[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                              LET US PRAY

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, there has been an article in the 
Reader's Digest in November 1992 entitled ``Let Us Pray'' by Eugene H. 
Methvin. At the top of the article it says, ``Why can't the voice of 
the people be heard on prayer in schools?''
  The article is very interesting, and I would like to present it to 
the Senate.

                 [From Reader's Digest, November 1992]

                              Let Us Pray

       When James Todd of San Diego went to school in the 1930s, 
     students read from the Bible and recited a prayer at the 
     beginning of each day. ``Now they teach them about sex and 
     give them condoms and don't mention the Bible,'' Todd says. 
     ``It would be nice to teach moral values also.''
       This opinion is widely and strongly held across the 
     country, a Reader's Digest poll reveals, putting the American 
     people at sharp odds with the Supreme Court--and the nation's 
     cultural establishment. Three-fourths of those interviewed, 
     for example, favor prayer in public schools, which the Court 
     considers unconstitutional.
       ``Who are they to tell us when we can pray?'' asks Jeanne 
     Pepper of Bloomfield, Mo., reflecting the sentiment of many 
     in the survey. ``Let the children decide, and let those who 
     don't want to participate sit quietly and respectfully. 
     That's their right.''
       The Reader's Digest poll, conducted by The Wirthlin Group, 
     pinpointed other fissures between the people and the Court.
       Eighty percent of Americans disapprove of the Supreme 
     Court's ruling this year that banned prayers at graduation 
     ceremonies. ``I don't think the Supreme Court should tell us 
     what we can and cannot do on this issue,'' says Joyce Sykora 
     of Wellsville, N.Y.
       Seventy-six percent say it's right for a school to put up a 
     manger scene or a menorah during the holiday season. Says 
     Carol Moro of San Francisco: ``All religions should be 
     treated equally. If a child says, `My religion is not 
     represented,' then it should be.''
       Over half, 53 percent, agree that it's right for a school 
     to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms. ``Children should 
     be exposed to religious training, and some do not get it at 
     home,'' says Louise Tatum of Stuart, Va.
       These opinions were expressed by Democrats and Republicans, 
     blacks and whites, rich and poor, high-school dropouts and 
     college graduates--reflecting a profound disparity between 
     the citizenry and the Court.
       ``There is no issue in American life in which the public 
     will is so clear and the political establishment is so 
     heedless,'' says scholar Michael Novak of the American 
     Enterprise Institute. ``The cultural and political elites 
     have simply ignored the overwhelming support of the American 
     people for voluntary school prayer--indeed for the role of 
     religion and faith in the nation's life.''
       The voice of the people, however, may well be heard in the 
     voting booth. Most of those surveyed--59 percent--say they 
     would be more likely to vote for a candidate for President or 
     Congress who favored public-school prayer; 23 percent said it 
     would make no difference. ``I would definitely be more likely 
     to vote for someone who favors prayer in schools,'' says 
     Charles Topping of Falmouth, Mass., who classifies himself as 
     a liberal. ``Religion has been around a heck of a lot longer 
     than the Supreme Court.''
       Indeed, the Supreme Court's interpretations of the 
     Constitution in recent years might astonish those who in 1789 
     declared, in the First Amendment, that ``Congress shall make 
     no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
     prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
       The justices claim this amendment empowers them to do just 
     the opposite of what the men who framed it thought they were 
     doing: forbidding the new national government from meddling 
     in the religious accommodations worked out by states and 
     communities.
       Consider the historical record. The Congress that wrote the 
     First Amendment also elected chaplains and paid them, voted 
     to provide land ``for the Society of the United Brethren for 
     propagating the Gospel among the Heathen'' and said, in 
     providing for the formation of new states, ``Religion, 
     morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government 
     and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of 
     education shall forever be encouraged.''
       In 1962, however, the Court decided that prayer in 
     classrooms is unconstitutional. Since then, with the federal 
     judiciary as their guide, school authorities have told 
     youngsters they cannot sit together at their lunch hour and 
     read the Bible, say grace over their meals or discuss 
     religion. A handicapped girl in Texas was ordered not to use 
     her rosary on a school bus. A Denver teacher was ordered to 
     cease reading his Bible silently during his class reading 
     period and to remove the book from his desk.
       Five Supreme Court justices ruled that Kentucky's 
     legislature violated the Constitution by ordering the posting 
     of the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms.
       And at the North Clayton (GA) Junior High School, drama, 
     math, science and chess clubs assembled. But the 60-member 
     Youth for Christ Club, which always met after school, was 
     expelled from campus after a lawsuit was filed through the 
     American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Student Council 
     president Stuart Kennedy, a ninth-grader, showed a better 
     grasp of U.S. constitutional history than has the Supreme 
     Court when he protested that the ruling ``infringes upon my 
     rights as a citizen instead of defending them.''
       In light of these decisions, it is ironic that the Supreme 
     Court begins each session with a bailiff's intoning the 
     prayer: ``God save the United States and this Honorable 
     Court.''
       The latest case arose in Providence, RI, when Rabbi Leslie 
     Gutterman gave an invocation and benediction at an eighth-
     grade graduation ceremony. His prayers thanked the ``God of 
     the free, hope of the brave'' for ``the legacy of America, 
     where diversity is celebrated and the rights of minorities 
     are protected.''
       With the help of ACLU lawyers, a parent sued. This past 
     June, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy declared that asking the 
     students to stand for an invocation and benediction 
     ``compelled attendance and participation in an explicit 
     religious exercise.'' Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David 
     Souter, Harry Blackmum and John Paul Stevens agreed.
       Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a scorching dissent, which was 
     joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Byron 
     White and Clarence Thomas: ``The Court lays waste a 
     longstanding American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God 
     at public celebrations. . . . There is simply no support for 
     the proposition that the officially sponsored 
     nondenominational invocation and benediction read by Rabbi 
     Gutterman--with no one legally coerced to recite them--
     violated the Constitution of the United States. To the 
     contrary, they are so characteristically American they could 
     have come from the pen of George Washington or Abraham 
     Lincoln himself.''
       Moreover, the four dissenters, including Chief Justice 
     Rehnquist, contend that invocations and benedictions can 
     still be offered, provided schools include a note in the 
     commencement program to the effect that participation is 
     voluntary.
       ``That obvious fact recited,'' the four dissenters said, 
     the graduates and their parents may proceed to thank God, as 
     Americans have always done, for the blessings He has 
     generously bestowed on them and their country.''
       Such a course may not be necessary if Americans cast their 
     votes for candidates who will challenge the Supreme Court. 
     When justices disregard the bounds of precedent and 
     tradition, the Constitution does offer remedies. Article III 
     empowers Congress to remove whole classes of cases from the 
     Court's appellate jurisdiction.
       Further, the 14th Amendment provides that ``The Congress 
     shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation,'' 
     the rights the amendment creates. So if the legislators 
     disapprove of the Court's rulings, presumably they can pass 
     statutes substituting their own rules. The Congress did this 
     in 1984, enacting a law permitting student religious groups 
     to meet in schools. How has such overwhelming public support 
     for school prayer, as shown in the Reader's Digest poll, been 
     denied for 30 years?
       ``Beginning in the 1960s, a gulf opened between popular and 
     elite opinion on a wide range of issues, particularly those 
     that relate to community standards,'' says political theorist 
     Jeffrey Bell, author of the acclaimed new book Populism and 
     Elitism. ``This gulf shows no sign of closing. As long as 
     judicial and other elites deny the people the right to set 
     their own standards on issues like school prayer, our social 
     fabric will keep eroding.''

  Mr. President, that was the article from the Reader's Digest, as I 
just stated.
  Now the Reader's Digest has another article that came out in the 
November 1992 edition that is very interesting. It is headed ``The Case 
for Religion in Schools,'' Condensed from ``The De-Valuing of 
America,'' by William J Bennett.
  At the top of the article it stated, ``Why hide the important of this 
cornerstone of American culture?''
  The article goes on and states this:

       God and Religion: these two words will bring the most 
     levelheaded academic to a state of extreme agitation, if not 
     frenzy. During my tenure as U.S. Secretary of Education, 
     nothing I said seemed more unforgivable than my good words 
     about religion.
       Religion has a crucial role in the founding of this 
     country, and it maintains a prominent place in the lives of 
     many citizens. Yet, in too many places in American public 
     education, religion has been ignored, banned or shunned. Some 
     teachers and principals seem to think that, since schools 
     must not encourage people to be members of one religious 
     faith or another, the whole subject of religion in our 
     society is out of bounds. That is wrongheaded and silly.
       The extreme to which educators go to deny the place of 
     religion in American life is mind-boggling. A study by New 
     York University professor Paul Vitz found that most 
     elementary and high-school textbooks take extraordinary steps 
     to avoid any references to religion. One sixth-grade reader, 
     for example, includes the story ``Zlateh the Goat'' by the 
     late Nobel laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer. In it, a boy 
     named Aaron takes Zlateh, the family goat, to a butcher in 
     the village to be sold. When Aaron and Zlateh get lost in 
     the blizzard, Singer writes: ``Aaron began to pray to God 
     for himself and for the innocent animal.'' In the textbook 
     this has been changed to: ``Aaron began to pray for 
     himself and for the innocent animal.'' Later, after Aaron 
     and Zlateh have found shelter in a haystack, Singer 
     writes: ``Thank God that in the hay it was not cold.'' But 
     in the book ``God'' had been changed to ``goodness.''
       This would be funny if it were not so serious. Professor 
     Vitz documents case after case of exclusions and distortions. 
     One world-history book completely ignores the Reformation. A 
     U.S. history textbook defines Pilgrims as ``people who make 
     long trips.'' Another defines fundamentalists as rural people 
     who ``follow the values or traditions of an earlier period.'' 
     A study by the liberal People For the American Way found that 
     junior-high-school history textbooks typically ``treat 
     religion by exclusion or by brief and simplistic reference.''
       The story of America is the story of the highest 
     aspirations and proudest accomplishments of mankind. To 
     understand those achievements, we must understand the 
     religious roots from which they sprang. We must tell our 
     schoolchildren about the Puritans, who founded a ``city upon 
     a hill'' with a sacred mission: to be a beacon unto the 
     nations and to lead a community of saints to the New 
     Jerusalem; about Benjamin Franklin, who proposed that the 
     Great Seal of the United States depict Moses leading the 
     chosen people from the wilderness to the Promised Land; about 
     Abraham Lincoln, who saw the Civil War as a divine punishment 
     for the sin of slavery; about the Rev. Martin Luther King, 
     Jr., who carried the ``gospel of freedom'' to the 
     mountaintop.
       Everyone, including agnostics and atheists, must concede 
     that the Judeo-Christian tradition is a major formative 
     influence on American life, law, ideals and principles. 
     George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, ``Of all 
     the dispositions and habits which lead to political 
     prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. 
     And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality 
     can be maintained without religion.''
       The Founding Fathers intended religion to provide a moral 
     anchor for our democracy. All would be puzzled were they to 
     return to modern-day America to find, among elite circles in 
     academia and the media, a scorn for the public expression of 
     religious values.
       The irony of this situation is that we are among the most 
     religious people in the world. A City University of New 
     York study in 1991 revealed that nearly 90 percent of the 
     American people identify themselves religiously as 
     Christians or Jews, while only 7.5 percent claim no 
     religion.
       Yet again and again as Education Secretary, I was 
     criticized for my views on the church-state debate. I was 
     attacked as an ``ayatollah'' when I supported voluntary 
     school prayer--and the posting of the Ten Commandments in 
     schools. But it was important to re-establish what was 
     believed by almost everybody for a very long time, that 
     people do not give up their First Amendment rights when they 
     enter a classroom.
       Many ``sophisticated'' political and social commentators 
     complain that issues like school prayer are ``distractions'' 
     having nothing to do with today's most pressing issues. What 
     they fail to recognize is that a people's faith is 
     intertwined with the issues of the day. Religion is a 
     wellspring of civic virtues that democracy requires in order 
     to flourish. It promotes hard work and responsibility. It 
     lifts each citizen outside himself and inspires concern for 
     community and country. It is a call to kindness, decency and 
     forgiveness.
       The real danger of showing disdain for religion is an 
     impoverishment of our public life. G.K. Chesterton pointed 
     out that the trouble when people stop believing in God is 
     that they thereafter believe in anything. Neutrality to 
     religin guarantees neutrality to those very values that issue 
     from religion.
       As Justice William O. Douglas put it 40 years ago, if ``in 
     every and all respects there shall be a separation of church 
     and state,'' then ``the state and religion would be aliens to 
     each other--hostile, suspicious and even unfriendly.''
       We cannot deny in our public schools that from the Judeo-
     Christian tradition come our values, our principles and the 
     spirit of our institutions. That tradition and the American 
     tradition are wedded. When we have disdain for our religious 
     tradition, we have disdain for ourselves.

  Mr. President, I was very much impressed with an article written by 
one of our colleagues, the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, 
Senator Judd Gregg. It is entitled, ``A Federal Grab for Control of 
Schools.'' I would like to present that to the Senate.

               [From the Washington Times, Jan. 31, 1994]

                 A Federal Grab for Control of Schools

                            (By Judd Gregg)

       Image a Czar of Curriculum in Washington. Crazy? How about 
     a National Bureau of Standards of Schools. Far-fetched? This 
     may sound like a bad dream at first, but it could become 
     reality if the Senate passes President Clinton's plan for 
     education reform called Goals 2000.
       It is important to understand that although the title is 
     innocuous, the administration's initiative is far-reaching. 
     It is aimed at restructuring the way education is managed in 
     America. No one suggests that our educational system is all 
     it can be. But the answer is not putting education in the 
     hands of the new federal bureaucracy created by this Clinton 
     initiative.
       The Clinton plan will specifically shift a significant 
     amount of the control of curriculum and management of 
     elementary and secondary schools from local communities and 
     states to the federal government. It is, therefore, important 
     to highlight some of the problems with this legislation.
       A series of new federal bureaucracies. The concept of this 
     legislation is to lay the management of education in the arms 
     of two small, but extremely powerful, federal entities. The 
     first is know as the national Education Standards and 
     Improvement Council (NESIC) and is charged with certifying 
     national content and performance standards. These standards 
     will basically address all areas affecting the way elementary 
     and secondary schools are operated.
       The second is called the National Education Goals Panel. 
     NESIC refers its work to this Goals Panel, which passes 
     judgment on its acceptability. The operation of these two 
     entities will basically set out a national agenda that will 
     cover all functions of elementary and secondary school 
     education, including curriculum.
       For the first time in the history of this country, the 
     federal bureaucracy will be defining how education should be 
     delivered on Main Street anywhere in America. The traditional 
     role of limiting federal direction in education to narrow 
     areas, such as special education, will have been abandoned, 
     as the federal role moves to defining how elementary and 
     secondary school education should be delivered across the 
     country.
       Voluntary standards. Throughout the legislation the term 
     ``voluntary'' is used aggressively. The standards are, for 
     example, ``voluntary.'' The state's participation is 
     ``voluntary.'' The National Opportunity to Learn standards 
     are ``voluntary.'' The assessment system is ``voluntary.''
       Methinks the plan doth protest too much. There is very 
     little that is voluntary about this initiative. In fact, the 
     only thing voluntary in this bill is the word itself. In 
     order to qualify for access to a $400 million pot of funds, 
     states must produce plans that conform to the content and 
     performance standards set out by the national panels cited 
     above. The argument, of course, is that if the states do not 
     want the money, they do not have to participate in setting up 
     such standards; therefore, everything is ``voluntary.'' 
     However, the structure is such that it is unlikely that the 
     political leadership of the states will be able to resist the 
     financial and legal pressure to participate in this program. 
     Also, as we have seen in the past, this is the ``camel's-
     nose-under-the-tent'' approach. One can expect that when this 
     initiative is up and running, obtaining so much as a nickel 
     in federal funds for current programs, such as for special 
     education, will likely require compliance with the 
     performance and content standards that have been certified by 
     NESIC under this act.
       Lawsuits. It is obvious that one of the purposes of the act 
     is to create a litigious atmosphere--along much the same 
     lines as has occurred in environmental policy. The standards 
     to be developed in compliance with this law--relative to 
     teachers' workload, special treatment of students with 
     special needs and a myriad of local education functions--will 
     quickly become the hammer for activist lawsuits. This will be 
     true whether a state adopts a plan that meets the directives 
     of the national standards for content and performance or not. 
     The long-cherished principle of community control of 
     education will be lost to the courts.
       A straitjacket at the local level. Control over education 
     at the state and local level has been maintained in part by 
     flexibility in complying with federal regulations. Goals 2000 
     moves in the opposite direction. It limits flexibility and 
     expands and centralizes control at the federal level. It 
     defines content and thus controls input rather than focusing 
     on results.
       Of course, this unwillingness to push for results standards 
     is a reflection of the influence of the National Education 
     Association and other labor unions. The unions do not wish to 
     be held to such standards, preferring instead an approach 
     regulating input. That approach, of course, avoids 
     accountability and precludes effective comparisons.
       As the Vermont commissioner of education recently stated: 
     ``The bill defines a radically different federal role in 
     education: The Goals Panel will set the goals, the Standards 
     and Improvement Council will certify the standards to measure 
     progress toward the goals, and the Secretary will oversee a 
     state and local planning process to reach the goals. While 
     the federal government requires plans now, they govern only a 
     part of education. . . . This bill will assert federal 
     oversight over the whole educational program in a state or 
     community.''
       This bill is another in what is becoming a long list of 
     initiatives by the Clinton administration that fall into the 
     category of ``we know what is best for you'' legislation. It 
     is an attempt by a group of recycled 1960s utopian academics 
     to enforce their view of the world and in this case, their 
     views on education, on all the misguided folks out there in 
     America who really do not know what is appropriate for their 
     children. In case you didn't know, that's you.

  Mr. President, I have an article by David M. Ackerman, which I think 
would be of interest to the Senate, on the subject of amendments to S. 
1150 relating to school prayer.

       During debate in early February on S. 1150, the ``Goals 
     2000; Educate America Act,'' the Senate adopted three 
     amendments relating to school prayer. This memorandum 
     provides a brief analysis of their legal and constitutional 
     implications.


                         Text of the Amendments

       On February 3, 1994, the Senate adopted an amendment 
     sponsored by Senators Helms, and Lott to S. 1150, the ``Goals 
     2000: Educate America Act.'' The amendment, which was 
     approved by a vote of 75-22, provides as follows:
       No funds made available through the Department of Education 
     under this Act, or any other Act, shall be available to any 
     state or local educational agency which has a policy of 
     denying, or which effectively prevents participation in, 
     constitutionally protected prayer in public schools by 
     individuals on a voluntary basis. Neither the United States 
     nor any state nor any local educational agency shall require 
     any person to participate in prayer or influence the form of 
     content of any constitutionally protected prayer in such 
     public school.
       The words ``constitutionally protected'' were not included 
     in the amendment as first propounded but were added by 
     unanimous consent after an extended colloquy between Senators 
     Helms, Packwood, and Danforth.
       On February 4 and 8, 1994, respectively, the Senate adopted 
     two more amendments generally relating to the issue of school 
     prayer--a sense of the Senate amendment sponsored by Senators 
     Danforth, Chafee, and Kassebaum and an amendment by Senator 
     Levin. The sense of the Senate amendment, which was adopted 
     by a vote of 78-8, provides as follows:
       It is the sense of the Senate that local educational 
     agencies should encourage a brief period of daily silence for 
     students for the purpose of contemplating their aspirations; 
     for considering what they hope and plan to accomplish that 
     day; for considering how their own actions of that day will 
     effect (sic) themselves and others around them, including 
     their schoolmates, friends and families; for drawing strength 
     from whatever personal, moral or religious beliefs or 
     positive values they hold; and for such other introspection 
     and reflection as will help them develop and prepare them for 
     achieving the goals of this bill.
       Finally, the Levin amendment, which was adopted by voice 
     vote, provides as follows:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds 
     made available through the Department of Education under this 
     Act, or any other Act, shall be denied to any State or local 
     educational agency because it has adopted a constitutional 
     policy relative to prayer in public schools.


                     legal effect of the amendments

       While the amendment concerning a brief period of daily 
     silence is, as a statement of the sense of the Senate, purely 
     hortatory, both the Helms-Lott and the Levin amendments would 
     have substantive legal effect. The Helms-Lott amendment would 
     bar the Department of Education from making funds available 
     to any State educational agency (SEA) or local educational 
     agency (LEA) that had ``a policy of denying, or which 
     effectively prevents participation in, constitutionally 
     protected prayer in public schools by individuals on a 
     voluntary basis.'' The Levin amendment, conversely, would 
     prohibit the Department from denying funds to any SEA or LEA 
     which had ``a constitutional policy relative to prayer in 
     public school.'' It is not clear that that prohibition 
     accomplishes anything that would not otherwise be the case, 
     but the prohibition, nonetheless, would be a binding legal 
     mandate.
       The amendments raise at least five issues relating to their 
     legal effect. First, are the amendments compatible, or 
     contradictory? Second, would the Helms-Lott amendment cut off 
     all Federal funds flowing to SEAs and LEAs that violate 
     its prescription, or just funding provided through the 
     Department of Education? Third, what does the phrase 
     ``constitutionally protected prayer in public schools by 
     individuals on a voluntary basis'' in the Helms-Lott 
     amendment mean? Fourth, what does the counterpart phrase 
     in the Levin amendment--``a constitutional policy relative 
     to prayer in public school''--mean? Fifth, would any of 
     the amendments violate the Constitution?
       (1) Are the amendments compatible, or contradictory? The 
     amendments appear to be compatible. The Helms-Lott amendment 
     would require that Federal education funds be cut off under 
     certain circumstances, while the Levin amendment would 
     prohibit the cutoff of Federal education funds under certain 
     circumstances. But under both the Helms-Lott and Levin 
     amendments an SEA or LEA that had a constitutional policy 
     relative to prayer in the public schools would be eligible 
     for Federal education funds. Only in the circumstance that an 
     SEA or LEA prevented participation in constitutionally 
     protected prayer, i.e., had an unconstitutional policy 
     relative to prayer in the public schools, would the Helms-
     Lott amendment require that funds be cut off. The Levin 
     amendment would not proscribe that cutoff. The Danforth 
     amendment, as a statement of the sense of the Senate 
     regarding a brief period of silence in the public schools, 
     is, as previously noted, purely hortatory. But because the 
     policy it recommends is arguably constitutional, it, too, 
     appears to be compatible with the Helms-Lott and Levin 
     amendments.
       (2) Would the Helms-Lott amendment cut off all Federal 
     funds flowing to SEAs and LEAs that violate its prescription, 
     or just funding provided through the Department of Education? 
     This issue arose during debate on the Helms-Lott amendment 
     but does not appear to have been clearly resolved. The 
     language of the Helms-Lott amendment states ``No funds made 
     available through the Department of Education under this Act, 
     or any other Act, shall be available to any state or local 
     educational agency. . . .'' Sen. Jeffords, an opponent of the 
     amendment, twice asserted during debate that this language 
     meant that the cutoff of funds under the amendment would 
     apply not only to funds under S. 1150 and not only to other 
     funds that go through the Department of Education but also to 
     all other Federal funds going to SEAs and LEAs, such as 
     school lunch and breakfast monies from the Department of 
     Agriculture, National Science Foundation grants, NASA grants, 
     and Medicaid funds through the Department of Health and Human 
     Services. No rebuttal of this allegation was made by 
     proponents of the amendment. Sen. Helms did introduce a legal 
     memorandum from the American Center for Law and Justice 
     several days later which described the funding cutoff of his 
     amendment as applying to ``funding under the Goals 
     legislation, and funding under any other act, which is 
     provided through the Department of Education. . . .'' But 
     early in the debate he had stated that under his amendment a 
     school district could ``lose its Federal funding.'' The same 
     language appears in the Levin amendment.
       The grammatical structure of the language would seem to 
     intend that the phrase ``through the Department of 
     Education'' applies not only to ``under this Act'' but also 
     to ``, or any other Act,''. But any uncertainty in this 
     regard would be eliminated if the commas were eliminated and 
     the word ``Act'' were used but once: ``No funds made 
     available through the Department of Education under this or 
     any other Act. . . .''
       (3) What does the phrase ``constitutionally protected 
     prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary 
     basis'' in the Helms-Lott amendment mean? This phrase states 
     the prescriptive standard of the Helms-Lott amendment, 
     interference with which would cause a cutoff of Federal 
     funds. The meaning of that phrase, thus, is critically 
     important.

  Mr. President, I understand that the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia is seeking the floor. I will be glad to yield to him at this 
time.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague and 
long-time friend, the senior Senator from South Carolina. I have had 
the privilege of serving in the Senate now, it being my 16th year, with 
Senator Thurmond, and we look upon him as a role model in many, many 
respects. I enjoy so much my work with him on the Armed Services 
Committee. And each Tuesday when he addresses our caucus, he always 
raises subjects of interest to all and presents them in a very cogent 
manner.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the office 
of the Governor, George Allen, relating to the subject matter of the 
underlying legislation, together with other statements, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Richmond, VA, February 2, 1994.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I understand that S. 1150 is scheduled 
     for a vote today. I once again ask that you please vote `no' 
     on this bill.
       This Administration is working hard to create scholastic 
     standards for grades K-12 and we want the opportunity to 
     implement them in a way that best suits the children of our 
     Commonwealth. Should S. 1150 pass, we would be robbed of the 
     privilege of determining what is best for our own children.
       Please do not let another layer of intrusive federal 
     legislation further harm public education in this country.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Beverely H. Sgro.
                                  ____

                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                      Department of Education,

                                   Richmond, VA, January 27, 1994.
     Hon. John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: You will soon be asked to vote on S. 
     1150. I would ask that you vote no. Last month, I visited the 
     U.S. Department of Education and met with Mike Cohen 
     regarding this bill. He was very helpful; however, I fear 
     that future funding will be contingent upon the 
     ``restructuring plan'', fundamentally this proposal. Even 
     though I am getting oriented to my new work as Superintendent 
     of Public Instruction for Virginia, I am well aware of your 
     commitment to local concerns and decision-making. A vote of 
     no on S. 1150 will help us to maintain this autonomy and 
     responsibility.
           Sincerely,
                                           William C. Bosher, Jr.,
                             Superintendent of Public Instruction.
                                  ____


  Policy Concerns--Goals 2000: The National Takeover of Education Bill

       Goals 2000 will be another power grab by the federal 
     government.
       Rhetoric: Goals 2000 maximizes local control over 
     education.
       Reality: This legislation serves as another example of a 
     government power grab by establishing strong national control 
     over education. Goals 2000 calls for top-down management, 
     thereby taking power away from state and local school 
     districts. For the first time in U.S. education history, it 
     would give Washington, DC, the power to directly set national 
     academic standards. The bill itself discredits the notion of 
     ``voluntary'' standards by its repeated emphasis on the 
     certification roles of the National Goals Panel and the 
     National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC).
       ``I have great reservations about national standards, 
     frankly,'' said Mr. Cavazos, who served as Secretary of 
     Education under the Reagan and Bush Administrations. ``I 
     think that once you establish a standard, although it's 
     voluntary and we can change it and people do not have to 
     accept it--I have seen too many volunteer things started out 
     in Washington that subsequently became law'' (Education Week, 
     January 12, 1994).
       Federalization of education would be encouraged by the 
     ``opportunity-to-learn'' standards as defined by NESIC. The 
     NESIC would create an unprecedented federal role in promoting 
     national standards and curriculum. These standards are 
     defined in the bill as conditions necessary for all students 
     to have a fair opportunity to learn. However, equalization of 
     inputs does not ensure academic achievement. Pouring more 
     taxpayer dollars into a bureaucratic labyrinth has proven not 
     to solve our education problem.
       Barbara Lerner of the Philadelphia Inquirer has described 
     the Goals 2000 bill as creating ``a massively intrusive 
     bureaucratic nightmare.''
       Rhetoric: Goals 2000 does not impose mandates on states to 
     comply with the national goals and standards.
       Reality: As the bill is currently written, the development 
     of goals, standards and assessments are voluntary for a state 
     or local community to receive federal funding. In practice, 
     however, states would receive pressure to adopt the federal 
     government's standards. (Already, states are rushing to 
     fundamentally restructure educational systems--some of which 
     is being encouraged by federal dollars--in fear of the coming 
     national standards.)
       Attorney Jonathan Wilson, an advisor to the Implementation 
     Task Force of the National Council on Education Standards and 
     Testing, explains,
       ``You can say that it's voluntary, but it won't be. I'm a 
     lawyer * * * all I need from you to get me in court that I 
     don't have now is [school delivery or opportunity-to-learn 
     standards]. Because I have got state law that 
     constitutionally says that you have got to provide an 
     adequate education, and the thing that keeps me from going to 
     court is I don't have a measure for what that is. You give it 
     to me, and I'll get things required--not voluntary''. 
     (October 30, 1991, minutes of the National Council on 
     Education Standards and Testing, Implementation Task Force, 
     pp. 72-3).
       Education Week reports in its January 19, 1994 issue that 
     ``* * * while the standards are voluntary, the hope is that 
     every state and school district will make them part of its 
     own goals for education.''
       Under Title I of Goals 2000, the bill's purpose is defined 
     as ``providing a framework for the reauthorization of all 
     Federal education programs. * * * '' This definition squares 
     with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act (ESEA) which cites the national standards 
     provided by the National Goals Panel.
       The Administration seeks to make federal aid to elementary 
     and secondary schools contingent upon state adoption of 
     national goals and standards. According to the September 11, 
     1993 Congressional Quarterly, the reauthorization of ESEA 
     would effectively force states to comply with the national 
     standards and goals outlined in Goals 2000. Thomas Payzant, 
     the Education Department's assistant secretary for elementary 
     and secondary education, stated that ESEA will ``pick states 
     up where they are and provide support and encouragement for 
     them to keep moving'' in the direction of standards and 
     goals.
       The content and performance standards mandated in the ESEA 
     Chapter 1 program provide the link with the so-called 
     voluntary standards of Goals 2000. (Chapter 1 is a 
     government-funded assistance program for disadvantaged 
     children, providing funds to about ninety-five percent of all 
     school districts.) ESEA would require states to submit plans 
     to the U.S. Department of Education describing content and 
     performance standards of what children are ``expected to know 
     and do.'' Therefore, in order for states to receive the 
     coveted federal funds, they would have to submit their pre-
     approved standards to the NESIC at the U.S. Department of 
     Education.
       Indeed, an analysis provided by the U.S. Department of 
     Education (Summary Sheets, September 13, 1993) again outlines 
     the intrinsic connection between Goals 2000 and the 
     reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act.
       Goals 2000 extends the power of the federal government to 
     intrude into the realm of education which traditionally (and 
     constitutionally) has been within the domain of states and 
     localities. The ``opportunity-to-learn'' standards are 
     nothing less than federal mandates that would direct: 
     national standards for spending; uniform material 
     requirements for schools; curriculum; and class size.
       ``States and localities don't want a federal mandate of 
     what a classroom should look like.''--National Governors 
     Association (NGA) policy analyst Patricia Sullivan.
       ``The standards-driven approach * * * could conceivably 
     hurt our efforts at improving education in our state by 
     forcing the state to adopt federal priorities and to redirect 
     resources away from ongoing state efforts * * * to meet 
     national content and delivery standards.''--Senator Orrin 
     Hatch (R-UT), Education Daily, May 5, 1993.
       ``(T)he federal government will be taking over education. 
     They say they won't, but they're riding down a slippery 
     slope.''--Carroll Campbell, Governor of South Carolina, The 
     News, (Greenville, S.C.) April 22, 1993.
       Family will no longer be seen as the primary nurturer for 
     the child.
       Rhetoric: Goals 2000 will further empower parents to direct 
     their children's education.
       Reality: Concerned Women for America has actively worked to 
     promote parental participation and input in primary and 
     secondary education across the U.S. However, Goals 2000 
     departs from this traditional concept by embracing a more 
     directive approach for ``parental involvement.'' Rather than 
     affirm the authority of parents over curricular content, 
     ``parental involvement'' will be defined and implemented by 
     the educational system.
       The entire tenor of ``educational restructuring'' has 
     called for the integration of social services into the public 
     school system. Educational reforms frequently cite 
     transforming the public school into the new ``village 
     commons'' where social, health, and psychological services 
     would be administered regardless of income eligibility. This 
     universalized approach to government services is not only a 
     radical (and expensive) idea, but that which necessarily robs 
     families of greater time and authority over their children by 
     placing family responsibilities into the hands of surrogates.
       Sweden's new education minister, Beatrice Ask, seeks to 
     dismantle Sweden's failed education policies that 
     incorporated the delivery of social services into the 
     schools: ``Swedish schools have diluted the quality of 
     education by trying to do too much'' (Wall Street Journal, 
     April 7, 1992).
       A seventh goal has been added to the current six national 
     educational goals. This newest one could allow federal 
     funding for the controversial program, ``Parents As 
     Teachers.'' The goal states:
       ``(B)y the year 2000, every school will promote 
     partnerships that will increase parental involvement and 
     participation in promoting the social, emotional and academic 
     growth of children.''
       No one has raised the important question of when it became 
     the government's job to promote the ``emotional growth'' of 
     children. In fact, one of Secretary Riley's ``ready to 
     learn'' recommendations calls for states to implement 
     comprehensive parent education programs. A recent Parents as 
     Teachers bill called for the establishment of a federal 
     program which envisioned ten home visits per year by social 
     workers to check on the progress of families in complying 
     with the P.A.T. guidelines. Parents from all ideological 
     persuasions would justifiably raise privacy concerns about 
     such government intrusion.
       While it is widely acknowledged that a small percentage of 
     families may require government intervention in the face of 
     documented evidence of child abuse, this by no means 
     justifies embarking upon a widespread federal government 
     program to reeducate America's parents in ``proper'' 
     childrearing practices, as determined by social workers.
       Rhetoric: Goals 2000 does not create a national curriculum.
       Reality: The opportunity-to-learn standards in Goals 2000 
     will pave the way for a national curriculum. The House 
     version reads that the ``curriculum [must be] . . . aligned 
     to content standards.'' Clearly, this projects the 
     establishment of a national curriculum far from the interests 
     of parents and teachers in local communities. According to 
     education researchers,
       ``Instead of raising student achievement * * * [a national 
     curriculum] could end up * * * creating a costly bureaucracy 
     that would take away funds from instruction.'' (Robert 
     Rothman, ``Researchers Wave Caution Flag Over National 
     Curriculum,'' Education Week, June 23, 1993, p.5).
       An opponent of the Goals 2000 bill, Congresswoman Marge 
     Roukema (R-NJ), has predicted that the bill ``will inevitably 
     lead, as night follows day, to a national curriculum and 
     national funding standards'' (Educational Daily, April 23, 
     1993).
       ``The further the bureaucracy is from the classroom, the 
     less relevant it is for education.''--John Norquist, 
     Democratic Mayor of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
       Rhetoric: Goals 2000 will help teachers do their job in the 
     classroom.
       Reality: A recent Education Week article revealed that many 
     teachers are overwhelmed by the already-cumbersome national 
     standards underway in certain subject areas:
       ``As the standards-setting movement continues to gain 
     momentum, worries that the documents may turn out to be too 
     numerous, too lengthy, too much to teach, and too different 
     from one another are being voiced with increasing frequency. 
     And, in the end, [Richard] Aieta fears, it may be educators 
     like himself at the local level--curriculum supervisors and 
     department heads and teachers--who must try to put it all 
     together.
       ``And God help the elementary school teacher when all of 
     this is going to come down on them,'' Aieta adds. Those 
     teachers, who are responsible for instructing their students 
     in eight or more subjects, could face a stack of standards a 
     foot or more thick.'' (Education Week, January 18, 1994).
       Concerned Women for America urges Congress to carefully 
     examine the wisdom of rushing headlong into fundamental 
     restructuring of American education at all levels by federal 
     government bureaucrats. Serious concerns are being raised at 
     the classroom level and school district level about the 
     nature of certain ``reforms'' underway by education experts.

                          ____________________