PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S1290)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 20, 1995
Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the National Education Goals Panel should disapprove, and the National Education Standards and Improvement Council should not certify, any voluntary national content or student performance standards, or criteria for the certification of such standards, on the subject of world and U.S. history, developed prior to February 1, 1995; (2) such standards and criteria established under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act should not be based on standards developed primarily by the National Center for History in the Schools prior to February 1, 1995; and (3) if the Department of Education, the National Endowment for the Humanities, or any other Federal agency provides funds for the development of such standards and criteria, the recipient of such funds should have a decent respect for the contributions of western civilization and U.S. history, ideas, and institutions, to the increase of freedom and prosperity around the world.
People & committees
Sen. Gorton, Slade [R-WA] · R–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S1290)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S1290)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 26, 2016. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.Res.66 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.Res.66 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.Res.66 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.Res.66 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.