?
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I possibly shall not object, although I would like to ask a 
question. My heart goes out to the majority leader once again. I have 
made remarks of this nature frequently especially in the last few years 
with regard to the schedule, or lack of scheduling, because of the test 
of wills that continues to play such an unnecessary roll in my view 
with regard to the actions of the U.S. Senate.
  We seem to be reaching a point where we seldom, if ever, vote before 
the sun is down. That is becoming commonplace in our institution. That 
is not too good.
  We are continuing to reach a point where we have to have a series of 
pressure points before we can force a vote on anything in this body. We 
had a pressure point Thursday night when one of the great political 
persons of our country had a very important event, and we thought that 
might be a pressure point to force a vote on this important amendment 
before 6:30 p.m. on Thursday.
  Then we had another pressure point that we all want to of course 
adjourn as quickly as possible for this potential weekend, and 
therefore we scheduled a Friday session as another pressure point, 
fully recognizing and realizing that some of our colleagues had left 
for a very important meeting. I believe they left last night to attend 
a conference in Germany.
  I do not know. It seems to me we cannot ever adjourn anymore unless 
we get a unanimous consent that we are going to do something for sure 
by a certain date. It is a pretty sad commentary I suggest to the 
Members of this body. We seem to be less and less operating in an 
orderly fashion.
  I make those comments not to object, but to take this opportunity for 
this one Senator to express once again despite the enormous 
contribution that the majority leader, who has the major 
responsibility, has made to various Members of this body, various 
groups in this body, time and time again.
  We have a very, very busy schedule it seems to me, and what I suspect 
will be in an election year an earlier than normal adjournment of this 
body. I scold all of us, including myself, for not being more 
cooperative with the majority leader, who has enormous responsibilities 
for running this body. And all of us will be complaining come October 
1st if the majority leader has not been successful in bringing us 
together to the extent where we can all go home and campaign.
  I only ask this question, as maybe a combination from my friend. I 
have been trying to get morning business time at an appropriate hour, 
sometime before midnight, or after 2 a.m. to make some remarks on the 
budget controversy.
  I simply did not insist on being given time this morning because I 
know that the pressure point was that if we can come in at 9 o'clock 
and have a vote at 9:30, because we can unravel things and get this 
finished before noon so everybody could leave.
  I would simply say that I can, I would rather not, wait until 6 or 7 
o'clock this evening for 10 minutes for morning business time. I am 
wondering if the managers of this bill and those who have amendments 
would agree sometime between 1 and 3 o'clock this afternoon, if I do 
not object, to allot the Senator from Nebraska 10 minutes in morning 
business not related to this bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield? We will await with anticipation 
the Senator's comments on the budget item prior to 3 o'clock. After the 
consent agreement is hopefully acceded to, I will sort of explain where 
we are. But we will definitely make that time agreement.
  Mr. EXON. I do not object.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. We are trying to accommodate Members that are trying to 
leave for planes in the next hour. So I understand the Senator's 
commitment to be here, and we will certainly accommodate.
  Mr. EXON. I will not be leaving in the next hour.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. We want to allow those who want to leave to leave.
  Mr. BYRD. If the majority leader will yield, I was listening to the 
colloquy with great interest. The distinguished Senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Jeffords] has put his finger on what makes it difficult for the 
majority leader to have a schedule that one can depend upon and gets 
the work done in the Senate. Too many Senators want to leave by 1 
o'clock or 12 o'clock or 11 o'clock a.m., on Fridays. That is what 
gives the majority leader headaches. I sympathize with the majority 
leader. Here is one Senator that will not object to being here on 
Monday or to votes late on Fridays or early on Mondays or if we go 
beyond October 1, if we have to. I always take the position that the 
work here comes first.
  We have to get the people's work done. I have a campaign, too. What 
better campaigning can I do than having the people of West Virginia 
know I am here on the job?
  I thank the Senator from Vermont for putting his finger right on the 
problem. It makes it so difficult for any majority leader to keep his 
equanimity and sense of purpose and be able to come back to a 
commonsense point of gravity as he tries to deal with this problem of 
trying to accommodate every Tom, Dick, and Harry of the Senate.
  I hope the majority leader will stop apologizing to Members because 
we have to stay here and work. That is not his fault. That is our 
business. That is why I am elected. He need never apologize to me 
because we have to stay late or we have to have votes on Mondays and 
Fridays. I just hope--and I am not trying to suggest to the majority 
leader how he should run the Senate--I just hope I do not hear him ever 
again apologize to his colleagues for the work we have to do here or 
for the hours that we have to be here. We are all here for that 
purpose. Why apologize to me because I might be discomfited or 
inconvenienced or discommoded a little bit because the Senate has to 
keep on for another hour or two to get the work done.
  There is nobody at home with my dear wife except my little dog Billy. 
If anybody has a right to complain, it would be someone like myself. I 
am not as young as I was 36 years ago when I came to the Senate, but I 
am just as eager to get the work done. I thank the majority leader, and 
I hope I have not imposed upon the Senate. I apologize if I have 
imposed on the majority leader's time.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I renew the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation and for 
their comments and sympathies.
  Under this agreement, the Senate will complete action today on all 
matters relating to the Goals 2000 education bill. All votes that may 
be required will be scheduled for Tuesday morning.
  On Monday, the Senate will complete action on the school-to-work 
education bill, and all votes required on that measure will be 
scheduled for Tuesday. Votes will begin at 10 o'clock in the morning on 
Tuesday. It is not now possible to state with precision exactly how 
many votes there will be, but there could be several, depending upon 
the number of amendments that are actually offered and which of those 
will require votes. So, although there will now be no further rollcall 
votes today and none on Monday, Senators should be aware that a 
substantial number of votes will occur on Tuesday, commencing at 10 
o'clock in the morning.
  Therefore, Senators are all on notice of the importance of their 
presence here on Tuesday.
  Madam President, if I might comment on some of the subjects raised by 
my colleagues in this colloquy. Each of them has been accurate in his 
statements. It is exceedingly difficult, and getting more so, to 
conduct the business of the Senate because of the substantial demands 
upon Senators and the conflicts in their schedules. It should be 
stated, of course, that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia is 
correct in describing our work here as our primary obligation. All else 
must be subordinated to that. But it should also be clear that Senators 
have public obligations that require their presence outside of this 
Chamber.
  First, of course, with respect to committee work. That is a very 
important part of the Senate's work, to act in committee on legislation 
which is then presented to the full Senate for consideration.
  Second, with respect to meeting with constituents and other 
individuals here in our Nation's Capitol in their offices. I and every 
other Senator, on each day, meet with a substantial number of persons 
from our constituency.
  And third, of course, is meeting with our constituents in our 
individual home States. Most of the citizens of my State are unable to, 
or do not have sufficient interest in legislation to cause them to 
travel here to Washington and, therefore, look forward to my returning 
to my State, as I do almost every weekend, to meet with constituents at 
a place convenient for them, to hear their concerns on legislation.
  All of that having been said, I want to say to my colleagues that 
this will be a busy year with a great deal of important legislation to 
come before the Senate. I have set forth orally here on the Senate 
floor, and in writing to all Senators, what the schedule will be, and 
there are going to be times when it is necessary to simply remain in 
session to complete action on measures. I believe that the agreements 
we have reached facilitate action on these important measures, as 
opposed to delaying or retarding action. That is the reason why I have 
entered into them. And, at the same time, in addition to facilitating 
final action on these important measures, they do accommodate the 
interests of the largest possible number of Senators.
  I want to say to my colleagues that we are going to have to be 
prepared, when necessary, for unavoidably lengthy sessions, including 
into the evenings and full days on Fridays and, later in the year, full 
days on Mondays with votes as well.
  I thank my colleagues for their cooperation on this. I thank my 
friend and colleague and, of course, the former majority leader, who 
knows better than anyone about managing the affairs of the Senate. I 
thank Senators Kennedy and Jeffords for their outstanding leadership in 
moving forward on this bill, and I believe it will be Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Kassebaum on Monday on the school-to-work education bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to join in expressing our 
appreciation to the majority leader, the minority leader, and other 
Senators who have been involved in these debates and discussions. I 
think the leadership has provided us with an opportunity to reach final 
resolution, but I think there still remain some matters of importance 
on the Goals 2000.
  For the most part, I think we have had good debates on several items 
which are of very great significance, both constitutional issues and 
other issues, in the period of these past few days.
  On the school-to-work program, we want to give the assurance that we 
will have the opportunity to debate those issues. We have been able to 
bring a remarkable combination of bipartisan support on the school-to-
work legislation, and also support from a great range of outside 
groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Association of 
Manufacturers, and other various groups that have indicated support. So 
many of those issues have been resolved prior to coming to the floor.
  So we want to try to give the assurance to the Members that we look 
forward to dealing with the substance that remains, but we also want to 
indicate to them that many of the issues have been reviewed very 
carefully during the committee process and during earlier discussions 
on these matters. We feel that the final outcome on both of these 
measures are extremely important, very, very worthwhile, and extremely 
timely for reasons we have outlined earlier in the course of the 
debate.
  So, just for now and for the remainder of the afternoon, as Senator 
Jeffords and I have said, we will be here to consider any of these 
amendments and to discuss them at whatever length Members would so 
desire.
  The Senator from Florida has been here for a great period of time and 
also has been very willing to enter into a time agreement. The Senator 
from West Virginia has two amendments which are very important, 
constructive, and helpful to the legislation which we intend both to 
accept and to comment on as well.
  I know that the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, had an 
area of significance and importance to him, which I understand has been 
adjusted.
  I know that there are others who wish to speak on different 
provisions of it. But I would hope now we could move along.
  Senator Helms, I know, has an amendment.
  We look forward to the debate. I am grateful for the cooperation 
overall, and we will look forward to continuing the debate and the 
discussion on a number of these measures.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, does the Senator want to set my 
amendment aside?
  Mr. KENNEDY. If it will be agreeable to the Senator, we could set 
that temporarily aside. As we have talked informally, we are very 
interested in trying to accommodate the areas of concern to the 
Senator.
  Senator Kassebaum addressed some of those, and it has not resolved 
those completely. But we can continue to work with the Senator.
  We will preserve his position. No action will be taken without 
consultation with the Senator this afternoon, and we will preserve his 
options of getting recorded votes on his amendment or amendments 
related thereto, or preserve his position so that we are able to work 
out satisfactory language that will also be included as relevant to 
this legislation.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts 
yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Before the Senator sets my amendment aside, the only 
thing I would ask is if there is anyone else who wants to discuss my 
amendment. I would ask the courtesy of being notified so that I can be 
on the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator's request is very reasonable and sensible. 
We certainly would.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask this of the two managers. Sometime this afternoon 
they will be stating opposition to my amendment, at least in its 
present form, or they will not be.
  If they are going to speak, then I will not do anything else this 
afternoon. But I do have some things on my schedule, if they are not 
going to speak I will wait for notification for other people to come.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I tell the Senator from Iowa I will notify him when I 
intend to speak on the amendment, and I will give sufficient time for 
him to get over here if he desires. At this particular time I do not 
have anything to say other than perhaps a few brief comments. I will 
certainly alert the Senator if I decide to do so.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Senator from Massachusetts 
has the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield the floor.
  I give the Senator the same assurances.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The Senator can set it aside.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fine.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would ask the managers of the bill, 
because I think they heard my request to go to morning business, I 
would think under the circumstances the rules would require me to get a 
unanimous consent request. I do not want to interrupt the flow of 
business here, but I would simply ask the managers of the bill, the 
Senator from Florida, and others, as to what time would it be 
convenient and appropriate for them to grant me permission in a 
unanimous consent request to proceed for 10 minutes as if in morning 
business.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida has been 
enormously patient, and I would hope that we could accommodate him. The 
Senator from West Virginia had indicated to me some time ago that he 
wanted to speak, not at any length on his, and then we will go to the 
Senator from Nebraska as well.
  I see the Senator from North Dakota wanted to address the issues on 
his amendment with regard to guns in schools. Senator Feinstein wanted 
to address the Senate. They have been enormously accommodating in 
permitting us to proceed forward.
  The Senator from Maryland has spoken to me to address the action that 
will be taken by Alan Greenspan on the interest rates. He, as the 
chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, wanted to address the Senate.
  We want to move all the processes quickly. I certainly hope we would 
at the first opportunity notify the Senator. I would expect that would 
be about 1 hour or 1 hour and 15 minutes or so.
  Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida 
[Mr. Mack].
  Mr. MACK. The first question I have is, has the pending amendment 
been set aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator it has.


                           Amendment No. 1389

 (Purpose: To achieve significant school reform and innovation through 
 empowering parents, students, teachers, principals, and local school 
                                boards)

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

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1389.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 5, strike all beginning with line 24 through page 
     8, line 11, and insert the following:
       (1) the term ``Governor'' means the chief executive of the 
     State;
       (2) the term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 1471 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       (3) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     Education; and
       (4) the term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       On page 64, strike lines 13 through 22, and insert the 
     following:
       (3) the most effective way to achieve meaningful school 
     reform and innovation is to empower parents, students, 
     teachers, principals and local educational agencies;
       On page 64, line 23, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 64, line 24, strike ``and States''.
       On page 65, lines 1 and 2, strike ``through comprehensive, 
     coherent, and coordinated improvement''.
       On page 65, line 3, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 65, strike lines 8 through 11.
       On page 65, line 12, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       On page 65, line 14, strike ``other'' and insert ``their''.
       On page 65, beginning with line 16, strike all through page 
     66, line 3.
       On page 66, line 4, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       On page 66, line 8, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       On page 66, line 20, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       On page 66, line 24, strike ``(14)'' and insert ``(10)''.
       On page 66, line 25, strike ``State and local initiatives, 
     and to leverage State'' and insert ``local initiatives, and 
     to leverage''.
       On page 66, line 7, strike ``and local'' and insert 
     ``local''.
       On page 67, strike lines 7 through 9, and insert the 
     following:

     to improve the system of education at the local level 
     throughout our Nation;
       On page 68, strike all beginning with line 1 through page 
     115, line 6, and insert the following:

     SEC. 304. DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.

       (a) Grants to Local Educational Agencies.--From amounts 
     appropriated pursuant to the authority of section 303 in each 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants to each local 
     educational agency designated, in accordance with subsection 
     (b), to receive a grant under this section for such year.
       (b) Governor's Designation.--
       (1) In general.--The Governor of each State desiring local 
     educational agencies within the State to receive a grant 
     under this section for a fiscal year shall submit to the 
     Secretary a list of such agencies that the Governor 
     designates to receive a grant under this section for such 
     year. The Governor shall submit such list at such time, in 
     such manner and containing such information as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require.
       (2) Number.--The Governor of each State shall designate nor 
     more than 20 percent of the local educational agencies within 
     the State to receive a grant under this section for any 
     fiscal year, except that for fiscal year 1998 the Governor 
     may designate more than 20 percent of such agencies in order 
     to ensure that each such agency receives a grant under this 
     section by the end of fiscal year 1998.
       (c) Award Rule.--No local educational agency shall receive 
     a grant under this section for more than 1 fiscal year.
       (d) Grant Amount.--The Secretary shall award a grant to 
     each local educational agency designated for receipt of a 
     grant under this section in a fiscal year in an amount that 
     bears the same relationship to the amount appropriated 
     pursuant to the authority of section 303 for such a year as 
     the number of local educational agencies designated to 
     receive a grant under this section for such year bears to the 
     total number of all such agencies so designated for such 
     year.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Recently Bill Bennett 
wrote a book about virtues. I am not sure whether he included the 
virtue of patience in his book, but I would say one of the things that 
one quickly learns on the floor of the U.S. Senate is the virtue of 
patience. So, I appreciate the recognition from the Chair.
  The comments that I am going to make today with respect to Goals 2000 
are based on some personal readings and personal experiences.
  Mr. President, not too long ago I read a book called ``Millennium.'' 
It was a book that was written by an aide to French President Francois 
Mitterrand, who was the former President of the Eastern Europe 
Development Bank.
  ``Millennium'' raised the question, What nation would become the 
center of influence in the 21st century? The author went on to respond 
to that question, saying that he believes that nation will come either 
from the Pacific rim, perhaps from Japan, or from Europe, perhaps 
Germany or France. In either case, he gives the clear impression that 
America will not even compete to remain the center of influence.
  At some other time, I might get into a discussion about whether it is 
important for the United States to attempt to compete. Some may have a 
different point of view about whether we should even attempt to remain 
the center of influence. I believe we should.
  But in responding to the question, can we compete, we, as a nation, 
must address several vital questions.
  One of those, obviously--and I would put it at the top--is the 
question of education. For us truly to compete, and to pass on as a 
legacy to our children and our grandchildren the same opportunities and 
quality of life that we have enjoyed, we must ensure that our children 
are well educated.
  Second, on some of my trips around the State of Florida I have had 
the opportunity to talk with the presidents of our State universities. 
One of those individuals has traveled extensively in Latin America. He 
told me that as he has talked with the leaders and leading educators in 
those countries he has found that they look forward to the 21st century 
with a great sense of optimism. They believe that power and influence 
will no longer be based on the natural resources and military power of 
a country. Instead, the ability to compete in the 21st century will 
come from knowledge and from the ability of people to control and use 
that knowledge.
  They are saying: ``We know how we are going to compete in the 21st 
century. We will have the best educated children in the world. We 
believe, regardless of the size of our country, we can do that.''
  I think they make an excellent point. Competition in the 21st century 
will be based on knowledge and education.
  Not long ago, I visited a remarkable school out in Los Angeles, 
called the Marcus Garvey School. I do not know whether any of you have 
heard of it, or had the opportunity to visit it.
  The school, they tell me, is located in one of the riot-torn areas of 
Los Angeles. Frankly speaking, as I first drove up to the school, my 
initial reaction was that this was not a place where many of us would 
say, ``That's where I want my children to go to school,'' because 
nothing about it was elaborate. There was nothing about it from the 
outside that attracted the eye. It was just a basic building, not very 
appealing.
  But once you went inside, as I did, it would not take long to 
immediately recognize that that is exactly where you would want your 
children to be educated. And so, if you will permit me to walk through 
some of those experiences.
  We first met with an individual that I mentioned earlier, a man by 
the name of Anyim Palmer, who once had been a public school teacher in 
California, but had became so angry with the system because, he said, 
the system is not designed to improve the education of our children; it 
is designed to protect the system.
  He became so frustrated that he left. He became so committed to what 
he believed was the proper way to educate and to teach our children 
that he started his own school. Today, roughly 400 students go to that 
school. And, I might add, the 400 students that go to that school are 
not selected by anybody because they are either the best students or 
the worst students. The students that go to that school are selected by 
their moms and dads, who say that is the place where our kids can 
learn; that is where they will be taught, and given an opportunity to 
compete, so they will be able to make a living. Those parents 
understand the significance and the importance of education.
  We met with Anyim Palmer in a room that was probably 10 by 12, 
stacked with all kinds of papers, reports, and books; no secretary; one 
telephone, which he answered himself; a couple of chairs that have 
probably been there since the school started.
  My point is, it was not very elaborate and there certainly were no 
amenities. Anyim Palmer answered our questions for a while and then 
said, ``I want you to go with one of our teachers now and look around 
the school.''
  We started out with their day-care area, where we observed 2-year-old 
children. Not second grades, but 2-year-olds.
  The teacher said to them, ``Children, would you show Senator and Mrs. 
Mack how you can recite your ABC's and your numbers?'' And these cute 
little children, sitting behind a little table, in unison said their 
ABC's and then said their numbers.
  And then the teacher said to them, ``Now show Senator and Mrs. Mack 
how you can do that in Spanish.'' And the little children went on to 
say their ABC's and their numbers in Spanish.
  Fairly impressive, I thought.
  And then, the teacher said to them, ``Now say your ABC's and your 
numbers in Swahili.'' They did.
  We left there and walked across the room to where the 3-year-olds 
were doing their work. They were doing basic mathematics. That is, if 
you call adding 1,315 plus 285 basic for a 3-year-old.
  We then saw a 5-year-old--this one is somewhat embarrassing for me--
but we saw a teacher say to a 5-year-old, ``Stand up and recite for the 
Senator every President of the United States in chronological order.'' 
The little boy stood up, looked me square in the eye, and recited every 
President of the United States; he did not miss one.
  Now, the reason it is somewhat embarrassing and the reason that I 
know he was right was because I was handed a sheet of paper that I 
could take a look at.
  We then went into a second-grade classroom. On the board was an 
algebraic problem that took up somewhere between a quarter and a third 
of the blackboard. We saw it solved by a second grader.
  There was a seventh grader from the school who was out at UCLA in an 
advanced calculus course and who was extremely upset with herself 
because she only got B's while competing with college students.
  The Marcus Garvey School challenged one of the top private schools in 
Los Angeles to a contest in math and reading, the private school's 
sixth grade--and the Marcus Garvey private school's third grade. I 
think you can guess how it turned out. Marcus Garvey's third grade won.
  Every time we would go to a different area of the school and 
something would strike us, we asked: How can this be? Why are you so 
successful in doing this?
  Had they gone out and hand picked the brightest kids in the 
neighborhood, or even the best students in the whole Los Angeles area?
  The answer is: Absolutely not. They told us, over and over and over 
again, ``The answer is the teacher. The teacher makes the difference.''
  Then, lo and behold, we found out that the teachers were not 
certified. In fact, most of the teachers did not even have a degree. 
Anyim Palmer taught the teachers how to teach, what was important about 
teaching, how to convey knowledge to children, how to excite them and 
give them a sense of opportunity for the future.
  And I must say to you that when I came out of that school, I was 
angry--not angry at all they were accomplishing, but angry that we have 
denied that kind of opportunity to all our children even while we claim 
we are working to improve our system.
  Let me be clear. I am convinced that those people who have offered 
reform proposals, from the Federal level and the State level on down, 
have done so with the best of intentions. But as I left that school, I 
could not help but conclude that what we have actually created is a 
huge bureaucracy that has built a barrier between the teacher and the 
student.
  I have here a chart listing several of those barriers. I am not going 
to take the time to read these aloud and, frankly, there are an awful 
lot more. I think you get my point. No matter how well intentioned, we 
have created a huge bureaucracy that is not allowing our teachers who 
want to teach and our principals who want to lead to do what they know 
is necessary to teach our children what they will need to know to 
compete in the 21st century.
  I fully support the concept of ensuring moms and dads the freedom to 
choose the schools their children go to. I would have proposed just 
that, but it has already been offered in Senator Coats' amendment, of 
which I am a proud cosponsor. So I tried to think what would be a 
constructive way to make the proposals contained in Goals 2000 more 
effective.
  My amendment says we will not create any more bureaucracies. In fact, 
we will keep the bureaucracy out of Goals 2000 with respect to the $400 
million in grants for reform and innovation. I propose that the $400 
million each year for 5 years already contained in the bill go directly 
to the school districts; to give the local school board the opportunity 
to decide how to reform, how to create innovative programs. I do not 
want all of these different agencies, departments, and boards to be 
able to say, ``You have to do it our way.'' Because, you know what? I 
am convinced--and I am as convinced of this as anything I believe--that 
if we allow the bureaucracy to make those kinds of decisions, then a 
Marcus Garvey School would never have come into existence. We would be 
robbing our children of the education that is so important to them and 
to America as we move into the 21st century. So I say we ought to rip 
that wall down, we ought to rip all the barriers down that stand 
between students and teachers.

  Again, I offer this amendment with the understanding and recognition 
that others who propose reform from the Federal level down are well 
intentioned. But we should have learned a simple lesson after all these 
years. Rather than accept the status quo, which is clearly not working, 
we have to allow folks at the grassroots level up to make those kinds 
of decisions, and fundamentally change the system.
  As I said, I think we can all agree on a couple of basics: That 
quality education for our children is absolutely essential; that the 
current system has broken down; that the end product is increasingly 
unable to meet the demands of today's world and workplace; and that 
fundamental changes to the system are required.
  However, we disagree about what kind of changes should be made.
  At its heart, Goals 2000 is an affirmation of top-down management, an 
approach rooted in the biases of half a century ago, which has been 
roundly rejected by industry worldwide. We have learned that meaningful 
change doesn't come from the rulings of Federal boards, it comes 
through the day-to-day experiences and creativity of individuals on the 
front lines.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us insists on building up layers and 
layers of bureaucracy and control between self-appointed experts at the 
top and the only essential elements of any educational system: Parents, 
students, and teachers. These layers are made up of bureaucrats--the 
gatekeepers of both the money and the power in the system.
  Above all else, these gatekeepers want to maintain the status quo, 
and insure that everything continues to flow through them, thus 
guaranteeing their control and, not coincidentally, their continued 
existence.
  Still, we hear the desperation of families who know that education is 
the only way to get a foothold on the economic ladder of success, but 
know their local school is not providing an adequate education for 
their children.
  We hear the frustration of parents whose children are eager to learn 
but find their schools immobilized by programs and requirements that 
have little or nothing to do with learning. And we hear the anger of 
teachers and principals who would spend their school day teaching, 
inspiring, and improving their students if only they had the freedom to 
innovate and design the programs they know can work.
  Together, let us rip down the layers and barriers, and empower 
American principals, teachers, and moms and dads.
  I once saw a great description of a typical bureaucracy. Picture a 
series of cogs, with one large slow-moving cog at the top, its teeth 
enmeshed into increasingly smaller ones as you move down. It only takes 
a small movement from the largest cog at the top, multiplied through 
all the intermediate cogs, to send the smallest cog at the bottom 
spinning madly out of control.
  So it is with a Government bureaucracy: The President or the Congress 
have some great idea about how to make something better--in this case 
education. We turn that idea into legislation, pass it, and have it 
signed into law. In turn, boards and regulations are established, 
which, over time, spin off even more rules and guidelines.
  The end result is to send parents, teachers, principals and local 
school boards madly scrambling to comply with each obscure element, 
rather than concentrate on the job of educating children.
  Some argue that the problem is just too great to be attacked school 
district by school district, that we desperately need Federal guidance 
and support to even know where or how to begin. Maybe that is the way 
it looks from Washington, but I can tell you that the most exciting 
innovations are happening quietly in local school districts across 
America.
  The answers we seek are out there, if we only have the wisdom to 
listen and learn. Our job should be not to dictate, but to support, It 
is a question of whether to nationalize or localize--I think we should 
localize.
  A remarkable example is South Pointe Elementary in Dade County, FL. 
In September 1991, South Pointe opened its doors as the Nation's first 
public-private partnership school. Through a groundbreaking agreement, 
the school board has allowed a private firm to operate the school 
without being burdened by bureaucratic regulations and competing 
political interests.
  The result has been the placement of the child in its rightful place 
as the school's focus, parents assisting teachers in writing goals for 
each child's education plan, cutting edge technology made available to 
both students and teachers, and the surrounding community becoming 
involved in supporting the school.
  Liberating families and individual schools through school choice 
initiatives can provide another vital opportunity. Freeing all families 
to choose the school that's right for them, and giving educators the 
freedom to revolutionize the way they do their jobs will break the 
current education monopoly, and take a giant step forward toward 
solving the problems we're talking about.
  The freedom to choose among schools that are themselves free to 
recreate and succeed will ensure our children and grandchildren the 
tools they will need to compete and to live rich and fulfilling lives.
  I'm not saying that the Marcus Garvey or the privatization approach 
are the ultimate answers. In fact, that's my very point: There is not 
any one right answer. We have to decentralize control over education. 
District by district. School by school. We need innovation and 
creativity. The problem is so big, and the consequences of failure so 
severe, that we need as many minds working on solutions as possible. 
This is the aim of my amendment.
  As the bills now stands, title III authorizes $400 million each year 
for the next 5 years in grants for the purpose of encouraging State and 
local education systemic improvement. On its face, this is a worthy 
goal. However, instead of simply and directly providing the funds to 
help local school boards identify and undertake innovative solutions to 
the problems which face them, a complex formula of passdowns through 
layers of bureaucracy is established.
  Why do we need the middlemen? Why do we need more rules? Why create 
more bureaucracy? All they do is drain precious resources from the 
schools they were intended to help, and block meaningful innovation.
  My amendment specifies that the grant moneys be divided evenly and 
sent directly to every school district in the country over the next 5 
years, for each to use in school reform and innovation as it sees fit. 
It gives us the chance to break down the brick wall between intention 
and action, and to concentrate reform efforts where they can really do 
some good.
  Here is how the process will work. All the grant money provided under 
Goals 2000 will be made available to 20 percent of the school boards in 
each State each year. The districts will rotate through, so that by the 
end of 5 years, every district in every State will have received a 
grant. Which specific districts will participate in any given year will 
be identified by a State Governor. No restrictions will be placed on 
the funds, other than they shall be used by local school boards for 
school reform and innovation.
  I trust local school boards. I trust principals and teachers. I trust 
moms and dads across the country to know what our children need. We 
must recognize them as the real experts, and stop dictating from 
Washington, to have any hope of realizing meaningful reform.
  Mr. President, at this point I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a 
sufficient second.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, if you think it more appropriate I will 
raise that question at a different time. I hope there will be a 
sufficient number of people on the floor to warrant the recorded vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will have that opportunity at an 
appropriate time.
  This would be a good time.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MACK. At this point, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Chair recognizes 
the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I want to express 
appreciation to the Senator for his patience and accommodation. This is 
an important amendment, the thrust of which I think will be grasped by 
the membership because it is really a fundamental departure from what 
this whole legislative approach entails. But it is an important 
amendment. I will just speak briefly to it.
  The problem with this amendment is that it is based on the idea that 
money alone is the answer, and we do not think that this is the case. 
The education reforms simply cannot succeed in this country without 
significant leadership from the States. We must remember that the 
States have constitutional responsibility for providing the education. 
They provide about 50 percent of the money.
  I have letters here from the Council of Chief State School Officers 
and the National Governors Association who strongly oppose the 
amendment.
  What we are talking about, basically, is successful bottom-up reform 
at the grassroots level, and that depends on the States setting 
policies and moving in the right direction.
  I can remember very well the excellent work, for example, in South 
Carolina under Governor Riley, who is now the Secretary of Education, 
where he really brought about some major alterations and changes in 
terms of the State's education programs. That is entirely appropriate 
in terms of the States and what they want to do in terms of the 
allocation of resources, their priorities. Of course it was very 
significant. There was very significant and important progress made 
under Governor Riley at that period of time.
  Our function, really, is primarily targeted to the disadvantaged 
children, where they live in urban areas and also some of the rural 
communities, and some of the special needs children, in terms of 
providing help and assistance to those who have some disability. We 
provide some nutrition for those who are poor children in our society. 
In fact, we have a range of programs that are really targeted to 
disadvantaged children.
  Basically, we are trying to take advantage of the creative and 
innovative research that has been done by the Carnegie Commission under 
Ernie Boyer, Ted Sizer, Jim Comer, Hal Levin, James Slavin, and others 
who have really been involved in the enhancement of academic 
achievement of children, and who have also demonstrated their ability 
to awaken in children a keen interest in learning.
  This is as a result of a combination of different factors. The 
Senator has put his finger on one very important factor that I 
referenced earlier in the debate, and that is the importance of the 
teacher and the inspiration that a teacher provides. I think most of us 
remember from our own years of education that it is not a textbook, it 
is not curricula; it is the teacher, that is the inspirational figure. 
That is why in this proposal we place such an important role on the 
teachers. And that is why, in the course of our hearings and the course 
of the support of the legislation, we have emphasized that role.
  So, we believe that with limited resources, based upon the nationwide 
experience of what has had some success, utilizing the resources within 
the State as designated in this legislation, we can provide the best 
opportunity for the enhancement of educational achievement.
  As the National Governors Association themselves point out:

       I write to express the Governors' opposition to 
     the amendment that Senator Mack will offer to S. 1150, the 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act. This amendment would 
     eliminate federal support for State-lead education reform 
     initiatives and would seriously undermine the leadership 
     role that Governors have played in restructuring education 
     in the states.

  The Governors themselves in many instances have
  The Governors themselves in many instances have demonstrated 
important leadership. They look at this particular support as enhancing 
their ability to impact education in their States.
  From the Council of Chief State School Officers, Bordon Ambach says:

       The Council of Chief State School Officers strongly 
     supports S. 1150, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, as 
     reported from the Committee. The carefully developed 
     provisions for assuring statewide support for improvement of 
     all schools in the state has been developed so the resources 
     of the states can be linked with those from the federal 
     government to improve education.
       The bill provides that the existent state eduation agency 
     authority for elementary and secondary education is used for 
     administration of the funds. Furthermore, the bill provides 
     for important roles of the governor, state legislature, state 
     board of education, and chief state education officer to 
     assure all schools in each state will benefit from this 
     federal legislation.
       We urge strongly that members of the Senate reject the 
     amendment by Senator Mack which would undermine the bill's 
     potential of genuinely linking federal, state, and local 
     resources for school improvement.

  I believe that over the period of time, we have tried to work with 
the Governors and chief State officers. We have spent a great deal of 
time trying to maximize to the extent possible school education reform.
  It is for those reasons we would oppose the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I, unfortunately, have to oppose the 
amendment also, and join in the comments of my colleague from 
Massachusetts. We tried very hard to develop a proper process for 
developing State plans and for the awarding of funds. We felt it was 
very important that in order to get satisfactory planning and 
satisfactory results we would rely on a bottom-up approach to get the 
people who are involved in education at the local level-local education 
agencies, and administrators, and communities to work together to 
develop their applications for funds.
  Then they would be in a position to apply for the programs. We 
provide that the Governors may comment on applications and, thus, have 
a say in it.
  I have to say the reason I oppose this is that my State of Vermont 
has developed a program along the lines which we are dealing with in 
the legislation today. Their model, which has worked so well, was a 
part of the structure in the design of the bill that we have before us.
  The States vary on what their functions are. In our case, the roles 
of the State board of education and the Governor are split. Adopting 
the amendment of the Senator from Florida would basically do away with 
our whole system of designing what education ought to be in the States. 
We have tried to assure that the Governor has a role in the process, 
but we do not contend that the role, as established by the Senator from 
Florida, is an appropriate one.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I will take just a couple moments and will 
conclude this debate.
  One of the names that was mentioned by the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts was Theodore Sizer. Theodore Sizer's book, Horrors of 
School, which walks one through the reform process, at least from a 
perspective of an individual school really with no strings attached, 
started at the grassroots level within the school, teachers, parents, 
school board members, and on their own walked through the process of 
developing a reform system.
  It is hard for me to respond to why Theodore Sizer might be in 
opposition to this amendment, but I am telling you from my own 
experience of reading through his book, I will conclude that my 
amendment would allow what he outlined in his book and would have the 
greatest opportunity to take place.
  A second point that I will make is that it is not surprising to me 
that this long list of groups that are in opposition to my amendment 
are exactly those groups that, in fact, have built this wall between 
the student and the teacher. They are exactly the kind of people that I 
am saying I want to get out of the way to let mom and dad and the 
principal and the teachers work together to create reform.
  I can understand why those people would be in opposition. But, again, 
I close with this: People ought to take a look at what is happening at 
Marcus Garvey. It will change your ideas, it will give you a different 
direction, it will tell you we have to change the public school system 
if we are really going to have an opportunity for our children to learn 
and to compete.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I can take one more minute, I want to 
indicate to the Senator that many of the ideas that we have taken from 
some of the very creative work that has been done in Dade County, FL. 
In one particular program, they are teaching K-4 in 22 different sites 
in private businesses. American Bankers Insurance, for example, which 
had experienced a turnover rate of about 11 or 12 percent was able to 
reduce that figure to 5 or 6 percent. Where they had to spend $20,000 
or $25,000 to train the new person, they were not getting that 
turnover. So it made sound business sense to have children in K-4 
grades actually in the company, and the only things the taxpayers were 
providing were the teacher and the books.
  There are a number of enormously creative programs, some of which I 
referred to earlier, in that community. We are not differing in terms 
of the outcomes. I think we are trying to recognize that it is not just 
resources alone, but other factors which make a difference. We have 
tried to focus the legislation on some of the programs which we have 
seen in Dade County and other communities that have really been 
successful.
  I hear what the Senator is saying. I think we have common objectives.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, just to respond, the Senator did mention 
Dade County, and that really says to me I should have mentioned Dade 
County as well. No question there is innovation taking place in Dade 
County. One in particular is called South Point Elementary in Dade 
County which was the first private/public partnership. The 
opportunities are tremendous. There was a ground-breaking agreement 
where the school board allowed a private firm to operate the school 
without being burdened by bureaucratic regulations and competing 
political interests.
  The last point that I will make is, none of my comments today were to 
say that there is only one way to do it. Clearly you have mentioned 
Dade County and they have found ways to do it and I think we can find 
others throughout the country. My point is I do not want a system that 
is going into place that restricts the number of opportunities. From my 
perspective, that is what I think we are doing. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia, [Mr. Byrd].
  Mr. BYRD. Did the distinguished Senator from North Carolina wish me 
to yield?
  Mr. HELMS. I did not understand what the Senator said.
  Mr. BYRD. I know that the Senator was about to seek recognition. Does 
he wish me to delay my seeking recognition?
  Mr. HELMS. If the Senator will yield, I would like to consume 2 
minutes of the Senate's time: One is to inquire of the Chair if it is 
now assumed that the amendments of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. 
Grassley], and the Senator from Florida [Mr. Mack], are laid aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that unanimous 
consent would be requested to accomplish that.
  Mr. HELMS. My hearing aid must not be working.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator that the Senator 
should request unanimous consent to set both amendments aside.
  Mr. HELMS. That will be necessary before either Senator Byrd or the 
Senator from North Carolina offers an amendment; would that not be the 
case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these 
amendments be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I ask it to be in order for me to offer an amendment so as 
to be in compliance with the unanimous consent request earlier approved 
and then that the amendment of mine be laid aside so that the Senator 
from West Virginia can proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator he could request 
unanimous consent to that effect.
  Mr. HELMS. And that means that immediately upon the action on the 
amendment or amendments of the Senator from West Virginia, then the 
pending business would be the amendment of the Senator from North 
Carolina; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                           Amendment No. 1390

    (Purpose: To provide that no Federal funds shall be used by the 
Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services 
     to support the distribution or provision of condoms or other 
 contraceptive devices or drugs to an unemancipated minor without the 
       prior written consent of such minor's parent or guardian)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask 
that it be stated in full.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1390.

  The amendment follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     ``SEC.  . PROHIBITION.

       ``(a) In General.--None of the funds made available under 
     this Act, or any other Federal law, shall be used by the 
     Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human 
     Services to support or promote, directly or indirectly, the 
     distribution or provision of condoms or other contraceptive 
     devices or drugs, or to provide prescriptions for such 
     contraceptive devices or drugs, to an unemancipated minor 
     without the prior written consent of such minor's parent or 
     guardian.
       ``(b) Definition.--For the purpose of this section the term 
     `unemancipated minor' means an unmarried individual who is 17 
     years of age or younger and is a dependent as defined in 
     section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''

  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, I now ask unanimous 
consent that this amendment be laid aside and become the pending 
business when the Senator from West Virginia has completed his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I do thank my friend from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina. I 
congratulate Senator Kennedy and the distinguished Senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Jeffords] on their work in producing this legislation, marking it 
up in committee, having hearings, and managing it on the floor.
  I congratulate Senator Kennedy especially for the many, many services 
that he has performed over the years on behalf of education.
  I know of no individual in this Senate who has been the author of 
more legislation that has become law than Senator Kennedy. I have not 
researched this, but having been majority leader in the late 1970's and 
minority leader into the late 1980's, then majority leader again, it 
has been my observation that he has piloted more legislation through 
the Senate than anyone else in the Senate today.
  I congratulate him, and as I have said on several occasions, he could 
have had a place in any Senate since and beginning with the very first 
Senate of the United States in 1789. He contributes. He lives up to his 
convictions. Naturally Senators disagree. I disagree with Senator 
Kennedy sometimes. Other times he disagrees with me. But nevertheless, 
I pay this tribute to him as I have paid it to him many times behind 
his back.
  Now, Mr. President--and I hope I will not impose too long on the 
managers of the bill--I wish to say that I have become increasingly 
concerned about the state of public education in America today. I am 
terribly frustrated, and I know that I am not alone in my frustration. 
My wife's and my two daughters graduated from high school a long time 
ago. I have grandsons and granddaughters that have completed high 
school, and some are today studying for their doctorates in physics. So 
it is not that my children are affected by the state of education in 
the public school systems today. I am thinking about my country and I 
am thinking about my children's children's children.
  I am frustrated. Across our country many people, parents, teachers, 
business and civic leaders, are growing increasingly dissatisfied with 
our public schools, and rightly so. Many of our schools are failing to 
educate our children. I am not saying all schools are failing. 
Generally speaking, I would say our schools are failing. Mediocrity has 
replaced excellence. Students learn more about drugs and violence than 
they do about science or math. That is not the case with all students, 
of course. There are lots of good students, and there are lots of good 
schools.
  My three grandsons attended Langley High School, in northern 
Virginia. They are going on to become doctors in the field of physics--
not a very easy subject, I say. One grandson was the physics student of 
the year when he graduated from the University of Virginia last year. 
So there are still some good high schools in this country.
  Public education, in general, however, in America is in trouble, and 
its decline is both the cause and reflection of many of the serious 
problems we are struggling to deal with in our society at large. My 
fear is that if we do not do something to turn our public schools 
around, the level of frustration will grow to where parents will 
eventually give up on our public schools, and that will be a serious 
mistake and a tragedy. But it can happen, and it will happen unless we 
stop experimenting with our children, get back to the basics, have 
teachers who can teach--this is not an indictment of all teachers; 
there are some good teachers--and insist on an atmosphere in the 
schoolroom in which the teachers can teach and in which the students 
can learn.
  We do not have that today. If I were a parent today, I would want to 
send my children to a private school, and I do not care who would like 
it or who would not. That child to me is my most precious worldly 
possession. I would send my children to a private school, make no 
excuses to anybody, because those children come first. I would not send 
them to some of the schools in this area where children are afraid to 
go to school, afraid to walk in the halls between classes, and afraid 
to go home after school. That does not make sense.
  We did not have that when I went to school as a boy. I was not ``as 
ragged as Lazarus in the painted cloth, where the glutton's dogs licked 
his sores,'' but I was pretty poor. My parents--my foster parents--were 
not educated, did not have a formal education. They had learned to read 
a little and write their names.
  When I went to school, I did not have the luxuries that students have 
today, even in the poorest neighborhoods today. I studied Muzzey's 
American history by an old kerosene lamp. I had no running water in the 
house, no radio. We had never heard of television. I walked over three 
miles to school. I lived in the next-to-the-last house up a hollow in 
Mercer County called Wolf Creek Hollow. I studied about Nathanael 
Greene and Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox, and Nathan Hale by kerosene 
lamp. I have had the occasion to ask young people today, ``Do you know 
about Nathan Hale?'' ``No. Who is he?''
  Well, he was the young schoolteacher who volunteered to go behind the 
British lines during the Revolutionary War at the behest of George 
Washington and bring back plans and drawings of the enemy's breastworks 
and artillery positions. On the evening before Hale was preparing to 
return from the British lines, he was arrested as a spy and condemned 
to die the next morning. And there, in the presence of the wooden 
coffin in which his body was to be placed and there within sight of the 
scaffold, the British officer asked if Nathan Hale had anything he 
wished to say. Hale said, ``I regret that I have but one life to lose 
for my country.''
  Why are they not teaching our young people in the schools today about 
Nathan Hale or John Paul Jones? These were the heroes that we had when 
I was a boy. I went to a little, two-room schoolhouse. Teachers were 
not paid very much in those days. I graduated 60 years ago during the 
Great Depression. I could not go on to college when I graduated. It was 
16 years after I graduated from high school before I was able to enroll 
in a college.
  Why? Because I did not have the money. I had to work. I worked in a 
gas station to begin with. I was the ``scrap boy'' when I was a boy 
growing up in a coal mining community. I went from house to house and 
gathered the scraps from the coal miners' tables to feed my dad's--my 
uncle's, the man who raised me--hogs, his pigs. I made hogs out of 
them. But I studied by the light of an old kerosene lamp. I memorized 
my history lessons; memorized them.
  I did not have to start to college 16 years after I graduated from 
high school. I could have kept on being a meat cutter. I did not have 
to go to law school for 10 years after I came to Congress. Nobody made 
me do it. Nobody said you have to do it. Nobody said we will pay you to 
do it. But I attended law school for 10 years at night after being 
elected to the House of Representatives and to the Senate.
  I never intended to be a practicing lawyer. I only sought to improve 
myself. And somewhere along the line, we have to instill in our young 
people the desire to learn and to keep on learning.
  I keep on learning. I realize how little I am, how little I know, and 
how incompetent I am, and how much I need to know, how much I need to 
learn. So, like Solon, one of the seven wise men of Greece, ``I grow 
old in the pursuit of learning.''
  Not long ago I went back and read Dante's Divine Comedy. I went back 
and read Milton's Paradise Lost. I went back and read Emerson's Essays. 
During the last break, I read again the Iliad and the Aeneid. Why? Not 
because I had to do so. Not because anybody made me do it. I want to 
feel that I am constantly improving Robert C. Byrd. I am working on him 
to make him a better man; a better servant of the people; a better 
scholar; a better Senator.
  Our public schools are not inculcating into the young people today, I 
am afraid, that desire to learn and to keep on learning; that desire 
for excellence. When I see young people who come into my office, I say, 
``Study to be the best. Try to excel in your classes.'' We ought to 
take as much pride in excellent spellers as we take in excellent 
football players. No ball game ever changed the course of history. That 
is not to derogate those who like to play ball or to watch ball games. 
When I was a boy, I liked to play ball, and I enjoyed it. Senator 
Mack's father was one of my heroes. Connie Mack's name was written on a 
baseball bat.
  Something has happened to our public schools. They are not what they 
used to be. Eventually, the public will no longer be willing to support 
public education. We are, in fact, already seeing signs of this. I 
believe, for example, that the growing interest in private school 
vouchers and private school choices basically reflects the loss of 
faith by many parents in the ability of public schools to educate our 
children, to keep them safe while also preparing them for the world of 
tomorrow.
  Another thing that is driving away the support for the public schools 
is the fact that, for some silly reason that I have been unable to 
comprehend, students are not supposed to pray. They are not supposed to 
have any prayer even at commencement. That is ridiculous!
  Our constitutional framers sought to protect religion against 
Government, not Government against religion. Today we are seeing 
Government protected against religion. I do not care to emphasize any 
particular religious denomination. I happen to be a Baptist. I am not 
one of what we refer to as the ``religious right.'' I am not one of the 
religious right. I am not one of the religious left. I do not consider 
myself to be a fanatic about religion or anything else. Call me a part 
of the religious center, if you will, that recognizes that I am still 
filled with flaws, that every day I sin, and that no man is ``good'' in 
the eyes of his Creator--God.
  The courts are taking prayer out of the public schools--even 
voluntary prayer. It is all right to pass out condoms, but not to have 
prayer in the public schools. How utterly insane! No wonder people are 
getting tired of sending their children to public schools. If my 
children were small today, and if I could afford it, I would send my 
children somewhere to a school where they could study in safety. And I 
would send them to a school where prayer is recognized as a vital part 
of the development of character. It would not have to be a Baptist 
prayer or a Methodist prayer. It could be a Catholic prayer or a 
Rabbi's prayer. This is what is gnawing at the conscience of upstanding 
parents who want to send their children to schools to learn and to 
develop sound and strong character.
  In the years ahead, as our children grow into young adults and into 
the work force, they are going to face increasingly intense competition 
from bright, hardworking, well-educated men and women from other 
countries. If America is to compete and succeed in the global economy, 
and if we are to keep and create good jobs here at home, we are going 
to have to outwork, outperform, outproduce, and outtrain our foreign 
rivals.
  The quality of the education to be provided to our young people will 
help to shape the rest of their lives and the future of this Nation--
today's high school graduates, tomorrow's leaders, tomorrow's workers, 
builders, and innovators. The better we prepare them academically, the 
better they will be able to compete, to win, and to move this country 
forward.
  How can we ensure that today's students will be well prepared and 
equipped in tomorrow's workplace? How should we be reforming public 
education to make it work again? I believe the answer is pretty simple. 
Of course most answers to difficult problems are simple; some, overly 
simplistic. But a great deal of the answer lies in getting back to 
basics. We have heard that time and time again. But there is truth in 
that statement.
  Schools are educational institutions. And as redundant as it may 
sound, they should focus on education. We need to renew the emphasis on 
academics. Schools must focus on their academic mission and get back to 
the basics of teaching English, science, math, history, geography, 
civics, and the other core studies. And discipline must be enforced.
  But to simply focus on academics will not be enough. We need also to 
strive for a standard of excellence that has too long been absent from 
our public schools.
  We need to get around to demanding more from our children, and we 
need to get around to demanding more from our parents, and our teachers 
as well. We must not lose sight of the fact that most children will 
generally do what is asked of them. They will generally achieve that 
which is expected of them. The problem with our public schools is that, 
for too long, we have been lowering expectations and we have been 
lowering our standards and ``dumbing down'' the textbooks. We make it 
easy for everybody to be promoted.
  The time has come to stop seeking the lowest common denominator. The 
time has come to stop coddling our children--and they can rise to 
whatever challenge that is set for them. We have to deal with ``the 
common curse of mankind, folly and ignorance.'' We have to get serious 
about it. Getting an education is a serious matter, it is not a fun 
matter. It can be fun. Studying can be fun. It can be recreational, 
very enriching.
  So, I am just hoping that I can find myself voting for this 
legislation that is on the floor, and I think I will vote for it. But I 
have about reached the end of the string. I am about ready to throw up 
my hands and say forget it. Let us provide for children to go to 
schools where they can learn; where they can feel safe; where, if they 
want to say a prayer at commencement time, fine, that is the way it 
ought to be. I think our constitutional Framers would turn over in 
their graves if they could see what has taken place in this country in 
the name of the first amendment.
  Here is an article in the Washington Post of Thursday, January 20, 
1994. Headline: Loudoun School Board Ends Its Battle for Prayer at 
Graduation.
  Is that not ridiculous? Here in America, under a Constitution that 
was written and signed by men like George Washington, James Madison, 
John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, I would not have dreamed a few years 
ago that we would come to this sorry state of affairs.
  The article says:

       The Loudoun School Board has dropped its 9-month-old fight 
     to have a prayer at the graduation ceremonies, saying it does 
     not want to spend more public funds to prolong an ideological 
     battle between liberals and fundamentalist Christians.

  Why should they be fighting over something like that? I know there 
are a few people in this country who would like to see prayer taken 
away from the Senate. Each day, the Senate and the House and the 
Supreme Court open their sessions with a prayer. A small minority in 
this country would like to wipe it all out.
  But the Loudoun County school board gave up its fight because it just 
did not have the funds to continue to wage the battles. Mr. President, 
I think we have to demand more. I do want to vote for this legislation, 
but I want to offer a couple of amendments.
  This legislation places a strong emphasis on teacher training. Our 
society has laid on our teachers an enormous burden. I sometimes think 
our teachers are being taught how to teach, but not enough of the 
substance that they are supposed to teach. I have never studied 
methodology in teaching. I have never been trained as a school teacher. 
But if you give me a group of boys and girls, I will teach them--in an 
environment where I am not afraid to walk in and out of a schoolroom, 
and in an environment where the students are not afraid, where they can 
concentrate on learning. I will teach them. They are eager to be 
taught. Methodology is all right, but let us insist that teachers know 
the substance of the subjects which they are supposed to teach, and 
give them a chance in a safe environment to teach it.
  Teachers cannot be expected to carry the burdens of educating our 
children alone. I believe that young people take seriously those 
endeavors in which their parents and those whom they admire show 
interest. Parents and other adult role models need to encourage, 
through both their words and deeds, an interest in learning.
  I had good teachers. I remember very well Anna Brochik, my teacher of 
grammar; David Reemsnyder, who taught algebra, mathematics, geometry; 
D. Pitt O'Brien who taught history; Carol Quenzel, who taught 
economics; William Jennings Bryan Cormany, who taught physics, and we 
paid attention in his class. He took on the big ones as well as the 
little ones if they did not pay attention. First of all, if you did not 
pay attention, you would suddenly hear an eraser whizzing by your head.
  I remember a Miss McCone, who was one of my high school teachers. One 
day, she asked me a question, and I said, ``Huh?'' and turned back to 
my books and kept on studying. I did not hear a thing until she walked 
around the room and came up from behind and gave me a resounding slap 
on my left cheek. She said, ``Don't you ever say ``huh'' to me again.'' 
And I never said ``huh'' to her or any other school teacher again. That 
old coal miner foster father said, ``Robert, if you get a whipping in 
school, I am not going to whip Mr. Cormany, I am going to whip you,'' 
and I knew he meant it.
  Well, boys will be a little naughty now and then. One day, I made a 
paper airplane, and I sailed it across the room. The teacher turned 
just in time to see my hand draw back and the airplane landing on the 
other side of the room. He said, ``Robert, come up front.'' I went to 
the front of the class. He said, ``Stand up in the chair.'' I stood up 
in the chair. He drew a circle on the blackboard and said, ``Stick your 
nose in the center of the circle.'' I stuck my nose in the circle. 
Wham! I got a good paddling. I did not throw any more paper airplanes 
in school. I was terribly embarrassed.
  Those were minor things in my day. We had a bully or two now and then 
in school, but he did not carry a gun, or a knife. Teachers usually 
knew how to handle the bullies in those days.
  Mr. President, I have two amendments that I will offer, and I will 
cease my reminiscing, which I think we all need to do once in a while.


                           Amendment No. 1391

          (Purpose: To improve students' academic achievement)

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1391.
       On page 76, strike line 24, and insert the following: 
     ``described in title I by improving teaching and learning and 
     students' mastery of basic and advanced skills to achieve a 
     higher level of learning and academic accomplishment in 
     English, math, science, history, geography, foreign languages 
     and the arts, civics, government, economics, physics, and 
     other core curricula,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will send to the desk another amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent that the first amendment be set aside. I send my 
second amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1392

(Purpose: A clarifying amendment to add the word alcohol to the stated 
                                 goals)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send my second amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1392.
       On page 14, line 11, strike all through line 16, and insert 
     the following:
       (6) Safe, disciplined, and alcohol- and drug-free 
     schools.--
       (A) Goal.--By the year 2000, every school in the United 
     States will be free of drugs, alcohol, and violence and will 
     offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have a few comments on the second 
amendment.
  Alcohol remains the No. 1 drug problem among America's youth. Call it 
what it is. It is a drug, and its title is alcohol. It makes you drunk. 
It gives you a hangover the next morning. It causes people to drive 
recklessly and dangerously. It takes drivers' lives, and it takes other 
innocent people's lives. More and more we read about kids in school 
drinking alcohol.
  Statistics tell part of the sad story. About 4.6 million 14- to 17-
year-olds in 1985 experienced negative consequences, such as arrests 
for involvement in an accident as a result of alcohol use.
  In 1988, more than 800 children up to the age of 14 and more than 
8,000 15- to 24-year-olds died in alcohol-related highway accidents. 
Drivers 16 to 24 years of age represent approximately 17 percent of our 
licensed drivers but are involved in about 36 percent of all fatal, 
alcohol-related crashes. Nearly a third of high school seniors believe 
there is no great risk in having four or five drinks almost everyday.
  Their parents are bound to know that. Does anyone have the gall to 
stand up and say to me that as a parent they do not know that their 
children are drinking alcohol in school? In many instances, the parents 
are drinking, too.
  According to a nationwide survey 88 percent of the 790 high school 
coaches polled said that alcohol poses the greatest drug threat to high 
school athletes--alcohol.
  According to 1988 data, alcoholism and related problems cost the 
Nation $85.8 billion, $27.5 billion more than illicit use of other 
drugs.
  If a woman or man drinks alcohol, children look to their parents as 
role models. How can one be critical of the young people when the 
parents set that kind of example before them?
  If a woman abuses alcohol and becomes pregnant, the child could be 
born with fetal alcohol syndrome, one of the top three known causes of 
birth defects, with accompanying mental retardation.
  There is another statistic that bears telling. In one survey of 
inmates, 54 offenders convicted of violent crimes used alcohol just 
before the offense. While statistics tell part of the story, statistics 
do not tell the whole story. When an individual imbibes alcohol, the 
damage does not stop with that individual. The impact is felt by the 
family, by the neighbors, and by the community. If an individual drinks 
alcohol and drives and causes a fatal accident, the costs in terms of 
life lost cannot be tallied.
  No amount of money will bring back the life of a victim, and the 
anguish will be carried by family members for the rest of their lives.
  Unfortunately, too often the problems associated with alcohol have 
been lost in the race to address other more exotic drug abuses.
  In many rural areas, alcohol abuse remains a greater problem than 
other types of drugs.
  Therefore, the amendment that I have offered adds the word 
``alcohol'' to the goal that reads 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. I feel that the Senate 
should highlight the fact that alcohol is a serious problem.
  We do not hesitate to highlight the fact that smoking is a serious 
problem. There has been a great crusade in this country against 
smoking, but nobody dares say anything about alcohol or they say very 
little or they refer to it only by talking about drugs.
  We ought to highlight the fact that alcohol is a serious problem and 
we intend that alcohol abuse receive the same kind of attention as is 
given to other types of drugs.
  Mr. President, I thank the two managers for their patience, and it is 
my understanding that they have indicated a desire to accept both of 
the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are prepared to dispose of the 
Senator's amendments, if we could.
  Mr. President, I, first of all, want to express my appreciation for 
the kind comments of my friend and colleague from West Virginia.
  We enjoy a long-standing friendship, and I think all of us in this 
body, no matter what side of the aisle, have a very keen awareness and 
understanding that there is no one in this body and few who have ever 
served in the body that has been more devoted and dedicated to the 
institution.
  The Senator from West Virginia has achieved many different milestones 
over the course of his career, but I think, as all of us would 
understand, his devotion to this institution is something that is very 
special, especially recognized and respected by all of the Members both 
here, and history will reflect that as well, and I am grateful to him 
for his comments.
  I will just take a moment to address his general comments. I do not 
think, as I was listening to the Senator list his school teachers, that 
there is another person probably in this body who could do that.
  I can remember back to teachers in my own life: Reginald Nash, who 
taught history. I can remember others. Liz Perry who taught English in 
the high school I went to whose father taught my father English at 
Harvard College. And Alpha Newcombe who taught my brothers and myself, 
four brothers at Harvard College, about the Constitutional Convention.
  And while the Senator was talking and listing teacher after teacher 
in each course, it was an extraordinary tribute to those individuals. I 
do not think we should miss that great significance. I think that they 
are probably now in their eternal reward at this time, but I think the 
fact that they have been mentioned as sources of inspiration to the 
Senator is something very, very important and significant.
  The Senator has in his comments indicated the two amendments.
  I would just like to inquire of the Senator if the Senator remembers 
in the great classic education, actually in the times of the 
Renaissance, the total number of courses for that time for 100 or 200 
years were actually rather limited to three or four. There are Latin 
terms that refer to those three courses or four courses and were much 
more limited. They were really the benchmark in terms of the 
educational experience, basically, and the philosophy they had of 
course in the basic sciences and, of course, in literature. They were 
developed in each of the various city states of Italy and other 
governmental institutions in a rather freewheeling way, but they were 
much more limited certainly.
  We will have an opportunity to talk about that, as our resident 
scholar could, I am sure, talk about that aspect of the educational 
progress over many, many years ago. We always enjoy his great lessons 
in history about Greece and the great civilizations. So I will not 
engage in that now, as the time moves on, on a Friday afternoon, but I 
will look forward to that exchange.
  I want to just thank the Senator for his amendments. They strengthen 
the legislation for the reasons outlined by the Senator.
  But, as always, the Senator, unlike too many of our colleagues, has 
spoken eloquently and cogently about certainly the purposes of our 
legislation. I do not think we are going to be able to achieve all of 
the goals and the aims that the Senator has identified, but the speech 
which the Senator has made certainly establishes the bar which we ought 
to be trying to cross.
  I am grateful to him for his comments about education and the 
challenge which that poses for our society and for our country. I hope, 
at the appropriate time, that the amendments would be accepted.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I also would like to join in commending 
the Senator from West Virginia for his tremendous recitation of history 
and the problems of this country.
  He is so right, that we so often forget the teaching of history and 
the importance it is to this Nation, and that as we enter another 
crisis time, as we are now with education, it is so important to 
reflect back upon what made this Nation so great, Nathan Hale and 
others.
  I just hope that the Senator and others will continue to alert this 
country to the importance of the bill that we have before us and to 
make sure that it becomes an important bill. Because it is so easy to 
establish goals and then to drift back into our malaise and then to 
watch things get worse again and then come forward again with another 
group of platitudes and goals and then back off again. That is the case 
that we face here on this bill, because things have gotten worse, much 
worse.
  This Nation is on the brink of a point where it either moves forward 
into new generations recognizing the crisis we have in education and 
improving it so that we can reach the goals that we seek or again to 
place them on file and to look at them again when we are in the depths 
of depression.
  I thank the Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I had the good fortune to listen to a good 
portion of the comments of the Senator from West Virginia. I was 
particularly struck at his thought of the inclusion of core courses. 
This is an idea that is long overdue. Some of us have talked about it 
and it finally is being put into law. I look forward to supporting 
those amendments.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the distinguished Senator from Vermont, 
and the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island for their kind 
felicitations. I thank them most of all for their leadership.
  I would say, particularly in response to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, that Senators would be pleasantly surprised to go back 
and read the debates of the Senate in the Register of Debates, in the 
Congressional Globe, in the Annals of Debates, in the National 
Intelligencer, and in the Congressional Record. Senators would be 
amazed at the knowledge that our forebears in this institution had, 
knowledge of the classics. The Framers and the early Senators in this 
Republic knew a great deal about Plutarch, Polybius, Cicero, ancient 
Greece and classical Rome, and the great literature of the world.
  Read it. It is refreshing. It should inspire all of us today to 
attempt to pick up where they had to leave off and to raise our sights 
a little when it comes to debate in this institution.
  Go back and read the classics. They were indelibly etched upon the 
fertile minds of our predecessors in this body--Webster, Clay, Calhoun, 
and Benton; and other great names. Even Senators whose names we would 
not recognize today, read their eulogies to departed Senators and 
reached out to the great classical writers, the great poets and the 
annals of history, and worked all these into their speeches. I am 
afraid we have about lost that art.
  I thank my friend. I often refer to Senator Kennedy as my favorite 
Senator, and for various reasons. As I have said before, we always do 
not vote together. That does not keep me from admiring him for the work 
he has done in his committee, work that he has done in bringing bills 
to the floor, for the conviction and belief that he has in what he is 
doing, and his skill as a legislator.
  He has much to be thankful for. He has a mother who is a great, great 
woman in her own right, who raised a great family. And thank God she is 
still enjoying birthdays after she has passed the century mark.
  I thank all Senators.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have been listening with interest, 
appreciation, and admiration to the excellent remarks and two 
amendments offered by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia.
  If he would approve, I would like to be added as a cosponsor to both 
of the amendments. I would like to ask that at the present time.
  I would also like to add, Mr. President, that upon the completion of 
the votes on the two amendments offered by the Senator from West 
Virginia, which I anticipate will be forthcoming very shortly, that I 
might be recognized by the Chair for no longer than 10 minutes, as was 
previously discussed on the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], have his name added as 
a cosponsor of the two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the managers for accepting, on their part, the two 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Nebraska 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from 
Nebraska sought to be recognized after the votes.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1392

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 1392?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1392) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1391

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to amendment 
No. 1391.
  The amendment (No. 1391) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
to move to reconsider en bloc the two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I make that motion en bloc and I move to lay both 
amendments on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, is there not unanimous consent about the 
procedure?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  The amendment of the Senator from North Carolina will be considered 
after an hour. At the present time the Senator from Nebraska has the 
floor, by unanimous consent, for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HELMS. I did not understand that. In any case I was not going to 
object to the Senator from Nebraska having the 10 minutes. But please 
state again where I stand in the pecking order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Following the Senator from Nebraska, the 
question will occur on the amendment of the Senator from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. That is very good. I thank the Chair,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized, Mr. 
Exon.

                          ____________________