T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. With that in mind, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Dole second-degree amendment be modified in the fashion which I have already sent to the desk.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire for his eloquent support. During the period of time this was actively debated between myself and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and others, he and I have reached an agreement, which I find to be most constructive. As a result of that agreement, I intend in just a moment to ask unanimous consent to modify the Dole second-degree amendment, to modify it in a manner which would turn it from a statute to a sense-of-the- Senate resolution. Since technically if the committee amendment to strike is ultimately adopted it will all fall. In any event, the most important, the vital part of what we are doing is really to express the views of this Senate to this National Education Standards and Improvement Council. It will do so in the fashion that I asked for. We will have a vote on it. The vote will be far more one-sided than it would have been on the original amendment, and I have every confidence that the National Standards Council will listen to what the Senate has to say. If it does not, any Member is free to bring up the subject at any future time. This will also help the progress of the underlying bill, S. 1, itself. Amendment No. 139 to Amendment No. 31, as Modified

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] be added as a cosponsor to the original.

Mr. GORTON. Objection.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Mexico, there is hardly an important commission or entity or agency in the United States whose controversial decisions or operations do not create controversy or debates on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We are elected by the people. We have strong views on particular subjects. Of course, frequently, well beyond this particular council, we are going to have debates on ideas which other people, appointed by the President or appointed by us, deal with. As the Senator from New Mexico well knows, there is not the slightest doubt that we will be engaged in a debate sometime later this year on the future of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Members will attack and defend the way in which Federal money is spent by that independent organization, as it is by a myriad of other organizations. As for the meeting a week from Saturday of this particular Commission, I would be astounded if this amendment were the law by then. Certainly the speed with which we have dealt with this unfunded mandates bill so far hardly indicates that it is going to be through this body and the House of Representatives, the differences between the two settled, on the President's desk and signed by the President by a week from Saturday. So I suspect that legally, at least, that Commission will be perfectly free a week from Saturday to take whatever action it wishes. I strongly suspect that many of those who are elected to positions in their own States and are appointed members of this Commission may have reached the same conclusion that I and others have at this point, and I strongly suspect that they will give great weight to the way in which this vote comes out. But they are going to give that great weight either way. If we vote in favor of this amendment, even though it has not become law, I think that will greatly influence that council in rejecting these standards. By the same token, if we turn down this amendment, my opinion is that many members of that council will, in effect, say the Congress has approved these standards and they ought to go ahead and do so themselves.

Mr. GORTON. My answer to the Senator from New Mexico is that is a very good question, to which the answer is ``no.'' I sense that educational goals are likely to fall into two categories, one of which is more likely to be controversial than the other. Some of the standards in other areas--for mathematics, for example, or for the teaching of physics--will, I think, be very unlikely to be found controversial or be driven by ideology. In the case of a set of standards which come from a narrow perspective, a narrow political perspective, it is certainly possible that there will be future debates, as there ought to be. I think the future debates are more likely to be driven by public reaction to these standards than they are by the preferences of individual Members of the Senate. This Senator was made aware of the standards by the blizzard of criticism which they created almost from the day that this book was published. Now, by the fact that so many traditional historians in the United States find them so terribly objectionable, my deep hope, I say to the Senator from New Mexico, as a member of this national commission, will be that a decent respect for American traditions in the future in this and in the study of other kinds of social services on the part of those academics who generally dominate their writing such standards, will result in no action at all on the part of the Congress, because while there may be elements of controversy and particular standards, that controversy will not reach the fundamental basis of the very philosophy or ideology out of which they arise. So I hope that this is not only the first time that we take up a subject like this, but the last time.

Mr. GORTON. I am happy to yield.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first, I should like to say with respect to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, that it is always a pleasure to deal with him on the same side of an issue just as it is very dangerous to disagree with him and attempt to prove a case. But as I have listened to the case presented against this amendment by three of my colleagues, one of my own party and two of the other, it seems to me that they argue in an attempt to have it both ways. Each of them was a strong supporter of Federal legislation, Goals 2000, which was designed to come up with national standards for the teaching of various subjects in our schools. Each of them, as far as I can tell, approved of spending some $2 million of Federal taxpayer money to finance a private study which resulted in these national standards. But when it comes to our debating these highly controversial and I firmly believe perverse and distorted standards for world and American history, we are told we should butt out; we, the Congress of the United States, should have nothing to say about national standards for the teaching of American history. Or, in the alternative, the Senator from New Mexico says it is too early because they have not been adopted yet. Would his argument be different if this commission had in fact adopted these standards? Well, of course not. His argument would be even stronger that we should have nothing to do with this process. Far better to express the views of Members of this body, and I hope of the House of Representatives, on a matter which is of deep concern to many of our citizens before some potential final action has been taken than to wait until afterwards. But, Mr. President, this volume does not look like a rough draft. Nothing in this volume, for which we have paid $2 million, indicates that it is only tentative, it is subject to huge revisions. This is a set of standards which without regard to whether or not it is approved by a national entity has already been distributed in some 10,000 copies to educational administrators and interested people all across the United States which already has behind it the force of being a national project financed with national money. I believe it more than appropriate that this technically nongermane amendment should be added to a bill on mandates, the bill we are discussing here today. While the Goals 2000 entity, the National Education Standards and Improvement Commission, cannot enforce its judgments on the States, they will certainly be given great weight by each of these States. And that council is a Federal entity. It may well be made up of some Governors as well as some Members of this body and some legislators and the like, but it is a national body created by the Congress with a national purpose. Nothing in my amendment, in which the Senator from Connecticut has joined, tells any Governor or State educational administrator that he or she cannot accept this book today, lock, stock, and barrel, if he or she wishes to do so. It does say that a Federal entity will not certify it as worthy of consideration as a guide for the teaching of American history. In that sense, each of these people is part of a national entity created by the Congress with a Federal purpose. Not only is it appropriate for Members to instruct such a group, I believe it to be mandatory. We created the group. If it is our view that this is, in fact, a perverse document that should not be the basis for teaching American history, now is the time we should say so. Not after it has been adopted by several States. Not after it has been adopted by this national organization, but right now. Opponents cannot duck behind the proposition that somehow or another they are taking no position. By voting against this amendment, they are taking the position that it is perfectly appropriate for these standards to be presented to the States of the United States as the way in which to teach the history of the United States of America. The very individual, Lynne Cheney, then Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, who came up with much of the financing for this, finds these standards to be totally outside of what she or the Endowment expected or participated. And the critics are not from some narrow group in the United States. They represent the broadest possible mainstream of American thinking. Former Assistant Secretary of Education, Chester Finn, now at the Hudson Institute, called these history standards ``anti-Western,'' and ``hostile to the main threads of American history.'' Elizabeth Fox- Genovese, professor of history of women's study at Emory University declared ``The sense of progress and accomplishment that has characterized Americans' history of their country has virtually disappeared'' from these standards. The president of the Organization of History Teachers, Earl Bell, of the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, called the world history standards ``even more politically correct than U.S. history standards.'' Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post, said that these proposed standards reflect ``the new history'' and ``the larger project of the new history is to collapse the distinction between fact and opinion, between history's news and editorial pages. In the new history, there are no pages independent of ideology and power, no history that is not political.'' Herman Beltz, history professor at the University of Maryland said ``I almost despair to think what kids will come to college with. I'm going to have to teach more basic things about the Constitution of the American Federation of Teachers, described the original draft of World History Standards as ``a travesty, a caricature of what these things should be--sort of cheap shot leftist view of history.'' Finally, of course, Lynne Cheney said ``the World History Standards relentlessly downgrade the West just as the American history standards diminish achievements of the United States,'' both calling into question ``not only the standard-setting effort but the Goals 2000 program under which these standards became official knowledge.'' In U.S. News & World Report, John Leo wrote: This won't do. The whole idea was to set unbiased national standards that all Americans could get behind. Along the way the project was hijacked by the politically correct. It is riddled with propaganda, and the American people would be foolish to let it anywhere near their schools. Mark my words: To vote against this amendment is to vote approval of certifying a set of books, in this case entitled ``National Standards for United States History,'' paid for by the American taxpayer, submitted to a Federal organization for its approval. I want to repeat, we do not tell any school district or any State that if it wants to treat this as a bible that it is forbidden to do so. All we do is to tell an organization we created that it is not to certify these standards. That they are unacceptable. That they denigrate the Western and the American experience, ignore the most important achievements of our history, and that if the Federal Government wants to do this job it ought to start over and do it again with people who have a decent respect for American history and for civilization. I am a Senator who, unlike my distinguished colleague who sits next to me here, the junior Senator from Kansas, who voted in favor of Goals 2000 and in favor of national standards. And like others now seriously must question my own judgment in doing so, if this is the kind of product which is going to arise out of that process. I believe very firmly that if we are to have national standards, if we are to have support not only of this Congress but of the American people for national standards in education and various subjects, we must do much better than this. Not later. Not a year from now. Not 3 years from now. This is the time to say, ``This doesn't measure up.'' It does not reflect the American experience. It is not an outline of what we should be teaching our children about the history of this country, and for that matter, the history of the world. The vote, like it or not, is on whether or not you agree or disagree with what has been produced here. Turn down this amendment, we are telling this national council ``everything is OK; approve it, and go right ahead.'' Accept the amendment and we will have a positive impact not only on the teaching of our American history but of future standards in other subjects which are still incomplete. We may yet be able to save the true goals of Goals 2000.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe a rollcall has already been ordered on this second-degree amendment. Also, if there are no other persons that wish to speak, I am ready to have a rollcall vote.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would do so now, as I have forgotten another matter. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia be added as a cosponsor to the amendment as modified.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is a more important part of our Nation's history for our children to study--George Washington or Bart Simpson? Is it more important that they learn about Roseanne Arnold, or how America defeated communism as the leader of the free world? According to this document--the recently published ``National Standards for United States History''--the answers are not what Americans would expect. With this set of standards, our students will not be expected to know George Washington from the man in the Moon. According to this set of standards, America's democracy rests on the same moral footing as the Soviet Union's totalitarian dictatorship. Mr. President, this set of standards must be stopped, abolished, repudiated, repealed. It must be recalled like a shipload of badly contaminated food. Today, before our children are asked to spend their evenings studying Bart Simpson instead of Benjamin Franklin's discovery of electricity, these standards must be abolished. My amendment will stop this set of standards from becoming a guide for teaching history in America's classrooms. In order to stop this perverted idea in its tracks, and to ensure that it does not become, de facto, a guide for our Nation's classrooms, it must be publicly and officially repudiated by this Congress. That is precisely what this amendment seeks to do. These standards are ideology masquerading as history. These standards would have us reinvent America's history. They are terribly damaging, and they constitute a gross distortion of the American story from its conceptual foundations to the present. America's story is both triumph and tragedy, but mostly triumph, of flawed yet unprecedented accomplishment. But in this teachers' and textbook manual it becomes a sordid tale ``drenched in dark skepticism,'' as a Wall Street Journal editorial put it, emphasizing what is negative in America's past, while celebrating only politically correct culture and causes. (I) The Standard Project's Initial Charter The history standards project began as a response to the alarming illiteracy of our Nation's children about their own, national history. Citizens of a pluralistic, democratic society must have a deep, historically based understanding of our liberties' origins and institutions, and appreciate the corresponding responsibilities essential for our survival as a nation, as a people. Such an appreciation is dependent on a mastery of basic American history. The founding truths of this country may have been self-evident to the Founders, but as studies have demonstrated again and again, they are not genetically transmitted. William Bennett in his book, ``The De-Valuing of America,'' underscores the urgency of our problem in his call for ``true reliable national standards.'' He cites the Finn/Ravitch study ``What Do Our Children Know?'' that revealed 43 percent of our high school seniors could not place World War I between 1900 and 1950. More than two-thirds of them did not know even the half-century in which the Civil War took place. And more than 75 percent were unable to place within 20 years when Abraham Lincoln was President. One-third of all high school students tested in 1986 did not know that the Declaration of Independence marked the American colonists' break from England. Sixty percent did not know that the Federalist Papers was written to urge ratification of the Constitution, and 40 percent could not say even approximately when the Constitution was written and ratified. Only three students in five were able to recognize a definition of the system of checks and balances that divides power among the three branches of our Federal Government. If, as Lincoln believed, the liberty and prosperity of a nation such as ours is dependent on the ``mystic chords of memory,'' then we are indeed, as William Bennett's 1981 national literacy report evidenced, ``A Nation at Risk.'' (ii) we didn't get what we paid for In 1992, when UCLA's National Center for History in the Schools won the bid to produce national guidelines for American and World history curricula, they were given three basic tasks: First, to develop guidelines by which to determine the most important historical material for students to learn; Second, to develop a balanced and objective document; and Third, to develop a consensus process that would consider many perspectives from many different sources. After 2 years and more than $2 million of the American taxpayers' money, the history project has failed to reach any of these goals. Let members examine a sample of some of the outrageous examples found on almost every page of these documents. As we look at this material, we should keep in mind that President Bush and all the Nation's Governors, at the national educational summit in Charlottesville, VA, in 1989, recommended the development of national standards based upon what was most worth knowing. (iii) these proposed standards do not concentrate on what is most worth knowing Examples: First, George Washington makes only a fleeting appearance in the standards. He is never described as our first President. Second, the Constitution: The Constitution is not mentioned in the 31 core standards, although the standards mention the Depression three times. Third, central figures and events in American political, cultural, and scientific life are either barely noted--in a 300 page book--or they simply disappear from the story of America's past. Important historical issues, such as the development of the role of Congress in our Federal Government are not discussed. Under these standards, Paul Revere and his midnight ride will never capture the imagination of our children. Ben Franklin's discovery of electricity will not encourage young scientists to seek out their own discoveries that can change the world. Fourth, significant historical figures pivotal to America's past, such as Daniel Webster and Robert E. Lee, vanish. Titans who exemplify scientific progress in American history are also omitted from the standards. With these standards in place, our children will not learn of Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, the Wright brothers, or Albert Einstein. Americans who changed the entire world for the better will cease to exist. As Robert Park of the American Physical Society has noted, the only reference to science in the standards is as an activity from which women have been excluded. Nothing else about the While the standards ignore people such as Webster, deemphasize George Washington and the founding of America, ignore our political heritage, and abandon our accomplishments in technology--there is no shortage of celebratory information of the politically correct inclusive variety. Thus, American students in the standards are asked to ``assess the survival strategies and construct historical assessments of people such as Prudence Crandall, Prince Hall, and Speckled Snake.'' They are asked to ``analyze the reflection of values in popular TV shows'' such as Roseanne and the Simpsons. Where are the priorities in the standards? Given the limited amount of time our kids have to master the basics of their Nation's history, are these information fragments more important than George Washington and the Constitutional Convention? (IV) preemptive strike at critics back home Do not misunderstand me. I certainly believe it is important to tell the whole story of America. Our history should be inclusive. It should study previously neglected groups and individuals who made real contributions to our common heritage. It should examine our Nation's tragedies--the sub-human treatment of Native Americans, the crime against humanity over which we fought our bloodiest war to abolish, the battle for women's rights, Jim Crow and the great sacrifices made by so many during the civil rights movement of the 1960's, the ongoing battle for the complete realization of our Nation's founding first principle, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights--all these are parts of our history about which our children should learn. But let us disabuse ourselves of the modern conceit that this great first principle was a 1960's innovation. I think of George Washington's letter to a Hebrew congregation in which he compares America's right to religious freedom with the, at best, begrudging religious ``tolerance'' of other nations. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural right, for, happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens. * * * May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit safely under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. Proponents of this manual will tell you that the proposed American history standards devote more than 40 pages to colonial and early national periods. What is emphasized in those 40 pages, however, is the separate histories of different groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, and class, at the expense of what is most important for students to know--the building of a nation, of ``a people'', and the constitutional development of the American Republic, still the envy and the prototype for emerging democracies around the world. (V) politically correct drivel The standards suggest that students ``analyze Pontiac's speech to the French on the reasons for making war in 1763, and compare his reasons with those of Opechancanough in 1622 and Metacomet (King Philip) in 1676. No doubt an interesting question for a graduate seminar, but is that something every child in America should learn? Mr. President, Americans not yet familiar with this monument to political correctness will be astonished to learn that at the same time that the standard focus on such arcane issues, they fail to discuss what are perhaps the most important documents in American constitutional history. America's constitutional achievement: The Federalist papers, Nos. 10 and 51, which explain why checks and balances are crucial to our liberties, are omitted altogether. Madison, Hamilton, Jay are never identified as the Federalist papers' authors. In fact, the only reference to the Federalist papers is a brief mention of No. 84. This is appalling. Today the Federalist papers are among the most important teaching documents used by civic educators in the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. It is ridiculous that the authors of these national standards in American history, in 300 pages, could not find room for the most eloquent articulation of our entire constitutional system ever written. (VI) the proposed national standards are not balanced and objective The few belief examples will have to suffice but I invite you to pursue all 300 pages at your leisure. The cold war; Both the American history standards and the world history standards present this historical battle for the hearts and minds of the human race as just another conflict between two superpowers. Never mind that the Soviet Union murdered 65 million of its own people, its rulers forever justifying any and all ``means,'' at the same time that Americans were debating constitutional rights of due process for every citizen, while at the same time providing a shield for the independence of free nations around the world. Americans and free people around the world believed these differences were worthy of the lives of their sons and daughters, sacrificed in the hills of Korea and jungles of Vietnam for the cause of freedom. But this great contest for minds and lives is ignored in their standards. There is no mention of the contending ideologies. The enormous sacrifice of American taxpayers, particularly during the Reagan administration to bring the Soviet monster to its knees is a matter of indifference to these standard netters. And yet there are 19 references to McCarthyism, is though this regrettable but relatively short episode in our story is the central reality of the cold war. This is outrageous ideological distortion, rendering the victory of the free world under U.S. leadership essentially irrelevant. The standards describe the nature of this sacrifice in the way: The swordplay of the Soviet Union and the United States rightfully claims attention because it led to the Korean and Vietnam wars as well as the Berlin Airlift, Cuban Missile Crisis, American interventions in many parts of the world (no mention of Soviet staged revolutions and mass murders in its client states, or of any ``intervention'' at all). What would all those desperate prisoners still locked within Castro's police state say about this equating of American and Soviet ends in the great battle of our century? The standards actually refer to ``the U.S.S.R.'s desire for security in Eastern Europe'' as something normal and of understandable national interest. Tell that to the Balts, Czechs, Poles, and Hungarians, Rumanians, and others. American immigrants: The world standards refer to the immigrants who came to the United States during the 19th century as ``intrusive European Migrants''--page 234. This might be the first effort by historians to put the millions of Scandinavians, Jews, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians who went through Ellis Island, and the earlier arrivals, the Irish, Germans, and other pioneer immigrants, together and in a negative light. The American standards emphasize the discrimination many immigrants faced in the United States, but nowhere in the document is there any discussion of the great success story of the descendants of European, Asian, African, and Hispanic immigrants in their new country. Poverty in America: The section on the history of debate over the extent of poverty in the United States asks students to read Michael Harrington, an advocate of the Great Society Federal antipoverty programs, but never suggest that students read critics of the program's big Government approach, such as Thomas Sowell, George Gilder, and Milton Friedman. Those scholars simply do not exist. The world history guidelines whitewash the less attractive historical backgrounds of many non-Western civilizations. In fact, Western civilization is buried as a relatively minor element of the world we live in today. For example, Aztec achievements are lauded, but human sacrifices are ignored. It may as well have never happened. By contrast, extensive examinations of Western imperialism are both legion and repetitive. The world history standards warn against ethnocentricm and bias, but the only examples given are of Western the Persians are described as ``ethnocentric'' and students are asked to read John of Plano, a 13th century papal emissary, on the Mongal threat and analyze his social and cultural biases about the Mongols. The world history standards fail to note that although slavery ended in the West during the 19th century, at the cost of the blood of hundreds of thousands of sons of the intrusive European immigrants, slavery continues to exist today as it has for millenia in the non- West, according to official United Nations reports. These world history standards do not compare and contrast political systems in the West and the non-West during the 19th and 20th centuries. Thus, teachers are not encouraged to compare Western democracies with Asian and African despotism. Nor are post-1989 students encouraged to consider the Communist ideal versus the historical reality. Why not compare the Soviet Socialist experiment with the American story in the 20th century, or contrast Lenin's reign of terror with Washington's leadership? Too unimportant to consider seems to be the view of these standard makers. Our students need to know the theoretical foundations of our liberties. They need to learn why the dictatorship of the proletariat failed in its promised bliss. The world history standards assert that students should be able to assess the accomplishments and costs of Communist rule in China during Mao's Great Leap Forward of 1958. Current estimates of the costs are 30 million murders of Mao's own fellow citizens. Why not ask students to analyze the Great Leap Forward itself, rather than to suggest that its accomplishments may have been worth its costs? A truly suitable activity? Read Jung Chaing's ``Life and Death in Shanghai,'' a record of the arrests, mock trials, endless imprisonment, the beatings, the innocent children murdered--all in the name of social progress during Mao's Cultural Revolution. As recently reported in the Nation's newspapers, apologists for this project will tell you this is ``work in progress.'' Nothing to be alarmed about. Changes can be made. Mr. President, this does not look like work in progress. Nothing in its content, nothing in its introductory chapters indicates that it is to be modified. It is a finished project. At the present time, there are 10,000 copies of the United States, world, and K-4 history standards in circulation. These copies are in use throughout the educational world. In some cases they are already being used as curriculum guidelines. They are in the hands of textbook publishers, curriculum writers, and other education experts. Funded by taxpayers money, UCLA has been selling the standards books--$18 for individuals and $24 for groups--and they are making money. Last Saturday, an apologist for the project was quoted in the Washington Post saying, ``We shouldn't try to throw out the entire barrel just because there are a few bad apples in it.'' Do not believe it. It is the opinion of Lynn Cheney, who herself authorized this project as Chairman of the National Endowment of the Humanities; Dr. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, a professor of history and women's studies at Emory who was on the project's National Council, Gilbert Sewall, director of the American Textbook Council, also on the project's advisory board; and many others directly involved from its conception that these standards are beyond any hope of salvaging--much to their own great disappointment as much of their personal time and efforts were offered to the cause. I agree. These standards must be junked in total. The problem is not one of mere detail. The problem is in its philosophical foundations. Those foundations are fundamentally anti- Western, and anti-American in their conceptual framework. The correction of a few of the worst excesses will not remove that anti- American, anti-Western formulation at its base. And it is a most serious problem. Whether or not the standards are certified by the still to be created Goals 2000 NESIC Board, according to Gilbert Sewall and many others, the way in which the textbook establishment works, this manual, having the extraordinary prestige of being the first national curriculum guide, will become, de facto, official if not strongly repudiated. As Dr. Sewall has stated, ``It will be the first draft of the next generation of textbooks.'' Right now, there are 10,000 copies of these standards being circulated among leading American educators. Like the infamous exploding Pinto, these manuals pose a horrendous threat to the vitality and accuracy of American history education, and they must be recalled. Mr. President, I have been in favor of national standards. Although I had serious reservations, I added my vote to Goals 2000. The development of this ideologically driven, anti-Western monument to politically correct caricature is not what the Congress envisioned, nor is it what the American people paid for. The purpose of this amendment is therefore publicly to repudiate its continued use and stop its further influence. Should such a project ever be taken up again, and I am not at all sure it should be, in light of this experience, it must be undertaken by scholars with at least a passable understanding of and decent respect for this country and for its roots in Western civilization. On the eve of the Civil War in March 1861, in his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln reminded the troubled country of the importance of our shared and common past: Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. The proposed national standards in American history are designed to and will destroy our Nation's mystic chords of memory, so eloquently invoked by Lincoln 130 years ago. Those mystic chords of memory are already perilously frayed. Study after study demonstrates the wounding absence of a shared knowledge of our Nation's history. These standards would only serve to deepen that wound, and so they must be rejected. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask that it be read. amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I recognize Harry Clemmons, Kennewick School District's middle school director, for his leadership in fighting school violence. Last January, I organized a meeting of over 200 parents, teachers, administrators, and students. At this conference I listened carefully to the concerns and ideas of those in attendance. While I heard many varied and different suggestions, one theme was constant. Innovative and resourceful programs which educators work hard to plan and execute deserve more recognition. I therefore promised to recognize, on a monthly basis, a school or school program that is outstanding and innovative. The school violence prevention programs that Harry Clemmons has successfully implemented are worthy of such recognition. It is time we took the steps necessary to regain control of our Nation's schools. In Washington State, for example, violent crimes by youths have doubled in number in the past decade, despite a 3-percent reduction in the youth population. Our superintendent of public instruction recently released her annual report of weapons in Washington State schools for the 1992-93 school year. A total of 2,237 incidents of possession of firearms or dangerous weapons on school premises were reported by school districts and approved private schools. The prevalence of such incidents is constantly increasing, as is the variation and types of weapons. We must address this problem now. We must ensure the safety of our children in school and provide a learning environment free of violence and disruption. Mr. Harry Clemmons and his innovative prevention programs should continue to be promoted throughout Washington State, as well as the entire United States. Recognizing that a problem exists and taking the initiative to develop successful programs is the key to improving our education system.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as a result of committee assignments announced yesterday, I have the privilege and delight to be a member, for the next 2 years, of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. I want to take this opportunity to discuss, in general, why I feel that assignment to be so significant and why I feel so privileged to be a member of a committee with the jurisdiction that it possesses. I also want to discuss one specific issue which has been discussed in that committee in the past, which I regard as being of peculiar and special importance. First, however, I express my delight in being a member of the committee chaired by the distinguished junior Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] who has been, during the course of the last Congress, my seat mate in this part of the body and will continue to be so. I look forward to her leadership and to her wise advice and counsel. Issues which will come before the Labor Committee include many that are of vital concern to all Americans in today's world. These issues include those relating to aging, to disability policies, overwhelmingly to education, to families and children, to employment, and to productivity. I see two profound tidal changes in American society today that are driving the concerns of millions upon millions of our people. As the United States is in the midst of an inevitable shift of its economic base from an industrial/manufacturing system to an information-based economy, millions of families find their justified expectations shattered and find themselves in a new and very difficult world. This shift gives every promise of being as cataclysmic as the shift from an agrarian-based economy to an industrial-based economy in the latter part of the last century and the beginning of this century. Understandably, many people are deeply concerned and apprehensive about this change, about the direction in which our country is heading, and wish that it were not so. It is so, however, and we need to meet that challenge. The American people understand that the societal contract is changing and that we must change with it. Today, the receipt of a high school diploma, or for that matter a college diploma, lacks the meaning it once had. Some families, some people are stuck on welfare and have few, if any, alternatives which they see as being viable. Today, there is no such thing as guaranteed lifetime employment. Working families find it more and more difficult to get ahead. Sending both parents into the workplace used to be a matter of choice, sometimes as a fulfillment for the second spouse to be employed, sometimes as an option to help a family buy a new home or to take a special trip. Today, for far too many, it is not a choice but a necessity. It makes or breaks a family's budget. And without two paychecks, bills would not be paid and the children might not be fed. Women in the workplace still find themselves stuck in either clerical or middle management positions and their growth stopped dead short by a glass ceiling that has not yet disappeared. Families are still deeply concerned about health care; some cannot change jobs for fear of losing their insurance; others let illness drag on because there is no money to pay in an uninsured situation; and many worry about retirement security. No individual wants to spend his or her golden years being taken care of, being dependent upon their children. But it seems increasingly difficult to save money for retirement. All of this I believe to be the most significant cause of the consistently found proposition that the majority of the American people feel that the country is moving in the wrong direction, that the programs of this Government do not help, but actually hinder, the ability of our citizens efficiently to manage their lives in a changing economy. As a result, I am excited and delighted about the challenges and about the prospects of being on a committee that is designed to address precisely these challenges. I believe we need to reorient the programs of the Federal Government to deal with this new reality. Only when this Government understands this changing reality will Americans believe that their Government is once again on the right track. I think the committee and its Members can make a difference. Beyond my desire to work with my distinguished colleague from Kansas and others on these paramount issues, I am convinced that one of the most important issues facing this country today is the need to educate our children in an environment conducive to learning. In the age of information, nothing--nothing at all--is more important to America's success than a well-educated citizenry. In that connection, I believe the largest single threat to successful education today is the growing spate of violence in our schools. A year ago this month, I held an education conference in Fife, WA, at which educators and parents from across Washington State spent an entire day discussing what the Federal Government could do to improve our system of education. For the first time in a long career, the No. 1 priority was not more money, it was not more teachers in specific areas, it was not longer school days. The men and women and kids at this conference talked about school violence. In Washington State, violent crimes by young people have doubled in the past decade in spite of a 3-percent drop in the number of students. Recently, our superintendent of public instruction released a report that calculated a total of 2,237 incidents of firearms or dangerous weapons violations reported by school districts and by private schools. And just today, of course, in the Washington Post, we see of a gun- induced killing at the very door of one of the high schools in the District of Columbia. Teachers and parents from all around Washington State have shared with me horror stories of violence in their childrens' schools: First graders threatening their peers with screwdrivers; a fourth grader extorting lunch money at knife point; a sixth grader who brought a fake but real-looking gun to school and threatened fellow students' lives with it. How can we expect our children to learn calculus and Tolstoy when they are afraid of walking the halls between classes? On the issue of school violence, the role of the Federal Government has not been a positive one. This Government has not concerned itself sufficiently with the safety of children threatened by these violent students. The Federal Government does not concern themselves with the safety of the faculty and administrators in these schools. It does not seem sufficiently concerned with the disruptive impact of violence in the learning process. In fact, the rules and regulations pursuant to statutes passed by this Congress on the part of the Federal Government has severely limited the ability of local school officials and teachers to deal effectively with violence in our schools. It has, in many respects, tied their hands. It has set up a double standard, depending upon the classification of students in our schools, with respect to the discipline of violent students who bring guns into the schools. Mr. President, this is profoundly the wrong direction in which to go. I am frustrated because the Federal Government, in fact, is making it far more difficult for communities to create an environment in our schools conducive to learning. As a result, last year, I led a fight on two separate occasions, with Lieberman], which would restore to schools the authority to deal with this growing tide of violence. Our amendment, considered radical by many in this body, said that school districts in Morton, WA, for example, or in Bridgeport, CT, for example, were in a far better position than was any Federal bureaucrat to judge what was necessary to combat this rising and disruptive wave of violence. Although on both occasions our amendment was accepted first by a voice vote and secondly by an overwhelming majority, in each occasion it was dropped in conference. I felt so strongly about this provision that I voted against the final passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act late last fall. There are, of course, some who will continue to disagree with this goal, who will continue to find that only the Federal Government is capable of making value judgments among students when violence is at issue. I am certainly going to be willing to work with those who disagree and to craft a policy that will attempt to deal with their concerns. But our primary goal, one which cannot be compromised, must be to restore local control to the educators--who are on the firing line, who are in the classroom--the right, the privilege, and the duty to deal with school violence. I intend to work, as a member of the Labor Committee, to ensure that the Federal Government does not stand in the way of educating our children in a safe and positive environment. I invite all of the school teachers and principals and their organizations around the country who have stories to tell about how Federal rules and regulations have tied their hands when it comes to dealing with violent students to contact me, to contact my staff, to contact the committee. I want to know how I can make certain that the Federal Government does not make this problem worse. I want you to know that this Senator trusts the teachers and administrators of the schools of this country and wants to give to them the flexibility to deal with these challenges. We must do everything we can to ensure that our children go to school in an environment conducive to learning, and that means an environment safe for them and for their teachers. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.