[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 103 (Monday, August 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: August 1, 1994]
HAITI
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I intend to offer an amendment which deals
with a subject which is current in the news today and which is of
considerable concern to myself, and has been. In fact, I have offered
amendments on this matter in the past.
That deals with the recent decision by this administration to go to
the United Nations and seek U.N. authorization to invade Haiti. I
believe this decision by the administration is inconsistent, first,
with the sense-of-the-Senate resolution which was passed by the Senate
just recently, on June 29. And it is also inconsistent, in my opinion,
with the proper role of the Congress in its relationship to the
executive branch under our constitutional structure.
The fact is that this administration has decided to use force against
the nation of Haiti. It has gone so far in its decision to assert the
use of force as to go to the U. N. Security Council and ask for a
resolution. And the terms of that resolution include the language ``To
use all necessary means to facilitate the departure from Haiti of the
military leadership consistent with the Governors Island agreement.''
``All necessary means'' means military action. Now, under the terms
of our Constitution, the right to declare war is reserved to the
Congress of the United States. That is article I of the Constitution.
Of course, we have the War Powers Act which has given the President,
over the years, and has been interpreted as giving the President, over
the years, not a leeway in using force. By even the greatest stretch of
imagination this is applicable to the War Powers Act and not set aside
the fact that this Congress is being ignored and the people of this
country are being ignored by this administration as it pursues the
policy of war relative to Haiti.
One must ask when is this administration going to explain to the
American people by bringing to this Congress its reasons for pursuing
this sort of military force against another government and against
another country? There has to be a set of standards met before we
pursue military action and put at risk American lives, and those
standards include, in my opinion, three elements.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield just for a matter of information
and answer a question?
Mr. GREGG. Without yielding the floor, I would be willing to take a
question.
Mr. KENNEDY. In terms of trying to keep the membership informed--and
obviously this Senator knows the Senator is entitled to speak. I am
just trying to, with my colleague, understand what the time issue is
which the Senator is thinking about, just so we are able to indicate to
Members.
Mr. GREGG. My intention is to speak on this for approximately 15 more
minutes. Then I will be offering an amendment on behalf of myself and
Senator Dole. It is also my understanding that Senator Dole wishes to
speak on this, and that there are two other Members on our side who
advised me of their interest in speaking on this. So I would presume
that this matter would be debated for an hour to hour and a half.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is helpful. I think we are going to debate these
measures. Since we are not going to be on, as I understand it, the
amendments on education, I imagine there will be Members on our side as
well as the other side that may want to address this, if that is the
intention of the Senator.
I certainly appreciate the response of the Senator. As he knows, we
have been attempting to move this process on education forward. We have
been trying to respond to a number of the inquiries that have come from
our membership as to what the order of debate and discussion will be.
We have attempted to try to keep them informed of that so that we could
at least have some orderly process.
I respect the Senator's position. I think the Members will take note
of that.
Mr. GREGG. If the chairman is willing to agree to a time agreement, I
would be willing to do that assuming that a point of order against my
amendment would not be made.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is the amendment you are talking about--
Mr. GREGG. It would be a sense-of-the-Senate amendment on Haiti.
Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the willingness to do it. It seems to me
that I would want to confer with the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee and majority leader on that. But I am grateful to the Senator
for his willingness, and I hope the majority leader will give him a
response on that in a short period of time.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. GREGG. I thank the chairman of the committee.
To return to this discussion which I believe is critical, I believe
this discussion must be had because of the actions taken by the
administration over the weekend in the Security Council. You cannot
have the United States agreeing with the U. N. Security Council on
sponsoring an amendment of the U. N. Security Council which essentially
calls for war without having the Congress of the United States alter
the process and the people of the United States involved in the
process.
The great irony here is that rather than come to the American people
and explain why we need to take an act of war against Haiti, rather
than come to the United States Congress which, under the Constitution,
has the obligation to make the decision to begin with and explain why
we should undertake an act of war against Haiti, the administration has
gone to the United Nations and suggested why it wants to pursue an act
of war against Haiti.
I believe very strongly that the first obligation of a President is
to obtain the authority to pursue the use of force, and when American
lives are going to be put at risk the authority to put those lives at
right risk to receive that authority from the Congress of the United
States and from the American people; and that therefore this
administration has an obligation to come forward and explain why it is
that it feels that American lives should be put at risk, and that we
should be invading another nation in this hemisphere.
It has not done that. It has not complied with the sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that was passed here on June 29 which called on the
administration to accomplish that. That Senate resolution specifically
asked that this administration come forward and give this Congress a
report as to its reasons for feeling that military force is appropriate
relative to our relationships with Haiti. And no such report, no such
presentation has been made. In fact, this administration has not even
made the outreach effort to the American people either through
communications through this body or through a general communication to
explain effectively what is at risk here that requires putting at risk
American lives.
This is, in my opinion, as I mentioned earlier in my colloquy with
the Senator from Massachusetts, a three-step test which must be met. I
have discussed this before when I offered my resolution earlier this
year on June 29. Before our Nation should precipitate the use of
military force the first element of that is to determine what type of
conflict is involved. Is the conflict resolvable by force or is it a
conflict that has an ethnic and religious matrix that is so deep and so
complicated that military force is probably not going to have a
dramatic impact on adjusting the activities of the parties involved?
Is it resolvable by military force? That is the first test. That
needs to be explained to the American people. Arguably I suspect you
could say that the Haitian situation is resolvable by military force.
Yes. That test can probably be met because clearly American military
force, American lives put at risk, could assert our power over that
nation in a fairly quick manner. But the second test and the third test
cannot be met on the issue of Haiti and have not been explained.
The second test is this: What is the national interest that is so
significant that we are willing to put at risk American lives? What is
the national interest?
Well, in Haiti we have only heard three representations of national
interest being made. The first is that there was an outflow of refugees
of such enormity that we needed to take action as a nation to stop the
outflow of refugees. The second was that Haiti was a transit point for
drugs. The third was that Haiti had a government that was governed by
thugs who have usurped the democratically elected government.
Let us go down those three points in order because this
administration does not seem to be willing to explain them. Let us at
least discuss them.
First, on the issue of refugees, yes, there was an outflow of
refugees. But why did that occur? It occurred because of American
policy. It was a self-inflicted event. The administration changed our
policy on refugees relative to Haiti about 4 weeks ago, and they said,
``All right. We will let people from Haiti come to the United States
and find political asylum here in a much broader context than we have
been willing to do in the past.'' As a result, that word got out in
Haiti, and thousands of people attempted to leave the island.
The administration quickly saw the error of its ways, and said,
``Well, we made a mistake in making that representation. We will not
accept refugees from Haiti.'' As a result, that word got back out, and
now we see that the refugee situation, the departure of citizens from
Haiti, has dropped off dramatically.
So the outflow of refugees was not an event which required military
force to correct. It was a political event which was self-inflicted,
which required the reinstatement of an intelligent political philosophy
or position and we have corrected it as a result of that.
In any event, it would be very hard to justify the use of American
military force to stifle the illegal immigration problem from Haiti in
the context of the Western Hemisphere, because the Haitian illegal
immigrant problem to the United States is basically insignificant
compared to the illegal immigration problem we have in some of our
other sister States in this hemisphere. The number of illegal
immigrants coming out of Haiti this year is less than 20,000. The
number coming out of Mexico this year, to date, is somewhere close to
750,000. So if we are going to be invading Haiti for the purposes of
stopping illegal immigrants, are we also going to invade other sister
states in the hemisphere who create a much more significant problem for
us? I do not think so. I do not think we can rationalize the policy on
that basis. Maybe that is why the administration has not come forward
and made an aggressive attempt to rationalize its policy.
Is it because Haiti is a drug transshipping location that we are
going to invade Haiti? Well, I hardly believe that. To the extent there
is transshipping of drugs out of Haiti, it is significantly less than
many of its sister islands in the Caribbean, by our own documentation
of our own DEA people. I cannot believe that any drug trafficker in his
right mind is going to be using Haiti in the near future as a place to
transship a large amount of drugs when we have most of our Navy sitting
off of its coast, along with our Air Force monitoring all of the
activities in and out of the island. So it is fairly absurd to claim
that drugs being transshipped would be one of the reasons. But that has
been represented by the administration as one of the causes.
The third cause of national interest is the issue of the fact that a
group of thugs have taken over the country, and nobody denies that.
These people running that nation are thugs and they are criminals. They
took it over from a democratically elected government, and that is
unfortunate. But the questions become: Is it the cause of America? And
is it in our national interest? Is it our purpose to put American lives
at risk to put back in power an elected President named Aristide, whose
term is only going to be another year or so? One has to seriously
question that, because although there are thugs presently running
Haiti, Mr. Aristide is not what you would call a very pure individual.
He is a gentleman who has stated, for example, that he openly endorses
and finds beautiful--to use his own terminology--the practice of
necklacing, which is when you put a tire around a person's neck and
fill it with gasoline and then light it.
I do not happen to feel--and I suspect many agree with me--that
putting American lives at risk to reinstate a gentleman who subscribes
to that philosophy of justice is appropriate to American policy, even
though he may have been democratically elected at one time. It would be
very hard, therefore, to explain to the American soldier, who finds
himself or herself in the street of Port-au-Prince, being shot at,
whose life is being put at risk, why he or she is there as a matter of
national policy. In fact, I do not believe we can explain it. This
administration clearly has not explained it. If it had, it would have
sent an explanation to this Congress pursuant to the resolution which
we asked for, and it would have come to the American people and
explained it there also.
So we see that the second test of when you use American military
might, American military force, has not been met by this
administration. Maybe they can come forward with a national purpose
that is justifiable, which will allow those of us who serve in public
life to be able to go to the mother, or father, or the wife, or the
sister, or brother, or the child of an American service person who
loses his or her life in Haiti and say: This is why your husband, or
your wife, or your daughter, or your son, gave his or her life. And
this was an American purpose.
But as of today, no such purpose has been defined. That test has not
been met. And any administration, in good conscience, must meet that
test to the American people and to the U.S. Congress before it pursues
the use of American force. We do not meet it to the United Nations. We
are not a Government of the Unitec Nations, by the United Nations and
for the United Nations. As important as the United Nations may be, we
are a Government of the people, by the people, and for the people; and
this institution represents the elected representatives of the people.
And under article I, we have an obligation and a legal right to
participate in a decision of such magnitude.
So we come to the third test, and the third test is--if you can meet
the first 2, the first being is there a resolvable event by an military
force, and second, is it a national security interest, a national
interest--the third is, when you get in, how do you get out? You have
to be willing to explain that to the American people. Well, nobody has
explained that yet to the American people. In fact, the last time we
went into Haiti for the purposes of settling the situation down in
1914, I believe it was--because we feared there might be a German
incursion in Haiti--the last time we went in for a period of what we
thought was going to be 6 months to a year, we ended up being there 19
years. I believe it was from 1915 to 1934: For 19 years we occupied
that nation.
Is there an explanation as to when we are going to get out if we go
in this time? No. In fact, the U.N. resolution puts some timeframes in
here, but they are timeframes in which there is no assertion as to how
they are going to be met. If we are going to be in the business of
nation-building, or policing Haiti after we have invaded it, it is
fairly obvious that we are going to be there for a long time. Will we
be involved in a guerrilla warfare? Many say yes. Will we be involved
in a civil war? Many say yes. Will American troops become the target
for attacks by disgruntled and alienated political organizations within
Haiti, who do not wish to see us there? I would presume so.
Much as we found ourselves under attack when we went to Lebanon, much
as we found ourselves under attack when we went on a peaceful purpose
to Somalia, when you insert yourself into a violent regime and in a
violent situation, you have to presume that you are going to take
significant casualties. Certainly, over a long period of time, and we
would have to be there probably for a long period of time. The point is
that there is no explanation of how long we are going to be there or
how we are going to get out of there. So, from my standpoint, I do not
think the third test has been met, which is the test of a definition of
once you get in, how do you get out?
When this matter was taken up at the United Nations, it was voted in
the Security Council, and I believe 12 nations voted for it and 2
abstained. It is important to note that one of the nations that
abstained is the voting member from the Western Hemisphere was Brazil.
I think it is equally important to note that some of our sister nations
expressed extreme concern and outright opposition to the concept. But,
unfortunately, they did not happen to be on the Security Council so
they did not get a vote. Mexico, for example, stated that it rejects
the use of force except in the case of a threat to peace and its
violation or acts of aggression. They added that Haiti did not fall
into that criteria.
Uruguay also said it would not support any military intervention.
China, which is obviously a nation of considerable import
internationally, although not having any significant influence in this
hemisphere on an issue such as this, but a member of the United
Nations, also expressed this as representing a dangerous precedent.
(Mr. DORGAN assumed the chair.)
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think most important we should be looking
at our Western Hemisphere neighbors for their reaction to the use of
American force to invade Haiti.
Generation after generation of citizens, raised in Central America
especially, have been taught, because it has been their actual history,
that the United States is an aggressor nation, that every so often we
decide to take over and invade the various nations in that part of the
hemisphere. We do and we have, and sometimes we have had to do so for
national security interests, Panama and Grenada being examples. In
Grenada we had a large number of American citizens' lives at risk. And
Panama was probably the most critical from the standpoint of national
security interests, because it is a nation in the Western Hemisphere,
for us because of the Canal Zone.
So we have over the years used American force in Honduras. We have
used it in Guatemala. We have used it in Mexico. In fact, if you go to
Mexico, in Mexico City the shrine you will be most probably often
attracted to as their historic site is their fortress from which
students leapt to their death while defending the city from American
forces.
So there is a history here which goes back over generations, and I do
believe we have to be sensitive to that. When we use American force, in
some instances we are simply going to have to use it. That is a fact of
life. But when we use American force, we have to be able to explain it.
We have to be able to explain it not only to our people and to this
Congress, but we have to be able to explain it to our neighbors,
especially our Central American neighbors when we intend to use it in
that region, and we have not explained it yet. In fact, we hear from
innumerable sources in the Caribbean and in Central America that they
have deep reservations about the use of American force here. Even Mr.
Aristide, the President, for whom this administration claims to be
carrying the flag, has said that he would not wish to be put back in
position of power through the use of American force.
So, as a practical matter, that would be a serious mistake from a
standpoint of dealing with our neighbors in Central America.
The resolution which I intend to offer here reads: ``It is the sense
of the Senate that the United Nations Security Council resolution 940
of July 31, 1994, does not constitute authorization''--
``does not constitute authorization,'' and those are the operative
words--``for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces under article I of the
Constitution of the United States or Public Law 93-148,'' which is the
War Powers Act.
So what this resolution says, and it is a sense of the Senate and,
therefore, is not binding law, but I think since the administration
deemed our prior sense of the Senate on the issue of Haiti, which was
voted out here, I believe, 98 to 0, which said the administration
should come here and explain what the purposes are before it proceeds
to invade, since it deemed that sense of the Senate as being
unnecessary to comply with--I am not sure; I guess I am being a bit
optimistic to presume they are going to take this any more seriously--I
think it is important for us as a Senate to go on record saying, ``Hey,
listen, folks, you cannot, under the terms of the Constitution and the
War Powers Act, authorize the use of military force by going to the
United Nations''. The United Nations is not the elected authority of
our country. Yes, the President is elected. But under the terms of the
Constitution the power to declare war is reserved here under article I.
And in order to obtain proper authority to use American military force
in a premeditated way, which this clearly is, you need to come to the
power of the people. You need to obtain the authority of the people,
and you do not obtain the authority of the people of the United States
by getting a resolution in the Security Council of the United Nations.
What you get in a resolution of the Security Council of the United
Nations is the authority of the United Nations, and as far as I know,
there is no one in the United Nations, outside of our own delegation,
who has the right to vote for the President of the United States or has
the right to vote to have a Representative here in the U.S. Congress.
There is no one in the United Nations who is going to have a son or a
daughter who is an American service person who is putting his or her
life at risk if we invade Haiti.
So it is not the United Nations which is the proper repository of
authority for the President of the United States. It is the Congress of
the United States which is the repository of authority for the use of
military force under our constitutional structure.
So what this sense of the Senate says is what is obvious, I hope, but
which has obviously been overlooked, obvious as it may be, by this
administration, and that is that the authority to declare war does not
reside with the United Nations, that the authority to deploy U.S. Armed
Forces resides with the Congress of the United States and the President
but most importantly with the people of this country as a democracy.
So, this resolution is an attempt to make it clear that that is the
case. Why is that necessary? Well, it is necessary, obviously, because
of the actions the administration has taken in going to the United
Nations before coming to us. In fact, it is openly flaunting the fact
it does not intend to come to the Congress.
I find it a bit difficult to accept that the administration would
say, well, even though we have a sense of the Senate that says you
should come here and discuss this with us or at least present it to us;
even though you have, I think, 100 people in the House of
Representatives who signed a letter saying that before any invasion
occurs it should come for a specific vote; even though we have the
precedents of the gulf war incident where the President went to the
United Nations but also came to the Congress for authorization, this
administration is saying the heck with it, the heck with the elected
body of the people. In fact, it is saying the heck with the people of
the United States because we are not going to even explain to them what
we are doing or why we are doing it. We are not going to give any
reason. We are just going to go ahead and do it. The only people we are
going to explain this to is a group of people down at the United
Nations.
I do not wish to be perceived as bashing the United Nations here,
because I am not trying to. I think the United Nations plays a very
significant and important role in the course of world events, and that
role becomes more significant and will become more significant as we
move into the post-cold-war period.
But the fact is that that does not mean that the role of the United
Nations can be allowed to usurp, to exceed, or to in any way replace
the role of the Congress of the United States and the role of the
people of the United States in relationship to the Presidency and the
President's authority to declare war. And that is essentially what this
administration appears to be pursuing, a course of action where they
are essentially using the United Nations rather than using the United
Nations in conjunction with the Congress or after they received the
approval of Congress or even go to the United Nations and come to the
Congress, for that matter, as happened in the gulf war situation in
order to obtain authority to use force. This administration has decided
to pursue a course where there is, and appears there is, only one
counsel that it is seeking, and that counsel is the counsel of the
United Nations, not the counsel of the Congress and not the counsel of
the people.
This was, I think, summed up fairly effectively this weekend when the
White House Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, stated on CNN when asked about
invasion: ``I think it is sufficient to say soon, and they better get
that signal soon.''
Well, I presume if the chief of staff for the President is saying an
invasion is going to occur soon, it is going to occur soon.
But has there been any representation to this body that that is
appropriate action? Has there been any attempt to come forward and meet
the criteria of the sense-of-the-Congress resolution that was passed 98
to 0 that asked for approval? No, it did not even ask for approval. All
it asked was that the President come to this Congress, come to the
Senate, and report the reasons for undertaking the use of military
force, and assess what the objectives are, and assess how it intends to
get out once we get in. It was not really even a very high bar over
which we asked the President to participate in the process. It was just
almost an entry-level request.
Yet, we see that the administration was not even willing to meet that
request. Instead, the administration went to the U. N. Security Council
and opted to try to obtain authority there to pursue military action.
It seems rather incongruous that it would be willing to explain to
the U. N. Security Council why an act of war was necessary, but that
the administration would not be willing to explain to the Senate of the
United States why an act of war is appropriate. And I think the reason
is that they cannot make the case to the American people.
You know, the United Nations really does not have that much at risk
here. The Americans lives that are at risk are not being voted on at
the United Nations. When we, as representatives of our different
States, are asked to cast a vote for war or for the use of American
force, there is no more serious vote that we are asked to take, because
most of us will know personally, in fact, I suspect all of us will know
personally, someone from their State, or maybe many, whose lives will
be put at risk.
We will have to go back to our friends and our neighbors, and people
who put their trust in us to represent them here, and be able to say to
them, ``This is why I thought it was so important that your son''--who
maybe I went to school with, or maybe my son or daughter knows, or
maybe I just have met as a member of some group that I participated
in--``that your son's or daughter's life should be put at risk.''
That is an exceptional charge which we put before us. Thus, when we
are asked to vote on an issue as significant as war or the use of
American force, maybe we put a little higher standard on it than
happened at the United Nations. I suspect we look at it with a little
different perspective. Yes, you might call it myopic, but I think it is
a myopia which is appropriate to our role. It is a myopia which says:
what is the national interest? What is America's interest? What is
worth putting an American's life at risk?''
And I suspect the reason this administration is not willing to come
to the floor of this Senate with a proposal, an explanation, a request
for the use of American force that is a formal structure, is that they
cannot meet that test. They cannot legitimately explain the national
interests that lead to an invasion in Haiti. They cannot explain to the
American people, and they cannot explain to this Congress in a
pervasive way, what it is about the situation in Haiti that makes it so
unique and makes it so extraordinary that it requires an invasion
through the use of American troops. They can maybe give some reasons,
but they cannot defend those reasons in a manner that would be
persuasive.
However, they do feel they can explain that to the United Nation. I
guess they were, obviously, fairly successful, because they got a 12 to
0 vote.
I would note that in explaining it to the United Nations, members of
the Senate staff here asked for a briefing, asked to be provided with
copies of what they were shopping around the U.N. Security Council that
would generate a call for an invasion, and that it was not made
available. In fact, we were refused copies of that information.
So here we have the administration going to the U.N. to get a
declaration of war, which has got nothing to do with our Constitution--
again, I see nowhere in our Constitution, I do not see it in article 1
anywhere where the United Nations is mentioned as a war-declaring
authority of this Nation--going to the United Nations to get the
declaration of invasion, with a presentation which it is not even
willing to share with the representatives of the Senate, who, legally--
not in theory, but who, legally--have the right to participate in the
process of the declaration of war.
Now I suppose we are going to hear some artful language about,
``Well, this isn't really a war. This is not a declaration of war, and
therefore it has happened.''
I must say that that, in this instance, would be a great stretch of
one's imagination. Because this is not a reaction to an emergency; this
is not a situation where we suddenly learn that there was a problem
there that had to be corrected quickly. There is no threat to American
citizens. Americans citizens who are there are choosing to stay there.
And we have heard of no instances of a threat to their lives in an
orchestrated manner. There is no national interest of significance or
immediate risk, such as a canal.
Rather, what we have here is a premeditated, orchestrated exercise by
this administration down the road toward using military force. They
have tried to basically create a situation which would generate the
emergency through the refugee policies which were a disaster, a self-
inflicted event. And they were embarrassed because it was so obviously
self-inflicted that it was rejected as not being an emergency at all,
but something that had been basically created by the ineptness of the
administration in dealing with the situation.
So there is no other context than to describe this as a premeditated,
conscious decision to use American military force to enter another
country and replace the government of that country. If that is not an
act of war, I do not know what an act of war is. I think it would be
hard to find a definition of an act of war that did not include the
activities that are being pursued by this administration.
So there can be no concept that this is a situation that is created
with some immediacy and which requires military action by the President
which is legitimate. In many instances the President has a right to use
force in an immediate situation where there are threats to American
lives or American national interest. But that is not the case here at
all. This is a longstanding, long-simmering event where there has been
a progression of events, a progression that is so consciously done that
there is actually a decision to go to the U. N. Security Council and
ask for the authority to pursue the right of invasion, yet there is no
decision to come to the Congress and seek the authority to pursue the
right of invasion. Of course, we are the proper agency for that.
So, again, I do intend to offer this amendment.
Amendment No. 2431
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning authorization
for deployment of U.S. Armed Forces)
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration. The amendment simply reaffirms what I
think must be obvious to the Members of the Senate.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself and
Mr. Dole, proposes an amendment numbered 2431.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the inquiry.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, I understand----
Mr. GREGG. Regular order, Mr. President. I do not believe there has
been a unanimous-consent request. To reserve the right to object----
Mr. JEFFORDS. The request is to consider the amendment considered as
read. I do not want to waive any of my rights as to a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The right of the Senator from Vermont is
protected. The Senator from Vermont reserves the right to object to the
unanimous-consent request that the amendment be considered as read.
Mr. GREGG. I withdraw my request. Have the clerk continue to read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk continued to read as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
It is the sense of the Senate that United Nations Security
Council Resolution 940 of July 31, 1994 does not constitute
authorization for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces under
Article I of the Constitution of the United States or
pursuant to Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Act of 1973).
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes Senator Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry; is this
amendment one of the amendments that was listed on the agreement of
last week?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire, under a
previous unanimous-consent agreement, is authorized to introduce a
number of relevant amendments.
Mr. KENNEDY. The parliamentary inquiry is, is this considered to be a
relevant amendment that conforms with the agreement of last week?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold while the Chair
reviews the amendment?
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In response to the inquiry of the Senator from
Massachusetts, it is the opinion of the Chair that this amendment would
not be relevant to the underlying bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I make a point of order on that issue.
Mr. President, I will withhold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kansas,
the Senate Republican leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have worked out a process here
because there is a question of relevancy. You could get a vote by
appealing the ruling of the Chair.
We have discussed this with the managers of the bill and also with
the principal sponsor, Senator Gregg. As far as this Senator is
concerned, what we want to do today is just to indicate--to serve
notice on the administration they should come to Congress. It is
probably an amendment that would be adopted, I think. I think everybody
would vote for it because it is pretty clear cut and does not in any
way criticize the administration.
But I would just say, before invading Haiti, the United States has
checked in with the U.N. Security Council but I would hope they would
also check in with Congress. They have the support of Nigeria,
Djibouti, Britain, France, Russia, Argentina, the Czech Republic, New
Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, and Spain. But they do not have the support of
the American people. International support is fine, but it is no
substitute for the support of Congress and the American people.
I do not know what is going on with this administration. They sought
and received United Nations authorization to invade Haiti. They fought
and opposed every effort for congressional authorization. The outlines
of a new ``Clinton doctrine'' are apparent: Seek the United Nations
approval and ignore Congress and the American people.
The United Nations approved a resolution yesterday authorizing the
use of all necessary means to oust the Haitian military leadership and
restore President Aristide. Some of us have stated our opposition to
using American forces for that purpose. Our views are ignored by the
administration. The administration has even opposed a factfinding
commission--apparently because they have all the facts they need to
risk American lives.
Mr. President, there is no emergency in Haiti requiring the dispatch
of American troops. It is not Grenada or Panama where a quick response
was needed. This is more like Operation Desert Shield--with a
deliberate buildup of forces leading to war if one side does not back
down.
In 1990, President Bush took a risk. He rolled the dice, came to
Congress, and asked us for authorization for United States military
action in the Persian Gulf. He could have lost the vote, and faced a
very difficult decision. But President Bush gained the support of the
American people--through the support of Congress. President Bush's
hands were not tied by Congress--his hand was strengthened with
bipartisan congressional support.
It is not too late for this administration to reconsider its ill-
fated policy toward Haiti. Instead of creating conditions which force
Haitians to flee, we could look honestly at Haiti's tragedy. I remain
ready to work with this administration of a bipartisan Haiti policy--if
they desire.
I commend the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, on his
amendment. The amendment simply points out the obvious--U.N.
authorization is not congressional authorization. Congress has a role
to play, and we have not done so.
Let us not set a dangerous precedent and abdicate our war powers to
the United Nations. Let us not throw out the Monroe Doctrine, in favor
of a new U.N. doctrine. Let us pass the Gregg-Dole amendment, and let
us debate whether invading Haiti is in the American national interest.
Mr. President, having said that, I think it is agreeable to the
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire that we withdraw the amendment
from this bill, and it probably will be reoffered tomorrow when we
reach VA-HUD legislation because there was a unanimous-consent
agreement and it does bring into question the matter of relevancy, as
pointed out by the chairman of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Republican leader. I myself
think we will have a unanimous vote on the resolution, but I appreciate
the consideration of the Republican leader, as well as Senator Gregg,
and that is to offer this at another more appropriate time. I thank
them for their consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. First, I thank the Republican leader for his statement in
support of this amendment and his plans to be the primary sponsor,
along with myself, of the amendment, and also for his suggestion that
we proceed to this amendment tomorrow when we are doing the VA-HUD
proposal, which I intend to do, to offer it then.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 2431) was withdrawn.
amendment no. 2432
(Purpose: To eliminate new programs)
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have an amendment which I send to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending
amendment is set aside, and the clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself,
Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Wallop, proposes an
amendment numbered 2432.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 474, strike lines 8 and 9, and insert the
following:
``(f) Federal Evaluations.--For the purpose of carrying
On page 474, strike lines 14 through 18.
On page 574, beginning with line 15, strike all through
page 588, line 14.
On page 635, lines 14 and 15, strike ``AND
DEMONSTRATIONS''.
On page 641, beginning with line 11, strike all through
page 643, line 12.
On page 655, lines 20 and 21, strike ``, of which 10
percent of such 5 percent shall be available to carry out
section 2114''.
On page 663, beginning with line 23, strike all through
page 672, line 17.
On page 698, beginning with line 19, strike all through
page 704, line 15.
On page 704, line 16, strike ``4'' and insert ``3''.
On page 736, beginning with line 13, strike all through
page 738, line 10.
On page 738, beginning with line 16, strike all through
page 788, line 6.
On page 788, line 7, strike ``B'' and insert ``A''.
On page 807, line 15, strike ``C'' and insert ``B''.
On page 815, beginning with line 1, strike all through page
832, line 9.
On page 843, lines 20 and 21, strike ``From amounts
reserved under section 4112(d) for each fiscal year, the''
and insert ``The''.
On page 846, strike lines 1 through 4.
On page 936, strike lines 1 through 21.
On page 937, strike lines 1 and 2, and insert ``part.''.
On page 946, beginning with line 21, strike all through
page 961, line 12.
On page 1004, beginning with line 1, strike all through
page 1005, line 9.
On page 1005, beginning with line 11, strike all through
page 1035, line 11.
On page 1128, lines 12 and 13, strike ``sections 2114 and''
and insert ``section''.
On page 1172, beginning with line 17, strike all through
page 1185, line 24.
On page 1234, line 13, insert end quotation marks and a
period after the period.
On page 1234, beginning with line 14, strike all through
page 1296, line 25.
On page 1358, beginning with line 10, strike all through
1368, line 24.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object. What amendment is this?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is the amendment which deletes all the
new programs in the bill.
First off, I wish to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member
on the committee for producing what is fundamentally a sound bill. The
elementary and secondary school education program is an excellent
program which has done many positive things for disadvantaged children
in our country. I know that from personal experience in New Hampshire.
It is also a piece of legislation which has received a considerable
amount of funding over the years, as it should have.
However, within this bill, there are a large number of new
initiatives, and I guess my concern is that every time we add a new
initiative to this bill, much of the core function of the process of
this bill is not accomplished. It takes away from getting done what the
basic purpose of this bill is. It also takes away, when we add these
new programs, the capacity to do other things that are already on the
books. Take, for example, 94-142, which is a bill for special
education. One of the problems we have--probably I suspect every State
has this--is that our school systems are struggling under the weight of
the cost of the special education student. We need to care for these
students, we need to make sure they get quality mainstreamed education,
but under the terms of 94-142, originally the Federal Government was
supposed to contribute 40 percent to the education of special-needs
children. Today, unfortunately, the Federal Government is only
participating to about 6 or 7 percent.
I think and feel very strongly that before we add new programs and
fund new programs in other areas of educational activity, which deal
especially with elementary school students and secondary school
students, that we should, first, fully take care of those programs
which we already have on the books. But we cannot do that because what
we keep doing in our well-intentioned way as a political body is to
say, ``Well, we want to add this program, we want to add this
program,'' but the fact is, we already have these programs that we are
not fully funding, we forget about that and try to finesse that.
That is a mistake. We are sort of like the kids in the candy store
who see all these different things that they want and, sure, it would
be nice if we could do all those things, but we cannot. We do not have
the resources. Therefore, we need to prioritize. In my mind, proper
prioritization requires that we first do what we are supposed to be
doing and do it well.
For example, the President, in making his presentation to Congress,
suggested that we spend--and I do not have the number right in front of
me--but I believe that his suggestion was that we spend about $200
million more than what is actually being spent in this bill for the
purposes of chapter 1 programs.
As a result, basically, of the appropriating process, we ended up
with $200 million less than what we had expected to spend in this area
or what the President suggested we spend in this area. That $200
million has essentially been taken and put into these new programs that
have been put on the books. So instead of fully funding at the level
that the President requested the needs under chapter 1 and under S.
1513, we have found ourselves funding the new programs. That is a
mistake. We should be doing the core programs of ESEA before we
undertake the addition of new programs.
There are approximately 21 new programs in the bill. A lot of them
are little ones. There is one big one but there are a lot of little its
and bits of pieces here and there, ideas that people had and they said,
``I have an idea; let's put some authorization with it.'' They add up
to $745 million of new authorization. I really find that hard to
accept, first, in a time when we are not fully funding things like 94-
142, and when we are running a budget deficit to the significance we
are. It is difficult to accept adding $745 million in new programs.
Thus, this amendment eliminates those new programs. As a result of
eliminating those new programs, then the Congress will have the right
and the ability and be put in the position of making a decision. They
will be able to take maybe some of the money being used to fund these
new programs and apply it to the present existing programs, and maybe
it will just take some of the money and not spend it so that the kids
going to school will have a little less debt to pay when they get out
of school, as is being passed on to them through our deficit financing
we do around here.
Granted, if you run through the list of these programs, many sound
well-intentioned. I cannot deny that. But the simple fact is, we do not
have the money. When you look at the size of these programs spread over
the whole country, you recognize that their impact is going to be
marginal at best.
You have a $4 million program, you have a $125,000 program, you have
a $5 million program, $15 million program, $5 million model projects
and the list goes on and on and on. So it is a little hard to justify,
I think, these programs other than to say, ``Well, they are nice ideas
for the people who are lucky enough to get that little piece of the
pie, they are going to be worthwhile.'' But for most citizens, most
students in this country, they are going to have virtually no impact.
Whereas if the money was applied to the basic underlying programs, or
were it, for example, to be transferred over to 94-142 and take some
pressure off the local taxpayers, or were it simply to be used to
reduce the deficit, it would have a fairly significant and very
positive effect.
So on behalf of myself and a number of Senators, including Senator
Kassebaum, who is the ranking Republican member, and Senator Simpson, I
wish to present this amendment which cuts from the bill the new
programs which are authorized, 21 of them, totaling $745 million in
authorization.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes Senator Pell.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from
New Hampshire would eliminate several new programs that I believe are
very important to improving the education of our young people.
For instance, it would strike the Cultural Partnerships for At-Risk
Youth. Through this proposed program we seek to bring the rich benefits
of the arts, humanities, and museum services to the education of those
children most in need. It would be very sad, indeed, if this program
were struck.
Through the Library Technology and Assistance Program, we would seek
to improve and update our school libraries so that they could offer
state-of-the-art technology. We all know the sad state of many of our
school libraries in terms of their collections and the outdated
technology which they must use. If our children are truly to be first
in the world in terms of education, this is one of the areas where we
must act.
The Gregg amendment would also strike the Education Infrastructure
Program proposed by Senator Moseley-Braun. For many years I opposed so-
called bricks and mortar legislation, but this year the Senator from
Illinois made such a compelling argument that I reconsidered my
previous stance and supported enactment of this measure. The condition
of our schools in community after community is really pretty dreadful.
If we expect our children to achieve to their highest potential, we
should be very concerned about the safety of the schools they attend.
Safety means not only safety from threats of violence but also safety
from the danger of inferior facilities.
Mr. President, I understand the Senator's concern that we limit the
establishment of new programs in this period of fiscal restraint, and
that we focus primarily on those programs already in place. At the same
time, I believe that there are new problems that need to be addressed,
new concerns that need our attention, and new innovations that warrant
our support in building a better education for our children.
It is right that we, the body that collects the money through the
taxes, has a right to delineate, to designate how those funds be spent.
I offer this is not micromanagement, this is creative work, properly
done by the Congress.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes Senator Gregg.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will not take much time. Of the various
add-on programs, effectively there are only three that are funded. As
the Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, it does provide a very
limited amount of resources that actually do not come from education--
$100 million to address the absolute collapse, the physical collapse,
of some of the schools in urban and in rural communities. That money,
as I understand it, comes from both the Department of Energy and the
Department of Defense.
Second, there is a very modest program in terms of the charter
schools. That has been a part of our education reforms of last year and
before, as well as this year--and this is only a $6 million program--to
help and assist the development of newer kinds of educational efforts
at the local communities.
In my own State of Massachusetts, there are a number of programs that
are being developed now with the support of State funding and even some
with local funding. So this is to try to at least work in a newer way
to see what the possibilities of some of the charter schools would be.
The third is absolutely essential, almost bread and butter kind of
involvement, and that is to try to provide some technology, some
additional technology in a very modest way to the schools. In many
respects many of these schools do not even have a telephone let alone a
computer. And if you are looking at the new job opportunities for young
people who are graduating from high school, if those young people do
not have some familiarity with technology and the computer, they really
are starting behind the eight ball. Some schools are moving in this
direction, and where they are, they have had a remarkable impact, a
positive impact in terms of education. Basically, with this very modest
program we are trying to demonstrate that kind of success.
I remember visiting a school in Lawrence, MA, not long ago and
talking to one of the teachers at the school, Mrs. Perry, and she was
talking about what a difference it made in terms of the young people's
interest in education, in all the other kinds of education with the
utilization of computers and then talked about teaching another class
that did not have those kinds of assets and how really the whole
educational experience for that class had actually deteriorated.
So these are modest programs. Those were the only three that were
actually funded. Funding for the technology aspect of this program was
actually in the President's budget. We want to make sure when we go to
the information highway we are not leaving education behind. This is
really a very, very small, modest program, but it is a commitment in
that area.
For the reasons that I have outlined, plus the importance of the
charter schools as well as the basic infrastructure program, I hope
this amendment would not be accepted.
Mr. President, we are prepared to vote.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Gregg
amendment which proposes to strike all new programs from this bill.
To eliminate all new programs from this bill is to put a moratorium
on creative, innovative new approaches to education reform and to, in
effect, bless the current Federal programs as the sole framework for
Federal participation in education.
Mr. President, I am unwilling to do so. I will not confine my State
by this approach. Oregon is a place of progressive innovation, in many
areas, but particularly in education and job training.
My constituents often come to me with new approaches to strengthening
the Federal Government's response to education. From this interaction
has grown several successful concepts--educational flexibility, called
ed-flex, the regional math/science consortia, the Eighth National
Education Goal devoted to parental participation in education, school-
to-work refinements, equal access, etc. I am honored to have authored
these new programs.
And yes, I have a new program in the bill we are currently
considering--its called the Elementary Math and Science Equipment Act.
Let me tell you about its history.
I first introduced this legislation in the 102d Congress. The Senate
has passed this provision on three different occasions but it has not
yet become law--it has been sacrificed in conference for a variety of
different reasons. It is now included in this bill and I hope it will
become public law.
The premise is simple--we need to attract our youngest students to
science. Research tells us that hands on simple equipment such as ph
paper and hand-held microscopes can make science learning come alive.
We know that this kind of equipment can make a difference and my
proposal is an effort to put a small amount of Federal funding on the
table to help--provided it is matched by the private sector.
I believe this small effort will have a big effect on the numbers of
students in the math and science pipeline--the pipeline on which we
will draw to interpret modern technology, plug into the new
telecommunication superhighway, and generally, to be the man and woman
power which will continue to lead this country forward.
Mr. President, I am not a member of the Labor Committee. Sometimes I
wish I were. This is the committee which considers a great deal of the
human investment legislation which directly impacts on our children.
Since I am not, I can only come to the floor and convince my colleagues
that certain efforts are worth trying--because they have worked in my
State, or in the current case, because they make sense for the Nation
and can leverage additional private support.
It would be folly to cut off this type of policymaking--I cannot
support a moratorium on innovation at the Federal level. I urge my
colleagues to defeat this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pell). Is there further debate? There
being no further debate, the question occurs on agreeing to the
amendment No. 2432. The yeas and nays having been ordered, the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 67, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]
YEAS--32
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Coats
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Dole
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Lott
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Nickles
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Simpson
Smith
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--67
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Conrad
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Specter
Stevens
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--1
Wallop
So the amendment (No. 2432) was rejected.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I rise today to offer my strong support
for the pending legislation, Improving America's Schools Act. This bill
reauthorizes the major Federal programs that impact our Nation's
schoolchildren, including the largest single program--title I.
1994 has been a very productive year for Federal education
legislation. Within the space of about 6 weeks this spring, President
Clinton signed two important education initiatives into law. Goals
2000: Educate America Act was signed in March and the School to Work
Opportunities Act became law in early May. America's children will
enter the classroom this fall at about the same time this third vital
piece of legislation is enacted.
Goals 2000 and School to Work responded to important concerns about
our Nation's educational system. Goals 2000 established the framework
for comprehensive, systemic reform of elementary and secondary
education. The School to Work Opportunities Act responded to the
critical issue of making sure that all of our students are well
prepared for the workplace. Goals 2000, School to Work and Improving
America's Schools Act are integrally linked. Together, they form the
most extensive examination of elementary and secondary education since
1965 when the first Federal elementary and secondary education act was
enacted.
While I cannot stress the importance of these earlier bills, I
believe they were setting the stage for the bill we are considering
today. This bill--Improving America's Schools Act, authorizes the bulk
of Federal education programs. Put quite simply, it is where the money
is. This legislation authorizes $12.5 billion in spending for our
Nation's elementary and secondary school children.
The bill is quite lengthy so it is impossible to comment on all of
its many provisions. I would like to use my time to talk about just
some of the important features of this legislation.
The bill reauthorizes the title I compensatory education program for
5 years. It significantly restructures the program to ensure that
students targeted by title I will be taught to the same high standards
as other students. Report after report has told us about the tremendous
need to improve American education so we can effectively compete with
other nations. This legislation makes many needed changes aimed at
assuring a high quality education for all American students.
The legislation also rewrites the formula for distributing funds
under the title I program to make more effective use of these limited
Federal funds.
The Federal to State allocation includes a weighting provision to
provide additional funds to areas with high numbers or percentages of
low-income children. The formula also includes incentive payments for
State effort and equity.
On several occasions I have spoken about the need to address
inequalities between school districts. A few years ago, I read Jonathan
Kozel's book ``Savage Inequalities.'' This book graphically portrayed
the huge disparities that exist in our Nation's schools and the impact
inadequate funding for schools has on the children.
In this country, property taxes provide a substantial portion of the
revenue for elementary and secondary schools. Therefore, the wealth of
the community translates in the amount of revenue available for the
local school district. So a poor community has fewer tax dollars
available for education and often that means substandard facilities,
inadequate materials, and insufficient staff.
The system of financing education primarily on the basis of property
taxes in inherently unfair and leads to the kinds of funding
disparities that are being litigated in several States. As Federal
policy makers, we cannot overrule States and local school districts on
financing for education. But, we can provide an incentive in Federal
education programs for States with a good record of funding
equalization within the State.
Likewise, some States place a high priority on education and provide
significant resources for elementary and secondary education. Again, as
Federal policy makers, we cannot tell States how to spend their money,
but we can provide an incentive for States with a high effort in
relationship to the per capita income of that State.
These are positive things that the Federal Government can do and I am
very pleased that these incentives were added to the title I formula.
It's time to replace the rhetoric with action and this formula does
that. The Federal Government must send a strong and powerful message
that all students are entitled to a high quality education, regardless
of where they happen to live.
I would like to commend Senators Kennedy and Pell for their hard work
in crafting a very fair and balanced title I formula. This formula
incorporates many different concerns--from the need to do greater
targeting of title I funds with the desire to provide positive
incentives to redress inequalities and increase State support for
education. This formula accomplishes all of those diverse objectives
and the chairmen are to be congratulated for their efforts.
I am very pleased that the bills gender equity in education bills
sponsored by myself, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Simon have been
included in this legislation.
Mr. President, I think most Americans are familiar with the ``glass
ceiling''--that invisible barrier that often keeps competent and
capable women from ascending to top jobs. Many of us are less aware
that early in life it isn't the glass ceiling of the corporate suite
but the plaster walls of the classroom that keep female students from
realizing their potential.
The inclusion of the gender equity in education package will ensure
that girls receive a share--an equal share--in the American dream by
requiring equal treatment in the classroom.
This situation is very troubling and deserves our immediate
attention.
Girls receive less attention from teachers than boys with some
studies showing that as many as 80 percent of teachers' questions were
directed to boys.
Adolescent girls have less self-esteem than their male counterparts.
Girls and boys enter kindergarten with the same skill levels, however
by high school graduation girls receive lower test scores, especially
in the areas of math and science.
Girls receive fewer college scholarships than boys.
Textbooks have few female role models.
While most classroom teachers are women, most administrative
positions are held by men--72 percent of teachers are women but 27.7
percent of school principals are women and only 4.8 percent of
superintendents are women.
S. 1513, also incorporates another bill of mine, the Elementary
School Counseling Demonstration Act to establish and expand counseling
programs for elementary schools. Elementary school counseling programs
focus on prevention and early intervention at a critical time in the
development of children.
These programs can make a big difference in the lives of young
children. Children today face enormous challenges. Some live with a
drug-addicted or alcoholic parent, some are suffering from the trauma
of a divorce, some are victims of physical, sexual or mental abuse. And
they need our help.
By making contact with a child early on, these students have a better
chance of developing the self-esteem and problem-solving skills that
will benefit them during their teenage years. This principle has been
put into practice in the Des Moines Independent School District with a
program called Smoother Sailing. And it works.
Smoother Sailing provides professional counselors to work with
students in groups on self-esteem and conflict resolution activities.
These professionals are also available to work with students on an
individual basis. And it works.
Attendance is up, classroom disruptions are down and test scores have
improved since Smoother Sailing began in the Des Moines public schools.
I am pleased S. 1513 includes the Elementary School Counseling
Demonstration Act.
I would like to use the balance of my time to comment on the
implications of the legislation for children with disabilities since I
serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy.
Last week, we celebrated the fourth anniversary of the passage of the
Americans With Disabilities Act which set forth a national policy which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and called for the
inclusion, independence, and empowerment of individuals with
disabilities.
Further, part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Act extends to
all students the right to a free and appropriate public education based
on the unique needs of the child.
Improving America's Schools Act is fully consistent with the ADA. In
addition, it is also consistent with and complements the spirit of Part
B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities must be
educated with children who are not disabled. Separate classes, separate
schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from regular
educational environments occurs only when the nature or severity of the
disability is such that education in the regular classes with the use
of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
Although major strides have been made in including students with
disabilities in regular education, in far too many schools around the
country, separate educational systems have developed with little or no
coordination--one system for regular or general education, a separate
and distinct system for special education. This isolation and lack of
coordination creates artificial barriers to achieving the promises of
part B of IDEA, the ADA, and the section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973.
The bill recognizes that much needed change and lasting school reform
will not occur unless teachers are provided with opportunities to
learn, study and discuss new strategies for working with students with
diverse learning needs, including those with disabilities. Therefore,
title II of this legislation enhances professional development
opportunities for our Nation's educators. Teachers will be provided
training to alleviate the need for special education services and to
work with children with disabilities in the regular education setting.
It is only through this direct training of regular and special
educators in collaborative methods of instruction that the true
promises of IDEA and the ADA will be achieved.
This bill will serve as a vehicle for strengthening our overall
efforts to meet the needs of all children in the United States and
provides one additional effort to have children with disabilities
included in the mainstream of educational progress and reform.
Mr. President, I have often spoken about the importance of
education--it is vital to the future of our country. The economic
health of our Nation and well-being of our children depends on the
education of our citizens.
One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, spoke eloquently about
the importance of education for a strong and lasting democracy. He
said, ``a democratic society depends on an informed and educated
citizenry.''
Thomas Jefferson's words remind us about that it is in the national
interest to have a strong educational system. Improving America's
Schools Act will help build the educated citizenry that forms the
strong foundation for our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I am proud to support the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and its
effort to promote academic excellence for all students and to provide
greater flexibility for fundamental school reform and teacher
development. Education is vital for our country's future, and this
legislation is the followthrough on the guidelines enacted in Goals
2000 earlier this year.
I support this legislation because it will help the educators,
communities, and parents of West Virginia take the steps to give our
children a better education. Under this bill, West Virginia will
receive additional funds to promote high academic standards in basic
subjects like math, science, English, and other key subjects. The
legislation also will provide greater flexibility to use Federal
funding for schoolwide programs so all students achieve high standards
set by Goals 2000.
This legislation meets the needs of my State and the rest of the
country. As chairman of the recent National Commission on Children, I
have learned in vivid terms just how much America's families and
children need the tools to improve education. In 1991, the Children's
Commission made this point when we released our historic bipartisan
report, ``Beyond Rhetoric, A New Agenda for American Children and
Families.'' Our report laid out a comprehensive blueprint on how to
help children and families. It issued recommendations for action in a
wide range of areas, including education.
This bill, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is a key step
in the roadmap to converting the Commission's recommendations into
reality. Our report stressed the need for fundamental school reform,
with seven basic recommendations. First, our commission emphasized the
importance of a rigorous and challenging academic curriculum. It noted
the key role of teachers and endorsed measures to recruit and retain
skilled teachers. Our report called for measures to improve the
effectiveness of principals and also supported school-based management
because we agreed that education reform must be a grassroots and
community initiative, rather than imposed by the Federal Government. It
called for greater accountability at all levels for quality education
and stressed the need for equitable financing across school districts.
Also, our report recommended improvement of school environments so
children are safe and able to learn.
In addition to these overall recommendations to encourage
comprehensive education reform, the Commission thoroughly debated the
issue of school choice and endorsed the concept of parental choice
among public schools only. The commissioners also called for creative
initiatives to help children with severe disabilities as well as
students who are disadvantaged and academically high risk of
educational failure.
This reauthorization bill proposes reforms similar to those suggested
by the Children's Commission.
For starters, this bill stresses a rigorous academic curriculum for
all students, and it increases the flexibility for schools serving
disadvantaged students to achieve such goals by allowing more schools
to use title 1 funding for school wide programs.
In my State, the West Virginia Department of Education is seeking
this kind of flexibility, to be able to make a real difference. Changes
in the funding formula are designed to do more to target Federal
dollars to schools serving poor children which is a good start. But it
is essential to acknowledge that much work remains to promote equitable
financing across school districts.
Another crucial area of change is the new investments and emphasis on
professional development for teachers, who truly are the individuals
who will deliver change into classrooms and the lives of students. The
Senate bill retains a special emphasis on teachers of math and science
which is appropriate given the focus on math and science in our
national education goals. This reauthorization builds upon the
Eisenhower program to promote teacher development covering a broad
range of subjects, as a fundamental first step toward tough academic
standards.
I also want to note that this legislation continues the work of the
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, that I was proud to sponsor in
1986. At that time, our goal was to ensure that every student, from
kindergarten through high school, was taught about the dangers of drug
and alcohol abuse. Since then, I have visited numerous classroom in
West Virginia and participated in the DARE Program where local police
officers teach children about the dangers of drug abuse. This effort
proves how targeted Federal funding can forge important changes in
schools, and still allow local leaders to design and develop courses
that meet the needs of students. This bill builds on the success of the
Drug-Free School Program to expand it by including violence prevention,
a critical issue now. Students deserve to be safe at school--safe from
drugs, alcohol, and violence. I wholeheartedly support the expansion.
I also support the provisions to promote the effective use of
technology to enhance teaching and learning. As the Senator from West
Virginia, I believe the technology can greatly support efforts to
strengthen academics, especially for rural areas. My State is already
using distance learning to offer advanced courses, like Japanese,
calculus and advanced science to students in rural schools. West
Virginia also has made a major investment in computers at the
elementary school level so children will learn with computers from the
beginning of their education and be comfortable with technology that
plays an ever increasing role in our modern workplace.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act is the major Federal
program to offer support to local schools and helps disadvantaged
students. Thanks to this law, West Virginia receives $61.5 million this
year, and under this reauthorization, funding will increase especially
for schools serving low-income students. It is a wise investment in our
children and the future of our State and country.
I commend Senators Kennedy and Kassebaum for their leadership on this
bill. Education is an issue that concerns every child and every
individual. It deserves bipartisan leadership and support, which this
legislation has thanks to the efforts of the chairman and ranking
members of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. It is
real progress.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on amendment 2431.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, that is the Danforth amendment. We have
been working with the Senator from Missouri. We are still not quite
prepared to have a final resolution of it. I expect that we will in the
next 40 minutes or so. So we are prepared to consider other amendments.
Even though we have the agreement that was worked out with the
leadership last week, we have been trying to ask our colleagues to come
here and to talk with Senator Jeffords and myself so that we could
resolve some of those items.
We have a few items here that we are prepared to address. But I must
say, if they are not offered during the course of the early afternoon,
then I think we are going to at least try and move toward a third
reading at an appropriate time. We have had discussions on Haiti, and
we have had discussions on Rwanda during the course of this morning and
this afternoon, and we are prepared to address the items which are of
interest to the Members.
So I will do the best I can. I know Senator Jeffords will, also. We
will call Members of our parties who have indicated they may have some
amendment, to find out where those amendments are. But at some time in
the not-too-distant future, not seeing anybody else here to be
recognized, we are going to call for the third reading.
We, again, are asking for our colleagues to notify us. We started off
this morning with that and we did the same earlier in the afternoon.
Now we are indicating that at the present time.
So I hope that if there are amendments, they will bring them forward.
Otherwise, we will have to conclude that the Members do not choose to
exercise their earlier indication and call for a vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I also urge the Members on my side of
the aisle to let me know if they intend to offer their amendments.
It is my understanding that Senator Smith is ready to go now, and I
also know that some other Members have informed me of their desires.
Please let us know, and I will try to accommodate you at a time as
convenient as possible, providing that we make all due progress on the
pending bill.
I would be happy to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire. Is he
ready to proceed?
Mr. SMITH. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment? The amendment will be set aside.
Amendment No. 2433
(Purpose: To prohibit Federal funds for instructional materials,
instruction, counseling, or other services on school grounds, from
being used for the promotion of homosexuality as a positive lifestyle
alternative)
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] proposes an
amendment numbered 2433.
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. . PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDS FOR HOMOSEXUAL SUPPORT.
(a) Prohibition.--No local educational agency that receives
funds under this Act shall implement or carry out a program
or activity that has either the purpose or effect of
encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive
lifestyle alternative.
(b) Definition.--A program or activity, for purposes of
this section, inlcudes the distribution of instructional
materials, instruction, counseling, or other services on
school grounds, or referral of a pupil to an organization
that affirms a homosexual lifestyle.
amendment no. 2434 to amendment no. 2433
Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 2434 to amendment No. 2433.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after ``SEC.'', and insert the following:
PROHIBITION AGAINST FUNDS FOR HOMOSEXUAL SUPPORT.
(a) Prohibition.--No local educational agency that receives
funds under this Act shall implement of carry out a program
or activity that has either the purpose or effect of
encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive
lifestyle alternative.
(b) Definition.--A program or activity, for purposes of
this section, includes the distribution of instructional
materials, instruction, counseling, or other services on
school grounds, or referral of a pupil to an organization
that affirms a homosexual lifestyle.
(c) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
take effect one day following the enactment of this Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair and ask for the yeas and nays on the
Smith amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are not in order at this
time.
Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be in
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may request the yeas and nays on
the second-degree amendment.
Mr. HELMS. All right, then. I ask for the yeas and nays on the
second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I speak to the underlying amendment.
I say to my colleagues that I do not intend to take a great deal of
time on this, other than to make some points about what we are spending
some of the money on or what we might spend some of the money in this
bill on.
I think it is imperative that we understand and take a good look at
where our dollars, as the taxpayers provide them to us, are being
spent.
This is a very simple underlying amendment. It will prohibit any
school system receiving funds under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act from implementing any school program that encourages
homosexuality.
Now, this is not--and I repeat not--an unfunded mandate, despite some
who may argue that it is. It does not require the schools to do
anything. There is no requirement here. It does not require the schools
to spend anything.
It merely prevents taxpayer-funded advocacy of the homosexual
lifestyle. That is the question here. Should Federal tax dollars in
this bill be spent to advocate and encourage the homosexual lifestyle
in the curriculae of public schools in this country?
Let me say again, if a public school decides and the parents in that
school district decide that this is appropriate in their school
system--I cannot imagine why they would--but if they did or they do,
fine. You just do not get any Federal dollars. That is the bottom line.
Now, to those who state that this amendment may restrict what schools
can do with their money if they accept Federal dollars, that is
technically correct. However, the only way to ensure that the taxpayers
are protected from districts using commingled funds, funds from their
own sources and funds from the Federal Government, the only way to
ensure that they are protected from this sort of activity is to do it
in this way, is to have this amendment.
What are we talking about? What exactly is it that I am concerned
about that I want to call to the attention of my colleagues?
I encourage my colleagues to listen, because there are some materials
here that are so obscene that I cannot show them to the public. I
cannot display them here and I cannot hold them up. I cannot quote from
them, because to put them on the airwaves in any way, shape, or form
would be considered obscene. So I will not do that. But I have here at
my desk many of these materials, and I hope that my colleagues might
want to take a look at them.
This is not a sensationalist amendment. I am not here to
sensationalize anything. I am not here to make a statement. I am not
here to make a point, other than this. I do not believe that people
from the second grade through high school ought to be subjected to
these materials. But even if you do believe that they should be, the
next question is, should the taxpayers fund it?
In both cases, I believe, first, the taxpayers should not fund it;
and, second, second graders on to junior high school and senior high
school should not see them, either. But if you think they should, then
that is fine. You can work on that in your own school district and see
to it that they get in there if you want them. But the taxpayers can,
under this legislation, without this amendment, pay for these
materials.
I have to tell you, they are graphic and they are obscene. That is
not just my definition. I am going to use as much discretion as I can.
I am not going to embarrass anybody, but I am going to make these
points.
I am going to refer, first of all, to a Washington Times story of
Friday, March 18, 1994. The title of that article is entitled ``The New
York Youth AIDS Forum Leaves Parents Horrified.'' I am quoting from the
article:
The New York City Youth AIDS conference that impressed AIDS
Czar Kristine Gebbie outraged parents with distribution of
fliers on anal sex and other homosexual practices to children
as young as 12. The February 12 conference at New York
University Medical Center was sponsored by the New York
Department of Education.
The New York Department of Education. And it featured Ms. Gebbie as
its VIP speaker. The material that the Gay Men's Health Crisis gave out
to the children depicted risky and dangerous activities. That is what
parent Joanne Gough and members of the AIDS advisory council to the New
York Board of Education said.
Now, a lady by the name of Mary Cummins, a local school board member
from that school district, said that they examined some of the
materials distributed, and she was horrified. That is her quote. ``I am
a grandmother,'' she said. ``I thought I had seen and heard
everything.'' She led the fight against the city's curriculum teaching
acceptance of homosexuality. ``But when the homosexuals are hitting on
kids like this, it becomes my business.'' That is what she said.
Now, these pamphlets--and I am not going to display them for the
cameras, but I have them here--one of them is entitled ``Listen Up,''
and it refers to what is being shown to children in this school system
in New York.
But critics say she was told that the conference of peer educators
teaching youths about HIV-AIDS would include workshops on subjects such
as sex options, eroticizing safer sex, and the wonderful world of
latex. That is part of the curriculum. The program identifies the New
York Department of Education high school HIV-AIDS resource center as a
conference sponsor and as a patron.
That is referred to in the article on the New York school system in
the Washington Times story.
As I say, I have the pamphlets here. I would encourage any of my
colleagues who might wonder whether this is appropriate for their
children to see to come over and view these pamphlets.
Now, a group such as the Sex Information and Education Council of the
United States, also known as SIECUS, aimed equally graphic and obscene
material at our teenagers. I have here a pamphlet that is entitled
``Talk About Sex.''
I can hold this one up. It is not too bad on the cover. ``Talk About
Sex.'' It is a booklet for young people, it says, on how to talk about
sexuality and HIV-AIDS. It is for junior high students. We all know as
parents approximately how old a junior high student is.
Let me just outline a few of the subjects in this pamphlet that your
children, if they are in this particular school system, would be
subjected to. It says: ``Ourselves as Sexual Persons,'' and here are
the categories: Androgenous, bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual,
transsexual, and transvestite. And it goes into all the definitions,
which I will not bore you with. Then they go into some other things
about what we can do sexually: Abstinence, anal intercourse, fellatio,
cunnilingus, masturbation, outercourse, and sexual intercourse. That is
all in there for the junior high kids, with a good definition of each,
in case you did not know what it was.
And then they have a cute little thing at the end of their pamphlet
that your children are having as part of their curriculum that your tax
dollars are funding, they have a few little questions at the end in
this little yellow box, ``Questions to ask myself,'' at the end of each
chapter.
``Name someone who is gay,'' it says, ``lesbian or bisexual and
describe some things you have in common with that person.'' That is the
first question.
``If you believe that you are heterosexual, talk with a close friend
about what you think it is like for someone to be gay, lesbian or
bisexual in today's society.''
And on and on and on. I will not go through anymore. I have that book
here, as well, if anyone would be interested.
Now, SIECUS puts out another little pamphlet for the reading pleasure
of our youngsters. It is called ``Getting Started.'' I am not going to
get into all of it, but I would like you, my colleagues, to hear what
this pamphlet is saying about the church; not any particular church,
just the church here in America, because you talk about values and you
wonder why we have the problems we have in our society today.
This booklet talks about how to get started with sex, various types
of sex, then it gets in some editorial comments about the church. Let
us hear what this book has to say to your children about the church.
Another reason is the way our society treats sex. Most of
the straight world's ideas about sex can be traced back to
religious teachings, and Judeo-Christian religions get
uncomfortable around sex. Around 700 B.C., the Hebrew church
set up laws that made thirty-six crimes punishable by death,
and half of these had to do with sex. The penalty for males
found guilty of homosexual acts was death by stoning, the
most severe penalty imposed for any crime. There were no laws
against lesbianism. Women's sexuality was not taken seriously
then, either.
For centuries, the church has said that sex is only okay
between married people who want to have children. If people
enjoy sex in any other way--by themselves, with someone of
the same sex, or with someone they're not married to--then
the church calls them sinners and tries to make them feel
bad.
For a while, the church seemed to be losing its grip in our
society. But recently, right-wing fundamentalist churches
have become more vocal about promoting more so-called
traditional values. Some have even started groups that claim
they can convert homosexuals into heterosexuals.
It gets worse. Quoting again:
These fundamentalists love to quote passages from the Bible
that seem to condemn homosexuality. If you read these
passages with an open mind, most of them say no such thing:
These Bible thumpers are really only interested in making
themselves feel superior by putting you down. In one breath,
they tell you the Bible is infallible, and in the next
breath, they tell you the devil can quote the scripture for
his own end * * *
Don't let these idiots mess with your mind. If these silly,
inaccurate claims about what the Bible says are worrying you,
read the Bible's story of the love between David and
Jonathan. This is the David who slew Goliath and later became
King of Israel.
And on an on.
Not all churches are against homosexuality. Gay people even
have a church of their own now--the Metropolitan Community
Church--and most of the biggest churches have gay groups.
On and on and on.
This is not a college course, where young people may be debating
their beliefs on homosexuality. This is junior high school. This is
what you subject your children to if you send them to this particular
school system.
This is SIECUS. More choice topics, ``Doing it; Gay Men.'' They say,
they are going ``to show the straight world they are not going to force
us to live according to their narrow-minded ideas.''
I could go on and read more--and it is worse, some of it--but I will
not. I have the book here. Do not believe me. Come over and take a look
at it if you are concerned before you vote. And I will ask for a
rollcall vote on this amendment at the appropriate time.
Now, Madam President, these groups, unfortunately--I wish I could say
it were true--but they do not restrict themselves to educating
teenagers. And I used the word ``educating'' loosely.
For instance, New York City's ``Rainbow Curriculum,'' which was later
taken out of the schools, utilized text aimed at 3- to 8-year-olds:
``Heather Has Two Mommies,'' and ``Daddy's Roommate.'' They both
portray the homosexual lifestyle as normal: 3- to 8-year-olds, my
colleagues. ``Heather Has Two Mommies.'' In your school district, this
book can be purchased with taxpayer dollars. You might want to check
and find out if it is there. It can be.
Do you want do know what is in that book? I will tell you what is in
that book. We will see what it says about Heather.
``Heather has two mommies, two roommates, Momma Jane and Momma
Kate.''
Nice and cute. Momma Jane has a ``No Nukes'' sweatshirt on. Then it
goes on to say that they were good friends and Kate and Jane wanted to
have a baby, so they talked about it for a while. And then we have
Heather. Heather comes into the world. And it goes on to promote the
lifestyle of two lesbian parents with a small child.
``Mama Kate and Mama Jane both laugh and give Heather a great big
hug. Heather gives each of her mommies two big kisses,'' and on and on
and on.
At the end they talk about the author. To be sure, in case you might
have missed it as you were reading through the book itself if you were
a child, they introduce Leslie Newman. ``The author has one mommy and
one daddy, one Grandma and two brothers,'' it says. She has been
writing stories and poems ever since she was a little girl. Leslie now
lives in North Hampton, MA, with a woman she loves named Mary and two
cats, Couscous and Pooney Cat. She is a teacher as well as a writer and
this is her first children's book. It probably was not her last,
either. That is her first one.
Also available from Alyson Publications--that is the name of the
publisher, Alyson Publications--just in case you were not satisfied
with that book and you wanted to expose your children a little bit more
to some of this stuff. Let us look at some of the other choices you
might have. ``Between Friends,'' is one publication. By Gillian
Hanscombe, $8: ``The 4 women in this book represent radically different
political outlooks and sexualities, yet they are tied together by bonds
of friendship.''
``Crush,'' another one. That is another title. ``It was not easy
fitting into an exclusive girls school like Huntington Hill, but in her
senior year, Jinx finally felt as if she belonged. Lexie, beautiful,
popular Lexie, wanted her for a friend. Jinx knew she had a big
crush.'' And it goes on to discuss that situation.
Another title, ``Lesbian Lists'' for your children to read.
``The Gay Book of Lists,'' is another title.
``Rocking the Cradle.'' Here is the first book that thoroughly looks
as topics such as the social and personal implications of lesbian
motherhood, the implications of alternative insemination, and the
feelings of children growing up with lesbian mothers.''
``The Crystal Curtain.'' And on and on.
``Alyson Publications, Department H-80, 40 Plympton Street, Boston,
MA, 02118.''
And, after June 30--this is a couple of years old, you might want to
write for their current catalog. They have a little spot here so you
can fill it in, in case you want to order 400 or 500 for your school
district. That is it.
``Heather Has Two Mommies.'' I have it here if you want to look at it
if you do not believe me.
``Daddy's Roommate.'' Let us look at the other side, daddy's
roommate. This is an Alyson Publication as well. Same location, same
address.
It goes on to talk about the two daddies who live together. And it
promotes the homosexuality of these two people. It promotes it:
``Sleeping together, shaving together, sometimes they even fight
together,'' it says. ``Just like daddy, they both tell me jokes. Frank
does, too.'' On and on. Again, promoting to 3-year-olds, 3-year-olds--
this is the little book they want you to read to your 3-year-old. Or if
you do not, during reading class in school, make sure the teacher does.
``Daddy's Roommate.'' Taxpayer dollars.
How about some other workbooks that sound the same themes? ``A Kid's
First Book About Sex.'' That sounds innocuous enough. You might want to
read it, though, because your kids will. ``Big words are sometimes used
to name people by the sex partners they choose. Even though it is not
nice to describe people by labels like these, we put the names with
these pictures so you know what they mean when you hear them.''
They show heterosexual man and woman, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual.
And they have such terms in here: ``Explain such terms in here such as
straight, bi, and gay. Do you know which shorter name goes with which
long name?'' it says.
``Some people think that straight people are the only ones who are
normal or regular. What do you think?'' it says.
It goes on. Again, ``A Kid's First Book About Sex.''
``The Playbook For Kids About Sex.'' Do not somebody stand up and
challenge me and say Smith is against sex education. That is not what
we are talking about here. Let us see what they have in this book. They
have a little work page here:
``Shorter names are sometimes used. They are `straight,' `bi,' and
`gay.'''
And then they have a couple of boxes: ``Do you know which goes with
which? Yes or no? Bi goes with blank, gay goes with blank, straight
goes with blank.''
Some people think it is wrong for people to be homosexual
or bisexual. Some places even have laws against it. Many
other people think that anyone should be allowed to have sex
with anyone else if both partners want to do it and if they
do it in private.
Then it says, ``How do you feel about it?''
Of course straight people and gay people do a lot of other
things besides have sex. Anyway, some people think that
straight people are the only ones who are normal or regular.
What do you think?
Then they give a list of things that two people might like to do with
each other who like each other. I will not go into all of that.
Then in this book for youngsters 3 to 8 it says, ``on this page''--
and it is blank with a little kid daydreaming. ``On this page you can
write some daydreams about a person or some people you might want to
have sex with when you grow up. And if you think this book is just
really gross, you can write about that, too, right here on this page.''
That is what it says.
Many of my colleagues, I suppose, are very upset that this amendment
is out here. They will say several schools have already developed
programs with the aim of normalizing homosexuality. That is why I am
offering the amendment. If people want to go into their school
districts, the parents, and working with their local school boards, put
these materials in their classrooms and expose their children to this,
that is their privilege. It is still America.
The question is, do we have to fund it with taxpayers' dollars when
the overwhelming majority of the American people would be opposed? I
find it amazing, serving in the U.S. Senate, taking the time to read
some of these bills and some of these materials. This is in no way a
reflection on either of the managers of this bill. But the implications
of the programs and the dollars that we spend--it is incredible. The
American people do not know, I am sure--I did not know it until a few
months ago--that taxpayer dollars in this bill could fund this
material. I did not know that. I would not have believed it. In fact,
when I was told it did, I spent several weeks doing research because I
did not believe it.
Believe it. Believe it.
When you send dollars to a school district that has these materials,
we are paying for it. You can say no, no, no, we have other sources of
income so we are buying it out of that money.
Come on, we all know how that works. You have a little bit over here,
a little bit over here, but if you do not have it over here you cannot
spend it over here.
I would like to read a couple of excerpts from a paper written by Bob
Knight, Cultural Studies Director for the Family Research Council.
A sex education curriculum created by Planned Parenthood of
Northern New England, which received $479,510 in Federal
funds in fiscal year 1990 under title X grants from the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services includes, in this
paragraph in the introduction to the ``Same Sex
Relationships'' section of the curriculum, ``Relationships
with members of the same sex are not only rewarding but
contribute to our development of our sense of who we are.''
``Relationships with members of the same sex are not only rewarding
but contribute to our development of our sense of who we are.''
This is the curriculum:
In general, our society does not consider homosexuality
acceptable. It is as normal as heterosexuality.
In Los Angeles, Project Ten, a public school sex education
program for homosexuals, is based on the Kinsey finding that
10 percent of the population is exclusively homosexual, as
well as the assumption that sexual taboos are based on
superstition.
In a June 5 letter to the Los Angeles Times, Project Ten founder,
Virginia Uribe defends homosexuality and criticizes the Boy Scouts of
America's Judeo-Christian belief system as being ``based on myth and
ignorance, rather than good science.''
We are paying for it. I hope you like it.
The Sex Information and Education Council of the United States
[SIECUS]--I already mentioned it before--a sex education center at New
York University is supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, which gave $99,341 in grant money to the center in fiscal
year 1989. One of the founding members of SIECUS was Ward Elby
Palmaroy, coauthor of this male sexuality study. SIECUS endorses the
concept of child sexuality, et cetera. And then a 1985 SIECUS report
says:
Homosexuality is an essential quality of humanness and that
its expression is the right of every human being.
The question is: Do we really want our youngsters subjected to that?
Would it not be better to let them decide that at some point later in
life? Do we want to educate them to it just to make sure they have a
good shot at becoming lesbian or homosexual? I suppose that is the
rationale.
I would like to share with my colleagues a series of memoranda from
the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District. The
title on the stationery is ``Gay and Lesbian Education Commission.''
These memoranda today are from 1992, 1993, and 1994, and they are
announcing the annual ``Gay-Lesbian Pride Month.''
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that those materials
relating to the item I just mentioned be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Los Angeles Unified School District, Gay and Lesbian
Education Commission,
Los Angeles, CA, April 20, 1994.
Dear Friends: This coming June we're looking forward to our
third annual Gay & Lesbian Pride Month. Many people ask why
we've chosen June for Gay & Lesbian Pride Month. The answer
dates back to the Stonewall riots which began June 27, 1969.
These riots became the symbol of the Gay Liberation Movement
and June became the month to celebrate equal rights and
respect for Gays & Lesbians. (For detailed information,
please see the handout on Stonewall.) Thus, June has become
the month that we have dedicated to teach respect for Gays
and Lesbians and to develop students who appreciate the
diversity of humankind. This will help to provide a school
environment that is free of harassment of Gay & Lesbian youth
and encourage them to finish high school and continue their
higher education. Following are the suggested activities for
Gay & Lesbian Pride Month:
1. Display: Using the colorful handouts enclosed, chose a
central display case to post the information about the Gay &
Lesbian community, its symbols, various organizations and
resources. An additional display may be done in the media
center.
2. Bulletins: Daily facts and information about famous Gays
& Lesbians, well-known contemporary Gays & Lesbians, facts
about Gays & Lesbians, resources for Gays & Lesbians can be
put in the daily bulletins.
3. Assemblies: If you'd like to plan an assembly at your
school, please contact Kathy Gill at (213) 625-6392. We have
videos, (see below), college students from USC's Shout and
other poets and artists who will help with the assemblies.
Available videos: 1. LAUSD's 1st Annual Gay, Lesbian &
Bisexual Youth Conference'' 2. Leticia Quezada addresses the
Issue of Gay & Lesbian Rights.'' (available in English &
Spanish)
4. Lessons: The information on Famous Gays and Lesbians in
History & Well-known contemporary Gays, Lesbians & Bisexuals
may be duplicated and used in History classes. The latest
scientific research on the possible correlates for a genetic
and biological basis for sexual orientation may be duplicated
and used in health and science classes.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kathy J. Gill,
Director, GLEC.
____
Los Angeles Unified School District, Gay and Lesbian
Education Commission,
Los Angeles, CA, May 20, 1993.
Dear Colleagues, The enclosed materials have been assembled
by the Los Angeles Unified School Gay and Lesbian Education
Commission to assist middle and senior high schools in
planning activities for ``Gay and Lesbian Pride Month'' in
June. I have included posters, resources, lessons and
materials I hope you find useful. Don't hesitate to call the
various organizations listed on the resource list. They are
all trained to give staff inservices, assemblies and
workshops.
Since the Gay and Lesbian Education Commission is not
funded with a full time director, we are unable to assist
with activities during the school day. However, if there are
any questions you might have, please call the commission
office and leave a message. I will return your call ASAP.
For your information, all of the materials included in this
packet were donated by the various organizations listed on
the handout. The materials, envelopes and letterhead were
bought at no cost to the Los Angeles Unified School District
whatsoever.
With Pride,
Laura A. Hale,
Director.
P.S. Your efforts on behalf of the Gay and Lesbian
students, staff, and parents at your school will be
appreciated more than you will ever know. Since we have been
an often ``invisible'' group of individuals, many people
don't think they know anyone gay or lesbian. Believe me, you
do!
____
Los Angeles Unified School District, Office of
Instruction,
May 29, 1992.
SUBJECT: Gay and lesbian pride month.
On May 18, 1992, the Board of Education passed a resolution
recognizing June of each year as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.
The resolution is based on District policy contained in the
``Educating for Diversity'' document, which states as a
District goal the development of ``students who appreciate
and respect diversity and understand the roles and
contribution of people of diverse groups.'' The document
calls upon the District to include in the curriculum the
historical and current role and treatment of homosexuals in
society, ``the contributions of gay and lesbian people in
history and culture, and the current status of homosexuals as
it relates to social policy, family diversity and human
relations.''
The approved Board of Education resolution states:
Whereas, in June of 1969 in the Greenwich Village section
of New York City a routine raid on a gay and lesbian bar
called the Stonewall Inn was for the first time resisted by
the peacefully assembled gay and lesbian patrons;
Whereas, This resistance led to several days of uprising by
the gay and lesbian population of New York City who demanded
equal rights and an end to police harassment of their
establishments; and
Whereas, this event now called the Stonewall Rebellion, is
widely viewed as the beginning of the modern gay and lesbian
movement and is the reason why the month of June has come to
be a time to celebrate the accomplishments of gay and lesbian
people through parades, marches, commemorations, cultural
programs, and other means; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Board of Education of the City of Los
Angeles recognize June of each year as Gay and Lesbian Pride
Month and encourage schools and offices to find appropriate
ways to fulfill the mandate of this resolution and of the
policy document ``Educating for Diversity.''
For assistance call Bernadine Lyles, Advisor, Multicultural
Unit, at (213) 625-6791, or Laura Hale, acting director of
the Gay and Lesbian Education Commission, at (213) 351-7311.
Approved: Sidney A. Thompson, Deputy Superintendent.
Distribution: All School and Offices.
____
Los Angeles Unified School District, Division of
Instruction,
May 9, 1994.
SUBJECT: Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.
On May 18, 1992, the Board of Education passed a resolution
recognizing June of each year as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.
The resolution is based on District policy contained in the
``Educating for Diversity'' document, which states as a
District goal the development of ``students who appreciate
and respect diversity and understand the roles and
contribution of people of diverse groups.'' The document
calls upon the District to include in the curriculum the
historical and current role and treatment of homosexuals in
society. ``the contributions of gay and lesbian people in
history and culture, and the current status of homosexuals as
it relates to social policy, family diversity and human
relations.''
The approved Board of Education resolution states:
Whereas, In June of 1969 in the Greenwich Village section
of New York City a routine raid on a gay bar called the
Stonewall Inn was for the first time resisted by the
peacefully assembled gay and lesbian patrons:
Whereas, This resistance led to several days of uprising by
the gay and lesbian population of New York City who demanded
equal rights and an end to police harassment of their
establishments; and
Whereas, This event now called the Stonewall Rebellion, is
widely viewed as the beginning of the modern gay and lesbian
movement and is the reason why the month of June has come to
be a time to celebrate the accomplishments of gay and lesbian
people through parades, marches, commemorations, cultural
programs, and other means; therefore, be it
Resolved That the Board of Education of the City of Los
Angeles recognize June of each year, as Gay and Lesbian Pride
Month and encourage schools and offices to find appropriate
ways to fulfill the mandate of this resolution and of the
policy document ``Educating for Diversity.''
For assistance call Kathy Gill, Director, Gay and Lesbian
Education Commission, at (213 625-6392.
Approved: Dr. Ruben Zacarias, Deputy Superintendent.
Distribution: All Schools and Offices.
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, just a brief mention of some items.
``Display''--this is part of this letter:
Display using colorful handouts enclosed, choose essential
display case to post the information about the gay and
lesbian community, its symbols, its various organizations,
its resources and an additional display may be done in the
media center.
Bulletins: Daily facts and information about lesbians and
homosexuals.
Assemblies: If you'd like to plan an assembly at your
school, please contact Kathy Gill * * * We have videos * * *
Et cetera.
Lessons: The information on famous gays and lesbians in
history and well-known contemporary gays, lesbians and
bisexuals may be duplicated and used in history classes.
Let us make sure we get it all. Let us not miss anything.
Madam President, I know some of my colleagues--I include myself--when
we are not working here and not in our States, have some type of living
accommodation in Fairfax County, VA. For them, as it was for me, this
next piece might be of particular interest. It was written by Carter
Thomas who is a concerned parent in Fairfax County who is currently
active in the fight against the Fairfax County Family Life Education
Program.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of his letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Let me take a moment to document what has transpired with
regard to the ``Face to Face with HIV'' program. My
experiences come from research with the Fairfax County School
Board, the Fairfax County Family Life Education (FLE) Program
(specifically Mr. Jerry Newberry), and personal contact with
the program at Lake Braddock High School. I can only assume
that similar occurrences are happening at the ten other
Fairfax County High Schools participating in this program.
I found out about the program through the Lake Braddock
High School student newspaper. My daughter is a sophomore and
will be subject to the program next year. Since I was not
informed by the school in a timely fashion, I missed the
evening presentation. I didn't feel I had enough information
to make an intelligent decision as to whether or not to ``opt
out'' my child, so I started investigating the program.
As I understand it the Fairfax County School Board voted to
accept this program in July of 1992. The individual schools
were to determine the worth of the program and decide by
October of 1992 whether or not to schedule the program. One
would have thought that the individual communities and/or the
PTA's would have been queried about this sensitive social
issue. At Lake Braddock, however, a unilateral decision was
made by the school staff to schedule the program. In all
fairness to Lake Braddock's current principal, Dr. Dorminy, I
must say that he was not a part of this unilateral decision.
Further, the School Board did not authorize the expenditure
of public school funds to pay for the program. It is
generally thought that the intent of the School Board was to
have the PTA's fund it for their individual schools. This
would have accomplished a very good thing. It would have
brought the PTA's into the decision making process. Once
again, this did not occur at Lake Braddock High School. The
Lake Braddock PTA president and secretary were not aware of
this program nor did they fund it.
I have been assured by Dr. Dorminy, Lake Braddock's new
principal, that no ``allocated'' funds went into this
program. Although I'm still not sure where the money came
from since the PTA didn't fund it, I did find out the program
cost $1,200.00 Maybe a small sum, but my seventh grade son
had to share a computer every other day because Lake Braddock
is woefully short of computers. At least one and maybe two
computers could have been purchased with this $1,200.00.
My main concern with this program can be posed in a one
word question. Why? I followed the normal ``chain of
command'' starting with Lake Braddock High School. I had some
basic questions I needed answered in order to make an
intelligent decision about whether or not to ``opt out'' my
children. My basic questions were as follows. Who are the
participants from Northern Virginia Aids Ministry (NOVAM) and
what are their backgrounds and qualifications? What is and
where can I find the Program of Instruction (POI)? What is
the objective of this program and has a cost benefit analysis
been conducted? Mrs. Ewing, the FLE coordinator at Lake
Braddock could answer none of the questions, but she
attempted to explain the objective. When I called the School
Board Office, the representative had no information but she
recommended I call Mr. Jerry Newberry. Next I contacted Mr.
Newberry, at the Lacy Instructional Center, who is charged
with administering the FLE Program. Mr. Newberry told me that
there was no POI, no cost benefit analysis has been
conducted, and that he wasn't sure who would be the
instructors but that they had received a day and a half of
platform instruction training. I finally had to contact Penny
Lane at NOVAM, the contractor.
My wife and I visited Lake Braddock over a two day period
and viewed more than five different presentations of ``Face
to Face with HIV'' by NOVAM. Since it is doubtful that any
School Board Member of Fairfax County FLE Coordinator has
attended these presentations, let me offer this report for
your information.
One of my questions was answered immediately. Penny Lane
opened the class by saying that all of the kids in the class
had all of the information on AIDS, but ``that information is
not enough, you aren't changing your lifestyle.'' The very
objective of the course is behavior modification! I reject
this premise. Our school's purpose is to educate, not modify
behavior. I like Thomas Sowell's definition of education. He
says, ``the purpose of education is to give the student
intellectual tools to analyze, whether verbally or
numerically, and to reach conclusions based on logic and
evidence.'' If you don't like this definition, look it up in
the dictionary. All definitions refer to information,
analysis, and reaching conclusions. None refer to behavior
modification.
We learned about the background of the instructors first
hand. Some were recovering drug addicts, others were
homosexuals, still others had been prostitutes. All
had violated numerous state and federal felony statutes to
include use of illegal drugs, prostitution, sodomy, and
larceny.
There was no POI developed. The School Board should have
issued broad guidance to the Lacy Instructional Center who in
turn should have developed a POI. This POI should have, as a
minimum, defined the parameters of the discussion and
mandated a moderator from the individual schools concerned.
The school FLE coordinators know the particulars of their
individual schools far better than does Penny Lane from
NOVAM.
Lastly, there was no cost benefit analysis done. Frankly, I
can't imagine reallocating funds from any proven educational
program to a program with the sole objective of modifying
behavior on a very sensitive social issue without an analysis
that would indicate a high probability of success. But what
is success? Are we successful if we modify behavior? Or are
we successful if we educate?
You have the background, I will now very briefly list some
of the objectionable points we observed.
There was no FLE trained school faculty involvement. In
fact, there was no faculty involvement at all. When one Lake
Braddock teacher asked a very good question and attempted to
bring out an important point, Penny Lane mentioned that the
discussion was for students only. That allowed her to
completely guide all discussion.
Penny Lane spoke repeatedly about anal and vaginal
intercourse and oral sex. She never mentioned the word
abstinence in my presence, however she did repeatedly stress
the use of latex condoms.
One speaker used profanity on several occasions. Do we now
allow teachers to use profanity? Of course not. Guest
instructors should be held to our same high standards.
Another said that HIV had its benefits for her. She said,
``I probably would have been dead from an overdose or on the
streets of DC by now if I had not tested positive.''
Two other speakers told of twenty years of continuous
crime. Both said they had never done anything wrong! One
continued and said he didn't feel he deserved to have
contracted the HIV virus. What they meant was that they had
never been caught and put in jail. In fact, not one of the
speakers ever said that their behavior had been illegal. Not
one speaker ever admitted doing wrong.
One homosexual blamed his problems on his parents and their
religion.
Penny Lane told the students to contact NOVAM if they had
questions or problems. She never mentioned that they should
go to their parents, trusted relative, doctor, or clergy.
At no time was there a general disclaimer given. These
speakers have their own opinions but they are not experts on
anything we want our children to know. The environment and
the school lend them credibility. It is a dangerous thing to
give a non-expert credibility and put him on the platform as
an ``instructor'' to adolescents. One speaker said she had no
health insurance so the hospital sent her ``out on the street
to die!'' She said, ``The system was against me.'' The
message obviously was that the system was the problem, when
in reality her illegal, high risk behavior was the problem.
In conclusion, I would ask the School Board to reconsider
the program ``Face to Face with HIV.'' The school system,
Lake Braddock High School, and very likely the other schools
in the county that have used this program have abrogated
their authority to NOVAM. Do we want our educational
institutions attempting to modify behavior? If so, I ask that
you go about it the way our country intended to modify
behavior, through a system of laws and public and family
involvement. At the very least, NOVAM should be told that
each presenter must admit that he or she violated a law and
that he or she was wrong. The students need to know that a
high risk behavior is not only dangerous but it is also wrong
and illegal.
This program is inappropriate as it is currently being
conducted and of questionable benefit. Our schools should
concentrate on education and leave behavior modification
where it belongs, with the legislators and parents.
Mr. SMITH. Madam President, he goes on, and I am not going to read
the letter, it is part of the Record. I just want to note a couple of
things in it. He indicates in here that he found out about this program
through a high school student newspaper. He did not know it was part of
his daughter's curriculum.
His daughter was a sophomore and was going to be subjected to this
program. ``Since he was not informed,'' he said, ``in a timely fashion,
he missed the evening presentation.'' He goes on to say the Fairfax
County Board voted for this in July 1992.
* * * the school board did not authorize the expenditure of
public school funds to pay for the program. It is generally
thought that the intent of the school board was to have the
PTA's fund it for their individual schools.
Anyway, he goes on to talk about what the program is.
One speaker in this particular assembly used profanity on several
occasions, even though they do not allow the teachers to use it.
Another said that HIV had its benefits for her. Two other speakers told
of 20 years of continuous crime. Both said they had never done anything
wrong. One homosexual blamed his problems on his parents and their
religion. This was one of the speakers. This is Fairfax County, VA.
I will enter that for the Record. My colleagues may read that.
Again, is this really what we want our kids exposed to in the public
school systems? We wonder why so many parents who can afford it take
their children out of public schools. And then I also wonder why so
many of my friends to the left do not want to support vouchers to allow
poor people, underprivileged people to take their kids out of there,
too, so they do not have to be subjected to this.
I ask each of my colleagues to please listen: How would you respond
if your 12-year-old, or worse, your 6-year-old brought home some of the
materials that I have at my desk? I have not seen a line over here to
look at it, but I hope before the vote that they will.
I remember as a 6- or 12-year-old, if I brought home something like
that, I would be punished for it. And I can assure you I did not get it
from my teacher or from my curriculum.
We can and we must protect the taxpayers by keeping this kind of
trash out of our schools, and that is exactly what it is. It is trash.
I expect to be challenged. I welcome the challenge.
I see my friend and colleague from Minnesota, and I am about to yield
the floor, I say to him, but the question, whenever we bring these
kinds of things up, the question always comes: Somebody is trying to
practice their morality or tell somebody else how to think, what to do,
what to do with their lives, telling them what to do with their sex
lives. That is the furthest thing from the truth. That is not the
purpose of being here.
The question is: Should the taxpayers, the U.S. taxpayers, without
any vote on this, be funding these kinds of programs? I do not think
they should, and we are going to have a vote on it.
Let me make it very clear, so there is no misunderstanding, a vote
against, whether it is on the Helms second-degree amendment or my
underlying amendment, whichever the case may be--and we do not need two
votes, one or the other--a vote against that amendment is a vote to
say, yes, it is OK, it is OK to expose my kids or anybody's kids to
these kinds of materials from the ages of 3 years old through high
school. Advocating, promoting the homosexual lifestyle in the schools
with materials that are so graphic, in some cases, and so disgusting,
that I cannot display them on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but you can
look at them in your kid's classroom, if you think that is right, then
the vote for you is no on Helms and Smith; the vote is no. It is very
easy. If you think it is wrong, then you will have an opportunity to
say so.
Madam President, I think I have made my point. I have one
parliamentary inquiry before I yield the floor. I assume the yeas and
nays have been ordered on the Helms second-degree amendment, which
means that it is not necessary for me to ask for a similar yeas and
nays at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SMITH. At this point, I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, the Senator from New Hampshire, my
friend, said he assumed that there would be a challenge to this
amendment and there would be debate on the floor, and he is correct
about that.
I hope before Senators vote on this amendment, they will read the
language very carefully.
No local educational agency that receives funds under this
act shall implement or carry out a program or activity that
has either the purpose or effect of encouraging or supporting
homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.
Definition of program or activity:
A program or activity, for purposes of this section,
includes the distribution of instructional materials,
instruction, counseling, or other services on school grounds,
or referral of a pupil to an organization that affirms a
homosexual lifestyle.
My colleague from New Hampshire knows this. I think a lot of him. We
do not always agree, but we are friends. But I really think the
effect--so I am not talking about him in personal terms, but the effect
of this, Madam President, is very mean spirited.
Counseling. I was a teacher for 20 years. Gay youth are two or three
times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual young people.
You have a young person, Madam President, gay person, confused about
his or her sexuality, not only confused but despondent, depressed,
ashamed, thinking of himself or herself as maybe less than fully
human--sometimes I think we talk about gay and lesbian people on the
floor of the Senate as if they are less than fully human--often thrown
out in the streets by their families and all too often driven to drugs
and alcohol to numb the pain. You mean to tell me that we would pass an
amendment in this Chamber that would say if that young man or that
young woman, confused, despondent, depressed, contemplating suicide,
was to go to a counselor in our school system, there could be no
counseling to save that young person's life? That is what this
amendment says.
(Mr. FEINGOLD assumed the Chair.)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just repeat this one more time
because there are all sorts of other issues on which I could focus, but
I just want to focus on this one issue.
Definition. A program or activity, for the purposes of this
section, includes the distribution of instructional
materials, instruction, counseling * * *.
Mr. President, you have a young person, young man or woman, thinking
of themselves as worthless--and believe you me, it happens--confused
about their sexuality, taunted, no support at home--and the statistics
bear this out in terms of the suicide rate, I say to my colleague--and
this young man or woman seeks counseling in our school system, and we
are saying through this amendment we cannot counsel that young person
to try to save a life?
I say in this Chamber a life is a life. All people are worthy, all
people should be treated with dignity, all people have self-worth. And
just because that young person is gay or lesbian does not mean that
young person is not to be supported through counseling or that our
school system should face a cutoff of funds for providing that
counseling support. So I hope that Senators will reject this amendment.
If Senators want to vote for an alternative, which I think gets at a
concern all of us have, then why do we not vote on an amendment which
says that none of the funds of this act shall be used to produce or
distribute materials or programs directed at youth that are directed to
promote or encourage directly sexual activity, whether homosexual or
heterosexual.
We are interested in programs that deal with drug abuse, that prevent
unwanted pregnancy, that reduce suicide, that reduce the transmission
of sexually transmitted diseases; we want to make sure that happens.
But we do not want to see materials distributed that promote sexual
activity. I am all for that amendment. I know that the Senator from
Vermont is. Senators will have a chance to vote on that amendment.
But I say to my colleagues, please, look at the language of this
amendment. Please do not vote for an amendment that would deny funds to
schools for providing counseling support to young gay people. We cannot
do that. We just simply cannot do that because that is not what the
Senate is about.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I call for the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question occurs on amendment 2434.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HELMS. Regular order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. HELMS. Regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
The Senate is in a quorum call.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the regular order under the rules --and I
ask this of the Parliamentarian for counsel--my call for the regular
order would have been the Danforth amendment to be the pending
business; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a quorum call at this moment.
Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings of the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HELMS. We will get no more business done today then, if that is
the way things are going to be done.
The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, obviously I offered my second-degree
amendment to the Smith amendment to be helpful to the Senator from New
Hampshire. They are identical except for the addition of a few words.
But I take exception to the misrepresentation of what the Smith
amendment proposes--and, therefore, what the second-degree amendment
offered by me proposes--by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I
do not know what he taught in college, high school, or anywhere else
for that matter. But this amendment is perfectly clear, and an effort
is being made to persuade Senators that it means something different
from what it says.
I listened carefully to every syllable uttered by the distinguished
Senator from New Hampshire, and I think it is perfectly clear what he
was talking about. But just for the record, for the legislative
history, let me ask him a few questions. If he will follow me along in
the text of his amendment and my second-degree amendment, and he can
confirm the accuracy of my remarks.
Does it read in both his amendment and my second-degree amendment as
follows: ``(b), Definition: A program or activity?''
Mr. SMITH. That is correct. Program or activity.
Mr. HELMS. ``* * * for the purposes of this section;'' right?
Mr. SMITH. That is correct.
Mr. HELMS. ``* * * includes the distribution of instructional
materials, instruction, counseling''--so far, am I reading it
correctly?
Mr. SMITH. Word for word.
Mr. HELMS. ``* * * or other services on school grounds;'' right?
Mr. SMITH. Correct.
Mr. HELMS. ``* * * or referral of a pupil to an organization''--then
comes the closing clause covering all of the above, as the saying goes:
``* * * that affirms a homosexual lifestyle.''
So when the Senator drafted his amendment--and I used the identical
language for the second-degree amendment--he did propose prohibiting
counseling which is helpful to any student who is thinking about
suicide, or who is ashamed, or whatever it was that the Senator from
Minnesota talked about; is that correct?
Mr. SMITH. I say to the Senator from North Carolina that there is a
distinct difference between the term ``suicide'' and ``homosexuality''
as defined by my amendment.
Mr. HELMS. But the Senator is not talking about prohibiting
counseling for any purpose that is helpful?
Mr. SMITH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HELMS. But you are talking about prohibiting counseling that
affirms a homosexual lifestyle?
Mr. SMITH. That is the exact intent of the language.
Mr. HELMS. All right.
The Senator from Minnesota hypothesized that a student would be
saying to a counselor: ``Oh, I am going to pieces. I am thinking about
suicide. I am gay.'' I am this and that and the other and ``I am just
so depressed and upset.''
What would that counselor do under the Senator's amendment? Would he
say: ``Sit down, son,'' or ``young lady,'' ``and let us talk about it"?
Mr. SMITH. That is exactly correct.
Mr. HELMS. However, the Senator is proposing that that counselor not
be authorized by this or any other act to affirm or encourage or
otherwise affirm a homosexual lifestyle? That is the point of the
amendment regarding counseling, right; the instruction, right; the
distribution of instructional materials, right?
Mr. SMITH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HELMS. If they affirm a homosexual lifestyle, any one or all of
the above, this amendment would prohibit that; is that correct?
Mr. SMITH. That is correct. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HELMS. All right. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, it is all right to be defeated on an amendment, or a
bill, in this Senate if the pretext for the vote is fair, even if it is
a pretext. But it is a little unusual to have all sorts of little
machinations going on, little winks and nods where a provision has been
taken out of a piece of legislation even though that provision has been
approved overwhelmingly by the Senate and approved overwhelmingly by
the House.
But that is what has been happening lately. The managers of the bill,
House and Senate, get together, and they wink and nod, and they throw
the approved amendment away and put in something innocuous and
toothless to replace it.
Those kinds of shenanigans rubbed me the wrong way recently, and I
confess that they did, and I had something to say on the Senate floor
about it. If it continues, I am going to continue to see if I cannot
find roadblocks, legislatively, here or there because that kind of
subterfuge is no way to legislate. It is not fair, and it does not
honorably represent the will of the House or the Senate.
Yes, I am talking about school prayer. Had it not been for such a
wink and a nod right at the conclusion of the conferees' session on the
Goals 2000 bill, it would now be the law of the land that schools could
not prohibit voluntary, constitutionally protected prayer.
Senator Packwood, standing right here with his back to the podium, by
the way, said to me last week, ``What does constitutionally protected
prayer mean?'' And I did not want to embarrass the Senator because I
could have said truthfully, it means exactly what it did the day you
recommended that I modify my amendment back on February 3 to include
it, after he conferred with the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts, of course.
Mr. President, I did not think it added anything to the amendment. I
did not think it hurt anything. So I did add the phrase
``constitutionally protected'' to my amendment, and I added it by
modification. Whereupon, the Senator from Massachusetts voted for the
amendment, as did the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Packwood].
But later on came that wink and the nod in conference. I will get
over this. I have a granddaughter who is 9 years old, and when there is
a little dispute in the family, she says, ``Get over it,'' and ``I will
get over it,'' I say to Katie Stuart.
But I do not like this kind of legislating behind the scenes. I have
never played hanky-panky with Senate protocol, and I have been chairman
of a committee and I have sat on many conference committees, but I have
never, never done that to a colleague, and I never will.
Now, Mr. President, I am perfectly willing to go to a vote on my
amendment provided the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is
willing and provided he has nothing further to say. But if he has
something to say, I hope he will say it and I wish he would invite
Senator Kennedy to come over and look at that material, and I wish he
would invite Senator Jeffords to come over and look at that material,
and I wish he would invite the Senator from Minnesota to come over and
look at the material--which is disgusting and obscene. That is the kind
of material that has been laid out before schoolchildren many, many
times every day in this country, with the use of Government funds. Is
that not correct, I ask the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. That is correct.
Mr. HELMS. Why does not the Senator deliver the last part of our
sermon one more time? We may find a convert somewhere sitting on this
floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just respond to a few of the
remarks of my colleague from North Carolina.
The Senator from New Hampshire was on the floor at the beginning of
my remarks when I made it clear--and this is certainly true that he and
I are good friends and I meant nothing personally, he knows that. But I
felt that the effects of those, which were exactly my words, would be
mean spirited.
Let me one more time just simply say when you have Government threats
of taking away funding and you include as a program instruction
counseling, I would even say instruction, you do not know if you are
dealing with a book or a novel or a poem or literary character, and
teachers have no way of knowing whether or not someone is going to
argue that somehow they are affirming a homosexual lifestyle.
Above and beyond that, I simply say to my colleagues understand the
effect of this. The effect of this is you have a young person who comes
in--I will repeat it one more time--confused about their sexuality, all
too often feeling worthless, depressed. Unfortunately, the statistics
are there for us to see. There are two to three times the rate of
suicide for young, gay people. They come to a counselor, and you have
language like this? What does it mean ``affirm?'' The effect of this is
going to be a position where that counselor cannot really even support
this young person. You cannot have language like ``affirm.'' We are
essentially saying exactly what I said we are going to say, and that is
why this alternative amendment, which makes all the sense in the world
where we simply say nothing in this act shall be used to produce or
distribute materials or programs directed at youth that are designed to
promote or encourage directly sex activities, whether heterosexual or
homosexual.
I think we agree on that. I am sorry. I say to the Senator from North
Carolina I think there is just a profound misunderstanding about what
the effect of this would be. The effect of this amendment would be
cruel. The effect of this amendment would be that counselors in our
school system would feel that they were not in a position to counsel
and support young, desperate people for fear that that would be
interpreted as affirming homosexuality.
That is what is so profoundly wrong about this amendment. That is why
we have to vote against this amendment, and that is why colleagues
should vote up or down on the alternative amendment which does
precisely what I think there is a broad consensus in the body to do,
which is to make sure that materials are not distributed that promote
sexual activities. We are not after who these people are. We are
talking about the sexual activity.
So I think it is quite clear what is at stake here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just make some brief, general
comments and outline very briefly about how I see the current
situation, and then hopefully we can move toward some resolution.
First of all, Mr. President, I oppose this amendment which seeks to
undermine the most fundamental principle of this legislation--that
States and local communities are responsible and accountable for
designing programs and curricula to improve the educational outcomes of
their students.
Funds authorized under ESEA are intended to promote and encourage one
thing only--locally defined activities that are designed to further the
education goals.
It has always been the role of LEA's to design programs that meet the
needs of their communities. And no two communities in this Nation are
alike.
The proposed amendment would take this local decisionmaking authority
away from local communities, and prohibit them from considering a range
of services that may have local support in order to protect the health,
safety, and educational success of their students.
It is the parents, community leaders, school administrators, and
teachers who know what students need in their community. At the time we
are empowering schools to pursue effective local school reform
strategies--this amendment would demand regulation at the Federal level
regarding support services for gay youth and comprehensive health
education.
This bill is not about sexuality, sex education, or sexual
orientation. It is about helping students--all students--prosper in
school and grow up ready and able to join society as productive
citizens.
That is the fundamental task of our schools. Educators and
administrators need flexibility to meet this great challenge.
It is clear that young people today face serious challenges and need
the guidance of caring adults to help them make responsible choices.
The facts speak for themselves.
Earlier this year the administration released the annual survey of
drug use among adolescents, which shows that illegal drug use continues
to rise among high school students. Today, 1 in 5 eighth graders are
abusing inhalants such as glues or aerosols, which can cause
longlasting and devastating side effects.
We know from the Centers for Disease Control that more than half of
high school students are sexually active. Each year more than 1 million
teenagers become pregnant, and nearly 3 million adolescents contract a
sexually transmitted disease. More than 75,000 adolescents have already
been diagnosed with AIDS. More than 1 in 5 of those who have already
died was probably infected as a teenager.
And mental health problems, such as depression and attempted suicide
continue to plague our young people.
While there is nothing in this act that would require local
communities to deal with these issues, many believe they cannot put
their heads in the sand and prevent these tragedies from not occurring.
These realities affect the abilities of youth to concentrate, learn,
and succeed in school. As local school districts--in consultation and
cooperation with parents--seek to respond, we should not tie their
hands and remove the tools they feel are needed in order to get their
job done.
Congress should not tell teachers, parents, school administrators,
and LEA's what they may or may not teach--what they may or may not
offer as a support service--to prepare their students for achievement
and productive adulthood. This amendment would remove the local
discretion that is the hallmark of our educational system. That is why
the National PTA has written in opposition to this proposal, stating:
Conservatives and liberals alike in our organization
believe in the concept of local decision-making and the
involvement of parents and other community members in the
development of sexuality programs. These are not decisions
that Senators should be making for 45 million children. These
are decisions that parents should be making at the local
level, and we oppose any and all attempts to curtail the
rights of parents to decide what is best for their children.
This sentiment was shared by the National Association of School
Boards of Education and the National School Boards Association. They
have written to vigorously oppose any attempts by the Federal
Government to restrict schools' ability to shape their own programs to
improve student health.
We have seen this type of amendment before, and I am sure that we
will see it again. During previous consideration, the Senate has
repeatedly acknowledged that it is not the role of government to
directly promote sexual activity of any sort. And that is still the
case.
However, we have also acknowledged that it is the role and the
responsibility of government to provide accurate information and
support services to prevent the tragic consequences of public health
concerns such as HIV, substance abuse, and suicide.
It is the essence of this legislation to support the educational
improvement strategies of State education agencies and local education
agencies to meet the needs of children they must educate--and we should
not be distracted from that critically important purpose.
It is the right and responsibility of parents and local educators to
determine strategies they deem appropriate to protect and educate their
children. If these solutions include a plan to target support services
to troubled adolescents--as a means of reducing their drop out rate
addressed in the second education goal--then communities must be
allowed to use them.
But the proposed amendment would have us believe that Congress knows
better. It imposes one view, one opinion on all the States and
communities of this country--in effect, telling them they cannot be
trusted to determine what their students need or can receive.
The alternative amendment I have offered along with Senator Jeffords,
Senator Williams, and others is intended to strike a balance--one that
has been consistently supported and adopted since it was originally
offered by Senator Hatch and myself.
Our alternative would prohibit States and local communities from
developing materials and programs that promote or encourage sexual
activity. It acknowledges that this is not the role of Government.
However, it leaves in place the ability to State and local education
agencies to decide, if they so choose that this is their role, to
target support for high-risk use and seek to prevent substance abuse,
violence, suicide, school termination, or other serious problems.
There is nothing in this bill that compels local education agencies
to provide such programs. And there is nothing in our amendment that
encourages local communities to develop such programs.
Our amendment will assure that the Federal funds are not used to
promote or encourage sexual activity of any kind. But it will also
maintain the local community control over the content of materials, and
perhaps that is the hallmark of American education.
I would urge my colleagues to support our alternative that, in turn,
supports local communities struggling to design programs that meet the
needs of their young people.
Mr. President, just so that we have some idea of where we are, from a
parliamentary point of view, I would hope that we would have a vote on
the Smith and Helms amendment. There is an indication that would be an
up or down vote.
I hope, since we have temporarily set aside the Danforth amendment,
that we would have comments from Senator Danforth on that amendment,
which we debated earlier. I know that one or two Senators have
indicated they wanted to speak briefly on that measure, and then I
would hope that we would be able to have a rollcall vote on the
amendment, which I have outlined very briefly in this presentation,
which effectively would include the concepts which I have stated.
It would say:
None of the funds appropriated under this act shall be used
to develop materials or programs directed at youth that are
designed to directly promote or encourage sexual activity,
whether homosexual or heterosexual.
That would effectively be it.
So that would be our hope. I understand that that does not
necessarily mean that we will follow that path, but it would appear to
me that that would give those that have differing views an opportunity
to have their views addressed by the Members here.
We would have a resolution of the Danforth amendment, which I believe
will require a vote. And then we will move on to the other matters
which the Senate will address.
Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I do not intend to unnecessarily prolong
the debate.
I do want to respond to a couple of points that have been made here.
Obviously, if we were to vote for the proposal of the Senator from
Massachusetts, we essentially are looking the other way and not dealing
with the issue that I have presented here.
I have the materials. Senator Helms suggested that I ask Members of
the Senate to come over and review them. I have done that. I will
repeat again the invitation to have my colleagues review the materials
before the vote. They speak for themselves.
This amendment that the Senator from Massachusetts is proposing is
not going to stop this sort of thing. The funds are still going to be
there for this type of information being dispersed in the schools. I
think it is wrong. That is the point I am trying to make.
I would say to the Senator from Minnesota, to seize upon the word
``counseling'' and to extract from that word, based on the tone, the
overall purpose of my amendment and say that that means one could not
counsel a young man or woman against suicide is really, really reaching
well, well beyond the bounds of my amendment.
Since I am the author of that amendment, I think I can certainly
speak to what the intent of the amendment is. We are talking about
counseling to affirm homosexual lifestyle. That is the type of
counseling we are referring to. We are not referring to emergency
counseling regarding someone who may be contemplating suicide or
anything else that is unrelated to the issue as I have here defined it.
Again, I want to repeat, when we talk about counseling, I will tell
you what counseling means. Under my definition, counseling would mean
passing out a brochure like this called ``Listen Up,'' which I will not
open and read.
We talk about poor choice of words. The Senator from Minnesota
selects ``counseling'' as a poor choice of words--I suggest the Senator
read this pamphlet and read some of the language in here. I thought I
had heard every word that would be called profanity, but I must confess
I might have learned a couple of new ones looking through this. This is
now for junior high school kids, kids who are trying to make some
determination about their own lives, their own futures. To have this
kind material--that is counseling. That is the kind of counseling I am
referring to.
Or this kind of book here, ``Daddy's Roommate.'' That is the kind of
counseling I am referring to. Passing out materials like that and
passing out materials like this one, which I cannot hold up, which is
filthy and disgusting. It has no place in any public school system at
any age level, let alone the age level we are talking about. That is
the issue.
I just want to cover a couple of points that I neglected to mention.
This is interesting, I would say to the Senator from North Carolina. In
this book which promotes this homosexuality and uses the terms--it is
obvious, as you read it, these are not used in any tasteful way. They
are using words that one would generally consider as slang and
profanity in almost a disgusting way, not in an educational way. That
is the point.
At the end of this book, in appreciation it lists all of those who
are responsible for this book. They obviously want to take credit. But
a couple of States have been referred to here. New York was one. ``The
young people at our pilot sites''--I will read the States, the pilot
sites for this book. It looks innocuous, ``Talk About Sex,'' until you
start reading it and you find out what they are talking about and what
kind of sex they are talking about. ``These young people at our pilot
sites in New York, Nebraska, Alaska, Vermont, Minnesota, and
Louisiana,'' they are saying they appreciate it ``for sharing their
ideas, their thoughts, and their lives in order to make this project
possible.''
Talk about counseling; that is the kind of counseling I am talking
about. I am not talking about some young man or woman walking in,
threatening suicide. I think just the implication--I respect the
Senator; he knows that; I do not take it personally--but just the
implication I would even suggest in any type of legislation before this
body that an individual should not be counseled for suicide is an
insult. I take it as such. It is not what I meant. It is not what I
intend. And it is not what the amendment does. It does not matter what
I intended; it is what the amendment says. The amendment says very
clearly this is the kind of counseling we are talking about.
Finally, in response to the Senator from Massachusetts talking about
funding: Look, there are plenty of examples of this kind of funding
going on, promoting homosexuality in our schools. That is the bottom
line here. Let us not complicate this issue. Do you want homosexuality
and the lifestyle of it, not some definition about what it is--I am
talking about the promotion, the affirmation of a homosexual lifestyle
with the crudest, most vulgar language that anybody could possibly
create--do you want that taught from the third grade? I take; that
back--from 3-year-olds all the way up to junior high school. If you do,
then vote ``no'' on the Helms-Smith amendment. It is simple.
If you do not, and you would like to see some restrictions put in
here, all you have to do is vote for the amendment and here is what
will happen. The world is not going to come to an end. Everything is
not going to stop. I will tell you what is going to happen.
When those people line up in those school systems in Louisiana and
Minnesota and Nebraska and all the other places where this stuff is
going on, when they line up for those dollars, you are going to have to
simply say, ``We will not use these materials.'' That is pretty
innocuous, is it not? We are just not going to teach your kids this
kind of garbage. If they say that, they can have all the money on the
list. That is all there is to it.
What is wrong with that? We wonder why we have the problems we have
in society today. That is why. Because we do not have the guts in the
U.S. Senate to stand up and say with our votes this is wrong. Some of
us stand up and say it is wrong. Some of us do not. Some of us with
good intentions look for an excuse to obfuscate this issue, to dilute
it so it will render it ineffective. That is exactly what the
alternative that the Senator from Massachusetts, with respect, is
offering. It just obfuscates it. It means it is a nothing amendment and
does not accomplish what I want to accomplish, what needs to be
accomplished, what I believe the overwhelming majority of the American
people would like to see accomplished--which is that this kind of
garbage promoting this lifestyle in direct opposition to the church--we
talk about church and State.
How many times has the Senator from North Carolina heard on the floor
of this Senate challenge after challenge after challenge to him on
prayer in schools or prayer in graduations? But we do not have any
problem with somebody taking on the church--taking on the church in the
public school. That is OK. Taking it right on, any church. Just take it
right on and run it down. Run it right into the ground and say the
reason there are problems in society and the reason you cannot do what
you want to do is because of the church: Christianity, Judaism. That is
what it says in these materials. That is OK.
But, Lord help us, let us not have anybody bow their heads in a
silent prayer in the morning before school or say, ``God take care of
my family and my classmates and my teachers for the rest of the day.''
Oh, no. Boy, the world will definitely come to an end. The Founding
Fathers, they just never intended anything like that, did they? But let
this filth come into our classrooms, that is fine. And you wonder what
is wrong with America? You wonder what is wrong with America.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just before concluding, I want to read
into the Record from the letter from the National School Health
Education Coalition. It is a coalition of over 70 health and education
organizations and agencies, State and local coalitions and other youth-
serving groups. I ask unanimous consent to have the complete letter and
a letter from the National PTA, dated February 2, 1994, printed in the
Record at this point.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National School Health
Education Coalition,
Washington, DC, February 3, 1994.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Kennedy: The National School Health Education
Coalition (NaSHEC) is a coalition of over seventy health and
education organizations and agencies, state and local
coalitions, and other youth-serving groups. Our members are
committed to ensuring that all children and youth receive
quality comprehensive health education as a cornerstone of a
comprehensive health program which includes health services.
NaSHEC urges defeat of any effort to limit the use of federal
funding for school-based health centers or services, or for
education or counseling for gay youths. It is our
understanding that amendments regarding these issues may be
offered during upcoming consideration of proposals to improve
education.
NaSHEC supports family life and sexuality education as an
integral component of a quality comprehensive health
education program and strongly favors encouraging abstinence
without those efforts. We believe that quality comprehensive
health education programs and sexuality education involve a
broad-base of community representatives in making decisions
about a program's content. Historically, Congress has
provided direction about populations, special needs, and
types of educational and health services, but has left local
school districts the flexibility to implement requirements
within their communities. This freedom must continue to be
upheld.
Local school administrators should continue to be given the
freedom and flexibility to tailor comprehensive health
education, including sex education programs, to the needs of
their community. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Pat Cooper,
Executive Director.
____
NaSHEC, Inc. Membership--1993
national
American Academy of Family Physicians.
American Academy of Ophthalmology.
American Academy of Pediatrics.
American Association of School Administrators.
American Cancer Society.
American College Health Association.
American Foundation of Vision Awareness.
American Health Foundation.
American Heart Association.
American Lung Association.
American Optometric Association.
American School Health Association.
Association for the Advancement of Health Education.
Association of Junior Leagues International, Inc.
Association of State and Territorial Directors of Public
Health Education.
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
Center for Population Options.
The Chickering Group.
Comprehensive Health Education Foundation.
Council of Chief State School Officers.
Education Development Center.
ETA Sigma Gamma.
ETR Associates.
Harvard School Health Education Project.
March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation.
Metropolitan Life Foundation.
National Association of Elementary School Principals.
National Association of School Nurses, Inc.
National Association of State Boards of Education.
National Center for Health Education.
National Education Association, Health Information Network.
National School Boards Association.
National Scoliosis Foundation, Inc.
Sex Information and Education Council for the United
States.
Society of State Directors of Health, Physical Education
and Recreation.
Society for Public Health Education, Inc.
federal liaison
Adolescent Pregnancy Program, Department of Health and
Human Services.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
Division of Adolescent and School Health/CDC.
Division of Cancer Prevention and Control/CDC.
____
The National PTA,
February 2, 1994.
Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Chair, Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senate
Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The National PTA supports S. 1150,
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and applauds the Committee's
efforts in providing local initiatives for school reform.
Indeed, top-down reform, much of which has been evident in
the last decade, does not work. In a scientific poll taken by
the National PTA and commissioned by Chrysler Motors, we
found out that only approximately 5 percent of America's
parents know about the National Goals. Is it any wonder that
reform is taking so long when the grassroots have not been
involved in any meaningful way in educational restructuring.
Goals 2000 attempts to correct those top-down requirements
by including parents and the community in educational change.
With the addition of the parental involvement goal, S. 1118
as proposed by Senator Mark Hatfield, and part of the
Committee's list of recommendations to be added to Goals
2000, the very people--parents and the community--that will
ultimately make the program successful are urged to be
included. The one thing that makes S. 1150 so appealing to
the National PTA is the understanding that one size of
instructional program or service does not fit all 14,000 plus
school districts, each with their differing needs and value
systems. Redesigning new schools is much different than
redesigning refrigerators or snazzy cars. It requires the
ownership of the key stakeholders, the clients who ultimately
will use the product and the policymakers who will be
required to support the efforts.
Just as the National PTA would oppose mandated academic
standards or assessments or curriculum, we similarly oppose
any restrictions on the instructional program offered in
local schools. We therefore oppose any amendments to Goals
2000 that would prohibit funds to be used in materials,
curriculum or programs that addresses the difficult issues of
sexuality as they are faced by local communities. Certainly,
we agree that Congress should not be in the business of
funding material that is designed simply to promote or
encourage sexual activity of any nature, homosexual or
heterosexual. However, discussion about program content and
services need to be made in cooperation with parents, schools
and other organizations at the local level. It is the
obligation of the state to set minimum standards and provide
the latest information about HIV-AIDS and other health
curricula. But final responsibility for local programs must
fall on the local communities.
That is why we were so adamant in supporting the National
Education Goal for Parental Participation Act. The beauty of
the public school is that ``the public'' can and should get
together to determine what is the best curriculum for their
particular needs, school district by school district. That is
also why the National PTA has worked so closely with CDC and
many other organizations in educating our membership about
HIV-AIDs, and assuring that no child is discriminated
against, no matter what their sexual preference.
In addition, the National PTA supports legislation to
assist states and localities to develop and fund
comprehensive health care programs, including school-linked
health clinic, and provide equitable access to quality,
affordable healthy care for all children, youth and pregnant
women. Health clinics MUST have include parents in all
decisions pertaining to children's education and development.
We would hope that you would oppose all efforts that would
permit the U.S. Department of Education to dictate curriculum
decisions to local school districts. Representative William
Goodling was concerned about this possibility when the House
passed Goals 2000, and we would support adding such an
amendment on the Senate version of Goals 2000 as well.
Sincerely,
Catherine A. Belter,
Vice President Legislative Activity.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will read two paragraphs from the letter from NaSHEC:
Our members are committed to ensuring that all children and
youth receive quality comprehensive health education as a
cornerstone of a comprehensive health program which includes
health services. NaSHEC urges defeat of any effort to limit
the use of federal funding for school-based health centers or
services, or for education or counseling for gay youths. It
is our understanding that amendments regarding these issues
may be offered during upcoming consideration of proposals to
improve education.
NaSHEC supports family life and sexuality education as an
integral component of a quality comprehensive health
education program and strongly favors encouraging abstinence
within those efforts. We believe that quality comprehensive
health education programs and sexuality education involve a
broad-base of community representatives in making decisions
about a program's content. Historically, Congress has
provided direction about populations, special needs, and
types of educational and health services, but has left local
school districts the flexibility to implement requirements
within their communities. This freedom must continue to be
upheld.
The 70 member organizations include the American Academy of Family
Physicians; the American Academy of Pediatrics; the American
Association of School Administrators; the American Cancer Society; the
American Lung Association; the Association of Junior Leagues. That is
not considered to be a very radical group. The Association of State and
Territorial Health Officials; the March of Dimes; National Association
of Elementary School Principals; National Association of School Nurses;
National Association of State Boards of Education. I have included the
total list in the Record.
They believe, obviously, that there are going to be different
criteria for different children in different parts of the country.
There will be in my own State of Massachusetts, obviously, different
programs for certain parts, different programs for Boston, for example,
than in other parts of the State. Those are basically local judgments
and decisions.
This does not just restrict the funding here. The way this is
constructed, if any agency is providing any kind of material described
in that amendment, then the State loses all of the funding for poor
children. And, as Senator Wellstone and I have mentioned repeatedly, we
want to make sure the Members will have an opportunity to make a
judgment. This legislation is about poor children and their education,
not promoting one form of sexual activity or another, other than
abstinence. And we believe our amendment reflects that and demonstrates
it. I hope we will have an opportunity to consider it.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.
As Senator Kennedy has pointed out, there will be an opportunity for
Senators to vote on an amendment that makes it clear that nothing in
this act would encourage the distribution of materials or encourage
sexual activity of any kind in public schools.
I just want one more time to focus on what I consider to be the most
serious, dangerous part of this amendment, and I hope that my
colleagues and staff are listening. The prohibition is:
No local educational agency that receives funds under this
act shall implement or carry out a program or activity that
has either the purpose or the effect--
Mr. President--
or the effect of encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a
positive lifestyle alternative.
And then listed as a program activity is counseling.
What in the world does this language mean? One more time, a troubled
youth--gay--goes to see a counselor and that youth says to that
counselor: I am gay, or I am homosexual, or I am lesbian, and I feel
worthless; I do not have any reason to live. The suicide rate is three
times as high for young people who are gay.
That counselor says: You should not feel that way. Just because you
are gay or lesbian does not mean you are not a person of dignity.
Now, have we affirmed, has this had the effect of now supporting
homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative? By the language of
this amendment, yes, with the threat of cutoff of Federal funds. It is
going to be very difficult for our schools and our counselors to
provide support to young people, yes, regardless of whether they are
gay or lesbian who need that support.
That is what is so profoundly wrong with this amendment, and there is
no other way to read it. It does not just talk about purpose, it talks
about effect. Draft another amendment. But this amendment has precisely
the effect of making it well nigh impossible for our schools and our
counselors to provide support to these young people.
I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment on basic
humanitarian grounds. I hope we will vote for the alternative
amendment, which is crystal clear about money not being used to promote
sexual activity of any kind. That is what we are concerned about,
instructional materials that do that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, just again to repeat one point to my
colleague from Minnesota. On the issue of counseling, I have made clear
the intent of the amendment, as the maker. But it is interesting in
this debate that the counseling that takes place with the literature
that I referred to is not objectionable to the Senator or to those who
argue against me on the amendment. Calling respected clergymen of the
churches of all faiths--there is no specific reference here to any
particular faith, so I would have to assume all faiths--idiots that
mess with your mind, I, frankly, have some problems understanding why
that kind of counseling is not objectionable to my colleagues.
And then when you look at the language and the documents that I have
already referred to, I find that objectionable and I find it
interesting, again, that those words that are singled out like
``affirmed'' and ``counseling'' are objectionable to the Senator from
Minnesota, but words that are so filthy that I cannot even repeat them
on the floor of the Senate without having my words taken down, nor can
I even show the documents, are not objectionable by implication. As I
said, that is what I find interesting in this debate.
Mr. President, I do not choose to prolong the debate and I will yield
the floor. I just want to understand the parliamentary situation. At
this time, the next vote would be on the Danforth amendment, followed
by a vote on the Smith amendment, as amended by Helms; or is there some
other parliamentary sequence of which I am not aware?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against the Helms amendment.
I am, of course, concerned about and opposed to any program or
activity in the public schools which would promote sexual activity,
whether homosexual or heterosexual. I will support the proposal of the
managers of the bill which will have the effect of prohibiting the use
of Federal funds for any such activity.
Senator Helms' amendment is, in my judgment, too broadly drawn.
Mr. President, many young teenagers who are gay individuals seek
counseling in our school systems. In many instances, such youths are
depressed or suicidal. Appropriate counseling of such kids often
includes supporting them, encouraging their sense of self-worth, and
letting them know that they are decent and valuable human beings. Some
might construe such counseling as supporting homosexuality as a
positive lifestyle alternative.
The Helms amendment is so broadly drawn as to leave the
interpretation open and put Federal support of the schools involved at
risk.
The amendment offered by the bi-partisan managers of the bill more
accurately addresses the need to make clear the Senate's opposition to
the use of Federal funds to promote sexual activity--heterosexual or
homosexual--without endangering school programs and counselors who seek
only to help our young students advance themselves and to gain a better
education.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the pending question is
the Helms second-degree amendment to the Smith amendment.
Is there further debate? If not, the question occurs on agreeing to
the Helms second-degree amendment to the Smith amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
DeConcini
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Ford
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kohl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Roth
Sasser
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--36
Akaka
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Campbell
Chafee
Daschle
Dodd
Feingold
Feinstein
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Packwood
Pell
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--1
Wallop
So the amendment (No. 2434) to amendment No. 2433 was agreed to.
amendment no. 2435 to amendment no. 2433
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available under this Act
from being used to promote or encourage sexual activity)
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself
and Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 2435 to the
amendment numbered 2433.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the pending amendment, insert the following:
SEC. . LIMITATION.
(a) In General. None of the funds authorized under this Act
shall be used to develop materials or programs directed at
youth that are designed to directly promote or encourage,
sexual activity, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, is
recognized.
Mr. HELMS. I call for the regular order, Mr. President.
Amendment No. 2430
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order has been called for.
The matter now before the Senate is the amendment offered by the
Senator from Missouri [Mr. Danforth], amendment No. 2430.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on that
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the parliamentary situation is as
follows: The Helms amendment was included as an amendment to the Smith
amendment, which permitted further proceedings by the Senate. Senator
Jeffords and I added a follow-on amendment which does not dislocate the
Helms amendment, does not substitute, but gives the Members an
opportunity to express their view on this particular policy issue. As
was appropriately pointed out, we had previously in the day debated the
Danforth amendment which related to single-sex schools. We had about a
3-hour debate on that. We went through a period of about an hour or two
where we considered other matters--discussions on Haiti, and others--as
we tried to work through the process with the Senator from Missouri.
I know that the Senator from Missouri wants to address and reach a
resolution of this issue. It is a very, very important one. I hope that
he will be afforded the opportunity to do so and that we could do it in
a timely way. I had indicated to Senator Danforth that we would address
that issue after we had some votes on the previous amendments. And so
at this time I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is the
Senator's Amendment No. 2430.
Amendment No. 2430, as modified
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, during this morning's deliberations on
this amendment, Senator Graham of Florida made some recommendations
relating to certain funds which were in the bill. He would prefer for
them to be deleted. We worked with his staff and made those changes.
We have also worked with various people who are interested in the
question of whether same-gender classes are permissible under title IX
in order to remedy effects of past discrimination.
So, subsequent to those various meetings, I have made the following
changes in my amendment to accommodate the Senator from Florida and to
address concerns expressed by the manager of the bill. I have removed
those provisions which would have provided monetary resources on the
part of the Federal Government to support the implementation of same-
gender classes. Also, the amendment would now read that the Secretary
of Education is to commission a study of the educational opportunity
demonstration program to compare educational and behavioral outcomes of
those selecting same-gender classes and those selecting the
coeducational option.
I have also added a construction clause to ensure that this amendment
is neutral regarding the question which has been previously litigated
in court, whether same-gender classes, programs or schools are
permissible under title IX in order to remedy the effects of past
discrimination.
Mr. President, I now send a modification to the desk, and I ask
unanimous consent that my amendment be modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendment, (No. 2430) as modified, reads as follows:
On page 650, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
``PART H--EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
``SEC. 1801. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
``(1) while low-income students have made significant gains
with respect to educational achievement and attainment,
considerable gaps still persist for these students in
comparison to those from more affluent socio-economic
backgrounds;
``(2) our Nation has a compelling interest in assuring that
all children receive a high quality education;
``(3) new methods and experiments to revitalize educational
achievement and opportunities of low-income individuals must
be a part of any comprehensive solution to the problems in
our Nation's educational system;
``(4) preliminary research shows that same gender classes
and schools may produce promising academic and behavioral
improvements in both sexes for low-income, educationally
disadvantaged students;
``(5) extensive data on same gender classes and schools are
needed to determine whether same gender classes and schools
are closely tailored to achieving the compelling government
interest in assuring that all children are educated to the
best of their ability;
``(6) in recent years efforts to experiment with same
gender classes and schools have been inhibited by lawsuits
and threats of lawsuits by private groups as well as
governmental entities; and
``(7) there is a compelling government interest in granting
the Secretary authority to insulate a limited number of local
educational agencies and schools which are experimenting with
same gender classes for a limited period of time from certain
law suits under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,
section 204 of the Education Amendments of 1974, section 1979
of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983), or any other law
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, in order to
collect data on the effectiveness of such classes in
educating children from low-income, educationally
disadvantaged backgrounds.
``(b) Purposes.--It is the purpose of this part--
``(1) to give the Secretary discretion to allow
experimentation with same gender classes for low-income,
educationally disadvantaged students;
``(2) to determine whether same gender classes make a
difference in the educational achievement and opportunities
of low-income, educationally disadvantaged individuals; and
``(3) to involve parents in the educational options and
choices of their children.
``SEC. 1802. DEFINITIONS.
``As used in this part--
``(1) the term `educational opportunity school' means a
public elementary, middle, or secondary school or a consor-
tium of such schools all of which receive A waiver under this title,
that--
``(A) establishes a plan for voluntary, same gender classes
at one or more than one school in the community;
``(B) provides same gender classes for both boys and girls,
as well as a co-educational option for any parent that
chooses that option;
``(C) gives parents the option of choosing to send their
child to a same gender class or to a co-educational class;
``(D) admits students on the basis of a lottery, if more
students apply for admission to the same gender classes than
can be accommodated;
``(E) has a program in which a member of the community is
asked to volunteer such member's time in classes of children
of the same gender as the member; and
``(F) operates in pursuit of improving achievement among
all children based on a specific set of educational
objectives determined by the local educational agency
applying for a grant under this part, in conjunction with the
educational opportunity advisory board established under
section 1803(e) and agreed to by the Secretary; and
``(2) the term `educational opportunity advisory board'
means an advisory board established in accordance with
section 1803(e).
``SEC. 1803. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
``(a) Inapplicability.--Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, section 204 of the Education Amendments
of 1974, section 1979 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C.
1983), and any other law prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of sex, shall not apply to a local educational agency
or an educational opportunity school for a five year period
following the secretary's grant of the waiver only to the
extent the Secretary determines necessary to ensure the
development and operation of same gender classes in
accordance with this part.
``(b) Educational Opportunity Advisory Board.--Each local
educational agency receiving a waiver under this part shall
establish an educational opportunity advisory board. Such
advisory board shall be composed of school administrators,
parents, teachers, local government officials and volunteers
involved with an educational opportunity school. Such
advisory board shall assist the local educational agency in
developing the application for assistance under section 1804
and serve as an advisory board in the functioning of the
educational opportunity school.
``SEC. 1804. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) Applications Required.--Each local educational agency
desiring a waiver under this part shall submit, within 180
days of the date of enactment of the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994, an application to the Secretary at such
time, in such manner and accompanied by such information as
the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(b) Scope of Application.--Each application described in
subsection (a) may request a waiver for a single educational
opportunity school or for a consortium of such schools.
``(c) Application Contents.--Each application described in
subsection (a) shall include--
``(1) a description of the educational program to be
implemented by the proposed educational opportunity school,
including--
``(A) the grade levels or ages of children to be served;
and
``(B) the curriculum and instructional practices to be
used;
``(2) a description of the objectives of the local
educational agency and a description of how such agency
intends to monitor and study the progress of children
participating in the educational opportunity school;
``(3) a description of how the local educational agency
intends to include in the educational opportunity school
administrators, teaching personnel, and role models from the
private sector;
``(4) a description of how school administrators, parents,
teachers, local government and volunteers will be involved in
the design and implementation of the educational opportunity
school;
``(5) a description of how the local educational agency or
the State, as appropriate, will provide for continued
operation of the educational opportunity school once the
Federal waiver has expired, if such agency determines that
such school is successful;
``(6) a justification for the waiver or inapplicability of
any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements that the
local educational agency believes are necessary for the
successful operation of the educational opportunity school
and a description of any State or local statutory or
regulatory requirements, that will be waived for, or will not
apply to, the educational opportunity school, if necessary;
``(7) a description of how students in attendance at the
educational opportunity school, or in the community, will
be--
``(A) informed about such school; and
``(B) informed about the fact that admission to same gender
classes is completely voluntary;
``(8) an assurance that the local educational agency will
annually provide the Secretary such information as the
Secretary may require to determine if the educational
opportunity school is making satisfactory progress toward
achieving the objectives described in paragraph (2);
``(9) an assurance that the local educational agency will
cooperate with the Secretary in evaluating the program
authorized by this part;
``(10) assurances that resources shall be used equally for
same gender classes for boys and for girls;
``(11) assurances that the activities assisted under this
part will not have an adverse affect, on either sex, that is
caused by--
``(A) the distribution of teachers between same gender
classes for boys and for girls;
``(B) the quality of facilities for boys and for girls;
``(C) the nature of the curriculum for boys and for girls;
``(D) program activities for boys and for girls; and
``(E) instruction for boys and for girls; and
``(12) an assurance that the local education agency will
comply with the research and evaluation protocol developed by
the Secretary of Education.
``(13) such other information and assurances that the
Secretary may require.
``SEC. 1805. SELECTION OF GRANTEES.
``The Secretary shall award waivers under this part on the
basis of the quality of the applications submitted under
section 1804, taking into consideration such factors as--
``(1) the quality of the proposed curriculum and
instructional practices;
``(2) organizational structure and management of the
school;
``(3) the quality of the plan for assessing the progress
made by children in same gender classes over the period of
the grant;
``(4) the extent of community support for the application;
and
``(5) the likelihood that the educational opportunity
school will meet the objectives of such school and improve
educational results for students; and
``(6) the assurances submitted pursuant to section
1804(c)(13).
``SEC. 1806.
The Secretary of Education is hereby required to commission
a study upon enactment of the Educational Opportunity
Demonstration Program, with appropriate protocols to compare
the educational and behavioral achievement of those choosing
same gender classes and those choosing the coeducational
option. The study should be delivered to all members of
Congress within one year of the expiration of the waiver
authority granted herein.
``SEC. 1807. CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this part shall be construed to affect the
availability under Title IX of remedies to overcome the
effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex.''
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, let me again briefly summarize what the
amendment is about. Right now some of our school districts, especially
school districts in some of our larger cities, have attempted to set up
single-gender classes or programs within those schools. However, they
have been chilled in their efforts to do that, both by the Department
of Education and by the threat of lawsuits by private organizations who
have claimed that single-gender classes violate title IX.
So this amendment would allow the Secretary of Education to grant
waivers from title IX for 10 applicants, only 10. This is a pilot
program, it is a demonstration program. And the demonstration program
would say that the Secretary of Education may grant waivers in 10 cases
and only 10 cases for a period of 5 years.
There is absolutely nothing in this amendment that would require
anybody to do anything. There is nothing in this amendment that would
require a school district to seek to have or to offer single-sex
classes. If a school district wanted to do so, the school district
would have to apply to the Department of Education, and the Secretary
of Education could turn down each and every applicant.
In order to be approved by the Secretary of Education, the applicants
would have to give certain assurances to the Secretary. Those
assurances relate to equality of opportunity and--I am reading from the
amendment--``assurances that resources shall be used equally for same-
gender classes for boys and for girls; assurances that the activities
assisted under this part will not have an adverse effect on either, sex
that is caused by the distribution of teachers between same-gender
classes for boys and girls; the quality of facilities for boys and
girls; the nature of the curriculum for boys and girls; program
activities for boys and for girls; and the instruction for boys and for
girls.''
So the Secretary of Education would have to be assured on the basis
of equality.
Once the program is approved, the schools set them up, but the
schools would also have to provide for coeducation, so that the parents
of the kids could pick either way. The parents of the kids could choose
for same-sex classes or they could choose for coeducational classes. It
would be up to the parent.
All this amendment amounts to is choice. And, Mr. President, there
have been studies and there is evidence that some children do better
with the single-sex option; obviously not every child. But, just as
Members of the Senate who send their children to private schools often
can select either a coeducational option or a single-sex option, so
this would provide--on a very limited basis, only 10 school districts
nationwide--for this kind of an opportunity.
That is the amendment. It is very, very limited, very restricted.
Mr. President, I believe the yeas and nays have been ordered. I do
not know whether anyone else wishes to speak.
I see the manager of the bill seeking my attention.
Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DANFORTH. Of course.
Mr. BIDEN. As I understand it--it seemed pretty straightforward--the
Secretary would have the option of approving or not approving, and
there would have to be a showing that an equal amount of money was
being spent for boys and/or girls classes?
Mr. DANFORTH. That is right. That is absolutely correct. The
assurances are spelled out in the amendment itself, and the applicant
would have to provide those assurances in making the application. The
Secretary of Education would then have to be satisfied that those
assurances are, in fact, correct.
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Missouri for
having worked out what I believe is an excellent compromise, if you
want to call it that. Although I think the fundamental desires that he
had and what he is trying to accomplish is certainly accomplished
still, but it is done in a way I think reassures us all that we are
moving in the right direction.
So I compliment him for his work and urge passage of his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Missouri for the work he has done on this amendment. We had a good
discussion on this matter earlier today. We had some good conversation,
negotiations about the structure and the form and the meaning of
language and the objective of the Senator from Missouri. I commend him
for the changes, really, that have been made.
But I, for one, still have the fundamental reservations that I have
expressed earlier in the day. I think there are a number of different
elements that are a matter of concern. We must look at what has
happened over the period of the development of women's education in our
country.
I will not take the time of the Senate to revisit some of these
arguments, but if we see how women have been treated in the classrooms,
not only at the university level where they have been excluded in some
instances, but also how they have been treated in the classrooms in
elementary-secondary education, there is no question we have seen where
young women in our society have, by and large, not had the focus and
attention. We have not given the kind of training to teachers in
sensitivity, by and large, to many of the young women in our
educational systems. As a matter of fact, there is a major part of our
whole effort in this legislation which addresses this issue and which I
reviewed earlier in the day because young women have been left out and
left behind.
Really, a fundamental question comes as we are trying to deal with
the problems of enhanced educational opportunity. We are facing, with a
genuine frustration, how we are going to deal with those issues and
whether this offers, really, some additional opportunity that the other
provisions of this legislation which are directed to enhancing academic
achievement would effectively replace.
I am not persuaded so. I think, even with a small number of school
districts, we are getting into a rather dangerous kind of form when we
are trying to have education--and this is what it is--basically by
exclusion. If you are going to have single-sex activities, you can have
those single-sex activities if you are trying to override past
discrimination. That is why we have women's athletic teams, women's
debate teams, women's mathematics competitions and other activities,
and they have been portrayed as overriding other kinds of
discrimination. It does not foreclose the opportunity for doing that
for single-sex--for blacks, for instance. But that is not what this is
about. This is about all males in these circumstances.
Although the issue has certainly come up before our committee: Why
not just do it with regard to blacks? If we are going to do it with
regard to blacks, what about browns? If we are going to do it for
blacks, browns, what about Asians? Are we going to have black males,
Asian males, brown males; Asian females, black females, brown females--
in a particular school? A particular school district? Is that where we
are trying to go, at a time when we are trying to diminish the
insensitivities, the suspicions, in some instances the inherent
misunderstandings--in few occasions hostility--to differences? Are we
as a society going to exclude the opportunity for that kind of
activity, for some cohesiveness? And do it at a rather basic level and
that is in the form of education?
I mentioned earlier a number of schools have had various programs
which have identified just males, identified just young minority
students in circumstances working as a part of a total school day and a
total school experience. That has been supported, and it is now under
review, as to the factors, in terms of its success.
The point that is raised by some with just the single-sex classes,
for example, in terms of women in our society: What does this do? Does
it do anything to women who are moving into what is generally a male-
dominated world of business activities?
Only in the very recent times have we seen law firms open up to
female partners, or banks open up the corporate offices, or the
corporate boardroom open up to women. Should we expect that the
individuals who come through that process, on the one hand going
through an educational experience that is solely separate, different in
terms--perhaps not the total amount that is going to be expended--but
it also may very well be different in other subtleties.
You say they both will have computer class. What is going to be in
the computer class? Are they going to say we find that women, in terms
of developing these kinds of classes in computers, are going to be
better at it and therefore we are going to do this? Are there going to
be changes? Differences? Are there going to be distinctions?
Mr. President, I think we have been reluctant here to move to
vouchers even while trying to look into experiments about what is going
to happen as a result of young people leaving school systems. We have
charter schools here. We have experimentation in terms of magnet
schools. We have tried to experiment with some privatization. We have
tried to provide some degree of flexibility. We have tried to provide a
waiver of certain rules and regulations at the local level so there
could be greater initiatives and support for reform at local level.
But we have not been willing to waive the fundamental laws on the
issues of discrimination or in terms of disability because we have felt
once we begin to move in those directions, I can see--I know, clearly,
it is not the intention of those who support it--that we move ourselves
into a direction where we get back again to another period of time, of
separate but equal kinds of circumstances.
I genuinely appreciate the seriousness with which the Senate has
addressed this issue, this debate, and the arguments that have been
made. But I hope we would not accept this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pryor). The Senator from Illinois is
recognized.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. I do so with great regard for its sponsor and for his
motivation. The sponsor is a sensitive legislator who has, over the
years, demonstrated his real concern regarding educational access and
educational excellence. So in that regard it is very difficult to argue
against his proposal.
On the other hand, it is absolutely necessary to argue against his
proposal. If you think about it, the most important aspect of this
amendment is it seeks to waive civil rights protection. I think any
time we start talking about waiving civil rights protections for any
group, any group that has had to struggle over the years to receive
those protections in the first instance, we ought to look very
carefully at the circumstances and the needs for doing so.
Waiving civil rights protections for women, for blacks, for Asians,
for other groups that have been left out of the mainstream of American
life is a very serious matter and should only be undertaken under very
serious circumstances. And, frankly, under circumstances in which it is
clear that the conferring of civil rights protections has militated
against the interests of the group that is so considered to be a
protected class.
So I start with that. We are talking about waiving civil rights
protection.
I would make the point also, Mr. President, to the sponsor, that the
really troublesome aspects of this waiver of civil rights protection is
that it is directed to women. It is directed to girls. It is directed
to a group that already suffers from unequal access, unequal treatment,
inadequate facilities in our school systems. Study after study has
shown that girl students receive less than boys in terms of access to
math and science training; less than boys in terms of access to
athletic support; less than boys in any number of areas in our
educational system. And it is in the context of that reality that this
amendment suggests that we remove civil rights protections for those
very people.
I ask the question of any father in this body, and most of the
Members of this body would have to be fathers. But I raise the question
of the fathers in this body. What if it were your daughter assigned to
the class with the second-rate science teacher? What if it were your
daughter assigned to the class with the second-rate mathematics
teacher? If this amendment is agreed to, what recourse would she have?
If this amendment is agreed to, she would be hard put to go to the
courts and say wait a minute, I am entitled to the good math teacher. I
am entitled to the good science teacher.
I am entitled to the same treatment as any boy in my school district
receives. I want to say to the fathers that we want to look very
carefully before we remove civil rights protections for a group that
already has been demonstrated as receiving second-class treatment in
all too many school systems in this country.
Mr. President, we have already been through a time in our country--
and I do not want to inflame this debate; I think the Senator from
Massachusetts made the point very eloquently and very well--we have
already been through the experiment of trying out separate and calling
it equal. And we found out it is very difficult when you make it
separate to have it equal. It is almost an oxymoron. Separate is, more
often than not, unequal, and that is the reality.
So to start now, to try to turn back what gains girls have made in
our school system, in behalf of trying an experiment--and I daresay one
that has not been proved, one that has not been demonstrated as having
given rise to any appreciable increase in educational performance or
educational excellence--to waive those civil rights protections for
those girl students all over this country, or to at least put them in
jeopardy all over this country, it seems to me takes a major step
backward in terms of gender equity, takes a major step backward in
terms of where we are in our commitment to equality of treatment of all
citizens without regard to their gender or their race. It seems to me
to move in the absolute wrong direction.
In support of the argument--and I do not know if it has been
introduced for the Record--I point out that the American Association of
University Women did do a report on how schools shortchange girls.
There is no conclusive evidence that single- sex education works better
than coeducation.
The point that I had in conversation with the Senator from Missouri,
and again it was a very sensitive conversation, is if an individual
wants to, with regard to private schools that use private money, to
make a choice in behalf of single-sex education, that is certainly that
individual's right to do so, certainly within the confines of the
existing law.
Similarly, current law already permits single-sex programming in
specific areas, and where it can already be shown that such programming
truly redresses historic discrimination or under-representation.
So there is already some room for this. But I daresay, Mr. President,
this amendment goes too far because it waives the very civil rights
laws that have been the subject of 20 years plus --I am probably aging
myself--20 years of debate and suffering and sacrifice.
We have come this far; let us not go backward. The Danforth
amendment, unfortunately--and I say this, again, with all due respect
for my colleague from Missouri--is a step in the absolute wrong
direction, will hurt girl students, will hurt our progress in this
area, and really is counterproductive. The amendment ought to be
defeated.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. DANFORTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, just a few words in response to the
various arguments that have been made.
The first is in response to Senator Kennedy. The purpose of this is
not to exclude any student from anything. The point of it is to give
students and their parents a choice. There is nothing in this amendment
that excludes a single child from coeducation. If that child, or more
likely that child's parents, believe that coeducation is best for that
child, that child will receive coeducation in that school.
What this does is to allow schools, if the school district wants to,
to set up single-sex classes if the parents of that child want it. It
is not an exclusion. It is simply creating an option.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the sponsor yield for a question?
Mr. DANFORTH. Certainly.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, if the parents in a school decide
to set up a single-sex math class, for example, for boys, and it turns
out the math teacher is really terrific, and a girl in that school
wants to go to that math class because she wants to learn mathematics,
will she be able then to petition; is there any way that she can then
attend those classes as well, under the Senator's amendment?
Mr. DANFORTH. This really grows out of a discussion that we had last
week to make it very clear that the program cannot provide for
discrimination on the basis of gender, and that assurances must be
given by the applicant school district that resources will be equally
available and that instruction will be equally good for boys and girls.
That has to be the assurance, and that has to be the assurance that is
passed upon by the Secretary of Education in agreeing to the program.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Again, if the Senator will yield, using the same
example, assuming for a moment that the school district certifies we
have a math class for boys and we have a math class for girls, you and
I and everyone knows you have teachers all with the same certification,
and one will be a terrific top-drawer teacher and another is a not-so-
good top-drawer teacher.
Let us assume for a moment the really good teacher is one that has
the boys' class. Can a girl say, ``I want to attend that class; that is
where the good teacher is; those kids are scoring higher on the
scholastic exams than those coming out of the girls' class"?
Mr. DANFORTH. As a parent, I have had exactly that experience with my
children when my kids have been in, say, tenth grade--or whatever the
grade is--and the grade is divided into various sections. And I think,
just at least from my parental observation, that the best teacher is
teaching section 1 and my kid has been assigned to section 3. I do not
have any right to change my kid from section 3 to section 1.
So I think the answer to that question has to be that there is
nothing in this that would give parents a right to pick precisely what
section in a grade the student is in. But I will say that the
assurances that have to be given by the school and passed upon is that
the opportunities are equal.
I guess, if there is a difference in quality of teachers, who knows;
but the purpose of this, I can assure the Senator, is not to say, ``Oh,
well, let's figure out ways of discriminating against either boys or
girls.'' It is the absolute opposite of that.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. If the Senator will yield. I do not take issue
with the motivation of the Senator in filing this amendment at all, and
I want the Record to be very clear in that regard. We have had
privately, I think, a very sincere discussion in this area. But, again,
I raise the question in terms of the legal and the practical
consequences as opposed to motivation. That was the only reason for my
question.
Mr. DANFORTH. I appreciate that.
Mr. President, let me say, there have been studies that have pointed
out that girls in school have been at a disadvantage. This morning I
read, I think at least twice, the various findings of research on this
subject. Research has found that teachers call on boys more frequently
and spend more time with boys and encourage the initiative and the
inquisitiveness of boys rather than girls. That is not right. But that,
apparently, is what the situation is.
Evidence has shown that by the sixth grade, girls have become more
tentative. They are less likely to respond to questions and are
reluctant to take part in class demonstrations.
Once girls enter middle school, the situation worsens, and the girls
who have previously held the edge in subjects, including mathematics,
begin to lose points in every category of national tests. Self-esteem
for girls begins to decline. There are studies on this.
I think, for exactly that reason, there are many parents who say,
``Well, I don't want that for my daughter. I would rather have my
daughter in a single-sex setting.'' This is something that we did in
our family and, again, I am repeating myself from this morning.
But I happen to have four daughters, and all of my daughters, and my
son for that matter, went to single-sex private schools. Why did the
daughters go to single-sex schools? Why did they want it that way and
why did my wife and I want it that way? Because the single-sex schools,
through high school at least, for my girls was something that affirmed
them. It held them up. For example, two of them were class president.
They got to participate in various school activities. All of the
leadership in those schools was girls. They had excellent, excellent
teachers. It was just a wonderful experience for them.
I do not say that this is true for everybody. But for people who are
reasonably well off, they can make this kind of choice. I could make it
for my kids. And I pointed out this morning that President Clinton and
Mrs. Clinton picked Sidwell Friends for their daughter, a coeducational
private school, and I am sure because they thought it was the best
school for their daughter. On the other hand, there are schools in
Washington such as Holton Arms and Landon where my kids went or
National Cathedral School and St. Albans, Georgetown Prep, all these
very fine schools in Washington that are single-sex schools, and the
parents and the kids--in my case the kids participated in it--picked
the schools because they thought that it was best for them.
Senator Kennedy said, well, does that qualify them, particularly the
young women who went to these schools, to fully participate in life
after school? The answer to that question is yes. Again it is
anecdotal. My daughters all went to coeducational colleges. They all
went to very selective coeducational colleges. Two of them went on to
law school from college. One is practicing criminal defense law now,
not a job for somebody who is a wilting violet. And these are products
of single-sex education.
So I would say the answer to the question is that the reason parents
oftentimes would like this, particularly for their daughters, is to
give them an opportunity to grow to the fullness of their potential in
the setting the parent believes best for the student.
In fact--and this has proved to be something that has worked out in
reality, and again I am repeating myself from this morning--Prof.
Cornelius Riordan of Providence College, his research confirms earlier
research that girls in single-sex schools score a full half grade above
their coeducational counterparts on academic ability tests, and girls
in single-sex schools outperform girls in coeducational schools by
almost a full grade level on science test scores. And for minorities it
is the same thing. So what the studies, so far as we have studies, show
is that the people who benefit most from this opportunity are young
women and minorities.
I think all of us recognize--it is the point of having this
legislation on the floor in the first place--that we have real problems
in this country now, real problems with the educational level of our
people. It seems to me that if we can at least set up a little
demonstration program--this is not anything that is draconian. It is
just a demonstration program that says that without fear of title IX,
school districts can apply to the Secretary of Education for a waiver
so that they can try this for a 5-year period of time. They cannot do
it now. In Milwaukee, in Philadelphia, in Miami threats of lawsuits or
threats by the Department of Education have closed down these
experiments. I think that is wrong. It seems to me, if my children get
to go to single-sex schools because it is best for them, why not have
at least some classes in some schools for parents that must send their
children to public schools. That is all this is about. And I think it
is worth a try. Is it a panacea? Nothing is. Nothing is a panacea.
Nothing is a panacea.
But I think this is something, as far as we can tell from all of the
advice we can get, that is worth trying, and I would like to give it a
try. That is the point of my message.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will not take much more time. I see my
friend and colleague from Illinois. I am just wondering if she would
give me some kind of reaction to how this might work and whether she
would be troubled by it.
The language says that the parents have the option of sending their
child to a same-gender class or to a coeducational class. I suppose
there might be the circumstance that the parents of every boy want a
single-sex class. Then could the parent of the girl select the coed
option? Would that be available for her? If all the boys in the class
said, well, we all want single-sex and the girls said we do not want
single-sex but we would like to be coed, there may be circumstances
where there would not be boys left in a class. Or would they be able to
afford the three classes, maybe one for boys, one for girls, and the
other to be coed to cover the same curricula that it now provides in
one coed class? I am not sure whether those are sort of legitimate
kinds of problems that one might face out there.
But the position I take is that we have studies which have been done
now with regard to what has happened in private schools and parochial
schools--and there have been, as I understand, even the examples of
some public schools, a Philadelphia high school--whether we should not
review what has happened in terms of the private schools, the parochial
schools, and perhaps even in the instance where there are public
schools that for one reason or another have been able to develop that
program and then come back to us at a very appropriate time, earlier
time when they were able to have a review. Would this not be a better
way of trying to proceed?
That is the position that I would take for the reasons that have been
outlined here earlier.
I have been listening to Senator Danforth talk about Mr. Riordan up
at Providence College. That is where my son went to college. So I was
interested in the research that was being done up there. But,
nonetheless, would the Senator agree with me that might be a preferable
way of proceeding to address this kind of issue?
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. In response to the Senator from Massachusetts, I
could not agree more. It seems to me--and again to make the argument--
if we are going to head down this road, get on this slippery slope, at
a minimum we ought to have some information about the possible
permutations, the possible practical effects of this. We do not want to
wind up where all the boys are in the good math class, none of the
girls are, and then the girls do not even have an opportunity at that
point for coeducational opportunity, as in the examples given by the
Senator from Massachusetts.
But my most important point here--and I will make it again--is the
operative language of the amendment. Putting aside for a moment
motivation, because I do not question the motivation of the Senator
from Missouri--I know that he is a well-meaning individual--putting
aside the hortatory language of the amendment, the purposes, the
findings, and all the rest of that, the operative language of this
amendment--and I wish to read it--says:
``Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 204
of the Education Amendments of 1974, section 1979 of the
Revised Statutes, and any other law prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of sex, shall not apply to a
local educational agency or an educational opportunity school
for a five-year period following the Secretary's grant of the
waiver * * *''
The laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex shall not
apply. But before we start to waive significant civil rights
protections, significant gender equity protections that are already in
the law, it seems to me we ought to have specific information to
respond to the question such as that put by the Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. DANFORTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional
material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
For Girls' Schools and Women's Colleges, Separate Is Better
(By Susan Estrich)
Twenty years ago, when I attended Wellesley College, an
all-women's college, coeducation fever was gripping America.
Yale and Princeton had just ``gone''; Dartmouth ``went''
next. My freshman year, we were polled on whether we thought
Wellesley should join the stampede. What did I know? I said
yes. But now I know I was wrong, and I'm glad my vote didn't
change anything.
This year, 60 percent of the National Merit Scholarship
finalists are boys, because boys outscored girls on the
Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test (P.S.A.T.), which
determines eligibility for the scholarships. The test doesn't
ask about sports; it does ask about math and science, though,
and that's where the differences between boys and girls are
most pronounced. The American Civil Liberties Union and the
National Center for Fair and Open Testing filed a Federal
civil rights suit in February charging that the test
discriminates against women. The plaintiffs want more girls
to get National Merit Scholarships. So do I. But I want to
see the girls earn them, in schools that give them a fair
chance.
I didn't win a Merit Scholarship either, although if the
Fair Test people had their way, I might have. My grades were
near perfect. But I didn't take the tough math and science
courses. I had different priorities. I started junior high as
the only girl on the math team. By high school, I'd long
since quit. Instead, I learned to twirl a baton, toss it in
the air and catch it while doing a split in the mud or the
ice. The problem wasn't the P.S.A.T., but me, and my school.
Things have changed since then, but not as much as one
would hope. The American Association of University Women did
a major study in 1992 about how schools shortchange girls and
concluded that even though girls get better grades (except in
math), they get less from school. Teachers pay less attention
to girls and give them less encouragement. Two American
University researchers, Myra and David Sadker, reached a
similar conclusion after 20 years of study. Girls are the
invisible students; boys get the bulk of the teachers' time.
Boys call out eight times as often as girls do. When the boys
call out, they get answers; when the girls do, they're often
admonished for speaking out. And that's true whether the
teacher is a man or a woman. Even the new history textbooks
devote only about 2 percent of their pages to women. What is
happening, says Elisabeth Griffith, a historian and
headmistress of the Madeira School in McLean, Va., is that
``boys learn competence, girls lose it.''
If schools shortchange girls, why is it surprising when the
tests show that they're doing less well? It isn't just the
P.S.A.T.'s, where 18,000 boys generally reach the top
categories and only 8,000 girls do. While the gap has
narrowed, boys also outscore girls on 11 of the 14 College
Board Achievement tests, and on the A.C.T. exams and on the
S.A.T.'s. It is possible to jimmy selection standards to make
sure girls win more scholarships, but equal results don't
count for much if those results are forced. Instead of
declaring equality, society should be advancing it. The
challenge isn't to get more scholarships for baton
twirlers but to get more baton twirlers to take up
advanced mathematics.
One place that happens is in girls' schools and women's
colleges. Sometimes separate isn't equal; it's better.
Changing the way teachers teach in coed schools, changing the
textbooks to make sure they talk about women as well as men,
educating parents about raising daughters--all of these
things make sense, since most girls will be educated in coed
classrooms. But we've been talking about them for a decade,
and the problems of gender bias stubbornly persist. In the
meantime, for many girls, single-sex education is working.
In girls' schools, 80 percent of the girls take four years
of science and math, compared with the national average of
two years in a coed environment. Elizabeth Tidball, a George
Washington University researcher, found that graduates of
women's colleges did better than female graduates of coed
colleges in terms of test scores, graduate school admissions,
number of earned doctorates, salaries and personal
satisfaction. One-third of the female board members of
Fortune 1,000 companies are graduates of women's colleges,
even though those colleges contribute less than 4 percent of
total graduates. Forty-three percent of the math doctorates
and 50 percent of engineering doctorates earned by female
liberal-arts college students go to graduates of Barnard,
Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Smith or Wellesley--all women's
colleges. Graduates of women's colleges outnumber all other
female entries in Who's Who.
I stopped twirling my baton when I got to Wellesley. I'd
like to say that I knew I needed a women's college after all
those years in the mud at football games, but it doesn't
always work that way. I went to Wellesley because they gave
me a generous scholarship, and because Radcliffe rejected me
(the test scores, maybe). I was actually miserable a good
deal of the time I was there, particularly during the long
winters when the janitor was the only man around. But what I
learned was worth it. I spent the better part of four years
in a world in which women could do anything, because no one
told us we couldn't. I even took some math courses. By senior
year, somehow, I'd become an accomplished test-taker. When I
got to Harvard Law School, where men vastly outnumbered women
and sexism was the rule, a professor told me on the first day
that women didn't do very well. I laughed and decided to
prove he was wrong. That's a Wellesley education.
I'm not proposing that coed public schools be replaced with
a network of single-sex academies. But if the problem is that
women don't do well in math or science, then single-sex
classes, and single-sex schools, may be part of the answer.
The evidence, though scant, is promising. In Ventura,
Calif., the public high school has begun offering an all-
girls Algebra II course. The girls, one teacher says, think
so little of their ability that the teacher spends her time
not only teaching math but also building self-confidence,
repeatedly telling the girls that they're smart and that they
can do it. The Illinois Math and Science Academy in Aurora is
experimenting with a girls-only calculus-based physics class
for the first semester with the girls joining the coed class
at midyear. In the girls-only class, the students report that
they are jumping up to ask and answer questions instead of
sitting back, hoping that the teacher doesn't call on them.
One student said she was worried about the transition to a
coed classroom: ``We need to make sure we don't lose our
newfound physics freedom.'' ``Physics freedom'' for girls--
what a wonderful concept.
The biggest obstacles to such classes, or even to all-girls
public schools, are erected by lawyers bent on enforcing
legal equality. In the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of
Education, the Supreme Court declared that ``separate but
equal'' was inherently unequal. That was certainly true in
Topeka, Kan., whose school system was challenged. It was true
of the black-only law school established to keep blacks out
of the University of Texas law school. It is not necessarily
true of the Ventura High School math class for girls or the
Aurora Academy calculus-based physics class, whose futures
are in jeopardy because of the knee-jerk application of
Brown.
Classes like those in Ventura County or Aurora, Ill.,
survive constitutional challenge by formally opening their
doors to men, with a wink and a nod to keep them from coming
in. Otherwise, the schools could be stripped of Federal
support, and even enjoined under the constitution by Federal
court order, because they are ``discriminating.'' Private
schools may open their doors only to boys or girls under an
exemption from Federal laws mandating ``equality.'' But
public schools enjoy no such freedom. The reality is that if
you need a Wellesley education in America, you have to pay
for it. That's the price of committing to formal equality
instead of committing to real opportunity.
Boys may pay the price as well. Some educators in the
African-American community believe that all-boys classes may
be part of the resolution to the dismal failure and dropout
rates of African-American boys in school. But the courts
prevented the Detroit school district from establishing three
public all-boys schools, effectively stopping similar
projects planned in other cities. Nonetheless, all-boys
classes are being held quietly in as many as two dozen
schools around the country, mostly in inner cities.
Such programs may or may not succeed in the long run.
Research and careful study are plainly needed. But research
and careful study are difficult when classes are held in near
secrecy for fear of discovery by lawyers and Government
officials intent on shutting them down in the name of
equality.
If girls don't want to go to all-girls schools, or if
parents don't want to send them, that's their choice. If the
experiments with girls-only math classes or boys-only classes
should fail, then educators can be trusted to abandon them.
But short of that, let the educators and the parents and the
students decide, and leave the lawyers and judges out of it.
____
[From Education Week, Feb. 23, 1994]
Reconsidering Single-Gender Schools: The V.M.I. Case and Beyond
(By Cornelius Riordan)
Fifty years ago, large schools were fashionable. It was
part of a movement that established the comprehensive high
school. Today, large schools are understood to be detrimental
to effective schooling. Similarly, 50 years ago, ability
grouping (tracking) was the accepted mode of organizing
classrooms and schools for effective and efficient learning
by students at all levels. Today, tracking is under serious
criticism--the ideas of a core curriculum and cooperative
learning are among current school reforms.
Coeducation, however, remains rock steady as the best way
to organize schools and classrooms along gender lines. This
is true despite the fact that there is hardly any research
which supports the benefits of coeducation. In fact, the
realities of coeducation are troubling. The salience of this
problem was pointed up two years ago in ``The A.A.U.W.
Report: How Schools Shortchange Girls,'' commissioned by the
American Association of University Women Educational
Foundation. This study examined more than 1,000 publications
about girls and education and concluded that bias against
females remained widespread in schools, and was the cause of
lasting damage to both educational achievement and self-
development. These schools are coeducational schools.
Single-gender schools generally are more effective
academically than coeducational schools. This is true at all
levels of school, from elementary to higher education. Over
the past decade, the data consistently and persistently
confirm this hard-to-accept educational fact. There are some
studies which have reported null effects--that is, no
differences in educational outcomes--but there are very few
studies (none in the United States) which demonstrate that
coeducational schools are more effective, either academically
or developmentally. Moreover, just about everyone knows this
is true, despite the fact that most people have attended
coeducational schools and continue to send their children to
coeducational schools. A cursory sample of interviews will
reveal that most people view single-sex schools as
academically tougher, more rigorous, and more productive,
though perhaps less enjoyable, than coeducational schools.
And as the historian Richard Hofstadter noted long ago, in
American, anti-intellectualism rules.
But the matter is unfortunately more complicated than the
recalitrance of a society that continues to give priority to
sports, recreation, and entertainment over the arts, science,
and literature. At issue is whether separate schools for
males and females can provide an equal educational
opportunity. Many people see single-gender education as
inescapably reactionary. Some feminists may see any form of
``separationism'' as negatively affecting women's equal
access in other areas of society. Thus, discussions of
single- and mixed-gender schooling must address these
misgivings. One way to alleviate some of the reservations is
to lay bare the typical reality of most coeducational
classrooms and schools. Another way is to demonstrate the
effectiveness of single-gender schools.
Single-gender schools work. They work for girls and boys,
women and men, whites and nonwhites. Research has
demonstrated that the effects of single-gender schools are
greatest among students who have been disadvantaged
historically--females and racial/ethnic religious minorities
(both males and females). Single-gender schools provide more
successful same-sex teacher and student role models, more
leadership opportunities, greater order and discipline, and
fewer social distractions to academic matters. The choice of
a single-gender school is a pro-academic choice (females . .
. gain advantages because of significant reductions in gender
bias in both teaching and peer interaction, and via access to
the entire curriculum).
Yet, white males also obtain an educational advantage from
single-gender schools relative to their male counterparts who
attend coeducational schools. Although research has reported
null effects for white males, I maintain that this is due to
countervailing forces. White males gain an educational
advantage in single-gender schools due the same
organizational opportunities that provide an advantage for
females. It is the case, however, that white males also gain
an educational advantage in coeducational schools due to the
continued existence of gender stratification. The latter was
fully and sadly documented in the A.A.U.W. report.
These positive effects, however, are not universal. In a
cross-national study of four countries (Belgium, New Zealand,
Thailand, and Japan), David Baker, Maryellen Schaub, and I
have shown that single-gender schools do not have uniform and
consistent effects. The effects appear to be limited to those
national educational systems in which single-gender schools
are relatively rare. In systems such as Belgium's and New
Zealand's, two countries where single-sex schooling is
``normative'' (68 percent of the schools in Belgium and 48
percent in New Zealand), we obtained null effects using data
from the Second International Study of Mathematics. We argue
that the rarity of a school type may enhance single-sex
effects under certain conditions. When single-gender schools
are rare in a country, the pro-academic choice-making by
parents and students will result in a more selective student
body who will bring with them a heightened degree of academic
demands. In turn, we believe that rare school types are
better able to supply the quality of schooling demanded by
these more selective students. Being less ``the norm,'' these
schools are likely to possess greater autonomy.
This enhancing condition of scarcity, however, may have a
lower limit. When the number of single-sex schools falls
below a certain point (due to the closing of these schools
and the movement of students into coeducational schools), the
capacity of single-sex schools to provide better resources
and to select better students may decline. Once this decline
is set in motion, the schools are less attractive to more
highly motivated and talented students, who now will choose
coeducational schools. Facing declining enrollments, single-
sex schools are then forced to admit less talented students
who attend because the slots are there and because of the
schools' prior reputation. Under this scenario, some of the
micro-structures and processes which were applied to single-
sex schools may no longer be in operation.
Over the past several years, this controversy has focused
on the Virginia Military Institute. In 1990, the U.S. Justice
Department brought a suit against V.M.I. for refusing to
admit women to the school, and hence, failing to comply with
the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In 1991, a federal
district court ruled in favor of V.M.I., agreeing with the
school's argument that single-gender schooling was a form of
diversity in education and that admitting women would destroy
its educational methods. This decision, however, was
overturned in 1992 by the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, which found that V.M.I. was indeed not in compliance
with the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
However, the court did not order that women be admitted to
V.M.I. if alternatives were available and if these
alternatives satisfied the equal-protection clause. In fact,
the court gave V.M.I. and the commonwealth of Virginia (a co-
defendant in the case) three options which would satisfy
legal compliance with the 14th amendment: (1) decide to admit
women to V.M.I. and adjust the program to implement that
choice; (2) establish parallel institutions or parallel
programs; or (3) abandon state support of V.M.I., leaving it
the option of pursuing its own policies as a private
institution. V.M.I. appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a
writ of certiorari, which was denied in 1993 pending final
adjudication in the lower courts; that is, the Court ruled
that it had no jurisdiction until V.M.I. responded to the
Fourth Circuit's alternatives.
Now we learn that V.M.I. has arranged to fully comply with
the second recommendation of the Fourth Circuit.
Specifically, the institution has proposed that it be allowed
to continue to admit only men, and that it will assist Mary
Baldwin College (a nearby women's college) to establish a
``leadership'' program for women that would approximate
V.M.I's program for males. Women in this program would live
in separate dormitories, participate in leadership programs,
and enroll in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program at
Mary Baldwin. For each Virginia student admitted to the
program, Mary Baldwin would receive an amount of money from
the state equal to that received by V.M.I. for each Virginia
student. In addition, the college would receive $6.9 million
from the V.M.I. Foundation to endow the program at the
outset. All of this has direct ramifications for a similar
case that will be heard this year regarding The Citadel in
South Carolina, and there are likely implications for
experimental single-gender public schools (or single-gender
classrooms) that are currently operating in Baltimore;
Camden, N.J.; Detroit; Ventura, Calif.; and the Savannah-
Chatham district in Georgia.
This proposal by V.M.I., though perhaps falling short of
providing equal protection, is a plausible initial response
to the directives contained in the ruling by the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Unquestionably, as per the judgment
of the appellate court, the exclusion of females from V.M.I.
without some single-gender alternative was a violation of
the 14th Amendment. One has to wonder why it took V.M.I.
so long to figure this out.
However, the solution now seems close at hand. A major flaw
of V.M.I.'s proposed plan is the absence of an engineering
program at Mary Baldwin College. Such a program does exist at
V.M.I. Of course, access to and success in engineering remain
as barriers to the advancement of women throughout the
country. In response to this problem, Barbara Lazarus, the
associate provost for academic projects at Carnegie Mellon
University, called in 1991 for the creation of a Women's
Institute of Engineering. Here is a golden opportunity for
acrimonious parties to negotiate. Conceivably, V.M.I. could
be persuaded to greatly increase its endowment offer and
provide Mary Baldwin with the opportunity to build the first
Women's Institute of Engineering. Quite likely, other
adjustments to the proposal would also be necessary.
In a context of exclusion from schooling altogether, the
opportunity to attend coeducational schools (former boys' and
men's schools) was a necessary step toward gender equality.
Within a context of inclusion--that is, a climate in which
females are no longer excluded from virtually any school--
single-gender schools represent a choice; an alternative to
the problems existing in coeducational schools. More
importantly, they seem to provide a better education for some
students. Within this context of inclusion, rather than
exclusion, we should look carefully at decisions which will
further reduce the possibilities of a choice of a single-sex
education for neither males or females.
It was within a context of exclusion that secondary schools
for girls and women's colleges were established. And within
this context, the underlying assumption, widely held both
then and now, was that women's colleges were a temporary,
short-term solution on the road to the eventual achievement
of coeducation. Retrospectively, it is easy to understand how
this view gained currency. Men's colleges, being inaccessible
and dominant, were defined as superior. Women's colleges were
defined as second-rate, patronized institutions. Thus,
continued exclusion from men's colleges was viewed as
continued exclusion from equal opportunity to a college
education. And in this convoluted process, the relative value
of men's and women's colleges, and of coeducation, was never
seriously examined.
The time has come for all sides to reconsider this issue.
It is time for the Justice Department and the National
Organization for Women to pause and re-examine the research
and their views. It is time for women's colleges to come
forward and state their positions clearly. It is time for all
interested parties to consider the benefits of single-gender
education alongside the goal of demonstrable gender equality
in coeducational schools. One might reasonably expect that
the burden of proof should shift to coeducational schools to
demonstrate first that they are free of gender bias, second,
that they do indeed provide equality of educational
opportunity, and third, that they are at least as effective
as single-gender schools in terms of achievement. This would
replace the current practice, which requires single-sex
schools to show greater effectiveness.
It is likely that there is no one ``best way'' to organize
the gender context of schools. Single-sex schools are
certainly not for everyone, nor are they likely to be
beneficial to anyone over the entire course of an educational
career. But they should exist for a small number of students
who might select them. Hence, they should be viewed as
alternatives to mainstream coeducational schools, and
students and parents, especially African-American and
Hispanic students and parents, should be given the choice to
select them forthwith.
____
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 17, 1994]
No Offense, but What Have They Learned
(By William Raspberry)
Thank heaven it's not a public school, or St. Stephen's and
St. Agnes would be in trouble. No, the private Episcopal
school in Alexandria is not overcharging kids, or abusing
them, or oppressing them. It's educating them very well.
But it is doing so by (among other things) operating
single-sex classrooms for math and science in sixth, seventh
and eighth grades.
The rationale for this gender separation is the well-
documented fact that, in math and science, girls tend not to
do as well as boys of equal intelligence. Whether the
difference is the result of nature or merely a socialization,
of male-oriented teaching styles or of lower self-esteem for
girls, the result often is that girls have their subsequent
academic and career choices curtailed.
I've heard all manner of explanations: that girls learn
more efficiently by listening, boys by mental and physical
manipulation; that girls deliberately under-perform (in mixed
settings) to avoid the social cost of being as good as the
boys; that teachers (inadvertently, of course) pay more
attention to boys than to girls; that girls prefer
cooperative learning, while boys turn learning--and
everything else--into a competition.
Some of the explanation may not be true. This is: If the
St. Stephen's and St. Agnes experiment were taking place in a
public school, somebody would be out to stop it.
They just stopped one in Philadelphia, where John Coats, a
teacher at Stanton Elementary School, had initiated a model
five-year program for a group of 20 first-grade boys who had
had learning problems in kindergarten.
The program was working--indeed, it was the subject of a
documentary, ``I Am a Promise,'' that reportedly is up for an
Oscar. Nine of these erstwhile slow-learning boys made the
honor roll. But the program is dead now. The American Civil
Liberties Union threatened to file a lawsuit against it on
the ground that boys-only classes are unconstitutional, and
the school district folded.
Detroit's attempt to establish all-male academies as a way
of rescuing boys at risk of becoming dropouts (and worse) ran
into similar legal opposition, as did an earlier effort in
Miami in which I, quite indirectly, had a hand. My limited
involvement was a column I had written on Spencer Holland,
then with the D.C. school system and now at Morgan State
University in Baltimore. Holland, an educational
psychologist, had told me of his dream to establish all-male
kindergarten and primary classes, headed by male teachers.
Particularly in the inner cities, where young boys may go for
days at a time without directly encountering a literate adult
male, he thought it might make an important difference.
Willie Wright, a Miami elementary school principal, saw the
column, and asked me to help him get in touch with Holland.
In the fall of 1987, the two men implemented Holland's idea.
As Wright told me later, ``It was a total success,
academically and socially. There were no fights, no kids sent
out for discipline. They not only improved academically, they
became their brothers' keepers, something not generally found
in low socioeconomic schools. Not a single parent complained.
In fact, virtually all of the parents of boys wanted their
sons in the classes.''
But after two years of unquestioned success, the Department
of Education's regional office killed the experiment--said it
was a violation of Title IX (of the federal Civil Rights Act)
guarantees against gender discrimination.
Where do they get these people who are so solicitous of
disembodied ``rights'' that they are willing to do
demonstrable damage to actual children? The explanation,
always, is that the way to meet the academic needs of these
real-life children is not to segregate them by gender but to
make the classrooms fair.
Of course. But it isn't entirely clear that the problem is
classroom unfairness of a sort that can be readily corrected.
Most elementary schoolteachers (sixth grade is where girls'
self-esteem begins to take a downward slide) are women and
are unlikely to be deliberately undercutting the self-
confidence of girls. Philadelphia's Coats, like Holland
before him, thought the boys weren't learning because of the
near-total absence of positive male role models in their
lives. How do you make the classrooms fair enough to
compensate for that?
There's a lot we don't know about educating children.
That's what makes it so sad when these self-righteous
monomaniacs are willing to kill a program that clearly works
for actual children out of deference of the possibility that
somebody's theoretical rights might somehow be damaged.
Where, I ask, is the societal gain if our children wind up
dead to ``rights''?
____
Providence College,
Department of Sociology,
Providence, RI, June 30, 1994.
Senator John C. Danforth,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Danforth: It has come to my attention that you
intend to propose an amendment to the re-authorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994 (S. 1513). I
refer to an amendment to establish four demonstration sites
across the country for single-gender opportunity (a boy's
school and a girl's school) along with a coeducational school
at each site. Parents would select the school of their
choice. I write to express my strong support for this
proposal and I commend you for your vision and your courage.
As an educational researcher and professional sociologist,
I have studied the issue of single and coeducational
schooling over the past decade. My book Girls and Boys in
School: Together or Separate? Summarizes my research as of
1990. Beyond the book, however, I have continued to conduct
research over the past four years and my recent work has
focused on the outcomes of single versus coeducational
schools for African and Hispanic American students. I have
already forwarded a copy of an article on this to your staff
(Felicia Brown).
In this letter, I want to focus on several concerns germane
to the debate over single-gender schools in America,
especially as this debate affects the lives of white females,
African-Americans, and Hispanic-Americans. Specifically, I
will address the following questions:
1. Where does the burden of proof lie on this issue?
2. Who profits most from single-gender secondary schools?
3. Can We Explain This Single-Sex School Advantage?
Where does the burden of proof lie on this issue?
Most Americans take coeducation for granted. Typically,
their own schooling has been coeducational; often, they have
little awareness of single-sex schools. Our political culture
reinforces the taken-for-granted character of American
coeducation. It implies that schools reflecting the variety
of society exemplify what is best about democratic societies.
Many people also take for granted that coeducation provides
equality of educational opportunity for women. Like racial
and ethnic minorities, women have long been excluded from the
educational process. Thus, many people regard coeducation as
a major milestone in the pursuit of gender equality. Since
gender education, by contrast, appears regressive. Moreover,
single-gender schooling in the public sector is currently
prohibited by law.
This historical background has provided a protective halo
around coeducation as an institution. Historically, this mode
of school organization was never subjected to systematic
research. Currently, this protective halo affects the
research strategy and logic for comparing single-gender and
mixed-gender schools. This ``assumptive world'' is so deeply
ingrained that people will often acknowledge the academic
superiority of single-sex schools without realizing the
aspersion implied for coeducation. A cursory sample of
interviews will reveal that most people view single-sex
schools as academically tougher, more rigorous, though
perhaps less enjoyable than coeducational schools. In view of
this, why should single-sex schools be required to
demonstrate that they are more effective?
The salience of this problem was pointed up just recently
with the release of the report ``How Schools Shortchange
Women'' which was commissioned by the American Association of
University Women Educational Foundation. This study examined
more than 1,000 publications about girls and education and
concluded that bias against females remained widespread in
schools, and was the cause of lasting damage to both
educational achievement and self development. These schools
are coeducational schools. Within this context, I would argue
that the burden of proof should shift to coeducational
schools to demonstrate first that they are free of gender
bias, second, that they do indeed provide equality of
educational opportunity, and third, that they are at least as
effective as single-gender schools in terms of achievement.
This would replace the current practice which requires
single-sex schools to show greater effectiveness.
I understand that the AAUW has voiced opposition to your
proposed amendment. As I indicated above, I fully understand
the reluctance of some people, especially women, to endorse
your proposal in view of the historical exclusion of women.
Moreover, even at present, there still exists the exclusion
of women from public educational institutions such as VMI and
The Citadel. I was asked to testify for VMI and The Citadel,
but was unable since it is clear to me that women are indeed
excluded and they are not provided with a truly equal
alternative. Even the current VMI proposal to provide a ``VMI
like'' education at Mary Baldwin College is inadequate, in my
opinion. (By the way, I advised VMI officials to provide
sufficient endowment to Mary Baldwin College to enable the
school to establish the first engineering school for women--
in my view that would have made the schools more than equal
and I would have been prepared to testify on their behalf).
But your proposal clearly and carefully avoids the problems
endemic to institutions such as VMI and The Citadel.
Critics such as AAUW should appreciate this and lend you
their support. Single-gender schooling provides a proven
method of combating the problems for females that AAUW
identifies. And single-gender schooling is also effective
for males--and herein lies the bottom line of why some
feminists are opposed to it. Despite the full probative
extent of by empathy for the historical record of female
education, I cannot understand the logic that says, in
effect, we will not support an educational policy that
helps females as long as it helps males as well.
Furthermore, I would argue that it is irrational to fear
that single-gender schooling is a step backwards in the
broader area of gender equality.
Who Benefits Most from Single-Gender Schools?
Single-gender schools work. They work for girls and boys,
women and men, whites and non-whites. Research has
demonstrated that the effects of single-gender schools are
greatest among students who have been disadvantaged
historically--females and racial/ethnic/religious minorities
(both males and females). On the basis of the research, it
appears that single-sex schools provide a greater opportunity
for educational attainment as measured by standardized
cognitive tests, curriculum and course placement, leadership
behavior, number of years of formal education and
occupational achievement. Moreover, no negative attitudinal
results accrue to students attending single-sex schools.
Yet, white males also obtain an educational advantage from
single-gender schools relative to their male counterparts who
attend coeducational schools. Although research has reported
null effects for white males, I maintain that this is due to
countervailing forces. White males gain an educational
advantage in single-gender schools due to the same
organizational opportunities that provide an advantage for
females. It is the case, however, that white males also gain
an educational advantage in coeducational schools due to the
continued existence of gender stratification. The latter is
fully and sadly documented in the above mentioned ASUW report
``How Schools Shortchange Girls.'' Once again, I would
address the critics of your proposal by pointing out that
coeducation provides and educational advantage to white males
at the expense of white females. Of course, since your
proposal is aimed primarily at African and Hispanic youth,
this issue should not even be relevant.
Among African-American and Hispanic males and females in
the United States, my own research findings parallel the
results for girls--favoring single-sex schools in both
attitudinal and cognitive outcomes. I have found that the
effects for African-American and Hispanic males and females
are larger than those obtained for white females.
In a new reanalysis (paper sent top Felicia Brown), I have
found that both Hispanic- and African-American males and
females also display greater gains in leadership behavior in
single-gender as opposed to coeducational Catholic schools.
Thus, the critics of your proposal stand in the way of
increasing the quality of education derived by African- and
Hispanic boys and girls.
Let me add that I have access to some preliminary data on
single-sex classrooms in a public elementary school that is
98 percent African- and Hispanic-American. Some students in
this American public school have been enrolled in a single-
gender classroom for the past three years. The grades are
2nd, 3rd, and 4th. The data collected by the principal of the
school found that the students in the single-gender
classrooms showed significantly greater gains on the NCE
reading and mathematics tests, higher attendance rates, lower
suspension rates, and higher parental participation rates. In
one all-male class of 24, fully 21 of 24 African- and
Hispanic-American fathers have attended monthly parent/
teacher meetings on a regular basis.
can we explain this single-sex school advantage?
Single-gender schools provide more successful same-sex
teacher and student role models, more leadership
opportunities, greater order and discipline, fewer social
distractions to academic matters, and the choice of a single-
gender school is a pro-academic choice (females also gain
advantages because of significant reductions in gender bias
in both teaching and peer interaction, and via access to the
entire curriculum).
In a context of exclusion from schooling altogether, the
opportunity to attend coeducational schools was a necessary
step towards gender equality. Within a context of inclusion;
that is, a climate in which females are no longer excluded
from hardly any schools, single-gender schools represent a
choice, an alternative to the problems that are manifest in
existing coeducational schools. These problems are especially
salient for white females and minority males and females.
It is likely that there is no one ``best way'' to organize
the gender context of schools. Single-sex schools are
certainly not for everyone, nor are they likely to be
beneficial to anyone over the entire course of an educational
career. But, they should exist for a small number of students
who might select them. Hence, they should be viewed as
alternatives to mainstream coeducational schools, and
students and parents, especially African-American and
Hispanic students and parents, should be given the choice to
select them forthwith.
Sincerely,
Cornelius Riordan,
Professor of Education.
____
The Brookings Institution,
Governmental Studies Program,
Washington, DC, June 27, 1994.
Senator John C. Danforth
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Danforth, I am writing to support your efforts
to add an amendment on behalf of single gender schools to the
Elementary and Secondary Reauthorization Act. Educators and
parents across the country have been led to believe that a
girls' school or a boys' school is unconstitutional, and the
U.S. Department of Education has in many ways encouraged this
belief. Your amendment, if tightly written, will send a loud
and clear and necessary message: Single gender schools are
not against the law and are permissible so long as they are
equally available for both boys and girls.
During the time that I served as Assistant Secretary of
Education for the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement in the Bush administration, I commissioned an
impartial review of research on single-gender schooling. What
the researchers found was that: 1) single-gender schooling
seems to be of educational value for girls and minority
students; and 2) the number of single-gender schools is
diminishing so rapidly that it is difficult to gather
research samples.
Well might we wonder why single-gender schools have been
almost completely eliminated from the public sector and in
dire jeopardy in the private sector when they have
educational value for some students. As it happens, single-
gender schools are found in virtually every other nation
except ours and are usually highly regarded. Last year, the
British published their list of the top 50 secondary schools,
and 47 of the top 50 were single-gender schools (more were
girls' schools than boys' schools).
As I understand the research, the reason that single-gender
schooling seems to be so effective for some students is that
students are able to devote more concentrated time to their
academic studies, free of the distractions of the other sex.
In this era of teenage pregnancies and academic mediocrity,
American education would be well advised to permit public
school authorities to increase the number of schools where
the sexes are taught separately.
If I may suggest it, I believe that your amendment does not
need to have an Educational Opportunity Advisory Board; nor
does it need any funding mechanism controlled by the
Secretary. These mechanisms will simply create new hoops for
school districts to jump through and concentrate more control
in Washington. All that is needed is a clear statement by the
Congress that school districts are permitted to create
schools exclusively for boys and for girls, so long as both
have equal opportunities. Right now, districts across the
nation are creating alternative schools, magnet schools,
charter schools, and other schools that are different from
the one-size-fits-all schools. The districts do not need a
federal program, nor a new layer of federal bureaucracy, nor
even federal funding. What they need is an unambiguous
declaration by the Congress that single-gender schools are
permissible reform for those parents and children who choose
them.
I wish you the best of luck. This is an important
amendment, for it will expand the educational diversity and
opportunity that is so badly needed for children who are now
at risk of failure.
Diane Ravitch,
Nonresident Senior Fellow.
____
Michigan State University,
Department of English,
East Lansing, MI, July 11, 1994.
Office of U.S. Senator Danforth,
Washington, DC.
This is to confirm our recent telephone conversation in
which I expressed my unqualified support for the ``Improving
America's Schools Act of 1993,'' sponsored by Senator
Danforth. This is exactly the type of legislation needed to
facilitate programs to educate urban African American males.
There is a need to develop experimental programs and to pilot
educational research efforts to see what will work to
alleviate the crises facing today's Black male youth.
As I mentioned, I was a member of the Detroit Public
Schools' Male Academy Task Force, which attempted to
establish three elementary schools for Detroit's young Black
males back in 1991. Our efforts were thwarted by a lawsuit,
spearheaded by the National Organization of Women. As an
African American woman with over twenty-five years experience
as an educator on both public schools and college levels, I
could bear witness to the decline of Black males in schools
and society, and so I felt tremendously frustrated with
N.O.W. because the European American Women's Movement has no
knowledge, and often, so it seems, no concern, about the
problems with which we struggle in the Black communities of
this Nation. It is true, to be sure, that our daughters are
not faring so well, but it is our sons who are dying and whom
the schools are failing at astronomical rates. Our sons are
dying, and the educational system is failing them. There is
no way our community can continue to survive with homes,
neighborhoods and families where only one-half of our race is
functional. That is why I as a black woman, a single parent,
and an educator worked so hard to implement the proposed Male
Academy program in Detroit.
Since the Detroit Male Academy was struck down by the
courts, the situation there has continued to deteriorate. As
of the end of the 1992-93 school year, more African American
males, in the age group 15-19, were under the criminal
justice system than received high school diplomas as of June
of 1993. And Detroit is not unique; these results are
repeated in urban areas all across the country. Educational
intervention at an early age could have saved some of these
young Black boys.
The ``Improving America's Schools Act of 1993,'' if it
passes, will enable educators to address such crises. Thus, I
wholeheartedly endorse the proposed legislation.
Sincerely,
Geneva Smitherman, Ph.D.,
University Distinguished Professor, Director, African
American Language and Literacy Program.
____
The National Coalition
of Girls' Schools,
Concord, MA, June 22, 1994.
Hon. John C. Danforth,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Danforth: I write in support of your
Educational Opportunity Demonstration Program amendment to
the ESEA Reauthorization Act. It will provide a way to assess
whether single-sex schools may offer significant educational
advantages to both boys and girls in populations which have
been designated as ``at risk'' either for socio-economic or
racial reasons.
Based on the positive performance and self-perceptions of
graduates of girls' schools, and, to a lesser extent, boys'
schools, there is ample reason to believe that single-sex
schools provide an environment which is more supportive of
academic achievement and the development of self-esteem. For
a full review of this issue, I recommend the OERI Special
Report, ``Single-Sex Schooling,'' 2 vols., U.S. Department of
Education, 1992.
The evidence of gender bias in the educational system has
been documented in the research of Drs. David and Myra Sadker
of American University. Their recent book, ``Failing at
Fairness: How America's Schools Cheat Girls'' (New York
Scribners, 1993) is a call for the very kind of innovative
research you request in your amendment.
While I applaud the proactive stance of the AAUW, with
funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, to address gender
bias in our nation's classrooms, it is uncertain whether such
a dramatic change in attitude and action in coeducational
schools is possible in the short term. And it is probable
that no one course of action will solve the multitude of ills
affecting American education.
It is ironic that Title IX, originally intended to
encourage gender equity, now actually hampers the public
sector's freedom to experiment with alternative programs such
as single-sex schools. At present, such models of schooling
are available only to parents who can afford a private or
parochial school. Parents who must rely on public education
are being denied the right to choose from a range of
educational options which might better serve their children.
Your amendment would enable educators in the public system
to explore other models of schooling which are currently
available only in private and parochial schools. There are a
few exceptions: two public high schools for girls only, one
in Baltimore, the other in Philadelphia, and a pilot program
for elementary school African American males in the Baltimore
system.
If the amendment fails, a possible solution lies in the
already existing model of the magnet school. As you know,
magnet schools offer unique educational programs and
pedagogies for targeted populations. Requiring a relatively
inexpensive reallocation of facilities and staff, these
single-sex schools would exist to develop leadership, self-
esteem, and achievement for at-risk students of both sexes.
They would expand schooling options for parents while helping
to resolve the gender bias problem.
Young women and men who have developed a strong sense of
self will not countenance racial or gender bias when they
reach adulthood. The best preparation may be to give them the
experience of equality in an educational environment which
supports the optimum development of their potentials and
which is free of negative peer pressures that urge young
people to drop out of school or have children before they are
ready to assume the responsibilities of parenthood.
Ultimately the issue is not whether coeducation or single-
sex schools are better. No one school model can serve all
students equally well. The issue is whether Americans want
freedom of choice in the education of their children. I
believe they do, and I thank you for your strong leadership
in this regard.
Elsa M. Bowman,
President.
____
Harvard University,
Department of Sociology,
Cambridge, MA, June 24, 1994.
Senator John C. Danforth,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Re S. 1513 vis-a-vis ``Improving America's Schools Act of
1933.''
Dear Senator Danforth: I write in strong support of your
proposed Amendment. You will find somewhat similar proposals
by me in the March/April 1993 issue of the journal
``Society'' (Volume 30, No. 3, pgs. 17-24), with the title
``Quixotic Ideas For Educational Reform,'' spelled out at
greater length in Introduction to the new paperback edition
of my 1964 book of essays, ``Abundance For What?'', published
by Transaction Press of Rutgers University in the fall of
1993.
I might add that I have long been interested in single-sex
education for girls and women as well as for boys and men. It
was in part as a result of that interest that ever so long
ago I met Sister Jacqueline, then the president of Webster
College, when it was a woman's college. (I continue to
maintain a vicarious interest in Stephens College in your own
state of Missouri.)
As a proponent and student of educational reforms, I
believe that the single-sex schools that your Amendment
proposes may not always prove their value within the short
span that the Amendment opens up. But I am sure that you and
your co-workers fully appreciate the tradeoff here between
the timing appropriate for research and the timing
appropriate to make the Amendment politically feasible.
Opposition to the Amendment would seem to me to suggest a
fear on the part of some of the groups which have opposed
single-sex education for boys, even in the African-American
boys at greatest risk, that it might turn out to be
successful! My secretary will sign and send off this letter
to save time.
Yours sincerely,
David Riesman.
____
University of Chicago,
Department of Sociology,
Chicago, IL, July 8, 1994.
Senator John C. Danforth,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Danforth: I am writing to support your
amendment to provide for an educational opportunity
demonstration program involving same-gender classes. The
current straightjacket upon educational innovation involving
same-gender classes or schools is especially unfortunate,
given the importance of increasing achievement and the
suggestive evidence that same-gender classes or schools could
enhance the achievement of disadvantaged children.
The amendment will provide a valuable opportunity to learn
about a virtually costless educational change (allowing
children to attend same-gender classes) that could increase
achievement. The existing evidence indicates that single-
gender schools confer achievement benefits, but there is no
research, so far as I know, concerning the effects for
disadvantaged males and females. Nor is there the possibility
of carrying out such research, because of the legal barriers
to single-gender schools.
I strongly support the amendment.
Sincerely,
James S. Coleman,
University Professor.
____
Little Rock Baptist Church,
Detroit, MI, July 5, 1994.
Hon. John C. Danforth,
U.S. Senate, 249 Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Danforth, I'm the pastor of an urban church
and as such I am also responsible for counseling young people
on a variety of issues--education being one of the primary
subjects. In order to do a quality job with the children, and
particularly the young men, I try to keep abreast of the many
educational reforms that are underway which will have an
impact on their future and the quality of life which lies
ahead for them.
I was extremely pleased to learn of your proposed amendment
which will alter SB 1513. The current bill does not truly
reflect the challenges that face our children today nor does
it place accountability in the appropriate arena. Instituting
single gender classes for students will provide an
environment more conducive to learning rather than the
current environment which lends itself to many pitfalls that
our children fall prey to. I have discussed this issue with a
number of my colleagues and they are all in agreement with
the direction you have taken.
I wish you the best in this endeavor and anxiously await a
positive outcome. if I can ever be of assistance to you in
the future, please don't hesitate to call upon me.
Sincerely,
Rev. Jim Holley, Ph.D.,
Pastor.
____
Rochester, NY, June 29, 1994.
Dear Senator Danforth. I have just read your amendment
proposing pilot sites to research the effectiveness of single
gender instruction. I am writing to endorse this amendment
based on five years experience implementing single gender
instruction in ten classes in grades two through five in both
a bilingual and regular program setting in a large inner city
school in Rochester, NY. This program was strongly supported
by staff, community volunteers, and parents. In addition, the
preliminary data tended to support national and international
studies which lead one inevitably to the conclusion that the
burden of proof should in fact lie with the proponents of
dual gender instruction. I am bemused by the fact that single
gender instruction is a ``taken-for-granted'' option for the
children of the wealthy in this country, and in British
public schools, but is assured to be detrimental for the
children of the poor in this country. Once again ``Savage
Inequalities'' govern the education of the disenfranchised in
this country. Your amendment would offer serious researchers
the opportunity to take this concept out of the realm of
assumptions and band wagon hysteria and into the realm of
hard facts based on research driven data. It would also offer
courageous administrators and visionary teachers the
opportunity to openly do what works, and what is best for
children. Lastly, it would offer parents real choice and say
in their children's education. I salute your courage in
taking on this emotion laden issue. If you need additional
information or assistance please feel free to contact me.
Yours truly,
Anita Boggs.
____
University of Chicago,
Department of Education,
Chicago, IL, July 22, 1994.
Senator John C. Danforth,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Danforth: It's with pleasure that I offer this
letter in support of your proposed legislation, S. 1513,
``Improving America's School Act of 1993.'' Considerable
evidence has emerged, mostly from studies of schools in the
private sector that single-sex schooling can be especially
effective for girls. More generally, the pattern of results
here stronly suggests that schools specifically designed to
educate historically disadvantaged populations--such as
women, minority men--may be especially effective in expanding
educational opportunities in our society. It is very clear
that the current ``one best system'' of public education has
often failed to deliver on this important national aim. I
strongly support your proposed demonstration project on
single-sex classrooms. It will provide an opportunity for us
to learn considerably more about the efficacy of this
institutional form which holds much promise for advancing
educational opportunities in the United States.
I wish you the best of luck with this legislative effort
and I hope you succeed.
Sincerely,
Anthony S. Bork,
Professor of Education.
____
July 27, 1994.
Senator John C. Danforth,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Danforth: I am writing to express my support
of your efforts ``to provide for an educational opportunity
demonstration program'' through the use of same gender
classes and schools.
When I was the Deputy Superintendent in Milwaukee, WI and
the General Superintendent in Detroit, MI, I initiated a same
gender school for boys because I believed that it was a
positive solution to the several problems that have surfaced
among too many urban, low-income, male youth. I continue to
support this educational option. Unfortunately, a U.S.
District Court ruling in 1992 required the schools to enroll
female students.
Continued support of this educational option will provide
public school parents with the same options that private
school parents pursue. Same gender schools are a viable idea
supported by credible research.
My compliments to you for your outstanding decision to
promote same gender schooling. It is an educational
alternative that promotes excellence and equity for all
children.
Sincerely,
Deborah M. McGriff, Ph.D.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, since the time that I spoke on the
issue of single-sex education earlier today, Senator Danforth has made
several alterations to his amendment that have raised concern that
perhaps his amendment goes too far, albeit in attempting to achieve a
worthy goal. Because of these changes, I would like to clarify my
thoughts on the issue of single-sex education and the Danforth
amendment.
No one would argue against the proposition that single-sex education
can be highly effective for both girls and boys. As private and
parochial schools around this Nation have demonstrated, a single-sex
educational environment can often provide both the rigor and the
nurturing environment that children need in order to succeed
academically.
Recently, some public schools have also experimented with single-sex
education--most often designing special programs to enhance the
education of boys who are considered at risk of failing academically.
These pilot programs, which have only been tried for a very short
while, often involve establishing a single classroom or a small
``school-within-a-school.''
These efforts are laudable. However, Senator Danforth's amendment
goes farther than simply authorizing Federal funds for 10 single-sex
demonstration programs. By granting civil rights waivers to public
schools, this amendment effectively makes civil rights laws such as
title VII and title IX of the Civil Rights Act invalid in those schools
for 5 years at a time.
In so doing, these waivers could open up a host of possible
unintended side effects, including violations of civil rights
protections, sex discrimination, and the erosion of hard-fought
integration of our schools.
While I support public and private experimentation with single-sex
education, giving waivers to public schools could undercut the equality
and integration that are so important to our public system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Missouri.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 33, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 245 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
Dole
Domenici
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnston
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kohl
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Roth
Sasser
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
Wofford
NAYS--33
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Campbell
Conrad
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hatfield
Hollings
Inouye
Kassebaum
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Packwood
Riegle
Robb
Sarbanes
Simon
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--1
Wallop
So the amendment (No. 2430), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2435
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will state that the pending business
before the Senate is amendment No. 2435.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, with the concurrence of the Republican
leader, I now ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Kennedy
amendment on which the yeas and nays have been ordered occur at 6:20.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JEFFORDS. There is no objection on this side. I have checked with
our leadership and 6:20 is agreeable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will note that the hour of 6:20 p.m.
having arrived, the question occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 2435
of the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] is
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 246 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--1
Wallop
So the amendment (No. 2435) to amendment No. 2433 was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2436 to Amendment No. 2433
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of amounts made available under this act
to make condoms available in a public school unless the program under
which such condoms are distributed meets certain local control
criteria)
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an
amendment numbered 2436 to the amendment No. 2433.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the pending, amendment, insert the following:
SEC. . LIMITATION.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated under this
Act may be used to coordinate the delivery of health services
including medicine condoms available in a public school
unless the program under which such condoms are made
available--
(1) has been determined by the local school board to be
appropriate and in furtherance of the National Education
Goals; and
(2) has been developed in consultation with parents; and
(3) provides information through the school concerning the
health benefits of abstinence.
Mr. HELMS address the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
rural community service program
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to first thank Senator
Kassebaum, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatfield, and Senator Jeffords for
working out a compromise on my amendment to establish a Rural Community
Service Program under title XI of the Higher Education Act, Public Law
102-325.
Under title XI, an Urban Community Service Program is already
authorized to provide metropolitan-based colleges and universities
grant assistance in developing programs that address serious urban
problems such as unemployment, limited access to health care delivery,
and crime. In establishing a rural counterpart, my amendment recognizes
that rural areas in America face similar hardships in maintaining their
vitality and unique character.
Losses in traditional employment sources like agriculture, natural
resource extraction, and manufacturing have left America's rural
communities in a desperate struggle to overcome the economic burdens of
unemployment and low-wage incomes. Rural areas are also weakened by the
exodus of their youth to larger communities, leaving behind growing
numbers of impoverished elderly and children. As with the Urban
Community Service Program, my rural community service amendment
supports the partnership of educational institutions and private and
civic organizations in the revitalization of our Nation's rural areas.
I appreciate my colleagues' cooperation and agreement to include this
provision. It is my hope that rural communities will realize the
successes urban areas have experienced under this program.
Now, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss my views on S.
1513, the Improving America's Schools Act.
Mr. President, Americans are deeply concerned with the direction our
Nation's future is taking. Fundamental changes in the job market from
hands-on industrial labor to high-technology service delivery, alarming
increases in violence and crime, and the burdensome Federal deficit has
made the all-American dream seemingly untouchable for many hard-working
Americans. In response to these vital concerns, education is viewed as
the means to reverse the economic and social decline impacting our home
communities and Nation.
Education reform is a topic that raises high hopes and arduous
controversy in nearly every community in America today. Everyone can
agree that our children need a high-quality, comprehensive education in
preparation for the challenges of our Nation's voyage into an
unchartered future. However, the difficulties of achieving consensus on
how to provide effective, appropriate academic development has been
clearly demonstrated in Kentucky's own reform efforts.
In 1989, the Kentucky Supreme Court declared that the
disproportionate funding of the State's local school districts violated
our State constitution. This action provided Kentucky with the
opportunity to revamp and enhance its education system. Since the
passage of the Kentucky Education Reform Act [KERA] in 1990, our State
has achieved improvement in some areas, but the effort has also evoked
deep divisions over the educational standards, instructional methods,
and assessment tests applied in the classroom.
During the Senate's consideration of the Goals 2000 bill earlier this
year, Kentuckians expressed to me their adamant opposition to federally
defined standards and outcomes assessments for State and local
educational agencies. Based on their experiences with KERA, these
parents were deeply concerned that such requirements could impose
greater Federal control over local schools, limit parental and student
choice, and promote values-based education over sound academic
achievement. I too believe it is essential for reform efforts to
enhance, rather than curtail, local schools' responsiveness to the
principal support in a child's life--community and family. I supported
several amendments to Goals 2000 which offered greater flexibility to
local schools, but due to their limited success, I voted against
passage of the bill.
S. 1513, the Improving America's Schools Act, takes up the education
debate where Goals 2000 left off. The bill would reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA] which provides public
schools with financial assistance for a variety of purposes from
programs for students with special learning needs to infrastructure
development. During the Senate's consideration of S. 1513, we have had
the opportunity to evaluate the past performance of America's
educational system, establish its academic responsibilities for the
future, and clarify its role as a fundamental community-based
institution.
I am supportive of several constructive initiatives included in S.
1513. First, the modified impact aid distribution formula will continue
to support school districts in Kentucky, and nationwide, whose ability
to derive revenue from its local tax base is restricted by federally
owned property. Educational infrastructure investment is also a
priority as this measure establishes development programs for library
media and instructional technology, and provides enhanced professional
development for teachers and administrative personnel under an expanded
Eisenhower Professional Development Program. In addition, the bill
continues to support a number of programs that have achieved
significant progress in early childhood education and family support,
such as Even Start and the McKinney Homeless Assistance Program.
The Senate's floor discussions on American education have focused on
two issues of great concern to me: The most effective use of Federal
education dollars and the role of government in the educational duties
of schools and families.
First, S. 1513 recommends a new formula for the distribution of
chapter I funds. Through chapter I, schools received Federal support
for the higher costs of instructing educationally disadvantaged
students, the majority of whom are poor. To more effectively direct
chapter I resources to States and local education agencies with the
most need, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources has
recommended a single, ``weighted'' child grant formula that includes an
``effort'' multiplier and an ``equity'' multiplier.
Serious concerns have been raised by Members of the Senate on who
will be the winners and losers under the revised chapter I formula,
particularly due to its focus on a State's ability to increase taxes
for school funding. While the committee's formula proposal made some
progress toward targeting funds, I supported the Bumpers/Cochran
amendment to replace the ``effort'' and ``equity'' factors with an
alternative measure of need. The Bumpers/Cochran amendment utilized
county income and the number of school aged children in the formula, a
method which I believe is a more effective means of targeting chapter I
funds to those in greatest need.
Mr. President, when Kentucky began its journey toward a new academic
frontier, our State wanted better educational opportunities for our
children, and proof that students are gaining a sound working
foundation in basic skills for future employment or the pursuit of
higher education. Kentuckians are not alone in their struggle to create
an effective, responsive educational system. I am sure that many of my
colleagues have heard from parents in their States who are concerned
that Federal Government could usurp State and community administration
of schools through the imposition of new requirements and controls
under this bill.
Several of my constituents have expressed reservation about S. 1513's
new criteria for State education plans. In applying for chapter I
funds, this bill would require states to develop a comprehensive
education plan for disadvantaged students coordinated with the
guidelines of related ESEA Programs. For states--like Kentucky--who
participate in Goals 2000, the plans must also include content
standards, student performance standards, and assessments in accord
with this program. For States not participating in Goals 2000, they
would have to present a plan that assures equity in the content and
student performance standards applied to chapter I and non-chapter I
students. In addition, local education agencies would be required to
follow this same format to achieve State approval for their chapter I
plan.
While the Secretary will have peer review responsibilities over the
State plans, S. 1513 clearly states that the U.S. Department of
Education may not mandate specific standards or assessments for State
and local use. Communities are most aware of the economic and academic
factors that impact their schools' ability to respond to the
educational needs of all students. I believe this prohibition on
Federal involvement in the operation of State and local school systems
is essential to ensure that communities retain the authority and
flexibility necessary to fulfill their youth's educational needs.
Parents who choose to educate their children in a private school or
at home are also troubled that their family's right of choice could be
curtailed or negated by the Federal Government. As my colleagues may
recall from February, a strong outcry arose among supporters of private
and home schools when they discovered that an amendment to H.R. 6, the
House's ESEA reauthorization bill, could impose Federal certification
requirements on nonpublic school teachers. The House took these
concerns seriously, and by an overwhelmingly vote of 374 to 53, adopted
Representative Dick Armey's amendment to ensure that Federal controls
cannot be placed on any private, religious, or home school that does
not receive ESEA funds. This issue touches at the heart of family
choice in education, and I share my colleagues' interest in assuring
that S. 1513 also protects nonpublic schools from restrictive Federal
control.
Mr. President, the guiding purpose for S. 1513 is the assurance of
equitable funding based on need and high academic standards for all
students. While S. 1513 does not contain all the refining amendments I
have voted to support, it does strike toward a balance between efforts
for reform and the preservation of community-based education as a
whole.
To show that the concept of excellence in education can become
reality for all students, I would like to share with my colleagues a
Kentucky Post article that Superintendent Jack Moreland of the Dayton
independent schools sent me regarding a local student, Tony Randoll.
Because of the dedicated efforts and cooperative support of his
teachers and mother, Tony has overcome a number of personal and
academic hurdles to become Dayton independent's first graduate to
attend Yale University this fall. I ask that a copy of this article
appear in the Record following my remarks.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Kentucky Post, May 21, 1994]
Bound for Yale: Resolve To Succeed Sprang From Hardships at Home
(By Debra Ann Vance)
In a basement bedroom filled with school medals and
trophies, Tony Randoll talks about the part of his life he's
come to hate. His mother looks on, but Tony shyly looks away
when their eyes meet.
He tells of a brother who used to be on drugs. Sisters who
were in and out of runaway shelters, then became unmarried
mothers. Three of his four siblings dropped out of high
school.
He's been to seven schools. His father? He barely knows
him. Once, he was taken from his mother because of abuse.
``I remember sitting a lot of nights and crying to go back
home, and then a lot of times I didn't want to go back
because of the whole atmosphere,'' said Tony, an 18-year old
senior at Dayton High School.
Tony was in the ninth grade when he decided his life was
his. He would take control of it. As he puts it, he would
``refuse to lose.'' Education would be his way out.
Now, the kid who failed seventh grade has a 4.0 grade-point
average with perfect attendance. He's a track star, the
senior class president and a Governor's Scholar. He's on the
school newspaper and annual staff. He's vice president of the
National Honor Society. He's the winner of state and national
contests in Distributive Education Clubs of America. And he's
been accepted to Yale University--a feat no other Dayton
student has accomplished.
At Yale, he will major in biology and physics. The
university is picking up the cost and most of his education--
more than $100,000 over four years.
Tony figures he could not have made it without teachers who
care. When he couldn't afford to go to national DECA contests
in California and Florida, teachers paid his way. A teacher
picks him up for school, another takes him home.
Nor, he said, could he have made it without his mother, Jo
Ann Randoll. Mrs. Randoll said she has always worked, but got
hurt and has been unemployed for two years. Her unemployment
benefits ran out and she doesn't qualify for Social Security.
She and Tony survive on $206 a month in food stamps. What she
can't give him in material goods, she makes up by giving her
support and advice.
``I tell him you can't feel sorry for yourself,'' said Mrs.
Randoll, who makes a point of attending Tony's school
functions in addition to time she spends at the school to
learn computer skills she hopes will lead to employment.
``Because of the hard life we've had, I've tried to instill
in him to make the best of everything.
``I tell him, just remember, somewhere down the road
somebody's got it worse than you do. Apply for everything and
go for the best.''
They've moved several times. After a home was condemned,
Tony lived with friends, but mostly the family moved back and
forth to live with relatives. Last month, they moved in with
Mrs. Randoll's mother in Silver Grove.
Because they don't have permanent housing, the school
considers Tony homeless. As Tony put it:
``We really don't have anyplace to live except wherever we
can find a place to stay.''
Tony enrolled in Dayton in the ninth grade--two weeks after
school had begun. Spanish and math teacher Mary Anne Duchin
told him to come in after school if he wanted to catch up on
things he missed.
``He did. He cared,'' Mrs. Duchin said.
``I've told students before that, and since then, and he's
been the only one to come in.
``Two days later, I was picking him up for school.''
At their first after-school session, Mrs. Duchin recalled,
Tony told her, ``I'm going to do great things with my life.''
``And I said, `I believe you.'''
Tony is still setting high goals for himself. He wants to
write. He wants to be an astronaut. He wants to be a genetic
engineer.
``I'll be on a mission to Mars,'' he explained, ``looking
for samples of life where a genetic engineer would be
required. Then I would write a book about the whole thing.''
He likes to sing, dance and hang out at Hardee's with his
friends. Most of his friends and classmates don't know of his
home situation.
He was surprised to learn from teachers and classmates that
students look to him as a leader. They look at what he's
wearing. They want to know his attitude on certain subjects.
What his friends also don't know is that sometimes Tony is
envious of the clothes they wear. They don't know that the
one possession he wants most is something they already have--
a class ring.
``Most of my friends all got theirs when we were
sophomores,'' Tony said, dropping his head after looking at
his mother. ``I never brought it up. Because I knew she
didn't have the money, and I didn't want to make her feel
bad.''
His mother promises he will get a ring.
Earlier this year, it wasn't a ring Tony needed. It was a
place to live. The family had moved in with Mrs. Randoll's
mother, but that house grew too crowded.
They moved in with another relative, who lived in
government housing. Regulations forbade them from staying.
Another relative took them in for a while, but, when she
moved to the country, the Randolls were in need of a roof
over their heads again. They ended up back where they
started.
``This was the time I thought we would have to live in the
car,'' Tony said. ``I was kind of confused. I didn't
understand how my mom worked hard all her life and she
doesn't have anything to show for it. It's a pretty sad
thing.
Tony thought he would have to quit school activities and
get a job to help out. His mother wouldn't hear of it.
Mrs. Randoll says her son is ``heaven-sent.'' Mrs. Duchin
says he is special.
``He has better bounce-back ability than anybody I've ever
seen in my life,'' Mrs. Duchin said.
``He has an inner strength that an awful lot of people
don't have. Though I've seen it in other kids who kind of
blossom if you let them know you care.''
When he thinks about his situation, sometimes Tony cries--
not for himself, but for his brother and sisters and others
in society like them.
``I feel like there is something I should be doing, but I
don't know what to do,'' he said.
That makes him more determined. He constantly recites the
words of author William Blake. ``No eagle soars too high if
he soars with his own wings.''
``That means you can do whatever you want if it's something
you want to do for yourself and you set your heart and mind
to it,'' Tony says.
``I don't want to become a nobody.''
Most of the time Tony tries to block out his home life. But
he's not ashamed of it.
``I am proud of where I came from, though,'' he says,
``because I know where I am going--to success.''
off-reservation indian boarding schools
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Dorgan
and myself to offer an amendment to S. 1513, the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994. Our amendment would provide the Secretary of the
Interior with the authority to establish, through the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, therapeutic model demonstration projects at two off-
reservation Indian boarding schools. The purpose of these therapeutic
models would be to achieve positive and much-needed changes in the
social, psychological, and academic well-being of the Indian students
who attend these schools.
My own experience with the Wahpeton Indian School in North Dakota has
given me valuable insight into the lives of what is unquestionably a
very high-risk student population. Off-reservation boarding schools
such as Wahpeton have become destinations of last resort for youth from
broken homes, youth with learning disabilities, youth with discipline
and chemical dependency problems, youth with nowhere else to turn. This
past June, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee sponsored a hearing on
the state of off-reservation boarding schools. Expert testimony from an
Indian Health Service official confirmed that ``More and more, Indian
children and adolescents with multiple needs and problems, particularly
behavioral health problems, make up the student populations of boarding
schools.''
Unfortunately, these schools have for most of their existence
attempted to function as traditional educational institutions, when it
has long been apparent that a more therapeutic, nurturing approach to
student needs is necessary. A variety of witnesses at the June
hearing--including officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
Indian Health Service and representatives from a number of different
boarding schools--testified in support of converting these institutions
into the kind of therapeutic residential models prescribed by the
Conrad-Dorgan amendment.
The therapeutic model would provide an emotionally and physically
secure alternative home environment. The staff would no longer include
only educators and dorm monitors but also health and social service
professionals, including child psychologists and substance abuse
counselors.
Our amendment would assist all seven of the Nation's off-reservation
boarding schools in making the eventual transition to a therapeutic
model by granting the Secretary of the Interior the authority to select
two schools as demonstration sites and to provide the additional
resources these facilities need to implement the model. The two
models--one to be implemented at a BIA-controlled school and the other
at a tribally controlled grant school--would serve as pilot projects
for school years 1994-96, laying the groundwork for the future
conversion of other off-reservation boarding schools.
I should remind my colleagues that this amendment requires no new
appropriations, but rather grants the Secretary the authority to
redirect resources within the Department of the Interior budget to
establish the therapeutic model. Our amendment also grants the
Secretary the authority to limit the student enrollment at the
demonstration projects to ensure that each school accepts only as many
students as it can effectively serve.
I want to thank my colleagues on the Indian Affairs and Labor and
Human Resources Committees, as well as their staffs, for providing
their support and assistance during our work on this amendment.
Senators Inouye, McCain, Kennedy, Pell, Kassebaum, Jeffords, Hatfield,
and Simon have been particularly helpful. I of course also want to
thank my colleagues from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan and Congressman
Pomeroy, for their assistance in crafting this important measure.
I should further note that this amendment was developed in close
conjunction with officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Office of
Indian Education and representatives of the Wahpeton Indian School
Board. I believe development of the therapeutic model is an essential
step in improving the state of Indian education and I urge my
colleagues to accept this amendment as part of the Improving America's
Schools Act.
chapter one formula
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hatch amendment.
As the debate over the last few days has indicated, it is difficult to
craft a formula where every one feels like they are treated fairly--
especially when Federal resources may be lost. However, I believe that
sound policy must dictate how formulas are written--and the chapter 1
formula needs some adjustments.
There are a number of legitimate factors that are included in the
chapter 1 formula. The committee amendment includes four factors.
However, the bottom line is that the current chapter 1 formula does not
allocate Federal resources to reflect the demographics we have in 1994.
It is reasonable to expect that States that have an increase in
disadvantaged students will receive an increase in Federal resources.
The formula included in S. 1513 is an improvement over what we have,
and I appreciate the work of the labor and Human Resources Committee.
However, more could be done.
The amendment we are considering is based on sound policy. The
amendment affects the equity bonus, removing the bands that limit the
effect of this factor. Thus, this formula will be applied in a more
even-handed fashion. I understand and recognize the need to protect
States from a radical shift in funds in 1 year. In fact, this amendment
contains a transition period. However, if we never allow the legitimate
shift in resources to occur, we will maintain the status quo
perpetually.
Chapter 1 needs change. Many States have received more than their
fair share and benefited at the expense of disadvantaged students in
other States. While the chapter 1 formula is beneficial to every State
and most school districts, we must keep in mind that this formula isn't
written to benefit States and districts--it is to help disadvantaged
children. And these children have been penalized by politics for too
long.
I thank the senior Senator from Utah for his leadership in making
this formula more equitable, and urge my colleagues to support the
Hatch amendment.
the title i formula
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern
about the title I funding formula reported by the Labor and Human
Resources Committee in S. 1513, the Improving America's Schools Act.
Title I is the largest Federal elementary and secondary education
program designed to meet the needs of poor, low-achieving students.
Funding has always been partially based on the number of poor children
in each State, and in this reauthorization bill the committee tried to
better target the funds to where they are needed most. Unfortunately
for California, the formula developed by the committee fails to meet
that goal.
In California, the number of school age children living in poverty
increased by 38 percent between 1980 and 1990. Title I funds and the
programs they support are critical. Yet, under the committee formula
California would receive over $20 million less in funding than it would
under current law.
Why is the committee formula so unfair to California? One reason is
the 100 percent hold harmless provision in the first year, which favors
States with declining child poverty rates at the expense of States,
like California, where child poverty rates are growing.
The committee title I formula also contains two new factors--the
effort factor and the equity factor. The equity factor is designed to
reward States in which spending per pupil on education is equal, or
nearly equal, in all school districts within the State. Senator Hatch's
amendment made changes to this factor which provide an additional $13
million to California. I am pleased that his amendment was accepted,
and believe that it should be retained in the final conference report,
if the committee's formula prevails.
The effort factor is intended to measure the effort States make to
educate poor children. It is a ratio of State per pupil spending to
State per capita income. However, State per pupil spending is an
inaccurate measure of the effort States make to educate children, and
works to decrease California's title I allocation.
California is ranked 41st in the Nation on State per pupil
expenditures. In 1991-92, California spent only $4,419 per pupil,
compared to an average of $5,713 nationwide. California also has over 4
million children enrolled in kindergarten through grade 12--one of the
highest in the Nation. With such a large number of school age children,
California has less to spend on each child than States with a smaller
school age population.
State per pupil spending is also a poor measure of a State's effort
to educate children because it does not take into account the true cost
of education. Other indicators, such as average teacher salary, are
more reflective of State differences in the cost of education. In 1992,
California ranked seventh in the Nation in instructional salaries.
California is penalized twice in the formula for low State per pupil
expenditures because the cost factor, which calculates the cost of
educating poor children in each State, also uses this measure. As a
result, California's title I allocation is reduced by an estimated $500
per pupil.
I had hoped the Senate would adopt an amendment offered by Senator
Feinstein and myself to remove the new effort factor from the formula.
It would have increased the title I allocation for 28 States by roughly
1 to 4 percent. California would have gained an additional $44 million.
The amendment also would have restored the current practice of counting
poor children receiving AFDC as eligible for title I funds.
Unfortunately, it was clear after the Hatch amendment was accepted
that the Senate would not support further formula changes.
The Labor and Human Resources Committee states that the title I
formula in S. 1513 is fair and equitable, and takes into account what
funding States have had under the program, and what they will need to
adequately serve their poor students in the future. Even with the
changes made by the Hatch amendment, California receives less funding
than it would under current law and the effort factor will reduce
California's allocation in the future. As a result, California will not
be able to adequately serve its poor students--the number of which are
growing.
We must now work to address these inequities for California in the
conference committee. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting a
title I formula that meets the goal of targeting more funds to those
States with the largest number of children in poverty.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, as I have previously stated, I am
proud to be a cosponsor of S. 1513. Our Nation must maintain quality
public education for everyone--and that is exactly what the Improving
America's School Act is all about.
I have said it before and I will say it again and again: Education is
fundamental to our democracy and essential to the functioning of our
democratic institutions. It is the means by which we prepare our
children to succeed--to make a living, to participate in the community,
to enjoy the arts, and to understand the technology that has reshaped
our workplace.
Education, public education specifically, is more than a private
benefit to individuals, it is a public good to us all. How well a
democratic society is able to function depends in large part on the
opportunities available to its citizens. That connection is seen in
everything from crime statistics to health status, to electoral
participation, and international competitiveness.
Mr. President, S. 1513 would help our Nation increase its
international competitiveness by directing States to develop their own
content standards, performance standards, and opportunity-to-learn
standards to improve the way teachers teach and students learn.
Although this legislation would not require States to adopt any
specific standards, it would direct them to develop standards that
challenge all of their students to meet high skills rather than
remedial skills.
Mr. President, the General Accounting Office recognized the need to
challenge all Americans to acquire high skills in a recent report that
found that the United States is lagging behind some of its primary
international economic competitors--including Japan and Germany--in
providing young people with the academic and technical skills that
employers need.
Laura Tyson, chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers, reaches
this same conclusion in her article entitled, ``The Dynamics of Trade
and Employment.'' She states:
A high-tech America requires a work force that has the
skills and training that are needed to use the new
technologies. The U.S. educational system from kindergarten
through college must be modified to meet these new
requirements if American workers are to be able to compete in
the world economy with rising rather than falling wages.
Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. Laura Tyson has put her finger
on a serious problem and her analysis is right on the money. I agree
that education must be among our top priorities and that education has
a direct relationship to the success of our economy in general and to
the prosperity of American workers in particular.
Our principal economic competitors, including Germany and Japan,
understand very clearly how important education is. While American
elementary and secondary school students attend school for an average
of 180 days a year, their counterparts in Germany and Japan attend
school for 243 and 226 days, respectively.
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that American 13-year-olds
ranked 14th out of 15th in an international study conducted by the
International Assessment of Education Progress [IAEP] on mathematic
achievement.
Mr. President, the availability of educational opportunities in the
United States not only affects our international competitiveness and
our ability to compete in the emerging global economy, it also affects
electoral participation, health status, and crime in our country.
I firmly believe that S. 1513 can help to improve the well-being of
our Nation's citizens by increasing the authorization level for ESEA
programs to $12.5 billion and by targeting more of these funds to
disadvantaged children.
Mr. President, recent studies have found that the majority--61
percent--of young people in juvenile justice facilities have a median
education level of 8 years.
Other studies have found that almost 80 percent of the children born
to unmarried teenage parents who dropped out of high school now live in
poverty while only 8 percent of the children born to married high
school graduates aged 20 or older are poor.
S. 1513 would address these problems by increasing the authorization
for title I funds and by targeting more of them to low-income children.
Since the current formula allocates title I funds to poor children
without increasing grants to school districts according to their
poverty rates, local school districts in the highest poverty quartile
currently receive 50.5 percent of title I funds for 50.6 percent of all
poor school-age children.
The title I formula would target significantly more funds to local
school districts and schools with high concentrations of disadvantaged
children. According to the Congressional Research Service, this new
formula would increase the share of title I funds going to the highest
poverty quartile from 50.5 percent under current law to 54.1 percent
while reducing the share of title I funds going to the lowest poverty
quartile from 6.4 percent to 3.8 percent.
By increasing our support for education, we can enhance our society's
return on its investment a thousand fold--through savings in welfare,
drug addiction, and crime programs.
Yet, although it is very clear that it is in all of our interests to
increase the Federal share of public education funding, the American
system of public education has historically given local school boards
primary responsibility over our Nation's public schools.
For a long time, local school boards were able to meet that
responsibility. However, the ability of local school boards to continue
to meet that responsibility has steadily declined.
To support our Nation's public schools, local school boards rely on
local property taxes. And, as we all know, school boards in every State
in the country are finding it increasingly difficult to support their
academic programs, much less their school facilities, with local
property taxes.
Mr. President, local property taxes are an inadequate source of
funding for public education because they make the quality of public
education dependent upon local property wealth.
Two districts in Illinois illustrate the gross disparities created by
our current school financing system.
In 1990, the owner of a $100,000 home in a prosperous community paid
$2,103 in local property taxes. This community spent an average of
$10,085 per child in its public schools. On the other hand, the owner
of a $100,000 home in a low- and moderate-income community with fewer
resources paid $4,139 in local property taxes, almost twice as much,
even though that community was able to spend only $3,483 on each of
their public school students--less than one-third of the money the more
prosperous community was spending.
In 1992, 57 percent of voters in Illinois voted to address the
problems created by our system's reliance on local property taxes by
directing the State to increase its share of public education funding.
The voters of Michigan also voted recently to shift funding for public
education away from local property taxes to more equitable sources of
funding.
Nonetheless, the Federal Government as well as most States continue
to force local school districts to rely increasingly on local property
taxes for public education. In Illinois, for example, the local share
of public education funding fell from 48 percent during the 1980-81
school year to 58 percent during the 1992-93 school year, while the
State's share fell from 43 to 34 percent during this same period.
Mr. President, the Federal Government must also accept a share of the
blame for failing to provide students throughout the country with
quality public educations. In just the last decade alone, the Federal
Government's share of public education funding has dropped from 9.8 to
6.1 percent.
I support local decisionmaking, however the Federal Government has an
obligation to at least contribute a fair share of the costs.
S. 1513 would promote increased funding for education by raising the
authorizations for programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act [ESEA] to $12.5 billion in fiscal year 1995.
Yet unlike past ESEA reauthorizations, S. 1513 would also create a
coherent framework for education reform by coordinating all ESEA
programs with the education reforms in the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act that President Clinton signed into law on March 31, 1994.
For example, title II of S. 1513 would amend the current Eisenhower
Math and Science Program in order to provide teachers in all core
academic subject areas--not just math and science--with sustained and
intensive professional development. This legislation would continue to
focus on professional development in mathematics and science by
directing States to ``take into account the need for greater access to,
and participation in, such disciplines by students from historically
underrepresented groups.''
Nonetheless, title II would also authorize the Secretary of Education
to use Eisenhower Program funds to train educators how to meet the
educational needs of historically undeserved populations including
females, minorities, individuals with disabilities, limited-English
proficient individuals, and economically disadvantaged individuals in
all core academic subject areas.
Mr. President, S. 1513 would also amend the fund for innovation in
education program in an important way by authorizing the Secretary of
Education to support activities that promote child abuse education and
prevention programs.
Child abuse and neglect have reached crisis proportions in the United
States. Child abuse is now the leading cause of death for children
under 5 with over 2 million cases each year. In 1991, the Department of
Health and Human Services reported that 1,383 children died from abuse
and neglect in 1991. The National Association of Social Workers has
found that reports of abused and neglected children have increased by
approximately 150 percent between 1979 and 1991.
In addition to the physical injuries they sustain, abused and
neglected children are left with emotional scars that often never heal.
If left unreported and untreated, these scars can prevent such children
from ever becoming full participants in society. In fact, they can also
lead children who are abused later to become abusive parents
themselves.
Title VIII of S. 1513 would address this problem by authorizing the
Secretary to support programs like the seminars organized by the
Greater Chicago Council of the National Committee to prevent child
abuse and the education video--``Kids and Company''--produced by the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that train educators
how to recognize possible cases of child abuse and neglect and how to
discuss these issues with children.
Mr. President, S. 1513 would also promote gender equity by
authorizing most of the ``gender equity in education packages.''
Senators Kennedy, Simon, Harkin, Mikulski, and I introduced several
bills last year as a cooperative effort to address the widespread
gender inequities in our Nation's schools. These bills, which are
collectively known as the gender equity in education package, include
the Equity in Education Amendments Act, the Women's Educational Equity
Restoration Act, the Fairness in Education for Girls and Boys Act, and
the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act.
All four of these bills are important because they will help the
Secretary of Education enforce title IX of the education amendments of
1972--the principal Federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in
education.
S. 1513 includes much of the gender equity in education package.
However, one major component, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act,
is not yet included in the Improving America's Schools Act. I will soon
be offering an amendment to make this final gender equity initiative a
part of S. 1513.
S. 1513 would authorize another very exciting Federal initiative
designed to provide all students with school environments which are
conducive to learning.
Title XV of S. 1513, the Education Infrastructure Act, would
authorize the Secretary of Education to allocate $400 million directly
to local school districts for the repair, renovation, alteration, and
construction of public elementary and secondary school facilities.
Several studies have shown that our Nation's education infrastructure
needs total about $125 billion; $84 billion for new construction; and
$41 billion for maintenance and repairs. Other studies have shown that
our Nation's education infrastructure needs are great in both urban and
rural districts alike. The Council of Great City Schools has reported
that New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Detroit each need more
than $1 billion each to repair old school buildings and build new ones.
Education researchers have also found that one-half of our Nation's
rural school buildings are unsafe, inadequate, and inaccessible to
disabled students.
Under this title, the secretary of education would distribute title
XV funds directly to local school districts to help them repair
facilities that pose a health or safety risk to students. This title
would also help local school districts meet the requirements in: First,
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; second, the Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1986; and third, the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990.
Finally, title XV would also help local school districts upgrade
their facilities to accommodate new instructional technology. Although
the Quality Education Data Co. estimated that 98 percent of elementary
schools have computers, the Office of Technology assessment estimated
in 1986 that it would cost $4.2 billion a year for 6 years to bring the
students to computers ratio down from 30:1 to 3:1. Title XV would help
local school districts achieve this goal by helping them make their
facilities technology-ready.
Mr. President, I would like to conclude my remarks by reiterating
that education is an investment in our children and an investment in
our future. Given what our international competition is doing, we
cannot afford not to make the investments in education and job training
that are so critically necessary to respond to the challenges from
abroad.
Laura Tyson has said that a country's people may be its most precious
resource. I share that view, and I think we must all dedicate ourselves
to giving Americans the opportunity to fully utilize their talents--and
not just because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is
the best thing to do for our economy and for the future of our country.
I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 1513.
____________________