[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.

                          ____________________