Legislature(1993 - 1994)

03/07/1994 01:15 PM House JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
  HB 339 - NO CENSORSHIP:  AMERICAN HISTORY DOCUMENTS                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER introduced discussion of HB 339, sponsored                   
  by Rep. Kott.                                                                
                                                                               
  Number 463                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PETE KOTT noted that committee members had copies of                    
  the sponsor statement and said he would cover a couple of                    
  the highlights.  He stated, "The proposed bill, relating to                  
  the use of historical documents in public schools, is really                 
  what I would call enabling legislation.  It is best                          
  described as an academic freedom measure as it clarifies                     
  original source documents of American history that can and                   
  should be used to teach our children about American history                  
  in our schools, regardless of content, even though many                      
  times content may be explicitly religious.  Basically, this                  
  is an option to allow teachers that are teaching history to                  
  use the original source documents to teach our students                      
  about their heritage.  Whether we like it or not, the early                  
  1700s and 1800s found that - there are religious ideas                       
  imbedded in many of the historical documents.  Some of those                 
  historical documents include Washington's farewell address,                  
  the Mayflower Compact.  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I would                  
  ask that we support this measure and allow those teachers                    
  that desire to use the historical documents be given them                    
  the ability to use them.  I'll entertain any questions."                     
                                                                               
  Number 492                                                                   
                                                                               
  SHEILA PETERSON, Special Assistant to Commissioner Covey,                    
  Department of Education, testified in support of HB 339.                     
  She said, "The Department of Education certainly is                          
  committed to academic freedom, and is opposed to any effort                  
  at censorship.  We support the free use of historical                        
  documents in the public schools.  In fact, it appears                        
  currently that that is the case.  No one has come to the                     
  department, expressed a concern that they have been denied                   
  or restricted in use of historical documents.                                
                                                                               
  "As HB 339 is currently written, however, the department                     
  does have some concerns.  I'd like to briefly discuss those                  
  with you today.  On page 2, line 9, paragraph (c), it states                 
  that `The teacher or the administrator cannot be disciplined                 
  for using a historical document.'  In a way this risks the                   
  allowing of blanket immunity.  The inappropriate use of a                    
  document or any teaching material should be open to                          
  disciplined or other appropriate actions.  A similar concern                 
  is on page 2, line 6, which says that `The use of a                          
  historical document does not constitute the avocation of a                   
  partisan, sectarian denominational doctrine.'  Possibly                      
  certain use of a historical document, if it's used                           
  inappropriately, may be advocating a denominational                          
  doctrine.                                                                    
                                                                               
  "Also on page 2, line 4, states that `A historical document                  
  may not be altered to remove religious or secular                            
  references.'  Possibly this will in effect restrict the use                  
  of historical documents if it means that the document cannot                 
  be altered or abbreviated in any fashion.  A fifth grade                     
  teacher may wish to use a document that they would like to                   
  abbreviate to allow that student to follow what is being                     
  said, but because this language says that they may not                       
  remove any religious or secular reference, it may in fact                    
  have just the opposite effect of what we really would like                   
  to see.  We would like to see the use of historical                          
  documents used freely within our public schools.                             
                                                                               
  "To reassure teachers that there is no concern, possibly the                 
  committee would like to consider a cleaner and simpler                       
  approach to this problem if there in fact is a problem.                      
  Section 14.03.090 currently states that `partisan and                        
  sectarian or denominational doctrines may not be advocated                   
  in a public school,' and if they are, that the school may                    
  not receive public money.  [We recommend] possibly just                      
  amending that sentence to say something to the effect that                   
  `this section does not prohibit the use or the appropriate                   
  use of historical documents with religious references.'                      
  Maybe this amendment, a simple approach, a cleaner approach,                 
  with taking away the possible blanket immunity that is                       
  currently in HB 339.                                                         
                                                                               
  "So I guess the Department of Education would like to have                   
  you consider possibly changing the bill and just taking a                    
  simple and cleaner approach to this problem, if in fact you                  
  determine there is a problem."                                               
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND inquired if Ms. Peterson had seen the CS being                 
  considered by the committee that very day and suggested that                 
  it might be the cleaner, simpler approach to which she was                   
  referring.  She replied that she had not, and a copy was                     
  provided for her review.                                                     
                                                                               
  MS. PETERSON said, "The Department of Education would                        
  appreciate this committee substitute.  We do agree with it."                 
                                                                               
  Number 572                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS stated, "In the Judiciary committee                            
  substitute, it states that `nothing prohibits the use of                     
  historical documents that contain religious references.'  I                  
  wonder how that relates to the original bill, which says                     
  `the avocation of partisan, sectarian or denominational                      
  doctrine.'"                                                                  
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted, "The beginning of this section                        
  already does that."                                                          
                                                                               
  Number 581                                                                   
                                                                               
  JAN LEVY, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,                     
  commented as requested on HB 339.  He said, "The department                  
  didn't see that in current law there would be any legal                      
  impediment at the present time to use historical documents                   
  with religious references.  So, at the outset, that's the                    
  opinion of the department.  If there is concern from                         
  districts or teachers, I think the clarification that Sheila                 
  was describing and that apparently is represented in the                     
  committee substitute would do the job.  At a glance at this,                 
  I don't think the department would have any legal concerns                   
  at all about this amendment.                                                 
                                                                               
  "It had a couple of concerns about 339 as we looked at it                    
  that really reiterate what Sheila had to say.  Specifically,                 
  in the statement made in (b) on page 2, [that] is actually                   
  kind of a legal conclusion that a court might not even                       
  necessarily agree with, and so, as Sheila had mentioned,                     
  there certainly could be use of a document that contained                    
  religious references that could, if used incorrectly, be                     
  advocating some partisan or sectarian or denominational                      
  doctrine.  And also the same concern regarding the rather                    
  sweeping statement in (c), that there could be no discipline                 
  for any use of any document.  And I think those are really                   
  the main issues that were of concern to the Department of                    
  Law."                                                                        
                                                                               
  Number 618                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON remarked, "Ms. Levy.  Basically, it sounds to                  
  me what you've said is that this legislation is not                          
  necessary.  Is that correct?"                                                
                                                                               
  Number 662                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. LEVY replied, "The department didn't see that there was                  
  a need for it, although we're not aware of concerns being                    
  raised."                                                                     
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON said, "So why are we in this exercise?"                        
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER answered, "To find out whether we have any                   
  concerns expressed or not."                                                  
                                                                               
  Number 629                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES said, "I wanted to ask a legal question.  The                     
  concern that you just stated about `the public school                        
  teacher or administrator who uses a historical document may                  
  not be disciplined or otherwise acted against for using the                  
  document' - didn't you say, and I would agree with you, that                 
  it's not necessarily to be using the document, it is how it                  
  is used, and what kind of an advocacy might be given from                    
  the document?  So, if that were the thing - which it does                    
  say that they can't advocate anything - if they used a                       
  historical document, and they advocated something from that                  
  document, wouldn't the charge to that teacher then be the                    
  advocacy more than it would be the using the document?  I                    
  don't see that using the document by itself, here, would be                  
  a problem that would encourage them to do it incorrectly."                   
                                                                               
  MS. LEVY said, "I don't think use of the document does                       
  either, I would agree with you.  But (b) seems to say that                   
  use of a historical document does not constitute advocation,                 
  and so, it seems to encompass any use."                                      
                                                                               
  [UNIDENTIFIED VOICE] stated, "That's the big loophole."                      
                                                                               
  MS. JAMES stated, "And I understand that, and I would agree                  
  that that is a loophole, and would not necessarily                           
  constitute - if we had that in there.  I don't have - this                   
  substitute doesn't have a page 2, is that correct?  I would                  
  like to respond to Rep. Davidson's concern.  Many times if                   
  you don't have protection of something within the law,                       
  people assume that it is not there, and historically,                        
  historical documents with religious input are not used, for                  
  that reason, because they are not sure they can, because it                  
  doesn't say they can or can't."                                              
                                                                               
  Number 658                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. DAVIDSON said, "Here we have an expert on the law... my                 
  feeling is that we are constantly being charged with putting                 
  on the books unnecessary laws, and so, I just didn't want                    
  this to be an example of that."                                              
                                                                               
  Number 662                                                                   
                                                                               
  MS. LEVY stated, "Unless there are some other issues that                    
  were meant to be addressed by this bill that I'm not aware                   
  of, the amendment that was suggested to 14.03.090, while one                 
  could argue it's not necessary, it certainly would remove                    
  the question as to whether or not that use is permitted; it                  
  would resolve that."                                                         
                                                                               
  Number 673                                                                   
                                                                               
  VERNON MARSHALL, Executive Director, National Education                      
  Association - Alaska (NEA-AK), testified in opposition to HB
  339.  Mr. Marshall had not received a copy of the CS until a                 
  few moments before speaking.  He offered the following                       
  comments:                                                                    
                                                                               
  "We have spent some time, both in the HESS Committee and                     
  since that meeting, analyzing HB 339.  Some of the points                    
  that we're concerned about were raised by the Department of                  
  Law.  Our first question is, is the bill really needed?  Has                 
  anyone said that the Constitution of the United States, the                  
  Constitution of the State of Alaska, or the Pledge of                        
  Allegiance cannot be used in school?  HB 339 would not                       
  require the use of any historical document, but would be                     
  permissive; therefore, is the bill really necessary?  We                     
  raised that question.                                                        
                                                                               
  "Second, HB 339 states that any historical document may be                   
  used in whole or in part, but may not be altered to remove                   
  religious or secular references when such references are                     
  part of the document's text.  The bill addresses references                  
  only when they are part of the text of a historical                          
  document.  Presumably, every part of a document is either                    
  religious or it is secular, one or the other.  HB 339 would                  
  appear to prohibit the use of a document if the                              
  administrator or the instructor alters or allows alteration                  
  of the document to remove religious or secular references.                   
                                                                               
  "Another point that we noted is as a practical matter that                   
  the effect on text book use and purchases could be                           
  devastating.  A teacher could not assign part of the                         
  Emancipation Proclamation or the Gettysburg Address or the                   
  Declaration of Independence for discussion or memorization.                  
  A court decision such as the Dread Scott decision or Brown                   
  v. The Board of Education could not be studied at any level                  
  unless the entire decision, without abridgement, were used                   
  in the curriculum.  Even in law school, case books, abridged                 
  court decisions for pedagogical purposes, are allowed to be                  
  taught.  Surely abridgements are pedagogically appropriate                   
  at the elementary and secondary school levels.                               
                                                                               
  "Fourth, assuming such restrictions on educators and                         
  programs were desirable, there is also another matter that                   
  is very practical and very real.  We're not like California                  
  or Texas or New York.  We're a relatively small market as                    
  far as text books are concerned, and if we demanded that                     
  text book publishers revise their products to include the                    
  unabridged text of historical documents, again, this could                   
  be very restrictive on Alaska's public schools.                              
                                                                               
  "Fifth, the goal is probably to encourage the use of                         
  historical documents including religious references.  But HB
  339, if enacted, could be counterproductive.  By restricting                 
  educators and by requiring that any historical documents                     
  that are used be used in their unaltered or unabridged                       
  state, HB 339 would discourage, not encourage, the use of                    
  documents in curricula.  I think the department [of                          
  Education] made reference to that.                                           
                                                                               
  "A sixth point:  Have educators deleted these references                     
  from curricula?  We have no information to indicate that any                 
  religious or secular material has been deleted from                          
  curricula.  Has anyone seriously proposed - I know, in the                   
  Pledge of Allegiance, I believe that's guaranteed under the                  
  U.S. Code,  I don't know of anyone that has even proposed                    
  amending the U.S. Code, to remove `God' from the Pledge of                   
  Allegiance.                                                                  
                                                                               
  "A seventh point is the statement that a public teacher who                  
  uses a historical document may not be disciplined or                         
  otherwise acted against for using the document.  If enacted                  
  into law, this could lead to an unintended result.  Suppose                  
  a teacher were to use the Declaration of Independence in an                  
  algebra class for no proper purpose in that particular math                  
  setting.  Does HB 339 mean that an algebra teacher could                     
  ignore the duty to teach that subject and avoid discipline                   
  so long as she or he talks about historical documents?                       
                                                                               
  "Eighth, in every state or federal court decision, and all                   
  other documents published by a state or the federal                          
  government, are these particular documents worthy of                         
  treatment as historical documents?  Because on page 2, on                    
  line 14, we include as historical documents state or federal                 
  enactments; on line 16 we include state or federal court                     
  decisions; and on line 17 we include documents published by                  
  the state and federal government.  There are thousands, or                   
  possibly millions of documents which... if [the legislature]                 
  enacts HB 339, would be elevated to a very sanctified level                  
  authorizing the use of the materials by teachers and                         
  administrators with impunity - even if they were not                         
  suitable for the grade level and subject matter - as long as                 
  they were used without alteration or abridgement.  Again, I                  
  can only refer to a lot of court cases that are referred to                  
  on line 16.  Many court cases include grizzly matter that I                  
  do not know that a teacher would necessarily want to teach,                  
  or use that entire document in a classroom, when they could                  
  probably use or most likely use an abridged form of that                     
  decision.                                                                    
                                                                               
  "A ninth point is that we feel that educators ought to                       
  decide relative to the proper use of a historical document;                  
  and again, that the educators should be required to read the                 
  material, develop a lesson plan, and apply that document                     
  relative to that lesson plan and that course of instruction.                 
  Again, if the intent of the bill is to prohibit the                          
  alteration of a document by the omission of any reference,                   
  whether religious or secular, we are probably making an                      
  effort here, I would assume, to be even-handed.  We looked                   
  at some Supreme Court enactments, and the most recent is the                 
  court decisions out of the State of Louisiana, where they                    
  did pass legislation to require even-handed treatment                        
  relative to creation science and evolution.  And, again,                     
  that particular provision was struck down.  In this                          
  particular case, in an effort to be even-handed, we could be                 
  opening our schools up to possible litigation, should a                      
  parent or group of parents attempt to challenge a form of                    
  teaching that would be allowed under this particular bill,                   
  or the use of documents that would be allowed under this                     
  particular bill.                                                             
  "We oppose the legislation.  We would encourage the                          
  committee to also oppose the legislation, and would be glad                  
  to respond to any questions if you have them."                               
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND said, "Vernon, I'm just wondering if you had a                 
  chance to look at that CS that's on our desk."                               
                                                                               
  MR. MARSHALL responded, "Well, again, I guess the underlined                 
  sentence is the addition - on the surface, I share the                       
  department's concern.  I think it's much better than what's                  
  included in the House bill.  Again, though, we feel that                     
  there's not a problem, and we have not been made aware of                    
  any problem relative to an administrator and/or teacher who                  
  has been prohibited from using religious references, whether                 
  they be in the constitution of our country, the state of                     
  Alaska, the Pledge of Allegiance, whatever; we just don't                    
  think it's needed.  But, again, we'd be more than happy if                   
  someone can indicate to us where there is a problem, and                     
  we'd be glad to take a look at it."                                          
                                                                               
  Number 805                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND stated, "As far as you know in classrooms, if,                 
  let's say if you have a high school history class on                         
  religions, is it okay for the teachers to refer to the                       
  Bible, and make reference to the Koran or any other [text]?"                 
                                                                               
  Number 810                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. MARSHALL replied, "Yes.  In both history and literature,                 
  it's done.  I noticed in the sponsor's materials, in fact,                   
  there's a court decision that has protected that particular                  
  use of religious references - so long as we're not into a                    
  position of actually in a sense advocating a particular                      
  faith, whether it be advocated through the Koran or the                      
  Bible or whatever.  That is pretty much prohibited and                       
  protected by the U.S. Constitution."                                         
                                                                               
  Number 819                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS said,  "I would like at some point in time for                 
  the sponsor to share some of his concerns as far as the                      
  necessity for something like this."                                          
                                                                               
  Number 823                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT responded, "This was not an idea that came out of                  
  thin air.  During the interim period a couple of teachers                    
  asked me about this, and they were concerned that the                        
  language in the statute, of advocating religious teachings,                  
  basically prevented them from using historical documents in                  
  teaching history that contained religious activities.  I                     
  think there's two letters of support from a school board                     
  member, as well as a former teacher - or maybe he's                          
  currently a teacher - that also suggest that there is                        
  potentially a problem, and that this should be resolved.                     
  Certainly, I think the bill does that.                                       
                                                                               
  "I don't know/believe that we're going to demand text books'                 
  authors to provide the full document if they so deemed not                   
  to provide it.  We are in fact giving teachers and                           
  administrators the option of using part of a document;                       
  either they can use the whole thing or part of it, based on                  
  their own discretion.  We're not telling them, here's a                      
  court case, you have to present the entire court case.  You,                 
  as a teacher, an administrator, based on your discretion,                    
  will select what portions of that is more appropriate.  If                   
  there is language in there that is not appropriate for                       
  teaching seventh graders, I would submit that the teacher                    
  would not use it."                                                           
                                                                               
  Number 851                                                                   
                                                                               
  MIKE FORD, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Affairs                    
  Agency, commented on HB 339.  He said, "I really don't have                  
  anything to add.  I think the concerns of the Department of                  
  Law and the Department of Education - I don't know that I                    
  would quite go as far as they go, thinking that there is a                   
  going to be a tremendous backlash of our teachers exploding                  
  with rampant advocacy of some sectarian or religious belief.                 
  Certainly the department already has broad authority to                      
  control public schools, and they already have curriculum                     
  guidelines.                                                                  
                                                                               
  "As I would look at this, it's simply an effort to achieve a                 
  neutrality level.  If you have a document that qualifies as                  
  an historical document, then you can use that.  I understand                 
  their concerns that some of the provisions may in fact                       
  create a broader exception than you'd like to; you could                     
  tighten that up if that was your concern.  As far as not                     
  being disciplined because they used a document, it's simply                  
  because we already have a provision of law saying you cannot                 
  have partisan, sectarian or denominational doctrine.  That                   
  provision is already in our law, so we have to add a                         
  provision to this bill which deals with that issue, and                      
  that's simply to say that using a historical document                        
  doesn't constitute that.  So, in an effort to get around                     
  that prohibition, we've added that provision to this bill.                   
  I don't think it was intended to allow for some blanket                      
  exemption or for advocacy of some [kind]."                                   
                                                                               
  Number 874                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "I see, in some of the documents                       
  except the bill, it says `American history documents,' but                   
  in the bill itself, it just says `historical documents,'                     
  which, obviously, is a much broader scope than American                      
  history.  Is there some reason why we can't use `American                    
  history'?"                                                                   
                                                                               
  Number 880                                                                   
                                                                               
  MR. FORD replied, "No, there's been some conversation about                  
  the definition of `historical document.'  I think you should                 
  note that the way the definition is crafted, it simply says                  
  it includes these documents.  And, of course, under our law,                 
  that means includes but not limited to, so it certainly                      
  would include American historical documents; maybe a lot of                  
  other things that are not in here.  So I don't think the                     
  definition is intended to limit us.  It is intended to just                  
  list things that are definitely included..."                                 
                                                                               
  TAPE 94-34, SIDE A                                                           
  Number 000                                                                   
                                                                               
  [Brief discussion continued from previous tape; text missing                 
  due to tape ending.]                                                         
                                                                               
  MR. FORD continued, "I think probably a better approach is,                  
  if you were concerned about, if you wanted to limit it to                    
  American documents, you could do that.  If you were                          
  concerned about it being included, I would simply suggest                    
  you add that to the list and make sure that those are                        
  included.  I can't really tell you if the Mayflower Compact                  
  is considered an American document or not.  I'm trying to                    
  remember my high school history."                                            
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated, "That wasn't my reason for asking                    
  the question.  I just noted that many of the documents                       
  supporting the bill say `American history' but it doesn't                    
  say that in the bill, so..."                                                 
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were further questions,                       
  asking, "What is the wish of the committee?"                                 
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND said, "Mr. Chairman, are we entertaining the                   
  CS or the original version?"                                                 
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER replied, "We are, at this point, considering                 
  the original version of the bill."                                           
                                                                               
  Number 030                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT responded to a request for a clarification of his                  
  feelings regarding the two versions.  He said,                               
  "Realistically, I think the bill is a little tighter as it                   
  addresses the [inaud. due to paper shuffling].  I don't want                 
  to give teachers or administrators the blanket authority to                  
  use any kind of document.  We could perhaps say the King                     
  James version could be used as an historical document, but I                 
  don't think that's the intent.  That's the reason for at                     
  least identifying some of these documents that we're talking                 
  about.  We're not talking about Bibles or anything of that                   
  nature, and I prefer that we support the original bill, or                   
  make some inclusion into the committee substitute."                          
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "So that we can, would you move the                    
  bill, then, and we'll..."                                                    
                                                                               
  Number 069                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT moved HB 339.                                                      
                                                                               
  Number 070                                                                   
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER stated, "We have a motion to move HB 339.                    
  Under discussion, I would have to say that I would oppose                    
  the passage or movement of HB 339 as it is now.  I addressed                 
  my concerns with the two specific things that were                           
  referenced by the Department of Education and the Department                 
  of Law in (b) and in (c); (d), while I recognize that some                   
  people believe saying `historical documents include' and                     
  then listing those, leaves it open for others, but several                   
  other references I've seen used say `includes but is not                     
  limited to.'  I don't know if that's important or not, but                   
  it asks the question, and I hate passing things that ask                     
  more questions than they answer.                                             
                                                                               
  "If I have - and this is why this sequence was developed -                   
  if I am in any way correct in what it is that this bill was                  
  trying to get at, this one line on the CS seems to cover it.                 
  I guess I'm just saying for discussion that I would not                      
  support this, but I probably would support the CS."                          
                                                                               
  Number 102                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES remarked that she felt that the CS accomplished                   
  the sponsor's purpose, but expressed support for the                         
  original version of the bill, as well, asking for some time                  
  to address the concerns that had been raised that day in the                 
  hearing.  Rep. James, noting that she had been in the Alaska                 
  longer than most of those present, presented counterpoint                    
  from her experiences to challenge testimony that had                         
  suggested the legislation was unnecessary.                                   
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES said, "I've seen a trend, and talked to various                   
  people over the years, that [people] are so fearful of using                 
  anything that has any religious content in it at all that                    
  what we have actually done in our schools is created a                       
  nonreligion which is another religion.  I believe that we                    
  need to balance the issue here... and I think that this will                 
  do that, and give some teachers some comfort in being able                   
  to do some of the things that they have up until now been                    
  believing that they could not, and/or were told by their                     
  school boards or school districts or administrators that                     
  they could not.  We need to at least go that far.                            
                                                                               
  "Some of these other things that we heard in the testimony                   
  here today... I think could be tightened up and fixed to                     
  address their concerns, and also make me feel more                           
  comfortable with having a little more substantive."                          
                                                                               
  Number 146                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. NORDLUND stated, "I am going to oppose the original                     
  version of the bill here in the committee, and if it ever                    
  makes it to the floor, primarily because of the arguments                    
  from the Department of Education, as well as from the NEA,                   
  which leaves us with the CS; if we decide to adopt that one,                 
  then I think we're in a situation in which I don't think the                 
  CS really accomplishes anything.  Now, if there are fears                    
  that some day, maybe there might be these restrictions about                 
  using historical documents with religious references in                      
  them, then I could change my mind.  I guess I am saying I'm                  
  open-minded to the second version.  I'll be voting with the                  
  Chairman on the original bill, but probably would at least                   
  vote to pass out the other version of the bill."                             
                                                                               
  Number 172                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. PHILLIPS said, "I have a little problem, in the                         
  original bill, with limiting the documentation to `American                  
  history' because, as you teach world history, as you teach                   
  literature, as you teach any number of subjects - languages,                 
  etc. - you are going far beyond American history.  I just                    
  have a problem with that limited scope in the original                       
  bill."                                                                       
                                                                               
  Number 181                                                                   
                                                                               
  REP. KOTT stated, "Mr. Chairman, I am going to withdraw my                   
  motion to move and make a motion to adopt the committee                      
  substitute."                                                                 
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER said, "We have a motion to adopt the                         
  committee substitute.  Is there further discussion?  Is                      
  there objection to the adoption of the committee substitute                  
  dated 3/7/94, 393/J?  No objection?  We have before us CS                    
  for HB 339 Judiciary.  Further discussion?  Is there a                       
  motion to adopt the...?"                                                     
                                                                               
                                                                               
  REP. JAMES stated, "Motion to move out with individual                       
  recommendations."                                                            
                                                                               
  CHAIRMAN PORTER asked, "Is there a fiscal note?  Is there                    
  further discussion of the motion to move?  I am seeing none.                 
  Is there objection?  Bill is passed."                                        

Document Name Date/Time Subjects