[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]

 
           GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT


                           motion to proceed

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 1804, the Goals 2000 education bill, and 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.


                     vote on the motion to proceed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings] is necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. 
Chafee], the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen], the Senator from 
Mississippi [Mr. Lott], and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

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

                                NAYS--12

     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Smith
     Thurmond

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chafee
     Cohen
     Hollings
     Lott
     Wallop
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the amendment of 
     the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1804) to improve learning and 
     teaching by providing a national framework for education 
     reform; to promote the research, consensus building, and 
     systemic changes needed to ensure equitable educational 
     opportunities and high levels of educational achievement for 
     all American students; to provide framework for 
     reauthorization of all Federal education programs; to promote 
     the development and adoption of a voluntary national system 
     of skill standards and certifications, and for other 
     purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of March 21, 1994.)
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Kennedy], is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will take just a short while to 
outline the basic elements of the conference report, the essential 
aspects of the legislation. I hope, as the majority leader has stated, 
we will be able to move forward toward a resolution of this legislation 
which is enormously important in terms of its timeliness. Not only have 
there been allocations of resources in excess of $100 million which 
many schools have been planning to utilize as they move forward in 
their school restructuring, but also this legislation is enormously 
important as part of the administration's general program to try to 
bring greater focus, attention, and enhancement to the academic 
achievement of this country's children.
  The administration has had a multifaceted approach in terms of 
education and investment in children in this country. It started with 
the expansion of the Head Start Program not only in resources--some 
$700 million--but also extending the Head Start Program down to 0 to 3, 
making it the earliest possible intervention, in order to build self-
esteem and self-confidence.
  I think all of us in this body know of the extraordinary record of 
the Head Start Program. The new reauthorization is going to reflect the 
recommendations that have been made in a bipartisan way and that the 
administration has endorsed--a number of very constructive, positive 
changes in the Head Start Program, a real enhancement of that program. 
What we are trying to do is expand and build on Head Start. We are 
trying to make sure that the Head Start Program fits more effectively 
into the K through 12 system.
  We also are considering the reauthorization of the chapter 1 program 
that provides assistance to the disadvantaged children in this country. 
We are restructuring that program to take advantage of the lessons 
learned over the past several years. We are trying to bring out the 
best elements of chapter 1 programs. The chapter 1 program has not been 
significantly altered or changed since its inception. We have had 
extensive hearings on that program, and it really is the next item of 
education business for our committee. This is very important.
  We have also addressed the issue of school to work transition, 
recognizing that about 70 percent of all of our young people do not go 
on to postsecondary education, and there is a disconnect between those 
who graduate and those who find early employment. We passed 
legislation--again in a bipartisan way--to address this particular 
educational challenge for many of our young people.
  We also include in the President's program on national service the 
voluntary service learning programs for children in K through 12, so 
that they can be more involved and active in reaching out into their 
communities, in service to their communities.
  The key element of all of this, of course, is to enhance the academic 
achievement of our children. In this legislation we encourage States on 
a voluntary basis to move toward opportunity to learn standards. We are 
also moving toward content standards and more effective kinds of 
evaluation of our children.
  In this legislation we also establish an Office of Technology at the 
Department of Education--this is the beginning of a recognition of the 
importance of moving technologies into the classroom. We all understand 
that the future for our young children is going to have to involve new 
technology to a greater extent, and we must address the question of how 
to ensure that our teachers are going to receive the kind of training 
they need to utilize these technologies to train and educate our young 
children.
  We also will see an enhancement of the chapter 2 program which will 
provide for the upgrading of skills for the teachers of this country.
  In the area of higher education, we have moved toward a direct loan 
program which means that young people will be able to borrow at the 
rate that the Government can borrow. We hope that this will provide 
additional savings for many of the hard-pressed sons and daughters of 
middle-income and working families to go on to college.
  We have also reached out to provide a service program linked to an 
enhancement of educational opportunity for our young people, If they do 
not have the resources to be able to afford college in their own right, 
they will be able to perform some service to the community and in 
return obtain assistance in terms of college tuition.
  We also have included in our education program allowing students to 
repay their college loans as a percent of their income. That has not 
been out there for any period of time. Those young people that may be 
encumbered by the loans that they need to continue their education will 
now be able to go on into teaching, law enforcement, or some other kind 
of service program, and they will pay 5, 7, or 9 percent of their 
income for a period of time that will be sufficient to pay off their 
debts.
  So this legislation is part of a holistic approach which I think is 
very, very commendable. A key element of all of this is Goals 2000, a 
bottom-up effort to bring about reform with support from the top down.
  None of us believe that this legislation in and of itself is going to 
be the answer to our educational needs. But what we do know is that 
where we do provide help and assistance for school reform and school 
enhancement, following these general kinds of guidelines will lead to 
some very, very important advancement in terms of academic achievement.
  Just 3 days ago in the hearings that Senator Mikulski and I held 
about the National Science Foundation, we heard about the support that 
their education programs have given recently to the State of Louisiana 
which was matched by the State of Louisiana following very, very 
closely the kinds of programs that are supported in Goals 2000. This 
has resulted in a significant advance in achievement of the 4th, 8th, 
and 12th grades in math, science, and other technical subjects.
  We know what works. There is an important need for these kinds of 
initiatives. That is why this legislation is so important.
  Four years after we began, Democrats and Republicans, House and 
Senate and administration, have finally come together on this 
legislation--Goals 2000--to change the way the Federal Government 
supports local schools.
  Not long ago, a Boston teacher named Eileen Shakespeare said this to 
me:

       If I could ask you to take a single message back to 
     Washington, it would be this: Please have a sense of urgency 
     about what we are doing here with students, and help us.

  All of us share that sense of urgency, and it has enabled us to 
overcome differing points of view and unite behind the common goal of 
helping communities across the country to improve their schools and 
meet the challenges of education reform.
  The crisis in our schools is too serious to ignore. While we here in 
Washington have been debating the proper Federal role for the last 4 
years, over 1 million students dropped out of school. Eighty percent of 
the prisoners in jails across the country are high school dropouts. 
Education is one of the most effective remedies for the difficult 
social challenges we face on many fronts. Education is a source of hope 
and opportunity for all young men and women in every community in 
America. It is the key to the American dream, but for too many children 
in too many schools across the country, the key no longer fits the 
lock.
  In the years ahead, Goals 2000 will be regarded as a turning point in 
American education. The legislation before us lays out four far-
reaching steps to stimulate education reform:
  First, it provides support for locally developed plans for school 
reform. For the first time in history, the Federal Government will make 
grants not just for a specific program, not just to help disadvantaged 
students or special education students or vocational students, but to 
schools to help all students. The funds will be awarded competitively, 
and will flow through the States to ensure coordination and system-wide 
change.
  Second, Goals 2000 encourages the development of content standards 
for courses, so that parents and local communities will finally be able 
to know what every student should learn in core subjects like English, 
history, mathematics, and science. The legislation also encourages the 
development of new ways to measure whether students are learning the 
challenging material that they should know. These standards will help 
to end the confusion about what parents should expect and what makes a 
good school--it is a school where all students are learning what the 
standards describe.
  We will finally end the disconnect in attitudes that are so troubling 
about schools. Too many parents and communities fail to see the 
problems in their own schools. They think the failures in education are 
taking place in someone else's schools, when in fact the failures are 
happening everywhere.
  Third, the legislation also speaks to teachers. Never before in 
Federal law has there been such an impressive consensus that dollars 
should be spent to help teachers, not just students. The essence of 
learning is what happens day by day between teachers and students in 
the classroom. Adopting standards alone will not ensure that students 
reach them. How subjects are taught makes all the difference in whether 
the subjects are learned, retained, and used. Unless we give more 
emphasis to the central role of teachers and give them the support they 
need, reform will fail and the schools will keep on failing.

  Fourth, Goals 2000 provides greater and long overdue flexibility in 
the use of Federal dollars to support students and schools. By waiving 
regulations that impede reform, we are challenging States and schools 
to work together in their own communities to identify the reforms that 
fit their local needs and that will do the most effective job of 
helping all children to learn.
  So we permit under certain circumstances the waiver of local 
regulations, State regulations, and Federal regulations so there can be 
greater flexibility at the local level which I think is something that 
is rather unique in terms of most programs. We do not obviously waive 
the requirements in terms of disability and some of the other 
requirements, but we do permit greater consolidation of many of the 
programs and greater flexibility.
  The Goals 2000 initiative achieves these four goals through a process 
that ensures grassroots participation. In each State that receives 
funds, a broad-based panel will develop a comprehensive plan for school 
reform. This plan will include a State's high academic standards in 
core subjects, as well as new testing methods that accurately measure 
whether students are learning the material. The plan will also address 
the need for more support for teachers, and the need for waivers of 
rules that impede reform. Finally, the State must address in its plan 
the need to make sure every student has a fair chance to learn and 
attends a school with well-prepared teachers and up to date materials.
  Most of the funds that States receive must flow directly to local 
school districts. The districts may use these funds to implement 
reforms in schools, or they may use them to support professional 
development for teachers. Local districts and schools will create their 
own reform plans that meet local needs and that are consistent with the 
strategy for overall State reform strategy.
  The authorization in the legislation specifies $400 million for the 
current fiscal year, and is open-ended for future years. Because the 
current fiscal year is half over, only $100 million was actually 
appropriated for the legislation this year, and that will be enough to 
launch this new direction effectively.
  The Clinton administration budget request for next year is $700 
million, and for the following 3 years, $1 billion a year has been 
requested.
  We all wish we could do more. But education is primarily a State and 
local responsibility. Our hope is that this Federal contribution will 
provide the much-needed seed money essential to enable local efforts to 
flourish and improve the Nation's schools.
  Follow-on Federal assistance is on the way. Separate legislation 
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act will be 
enacted by Congress in the coming months. That measure will build on 
the framework for school reform that States and local governments will 
put in place under Goals 2000. In the current fiscal year, $6.3 billion 
has been appropriated for chapter I under ESEA, and the Clinton 
administration has requested $7 billion for fiscal year 1995.
  It is all the more important, therefore, for Goals 2000 to be in 
place now, so that the schools across the country can begin to plan and 
implement their local reform plans and make the most effective use of 
these Federal resources.
  Finally, Goals 2000 is a bipartisan bill and deserves strong support 
because national leadership on school reform requires cooperation from 
all of us. I especially commend my colleague on the Labor Committee, 
Senator Jeffords, for his impressive leadership. He has worked 
tirelessly, skillfully, and with great commitment to bring us to this 
point today. I also commend Senator Pell, who has, over the years, made 
so many contributions to this body and to our country, but whose single 
leadership in the area of education has been marked by its bipartisan 
nature and its effectiveness over a long period of time. I thank the 
majority leader, Senator Mitchell, and Senator Kassebaum. Senator 
Kassebaum has been part of the bipartisan efforts we have made in 
education in the past. We are thankful to the majority leader for his 
persistence in assuring the young people, the children of this country, 
and the parents and the families of this country, that education is a 
strong priority in the U.S. Senate. The majority leader has been of 
great effectiveness in helping us move education programs forward. I 
thank Senator Simon and Senator Wellstone, who were instrumental in 
working out a compromise with the House. Finally, I commend our 
colleagues in the House, Chairman Ford, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Reid, and Mr. 
Sawyer, who supported discussion and reasonable compromise every step 
of the way and led the House to a strong bipartisan vote of 307 to 120.
  I urge the Senate to approve the conference report and to take this 
auspicious step toward redeeming our pledge of education reform.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from Vermont, [Mr. 
Jeffords], is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I also rise in support of the 
conference report on Goals 2000. I thank my chairman for the tremendous 
effort he has made all through the years, and especially in this area, 
to try to bring this important piece of legislation before the Senate 
today. I thank Senator Pell who has been a mentor of mine for some 20 
years now in the area of education, and for his help and work in that 
regard. I thank Senator Kassebaum, who has been very helpful in making 
sure that this report is one that can be supported by my side of the 
aisle.
  I have spent much time over the last few days on budget matters, 
discussing the importance of education and the need for us to make an 
effort to solve the many problems that we have in our educational 
system.
  We have tried during the consideration of the budget resolution to 
increase the amount of money available for education. I know there are 
a number of people that say money is not the answer. While I agree that 
it is not the total answer, I do believe that in order to improve the 
educational achievement of our youngsters, we do need to devote more 
resources to education.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to expand the resources that will be 
available for next year. On the other hand, we did have a consensus by 
nearly all of the Members of the Senate that in the future we must find 
a way to increase the resources that will be available. There were two 
amendments--one that we voted on, and one that I know I had well over 
40 votes for, but was not sure it would pass--but together we had 
nearly every Member of the Senate agreeing that we should be doing 
something to reallocate resources to high priority areas. All that is 
clear today is that we have not found a way to do it yet. Hopefully, 
after we pass the conference report on the Goals 2000, we will find a 
way to pull together the necesary resources.
  This bill, Goals 2000, has been long in the making, but now is the 
time for its passage. If we do not pass it by April 1, we will lose 
another year, after having waited some 11 years after the landmark 
report ``A Nation At Risk'' to take any action at all. It has been 5 
years since the Governors all met with President Bush and said: These 
are the goals we ought to pass. Now we are finally passing those goals. 
If we have to wait until later next month to pass this, the States and 
local school districts will have to wait another year to begin their 
planning process.
  Both the report, ``A Nation At Risk,'' and the Governors' meeting 
brought to the public's attention the problems plaguing American 
schools; low expectations for students, a watered-down curriculum, 
minimal requirements for graduation, and a shortage of high-quality, 
experienced teachers.
  Let us be perfectly clear--we cannot delay action on this bill. If we 
do not pass it by April 1, we will lose another whole year.
  Let me run through the goals so that people have a better 
understanding of what we are trying to do in this Nation. Goal 1 states 
that all children should enter school ready to learn. Yet, nearly half 
of the infants born in the United States begin life with one or more 
factors that place him or her at risk for future educational failure.
  Goal 2 states that we want the high school graduation rate to 
increase to at least 90 percent by the year 2000. Today, almost 13 
percent of all 16-to-24-year-olds are high school dropouts, including 
nearly 35 percent of Hispanic youths, and 19 percent of the African-
American youths in our Nation. Of those that do graduate, we find that 
only 48 percent of those have the skills necessary to begin entry level 
jobs or to go on to college.
  Goals 3 and 4 state that we want our children to demonstrate high 
achievement and to be first in the world in math and science. Yet, 75 
percent of students in all grades failed to achieve even the basic 
level of proficiency in math and science. Clearly, we have a long way 
to go before our students will be ready for the competitive global 
marketplace of the next century.
  Goal 6 states that every school in America will be free of drugs and 
violence. We know only too well how far we are from achieving this 
goal. The homicide rate for young black males increased 43 percent 
between 1987 and 1990.
  Also, goal 5 indicates and shows how bad our educational programs 
have been in the past. We have now some 75 million Americans, adults, 
who are either functionally illiterate--that is, unable to be 
successful in entry level jobs, basic matters such as being able to 
fill out your checking statements-- or are totally illiterate in the 
sense they cannot read nor write.

  That is an incredible black mark on our society and one that we must 
do something about.
  Make no mistake about it. These disturbing statistics are not about 
someone else's children and they are not someone else's problem. These 
are our children, our future work force and our future leaders. The 
quality of our public schools in America is directly related to the 
standard of living of each and every one of our citizens.
  Our priority must be with our young people. If we do not pass this 
bill by April 1, we have dealt our children a terrible injustice. 
Certainly, the funds would be reallocated to cover the Pell grant 
shortfall, but we have already covered that expense in the budget bill 
we have just debated. Let that not be an element that would encourage 
you to not vote for the bill today. The debate on fully funding Pell 
grants occurred during the 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education 
Act. As I recall, not one of my Republican colleagues joined me in 
supporting full funding of that important program. Now is not the time 
to make that choice for it will directly take from another effort which 
is equally important.
  Passage of Goals 2000 is essential for it is designed to address 
those very issues that I have mentioned and set our Nation on course to 
meet the demands of the 21st century. The conference report upholds 
that commitment and generally retains the bulk of the Senate bill. Let 
me also remind my colleagues that this conference report is the vehicle 
for other important education provisions. Included within the 
conference agreement is the reauthorization of the Office of 
Educational Research and improvement, the Safe Schools Act, and new 
educational technology provisions.
  Let me take a few moments to outline some significant provisions of 
the final compromise. Title I retains all eight of the national 
education goals as embodied in the Senate bill. I would point out to my 
Republican colleagues that almost all of the Republican amendments, 22 
out of 26 I believe, have been maintained in this bill, I have gone out 
of my way to convince the conference committee to support the important 
amendments of my colleagues.
  Title II makes changes to the existing National Education Goals Panel 
and the newly created National Education Standards and Improvement 
Council [NESIC] but completely retains the voluntary nature of the 
model national standards. The conference report reiterates that no 
State has to adopt or implement any standards in order to receive 
Federal funds under this act or any other Federal legislation.
  Title III does contain changes, but ones that I believe are 
reasonable and should be supported. On the issue of opportunity to 
learn--this was a very critical one for Members on my side of the 
aisle--the conference agreement does two things:
  First, it reiterates that the standards or strategies developed by 
States to provide students an opportunity to learn must be determined 
by the State, not the Federal Government.
  Second, it adds new language which specifically asserts that the 
implementation of such strategies are completely voluntary on the part 
of the States, LEA's and schools and that nothing in the section is to 
be construed to mandate equalized spending or national school building 
standards.
  I believe the changes to the opportunity to learn section reflect the 
sentiments of the Senate. The conference report makes clear that the 
implementation of opportunity to learn strategies is voluntary. It 
further makes clear that opportunity to learn need not be standards but 
indeed can be strategies developed by the State to best meet the needs 
of children within the States.
  In Vermont, for instance, the State has developed a form of 
opportunity to learn. It is not a standard. It does not require that 
each school meet ``input'' requirements. Instead, it is a compact 
between the State and local schools to assist all schools in achieving 
high student outcomes. It is a collaborative effort. It is not 
punitive, but it is a strategy designed to examine what changes need to 
be made to enable all students to achieve. It outlines the shared 
responsibility of the State and local schools for the education of 
children within the State.
  The conference agreement supports the very kind of effort and allows 
for State flexibility and innovation.
  The conference report does require that a State--in its plan--show 
that it is establishing or developing content and student performance 
standards. I do not think anybody can argue that that ought not to be a 
State responsibility or a requirement. Data from 2 years ago show that 
44 States have either implemented or are in the process of implementing 
these very standards, and I again point out no State has to do anything 
unless they want the planning money. Most importantly, the conference 
agreement provides that States, not the Federal Government, determine 
their own standards. The requirement to have a process in place does 
exist, but the contents and requirements of that process are not in the 
final agreement. In my mind, that is distinction that allows me to 
support the agreement without reservation.
  And as a final measure, an overall prohibition on Federal mandates is 
contained in the final agreement. That paragraph reads that:

       Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize an 
     officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, 
     direct, or control a State, local educational agency or 
     school's curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of 
     State or local resources or mandates a State or any 
     subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not 
     paid for under this act.

  It makes it very, very clear we are not putting new mandates for 
spending in this bill.
  To reiterate, this legislation does not establish a national 
curriculum, does not contain unfunded mandates nor attempt to 
micromanage the rightful role of States and communities in their 
educational decisions. On this issue the conference report is clear and 
reinforces the will of the Senate.
  However, there are legitimate concerns raised by my colleague from 
North Carolina about the absence of school prayer provisions. While I 
was on the losing side on this issue, that is, I did not support the 
Senator from North Carolina, I do recognize that a majority of the 
House and Senate is on record supporting the provision. The House did 
not have any prayer provisions in its bill. This issue will be 
addressed during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act for the House did include prayer language to that bill. 
Let us please not hold up this important legislation when we will have 
ample time for debate during the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
reauthorization on the very emotional and important issue of school 
prayer.
  Madam President, the situation in our schools is so serious that we 
must enact this bill and do much, much more. Some opponents may 
question the necessity of spending Federal dollars to accomplish State 
education reform. But as the experience of the eighties makes clear, 
even the most ardent reformers can fall far short of their goals if the 
tools at their disposal are not sufficient to overcome the obstacles in 
their way. And obstacles there are many.
  Our schools must be able to identify these problems and deal with 
them. Enacting Goals 2000 is essential to the future of our children 
and the future of our educational system and the future of our Nation. 
Our outdated system is no longer adequate for our changing society. It 
is not producing the highly skilled and fully literate adult population 
that our society must have if we are going to meet the competition of 
the international markets as we go into the next century. I believe 
that Goals 2000 is the beginning of a renewed commitment of the Federal 
Government to improve the educational opportunities of our young 
people.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of 
legislation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, I want to express my strong support for 
the conference report which includes not only the Goals 2000 
legislation but also the Safe Schools Act and the reauthorization of 
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. The report, to my 
mind, is very important legislation and deserves approval by this 
Chamber.
  There are several aspects of this legislation which deserve 
particular attention. The Goals 2000 provisions authorize more than 
$400 million to spur education reform at the State and local level. In 
exchange for Federal financial assistance, it asks the States, on a 
voluntary basis, to implement strong academic content and student 
performance standards.
  While my own personal view is that we ought to have strong, even 
mandatory national standards, I recognize that this may not be a view 
widely held by my colleagues. In spite of this, I am encouraged that we 
are taking an important step forward in urging the States to develop 
content and performance standards. These voluntary State standards will 
set forth what students are expected to know and be able to do in 
subject areas such as English, mathematics, science, history, 
geography, civics and government, and the arts.
  The content standards will be accompanied by performance standards 
which identify content achievement levels toward which all students are 
expected to work. The content and performance standards mean little if 
they are not accompanied by valid and reliable assessments. This is 
important if we are to know how our students are performing and what 
may be necessary to help overcome deficiencies.
  I am equally encouraged that the voluntary content and performance 
standards have been linked to voluntary opportunity to learn standards 
and strategies in this legislation. Opportunity to learn encompasses 
the resources--resources such as qualified teachers, good instructional 
materials, and adequate school facilities--that are necessary if 
students are to have a level playing field on which to learn.
  My own special concern was that opportunity to learn standards and 
strategies be closely related to content and performance standards. My 
colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, was concerned that where schools 
were not reaching the high academic standards set by the State, then 
the State should lay out strategies to be employed to help those 
schools marshal the resources to turn the situation around. This was 
the basis of the compromise ultimately reached in the conference.
  There are several other areas of personal interest to me where I 
believe we made good progress. In the educational technology provisions 
of the legislation, we establish an Office of Technology Training 
Transfer to bring technological advancements from other Departments of 
the Federal Government to the Department of Education and utilize or 
adapt them to educational needs. This is based on legislation I 
proposed and was enacted several years ago. That legislation, however, 
only authorized the establishment of the Office, this legislation 
actually creates the Office.
  In the national leadership section of the bill, we require the 
Secretary to support model projects integrating content standards in 
various subject areas. It is important that we recognize that the arts, 
for example, can be used to help a child learn mathematics, and that 
science can be used to teach history. Content standards should be seen 
as part of a whole curriculum, and we should make a concerted effort to 
link and integrate those standards.

  The conference report before us also contains reauthorization of the 
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, and I would call to my 
colleagues' attention the importance of those provisions. The 
legislation reorganizes the Office so that it will have a new focus. It 
establishes five new research institutes, including, for example, an 
Institute on At-Risk Children, and Institute on Early Childhood 
Education, and an Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum and 
Assessment. These institutes are patterned on the model of the National 
Institutes of Health, and they cover what we believe are the major 
areas or issues in which educational research should be concentrated.
  Perhaps most important, throughout the legislation we place a high 
priority on the dissemination of the results of research. One of our 
major concerns was that education research should reach beyond the 
laboratory or office where the research is done. If research in 
education is to have value, it must be utilized. It must be placed in 
the hands of teachers if it is to have a positive effect on teaching 
and learning in the classroom. That was a major goal of our 
reauthorization work, and I believe the legislation reflects the 
importance we attached to dissemination.
  As a part of the OERI reauthorization, we also authorize a $10 
million International Education Program. Directed at the emerging 
democracies in Eastern Europe and in the new nations that were once a 
part of the Soviet Union, this program recognizes the very real need 
for the United States to take a leadership role in exchange programs in 
two vitally important areas: civics and government, and economic 
education. Knowledge about the operation of our system of government 
and our free market economy is woefully lacking in these countries. 
Their success in sustaining a democratic system of government and in 
building a free market economy will be enhanced, to a great degree, 
upon their full and complete understanding of the two centuries of 
experience we have had in building, chancing, perfecting, and 
supporting our institutions of government and our free market economy.
  We began working on the International Education Program well before 
the fall of the totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe. We saw a need 
for this initiative then, and believe the need is even more pressing 
now. As provided in the legislation, the cooperation program between 
the Department of Education and the U.S. Information Agency is a most 
important undertaking. I remain very hopeful we will not only authorize 
it but also provide the funds to put it into operation.
  Finally, the conference report includes the Safe Schools Act, the 
enactment of which is crucial. Today, one out of every five children 
carries a weapon to school. Tragically, this means that the schoolroom 
is no longer a safe haven for learning. The problem of violence in our 
schools must be addressed not only in terms of immediate protection for 
our children but also in strong education programs that teach our 
children that violence is not an acceptable means of resolving 
conflict. The situation with which we are not confronted is an 
intolerable one; it must be changed. We must act, and act now.
  Madam President, from school reform, to educational research, to 
safety in our schools, the matters addressed in this conference report 
merit our attention and action. I applaud the President and the 
Secretary of Education for their leadership in proposing the original 
legislation, and in working with Congress to accommodate our concerns. 
I urge my colleagues to approve this conference report and send the 
legislation to the President for his signature.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                             school prayer

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, on the school prayer issue, when the 
Goals 2000 legislation was before the Senate last month, we adopted 
three amendments dealing with prayer and moments of silent reflection 
in school. those amendments were offered by Senator Helms, Senator 
Levin, and Senator Danforth.
  The Helms amendment passed by a 75-22 vote. It provided that all 
federal education funds must be cut off when a State or local education 
agency has 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 passed by voice vote. It provided that Federal 
education funds shall not be denied to a State or local education 
agency because they have adopted a constitutional policy relative to 
prayer in public school.
  The Danforth amendment passed by a 97-0 vote. It expressed the sense 
of the Senate that schools should encourage a 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 affect 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 well help them develop and prepare them 
for achieving the goals of this act.
  The House bill contained no provision of the subject. However, the 
House voted 345 to 64 to instruct its conferees to accept the Helms 
amendment.
  In discussions with the House conferees, it became clear that a 
majority of them did not support inclusion in the conference report of 
the specific Helms provision or the two other Senate amendments. 
Instead, they proposed a compromise that recognized the strong support 
expressed by the Senate for protecting the constitutional right to 
exercise one's religion and for encouraging a period of silent 
meditation at the beginning of the school day.
  The language, which they proposed and which the Senate accepted, is 
an appropriate effort to reconcile the various Senate provisions. The 
conference report provides that Goals 2000 funds may not be used by 
State or local education agencies to adopt policies that prevent 
voluntary prayer and meditation in public schools.
  This language is substantially similar to the annual provision that 
has been included in Labor-HHS Appropriations Acts since 1981, which 
prohibits appropriated funds from being used to prevent the 
implementation of programs of voluntary prayer and meditation in the 
public schools. The amendment would permanently restrict Goals 2000 
funds in a similar manner.
  I ask unanimous consent that the specific language of the three 
amendments be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, 
along with the specific language of the Appropriations Act and the 
specific language of the conference report, so that all Senators can 
see them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. When the Goals 2000 bill was before the Senate, I voted 
for the Helms amendment after Senator Helms modified it to limit its 
application to constitutionally protected voluntary prayer. There are 
narrow situations where the free exercise clause guarantees students 
the right to pray privately and quietly to themselves, without 
disrupting class or avoiding their studies. The Helms amendment, as 
modified, required school board officials to honor the religious 
liberty protected by the first amendment.
  At the same time, the specific language of the Helms amendment could 
be misused by some to encourage school board officials to permit 
religious exercises in situations where they are not constitutionally 
protected.
  That point was clearly made to us in a joint letter by the American 
Association of School Administrators, the National Association of State 
Boards of Education, the National Education Association, the National 
PTA, and the National School Boards Association. As they state in their 
letter:

       On behalf of a majority of America's public educators, we 
     are writing to urge you to drop from the Goals 2000 bill both 
     the Helms and Levin school prayer amendments. These two 
     amendments together place an untenable burden on school 
     officials.
       We may differ on the constitutionality and desirability of 
     some of the manifestations of school prayer addressed by 
     these amendments. However, we are united in strongly opposing 
     the use of a federal fund cut-off as a club with which to 
     compel a uniform national policy.
       The Helms amendment is designated to protect the right of 
     students to engage in `constitutionally protected prayer.' 
     Any school district failing to comply with this policy loses 
     its federal funds. In a recent Washington, DC, press 
     conference, the chief counsel of Pat Robertson's American 
     Center for Law and Justice proclaimed that, when coupled with 
     lawsuits, the Helms amendment would be a `very, very 
     important weapon' in their struggle against school systems.
       The difficulty, of course, is that no one knows with any 
     certainty what constitutes `constitutionally protected 
     prayer.' The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have reached 
     dramatically opposed results on the constitutionality of 
     prayer at school events when approved by a majority of 
     students. The Fifth Circuit held such prayer constitutionally 
     protected, the Eleventh that it is constitutionally 
     forbidden. Other courts and state attorneys general have 
     likewise reached conflicting results.
       Under the Helms amendment, school officials must guess at 
     which answer is correct. Whatever they decide, they must of 
     necessity either risk desperately needed federal funds or 
     violating the constitutional rights of students. The risk is 
     heightened because the Helms amendment prohibits not only 
     policies directed toward prohibiting voluntary student prayer 
     but which have the effect of doing so, a vague formulation 
     which compounds the uncertainty for school boards. The Levin 
     amendment poses somewhat similar problems.
       We urge you to delete these amendments.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed 
in the Record at the conclustion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See exhibit 2.]
  Mr. KENNEDY. The right protected by the Helms amendment is a 
profoundly important one. But the harsh remedy it would prescribe--a 
total fund cutoff--could easily distort the delicate balance required 
to protect the constitutional rights of those who wish to engage in 
prayer in schools, and of those who do not wish to participate. Local 
school boards, faced with the risk of a complete cutoff of Federal 
funds, would have a strong incentive to sacrifice the constitutional 
rights of religious minorities to accommodate the religious preferences 
of the majority.
  These are difficult issues, and they are especially serious when 
children are involved. The reason we have a first amendment is 
precisely to provide constitutional protection for the rights of 
minorities against the overbearing pressure of majorities.
  We have debated similar first amendment issues in other contexts. The 
Equal Access Act, passed in 1984, assures that religious groups have an 
equal right to use school facilities for after-school meetings. When 
that law was first introduced, it contained a fund cut-off provision 
similar to the Helms amendment. Congress rejected that approach in the 
version that finally was enacted; it expressly prohibits the Federal 
Government from withholding school aid for violations of the act.
  Similarly, the Federal laws banning race, gender, and disability 
discrimination in Federally funded programs do not permit--let alone 
require--a complete cutoff of Federal funds when institutions are found 
to discriminate. Fund terminations may occur, but only after a hearing 
on the record, judicial review, and persistent refusal by the 
institution to comply with the requirement. Even in those situations, 
fund terminations are limited to the specific program found to have 
discriminated.
  Finally, there was a suggestion made on the floor yesterday that this 
provision was somehow slipped into the conference report. Let me state 
for the record that staff for all the Republicans on the Labor and 
Human Resources Committee, as well as staff for Senator Helms, were 
presented with the specific compromise language that the House would 
offer on school prayer. They received it 2 days before the House offer 
was actually made. On each day of the conference, we stated that the 
school prayer issue remained to be resolved. Every effort was made to 
advise interested Senators of the issue and its consideration.
  The conference report fairly and adequately addresses the school 
prayer issue. We have debated this issue many times in recent years, 
and in all likelihood we will be debating it many more times in the 
future. It is imperative that we pass the Goals 2000 conference report 
this week, to enable the $100 million in funds already appropriated to 
be used for this imnportant education reform. I urge my colleagues to 
support the conference report.

     SEC. 405. SCHOOL PRAYER

       No funds made available through the Department of Education 
     under this Act, or any other Act, shall be available to any 
     State of local educational agency which has a policy of 
     denying, or which effectively prevents participation in, 
     constitutionality 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 or 
     content of any constitutionality protected prayer in such in 
     public schools.

     SEC. 406 DAILY SILENCE FOR STUDENTS.

       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 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 Act.

                           *   *   *   *   *


     SEC. 418. EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES NOT DENIED FUNDS FOR ADOPTING 
                   CONSTITUTIONAL POLICY RELATIVE TO PRAYER IN 
                   SCHOOLS

       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 constitutional 
     policy relative to prayer in public school.

                           *   *   *   *   *


     SEC. 1011. SCHOOL PRAYER.

       No funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act may 
     be used by any State or local educational agency to adopt 
     policies that prevent voluntary prayer and meditation in 
     public schools.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                                                   March 10, 1994.
     Re: Goals 2000 (S. 1150/H.R. 1804)
       Dear Conferee: On behalf of a majority of America's public 
     educators we are writing to urge you to drop from the Goals 
     2000 bill both the Helms and Levin school prayer amendments. 
     These two amendments together place an untenable burden on 
     school officials.
       We may differ on the constitutionality and desirability of 
     some of the manifestations of school prayer addressed by 
     these amendments. However, we are united in strongly opposing 
     the use of a federal fund cut-off as a club with which to 
     compel a uniform national policy.
       The Helms amendment is designed to protect the right of 
     students to engage in ``constitutionally protected prayer.'' 
     Any school district failing to comply with this policy loses 
     its federal funds. In a recent Washington, D.C. press 
     conference, the chief counsel of Pat Robertson's American 
     Center for Law and Justice proclaimed that, when coupled with 
     lawsuits, the Helms amendment would be a ``very, very 
     important weapon'' in their struggle against school systems.
       The difficulty, of course, is that no one knows with any 
     certainty what constitutes ``constitutionally protected 
     prayer.''\1\ The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have reached 
     dramatically opposed results on the constitutionality of 
     prayer at school events when approved by a majority of 
     students. The Fifth Circuit held such prayer constitutionally 
     protected, the Eleventh that it is constitutionally 
     forbidden. Compare Jones v. Clear Creek I.S.D., 977 F.2d 963 
     (5th Cir. 1992) with Jager V. Douglas County School Bd., 862 
     F.2d 824 (11th Cir. 1989). Other courts and state attorneys 
     general have likewise reached conflicting results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\We note that in 1984, when Congress enacted the Equal 
     Access Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 4071, it refused to include a fund 
     cut-off provision, on the ground that it was too stringent a 
     penalty given the constitutional uncertainties then 
     surrounding the subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Under the Helms amendment, school officials must guess at 
     which answer is correct. Whatever they decide, they must of 
     necessity either risk desperately needed federal funds or 
     violating the constitutional rights of students. The risk is 
     heightened because the Helms amendment prohibits not only 
     policies directed toward prohibiting voluntary student prayer 
     but which have the effect of doing so, a vague formulation 
     which compounds the uncertainty for school boards. The Levin 
     amendment poses somewhat similar problems.
       True voluntary prayer takes place every day in the nation's 
     schools without objection. The question of student-led prayer 
     at school events, which appears to be the target of these 
     amendments, is currently in the courts. Several state 
     legislatures are considering legislation to protect the 
     supposed right to ``voluntary student-led prayer.'' Under 
     these circumstances, legislating a cut-off of funds aimed at 
     improving the education of our youth, a cut-off to be 
     administered by federal bureaucrats unschooled in the fine 
     points of federal constitutional law, is a mischievous 
     intrusion into the proper role of state and local educational 
     agencies and the courts.
       We urge you to delete these amendments.
           Sincerely,
         American Association of School Administrators, National 
           Association of State Boards of Education, National 
           Education Association, National PTA, National School 
           Boards Association.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield to me on the merits? I understand 
he is going to be here for some time.
  Mr. HELMS. Pardon me?
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator defer to a speech directly on this bill? 
I understand the Senator from North Carolina is going to be here for 
some time.
  Mr. HELMS. Sure. Sure. May I ask how long the Senator will be?
  Mr. GORTON. About 10 or 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, Goals 2000, in its present form, is 
seriously flawed but still represents at least a halting step forward 
in American educational policy. So this Senator intends with some 
reluctance to support the conference report.
  Before I detail my reasons, I intend to take a moment to share with 
the Senate an incident that took place on Wednesday of this week in a 
high school in Seattle. This incident dramatizes our debate on 
education reform, and what steps are necessary to implement effective 
reform.
  The day before yesterday a 16-year-old Ballard High School sophomore 
was fatally shot in a gang related drive-by shooting outside that 
school. According to the wire service report:
       Melissa Fernandes was standing with a group of about 10 
     students on a sidewalk on the north side of the school 
     shortly after 1:30 p.m. when two cars sped past and one 
     person opened fire with a handgun. A number of shots were 
     fired, but it wasn't immediately clear whether the shots were 
     aimed at the group or fired at random.
       The shooting came nearly 30 minutes before classes let out, 
     but students said the conflict began at lunch. They said 
     students and the occupants of the cars had argued and a 
     weapon was displayed.

  Melissa Fernandes died yesterday morning after several hours of 
surgery. A 16-year-old junior from another high school is the suspected 
gunman.
  Sadly, according to the Seattle Times, ``Police units had been called 
to the school about an hour earlier on an unrelated incident involving 
a gun * * * area residents said such violence has not been 
unexpected.'' Madam President, all too often these types of violent 
occurrences are ``not unexpected.''
  In Washington state, violent crimes by youths have doubled in numbers 
in the past decade despite a 3 percent reduction in the youth 
population. The Washington State Survey of Adolescent Health Behaviors 
recently found that 15 percent of 6th grade students, and 25 percent of 
8th, 10th, and 12th grade students said that they had carried a weapon 
to school. The same survey found that students who abused drugs and 
alcohol were much more likely to carry weapons to school.
  In King County alone last year, 22 victims of homicide were children 
under 18. In 1992, 42 juveniles were victims of murder in Washington 
State, 22 of whom were child abuse victims. From 1991 to 1992, the 
number of gang-related homicides in the State jumped from 3 to 17. 
Nationally, in the last 10 years, arrests of juveniles for homicide 
offenses have risen 93 percent.
  According to the National Crime Survey, each year nearly 3 million 
thefts and violent crimes--one crime every 6 seconds--take place on or 
near school grounds. The same study suggests that 67 out of every 1,000 
teenagers suffer a violent crime each year.
  Madam President, I have a strong personal stake in the debate over 
education reform. Soon, my wife Sally and I will be blessed with our 
sixth grandchild. And as a grandparent I am deeply apprehensive about 
their safety in our schools and on our streets. Perhaps here in the 
halls of Congress we can feel immune from what is going on in local 
communities back in our home States. But, Madam President, the threat 
of violence in our schools and communities is tragic.
  While we in the Congress simply debate this issue, teachers and 
school officials have lost the ability and the right to control their 
classrooms. Violent and disruptive students who prevent others from 
learning cannot be disciplined effectively for fear of lawsuits.
  According to the Washington State Parents and Teachers Association,

       Federal regulations make it difficult to create a safe, 
     orderly environment in our schools. Educators are 
     unreasonably hampered when they try to prevent or reduce 
     violence. They find that federal regulations inhibit their 
     ability to design and implement common sense discipline in 
     their schools.

  Violence is tearing our society apart and is destroying education 
opportunites for America's youth. Madam President, it is time we take 
the steps necessary to regain control of our Nation's school.
  This call for reform came through loud and clear earlier this year at 
a statewide education conference I held in Fife, Washington. At that 
conference I listened to the concerns of almost 200 parents, teachers, 
principals, students, business people, and other community leaders. The 
desire for true education reform and need for Federal leadership on 
this issue was unmistakable.
  To my surprise, I found that the primary concern of those attending 
was not specific goals in mathematics, science, English, and the like, 
or even the fiscal problems of the schools. Rather the first concern 
was the growing problem of violence in our public schools. Accordingly, 
in order for educators to deal effectively with the violence, and 
indeed in order to address a number of pressing education issues, the 
participants told me that it is necessary to get the Federal Government 
off the backs of local educators and let them do their jobs.
  In an effort to address these concerns, I offered an amendment during 
the Senate consideration of Goals 2000. It stated simply that no 
Federal law or regulation could restrict the disciplinary rights of 
school authorities over criminal or violent acts on the part of 
students on school grounds. After some debate and a few modifications, 
the Senate unanimously agreed to this highly reasonable provision to 
return power to schools to deal with criminal and violent behavior.
  The amendment was drafted as the direct result of suggestions I heard 
at my education conference. Teachers, parents, and students asked me to 
fight for legislation to give schools and local communities the 
flexibility to enact and implement appropriate discipline policies. It 
had the support of the Washington State PTA; the Washington Association 
of School Principals and their national affiliates, the National 
Association of Elementary School Principals, and the National 
Association of Secondary School Principals; the Washington State 
Educational School Districts; and the Washington State School 
Directors' Association. These groups work with our children every day 
and understand the critical need to provide a safe learning 
environment.
  The message was unmistakable--if educators are not allowed adequately 
to address the problems of violent and criminal behavior in their 
schools, the value of other reforms will be sharply diminished. If a 
school receives money under Goals 2000, it ought to be able to use that 
money for programs to restore discipline and reduce violence in our 
schools and our communities. It should not be second-guessed by 
Washington, DC bureaucrats, or constantly harassed in the courts. It is 
time the Government makes youth violence a top priority.
  In response to concerns raised by Members concerned with the rights 
of the disabled, the amendment was modified to exempt individuals 
protected by Federal disability and civil rights laws. I agreed to this 
modification in good faith and the amendment was accepted without 
opposition.

  It is, therefore, particularly frustrating that after making 
significant changes in the youth violence amendment, changes that local 
educators felt would weaken its effectiveness, the Senate conferees 
agreed to drop this provision from the conference report. Having had my 
amendment so treated, I understand and share the frustrations of other 
Members whose amendments were treat likewise, including the senior 
Senator from North Carolina--namely the amendment protecting school 
prayer that was passed by both Houses. Even though it passed the Senate 
by a vote of 70 to 22, with my support, it was nevertheless removed 
from the final version of the bill.
  My frustrations are not entirely based on the fact that these 
amendments were dropped. Rather, I am concerned because it was the 
opinion of the majority of the Senate that these provisions were 
important improvements that would further the goals of the legislation.
  The conference committee did not entirely ignore the issue of youth 
violence. It papered over the problems by including nonbinding report 
language instructing the Secretary of Education and the Attorney 
General jointly to undertake a study of the scope of disciplinary 
measures available to school districts and schools under State and 
Federal laws for dealing with violent behavior on school premises. They 
will also review the types and sources of information on prior 
convictions and pending arrests for violent offenses and other matters 
pertaining to possible criminal and violent student behavior. The study 
is to identify any changes in law necessary to provide schools and 
school districts with appropriate information.
  Madam President, we do not need another study. We do not need a long 
and ineffective study to know that our schools are not able to 
discipline or control violent and criminal students. Members of this 
body only need to take time out of their busy schedules, as I did, to 
sit down with parents, teachers, and children and listen to their fears 
and concerns about violence. That violence is taking place right now. 
It should not wait for another 2 or 3 or 4 years to be addressed.
  Reaslistically, we cannot assume that better discipline at Ballard 
High School would have prevented the tragic incident that occurred on 
Wednesday. But we know that it can help prevent or control behavior 
that now goes unchecked. We must regain control of our classrooms now. 
We can begin by giving the authority to school officials to do their 
jobs.
  This Senator does not consider this matter closed. On behalf of 
parents, teachers, and students, I plan to continue efforts to pass 
legislation once again to make it safe to walk the halls of our public 
schools. When the next education bill comes before the Seante--and it 
will be soon--I will offer my amendment again, perhaps in even a 
stronger version. The next time I do offer this amendment, Mr. 
President, the entire Senate will go on record an vote either for 
giving educators the ability to deal with violence in the public 
schools or for the status quo.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield just on that point?
  Mr. GORTON. Yes, he will.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the point that was raised by the 
Senator from Washington is a very serious one, and there was a strong 
desire by the conference committee to accommodate the Senators who, I 
think, generally expressed, as we talked during the course of the 
debate, the points that were made.
  In the conference, there had been some discussion from other Members 
that had been involved in the shaping of the legislation--the House 
Members--about the disparity that exists in different States in terms 
of age and how they deal with juveniles and juvenile offenders.
  There was a review of the different State rules and regulations that 
are focused on juveniles. We were not able, given the disparity of 
those issues, to try and find a way through the various conflicts with 
regard to what information is revealed and what is not. It is not 
because there was not a desire to address the issue.
  What we did do, since this is not an area that we felt a particular 
degree of competency in, is to ask the Department of Justice and the 
Juvenile Delinquency Division in the Department of Justice and the 
Department of Education to meet on this and to report back on the best 
way we could address the issue.
  The fact that we did not include it in the conference report in no 
way demeans the seriousness with which we considered it. We would be 
more than glad to work with the Senator from Washington on this 
particular issue. There was a genuine sense among the members of the 
committee that we ought to try and find some way to address it.
  I want to assure the Senator that we will be glad to work with him. I 
will be glad to join with him in a letter to the Attorney General, as 
well as the Secretary of Education, to try and expedite it so that we 
may have some kind of recommendations.
  What we are asking for is a series of different recommendations so 
that people could to look at the pros and cons of different provisions 
and so that we, or other Members, would be able to address it.
  We specifically noted the intent of the conferees to request the 
Secretary of Education and the Attorney General to undertake a study of 
the scope of the disciplinary measures available under State and 
Federal laws to school districts and schools in dealing with violent 
behavior in school--the types and sources of information concerning, 
among other things, prior convictions and pending arrests for violent 
offenses, information that schools and school districts should have 
access to in order to minimize violent behavior on school premises. 
They should identify any changes in the law necessary to provide school 
districts with that information.
  So I want to give that assurance, certainly from my point of view. I 
hope a series of recommendations will be available for us by the time 
we get to elementary and secondary education so we can carry through 
the spirit of this provision. I understand the Senator thinks that 
there are other ways of doing it. We are serious about trying to find a 
responsible approach to what I think is a very legitimate problem.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts 
for his thoughtful and detailed explanation. But, I should like to say 
that that explanation itself is the problem. What in the world are we 
doing saying that the Attorney General of the United States should make 
this determination? These incidents of violence and disruption are 
taking place in our schools every single day all across the United 
States of America.
  Of course, there are differing responses to this kind of challenge 
from one State to another and from one school district to another. 
There ought to be different responses to that kind of situation. But 
from this Senator's point of view, I am much happier to leave the 
problem in Ballard High School to the Ballard High School and Seattle 
school district authority, and the problems in Cape Cod, MA, to school 
authorities there. They do not need the Attorney General and the 
Secretary of Education to tell them what their problems are. They know 
what their problems are and they know how to solve them.
  Why is it that we seem to think that all wisdom resides in a group of 
bureaucrats and lawyers in Washington, DC, and none at all in the 
people who are actually running our schools? I look forward not 
particularly with bated breath to this report. I doubt that it will say 
very much. I hope that it is here before the Senator from Massachusetts 
brings the elementary and secondary education bill to the floor, 
because this amendment is going to come back then. Our schools and our 
school authorities need help now, and the help they need is the 
authority to do their own jobs without being interfered with from 
Washington, DC.
  That is the difference between us and a handful of conferees meeting 
in a very, very safe and hidden room in the Capitol of the United 
States. They can take their time. They can be patient. They can call 
for studies. But we are not going to provide the proper educational 
atmosphere for our students until we restore authority to our school 
authorities to do the job that they need to do.
  While I am frustrated with the process that accompanied the final 
draft of this bill, I still believe that it should move forward. After 
talking with local education officials and parents in Washington state, 
I have come to believe that the overall good in the Goals 2000 bill 
outweighs the loss of this important provision on youth violence.
  Two other proposals that I offered and were attached during the 
Senate debate of Goals 2000 were retained by the conference committee.
  At my education conference, students from all parts of my state were 
not only in attendance, but were active participants. In fact, Madam 
President, I found some of the student suggestions and statements to be 
most insightful. Few businesses would last very long if they did not 
pay close attention to the needs and concerns of their customers and 
take those thoughts to heart in their operations. Similarly, we cannot 
further education reform without the input of education customers--the 
students. Accordingly, I offered an amendment to ensure that students 
are represented on the State education improvement councils. The spirit 
of this proposal was retained by the conference committee.
  One of the most cost-efficient education programs in the country is 
the Star Schools Program. The Star Schools Program and other distance 
learning consortia provide education to rural areas by way of 
satellite. If we are truly to move forward in education reform, we must 
be led by those who are already succeeding. On January 7, 1994 I 
participated in a Star Schools Program. My voice and picture were up-
linked from the Seattle School District studio. The transmission was 
then down-linked to five States and more than 169 sites in Washington 
State. Students were able to call in and ask me questions about youth 
violence, education, and politics. I talked to students from all over 
the State, including Bellingham, Colville, and Vancouver.
  I was so impressed with this experience that I felt obligated to 
further the goals of this worthy and cost effective program. My 
amendment ensures that members of this successful program are included 
in the development of the national long-range technology plan. The 
inclusion of Star Schools has greatly improved the Goals 2000 
legislation.
  In addition to my amendments, the conference report contains other 
provisions to ensure a greater amount of local flexibility and less 
Federal interference.
  At my education conference, attendees told me that local schools are 
in need of financial assistance to start the reform process. This bill 
provides financial assistance to States and local educational agencies 
to develop and implement voluntary reform standards and to coordinate 
their reforms with schools across the country. It is important to 
repeat that these reform standards are completely voluntary and will 
not be used to determine funding decisions for any other Federal 
program. States are to develop their own standards and implementation 
plans and to share them with the council and the Goals panel for its 
review and suggestions. Several provisions in this bill also require 
that between 60 and 90 percent of the funds in a grant be expended at 
the local level.

  In order to avoid excessive Federal entanglement in primary and 
secondary education, the conference report retains the Senate 
provisions that specifically prohibit Federal mandates on equalized 
spending per pupil or national school building standards and includes 
general prohibitions on Federal mandates, or the direction and control 
of local school and education districts.
  This point should be made clear. This bill does not authorize a 
Federal takeover of education decisions made by States or local 
schools. The implementation of standards are to be developed by the 
States and local educational agencies on a voluntary basis in order to 
address the specific needs of the States and localities. This bill does 
not require States and localities to implement any learning standards 
and specifically prohibits the use of these funds for 5 years for 
assessments that would be used to make decisions on graduation, grade 
promotion or retention of students.
  Flexibility is a key issue for educators and parents. Far too often a 
handful of Federal dollars come with strings that tie the hands of 
local educators and prevent them from effectively using their resources 
for the greatest benefit to their students. This bill provides 
authority to the Secretary of Education to waive Federal laws and 
regulations that may hinder education reform efforts. A request for 
waivers from restrictive Federal regulations was another provision that 
was specifically requested by the local educators at my education 
conference.
  In order to encourage greater parental and community involvement in 
reform efforts, Goals 2000 includes provisions to require local 
education agencies and states to solicit input from the community and 
take that input into account during the development of their reform 
plans. It expands protections for students and parental rights by 
providing them with specific protections against intrusions into their 
constitutional rights of privacy. The bill specifically states:

       All instructional materials, including teachers' manuals, 
     films, tapes, or other supplementary material which will be 
     used in connection with any survey, analysis, or evaluation 
     as part of any applicable program shall be available for 
     inspections by the parents or guardians of the children.

  The bill requires prior parental approval before students are 
subjected to certain types of surveys, analyses, or evaluations. This 
gives parents and students specific guaranteed protections for their 
rights and beliefs.
  Madam President, the Goals 2000 legislation moves the education 
reform debate forward in a manner that is more positive than negative. 
I do not believe, as some Members do, that this bill is a perfect 
answer to the grassroots pleas for education reform; it does however, 
develop a framework under which local education reform can advance in a 
positive manner.
  We in this body should not be overly optimistic that this one 
relatively modest sum of money will overhaul America's weakened public 
education system. True education reform will not happen at the Federal 
level; rather, it will only occur at the local level where parents, 
students and educators have the most input. It should be the role of 
the Federal Government to encourage and assist these reforms, but not 
to control the content or structure of these reforms. There are more 
reforms that need to take place and we should be prepared to assist the 
States and local educators in implementing those reforms.
  Thus, while I do not support this bill wholeheartedly, I do believe 
that it is important for the Congress to move forward in developing an 
infrastructure that will assist the States in the reform efforts. I 
vote for this bill on behalf of the many people of Washington State who 
so desperately want to see a change from the status quo in the way our 
public school systems are run.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Conrad). Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I do not think any of us anticipated we 
would still be debating at the beginning of this Easter recess. I 
regret that we are, and I know many Members regret we are. Many have 
had to cancel plans made long ago. I had plans I made a year ago which 
I reluctantly canceled this morning.
  That is the nature of the way the Senate works, and we all understand 
that. The one issue that has kept us here is an issue involving school 
prayer.
  Members will recall that we had extensive debate on that when the 
Goals 2000 bill came through the Senate initially. The core amendment 
was one offered by Senator Helms, which was modified by Senator 
Packwood from Oregon. That amendment, as modified, was accepted and 
supported by 75 Members of the U.S. Senate.
  The language said that, ``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''--that is the key phrase--
``constitutionally protected prayer in public schools by individuals on 
a voluntary basis.''
  So, any individual or student exercising their first amendment rights 
of freedom of expression of their religion or of their faith, if it was 
done on a voluntary basis, and if the action was constitutionally 
protected--that is, the courts had ruled that that particular action 
was acceptable under first amendment prohibitions against church and 
State interference--that would be allowed.
  The amendment includes an additional clause which I think is 
important because it prohibits the United States or any State or any 
local educational agency--in other words, any governmental entity--it 
prohibits that entity from participating in that prayer, requiring 
anybody to participate in that prayer, or to influence the form or 
content of that prayer.
  In other words, keep the State out of it. Keep this strictly 
voluntary. But do not deny--in fact it would be unconstitutional to 
deny--an individual the right to freedom of expression of their faith 
and religion, and in an attempt to state that any school agencies or 
districts or governmental authorities who prevented that would lose 
their funds under grants or distribution through the Department of 
Education.
  So, as I said, the Senate, after some lengthy debate with 
alternatives and others, finally voted on that core amendment, and 75 
Members of the Senate on a bipartisan basis agreed to that language.
  In fact, Senator Kennedy as chairman of the House Labor and Human 
Resources Committee, and directing the efforts on the floor, indicated 
that it was an acceptable amendment to him. I quote from the Record in 
which he said:

       This amendment has been changed now for constitutionally 
     protected speech. Basically we are just saying if the school 
     board is going to violate that as a matter of policy, it 
     would be ineligible to receive money under this provision. As 
     one who has supported that position with regard to race and 
     religion and disability, I think the amendment is not 
     inconsistent with that policy. So when the time comes to 
     vote, I will vote in favor of the amendment.

  When the bill went to conference with the House to be reconciled 
between the two differences in the bill on a whole number of measures, 
that amendment adopted by the Senate was changed. The House did not 
include similar language. But the House wanted the conferees to accept 
the Senate language. And, in fact, they went through a procedure called 
``a motion to instruct.'' And they actually had a vote on the matter 
which essentially said we instruct our representatives of this House in 
the conference to agree to the Senate language. That vote was 367 to 
55.
  So there can be no question that the amendment, as proposed by 
Senator Helms and modified by Senator Packwood, enjoys solid majority 
bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
  Most of us thought at that point the battle was over; that given the 
statements that were made on the floor, given the vote that was taken 
here in the Senate and the vote that was taken in the House of 
Representatives, that the language which we adopted would be included 
in the Goals 2000 bill.
  Unfortunately, it was not. It was stricken, and a substitute was 
made, a substitute that many of us feel is totally inadequate. It is 
far more limiting. It deals only with withholding funds from school 
districts or educational agencies; from implementing a policy to deny 
that prayer. But it does nothing with those schools which are already 
enforcing the policies. For those who say, ``Oh, well, that does not 
make any difference,'' it makes a very, very substantial difference.

  As Senator Lott indicated on the Senate floor during the debate, a 
voluntary prayer in the Mississippi school, and I quote that prayer by 
a student on a voluntary basis:

       Almighty God, we ask that You bless our parents, teachers, 
     and country throughout this day. In Your name we pray. Amen.

  That prayer was deemed offensive. That prayer was deemed out of 
bounds. That prayer was stricken, and that student who offered that 
prayer was suspended.
  The principal of that school, which was Wingfield High School in 
Jackson, MS, essentially said that he saw nothing wrong with that 
prayer, and he was suspended. Students from that school in protest of 
those suspensions were subsequently suspended themselves.
  So for an individual student to state a prayer which said, ``Almighty 
God, we ask that You bless our parents, teachers, and country 
throughout this day. In Your name we pray, amen,'' we had the 
suspension of that student, the suspension of the principal of that 
school, and the suspension of students who protested that. That then 
led to a rally at the statehouse in Jackson, MS, where 4,000 people 
arrived and basically said, ``This is crazy. This is the denial of the 
individual rights of freedom of expression guaranteed under the 
Constitution.''
  So the Senate was dealing with that type of issue. Those are policies 
that are being enforced throughout the country.
  I have a list here of cases that are now in the courts brought by 
students who have been denied their right to free expression of their 
faith.
  J.J. Music from Prestonsburg, KY, is a sixth grade student who was 
denied the right to pray with friends before school, not in class, but 
before school.
  Eileen Unander of Champagine, IL, was denied the right to participate 
in a ``See You at the Pole'' type of activity, which was an activity 
which took place in some of our public schools around the country on a 
designated time at which they met at the flagpole before the school day 
and joined in prayer for their school, their teachers, or whatever. 
Case was brought. That individual was denied the right to participate 
in that particular activity.
  Becky Renshaw of Kremmling, CO, has been told not to mention the word 
``Jesus'' in school.
  Nathan Lewis of Hatfield, PA, was selected to speak at the graduation 
but they said he cannot offer a prayer as part of his speech.
  James Amyx of Brodhead, KY, is a student who was denied the right to 
plan a prayer at graduation, and he has been further threatened with 
denial of the right to pray with other students before school if he 
pursues the graduation issue further.
  Adam Grecco of Derby, CT, was a student denied the right to speak to 
another student about God at school.
  These are all cases now in the courts.
  Bethany Null of Panama City, FL, was a special education student who 
was told she could not pray over her lunch.
  And on and on we go as school districts, educational authorities, and 
others are simply denying this right of freedom of expression of faith 
in a public school on a voluntary basis without any teacher coercion, 
without any State coercion, without any State influence as to what that 
prayer might be.
  That is what Senator Helms and Senator Packwood were attempting to 
address when they offered this amendment. That is what the Senate 
agreed to. That is what the House of Representatives agreed to in an 
overwhelming fashion, 367 to 55 in instructing their conferees. Yet we 
enter a conference and suddenly the bill came back with substitute 
language, which most of us feel is totally inadequate to address the 
situation.
  So people are saying, how can it be? How can the Senate vote by a 3-
to-1 margin, almost 4-to-1 margin and the House vote by a 4- or 5-to-1 
margin to do the same thing and the conferees, the people selected to 
reconcile the two bills, come back with something entirely different?
  Senator Helms has protested going forward with this bill because of 
the actions that were taking place that were contrary to what the 
majority of this body and the majority of the House of Representatives 
sought to do. He has, on many occasions, invoked his rights as a 
minority Member to filibuster or to delay consideration of legislation, 
because he did not agree with what the majority was doing. That is 
certainly within his rights, and probably every Member of the Senate 
has done that at one time or another.
  But what Senator Helms is doing this time is not filibustering 
because he does not agree with the majority; he is filibustering 
because a minority has contravened and intervened and denied the rights 
of the majority. It is their right to do that. They can meet in 
conference and strike that language. It is not representative; it is 
not indicative of or carrying forward the wishes of the majority, which 
they are supposed to represent; but that is what was done.
  So we have an interesting reversal here, an interesting flip-flop. We 
have a Member of the Senate who is filibustering, not to protect the 
rights of a minority or his own individual rights; we have a Member 
filibustering to try to protect the rights of the majority.
  I suggest that there is a very substantial difference between that 
type of filibuster and the type of filibuster designed to protect the 
rights of the minority. It is the majority of the Senate and majority 
of the House of Representatives, by a very substantial margin, that 
wants the Helms-Packwood language left in this Goals 2000 bill. It is 
only a minority that does not want it. Unfortunately, that minority 
controlled the conference.
  Senator Helms has talked about the procedures of the conference, how 
the issue was not debated for more than 60 seconds at a time at all, 
and was done right at the end of the conference. I do not believe it 
had a fair hearing at the conference. I was not there. In fact, I was 
on the way to that conference, because I was told that that is when we 
were going to take up the prayer issue, which was my main concern. I 
met my aide halfway there, and she said, ``It is done, the conference 
is over.'' I said, ``What about the prayer amendment.'' She said, 
``They dropped the language and added something else and did it all in 
60 seconds.''
  So I think many of us feel that we did not have a fair shot at this. 
The only way we are going to get a fair shot at this is to deny the 
minority the right to push this thing through, which I think is in 
direct contravention to the vast majority of us who supported and voted 
for this.
  I regret that we are in this situation. I regret that Members are 
left here when we should have finished last evening. I regret it partly 
because I have had to change my own plans--something I had planned for 
a year. I know other Members have other considerations. But the reason 
we are here is not because Senator Helms or any other Senator is trying 
to defend a position that is not shared by the majority. The reason we 
are here is because a very small minority is trying to have their way 
and deny what the majority has already agreed to do. That is 
significantly different than what we normally encounter during a 
filibuster situation.
  So it appears that we are going to be here debating until at least 
12:01 a.m. Saturday, and perhaps beyond that. That is the unfortunate 
situation in which we find ourselves. I regret it, and I know other 
Senators regret it. But it was not a minority that put us here. We are 
trying to defend the rights of the majority, which have been denied by 
the result of this conference.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will not take much time to comment in 
addition to what I mentioned earlier. Of course, my good friend from 
Indiana failed to mention that there were other provisions relating to 
school prayer that were included in the Goals 2000. The Helms amendment 
was accepted 75-22. The Danforth amendment was accepted 97-0.
  Let me read the Danforth amendment. It expresses the sense that:

       The schools should encourage a 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 
     affect themselves and others around them, including their 
     schoolmates, friends, and families, for drawing strength for 
     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 act.

  That is what the Danforth amendment said.
  The Helms language is:

       No funds available through the Department of Education 
     under this act, or any other act, shall be available to any 
     State or local education agency which has a policy of 
     denying, or which effectively prevents participation in, 
     constitutionally protected prayer in public schools by 
     individuals on a voluntary base. Neither the United States 
     nor any other local education agency shall require any person 
     to participate in prayer or influence the form or content or 
     any constitutionally protected prayer in such schools.

  Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield in just a moment.
  The Levin amendment says:

       Notwithstanding other provisions of the act, no funds 
     available through the Department of Education under this act, 
     or any other act, shall be denied to any State or local 
     education agency because it has adopted a constitutional 
     policy relative to school prayer.

  Those are three different amendments. So we come back in the 
conference report with this language: No funds authorized to be 
appropriated under this act may be used by any State or local 
educational agency to adopt policies that prevent voluntary prayer and 
meditation in public schools.
  You have three different languages, three different amendments. At 
the end of the day, we come back and say:

       No funds authorized to be appropriated under this act may 
     be used by any State or local educational agency to adopt 
     policies that prevent voluntary prayer and meditation in 
     public schools.

  I would think that Senator Danforth, whose amendment passed 97-0, 
would be up here saying: Look at my amendment and look how that passed 
by even greater support than the Helms amendment. Or we might have 
Senator Levin saying: Why did we not take all of this language? Well, I 
have read the language that we did take.
  Finally, as the Senator knows--or should know--there was a very 
divisive issue that was before the conference: opportunity to learn 
standards. At several times during those negotiations, there was every 
likelihood that we would not come back with a conference report.
  If we had been unable to address that particular issue, there would 
have been no conference report. Therefore, the Members from the House 
and the Senate said, let us see if we are even going to have a bill 
before we start talking about the three school prayer amendments that 
we have in there, about the fact that the House legislation did not 
include any, and about the issue of the instructions to the House of 
Representatives. That seemed to be a reasonable way to proceed.
  As I have outlined on other occasions, the questions on the 
notifications on different matters, the distribution, the 2 days before 
are different language.
  With all respect, my good friend from Indiana never came to me at any 
time and said, ``Look, before we take this up, I want to be heard.''
  The Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, came to us with 
regard to the issue of private management. He wanted to be able to 
attend our conference when his amendments were coming up--and he did 
appear at our conference. We accord that kind of comity.
  I know the Senator from Indiana was interested in this issue, but we 
had gone on in conference for a very considerable period of time. He 
cannot find any place in that record or any other place where he said, 
before we finally resolve, I would like to have this issue addressed. 
Congressman Miller did it with regard to the Dorgan amendment on guns--
he came to the conference. We waited a great deal of time to accomodate 
him. Congressman Williams wanted to have an opportunity to address the 
issue. We accommodated staff that indicated that their Members wanted 
to be represented at the conference.
  Quite frankly, I know this is a complex and a difficult issue and, 
eventually, as pointed out, the Senate is going to have the opportunity 
on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to revisit the issue, and 
that, obviously, would be an opportunity for the Senator and the Senate 
to resolve it.
  Given the fact that we can resolve this issue in a few weeks on the 
next education bill that comes up, or on any other bill that comes up 
prior to that, because anybody can offer this amendment under the 
Senate rules at any time, it ought to be clear that we should not do it 
now.
  If we do not pass this legislation now, there will be significant 
loss of funding to the Members' States. For example, the State of 
Indiana will lose, it is estimated, some $13 million over the next 
three years in education reform funds. This is not to say that money is 
going to answer all the educational needs of any of our States, but 
there is no question that some financial assistance can make a very big 
difference. Matched with the extraordinary generosity of Ambassador 
Annenberg of some $500 million, Goals 2000 will provide much-needed 
help to States and local communities that are trying to make progress. 
This is a very important time for educational reform.
  I appreciate the comments of the Senator, and I know they are made in 
good faith, because the Senator is too good a friend and I have too 
much respect for him to conclude otherwise, but I do think there is 
another side to the issue.
  Mr. COATS. If the chairman will yield, I would like to respond to a 
couple points.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield the floor and respond to the 
question. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, in response to a couple statements made by 
the Senator from Massachusetts, let me just state that, first of all, 
in looking back over the chronology of the conference meetings on the 
Goals 2000 measure, the first meeting was held on Tuesday, March 15, at 
10:30 a.m. That was the first members meeting. And like the first 
members meeting of the conference, it was just general discussion, and 
that is what took place.
  They reconvened at 3:30. The members meeting resumed. I had a 
conflict, so I asked my staff if they would contact Senator Kennedy's 
staff and inform both Senator Kennedy's staff and Senator Kassebaum's 
staff--Senator Kassebaum was the ranking member on the committee--that 
the language suggested on the prayer was unacceptable to me and 
inquiring whether or not there would be debate on the prayer amendment.
  The answer was they were not sure, and I advised my staff to please 
let me know since I had a conflict to let me know if that came up, and 
it did not come up at that particular meeting.
  Next day, on March 16, on Wednesday at 11 a.m., my staff inquired of 
Senator Kennedy's staff when the school prayer issue would be debated.
  We were informed at that time that it would be debated that 
afternoon. Again, because I had a conflict, I said that is the issue I 
am interested in and it is not going to be debated in the morning. I 
will wait until the afternoon. We informed Senator Kennedy's staff that 
we wanted to raise the issue of school prayer. At 2 p.m., that 
afternoon the members conference resumed. The school prayer issue was 
not debated again. That was at the time when the Republicans were 
meeting with Senator Dole at a Republican conference to discuss a 
number of issues of strategy and legislation.

  On Thursday, the next day, March 17, then at 1:30 p.m. the final 
members conference was held. Our office was notified of that final 
meeting that morning. I was hosting a luncheon down in the Senate 
dining room. I said I would get there just as quickly as I can, and I 
excused myself from that luncheon early and was on my way to the 
meeting when my staff aide informed me that the conference was 
concluded.
  Now, Senator Kennedy is correct when he says that I did not 
personally indicate to him that I had an interest in this particular 
issue. I have a long history of involvement in respect to school 
prayer, certainly Senator Kennedy would have known of my interest in 
that particular issue. But I am somewhat remiss for not directly 
talking to him and saying I do not want the conference closed without 
the opportunity to come over and debate it.
  I was, as I said, on my way to do just that when I learned that the 
conference was already closed.
  I can assure the Senator that in the future this new junior Senator 
has learned a lesson and I will communicate directly with him on issues 
that are important, and this clearly was an issue that is important to 
me. I will do that in the future.
  In another related matter, Senator Kennedy indicated that the Helms-
Packwood amendment was not the only one that was adopted, and that is 
true. Senator Levin had an amendment adopted and Senator Danforth had 
an amendment adopted, but neither of those was included in the Goals 
2000 final conference report either.
  I guess my question is the Senate voted overwhelmingly on three 
separate amendments relative to school prayer. Of course, we all knew 
the Helms amendment was the one with teeth in it and the one with the 
core amendment. But what came back was an amendment not debated and not 
voted on by the Senate, the three that were not brought back. They were 
dropped.
  It seems curious to me that the three that the Senate indicated an 
interest in did not make the final cut. The one that the House 
indicated overwhelming they wanted their conferees to support and the 
language that they wanted in the bill that did not make the final cut.
  What came back was something that neither body wanted. In fact, the 
House in its debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act voted 
on language identical to the Helms-Packwood language. They voted 345 to 
64 to put that language in that bill. And that was after a vote came on 
language offered by Representative Pat Williams which is exactly the 
language brought back to us here and now incorporated in this bill. 
They rejected that language 171 to 239. The House labeled it as do-
nothing language.
  So it just seems curious to me that the language which the Senate 
clearly wanted and the language that the House clearly wanted was 
rejected. What was substituted was the language that the House clearly 
rejected. That to me does not represent a conference that heeded the 
wishes of the strong majority of either body and I think that is what 
has put us in this unfortunate situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take a moment.
  Mr. President, Senator Coats and I have remarkably talented, gifted, 
and wonderful staff. If there is some misunderstanding on this, then I 
am prepared to recognize that. I have a somewhat different report from 
my people, but I do not think we in this body want to go into this.
  I just say I regret that I had no personal knowledge. In the time 
that I have been here in the Senate, some 30 years, when notified by a 
Member or staff that a particular Member wanted to be heard on a 
measure, I have always accommodated that request. I think the record 
will demonstrate it.
  It is true that we met at 1:30 in S-116 right outside of the dining 
room here. To the best of my knowledge, we were in there about 40 
minutes or so. But, nonetheless, I appreciate what the Senator has 
said, and I regret any misunderstanding.
  Let me just say one other thing with regard to the Senator's points. 
We had three different amendments. We came back with the one in the 
conference report, which I read into the Record. We were trying to 
reconcile the different amendments. That is what we were charged with 
in conference committee. We were not charged with selecting one or 
another amendment, and if we had been, we should have come back from 
conference with the Danforth amendment, which had stronger support than 
the Helms amendment.
  But, having read the three different ones into the Record, it seems 
that the language we came back with is much closer to the Danforth 
amendment. And the important point about the language in the conference 
report is what that language is. Did we make that language out of whole 
cloth in the course of the conference? No. It has effectively been the 
existing law for 13 years on the appropriations bill--13 years.
  This language did not come out of thin air or whole cloth. That has 
been law for 13 years. And the Senator from Indiana and the Senator 
from North Carolina have not challenged it for all that time. Why did 
they not do that? Why are they holding up Goals 2000?
  If the Senator says, well, we are doing it to help put other language 
on ESEA, then that is exactly what we are saying--let us debate the 
issue on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We are glad to do 
that.
  I just hope that we do not get away from the point. If we do not pass 
this Goals 2000 legislation now, we are effectively denying to States 
over $100 million that will go to local schools that are out there on 
the front line--schools with teachers that are hard pressed, parents 
that are hard pressed, and students that are hard pressed. After 4 
years, with this legislation that passed the Senate by a strong 
bipartisan vote, we are within hours of the opportunity to get some 
badly-needed assistance to local school districts.
  And we are being caught up in this situation where a handful of 
Senators feel that this is not the way to proceed. I seriously am 
saddened by that, saddened by it because we have had bipartisan support 
in shaping the legislation coming out of the conference itself. We had 
Republicans that signed the conference report. This is not a situation 
where all of one party walked out and said they had been treated 
shabbily. That has not been the case.
  Whatever misunderstanding there has been, I regret. But I do not 
regret the fact that we reached the accomodation that we did and that 
we reached it when we did.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. It is not my intention to get into a Ping-Pong match with 
the Senator from Massachusetts. This will be the last time I will 
speak.
  I want to just respond to a couple of things here. No. 1, as I 
indicated, I am willing to accept there was a misunderstanding. 
Obviously, the solution to that is for this Senator to go directly to 
the Senator. Our staffs have worked together on other items and they 
will continue to do so. And so we can remedy that, and I take 
responsibility for not directly communicating with Senator Kennedy my 
interest in this.
  I have to, however, question what has come back from the conference 
as being representative of a compromise between the three specific 
amendments that we passed. What came back, as Senator Kennedy has said, 
is current law.
  The reason Senator Helms and Senator Packwood offered their modified 
amendment is that they do not believe current law is working very well. 
And I cited earlier a number of cases of situations where individuals 
had been denied their rights, or what I think are their rights, under 
the Constitution.
  What we are trying to do is clarify that. Because in school district 
after school district all across this country, there is an antagonism 
toward the concept of prayer. People want to drive God completely out 
of the public square, out of the public schools, to say He has no place 
there.
  And many of us agree that we do not want a situation, as our Founding 
Fathers tried to protect against, we do not want a situation where some 
State superintendent of education or some local superintendent of 
education or even some teacher says, ``Oh, here's the prayer. Read 
it.''
  I do not want a government authority telling me and my kids how to 
pray. I do not want a government authority authorizing any kind of a 
prayer, whether it is at graduation or before a football game or in the 
school to start the day. But, I do not want to deny a student the right 
to express their faith or offer a voluntary prayer that has been 
constitutionally protected by the Supreme Court. And that is what the 
Helms amendment attempts to clarify and that is why it gained majority 
support here.
  But it is this litany of cases that we hear about and read about 
every other day, it seems like, where again a student is told that they 
cannot bow their head before they have lunch in the cafeteria, or they 
cannot voluntarily offer a prayer before a basketball game, or they 
cannot kneel down after a big victory and voluntarily, with some other 
members of the football team, and say, ``Lord, thank you for the 
victory,'' or ``Thanks for keeping us injury free,'' or whatever they 
want to express. That is a voluntary expression. That is a tradition in 
this country. That has been a tradition in our schools, and I think is 
the kind of tradition that we want to retain. And the courts have 
denied that and stripped that away and there have been lawsuits.

  The current law obviously is not doing the job or we would not find 
all these incidents across the country. That is what we are trying to 
correct.
  So what has come back is not a reconciliation of the three amendments 
that were offered here, and I had no objection to any one of them. What 
has come back is a restatement of current law which has not worked, and 
that is what we are trying to correct.
  Finally, as to the idea that we are losing some funds here, my 
understanding is that if Goals 2000 stalls, those funds will be shifted 
over to fund a shortfall in the Pell Grant Program. There is a $118 
million Pell grant shortfall. So those funds are not going to be 
shifted away from education but they simply would wipe out a funding 
backlog. They are going to go to students to help pay for their 
education.
  And so, we are not talking about a loss of funds going to education. 
We are talking about, at least until this issue is resolved, a 
temporary suspension of funds that might go to implement the Goals 2000 
program.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Oklahoma, [Mr.Nickles].
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate my friend and 
colleague, Senator Coats from Indiana, for his statement and also for 
his commitment. And I wish to compliment and congratulate Senator Helms 
from North Carolina for his tenacity and his courage, because it is not 
easy taking the floor, it is not easy saying you are going to 
filibuster a bill unless a provision is reinstated. But I compliment 
him for it.
  I happen to think his amendment is more important than the bill.
  Senator Coats alluded to the fact that there are lots of school 
districts and others that are afraid to even have voluntary prayer in 
school because of a court interpretation or maybe advisories that they 
have been given by the ACLU or the attorney for the school board that 
said if you have or even allowed voluntary student-led prayer somebody 
might file a class action suit or a suit against you and you might end 
up in court, and it might cost a lot of money and you are going to have 
to defend yourself. And they do not want to have to defend themselves, 
so many school districts have avoided such prayer.
  As a result of the Lee versus Weisman case that came out last year, a 
lot of school districts not only do not have prayer allowed at 
commencement exercises, but they also sometimes decide not to have 
prayer at athletic events.
  That is not what the Lee versus Weisman case says. I might mention, 
Lee versus Weisman was a 5 to 4 decision, and in my opinion not a 
correct decision.
  Many people have taken that bad decision and expanded it basically to 
try to prohibit any type of voluntary prayer in our public schools. I 
think that is a mistake.
  So I think the amendment by Senator Helms was correct. It was 
supported overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate. It should be 
part of this package. And, again, it is a very important part of the 
package.
  I also echo what Senator Coats alluded to in the fact that the Pell 
Grant Program is underfunded. And in the President's budget for 1995, 
he is requesting $118 million to make up for a shortfall from previous 
years in the Pell Grant Program.
  Also, last year, when we passed the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, we 
said that if this bill was not passed that the funding would revert to 
the Pell Grant Program. So if this bill does not pass, I have heard 
people say, the school districts are going to lose this $118 million. 
The real result will be that the Pell Grant Program will be brought up 
to date. The Pell Grant program can use $118 million. So this money 
will go toward education and I think in a very positive and successful 
program.
  The Pell Grant Program helps 4 million students today.
  I rise also to address a couple of other issues. One relates to 
comments that Dr. Elders, our Surgeon General, has made in the recent 
months since she was confirmed as Surgeon General.
  Senator Kennedy knows, and many other people know, I strongly opposed 
Dr. Elder's nomination as Surgeon General. I opposed it because she 
made a lot of comments that I thought really did not suit the position 
of Surgeon General. For example, talking about the positive public 
health effects of abortion, saying that reduced the number of children 
born with Downs Syndrome. I found that to be totally insensitive to 
parents and individuals born with Downs Syndrome. I just thought that 
was totally inappropriate for the Surgeon General.
  She talked about the positive ramifications of abortion, the positive 
public health effects of abortion. I thought that was wrong.
  She made statements saying we teach kids what to do in the front seat 
of the car, we should teach kids what to do in the back seat of the 
car, and so on, telling kids not to go on a date unless they took a 
condom--really just taking the radical position on a lot of issues.
  Dr. Elders was confirmed despite my opposition, and she has made a 
lot of radical comments since. I am looking at a headline that was in 
the Saturday Washington Times. It says, ``Elders Calls Gay Sex 
`Wonderful and Healthy''' and it goes on. These statements were made in 
an interview in the Advocate. I believe they are statements rooted in 
extremism and insensitivity and intolerance. They are outrageous and 
radical.
  I will just cite a few examples from her interview. I also ask 
unanimous consent to have the article printed in the Record at the end 
of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. NICKLES. According to the article, Dr. Elders endorsed gay 
adoption.

       I feel that good parents are good parents, regardless of 
     their sexual orientation.

  Keep in mind, this is the Surgeon General of the United States.
  Dr. Elders displayed a disregard for the containment of the AIDS 
virus.

       We have to be more open about sex and we need to speak out 
     to tell people that sex is good and sex is wonderful. It is a 
     normal part and a healthy part of our being, whether it is 
     homosexual or heterosexual.

  I might also mention Dr. Elders recently repeated these statements in 
an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 23. Dr. 
Elders said that school-based clinics, for which she has previously 
endorsed birth control information, should also dispense information on 
homosexuality.

       We cannot just write off 10 percent of our student 
     population. We should certainly work on gay and lesbian 
     health issues. We need to make sure our teachers are educated 
     about sexuality and counselors know how to address the issue 
     in a sensitive manner.

  Not only is this a policy which would destroy public confidence in 
our school systems, Dr. Elders uses the now discredited figure of 10 
percent in reference to the homosexual population.
  Dr. Elders also called the current Boy Scout membership policy 
unfair. This is her quote:

       Once again we are dealing with the ignorance of our society 
     about what gay people are like, and the effects of policies 
     like this on them.

  Finally, Dr. Elders endorsed gay marriages. She wants Americans to--

       . . .learn that gay people are not just out there wanting 
     to have sex with anybody who walks down the street, and that 
     gay people have real loving, lasting relationships and 
     families.

  There is much more in the article.
  On March 22, in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she 
reiterated her comments, standing by them unequivocally; beating up on 
Boy Scouts, backing gay marriages and gay adoption, endorsing 
homosexual education of our schoolchildren --all this she supports.
  But with her radical blinders on, Dr. Elders ignores the deep 
distress she has caused among many Americans with her remarks. So 
distressing were these statements, statements not just advocating 
homosexual adoption but mischaracterizing religious teaching on 
homosexual issues, that the Cardinal of Washington, James Hickey, took 
the extraordinary step of sending a letter to the President this week.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. NICKLES. Cardinal Hickey writes:

       I must take strong exception to the recent remarks of 
     Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders advocating homosexual 
     behavioral and expressing support for adoption by so-called 
     homosexual couples. The Surgeon General irresponsibly accuses 
     religious leaders holding sexuality is solely for 
     procreation. The comments of Surgeon General Elders are 
     destructive of true understanding of family life. It is one 
     thing to defend the human rights of homosexual men and women. 
     It is quite another to encourage, as she does, a lifestyle 
     which puts so-called homosexual unions on par with marriage 
     and family and condones homosexual behavior among young 
     people.

  Last year, when the Senate considered the nomination of Dr. Elders to 
the post of Surgeon General, we spent some time discussing her 
positions and statements. In particular, we focused on a series of 
statements she made in Little Rock about the Catholic church, comments 
which also distressed many Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
  Dr. Elders never disavowed those statements. And I expect she will 
not disavow recent statements either. But I would hope at some point 
she would realize that whenever she speaks she is sorely misinformed 
and displays nothing but intemperance and intolerance. In 7 months she 
has lurched from controversy to controversy, attacking toy guns, 
Congress, people of faith, and former President Lyndon Johnson. Her 
lack of discernment should be made clear to President Clinton. In my 
opinion it is long past time to dismiss Dr. Elders.
  Mr. President, this is not the first time she has made such 
statements. Let us just review the record of the last few months. Even 
before her nomination, she told the press she was eager to use the 
bully pulpit that came with the job to speak out strongly on questions 
of health. Many of Dr. Elders' predecessors, notably Dr. Koop, used the 
power of persuasion in a serious and thoughtful way. Through their 
advocacy they helped improve our country's health. But in her inaugural 
speech, Dr. Elders skipped focusing on an American health agenda. 
Instead, she focused on her personal abortion agenda.
  According to one of the many press reports on the speech, and I will 
quote:

       Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders urged American women 
     Thursday, to retaliate at the voting booth if Members of 
     Congress vote to strip coverage for abortions from President 
     Clinton's health care plan.
       I would hope that our policymakers would not be so narrow 
     minded as to deny a complete range of reproductive health 
     services in our health care reform plan for all women. If 
     they are, I hope women would make sure they never forget.

  That was in the AP on October 7, 1993.
  Mr. President, as you know, this Congress, for at least the past 
dozen years, has had restrictions on Federal funding of abortion. That 
has passed repeatedly by a majority of Congress. Yet now she is 
advocating not only legal abortion, but taxpayers' subsidies for it; 
that it would be a fringe benefit in all health care plans. And if one 
would dare to oppose that position, she urges people to retaliate 
against those lawmakers.
  Mr. President, that is not the position that should be taken by the 
Surgeon General. That was no bully pulpit speech. No, that was a pulpit 
bully speaking.
  Second, last year the Surgeon General took on handgun violence, which 
is what many people think of when they think of crime. All us know 
handgun violence is a serious problem in our society. Far too many 
people have suffered from criminals who use guns. But to cut down on 
handgun violence Dr. Elders told America, ``We have to educate the 
public not to buy their children toy guns for Christmas.'' That was 
reported on CNN, December 8, 1993.
  It amazes me. For all the crime in America, Dr. Elders believes toy 
guns are the problem. This thoughtless comment from Dr. Elders 
trivialized the work of millions of Americans trying to confront the 
violence that keeps countless inner city families hostage in their own 
homes. It dishonored the pain of families who had members murdered by 
criminals. Her suggestion does not deserve even to be a footnote in the 
serious debate our society is having on how to stop our epidemic of 
violence.
  Without even pausing for a breath, though, Dr. Elders decided to 
speak up about the war on drugs. Her prescription: Unconditional 
surrender.
  According to Dr. Elders, same day, same speech:

       I do feel we would markedly reduce our crime rate if drugs 
     were legalized, but I do not know all the ramifications of 
     this. I do feel we need to do some studies. And in some of 
     the countries that have legalized drugs and made it legal, 
     they have certainly shown there has been a rate reduction in 
     their crime rate and there has been no increase in their drug 
     use rate.

  That is December 7, 1993.
  Mr. President, Bill Clinton started this administration by gutting 
funding and staffing for the drug czar's office. He skipped submitting 
a drug strategy last year. He decided to cut funds for drug 
interdiction in the fiscal year 1995 budget. According to the Clinton 
administration itself, nearly 80 million Americans have tried illegal 
drugs. After years of decline, 1993 saw teen drug use increase. More 
students are trying marijuana and LSD, and the belief that drugs are 
harmful is declining among our youth.
  Mr. President, countless law enforcement personnel, countless 
teachers, countless parents, countless religious leaders are spending 
countless hours working with their families, working with children, 
encouraging children to say no to drugs, trying to warn people that if 
they use drugs, it is hazardous to their health; that drugs can be 
deadly.
  This is basketball season. We have the NCAA tournaments going now. I 
remember a famous basketball star, Len Bias, from Maryland, who died of 
an overdose of drugs. And yet the Surgeon General of the United States, 
Dr. Elders, is saying maybe we should consider legalizing drugs. If Dr. 
Elders does not know that drugs can be harmful to your health, then we 
need a new Surgeon General.
  In January, Dr. Elders hit the headlines again. While fervently 
urging the use of condoms by teenagers, she decided being a general is 
not good enough; she wants to be a queen. In an interview with the New 
York Times, Dr. Elders told America:

       If I can be the condom queen and get every young person who 
     engages in sex to use a condom in the United States, I would 
     wear a crown on my head with a condom on it. I would.

  New York Times, January 4, 1994.
  Back when she was in Arkansas, she had a little condom tree on her 
desk.
  Mr. President, I find it astonishing again that the Surgeon General 
makes such a statement. She should know condoms are not foolproof, not 
totally safe--they do not even stop the HIV virus in many cases. And 
even when she was head of the Department of Health and Human Services 
in Arkansas, she distributed a lot of defective condoms and she did not 
notify individuals that they had received defective condoms so they 
continued to use them, risking disease, risking pregnancy, risking, 
unfortunately, AIDS, a very deadly disease.
  Mr. President, the list goes on. Just last month, Dr. Elders was at 
it again. Never one to let facts get in the way of a good quote, the 
Surgeon General told the National Family Planning and Reproductive 
Health Association:

       Honestly, our Medicaid system had to be developed by a 
     white male slave owner because our present system supports 
     healthy, uneducated people which can only be slaves. We pay 
     for prenatal care, we pay for delivery, we won't pay for 
     family planning. There's something wrong with our system.

  That was February 25, 1994. Of course, if Medicaid was the brainchild 
of a white male slave owner, he was none other than Democrat President 
Lyndon Baines Johnson.
  By the way, I might mention, President Johnson pushed through 
Congress several of the most sweeping civil rights bills in our 
Nation's history.
  When it comes to facts, Dr. Elders appears not to know that the 
Department she serves, Health and Human Services, administers a 
Medicaid program that requires States to cover family planning 
services. For the information of the Surgeon General, Mr. President, 
this is a mandatory requirement. No exceptions, no excuses.
  Further, under Medicaid, State family planning programs get a more 
generous share of Federal matching funds than any other Medicaid 
program. Ninety percent of the cost of family planning is borne by the 
Federal Government. Matching rates for all other programs vary between 
50 and 83 percent.
  Finally, more money was spent on family planning than other 
preventive services under Medicaid. In the latest year for which 
statistics are available, fiscal year 1991, the average payment for 
family planning services was $164 per beneficiary--more than the 
average payment for dental services, for visits to rural clinics, or 
for the early periodic screening, diagnosis and treatment program.
  Then, Mr. President, this week we have her ludicrous comments that 
were made in the ``Advocate''--it has the title on it, ``The Condom 
Queen, She Speaks Her Mind.'' Again, she advocates gay marriages and 
blasts the Boy Scouts.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to.
  Mr. GREGG. Because I think you have raised a very significant point 
as relates to the bill we are considering today, which is Goals 2000. 
As the Senator from Oklahoma appreciates, under Goals 2000, there will 
be created a national commission called NESIC, which will develop a set 
of standards as to what is a proper curriculum for school systems.
  It is alleged that that curriculum, as developed by this Federal 
group, will be voluntary. No States will have to comply with it. But as 
you look through the law, you determine fairly quickly that a lot of 
States are going to be put in a position where they comply or else they 
do not get funds.
  But if that board is to develop standards, who are they to look to 
for their standards? I presume it is going to come from the 
administration and the leaders of the administration as to what should 
be taught in our school systems.
  As the Senator has pointed out, Joycelyn Elders, the Surgeon General, 
in the article which he has referred to, has suggested--and I will 
quote from a statement that she made on March 23, post that article but 
confirms that article--in an exchange between Senator Brown and herself 
before the Judiciary Committee.
  If I may quote that statement to support this question, she has 
suggested that basically homosexuality and heterosexuality should be 
taught on a par and should both be taught as healthy and wonderful sex. 
I will quote the statement.
  This is Senator Brown:

       In the sexuality education, are the comments you made in 
     the Advocate ones that you think should be included in the 
     sexuality education?

  Surgeon General Elders:

       I'm sorry, Senator. What, what were they?

  Senator Brown:

       Well, the reference was, and you appreciate that magazines 
     or at least my impression is that magazines are not perfect. 
     They don't always get it exactly right. But one of the quotes 
     out of the magazine is that America needs to know that sex is 
     wonderful and normal and a healthy part of being, whether it 
     is homosexual or heterosexual.

  Surgeon General Elders:

       Yes, I made, that's correct. They did get it correct.

  If this is the position of the Surgeon General, it may fly as an 
appropriate position in some parts of this country, some areas of this 
country. But there are other parts of the country--I suspect my own 
State is one and the State of Oklahoma is one--where the concept of 
teaching heterosexuality and homosexuality as being healthy, wonderful, 
and normal and on par would be repugnant and receive a significant 
amount of resistance. Yet you have the Surgeon General of the United 
States representing that this is the manner in which sexual education 
should be structured.
  Under this bill, Goals 2000, you have a national board which is going 
to design a national curriculum which will be the certified national 
curriculum of the Nation, and one presumes that the Surgeon General of 
the United States will have a major say in that board, maybe even be a 
member of that board for all I know. The President may put her on the 
board or make her chairman of that board. Probably she will be chairman 
of the subcommittee of that board on what should be taught in the area 
of health and sex education in our school system.
  So it is very likely that the philosophy of this individual will 
become the national certified standard, and that the way this Goals 
2000 is structured, at some point in the future--and I do not think it 
is very far away, although those on the other side will argue it will 
never happen--I do not think it is too far away that that certified 
standard, as represented by this Surgeon General, will become the 
standard of the land and that elementary and secondary schools 
throughout the country, whether in Oklahoma, New Hampshire, or San 
Francisco, will be required to teach this as catechism of appropriate 
sexual activity.
  I think a lot of people will resist that and they will think it is 
unfair that the question of sexual activity should be defined by 
someone like Joycelyn Elders who I do not believe is in the mainstream 
on this issue and yet who speaks for this administration and, because 
of this bill, may become the arbiter of what is sexual education and 
proper sexual education in this country, which is, it is normal, 
healthy and wonderful to treat both homosexual and heterosexual 
activity as equal within our school systems for educational purposes.
  If people want to be homosexuals, that is their decision, but 
certainly I think there is a lot of resistance in this country to 
teaching it within the school systems, especially when you get into the 
lower school system, which she says sexual education--in an earlier 
statement--must start at the kindergarten level.
  I think it appropriate you raise this issue because really this is a 
very serious question of who is going to control the catechism, the 
dogma, the criteria for sexual education in our school systems. Because 
under this bill, we are possibly turning that over to a national board 
which will be dramatically influenced by Joycelyn Elders and taking it 
out of the hands of the families and the teachers and the principals 
who are on the front line of education and traditionally have handled 
this issue.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I very much appreciate my colleague's 
remarks. I concur with him 100 percent. Dr. Elders has long been an 
advocate for early sex and health education, and now we find that this 
is in her agenda, to teach our young people--these kinds of 
statements--``that sex is wonderful and a normal * * * and healthy part 
of our being, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual.'' About ``sex 
is good, that sex is wonderful.'' It is * * * a normal * * * and 
healthy part of our being, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual.''
  To think she wants to begin this national sex education for all kids 
beginning at kindergarten I think is frightening. I will tell you what 
bothers me as well is that she has made these remarks. Many of us 
warned this administration not to nominate her, warned this body not to 
confirm her because she had these positions. But she was confirmed.
  It is interesting, when she made the comment about legalizing drugs, 
President Clinton was quick to respond. He said, ``Oh, I don't agree 
with that.'' But evidently he did not reprimand her very much because 
shortly after that, 2, 3 weeks later, she spoke out again on the issue. 
She still thought we should study legalizing drugs--she did not say 
legalizing only marijuana, but talking about drugs--which means 
cocaine, crack, heroin, LSD, drugs that kill, drugs that maim, drugs 
that make addicts, drugs that produce the tragedy of crack babies.
  And again to think this is not somebody with a theory or somebody who 
is trying to get a Government grant for a study. This is the Surgeon 
General of the United States, who does not obviously realize that there 
is a real serious health problem with legalizing drugs.
  It is interesting that the President distanced himself from those 
remarks. The day they were made, he said no, we are not going to do 
that on my watch, we are not going to legalize drugs. When she made the 
comment 2 or 3 weeks later, there was no effort made--evidently, she 
was not called in for stating these things. And now she has made these 
statements that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle in the early ages 
and talking about gay marriages, gay adoption, bashing the Boy Scouts. 
Their policy of saying they do not want to have homosexuals as scout 
masters she thinks is wrong; she thinks that is unfair and should be 
repudiated. This President has not distanced himself from any of these 
remarks.
  So these remarks continue to go out, and we see these headlines, and 
I cannot help but think what does this do to undermine the families and 
the police and the teachers and counselors who are trying to tell kids 
to stay away from drugs? Or maybe they are trying to tell their kids, 
hey, sex can be dangerous. Sex can be dangerous. It can be deadly. You 
did not see that in Dr. Elders' remarks. Sex can be deadly. And I am 
just kind of concerned that this administration has not been very 
forthcoming.
  Mr. President, I believe the President of the United States should 
replace Dr. Elders. I think her nomination and her confirmation as well 
was a serious mistake.

                               Exhibit 1

                  [From the Advocate, March 22, 1994]

  The Condom Queen Reigns--Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders Speaks Out 
                   Where the President Fears to Tread

                            (By Chris Bull)

       In a memorable and often-quoted line uttered in 1989 while 
     she served as the director of the Arkansas Department of 
     Health under then-governor Bill Clinton. Joycelyn Elders, who 
     is now Clinton's U.S. surgeon general, compared driver's 
     education for young people to sex education in the schools. 
     ``We taught them what to do in the front seat of the car,'' 
     she said. ``Now, it's time to teach them what to do in the 
     backseat.''
       Elders made the remark as part of an aggressive campaign to 
     lower the rate of teenage pregnancy in the state, which at 
     the time had the second highest rate in the nation, after 
     Mississippi. But Elders says that the now-famous quote should 
     apply equally to gay youths who are at high risk for 
     infection with HIV. The federal government, she insists, has 
     a responsibility to teach young gay men ``what to do in the 
     backseat'' to protect themselves from HIV, especially in the 
     light of several recent studies indicating that a sizable 
     number of young gay men have not been reached by AIDS 
     education campaigns and are continuing to engage in 
     unprotected sex.
       ``If there are young gay men out there who are not hearing 
     the message, then we have to step in and figure out how to 
     get to them,'' Elders says. ``The federal government has a 
     responsibility to all of our citizens, not just the 
     heterosexual citizens. `This country has to get over the 
     judgmental way it makes decisions and make sure we are fair 
     to all our citizens.''
       Statements like these have earned Elders a reputation as 
     the most fearless and most outspoken member of the Clinton 
     administration; so much so, in fact, that she appears to be 
     on a collision course with her boss. Last December, for 
     instance, Elders precipitated a political firestorm by saying 
     that legalizing drugs would reduce crime and violence. 
     Clinton quickly distanced himself from his surgeon general by 
     insisting that drugs would ``not be legalized on my watch.''
       Elders is able to maintain this stance without jeopardizing 
     her relationship with Clinton--who is known for his political 
     caution--through a combination of personal popularity and 
     political savvy. ``Elders is widely perceived as sincere, 
     well-meaning, and tough,'' says Christopher II. Foreman Jr., 
     a research associate at the Brookings Institution, a 
     Washington, D.C.-based policy-analysis group. ``Those 
     qualities will keep her in good stead in a rime when so many 
     politicians are seen as weak and insincere.''
       Although she rarely addressed gay and lesbian issues during 
     her six-year stint as Arkansas's top health official, as U.S. 
     surgeon general Elders now appears ready to risk the 
     president's ire by speaking out on behalf of gay causes. For 
     this interview Elders insisted that she wanted to address 
     gay-related topics gingerly until she had thoroughly 
     familiarized herself with them, but then she proceeded to 
     unhesitatingly express her opinion on a wide range of gay-
     related causes. Elders endorsed gay and lesbian adoption, 
     advocated suicide-prevention efforts aimed at gay and lesbian 
     youths, termed the Boy Scouts of America's ban on gay scouts 
     and scout leaders ``unfair,'' denounced antigay campaigns by 
     conservative religious groups, and said that Americans ``need 
     to be more open about sex.''
       Indeed, Elders is seemingly willing to address topics that 
     have landed other Administration officials in hot water. Last 
     October, for instance, after receiving flak from conservative 
     groups, the White House's AIDS policy coordinator, Kristine 
     Gebbie, was forced to back off her statement that sex is ``an 
     essentially important and pleasurable thing'' that continues 
     to be ``repressed'' by the country's ``Victorian morality.'' 
     Before the outcry over her remarks occurred, Gebbie had said 
     she considered it part of her job to stand on the ``White 
     House lawn talking about sex with no lightning bolts falling 
     on my head.''
       Elders does not appear to fear lightning bolts. What 
     underlies antigay attitudes in this country, she says, is an 
     irrational ``fear of sexuality'' in general. ``Society wants 
     to keep all sexuality in the closet,'' she says. ``We have to 
     be more open about sex, and we need to speak out to tell 
     people that sex is good, sex is wonderful. It's a normal part 
     and healthy part of our being, whether it is homosexual or 
     heterosexual. There are certain times and places where sex is 
     inappropriate, but just because it is inappropriate at 
     certain times does not mean that it's bad. I think the 
     religious right at times thinks that the only reason for sex 
     is procreation. Well, I feel that God meant sex for more than 
     procreation. Sex is about pleasure as well as about 
     responsibility.''
       During a 1992 campaign stop, Clinton refused to criticize 
     the Boy Scouts ban on the grounds that as a private 
     organization it is entitled to set its own policies. But 
     Elders says she opposes the ban ``in principle'' because of 
     its negative effect on the mental health of gay youths, and 
     she has promised to oppose it publicly. If we have important 
     organizations that we are all supporting, I certainly think 
     that all our youth should be allowed to participate,'' she 
     says. ``Once again we are dealing with the ignorance of our 
     society about what gay people are like and the effect of 
     policies like this on them.''
       Elders says the fight for full equality for gays and 
     lesbians depends at least in part upon the ability of most 
     Americans to ``learn that gay people are not just out there 
     wanting to have sex with anybody who walks down the street 
     and that gay people have real loving, lasting relationships 
     and families.''
       As a result, Elders says gays and lesbians can play an 
     important societal role by adopting children as well as by 
     raising their own. ``I feel that good parents are good 
     parents--regardless of their sexual orientation.'' she say 
     ``It's clear that the sexual orientation of parents has 
     nothing to do with the sexual orientation or outlook of their 
     children. Many children in this society are born unwanted, 
     and I feel that if gay or lesbian couples feel that they want 
     children enough to adopt, well, then they are probably just 
     as capable of being good parents as heterosexual parents who 
     choose to adopt. Gays and lesbians are not going to choose to 
     adopt or have their own children unless they really want 
     children. They are making a conscious choice. We have too 
     many parents who did not choose nor did they want to be 
     parents.
       Despite what seem to be enlightened convictions, this is 
     the first time that Elders has been asked to address gay and 
     lesbian health issues in a comprehensive manner--a task she 
     says has been one of the most difficult challenges she has 
     faced since assuming her post last September. ``One of the 
     biggest problems in this job that I am facing is that I don't 
     know enough about gay and lesbian issues,'' she admits. ``I'm 
     trying to get educated as fast as I can. I don't want to do a 
     lot of speaking out until I am comfortable with the issue and 
     I can answer all the questions that are posed to me from both 
     sides.'''
       Even so, Elders is taking some tentative steps toward 
     addressing gay-related health issues. During a Jan. 18 
     meeting, for example, Elders surprised lesbian-health 
     advocates by suggesting that the Department of Health and 
     Human Services (HHS) fund the creation of brochures aimed at 
     educating health care workers about lesbian health concerns.
       ``I can see that there are many problems that lesbians face 
     that physicians have yet to address,'' Elders says, ``We have 
     to train our nation's physicians to ask the right questions 
     and to offer lesbians advice that is appropriate to them. 
     Many times doctors may be concerned that women are taking 
     proper contraception, but if some women are having sex only 
     with other women, that's not the right kind of concern to 
     have.''
       At other times, though, Elders has been on the defensive. 
     During a public appearance last December for World AIDS Day, 
     Elders was targeted by Luke Sissyfag, a 20-year-old AIDS 
     activist who loudly accused her and the president of dragging 
     their feet on issues revolving around AIDS. But Elders took 
     the protest in stride. ``I've met Luke on several occasions 
     now, and I respect what he's doing,'' she says, ``I think 
     that it's OK for him to feel like we're not doing enough. I 
     don't feel like we're doing enough. One of the wonderful 
     things about America is that Luke can go around and be 
     critical of me and of the president if he doesn't think we're 
     doing enough. There are many ways of skinning the cat.''
       Elders is facing a learning curve on gay-related issues in 
     part because she steered clear of them while in Arkansas. 
     Eric Camp, a spokesman for the Arkansas Gay and Lesbian Task 
     Force, a statewide political group based in Little Rock, says 
     that addressing homosexuality publicly in the state would 
     have amounted to political suicide. ``She was already seen as 
     an extremist in the state for talking about birth control and 
     abortion,'' he says. ``Her programs never would have gone 
     anywhere had gay and lesbian issues been included. But I 
     think that on the national level she will be far more 
     inclined to consider gays and lesbians part of her 
     consituency.''
       Elders says she did not consciously dodge the issue, 
     though. ``I did talk to gay groups in Arkansas, and when I 
     did it got a lot of press,'' she says. ``I've spoken out 
     before. It was not as well-organized a constituency there as 
     some other groups might have been, but that would not have 
     been a reason to avoid it.''
       In Arkansas, Elders focused primarily on what has been a 
     lifetime mission: reducing the rate of teenage pregnancies, 
     which she says have made a generation of young women into a 
     ``slave class'' by forcing them to raise children before they 
     are ready to do so, at the expense of their own educational 
     and employment opportunities. Among her initiatives was a 
     controversial plan to place medical clinics in each of the 
     state's 300 school districts that would dispense condoms, sex 
     education, and health care. So far, 24 districts have 
     installed clinics, and 28 more are on a waiting list for 
     state funds to establish them.
       Elders's emphasis on youth and sexuality as public health 
     concerns may lend itself easily to addressing AIDS and gay-
     related issues. Kerry Lobel, Lead organizer for the Arkansas 
     Women's Project, a Little Rock-based advocacy group, says 
     that when seeking support from Elders, gay and AIDS activists 
     would be well-advised to frame the issue in terms of youth, 
     prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, and reproductive 
     health. ``Dr. Elders will stick up for children and young 
     people no matter what.'' she says. ``If the issue can be 
     presented that way, she will listen. That's where her heart 
     is.''
       Elders, a pediatrician by training, indeed becomes most 
     passionate when the topic turns to gay and lesbian youth. 
     While the school-based clinics in Arkansas were designed to 
     focus primarily on the needs of heterosexual students, Elders 
     says they should eventually address the needs of young people 
     who are struggling to come to terms with their sexuality as 
     well. ``We can't just write off 10 percent of our student 
     population.'' Elders says. ``We should certainly work on gay 
     and lesbian health issues. We need to make sure our teachers 
     are educated about sexuality and that counselors know how to 
     address the issue in a sensitive manner.''
       Commenting on a hotly contested 1989 HHS report--later 
     suppressed by the Bush administration--that found that gay 
     and lesbian youths represent approximately 30 percent of 
     teenage suicides, Elders says that ``when we are talking 
     about young people taking their own lives, that's the worst 
     health threat we can possibly face. So for me it has to be an 
     issue. Again I have to admit stupidity on exactly how to 
     address the issue, but certainly we should make educators and 
     counselors aware of the issue and make sure they know how to 
     respond to the situation when it arises. I certainly see 
     addressing gay and lesbian youth suicide as part of my 
     mission. My job as surgeon general is to talk about all of 
     the health issues that have an impact on Americans.''
       Elders has been able to speak out forcefully on a variety 
     of topics in Arkansas and in Washington D.C., in part because 
     of her personal popularity with the public. The daughter of 
     sharecroppers who lived in rural Arkansas, the 60-year-old 
     Elders overcame poverty to serve in the U.S. Army as a first 
     lieutenant. She later attended the University of Arkansas 
     Medical School on the GI Bill.
       That modern Horatio Alger story has helped to disarm some 
     of her critics. During her contentious confirmation hearings 
     last July, for instance, Elders repeatedly invoked her 
     upbringing to explain her position on a number of issues. 
     Still, the Senate finally confirmed Elders in a less-than-
     overwhelming 65-34 votes. ``She's a very sympathetic figure, 
     and even her critics have to be careful not to appear to be 
     attacking a black woman,'' says Foreman.
       Elders also benefits from a close relationship with 
     Clinton, who stood behind her despite fierce attacks from 
     right-wing pressure groups and conservative members of 
     Congress. During the confirmation hearings the Traditional 
     Values Coalition, a conservative lobbying group, dubbed 
     Elders the nation's ``condom queen'' for her staunch support 
     of condom distribution in the schools and said she was 
     ``clearly the worst Clinton nominee yet.'' After her 
     confirmation Elders responded in an interview with The New 
     York Times by saying, ``If I could be the `condom queen' and 
     get every young person who is engaged in sex to use a condom 
     in the United States, I would wear a crown on my head with a 
     condom on it.''
       Conservative members of the Senate were most critical of a 
     1992 remark that Elders made attacking the Roman Catholic 
     Church. Elders said the church hierarchy's opposition to 
     abortion rights is more vehement than was its opposition to 
     the Holocaust and ``the 400 years in which black Americans 
     had their freedom aborted.'' Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), who 
     led the opposition to Elders's nomination, said the statement 
     ``exhibited strong anti-Catholic belief.''
       Clinton's support also helped Elders withstand attacks from 
     right-wing groups in Arkansas.
       After conservative opponents spread false rumors that the 
     clinics she had proposed for the state's schools would 
     perform abortions for students, Elders, a Methodist, called 
     them ``very religious non-Christians'' who ``love little 
     babies as long as they are in someone else's uterus.'' 
     Conservatives demanded an apology, and Elders complied in a 
     letter to the state legislature, but she continues to use the 
     phrase to describe her opponents anyway.
       By way of contrast, Clinton did not display the same 
     fortitude when another black female nominee, Lani Guinier, 
     came under attack for statements and beliefs that are less 
     incendiary than some of Elders's. In fact, longtime Arkansas 
     political observers say that Clinton and Elders have for 
     years played out a political cat-and-mouse game that benefits 
     both players.
       An incident at the 1987 press conference where Clinton 
     introduced Elders to the state illustrates the point. In 
     response to a question as to whether she planned to 
     distribute condoms in public schools, Elders said, ``Well, we 
     won't be putting them on their lunch trays, but yes.'' Press 
     reports at the time described Clinton as blushing from 
     embarrassment but nodding in agreement with Elders.
       ``Clinton relies on Dr. Elders to say the things he cannot 
     say for political reasons,'' says Lobel, who has observed the 
     complex political relationship between the two for years. 
     ``When he finally said that he was pro-choice, we all said, 
     `Well, of course he's pro-choice,' but we really only knew 
     that because she had been so outspoken and he would not have 
     let her do that unless he agreed with her.''
       That same dynamic was at work during the outcry over 
     Elders's December statement about legalizing drugs; the 
     situation escalated further when her 27-year-old son, Kevin, 
     was arrested in Little Rock on drug charges. Sen. Robert Dole 
     (R-Kan.) said Americans ``must be wondering if the surgeon 
     general is hazardous to our health,'' and Nickles has called 
     for her resignation.
       Elders said she had ``no second thoughts'' about the 
     remark, and Clinton said he remained ``four-square'' behind 
     her. ``When you have someone who is outspoken and energetic 
     like she is,'' he said, ``there are going to be times when 
     she'll be outspoken and energetic in a way that I don't 
     necessarily agree with.''
       Marj Plumb, health policy director for the National Gay and 
     Lesbian Task Force, a Washington, D.C.-based political group, 
     says she has seen that dynamic at work on gay-related topics 
     as well. During the meeting at which Elders suggested 
     developing lesbian-health brochures. Plumb recalls that she 
     turned to Patsy Fleming, special assistant to HHS secretary 
     Donna Shalala, who was sitting next to Plumb, and said, 
     ```Are you sure you want to take the heat for something like 
     this?' and then Patsy said, `Marj, this is Dr. Elders you are 
     talking about.' So even internally at HHS there is a general 
     understanding that she is going to articulate a vision that 
     is not necessarily politically safe for others to 
     articulate.''
       Elders's ability to speak out on national health issues is 
     also aided by the surgeon general's office, which has little 
     official authority but has come to serve as a bully pulpit 
     for the officeholder's political and medical agenda. The 
     office has just ten full-time employees and a $550,000 annual 
     budget. In contrast, the administration's AIDs policy office, 
     headed by Gebbie, has 55 employees and a $5-million annual 
     budget.
       Dr. C. Everett Koop, who served as President Reagan's 
     surgeon general from 1984 to 1988, paved the way for Elders 
     on AIDS-related issues. Though considered a staunch 
     conservative when he was nominated for the post, Koop 
     nevertheless bucked the Reagan administration by advocating 
     humane treatment of people with AIDS and supporting sexually 
     explicit educational campaigns to stem the spread of HIV.
       Elders says she intends to continue Koop's tradition. ``If 
     AIDS had started out as a disease of upper-middle-class white 
     babies, it would have gotten a lot more attention,'' she 
     says. ``Koop recognized this and did what a surgeon general 
     has to do. You have to stand up for what's right--based on 
     the medical and scientific data--regardless of what your 
     personal beliefs are.''
       Elders's outspokenness occasionally offends even her 
     allies. In 1991, for instance, Elders said that one of the 
     benefits of legal abortion is the reduction of severe birth 
     defects, citing Down's syndrome as an example. A number of 
     parents of children with Down's syndrome protested, saying 
     that Elders was implying that handicapped babies should not 
     be allowed to be born. Elders responded that she had a nephew 
     with the syndrome whom she loved and that she cared for many 
     Down's patients in her pediatric practice.
       But the comment raises disturbing questions for gays and 
     lesbians as well. With increasing evidence of a genetic basis 
     for homosexuality, some scientists and medical ethicists have 
     raised the possibility that antigay parents, upon learning 
     that their fetus carries a gene for homosexuality, could opt 
     for an abortion rather than give birth to a child that might 
     grow up to be gay.
       Elders refuses to get drawn into that debate though. ``I 
     think that's a decision only parents can make,'' she says. 
     ``If a woman had an abortion because they located the gay 
     gene, it would not upset me any more than choosing an 
     abortion on any other grounds. It's not a position for the 
     government to take. The choice has to be left up to the 
     individual. No one can try to make such a choice for a 
     women.''
       That nonjudgmental view is consistent with Elders's 
     approach to gay rights in general. Commenting on antigay 
     campaigns undertaken by conservative religious groups, Elders 
     says that if ``you are truly right within your heart and with 
     Christianity, you know in advance that you do not know enough 
     about other people's lives to judge them. You do not love 
     enough to make decisions about how other people should live 
     their lives. How can I be judgmental of you when in the sight 
     of God you may think you are better than me? You have to 
     wonder how much love that people who hate gay people have in 
     their hearts.''
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                                        Archdiocese of Washington,


                                     Office of the Archbishop,

                                   Washington, DC, March 21, 1994.
     President of the United States,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President, I must take strong exception to the 
     recent remarks of the Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, 
     advocating homosexual behavior and expressing support for 
     adoption by so-called homosexual couples. Furthermore, I 
     deeply regret her apparent intolerance of people whose 
     religious faith and moral values collide with her own ill-
     considered views.
       The Surgeon General irresponsibly accuses religious leaders 
     of holding that human sexuality is solely for procreation. 
     Her words are a misleading caricature. In our Catholic 
     tradition the two fundamental purposes of human sexuality--
     the expression of the committed love of husband and wife and 
     openness to new human life--are linked together. Human 
     sexuality is a great gift from God which enables couples to 
     express their love for one another and in the context of that 
     love to create and care for a family. Such a view is 
     supported both by faith and reason; it does not involve the 
     suppression of human sexuality but rather its right use for 
     the good of individuals and society.
       The strength of our country, Mr. President, has always been 
     in the vitality of our families, not in the might of our 
     weapons. By contrast, the breakdown of the family has been 
     the root of so many of the social problems which, as a 
     nation, we now struggle to overcome. The comments of Surgeon 
     General Elders are destructive of a true understanding of 
     family life. It is one thing to defend the human rights of 
     homosexual men and women; it is quite another to encourage, 
     as she does, a life-style which puts so-called homosexual 
     unions on a par with marriage and family and condones 
     homosexual behavior among young people.
       Mr. President, I strongly urge you to take responsibility 
     for the Surgeon General's harmful and offensive remarks and 
     publicly to disavow them. Respectfully I ask that you urge 
     Dr. Elders to be more tolerant of religious teachings with 
     respect to human sexuality. Whether she knows it or not, the 
     religious teachings, leaders and institutions which her 
     remarks attack are vitally important to solving many of our 
     nations social ills.
           Sincerely in Christ,
                                               James Card. Hickey,
     Archbishop of Washington.

                          ____________________