Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8 - BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10582-10645]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
now resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Pending:

Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No.
358), to remove the 21st century community learning center
program from the list of programs covered by performance
agreements.
Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to
establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing
school resource officers who operate in and around elementary
and secondary schools.
Leahy (for Hatch) amendment No. 424 (to amendment No. 358),
to provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls
Clubs of America.
Helms amendment No. 574 (to amendment No. 358), to prohibit
the use of Federal funds by any State or local educational
agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of
America in providing equal access to school premises or
facilities.
Helms amendment No. 648 (to amendment No. 574), in the
nature of a substitute.
Dorgan amendment No. 640 (to amendment No. 358), expressing
the sense of the Senate that there should be established a
joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to
investigate the rapidly increasing energy prices across the
country and to determine what is causing the increases.
Hutchinson modified amendment No. 555 (to amendment No.
358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the
Department of Education program to promote access of Armed
Forces recruiters to student directory information.
Feinstein modified amendment No. 369 (to amendment No.
358), to specify the purposes for which funds provided under
subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used.
Reed amendment No. 431 (to amendment No. 358), to provide
for greater parental involvement.
Clinton modified amendment No. 516 (to amendment No. 358),
to provide for the conduct of a study concerning the health
and learning impacts of sick and dilapidated public school
buildings on children and to establish the Healthy and High
Performance Schools Program.
Cantwell modified amendment No. 630 (to amendment No. 358),
to provide for additional requirements with regard to the
integration of education technology resources.
Hollings amendment No. 798 (to amendment No. 358), to
permit States to waive certain testing requirements.
Gregg (for Santorum) amendment No. 799 (to amendment No.
358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding science
education.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will now
be 40 minutes for closing debate on the Santorum amendment No. 799 and
the Hollings amendment numbered 798.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we resume consideration of the
education authorization bill, we have 40 minutes of debate on the
Santorum and Hollings amendments concurrently, with two rollcall votes
at approximately 9:40 this morning, and votes throughout the day, as
well into the evening, as the Senate works to complete action on the
education bill this week. If the bill is completed on Thursday, there
will be no rollcall votes on Friday.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Santorum.

Amendments Nos. 798 and 799

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to talk about my amendment which
will be voted on in roughly 40 minutes. This is an amendment that is a
sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate that deals with the
subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science
in the classroom, in primary and secondary education. It is a sense of
the Senate that does not try to dictate curriculum to anybody; quite
the contrary, it says there should be freedom to discuss and air good
scientific debate within the classroom. In fact, students will do
better and will learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to
discuss.
I will read this sense of the Senate. It is simply two sentences--
frankly, two rather innocuous sentences--that hopefully this Senate
will embrace:

``It is the sense of the Senate that--
``(1) good science education should prepare students to
distinguish the data or testable theories of science from
philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name
of science; and
``(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum
should help students to understand why this subject generates
so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the
students to be informed participants in public discussions
regarding the subject.

It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out
there that are continually tested. Our knowledge of science is not
absolute, obviously. We continue to test theories. Over the centuries,
there were theories that were once assumed to be true and have been
proven, through further revelation of scientific investigation and
testing, to be not true.
One of the things I thought was important in putting this forward was
to make sure the Senate of this country, obviously one of the greatest,
if not the greatest, deliberative bodies on the face of the Earth, was
on record saying we are for this kind of intellectual freedom; we are
for this kind of discussion going on; it will enhance the quality of
science education for our students.
I will read three points made by one of the advocates of this
thought, a man named David DeWolf, as to the advantages of teaching
this controversy that exists. He says:

Several benefits will accrue from a more open discussion of
biological origins in the science classroom. First, this
approach will do a better job of teaching the issue itself,
both because it presents more accurate information about the
state of scientific thinking and evidence, and because it
presents the subject in a more lively and less dogmatic way.
Second, this approach gives students greater appreciation for
how science is actually practiced. Science necessarily
involves the interpretation of data; yet scientists often
disagree about how to interpret their

[[Page 10583]]

data. By presenting this scientific controversy
realistically, students will learn how to evaluate competing
interpretations in light of evidence--a skill they will need
as citizens, whether they choose careers in science or other
fields. Third, this approach will model for students how to
address differences of opinion through reasoned discussion
within the context of a pluralistic society.

I think there are many benefits to this discussion that we hope to
encourage in science classrooms across this country. I frankly don't
see any down side to this discussion--that we are standing here as the
Senate in favor of intellectual freedom and open and fair discussion of
using science--not philosophy and religion within the context, within
the context of science but science--as the basis for this
determination.
I will reserve the remainder of my time. I have a couple of other
speakers I anticipate will come down and talk about this amendment, and
I want to leave adequate time. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I understand correctly the Senator
from Minnesota has the time from Senator Hollings?
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. So Senator Hollings has the 10 minutes. In his absence,
the control of the time should be with the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair whether or not we have
10 minutes altogether on our side or 10 minutes for each of us. What is
the understanding from last night?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 10
minutes, and the Senator from South Carolina controls 10 minutes, which
has now been----
Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes of my time if the
Senator wants it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has been tendered
10 minutes from the time allotted to Mr. Hollings.

Amendment No. 798

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my hope is the Senator from South
Carolina will be able to be here. He spoke last night on his amendment,
and he can do it with more eloquence and more persuasively than can I.
But I told him, since I support his amendment, I would be pleased to
try to be a fill-in for him.
I see my colleague is now here. I say to the Senator from South
Carolina that I will be delighted to follow him, if he is ready to
speak.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina. I will
follow my colleague.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from South Carolina seek
recognition?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
Mr. President, this Senate, and I say it advisedly and respectfully,
in a sense, we are the best off-Broadway show. We engage in these
charades, set up these straw men and then knock them down, taking the
credit for being so effective politically.
We say we have a surplus; we don't have a surplus. The CBO projected
in March a $23 billion surplus for this fiscal year. Mark it down, it
will be between a $50 billion and $70 billion deficit. We haven't even
passed an appropriations bill. We have not passed any kind of
supplemental and already we can foresee, less than a week after the
signing of the so-called tax cut--where we had no taxes to cut--a
deficit of $50 billion to $70 billion.
Now here is what we set up. We say: Wait a minute. In education there
is no accountability; there is no testing. The people back home do not
know what they need. If we can get some accountability and testing, we
will learn what they need.
Such fanciful nonsense. We have testing coming out of our ears. You
mention the State, and I will give you the millions they are spending.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this schedule printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount spent Revenue
State on testing Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Number of New tests sharing
(in thous) 3-8 tests required proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................... $4,000 B B B B B B 12 0 $24,915,437
Alaska............................................ 3,500 B B ............ B B B 10 2 8,629,291
Arizona........................................... 4,800 B B B B B B 12 0 28,129,355
Arkansas.......................................... 3,200 ............ B B B B B 10 2 16,983,311
California........................................ 44,000 B B B B B B 12 0 161,769,009
Colorado.......................................... 10,700 R R B B B B 10 2 23,798,968
Connecticut....................................... 2,000 ............ B ............ B ............ B 6 6 19,875,848
Delaware.......................................... 3,800 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 8,016,860
Florida........................................... 22,400 B B B B B B 12 0 68,848,688
Georgia........................................... 14,000 B B B B ............ B 10 2 43,139,333
Hawaii............................................ 1,400 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 9,961,299
Idaho............................................. 700 B B B B B B 12 0 11,393,934
Illinois.......................................... 16,500 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 57,731,557
Indiana........................................... 19,000 B ............ ............ B ............ B 6 6 31,207,328
Iowa.............................................. 0 ............ B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 17,424,763
Kansas............................................ 1,100 ............ M R ............ M R 4 8 17,179,348
Kentucky.......................................... 8,100 B R M B R M 8 4 21,605,599
Louisiana......................................... 9,000 B B B B B B 12 0 24,579,091
Maine............................................. 3,300 ............ B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 10,704,063
Maryland.......................................... 17,100 B B B B B B 12 0 27,457,342
Massachusetts..................................... 20,000 R B ............ M B R 7 5 31,006,359
Michigan.......................................... 16,000 ............ B R ............ R R 5 7 48,296,329
Minnesota......................................... 5,200 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 27,066,118
Mississippi....................................... 7,600 B B B B B B 12 0 18,198,252
Missouri.......................................... 13,400 R M ............ ............ R M 4 8 28,736,967
Montana........................................... 282 B ............ ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 9,161,562
Nebraska.......................................... 1,650 ............ R ............ ............ ............ R 2 10 12,374,005
Nevada............................................ 3,300 B B B ............ ............ B 8 4 13,876,879
New Hampshire..................................... 2,500 B ............ ............ B ............ ............ 4 8 10,802,081
New Jersey........................................ 17,000 ............ B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 37,746,447
New Mexico........................................ 650 B B B B B B 12 0 13,633,052
New York.......................................... 13,000 ............ B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 77,283,719
North Carolina.................................... 11,300 B B B B B B 12 0 39,659,706
North Dakota...................................... 208 ............ B ............ B ............ B 6 6 7,883,693
Ohio.............................................. 12,300 ............ B ............ B ............ ............ 4 8 53,078,486
Oklahoma.......................................... 2,500 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 20,932,225
Oregon............................................ 7,000 B ............ B ............ ............ B 6 6 19,516,428
Pennsylvania...................................... 15,000 ............ ............ B R ............ B 5 7 52,955,297
Rhode Island...................................... 2,300 R B ............ ............ R B 6 6 9,150,790
South Carolina.................................... 7,800 B B B B B B 12 0 22,849,169
South Dakota...................................... 720 ............ B R ............ ............ B 5 7 8,412,279
Tennessee......................................... 15,600 B B B B B B 12 0 28,600,739
Texas............................................. 26,600 B B B B B B 12 0 108,915,567
Uutah............................................. 1,400 B B B B B B 12 0 17,026,566

[[Page 10584]]

Vermont........................................... 460 ............ B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 7,730,061
Virginia.......................................... 17,900 B B B B ............ B 10 2 34,846,313
Washington........................................ 7,700 B B ............ B B ............ 8 4 31,448,887
West Virginia..................................... 400 B B B B B B 12 0 12,494,530
Wisconsin......................................... 2,000 R B ............ ............ ............ B 5 7 27,306,317
Wyoming........................................... 1,700 ............ B ............ ............ ............ B 4 8 7,415,370
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 422,070 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 387 213 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we are spending $422 million this
present year in testing back home. We have been testing since you were
a little boy and I was a little boy. The folks back home know what is
really needed. But here we come and say they don't know what they need
and they never have had any accountability. We want to discover for
them what schools are flunking and close those schools down, and in the
meantime hurt the students who have never even had the course, so to
speak.
If you did not benefit, as a poor child, from the Women Infants and
Children Program, you don't have a strong mind coming into this world.
If your school did not receive Title I funding, if you didn't have
access to a Head Start program, if you didn't get a good teacher, if
your class was so big that you were unable to listen and learn, you are
unprepared. All these programs figure into giving students the course
and they are less than 50-percent funded. Now we are going to test
students because we know from the debate they have not had the course.
We haven't really gotten to the crux of the matter. Congress has
decided what is needed. So we have had testing.
Right to the point, if you really believe in harming students, as my
distinguished colleague from Minnesota points out so vividly and
forcefully, and you are merely trying to give yourself political
credit, then vote against the amendment. That crowd that has been
trying to abolish the Department of Education now comes in saying they
are going to get responsibility in education, accountability, and set
up a straw man and knock it over with a 7-year bureaucracy of $2.7
billion to $7 billion. That is what it costs.
Mr. President, yesterday I had printed in the Record this particular
survey by the National Association of State Boards Of Education.
If you believe in bureaucracy at the cost of some $7 billion, if you
believe that Washington knows best, that the people back home don't
know what they need--while we have heard on the floor about needs
ranging from libraries to curricula to teachers to reducing class sizes
to school construction to after-school programs--then don't vote for
this amendment. Every Senator over the 7 weeks has put out the needs.
But what we need to do is take that money, like revenue sharing, send
it back to the local folks, and say: If you want to have testing, test.
If you want to have further testing, do that. If you really think you
need to increase the teachers' pay, if you need to hire more teachers,
those kinds of things, then do it. But that is really assisting; not
spending extra money.
This is not an increase, this is giving flexibility to the money
under the bill to address the needs back home. It is playing as if,
fast forward 3 or 4 years, we have had the testing, we know what is
needed, and we know what schools are flunking. I could flunk 30 or 40
in South Carolina this afternoon with this so-called quality test, and
students do not have another school to go to and you cannot close their
school down. So we spend billions, and we are in the same place as we
are this minute.
If you believe in that bureaucracy, if you believe in unfunded
mandates, if you believe in one size fits all, if you believe in
harming the children just to get political credit on the floor of the
Senate, then vote against this amendment.
But if you want to help the children back home and help the local
school boards, if you want to help America advance education, then take
this same program money and send it back on a revenue-sharing basis so
that schools can address their needs, whether those needs be testing or
otherwise.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Hollings
amendment. Hearing the Senator from South Carolina makes me think that,
our motto should be, perhaps: We should invest before we test.
I think of what the American people said about Dr. King when he left
the pulpit and went out into the community: He went out and walked his
talk. I don't think we are walking our talk. If we were walking our
talk, we would not only be demanding our tests, but we would be
demanding that every child have an opportunity to do well on the tests.
We have not done that, and I think Senator Hollings raises what I think
is the most important question.
I believe I am one of the few Senators who is troubled by this and
agonizing over the question of whether or not the Federal Government
should be telling the school board, the school district, which
epitomizes the grassroots political culture of America: `You do not get
to decide what is best.' We are telling them, every school district in
America: You are going to test every child, grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8
every year, with consequences for your school and your school district
depending on how these children do in these tests.
What this amendment says is we should maybe have a little more faith
in people at the school board level.
We should have maybe a little more faith in people back in our States
to decide what they think is best, and they should have the option on
whether they want to do the testing or use the resources to help
children. That is what this amendment says.
I am all for national community standards for civil rights and human
rights and for the first amendment and in making sure there is a floor
for a educational commitment below which no poor child falls. I think
that is what we are about as a nation. But I think when it comes to
this kind of decision, is it right for the Federal Government literally
to tell every school district what to do to test every child? I think
we might rue the day we have voted for this. I struggle over the
question right now. That is why I think this is such an important
amendment. I fully support it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I might use.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, on the Santorum amendment,
I hope all of our colleagues will vote in support of it. It talks about
using good science to consider the teaching of biological evolution. I
think the way the Senator described it, as well as the language itself,
is completely consistent with what represents the central values of
this body. We want children to be able to speak and examine various
scientific theories on the basis of all of the information that is
available to them so they can talk about different concepts and do it
intelligently with the best information that is before them.
I think the Senator has expressed his views in support of the
amendment and the reasons for it. I think they make eminently good
sense. I intend to support that proposal.
On the Hollings-Wellstone amendment, I listened, as I always try to
do,

[[Page 10585]]

to my friend and colleague from South Carolina. There is so much he
says that makes very good sense, but I have to oppose the amendment.
When he talks about the preparation of children, he makes a great
deal of sense. In fact, if the children are denied the Women's,
Infants', and Children's Program--the WIC Program--if they are denied
the early nutrition, which is so important for the development of the
mind, if they are denied the early learning experiences, which are
absolutely instrumental in developing and shaping the mind, they lose
opportunities.
If we are only funding the Head Start Program at 40 percent, we are
leaving 60 percent out. The Early Head Start Program is only funded at
about 10 or 12 percent.
If we take children who are denied all of those kinds of
opportunities, unless they are enormously fortunate to have other kinds
of sustained enforcement of educational experience and stimulating
experience in terms of their home life, or other circumstances, we can
ask whether children are arriving in school ready to learn. Some may be
but many others may not.
One of the most important developments over the period of the last 10
years has been the knowledge of what happens in the development of the
brain. We had ``The Year of The Brain.'' It was on the front pages of
magazines and newspapers and on television programs. We found that the
early development aspects of the brain are absolutely essential where
the neurons connect with the synapses and we have the development of
the mind.
One of the key aspects, that at least many of us have believed, is
that not only is it important to leave no child behind in terms of the
support of this bill to reach all 10 million children who will be
eligible but also the investment in children at the early age, to which
Senator Hollings spoke. But if we are going to continue to make that
battle and struggle, we are going to have to, on the floor in the
Senate and in appropriations, try to invest for the children so they
are ready to learn.
A number of States responded to the requirements of the title I
program in 1994. We require testing in the elementary schools, middle
schools, and in the high schools. Fifteen States are meeting that
requirement at the present time. But most of the tests which exist in
the States are more attuned to national standards rather than State
standards. Forty-nine States have established their own standards.
The purpose of this legislation is to try to develop a curriculum
that will reflect those standards and have well-trained teachers who
will use that curriculum and then examination of the students with well
thought out tests that are really going to test not only what the child
learns but the ability of the child to use concepts. That is why the
average test that is being used at the State level is $6 or $7. The
test we are trying to develop here, the provisions which are
strengthened with the Wellstone amendment and the other requirements,
averages $68 a test versus $6.
Money doesn't answer everything in terms of being sure you are going
to get a quality test, but part of the requirements we have for the use
of the test is to be able to disaggregate it. At the current time,
there are only three States that use disaggregated information. So you
know in the class that there are various groups of students who aren't
making it rather than just the test that uses the whole classroom.
It is also important to disaggregate information so that you know
more completely where the challenges are in terms of the students
themselves in order to make progress and tie the curriculum into these
types of features, and also to make sure we are going to have the
development of the test developed by the States, in the States, for the
States' standards.
That is our purpose--not that they take off-the-shelf tests. Most of
the States using the tests now are using the off-shelf-tests that are
focused on national standards rather than State standards. That happens
to be the reality.
I don't question that in a number of States there are superintendents
and school boards who think they are getting adequate information. But
this is a much more comprehensive way of finding out what the children
know and then hopefully developing the kinds of methodologies to equip
the children to move ahead. That is really our purpose. We may not get
it right, but that is certainly the purpose we intend.
Finally, if the States are developing their own tests, and if they
meet the standards which are included in this legislation and they
conform with them, then they obviously meet those requirements. Then
there is nothing further they have to do.
Three States, as I said, disaggregate information and have a number
of the items that are included in this bill. But by and large they are
not in existence in other areas.
If that is the case, and we believe assessments are a key aspect of
all of the efforts we are trying to develop in this legislation--I know
there are those who don't agree with that as a concept--we know that
children are tested frequently.
I can give you some cases in Lancaster, PA, where they test actually
every 9 weeks in terms of what the children are learning during that
period of time; and they alter and change the curriculum to try to give
focus and attention to groups of students in those classes who are not
making measurable progress. They have seen the absolutely extraordinary
progress the schools have made in Lancaster as a result of it.
If it is done right, done well, done effectively, it is a very
important, positive instrument in terms of children's development. If
it is not, then it can have the kind of unfortunate results that have
been mentioned in this Chamber. It is our intention to try to do it
right. We have built in enough legislation to do it. I think this is
the way to go.
I think we have a good bill. We have had good authorization. We are
going to have the difficulty and challenge of getting the funding. That
is an essential aspect of the continuing process as we move through the
legislative process. We want to make sure that we are going to do it
right.
But I do not believe the Hollings-Wellstone amendment is consistent
with the whole central thrust of this legislation. I, regretfully,
oppose the amendment.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order to
now ask for the yeas and nays. And then I will ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on the amendments?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority controls the remaining time,
15\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. If there is no one who wants to address the Senate, I
suggest the absence of a quorum--I am sorry.
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to use some of the time that is
available for our side to talk a little about the bill. I have not said
much in relation to this bill, but it certainly is one

[[Page 10586]]

of the most important issues that we will talk about.
We have a great opportunity to help make education stronger in our
country. That is, of course, what we ought to be seeking to do. This
discussion has gone on for a very long time. I hope we are nearing the
end of the debate. I think we have spent nearly 4 weeks, off and on, on
this proposition. It is time to bring it to a close.
In my view, we have had an excessive amount of amendments;
nevertheless, that is where we are. But now if we are really going to
do our part, and if we are really going to be able to cause this to be
something that is effective, then we need to focus a little bit, as we
evaluate where we are, on what our goals are, what it is we are really
seeking to do.
I guess too often I get the notion that we get wrapped up around here
in all the details, little items that mean something to someone, and we
lose track of where it is we really want to go.
What we ought to do is have a vision--hopefully, a fairly common
vision--of what our goals are in terms of education, in terms of the
role of the Federal Government in education, and to be able to measure
what we are doing each day in terms of how we meet those goals.
I think one of them that is quite important is, what is the role of
the Federal Government in education? It has been my view, and continues
to be my view, that the major responsibility for elementary and
secondary education lies at the local level, lies with the community,
lies with the school boards, and lies with the States.
One of the reasons I think that is so important is there are very
different needs in very different places because what you need in
Chugwater, WY, is quite different than what you need in Pittsburgh, PA.
They ought to be able to make those kinds of unique decisions locally.
What is really needed to bring about change? We are all in favor of
change, although I am not as pessimistic about schools as many people
are. I think most of our schools do a pretty good job. One of the
reasons I think that--and I realize this is not a broad sampling--is
because of the young people who come to the Senate. They are evidence,
it seems to me, that our schools are doing a pretty darn good job.
We need to do better, and there are some schools that do better than
others, but that ought to be part of our goal, to establish what is
really needed to bring about change. Then we ought to measure it. I
think too often when we get into these issues, much of our conversation
begins to border on political rhetoric: Boy, if you are for education,
then that's a great thing. But you have to kind of decide what it is
that you are for. Everybody is for education.
We have to talk a little bit about spending. This bill authorizes
spending far beyond anything that we have ever thought about.
Obviously, most of us would agree dollars alone don't bring about
quality education. You can't have it without the dollars, but dollars
alone don't do that. So I think there has to be some limit.
With that, inevitably, goes a certain amount of direction and control
from Washington. How much of that do you want? I think there are some
things that we ought to think and talk about.
As I understand it, the real purpose, as we started out with this S.
1, was to increase accountability for student performance. We do that
some by testing. There has to be some accountability. We have to put
out there funding, funding that really works and is not wasted, is not
used up in bureaucracies. We have to have increased flexibility and
local control if we really want to be able to deal with the problems
that exist in our school systems.
We need to empower parents to have a role in schools. We need there
to be opportunities for students such as in charter schools. We need
some changes in that respect. We need to provide options for students
who are consistently failing or who are in danger at schools. We need
to do something about that.
But the responsibility really lies at the local level. That is why we
elect school boards. That is why we have legislatures. We need to help,
but there needs to be local flexibility. I think it is pretty clear
from the debate that the bureaucracy and redtape have been real
problems.
My wife happens to be a special ed teacher. I can tell you, she
spends more time with reports than is really necessary. When she ought
to be working with the kids, she is having to fill out all these
reports that come in and are required. There ought to be a limit to
that.
We ought to try to reduce the duplicative educational programs that
are out there. Now over 50 percent of the Federal education dollars are
spent on bureaucracy and overhead. That is unacceptable. The money
needs to be there to help the kids.
Burdensome regulations, unfunded mandates--talk to anybody who is an
administrator at a school and see what they think about unfunded
mandates and the burdens of regulation. We do not talk about that very
much. We have had 150 amendments that bring about more regulations. We
ought to make sure we avoid that.
I think, again, we have to work to give the States and the locals
unprecedented flexibility. The Federal Government has provided only
about 6 or 7 percent of the funding for elementary and secondary
education. We ought to do better than that. But keep in mind, the basic
thrust is in the local community with the local dollars, the local
decisions, the local leaders. That is where it belongs.
We talk about schools failing. We ought to put a little
responsibility on those who are responsible for those schools that are
failing. Help them, yes, of course. But the idea that we are suddenly
going to take over this whole educational system and change it, I don't
think that is consistent with our notions of Government.
So I just think we have a great opportunity. I think there are some
very good things in this bill. I hope that we conclude it soon so we
can get it moving and so we can get on to some other issues as well.
But I hope we evaluate, as we go: What do we think the role of the
Federal Government is? How should money be used that is sent to the
local and State governments? How do we have accountability? And how,
indeed, do we make sure this effort of ours is one that produces the
best dividends and moves us towards our vision of what education in
this country ought to be.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts for his support of my amendment. I hope the Senate will
overwhelmingly vote for and support the amendment that I have offered.
The Senator from Wyoming was just talking about the role of the
Federal Government in education. I was just thinking about the many
visits I have made to school districts around my State. I have been to
about 160 or 170 school districts in my State. We have about 500 school
districts. I talked about education in many of those visits.
Maybe other Senators have experienced the same thing, but when I talk
about education in schools, when I talk about educational reform,
superintendents and teachers tend to get a little stiff in front of me,
tend to get a little tense, because they are living it. And here we
are, on the outside, trying to tell them how to do it better. One of
the reasons I go to those schools is to listen to the schoolteachers
and to principals and superintendents, parents, and students.
One of the things I hear more and more from people and parents and
teachers in particular is, yes, we need to improve education, but we
also need to look at what is coming into the educational system, the
children coming into our system, particularly in our lowest performing
schools, where children are coming in with many more profound problems
than they did 20, 30, 40, even 50 years ago, when we thought we had a
pretty good educational system in the country.
To sit here and say all the problems in our society, all the problems
with our children are because they don't

[[Page 10587]]

have a good education or there is not a good school, whatever the case
may be, sort of laying all the blame on the schools for not producing
educated children, in some respects, I believe, misses the mark or
certainly doesn't tell the whole story of the problems that we are
confronting as a culture and as a nation.
We have a couple minutes before the vote, and I wanted to put my two
cents in. For those teachers and administrators, people who work very
hard in the school system, particularly the poor schools and schools
that are in difficult neighborhoods, you are right; the schools are not
the sole source of blame for having children who can't read coming out
of them. I even argue in many cases they aren't the principal sources
of blame or even a particularly big share of the blame.
When we talk about educational reform, particularly leaving no child
behind--and I support that--we need to look not just within the school
system; we have to look outside the school system. We have to look at
our culture. We have to look at the American family, our neighborhoods,
at our popular culture, and the message being sent to the young
children. We have to look at neighborhoods. And whether it is crime or
the breakdown of the family or the breakdown of the community, the lack
of economic opportunities, whatever the case may be--in most cases, it
is all of those things--we need to recognize that education is just a
piece of solving this puzzle for a child growing up in these very poor
neighborhoods.
I hope we don't walk away from here flexing our muscles, raising our
hands, saying: We have now solved the problem; We have fixed the
educational system and that alone is going to solve the problems we
face in our poor and downtrodden communities. It will not, no matter
how good our schools are.
I always share this story of going to a high school in north
Philadelphia, a very poor high school, a very poor neighborhood, a
crime ridden neighborhood. I walked through that school. First I walked
through the metal detectors. And I finally got to a classroom where, of
the students going to the school, less than 5 percent were going to go
on to some education beyond high school. I went into the classroom
where those 5 percent were, and they were being talked to about their
opportunities. They were all from public housing, poor neighborhoods.
They could get a free ride to any school they wanted to go to.
I remember talking to them about the opportunities they had and sort
of seeing somewhat blank stares back at me. We got into a discussion. I
said: What is your biggest fear? What is your biggest concern about the
school you go to and your education? And the consensus developed was
this: Getting to school alive every day. When you are an achiever in a
group of people who do not achieve academically, you are a target. You
can throw more money at that school, you can improve the quality of the
teachers, you can have smaller class size, but if your concern is
getting to school alive, we are missing the boat somewhere.
I want to step back, as we hopefully will celebrate passage of this
bill and say that we have done great things to help children. If we
don't get to the issues outside of the school, throwing more money into
the school is whistling through the graveyard at night. It isn't going
to solve the problem.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been interested in the debate
surrounding the teaching of evolution in our schools. I think that
Senator Santorum's amendment will lead to a more thoughtful treatment
of this topic in the classroom. It is important that students be
exposed not only to the theory of evolution, but also to the context in
which it is viewed by many in our society.
I think, too often, we limit the best of our educators by directing
them to avoid controversy and to try to remain politically correct. If
students cannot learn to debate different viewpoints and to explore a
range of theories in the classroom, what hope have we for civil
discourse beyond the schoolhouse doors?
Scientists today have numerous theories about our world and its
beginnings. I, personally, have been greatly impressed by the many
scientists who have probed and dissected scientific theory and
concluded that some Divine force had to have played a role in the birth
of our magnificent universe. These ideas align with my way of thinking.
But I understand that they might not align with someone else's. That is
the very point of this amendment--to support an airing of varying
opinions, ideas, concepts, and theories. If education is truly a
vehicle to broaden horizons and enhance thinking, varying viewpoints
should be welcome as part of the school experience.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as my friend from Pennsylvania, and
perhaps every one in the free world, knows the issue he brings up with
regard to how to teach scientific theory and philosophy was recently an
issue in my home State of Kansas. For this reason, many of my
constituents are particularly sensitive to this issue.
I would like to take the opportunity of this amendment to clear the
record about the controversy in Kansas.
In August of 1999 the Kansas State School Board fired a shot heard
'round the world. Press reports began to surface that evolution would
no longer be taught. The specter of a theocratic school board entering
the class to ensure that no student would be taught the prevailing
wisdom of biology was envisioned. Political cartoons and editorials
were drafted by the hundreds. To hear the furor, one might think that
the teachers would be charged with sorting through their student's
texts with an Exacto knife carving out pictures of Darwin.
However, the prevailing impression, as is often the case was not
quite accurate. Here are the facts about what happened in Kansas. The
school board did not ban the teaching of evolution. They did not forbid
the mention of Darwin in the classroom. They didn't even remove all
mention of evolution from the State assessment test. Rather, the school
board voted against including questions on macro-evolution--the theory
that new species can evolve from existing species over time--from the
State assessment. The assessment did include questions on micro-
evolution--the observed change over time within an existing species.
Why did they do this? Why go so far as to decipher between micro and
macro-evolution on the State exam? How would that serve the theocratic
school board's purpose that we read so much about? Well, the truth is .
. . their was no theocratic end to the actions of the school board. In
fact, their vote was cast based on the most basic scientific principal
that science is about what we observe, not what we assume. The great
and bold statement that the Kansas School Board made was that simply
that we observe micro-evolution and therefore it is scientific fact;
and that it is impossible to observe macro-evolution, it is scientific
assumption.
The response to this relatively minor and eminently scientific move
by the Kansas school board was shocking. The actions and intentions of
the school board were routinely misrepresented in the global press.
Many in the global scientific community, who presumably knew the facts,
spread misinformation as to what happened in Kansas. College admissions
boards, who most certainly knew the facts, threatened Kansas students.
The State Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the State universities
were threatened based on the actions of school board. All of these
effects caused by a school board trying to decipher between scientific
fact and scientific assumption. The response to the actions of the
board, appeared to many as a response to the commission of heresy.
For this reason, I am very pleased that my friend from Pennsylvania
offered this amendment. He clarifies the opinion of the Senate that the
debate of scientific fact versus scientific assumption is an important
debate to embrace. I plan to support the amendment and urge my
colleagues to join me.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that between the two
votes, prior to the second vote in order,

[[Page 10588]]

there be 2 minutes on each side for debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield back the remainder of his
time?
Mr. SANTORUM. I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
799. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 8, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]

YEAS--91

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--8

Chafee
Cochran
Collins
DeWine
Enzi
Hagel
Stevens
Thompson

NOT VOTING--1

Dodd

The amendment (No. 799) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 798

Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, we have 2 minutes on each side. There
will be 2 minutes for the Senator from South Carolina and 2 minutes for
the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, dear colleagues, the fundamental flaw
is the approach that we do not, at the local level, have
accountability, that we do not have testing. The truth is, and I have
previously printed it in the Record, we have testing coming out of our
ears: $422 million this year. We know what works.
I say, rather than go through a 7-year exercise at $7 billion, along
with the bureaucracy from Washington, to develop what Washington thinks
is the standard, what Washington thinks is quality, use that money to
address local concerns, whether they be further testing or additional
needs. We know what the needs are. Senators have stated them over 7
weeks: Curriculum, better teachers, more teachers, smaller class size,
and on down the line.
This is, in a sense, revenue sharing with the same amount of money.
If Members believe in one size fits all, that Washington--and not the
local folks--has the answers, if Members believe in unfunded mandates,
if Members believe students should be tested on courses that they have
yet to receive--Title I, Head Start, and the others--if Members believe
we ought to institute this 7-year bureaucracy at a cost of $7 billion,
vote against the amendment.
If Members believe in local control, and if Members believe they know
what is best, and what schools in their states need is help for
curriculum, for class size, and everything else, then vote with us. I
don't see my distinguished colleague, Senator Wellstone, but I have his
support, and I think I might be able to get the support of Senator
Kennedy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, with all respect to my friend and
colleague from South Carolina, I rise to oppose the amendment. This
amendment, if passed, will cut out the heart of the bipartisan
agreement on educational reform in this underlying bill. The heart of
it is that we are going to demand results; we are going to ask for
evidence that we can present to educators, to parents, indeed to
students and public officials, that the vast amounts of money that we
at the Federal level and those at the State and local level are
investing in the education of our children is actually working. The
important thing to say is that in the requirement that the underlying
bipartisan agreement makes for testing of schoolchildren from grades 3-
8, we set the rules, but we leave it to the States to determine the
standards. It is the States that will decide each year what is adequate
yearly progress. It is the States that will determine how well their
students are doing. So this is a national set of rules, but it is the
States that will decide how each of them goes forward in implementing
the rules.
Second, we require an arcane term, but it means a lot, disaggregation
of data, so that people in the State, in the local area, parents, can
see how each group of children is doing so we will be sure in that
evidence that we will not overlook the educational needs of the
neediest of our children.
I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment and thereby stand by the
bipartisan agreement for educational reform.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
798. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 78, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]

YEAS--22

Akaka
Boxer
Cantwell
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Leahy
Levin
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Sarbanes
Stevens
Wellstone

NAYS--78

Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The amendment (No. 798) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 420 To Amendment No. 358

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 420.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an
amendment numbered 420.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit
certain youth to perform certain work with wood products)

On page 893, after line 14, add the following:

SEC. __. EXEMPTION.

Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 213(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 10589]]

``(6)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the administration
and enforcement of the child labor provisions of this Act, it
shall not be considered oppressive child labor for an
individual who--
``(i) is under the age of 18 and over the age of 14, and
``(ii) by statute or judicial order is exempt from
compulsory school attendance beyond the eighth grade,

to be employed inside or outside places of business where
machinery is used to process wood products.
``(B) The employment of an individual under subparagraph
(A) shall be permitted--
``(i) if the individual is supervised by an adult relative
of the individual or is supervised by an adult member of the
same religious sect or division as the individual;
``(ii) if the individual does not operate or assist in the
operation of power-driven woodworking machines;
``(iii) if the individual is protected from wood particles
or other flying debris within the workplace by a barrier
appropriate to the potential hazard of such wood particles or
flying debris or by maintaining a sufficient distance from
machinery in operation; and
``(iv) if the individual is required to use personal
protective equipment to prevent exposure to excessive levels
of noise and saw dust.''.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I seek recognition to discuss my
amendment, which briefly stated, would simply permit Amish youths, aged
14 to 18, to be able to work in sawmills. The issue has arisen as to
the safety of these sawmills. The Appropriations subcommittee which has
jurisdiction over the Department of Labor which I had chaired held a
hearing on this subject. It is appropriate and necessary that the full
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions have a hearing.
We have consulted with experts who have given us a formula to provide
for what we think is the requisite safety. I have had a brief
discussion with the Senator from Massachusetts about my withdrawing
this amendment and having a hearing so that due consideration could be
given to this issue by his committee.
This amendment is designed to permit certain youths--those exempt
from attending school--between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in
sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I
introduced identical measures in the 105th and 106th Congresses.
Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague,
Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House twice
before. I am hopeful the Senate will also seriously consider this
important issue.
As chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased
funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however,
that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from
compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is
extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be
provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer
employment where they live.
The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish
community. In 1998, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, PA,
and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. In
December 2000, Representative Pitts and I held a meeting in Gap, PA,
with over 20 members of the Amish community to hear their concerns on
this issue. Most recently, I chaired a hearing of the Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to examine
these issues.
At the hearing the Amish explained that while they once made their
living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand
into other occupations as farmland has disappeared in many areas due to
pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to
rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish
culture expects youth, upon the completion of their education at the
age of 14, to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become
productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one
of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system
limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are
currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they
reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and
lifestyle of the Amish.
Under my amendment, youths would not be allowed to operate power
machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as
sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My amendment requires that
the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and
wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision.
The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that
they are enforced.
The Department of Justice has raised serious concerns under the
establishment clause with the House legislation. The House measure
conferred benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious
sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit
formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the
``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only the adherents of certain
religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly
favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my amendment, I attempted
to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in
sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education
laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is
necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for
all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational
opportunities.
I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in
Wisconsin versus Yoder supports my bill. In Yoder, the Court held that
Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to
attend school until the age of 16 violated the free exercise clause.
The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on
the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school
beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and
practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be
made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their
population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of
life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to
the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills
denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self-
reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish
do not need the final two years of public education.
This is a matter of great importance and I urge my colleagues to work
with me to provide relief for the Amish community.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the Senator is correct. The Senator has
spoken to me about this issue. It is a very important issue because it
does involve children and involves a dangerous industry. But there are
other factors to be considered.
The Senator has given us some recommendations from very noteworthy
OSHA experts who believe a way can be found to ensure the safety of
these children and also achieve the objective. I think it would be
valuable to have that in an open hearing, and we will do so in our
Labor Committee and give due notice to the Senator when that hearing
will be held, and welcome any of the people from whom he thinks it
would be useful for us to hear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from
Massachusetts.
I just add one note. There are very serious issues of religious
freedom involved here with the Amish having the right under the
Constitution not to have education beyond the age of 14, and those will
be considered in due course.
Let me thank my distinguished colleague from Louisiana for yielding
so that we could have this brief colloquy.
I thank my colleagues and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

[[Page 10590]]

Mr. KENNEDY. We will have a very brief quorum call. I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 420 Withdrawn

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the last colloquy I stated my
intention to withdraw the amendment. I did not use the magic words,
which I now use. I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the
disposition of the Dodd amendment No. 382, the Senator from Nebraska,
Mr. Nelson, be recognized to call up amendment No. 533; that there be 5
minutes for debate on the amendment equally divided in the usual form;
that upon the use of the time, the amendment be agreed to and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no second-degree
amendment in order thereto.
Further, that upon the disposition of amendment No. 533, Senator
Kerry be recognized to call up amendments Nos. 423 and 455, that there
be 40 minutes total for debate on the two amendments with time divided
as follows: 10 minutes each, Senators Kerry, Smith of Oregon, Kennedy,
and Gregg, with no second-degree amendments; that upon the use or
yielding back of time, the amendments be agreed to and the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
Provided further that, upon the disposition of the Kerry/Smith
amendments, the Senate resume consideration of the Cantwell amendment
No. 630, as modified, with a total of 15 minutes for debate divided as
follows: 5 minutes each, Senators Cantwell, Kennedy, and Gregg; that
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote in
relation to the Cantwell amendment, with no second-degree amendment in
order thereto, with no intervening action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Louisiana is recognized to
call up amendment No. 474 on which there will be 30 minutes equally
divided in the usual form.

Amendment No. 474 to Amendment No. 358

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 474.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes
amendment numbered 474.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the formulas for teacher quality grants)

Beginning on page 312, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 313, line 4, and insert the following:

``(I) an amount that bears the same relationship to 35
percent of the excess amount as the number of individuals age
5 through 17 in the State, as determined by the Secretary on
the basis of the most recent satisfactory data, bears to the
number of those individuals in all such States, as so
determined; and
``(II) an amount that bears the same relationship to 65
percent of the

On page 320, strike lines 16 through 26 and insert the
following:
``(1) an amount that bears the same relationship to 20
percent of the total amount as the number of individuals age
5 through 17 in the geographic area served by the agency, as
determined by the Secretary on the basis of the most recent
satisfactory data, bears to the number of those individuals
in the geographic areas served by all the local educational
agencies in the State, as so determined; and
``(2) an amount that bears the same relationship to 80
percent of the total amount as the num-''.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, the amendment that I offer today is
similar in some ways to the amendment I offered and we adopted 2 days
ago. With an overwhelming and bipartisan show of support, we again made
a commitment to better target the somewhat scarce education resources
offered by the Federal Government under this bill--I use the word
scarce judiciously; to some it is an awful lot of money, but to others,
relative to what we need, it is not enough towards the communities with
the greatest need.
Whatever moneys we are able to place, I believe, and many of my
colleagues on the Republican and Democratic side and, to his credit,
President Bush must be targeted toward helping the children and the
schools that need the most help. Particularly when, as Senator Kennedy
has so eloquently expressed many times on the floor, this is really a
new day for education from the Federal Government. We are initiating
sweeping reforms, not mandating local governments but supporting them
in their efforts to reform their schools, to increase standards, to
implement accountability. We must work with the states and locals in
partnership, to help fulfill our promise to leave no child behind.
This amendment would target more tightly title II dollars. On Monday,
57 Members of this body helped us to target the title I dollars, the
largest title of the elementary and secondary education bill. There are
seven general titles in the BEST bill. Title I has always been the
largest Federal title. Some would argue the most important. Yet, when
you are talking about providing an quality education, it is hard to
argue that a Title which is focused on quality teachers is any less
important. In my mind and in the minds of many in the Senate, there
really is no more important element of an education than a good,
qualified teacher.
William Arthur Ward once said: The mediocre teacher tells; the good
teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates; the great teacher
inspires.
We need a lot more great teachers in America. We have many, but we
need more. No doubt there is a crisis in our Nation today. From the
East Coast to the West Coast, from the North to the South, from
California, to Louisiana, to New Hampshire, to Illinois, communities
are faced with a struggle to find qualified people to teach their
children.
Every major newspaper and magazine in our Nation has covered this
story--not on the back page, not on the middle page, but on the cover
page. Here is an excerpt from Newsweek published earlier this fall.
``Who Will Teach Our Kids?'' That is the question parents are asking.
``What Schools And Parents Can Do. Half Of All Teachers Will Retire By
The Year 2010.''
The picture is of a child waiting for a teacher and these subtitles
only scratch the surface of the real crisis facing us today. Let me
read briefly from a story that says ``Teachers Wanted.'' I noticed this
because Frank, my husband, and I have our 9-year-old Connor in school
here. He finished third grade this year. One of the joys of my day is
to know every day that Connor is in a school with a wonderful teacher--
Holly Garland, and that he is being well educated in a school that is
safe. I can come to work in the Senate and do my job. My husband can go
do his job because we have that security.
But that is not the case of a family from Georgia. Their names are
Jill and Larry Jackson of Conyers, GA. The article says:

It should have been a season of hopeful beginnings, but for
Jill and Larry Jackson of Conyers, Ga., the opening of school
this fall has meant only anger and frustration. Their 11-
year-old son, Nicholas--

Only 2 years older than Connor--

is in a sixth-grade special-ed class taught by an assistant
and a substitute. The regular teacher quit after three weeks
of school, and the class of 13 is out of control. ``We can
move Nicholas to a special-ed class in another school that
has just five kids,'' says

[[Page 10591]]

Jill, ``but the teacher is leaving in December. I phoned the
district, and they told me that they have five special-ed
positions to fill. And I asked them if they think they'll
have a certified special-ed teacher in that class by
December, and they said: `That's the least of our problems
right now.' ''

Jill, the mother, much as I am with my children, said: ``Well, it's
the biggest problem in my life right now.''
To millions of parents, from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to
Louisiana to Mississippi, the biggest problem in their lives is their
kids, 90 percent of whom are in the public schools of this Nation. They
send them to schools and classrooms without certified teachers, without
any teachers, with substitute teachers, teachers who come in and out of
the classroom every few weeks. How is it possible for a child to begin
to learn when the teacher doesn't even know a child's name? This is a
parent's worst nightmare.
My amendment does not attempt to fix this terrible situation because
I am not certain any amendment could actually deal with a problem this
large. It is so large and so tough. What my amendment does is say, we
know we have a problem; we need to set goals and strategies for fixing
that problem; and most importantly, we must provide the resources to
address the problem.
In short, my amendment attempts to move what money we have into the
areas and to the schools that need the most help. This bill requires
that all schools with 50% or more of their children in poverty must
have all highly qualified teachers by 2005. What would that mean to
states?
Let me cite some statistics that were actually shocking to me, and
hopefully they will be to the Members of the Senate. Let me start with
some examples of some States right now that are in pretty good shape. I
will cite three or four.
Connecticut has a total of 1,069 schools. Yet only 189 of those
schools are 50 percent poverty. So out of over 1,000 schools, they have
fewer than 200 schools in the whole State that have 50 percent of
poverty or more. To meet the requirements under this bill, 6,670 in
Connecticut's poorest schools would have to be highly qualified by
2005. That is a manageable amount. Connecticut is in pretty good shape
because under the bill, it is going to have to make sure that these 189
schools have the resources to meet this requirement. Based on what I
know about the resources in Connecticut and the great work of Senator
Dodd and Senator Lieberman and other elected officials in that State, I
have no doubt that with the extra muscle they can probably manage to
find 6,000 highly qualified teachers in 3 years.
Let me share the good news about another State, New Hampshire. It has
516 schools. Only 7 in the whole State of New Hampshire--it is a small
State--have a poverty rate of 50 percent. That means that they have
three years to make sure that the 103 teachers who currently teach in
those schools are highly qualified. Again, I am confident that with the
good work of the Senators here from New Hampshire and their Governor,
Jean Shaheen, and their elected officials , they can find the 103
teachers qualified, get them in those classrooms, and meet the goals of
this bill.
Let me give you one other example of a State in pretty good shape. It
is a larger State, and people might not expect that a large State such
as New Jersey would be in good shape, but they are. They have 2,317
schools. Only 400 of those schools have 50 percent poverty rates or
greater. They must ensure that 16,000 teachers are highly qualified.
Sixteen thousand is a lot, but New Jersey is a big State with a lot of
resources. There is substantial wealth in New Jersey. Lots of
corporations are there. Their property taxes are pretty high. If they
would distribute them a little more evenly, which they are probably in
the process of doing, they can perhaps find 16,000 teachers in 3 years.
Let me tell you a sad story. Let me talk to you about 3 States. As
you may expect, one of them is Louisiana. One of them is Mississippi.
And the third is Texas. Let me talk about Louisiana for just a minute.
We have--Senator Breaux and I--in our State 1,500 schools. Of the 1,500
schools, 1,013 have more than 50 percent of the children in those
schools in poverty. Let me repeat that. We have 1,500 schools in
Louisiana. Out of that number, we have 1,013 schools that have 50
percent of poverty, or higher. That means we would have to find 30,000
highly qualified teachers for these classrooms. There are only 49,000
full time teachers in the whole state, so we would have 3 years to make
sure that 3 out of every 5 teachers meet the qualification requirements
outlined in this bill. I don't know how, if we worked 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, between now and the deadline which is in this bill, with
the limited resources we have, if we could meet that deadline.
Let me go into a little bit more detail about Louisiana. I want to
show you what the challenge is. I think Senator Kennedy and Senator
Gregg, who are very knowledgeable about this, must certainly understand
this challenge.
In Louisiana, every year we have 8,000 students enrolled in colleges
and universities. The students who graduate are 1,600 every year. We
will lose 160 in the test because the tests for teachers will weed out
some who are not ready and qualified. That is most important. So we
will graduate with degrees 1,440. These are last year's statistics. And
33 percent of these, which the taxpayers in Louisiana paid taxes--
income taxes, sales taxes, fees, license taxes--to educate will leave
our State. For the most part, they will leave Louisiana because almost
every State around us has higher salaries. So we will lose 33 percent
of those teachers who come out, leaving us basically with 964 teachers.
These teachers will start, and in 5 years 30 percent of them will leave
the system, leaving us--out of this graduating class of 1,600--675.
This is not right. This is not efficient. This is a waste of taxpayer
dollars. Most important, it is what is contributing to the crisis of us
trying to get good teachers in our classrooms.
Now a lot of things can be done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The time of the Senator from
Louisiana has expired.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes to complete. I
ask unanimous consent that I may do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate the extra time.
What's more, 66% of the teachers in Louisiana have bachelors degrees.
Only 13 of our teachers were Nationally Board Certified in the year
2000. And over 15% of those teaching in our state have not successfully
completed their certification.
This is true of Louisiana, but it is going to be true in almost every
State you look at. The numbers of people choosing to teach are just not
there to meet the requirements. So lots of things can be done. This
bill encourages alternative certification, being creative, getting
retirees who have had a successful first career into the schools. For
instance, a great program Troops to Teachers, which uses our military
to fill these slots. We can no longer rely on 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds.
We must broaden our thinking.
There are positive things that can be done, and there are success
stories, but they are not free. I contend today, and I will continue to
fight in this debate, that there are simply not enough resources at the
local and Federal levels to meet the new demands of this bill and to
give a promise to our parents and students that they will be taught by
a qualified, good teacher.
Let me share some facts about Mississippi. Mississippi is a State
that is in a very tough situation. Mississippi has 874 schools. Of the
874 schools, 700 have 50 percent of poverty--students from households
represented by an income that hits the poverty level. They need 23,274
highly qualified teachers. Under this bill, they are going to have 3
years to find 23,274 teachers.
Mississippi and Louisiana need help. That is what this amendment is
about. It is about saying whatever dollars we can muster, whatever we
can scratch out of this budget to make an investment in this Nation's
future and our

[[Page 10592]]

kids, let's get it to the States and the children who have been without
qualified teachers for too long. We have examples throughout our
history of that special teacher with that special touch who can work
miracles for a child, any child, regardless of their race or family
income. Let's help get teachers to Louisiana and Mississippi.
Let me end with Texas. Texas is a big State, and they have a big
problem because they have 7,228 schools.
Of those schools, 3,190 have student populations with 50 percent of
poverty or more. They need a whopping 107,779 qualified teachers in 3
years.
Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi are examples of States that do not
have the same resources other States might have, particularly
Mississippi and Louisiana.
This amendment is an attempt to bring the resources that will support
this reform, that will help meet the goals of this new education bill
to the States and to the areas that could use the most help.
Some people on the other side have said this is a local issue. This
might be where the local issue in terms of decisions are made, but if
this Federal Government does not step up to the plate and provide some
additional resources to help parishes in Louisiana, such as Red River,
Orleans Parish, St. Martin Parish, and Iberia Parish and even Jefferson
Parish, they cannot reach their full potential. If we do not step up to
the plate, they will never be able to find the thousands of qualified
teachers with creativity, with a new approach to education because
there are so many barriers.
I thank my colleagues for their attention to the issue of targeting
federal resources to our areas of greatest need. It is a very important
and fundamental principle of this bill. We have set new high standards.
We have left the control at the local level. We have given local
governments, as you did, Mr. President, when you were Governor of your
wonderful State of Delaware, more resources with which to work, but
those resources are not adequate.
I hope as this moves forward that we can increase our investment in
our children's education so that the family I referred to in Georgia or
my family or any other family does not have to live through the
nightmare of having high hopes for a child, sending them off to school
only to be in a classroom out of control because we have not provided
the resources and the parameters necessary to succeed.
Today, research is confirming what common sense has suggested all
along. A skilled and knowledgeable teacher can make an enormous
difference in how well students learn. Is the home environment
important? Absolutely. Can children learn without their parents or a
parent or a grandparent or a guardian encouraging them? No. But can a
good teacher make a difference? Absolutely.
Again to quote:

The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The
superior teacher demonstrates. But the great teacher
inspires.

We have a nation that was built on hope and inspiration. Our Nation
was founded on the belief that tomorrow could be a better day; that men
and women would live in liberty and that value is taught through our
school system. If we do not commit the resources to help our teachers
do the job, if we do not find ways to get more and better teachers in
the classroom, we have not only failed our schools, we have failed our
country.
I am pleased to say I understand it is going to be accepted. Again, I
wish it was broader in its scope because we need to do more, but this
amendment targeting our resources will help. I will be back many times
to speak about this subject. I thank you, and I believe my time has
expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields
time? The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I believe I have time, do I not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Apparently those opposing the amendment have
time.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu from Louisiana
for this amendment. As she has mentioned, this is completely consistent
with her previous amendment, which was overwhelmingly accepted, in that
it provides greater targeted resources for teachers.
For my money, the most important ingredient in the educational
process is having a well-trained teacher in the classroom. There are
other components, but this is absolutely essential.
The greatest challenge we face is the neediest and the poorest
schools where we need the best teachers have the most unqualified
teachers. The amendment of the Senator from Louisiana sharpens the
direction of this legislation to ensure, to the extent we can, we get
well-qualified teachers to teach the neediest students. It is a very
important amendment, and it is a very useful and helpful amendment. I
urge the Senate to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Tennessee seek
recognition?
Mr. FRIST. I yield back the remainder of our time, and we can have a
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 474.
The amendment (No. 474) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. FRIST. I understand we will now proceed to the Dodd amendment,
and that we will have 2 hours equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Amendment No. 382 to Amendment No. 358

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, is recognized to call up amendment No. 382 on
which there will be 2 hours of debate equally divided.
Mr. DODD. I ask that the Chair notify me when 15 minutes of my time
have expired. I will then ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Tennessee, Mr. Frist, be recognized for 15 minutes, and at the
expiration of his 15 minutes, I be rerecognized to complete my opening
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague from
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, the chairman of the committee; Senator
Gregg, and other Members, my friend from Tennessee with whom I have
worked on many issues and for whom I have the highest regard and
respect. I appreciate their efforts. I have enjoyed working with them
on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
This is not a surprise amendment. My colleagues have known for some
time I have been deeply interested in afterschool programs. Going back,
in fact, I offered some of the earliest amendments to support
afterschool programs as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Children
and Families, and then as the ranking member, working very closely with
my good friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, and
Senator Barbara Boxer from California has been very interested in
afterschool programs. Most Senators have been interested in afterschool
programs.
Afterschool programs--in a sense, I am preaching to the choir
addressing the Presiding Officer as a former Governor of the State of
Delaware. He understands the tremendous value of having good, strong
afterschool programs and how important they are. In a sense, I am
offering this amendment not just on my behalf and those who support
this, but I do so on behalf of Fight Crime Invest in Kids, which
represents a thousand police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, leaders,
police organizations, crime survivors; on behalf of the YMCA and YWCA,
which are the largest afterschool providers in the United States--
literally there are some 2,500 YMCA

[[Page 10593]]

and YWCA programs that provide afterschool programs--National PTA,
National Network for Youth, Afterschool Alliance, National Community
Education Association. I will provide a list.
I ask unanimous consent that the long list of education groups,
police groups, prosecutors, and others supporting this amendment be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Fight Crime Invest in KIDS
YMCA
NABYC
National PTA
National Network for Youth
Afterschool Alliance
National Community Education Association
National Education Association
School Social Work Association of America
National Association of School Psychologists
Council for Exceptional Children
National Association of Social Workers
Association for Career and Technical Education
American Counseling Association
American Federation of Teachers
National Alliance of Black School Educators
American Association of University Women

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, their endorsement is not fainthearted. They
believe this may be the single most important issue of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. Because we are leaving out under the pilot
program--and I want to make this argument so people can understand it;
this bill can get a little confusing with all the various pieces of it.
One of the major pieces of this bill is called the Straight A's
Program which is called a pilot program.
When we think of pilot programs or demonstration programs, our mind
immediately draws on a number that represents a relatively small
fraction of the larger group. It will be a pilot program or a
demonstration program. Certainly, this program, when it was announced,
sounded relatively small. It is a pilot program that would be in 7
States out of 50, in 25 school districts. That sounds pretty small. One
cannot imagine that being any great threat as a pilot program. I am not
sure whether it is a pilot program for 1 year, 4 years, 5 years, or 7
years.
This bill is a 7-year bill. I am not sure how long the pilot programs
on the grants are supposed to run during the life of this bill. That is
rather vague in the underlying bill. It could end up being 14 States or
21 States over the 7-year life of the bill, or is it just 7 States in 7
years? I am not sure of the answer.
In seven States and 25 districts, exclude the 25 districts, I can get
you to 44 percent of the entire student population of the United
States. If this pilot program that is going to be awarded by the
Secretary of Education goes to the 7 largest States and the 25 largest
school districts in America, you are at 51 percent of the entire
student population of the United States--hardly a pilot program or a
demonstration program. I don't think it is a leap of faith to suggest
that may be the case.
I expect every State in the United States to apply for the Straight
A's Program. Why? Because it eliminates all the categorical programs.
It says to the States, you can basically do anything you want with this
money. It says you have to serve the neediest kids, but we know under
title I how broad a definition that is already under law for 36 years.
I cannot imagine a jurisdiction not saying: I would like one of those;
I will take Federal money without any strings attached. It is not any
great leap of logic to assume that all 50 States and virtually every
school district will probably apply for the Straight A's Program.
I don't think it is any great leap if, in fact, you believe this
program ought to be national policy and not a pilot program--which is
the view of the administration; they only call it a pilot program for
the purpose of this bill because if they said they want this to be the
national program, there would be a lot of resistance to it. If they
call it a pilot program, a lot of people are willing to say they will
try a pilot program.
The fact is, this could affect a lot of children for a long time.
Seven years may not seem like much in the life of a bill in Congress,
but if you have a child in kindergarten, the first grade, the second or
third grade, that is the entire elementary education your child will
get. So afterschool--I will get to the particular program--is
important. This could affect a lot of children. It is why the YMCAs, it
is why police chiefs, it is why all the other organizations are
concerned about this: because of the potential exposure it could mean
to an awful lot of children around the country.
There are reasons why this particular program is important. Let me
explain it in context. What happens under the Straight A's Program, all
of a sudden community-based, local-based grant applications get
eliminated in these 7 States and 25 districts. It would now come from
the State education authority or the Governor as to whether or not
there would be an afterschool program. This is why people are
concerned. We are moving away from local decisionmaking. We are saying
in these States: You are out. That YMCA, the community-based
organization, and some of the church-based organizations, you are out.
It depends on what happens at the State level. They watch the program
grow because of the value. There has never been, in the history of the
Department of Education, a grant program that has been sought after as
much as this grant.
Let me demonstrate the point with this chart. In this year alone
there have been 2,762 grant applications. Of that nearly 3,000, only
300 will be funded under existing resources. There have been an average
of 2,000 applications a year since the program started, and the numbers
are going up. So we are looking at a tremendously popular program.
People see afterschool care as critically important primarily to the
safety of their children. There is an academic achievement element to
this, but it is primarily an issue of safety. In the history of the
Department this has been the most sought after grant of any in the
United States. That is how popular it is with people all across the
country.
We increased the funding for this over the years, but not very much.
According to the most recent Mott/J.C. Penney poll, nearly two-thirds
of voters report difficulty funding quality, affordable afterschool
programs. The Census Bureau reports that nearly 7 million children
between the ages of 5 and 14 go home alone unsupervised each week.
Let me show a graph with the number of children, showing the growing
numbers of grade-school-age children in self-care in the United States:
2 percent of 5-year-olds have no afterschool care and are home alone; 3
percent of 6-year-olds; 4 percent of 8-year-olds; and 11-year-olds--
these are children, not teenagers--10- and 11-year-olds, 1 in every 4
is home alone.
The second chart points out what police chiefs say about the program,
and why dumping it into a block grant and eliminating community
organizations from asking for help is wrongheaded. Police chiefs were
asked in a survey: Which of these strategies do police chiefs choose as
the most effective for reducing youth violence in the country?
``Afterschool,'' almost 70 percent chose that. Then it drops way down
for ``try juveniles as adults,'' ``hire more police,'' with ``metal
detectors'' at 1 percent. Is there any doubt where those people, who
deal with these issues every day believe this program has value? Is
there any doubt whether or not it ought to be taken out of this block
grant and left to local community organizations such as the YMCAs, such
as our community organizations that find these programs worthwhile, to
apply for these dollars?
I can only, with the money, grant 300 out of almost 3,000 a year that
apply. But eliminate this, and these 7 States and 25 districts for 7
years, left totally to the discretion of a State agency or a Governor,
may cut a lot of these programs. Why? Because a lot of the kids come
from some of the poorest rural and urban districts and don't have the
local clout to be applying for this assistance and carrying it off.
This is very important. If you talk about basic safety, it is
critical. Again, listening to me is one thing, but listen to people who
work every day in this area. They are the ones behind this.

[[Page 10594]]

Listen to the police chiefs across the country. Let me read their
letter:

As an organization led by more than 1,000 police chiefs,
sheriffs, prosecutors, leaders of police organizations, and
crime survivors, we urge you to support a Senate floor
amendment to S. 1 to remove 21st Century Community Learning
Centers (21st CCLC) from the Straight A's Block Grant.
We are concerned that if 21st CCLC is folded into a block
grant with many other educational programs the investment
that the Federal government has finally begun to make in
expanding after-school programs will wither. After-school
programs are different than many of the other programs
included in the block grant. They support and enhance
academic performance but they are not necessarily direct
academic programs. Therefore, in a block grant where the
accountability provisions measure only academic performance,
after-school programs will likely lose out to regular school-
day academic programs.
In addition, as law enforcement leaders and crime survivors
we feel strongly that one of the most important aspects of
after-school programs is the crime-prevention impact. The
Straight A's block grant accountability provisions do not
measure crime-prevention outcomes and therefore do not
completely recognize the unique nature and importance of
after-school programs such as 21st CCLC.
In the hour after the school bell rings, violent juvenile
crime soars and the prime time for juvenile crime begins. The
peak hours for such crime are from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. These
are also the hours when children are most likely to become
victims of crime, be in an automobile accident, have sex,
smoke, drink alcohol, or use drugs.
After-school programs that connect children to caring
adults and provide constructive activities during these
critical hours are among our most powerful tools for
preventing violent juvenile crime. For example, in a five-
city study, half of a group of at-risk high-school kids were
randomly assigned to participate in the Quantum Opportunities
after-school program. The boys left out of that program had
six times more criminal convictions in their high-school
years than the boys who attended the after-school program.
Yet roughly 11 million children go home from school
regularly to an empty house. With such a large unmet need,
now is the time to be strengthening the Federal government's
commitment to after-school programs, not weakening it.

That is 1,000 police chiefs talking about this. Forget about the
Senator from Connecticut talking; will we listen to the people who work
on these issues every day?
Let me read a letter from the YMCA. This is the largest program,
celebrating its 150th year of existence this year. These people know
what they are talking about. These are some of the best programs in the
country.
This is a letter from Ken Gladish, national executive director:

A recent survey conducted for the YMCA of the USA shows how
important afterschool programs are. Among other findings, the
survey showed that young people who do not participate in
afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D
students, twice as likely to get into a fight at school and
far more likely to skip a day of school than youth engaged in
stimulating, productive activities in the hours after school.
According to census figures, more than seven million school-
age children are left home alone and on the streets,
unsupervised after school. This is far too many of our youth
to place in danger of academic failure and much worse.
As the largest private provider of afterschool programs in
the country, YMCAs have 150 years of experience providing
programs to young people during non-school hours. More than
2,500 YMCAs serve over 9 million children and youth in over
10,000 communities through partnerships with schools,
businesses, police, juvenile courts and housing authorities.
Many other community-based organizations in this country also
have decades of experience operating quality afterschool
programs, and Congress is making the 21st Century program
better by making sure funding is available for programs
operated by these organizations. However, by not requiring
the Straight A's states to spend this money on afterschool
programs and to make it available to community organizations,
Congress will effectively and dramatically limit the overall
positive impact afterschool programs can have on local
communities.

I ask unanimous consent the full text of this letter be printed in
the Record.
Thee being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

YMCA of the USA,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2001.
Hon. Chris Dodd,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dodd: On behalf of the YMCA of the USA, I
would like to thank you for offering your amendment to the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
to remove the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program
from the ``Straight As'' demonstration provision. Dedicated
funding for afterschool programs and the ability of
community-based organizations to compete fairly for this
funding would be severely restricted without passage of your
amendment.
A recent survey conducted for the YMCA of the USA shows how
important afterschool programs are. Among other findings, the
survey showed that young people who do not participate in
afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D
students, twice as likely to get into a fight at school and
far more likely to skip a day of school than youth engaged in
stimulating, productive activities in the hours after school.
According to census figures, more than seven million school-
age children are left home alone and on the streets,
unsupervised after school. This is far too many of our youth
to place in danger of academic failure and much worse.
As the largest private provider of afterschool programs in
the country, YMCAs have 150 years of experience providing
programs to young people during non-school hours. More than
2,500 YMCAs serve over 9 million children and youth in over
10,000 communities through partnerships with schools,
businesses, police, juvenile courts and housing authorities.
Many other community-based organizations in this country also
have decades of experience operating quality afterschool
programs, and Congress is making the 21st Century program
better by making sure funding is available for programs
operated by these organizations. However, by not requiring
the Straight A's states to spend this money on afterschool
programs and to make it available to community organizations,
Congress will effectively and dramatically limit the overall
positive impact afterschool programs can have on local
communities.
As we celebrate our 150th anniversary in the United States
in 2001, YMCAs remain committed to doing what it takes to
build strong kids, strong families and strong communities.
Thank you for your efforts to increase opportunities for all
our kids.
Sincerely,
Kenneth L. Gladish, Ph.D.,
National Executive Director.

Mr. DODD. Can there be any more eloquent argument that whatever else
we do with Straight A's and academic performance, we should not take a
program for which there is such need in this country, where the
overwhelming evidence is that police officers and people who provide
afterschool programs are begging us not to jeopardize the millions of
kids who could be in a pilot program affecting literally millions of
children--we should not exclude this valuable tool for keeping kids
safe and providing some safe harbor for them in the afterschool hours.
With that, I promised my good friend from Tennessee, because of other
obligations he has, to provide him with whatever time I have remaining
to respond to these eloquent, persuasive arguments--maybe he will
endorse the amendment at this point--and then I have unanimous consent
to reclaim my time.
Mr. FRIST. I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut outlining the
debate in which we will be engaged for the next 2 hours. He raised many
important points.
I do rise in opposition to the Dodd amendment. Over the next 13 or 14
minutes, I hope to explain to my colleagues why I am opposed to this
amendment. I will address two issues. No. 1, I will address problems
with the substance of the amendment itself and its impact on the
underlying bill. No. 2, I hope to reveal how this particular amendment,
in stripping out part of the bipartisan education bill, violates the
principles behind this bipartisan agreement. I mention this right
upfront because if this amendment were agreed to, it would potentially
threaten the entire education bill.
Most important, in response to the eloquent words of the Senator from
Connecticut, we should focus on the substance of the amendment itself.
First of all, you will hear several terms. One is ``Straight A's''; one
is ``21st Century School.'' Let me back up a little bit and paint the
big picture.
``Straight A's'' is the title that is given for the program entitled
Academic Achievement for All. This is a program that is a part of the
underlying bill. It functions as a pilot program. Its purpose is to
demonstrate, not on a nationwide scale, but for up to 7 States and 25
districts which can apply to qualify for this pilot program. The reason
the program itself is so important to our side of the aisle is that

[[Page 10595]]

it does crystallize and underscore the important principle of
flexibility and--and this is where I disagree with my colleague--local
control. Local control is coupled with higher standards of
accountability.
The BEST bill requires all students meet standards of achievement.
However, if you participate in this voluntary pilot program, you are
given greater flexibility to make decisions at the local level, and you
will be required to deliver higher standards than are required in the
underlying bill.
Again, I mention it because people think this is a block grant with
no strings attached, and that is simply not true. The strings are
attached in the form of high academic standards and accountability. If
you don't meet the standards, you cannot participate; again, if you
don't qualify in the evaluations that are built into the underlying
bill, your privileges of flexibility are taken away.
What funding are we talking about? We are not talking about enormous
Federal block grants which are taken from education funding. Many are
concerned about the approximately $8 billion title I funds that are
aimed at disadvantaged children. No, we are talking about the other
programs, non-title I funds. I do not want people to misunderstand
where these funds will come from. I can't emphasize this enough.
After a lot of negotiation with the White House, with the Democrats,
with the Republicans, we brought everyone to the table, and we agreed
on certain programs. That is why Straight A's is in the underlying
bill. But this amendment is trying to strip it out. We agreed to choose
those categorical programs which conform to the ideas in the underlying
bill: Increased flexibility and strong accountability. The pilot
program links greater flexibility to accountability for higher student
achievement. Not all 18 categorical programs incorporate these two
components. However, I believe about 9 do. Nine categorical programs
have been included, one of which is the 21st Century program. This is
an afterschool program. It is a program which I believe, as the Senator
from Connecticut does, is a very positive, important program which is
integral to strengthening the entire underlying education bill.
The program may be worthwhile. I am not going to argue that it is
not, because the program is a worthwhile program. I will argue,
however, that there are situations where local districts should be able
to use that money for afterschool programs, or for more tutoring, or
for more teachers, or for class size reduction, or for teacher
training, or for school construction. They ought to have the freedom to
choose how best to use those funds, and this pilot program gives local
and State officials the authority to do this.
It captures innovation through increased accountability with local
control. Those concepts are terribly important to the Republicans.
We started negotiating with all 50 States to agree to more
flexibility if they guarantee high accountability. But, in the
negotiations, it went from 50 States to 40, to 30, to 20, to 10 and now
we are down to 7 States. Indeed, we had 9 categorical programs with
title 1 funds. We started with many more. But after negotiations with
the White House, Democrats and Republicans, we narrowed it down 9
programs which made sense to be a part of this consolidation as we go
forward.
Clearly, President Bush feels strongly about flexibility and local
control. It is part of his larger agenda. And so much of the underlying
bill itself has moved away from the flexibility that I and many others
had hoped would be in this bill. This is the only thing left in this
overall education bill that really captures high accountability,
maximum flexibility, and local control.
It is important for our colleagues to understand that negotiations
and compromise brought us to the point where we agreed in a bipartisan
way to narrow the scope of this program from 50 to 7 States. We also
included fewer categorical programs to raise the academic standards. It
was a bipartisan compromise. Therefore, I have to mention that if this
amendment passes, it will strip away the heart and soul of Straight
A's, which is in the underlying bill. In fact, it jeopardizes the
entire education bill.
Let me elaborate on flexibility. Seven States will participate. They
can still have the Safe School Programs, but they will make that
decision for themselves. We allow for diversity at the local level. One
district might take a lot of steps toward an afterschool program. In
another district, they may already have an afterschool program funded
in some other way. They may want to use those funds for more teachers
or improving technology or for more computers in classrooms. All of
these initiatives can improve education, but only the local schools
know which programs will most effectively improve education. Again,
this can only be done when they are given maximum flexibility and local
control.
What does the Dodd amendment do? It destroys the program. The Dodd
amendment destroys the pilot program because it takes away from the
overall funding that is available. If a State is accepted into the
program, the Dodd amendment takes away about 40 percent of that
funding, leaving only about 60 percent of the funding for flexibility
programs.
We know, based on the negotiations with States and districts, that if
the Straight A's program only provided the little amount of funding
which the Dodd amendment allows for, it wouldn't be worthwhile for a
State or a district to participate.
This amendment takes 40 percent of the funding out of a very
important program that we negotiated through compromise. We simply
cannot strip more out of it because nobody will take advantage of it.
It destroys Straight A's. It destroys what is left in the education
bill that we feel strongly about, and that the President of the United
States feels strongly about. It is one of the few things left in the
bill that captures innovation, captures creativity, and focuses on
local decisionmaking coupled with high standards of accountability.
There were several questions that the Senator from Connecticut
brought up. I will go through them again.
He mentioned the pilot program which requires a review of the State's
performance. If a State fails to meet what is agreed to in terms of the
average yearly program for 2 years, or if the State fails to exceed the
average yearly process for 3 years, the agreement is terminated right
then.
He mentioned that the Straight A's program will eliminate all of the
categorically targeted programs. It does not eliminate all of them. I
think as we observe which programs local schools choose, we will
understand which programs are most effective and more frequently
implemented, but it doesn't eliminate all of them.
I started with 50 States. That is where we were. That is what our
Republican caucus wants. We don't want to impose the program on any
State, but if a State wants more flexibility in exchange for higher
standards, they should be able to choose this path. We whittled it down
from 50 to 7 states, but we just can't take away anymore and still have
an effective program. I hope as many States as possible will take
advantage of this program.
The Senator from Connecticut made a point about losing local control.
This is an important principle because larger principle behind this
program is: local people can make better decisions. They will make
better decisions, if they are held accountable to improve education.
That is what this elementary and secondary education bill is all
about--reauthorization of education for those children. Local districts
get the same amount of funds, but they decide what their priorities
are. This includes afterschool programs; we are not taking that away.
They get the exact same amount of money. But they can decide where to
spend the funds. Maybe in rural Tennessee all of the kids are out
playing football in the afternoon and don't need an afterschool
program.
Under our plan, they can take that same amount of money and put it in
tutoring for those students who are not doing as well academically.
Today, they don't have that flexibility. The

[[Page 10596]]

money has to go straight into the 21st century afterschool program
whether they want it to or not.
The Senator from Connecticut said the programs would eliminate
afterschool programs. We don't eliminate them. We believe that local
districts should use that money for afterschool programs, if they like,
or for teachers, or for technology, or for tutoring, or for textbooks.
Are there strings attached? Absolutely. This is not a block grant
program where they can take the money and use it however they want.
Again, this is not a block grant.
That is why, again, it came from the negotiations. We put the
standards pretty high in the underlying bill--but raised them even
higher for the straight A's program. These are the highest standards
anywhere in the bill. If a district participates, they will operate
under higher standards, or they will not qualify to continue to
participate in the program.
We do not eliminate all categorical grant programs. For example, we
didn't touch the reading program. We didn't touch homeless or Indian or
emigrants or vocational education. Are all categorical grant programs
within bipartisan negotiations? Yes, it was narrowed down 17 to 9.
I will close. Again, I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut
allowing me the opportunity to respond to some of the points he made. I
appreciate the support of my colleagues on this bill. I hope to be able
to speak a little bit later this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by my friend
from Tennessee.
I am unclear--I don't expect this to be resolved in this amendment--
as to how long these actual block grant applications will be in
existence. It is unclear in the bill. That is why I said it could be 7.
It could be 14. It could be 21 States, if the grants are for shorter
periods of time. That is an open-ended question.
But the important point I want to make and the distinction here is
that the decisions within the State are not made locally. That is a big
difference. They are made by the State education authority, or the
Governor. We had that debate the other day as to who would dominate in
that discussion.
But the idea that the local town or some community in Delaware or
Connecticut can make the decision about an afterschool program is not
the case. I wish it were. That decision, and whether or not you are
going to get any afterschool programs, will be made by a higher
authority. They are the ones who will make that decision.
Under the existing program, the town or the county can apply, and
they can receive it or not. But it is a local decision. If you have
football programs locally and you don't need it, you don't apply for
it. There are many communities who need the help, so they apply
directly. Some are not communities, they are community-based
organizations, which are expanding tremendously. That is why YMCAs and
other organizations, even some that involve churches and synagogues,
are allowed to apply here, which does not mean the State has to make
that decision.
So all I am saying under the Straight A's Program is, just on those
afterschool programs, leave it to the local communities to decide
whether or not they think afterschool programs are worthwhile. I do not
believe that is that great a difficulty.
By the way, on the percentages taken out--this has been said over and
over again--I asked the Congressional Research Service to give me their
financial interpretation of what my afterschool program would mean in
the context of the Straight A's Program. If you exclude title I, yes,
my colleague from Tennessee is right, it is 40 percent. But I do not
think you can pick and choose here.
Under all of the Straight A's Programs, the afterschool program
amounts to 5.7 percent. That leaves roughly 94 percent of the dollars
under Straight A's that is still there to do all the other things for
academic performance.
So if you are going to define Straight A's as eliminating all non-
title I funds, of course you get a higher percentage. But that is not
what this is. Under Straight A's, it the entire pot of money, it is 5.7
percent, not 40 percent or 50 percent, as has been argued by some. So I
make those two points particularly.
The rest, as my colleague has said very candidly, would like to have
all 50 States under this, with no strings attached, to just go out and
do what they want to do. That is why there is an Elementary and
Secondary Education Act.
Why did the Federal Government, 36 years ago, pass this law? It
passed the law because there was a growing concern that the neediest of
children in the United States--28 million of them who grow up in
poverty, and 12 million working families in poverty, and others--that
there was a need to step in and try to do more to see to it that the
neediest children would be served. That is why there is a Federal
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, because there was a concern
across the country that these neediest kids' needs were not being met.
Over the years, we have contributed about 6 cents. It has gone up
from 4 cents to 6 cents of an education dollar; that is, 94 cents comes
from the State and local property taxpayers, and 4 cents or 5 cents or
6 cents of the education dollar comes from the Federal Government.
So what we are trying to do in that 6 cents is just to make sure that
in certain areas the neediest of our children are going to get served,
not that we have a right to guarantee anyone's success. We do not.
There is no obligation to say to Americans: You ought to count on your
Government guaranteeing you success. That is out. What we try to do--
all people at all levels in our society--is to create equal opportunity
for people. That is the beauty of America. That has been such an
attraction to people all over the globe and why people every morning
get up around the world and line up around U.S. Embassies to try to
come here, either as citizens or as green card holders.
There are a lot of reasons why they come, but I think the most
important one is that this is a place of equal opportunity. We are not
perfect. We have not arrived at perfection, but we try very hard to see
to it that, regardless of where you come from, if you are a citizen of
this country, regardless of ethnicity or background or religion, you
have an equal opportunity to succeed. That is America. There is no
guarantee of success, but an equal opportunity to succeed.
That is what this is all about. That is the beauty of America, more
so than our wonderful natural landscape or the economic wealth of our
country. As important as those things are, I have always believed that
the great beauty of America, the great magic of it, is this notion of
equal opportunity.
How equal can the opportunity be if your education isn't equal? I
have told the story in this Chamber, when my great grandmother came to
America, at age 14 or 15, with her husband--Thomas and Catherine
Murphy--from the west coast of Ireland, she could not read or write.
That was not uncommon for immigrants in the 19th century and early part
of the 20th century. The first thing she did was she got herself
elected to the Voluntown, CT, school board. She understood that
education was going to be the key for the nine children she was about
to have--my grandfather being the ninth--and that was the way you were
going to get ahead. No guarantee of it, but if you had a decent
education, you had an opportunity to get ahead.
We are at the beginning of the 21st century, not at the end of the
19th century, and I happen to believe that principle my great
grandmother intuitively applied to her own family. It is something we
ought to apply to all families. At least give people a good education
in this country, a good starting block--that is what this is really all
about--and see to it that kids can be safe.
As you can see from the chart, when you have between 7 million and 11
million children home alone--if you take 5-, 6-, and 7-year-olds, and
you have 9 percent of 5-, 6-, and 7-year-olds alone

[[Page 10597]]

for hours after school, and you have
10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds, where about 60 percent of those kids are
home alone, you have a problem on your hands. You do not need a Ph.D.
in child psychology to tell you that.
You ask any parent who is working what they worry about at 2 or 3
o'clock in the afternoon. Sometimes in rural communities--not so much
today with cellular phones, but before the arrival of cellular phones,
it was sometimes hard to get a call through because parents who were
working were calling their houses at 2:30, 3, 3:30 to see whether or
not their child was home safely.
There isn't a parent in America who does not worry about where their
kids are when school lets out. That is why there are almost 3,000
applications for afterschool programs. That is why 1,000 police chiefs
have begged us to adopt this amendment. Because they understand it as
the most important issue when it comes to preventing crime and juvenile
problems, and kids who become victims.
This isn't about liberals and conservatives, Republicans and
Democrats. That is not what this is about. You go ahead and ask these
people. Ask the YMCAs what party they belong to. Ask those 1,000 police
chiefs what party they belong to. Ask crime survivors, are you a
Democrat or Republican? That is not what they said in the letter. They
said: We are people who know what we are talking about, and we think
afterschool programs make sense.
Academic achievement is important. I have said I would support this
pilot program. I have my concerns about it. I am not the first to admit
that. But I am willing to try it, provided there is adequate funding. I
doubt the funding may be there, but if the funding is there, let's try
this over the next 7 years. If your child ends up in one these States
and is a guinea pig for the next 7 years, that may be another matter.
But that is not the case. So we will try the pilot program.
But why would you throw afterschool programs into the guinea pig area
when we know it works? When every community in the country will tell
you they need it? When you have people who have dedicated their lives
to this, who understand it, why are you going to throw this into that
situation where some State authority is going to decide whether some
rural county or some urban community ought to have some money for after
school? That is what this bill does. You take away local authority when
it comes to applying for the grant applications. They have no authority
to apply for them. It will be a decision made at the State level.
The local authority is gone. So that local YMCA, that local Boys Club
or Girls Club out there, they will not have the right to apply to the
Department of Education to ask for an afterschool program and
assistance. They are going to have to rely on someone in their State
capital to decide whether it is OK.
I say to the Presiding Officer, as a former Governor, you understand
as well as anyone how difficult that can be. We all know it. It is hard
to work the different battles that go on, and so forth. Sometimes it
isn't just how this works. For the 3,000 who apply and the 300 who get
some help--if you want to help them, increase the funding for it
instead of throwing it into a block grant where it is a jump ball over
whether or not this program is going to be funded.
We heard my colleague from Tennessee say this is a great program, the
21st Century Community Learning Centers. Everybody who stands up says
this is a great program. Then why are you throwing it into a roulette
wheel for the next 7 years to see whether or not communities might get
some help? If it is such a great program, if the communities are
telling us it is a great program--and I will repeat what I said at the
outset, there has never been a grant program that has been sought after
as widely in the history of the Department of Education as the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers. We are about to take it and dump it
into a Las Vegas environment where you are shooting craps on whether or
not you may end up with a good afterschool program, despite the fact
every organization you can think of that works in this area is asking
us to do otherwise.
I am not suggesting that Straight A's eliminates all categorical
programs. I realize that. There was some negotiation that went on, and
so some made it, some didn't. I accept that. That is politics. That is
how it works. Don't try to convince me it was done on the merits. It
was done on who could get in the room, who couldn't, what deal was
going on. Afterschool got left out. That is all.
I am here today to say: Look this does not directly relate to
academic performance. It has some impact. As we heard, kids who are in
afterschool programs do better academically. Those who are not do
worse. A lot of other things happen to them.
Academic performance is very important. I don't question that at all.
But it is not the most important or the only thing. There are other
things that are important as well.
A kid's safety is important. Ask a parent whether or not they think
their child is safe after school has any value or any importance. I
think we know the answer. If you ask them if academic performance is
important, of course, they will say it is. But they don't believe you
ought to make it a choice between academic performance and a kid being
unsafe.
I am suggesting we can do both. You can test academic performance
through this pilot program, but you can also, as part of the Federal
Government's commitment to education, provide some small resources to
community-based organizations that desire them. It is their decision to
apply. I am not dumping the money out to them. They have to apply. They
have about a 1 in 10 chance of getting it, even if they do apply. Of
the 3,000 that apply, 300 make it. So even if you have a strong desire
for one, under present funding levels, you have a very small chance of
getting it. But why eliminate any chance at all or leave it to the
whims of what happens at the State level where a lot of other issues
are going to be in play?
I apologize for getting wound up. Obviously, I care about this. I see
my colleagues from New Jersey and Rhode Island here. I also see my
colleague from Arkansas who I presume wants to be heard on this. I will
yield some time to my two colleagues if they are interested.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has consumed 31
minutes; 29 minutes remain. The opposition side has 45 minutes
remaining.
Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Rhode Island, and
then I will go to my colleague from Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Senator from
Connecticut for his amendment and for his passion. He is exactly right.
He is focusing on a very important program, the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers.
I speak not theoretically but from experience. About 2 weeks ago I
went to Central Falls, RI, the poorest community in my State, a
community so poor that the school system has been taken over by the
State of Rhode Island. I was there because they were announcing the
opening of a support center that would integrate all the services
necessary today to effectively deal with the education of a child. It
was located right next to one of the elementary schools. It would be
open to parents and provide the resources and services necessary,
health care services, screening services.
This initiative was sponsored by the United Way of Rhode Island. The
good news, it is spreading from Central Falls to other communities in
Rhode Island, starting next with Providence, our biggest city. At the
core of this initiative: A grant for the 21st century learning program
from Federal education. This grant helped the United Way move forward
and provided additional momentum, the thrust to go forward with this.
That is an example of how this program has materially affected the
education of students in Rhode Island.

[[Page 10598]]

Central Falls is the poorest community, heavily Latino, with new
Americans coming in. It needs all sorts of services that you don't
typically find the extra dollars in the budget to deal with. And the
21st century grant provided the additional necessary resources. That is
an example of how we can make a real difference.
This 21st century learning program has made that real difference. The
Senator from Connecticut is so right, we are sacrificing this ability
to go ahead and make these critical differences, inspiring local
participation of the United Way, combined activities, doing what we all
say we want to do--bring the whole community into the education of
children.
The risk of a block grant is that these priorities will fall by the
wayside. A school district that is faced with paying salaries, fixing
buildings, everything else, will say: I would love to do this. This is
exactly what we have to do, but we don't have the resources to do it.
I commend the Senator.
Let me suggest two other areas with respect to the Straight A's
program that I think are very important. First, the program is being
presented as a pilot program. The reality is, if you do the
mathematics, and if you take seven States, such as California, Texas,
New York, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and then you take
the 25 largest school districts outside of those states, Straight A's
could potentially apply to about 51 percent of the students in the
country. That is a rather significant amount of children subject to
this pilot program. We have to be very clear that this program could be
far from a pilot, that within a year or so we could see 51 percent of
the students of America subject to this block grant program, magnifying
all of the concerns expressed by Senator Dodd of Connecticut and
others.
Let's be very clear, this is a pilot, but the pilot is flying a
stealth aircraft. We could find ourselves not with a pilot program to
evaluate, but in the midst of a widespread, significant change in
public policy in the United States.
I originally filed amendment No. 537 to try to truly restrict this to
a pilot program, but I think, because of many factors, this is a
discussion that will probably take place in conference, as the House
version comes over without the widespread application that is
potentially in this bill.
One other point about Straight A's: I have been insistent on getting
parental involvement in this legislation. With the cooperation of
Senator Gregg and Senator Hutchinson and everyone on the committee, we
have made real strides. But unfortunately, some of those parental
involvement protections would not have to be followed in Straight A's
states and districts. I filed amendment No. 399 to ensure that those
other parental involvement requirements of S. 1 would have to be
followed, such as various provisions of section 1118, and other
provisions throughout S. 1 which require parental involvement,
including teacher quality and safe and drug free schools. I would hate
to see the parental involvement provisions go by the wayside because of
a block grant approach. I don't want to get involved in an extended
debate over each of the parental involvement provisions right now, and
will not offer this amendment, but will continue to address these
issues as S. 1 moves to Conference.
Let me return to the issue at hand and conclude. Senator Dodd's
amendment is well placed, well stated. This is about practical
improvement of schools. I have seen this improvement in Rhode Island.
We will lose it if we go to a block grant. If you ask yourself what is
wrong with American education, one of the things that has been wrong is
that the governance of education for too many years has ignored
problems that have festered--poor professional development, poor
infrastructure, many things such as that. Who are these people? They
are the Governors, the school committees, and the Congress. But what we
propose to do in a block grant is to reinforce this lack of
performance, this turning over of the keys and keep doing what you are
doing.
I suggest there is a middle ground between a block grant program and
micromanagement. One example of how that works successfully is the 21st
century learning centers. I hope we can maintain that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired. So far
Senator Dodd and those speaking in favor of the amendment have consumed
37 minutes; 23 minutes remain. Those in opposition have consumed 15
minutes; 45 minutes remain. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might
consume in opposition to the Dodd amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as we hear the debate on removing the
21st century program from the Straight A's demonstration project, I am
reminded very much of the fierce debate that occurred in the early and
mid-1990s over welfare reform. I was in the House at the time and there
were those of us who believed that the great reforms that were taking
place in welfare were occurring at the State level--there were a number
of Governors around the country who were in the forefront of reforming,
and the Presiding Officer was one of those Governors--and that the best
thing we could do on the Federal level after a generation of trying to
micromanage welfare, and having done a miserable job at it and, in
fact, having seen welfare dependence only increase in our country, many
of us believed, on a bipartisan basis, that the best possible thing we
could do was to give the States broad new flexibility in the reforms
they would enact at the State level.
There was a fierce debate over whether that was a good direction in
which to go. The opponents continually raised the issue that you can't
really trust the States and we dare not give them that kind of
flexibility; if we give them that flexibility, they will misuse it and
they will abuse the poor and they will not take care of the most
vulnerable in our society. And there was the hue and cry about block
granting being the great evil; that only those of us in Washington knew
how to care for those who were in need. Many campaigns were run on the
issue of how callous and heartless it was to pass welfare reform.
Well, history demonstrated that that was one of the greatest things
we could do for the working poor and for the welfare-dependent in this
country--the welfare reform that Congress passed and President Clinton
ultimately signed into law. As a result, welfare rolls nationwide have
fallen. Tens of thousands have gone from a life of dependence to a life
of productive work and have begun to realize and to live out the
American dream.
As we bring forth a very small demonstration program that has been
compromised and compromised, whittled and whittled, until it is but a
shadow of its former self, we hear the same arguments raised against
this small demonstration program that we heard against welfare reform
years ago. I know there are differences, but there are a lot of
similarities; the argument is basically the same: You can't trust that
the States are going to do the right thing. Never mind that they are
elected by the same people who elected us. It doesn't matter that they
are accountable to the same constituents to whom we are accountable. We
can't trust them. Only we can ensure that these programs are conducted
in the right way.
There have been good faith negotiations that went on, bipartisan
negotiations, about a bill and about a program--the Straight A's--that
at least there could be a little effort, a little opportunity for
States--no State would be compelled to--and for 25 school districts--
but no school district would be compelled--to enter into not a block
grant in the purest sense but a program in which they would be given
greater flexibility than ever before in exchange for a very tight
commitment on performance improvement.

[[Page 10599]]

But if a State is going to make that kind of commitment, there has to
be some incentive. And the more we pull out of the Straight A's
demonstration program, the less incentive there is. I think most who
have looked at what is left of Straight A's would agree that if the
Dodd amendment passes, there will be little if any incentive. There
will not be a Straight A's. This will destroy it, take out the very
heart of it, and there will not be one State or one school district
that would see it worthwhile to make the kind of commitments required
under Straight A's for the limited flexibility that would remain.
Let me just say, as we think about where this program has gone, the
President campaigned on this and he called it charter States. He saw it
as a national program. He wanted to make it an opportunity for all
States. This is where we are now. We have gone from 50 States and
14,000 school districts to a demonstration project for 7 States and 25
school districts. For those who would argue that we have not given, not
compromised, I say we have compromised to the point that there is
nothing left if this amendment passes. So we have gone from a national
program of 50 States to 7 States and 25 school districts.
Additionally, there must be geographic distribution if more than that
number applies. We have gone from no targeting of Federal dollars to
maintaining the title I targeting to schools unless an alternative
method better targets. We have made that compromise from the original
program. We have gone from no limitations on non-title I dollars to
providing that non-title I must target as well--additional targeting.
That is a compromise that the authors of this legislation have made in
the course of the negotiations. We have agreed to take out reading--a
$1 billion program--from the list of eligible programs.
We also agreed to take out the following programs in the
negotiations, as the Senator from Connecticut well knows. We agreed to
remove the migrant program, the homeless program, the immigrant
program, and the Indian program. We have agreed to maintenance of
effort language--another compromise made from the original proposal
that the President ran on and that so many of us believe in and have
sought. We have agreed to restrict the amendment process so SEAs or
LEAs cannot game the process. We have agreed to allow an LEA to opt out
of the performance agreement upon permission from the SEA. We have
agreed to require parental involvement to be required in the
performance agreement. That is something that Senator Reid sought as a
concession in the process of negotiations that were made. We have
agreed to requiring parental participation and that it be reported. We
have agreed to prevent a State from becoming a charter State if an LEA
becomes one until the end of the term of the LEA performance agreement.
We agreed to make the sections of title I apply, and there are six
different sections that we agreed to make apply. None of those sections
were originally applied to Straight A's. We have agreed to include
teacher quality and bilingual education goals as part of the
performance agreements--another concession and compromise made. We have
agreed to strict private school equitable participation language. We
have tightened the approval requirements for the performance agreements
so it will be subject to peer review and based on quality, not first
come/first served as was done with the Ed-Flex legislation. We have
tightened the amendment procedure for amendments to performance
agreements. We have agreed that a State or district may not get an Ed-
Flex waiver for any program it consolidates under the performance
agreement.
On and on goes the list of concessions that have been made, in trying
to preserve an important part of this education legislation. And now
the last remnant is sought to be pulled out as well. Basically, when we
vote on this amendment, the question is: Do we want to have a Straight
A's demonstration program or not? To vote for the Dodd amendment is to
say we should not have this at all. If that is the position, it is
honest, but let's just say that not just whittle it down until there is
nothing but a few fragments of sawdust left of what was a concept and
an idea that had great merit. So we are clinging to that which is left,
after all of the concessions that have been made.
To pull this program will pull so much of the remaining funding
resources in the Straight A's demonstration program that there will be
virtually no incentive for school districts or for States to
participate. It will be but a figleaf. It will be that we can say,
well, it is in the bill, but what is there isn't--we really would not
even get an idea of whether it was a workable concept in the first
place if this much is pulled out.
I plead with my colleagues. I don't question the sincerity of those
who are devoted to this. There are devotees to every program in
Straight A's. I am certain that there are worthwhile qualities to most
of those programs. But if the concept is we consolidate spending
streams, provide flexibility to the States and local school districts,
in exchange for a guarantee that they are going to increase
performance, then we must set aside those very parochial, programmatic
loyalties to say at least in these few States and few school districts
we will give them the opportunity to experiment and see if they have a
better way.
I ask my colleagues to defeat the Dodd amendment, to preserve what is
left of the Straight A's Program in this demonstration, and allow those
few States and those few school districts that will be given an
opportunity under the language in the bill to have a chance, given the
new flexibility they will have, to demonstrate that the reforms and the
leadership they can provide at the local level will, in fact, reward
the children. That is where our great interest should be, not in
preserving a program but in doing what is best for the children.
I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New
Jersey, Mr. Torricelli.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding the
time.
I believe these have been a very productive few weeks in the Senate.
I am very proud of the institution and how, on a bipartisan basis, it
has put differences aside and found common ground in dealing with the
educational problems of our country.
In adopting the Dodd amendment on title I, for the first time we are
guaranteeing that poor school districts will receive 100 percent of
their title I funding. What a remarkable statement by this institution.
Currently, there are districts in our country that are receiving a
third or a quarter of that to which they are entitled, imposing an
enormous burden on local school districts.
We adopted the Harkin amendment to meet our Federal commitment to
special education by guaranteeing $181 billion over the next 10 years.
In 1975, when IDEA was created, the Federal Government promised to pay
40 percent of the special education needs. Last year, it paid 13
percent.
These are two remarkable positions by this institution in which every
Senator should take great pride.
Blocking school voucher amendments stated our commitment to the
public school system on an uncompromised basis. In fact, we will be
funding reading programs at the $900 million level next year and voted
to authorize $3 billion for professional development programs.
All of these things, including the President's proposal for
accountability and testing and those programs Democrats have supported
for a long time, enhance the quality of performance and teaching.
With this amendment, Senator Dodd takes us into a new area, not
simply accountability, not only instruction,

[[Page 10600]]

but the lives of the students themselves, recognizing that education
involves all of these aspects of a student's life, including the
quality of their lives and what they do after school, recognizing it is
all part of preparing a student for life.
That is why I support the Dodd amendment. That is why I believe this
is not a matter of discretion for some people who believe they should
do it or should not do it. This is a national commitment to recognize
that education is a part of the entire student day. It may be a
Governor's responsibility. It may be a local school board's
responsibility. It is also our responsibility. This makes sense.
I know something about this subject. In the 1950s, it was unusual for
a young woman to work outside the home. In the community in which I
lived in suburban New Jersey, I believe I may have been the only
student who came home after school to an empty home, not simply because
my mother chose to work but because she had to work. I remember those
hours. School let out at 2:30 p.m. or 3 p.m. My mother and father would
work until 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m., and for 3 and 4 hours sometimes I would
sit in my home alone.
My community was without some of the temptations of modern life. I
encountered few problems, but I remember that stage of life. That is
why when police chiefs were asked, as Senator Dodd has demonstrated,
what would you do to deal with school violence, the problems of
students, 69 percent said exactly what Senator Dodd is doing:
Afterschool programs.
We have done every one of these other things. Metal detectors in
schools: We did that and should do that. One percent of police chiefs
said that was the answer.
Hire more police officers: We did that for years and we should. That
is 13 percent.
Try juveniles as adults: Many of our States have done that. The
Federal Government is doing that. That is 17 percent.
The Senator from Arkansas said: Why don't we listen to those of our
constituents at other levels of government who have more experience?
Exactly, I say to the Senator.
Look at Senator Dodd's chart. Of the police chiefs involved in this
every day, 69 percent of them said afterschool programs. That is what
we are doing, and it is the right money in the right place.
What may have been unusual in my suburban community in New Jersey is
now common to millions of Americans. Twenty-eight million school age
children have parents who work outside the home.
Maybe I was the only child in my town, but 15 million American
children in the afternoon now return to an empty home, and my
colleagues know what that means. Juvenile crime peaks between the hours
of 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. All of those police officers looking in the middle
of the night for kids who are committing crimes, causing problems, are
looking at the wrong time. That is not the problem. It is after school:
No parents, no teachers, no supervision, no options. Senator Dodd is
offering the option.
Violent crime: The greatest risk to our children being hurt
themselves is not in school. We are putting in metal detectors and
police officers. But it is after school: No options, no supervision.
Senator Dodd has the answer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield me an additional 3 minutes?
Mr. DODD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, a few weeks ago we adopted the Boxer
amendment to authorize $2 billion for afterschool programs, but under
the current bill States can opt out of providing afterschool care for
those who need it. This is not something on which people should opt
out, not recognize the problem. It is not a local problem; it is a
national problem.
There is not a study I have ever seen where it is not clear that not
only is this the source of juvenile violence, it is the principal time
of the day and the time in life when young people experiment with
narcotics. It is a principal reason and a problem for teenage
pregnancy.
Many things in America change. Some do not. Young people without
supervision and time on their hands are mischievous, are led to
temptations and wrong influences. This, I say to my colleagues, is an
opportunity to address the problem, and the evidence could not be more
overwhelming. A national study of five housing projects with
afterschool programs and five without shows us the difference. Those
without had 50 percent more vandalism and 30 percent more drug activity
than those with afterschool programs.
This Senate has met its responsibility with IDEA. We have taken a
stand on special education. We are putting resources into reading. We
have answered the President's call for accountability and testing. We
have resisted abandonment of the public schools on school vouchers.
Every Member of the Senate can be proud of this education bill.
Senator Dodd now writes the last word, and what we did during the
school day we now provide for afterschool programs. I am proud of his
amendment, proud of Senator Dodd, and I urge my colleagues on a
bipartisan basis to support his amendment.
I yield the floor. I thank the Senator for the time.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, before he leaves, let me thank my
colleague from New Jersey. He always brings a new level of eloquence to
any debate in which he is involved. While we all from time to time
bring our own natural experiences to these discussions and debate, his
discussion of growing up in New Jersey in the home where both his
parents worked is certainly a poignant remainder of what happens today
with a lot of children throughout America.
There are 28 million children in 12 million families struggling to
make ends meet, and of that number a staggering number of these kids
are home alone, or if not home, someplace else unsupervised. For those
reasons, over 1,000 chiefs of police have written and beseeched in the
strongest language one can imagine that this amendment be adopted,
along with the 2,500 YMCAs across the country, an organization that has
the longest record in history in providing afterschool programs.
I underscore they did a survey on their own and the Senator from New
Jersey pointed it out, but I repeat it because their findings
corroborate what the Senator from New Jersey pointed out. Among the
findings, the survey showed that young people who do not participate in
afterschool programs are five times more likely to be D students. So
there is an academic relationship here. They are twice as likely to get
into a fight at school and are far more likely to miss school than
young people engaged in stimulating, productive activities in
afterschool hours.
Every study and survey we have seen shows this. That is why the
chiefs of police, who work with this problem every day, want this. If
you want to know what local people think, obviously, afterschool is
desired.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I yield.
Mr. TORRICELLI. As we debate this issue, we understand the forces in
education that will fight for more money for special education. And
they should. I understand the constituency that wants school
construction. I support that.
My concern is there is not a constituency, other than us,
representing the interests of law enforcement and our own experience
with these children who are fighting for money to deal with this
violence and afterschool activities. Senators, on a well-reasoned
basis, come to the floor and say, make this all discretionary; throw it
into a pot and let the States do what they want. But, I don't know who
is coming to Trenton, to my State capital, to fight for afterschool
programs.
I know the people who want construction. I know the people who want
more teachers. I support them. But I don't know who is going there
representing the mothers and the fathers who are not home in the
afternoon or the police chiefs who are concerned about drug use or
teenage pregnancy.

[[Page 10601]]

They only have us. That is why I am not for taking away anyone's
discretion. I believe in the judgment of the State and local
governments, but this is an instance where the Congress has to
compensate for the fact that we know from experience, we have looked at
the empirical data, and we have heard from the police chiefs, and we
know what is happening with the students on their performance when they
don't have afterschool programs. We know what happens with teenage
pregnancy and drug use. We know the evidence. This is a case where our
judgment is required. That is why I think the amendment is so
worthwhile.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for those comments.
I have heard this repeatedly over this debate in the last hour, that
if this amendment is adopted, this destroys the straight A's program.
This amounts to 5.7 percent, according to the Congressional Research
Service, of the funding in the pilot Straight A's Program, title I,
non-title I funds under that title I program. Not 40 percent. To say
you cannot fund the block grant program with 94 percent of the money
does not make any sense to me. Rather than stripping the program, we
are taking the pilot program and setting aside afterschool in that
pilot program.
As we said earlier, we are talking about a program that includes 7
States and 25 districts. It could be more than 7 States over the 7
years of this entire bill. We don't debate this bill again for 7 years.
Obviously, for children who are starting elementary school, they will
have completed elementary school by the time we come back and revisit
the issue. To say in a pilot program we will block grant everything
made at the State level, and if a local school district wants to apply
for funds for afterschool, they will depend upon a State educational
authority or a Governor to say, yes or no, is totally up to the
discretion of the State authority. There is no review process at all.
They can apply, and for whatever reason, they can say no.
Afterschool programs are the most highly sought after grants in the
history of the Department of Education. This year alone there were
almost 3,000 applications. They are going up each year. We only grant
300. There is only 1 chance in 10 of getting your grant approved. They
are so popular because local community-based organizations see the
value.
I am saying, keep the Straight A's Program. We will have the pilot
program for the block grants. It will be there for the 7 States and 25
districts--or maybe more--to try over the next 7 years. Don't make
afterschool become a jump ball in that regard.
What Straight A's is about is academic performance, trying to get
better scores in math and reading. I don't argue that afterschool has
some relationship to academic performance, whether or not kids are in
trouble or not in trouble. This is primarily a safety issue. It is
primarily a crime issue, as the chiefs of police have pointed out in
overwhelming numbers when they look at the difficulties kids get into
and the time of day the difficulties occur. They state with
overwhelming numbers it is between 3 in the afternoon and 6 or 7 at
night.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield. My colleague is a great champion for
afterschool programs and has an amendment adopted, a sense of the
Senate, saying we ought to do this.
Mrs. BOXER. In fact, I decided not to do the sense of the Senate. We
did the real thing. This Senate voted with about 60 votes to increase
the funding for afterschool. We actually did a real amendment, not just
a sense of the Senate, and for the first time in history this Senate
actually voted to increase the funding.
The reason I asked my friend to yield, if he would be willing to give
me a minute of his time, I will pose a question. It has been a
struggle, as he knows, because he has led the fight. When I came here,
I joined him in this fight. We knew it did not take rocket science to
understand that our kids are getting into trouble after school. We now
have the exact percentages. That is why the police all over the
country, as was pointed out, support this. We know it does help kids
with their academic performance, although that is not the main reason
we have afterschool. We know, as has been pointed out, there is an
overwhelming number of applications for these grants.
Now, finally, under President Clinton, we have seen this program go
from $10 million to $600 million; and now with the amendment my friend
helped me with, it is over $1 billion, and we will be able to help
millions of kids.
My question is, On the one hand, how can we vote to support real
funding for this program and then turn around and vote to take it away
and put it into some nebulous experiment which may turn out to be
great--I have my problems with it--or may not?
By the way, John Ensign, a Republican from Nevada, my primary
cosponsor, told a moving story about how he used to get in trouble as a
kid. He had no place to go. He had a single mom.
We take this stand, make a wonderful statement, and put real dollars
behind it. Is it not the case we turn around and pull some of that
money out; and isn't that just a contradiction in how we feel about
afterschool?
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for raising the point. It is a very
good point she raised.
Before my friend from California arrived, we heard our good friend
from Tennessee talk about how much he supports, as most Members do, the
21st Century Learning Centers. Senator Jeffords of Vermont is the
principal author. I joined him with that several years ago. This is an
overwhelmingly popular program at a local level. Now grant applications
are made at a local level for funds which leverage, by the way, United
Way, funds for nonprofits, churches and so forth. Without this seed
money and what we do in the grants, it is difficult to get the other
organizations to support it.
Now for those 7 States and 25 school districts, which, by the way, I
happen to believe are probably going to comprise a significant
percentage of the 50 million kids who go to school each day, if you
take the 7 most populous States and 25 school districts, I can get you
to over 50 percent of the student population of the country. I presume
every State is going to apply because what Governor--and I am looking
at our Presiding Officer, who knows more about Governors, I suppose,
than either my good friend from California or I do--when States get a
chance to get Federal money with no strings attached would not take
that deal. I presume every State will apply.
The Secretary of Education wants to get the maximum number of
students under this pilot program. Obviously, they will choose one of
the largest States and largest school districts, which means for the
next 7 years we will take a significant percentage of kids into a pilot
program, a demonstration program, and we will say that afterschool is
part of that. We are not going to provide a separate pot of resources
for which localities can apply.
We are going to say, no, now as a locality if you are within those 7
States or 25 districts, you have to go up to the State education
authority or the Governor, whichever it is, and they may or may not
accept it. They can reject it out of hand. When you are competing for
scarce dollars in poor areas, in many cases, of course, where the
working poor live, how well do they do in that competition? The
Presiding Officer knows how difficult those decisions can be. Her late
husband was a great Governor of the State of Missouri. How difficult
those decisions may be.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. The Senator raises an important point. Now we have a
situation where, instead of being able to apply for these funds, these
local school districts--and I thought my colleagues on the other side
loved local control--now have to go through the States.
Am I correct, I ask my friend, this will take a piece off for
administration? In other words, if they decide to say to a local
district, OK, we will allow you to use some of this, they are going to
take some money off the top. This is inefficient.

[[Page 10602]]

I say to some colleagues who may be listening from their offices--
maybe a few are--if you are a fan of afterschool programs, if you think
they are important, if you think they are a silver bullet that we have
to keep our kids out of trouble, don't disrupt this program just when
it is starting to reach kids. You have not done it with Head Start. You
should not do it with afterschool.
Isn't this a point that should be considered that the State will pull
some money off the top for administration whereas under our normal
program the money goes straight to the local districts?
Mr. DODD. That is correct. Again, here it is not a question of sort
of dumping the money out there. Localities have to apply for it. You
have to ask for it. If you ask for it, there is only a small chance you
may actually get it.
I would like to see us put in more resources. As my colleague from
California points out, this program started as a $10 million program,
but because of local mayors and county executives, the YMCAs, the Boys
and Girls Clubs, the church-based organizations, the police, they said:
Look, this works so well, we went from $10 million to $600 million. We
are flattening that line out, and for 25 States and 7 districts we are
dumping it all out on a roulette wheel.
All I am saying is, in those pilot areas, carve this one out and let
the localities apply directly. It reduces the amount of money in the
pilot program by 5.7 percent. That is all.
Those are not my numbers, those are numbers determined by the
Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan organization that makes
those calculations.
So on the notion somehow that I am destroying the Straight A's
Program, I am destroying this delicately balanced coalition here, I
merely point out: I do not think 1,000 police chiefs, I don't think
2,500 YMCAs, I do not think Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs all across
America are in the business of destroying here.
I am looking at my good friend from Ohio over here, with whom I
drafted Safe and Drug Free Schools. He knows the numbers I put up; 70
percent of the police chiefs say this works. As the Senator from New
Jersey pointed out, we have done metal detectors, hiring more police,
trying juveniles as adults in some areas--that is controversial--but in
these 7 States and 25 districts we are reducing the number by 5.7
percent. That is not gutting Straight A's, that is just saying don't
deprive these local communities for the next 7 years of the opportunity
to do something that every community in this country believes has great
value.
Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
Mr. DODD. I have a lot of time here. I reserve those 30 seconds for
closing argument, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Madam President, let me talk for a moment, if I may,
about a part of the bill that is not very controversial but I think is
very significant. It is that part of the bill that Senator Dodd just
mentioned, and that is the drug-free school component of the bill.
Let me congratulate Senator Dodd. I really enjoyed working with him,
with his team, to get language in this bill that will really improve
the current Drug Free Schools Program. I believe we have done that. I
salute him for that very excellent work. I also thank Senator Murray
and Senator Grassley for their work on this language as well.
I think we all understand when we talk about our drug problem, we
have to have a coordinated, consistent, and a balanced approach. A
balanced approach means drug treatment, drug education, prevention. It
means international interdiction of drugs. It also means domestic law
enforcement. Those are the four basic components. We have to do them
all. We have to consistently do them all.
The drug-free schools provision in this bill and the money it
represents is really virtually the only thing the Federal Government
does in the area of education.
This bill authorizes $925 million which will go down to the local
school districts across this country. The current Drug Free Schools
Program is in virtually every school district in the country.
Interestingly and sadly, in many school districts it is the only money
that is being spent on drug education. So it is important to do what we
have done in this bill, and that is continue the program. But it is
also important to improve the program.
I had the opportunity, when I was in the House of Representatives
over a decade ago, to serve on the National Commission on Drug Free
Schools. We issued a report in 1990. We talked about how this program
needed to be improved. Some improvements have been made in the last
decade, but unfortunately not all the recommendations have been
followed.
What we do with the language in this bill is take that decade-old
report and, frankly, bring it to life, use some of the recommendations,
and improve the current law. One thing we determined at that time was
if antidrug efforts in our schools are to be effective at all, they
must be coordinated, they must be consistent, and they must be
community oriented. We recommended a number of things including the
following four items:
No. 1, every school district should develop and conduct drug
eradication and prevention programs for all students from kindergarten
through grade 12, every single year.
No. 2, parent and community groups should take a more active role in
developing and selecting drug prevention programs.
No. 3, the Department of Education should ensure that schools conduct
periodic evaluations of all drug education and prevention programs.
No. 4, Federal and State governments should fund only those education
and prevention program efforts that are likely to be effective. There
should be scientific data behind the decision to use a particular
program.
The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program that is contained in this bill
incorporates these recommendations. This program helps prevent our
children from ever becoming involved with drugs and supports efforts to
create violence-free learning environments.
The language we have written into the education bill that is before
us today further improves this program. It gives States greater
flexibility to target assistance to schools in need, and it increases
accountability measures to ensure that this assistance actually goes
towards programs that really work.
Furthermore, the language we have written in the bill would improve
coordination of Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs with other
community-based antidrug programs by requiring schools to work directly
with parents, with local law enforcement agencies, with local
government agencies, with faith-based organizations, and other
community groups in the development and implementation of antidrug and
violence strategies. That community coordination is absolutely
essential. It has, tragically and unfortunately, in the past, sometimes
been missing from local communities. This bill says we have to have
that coordination.
Drug abuse and violence against young people is a community problem,
a national problem. It requires a community-based solution. That is why
we need the entire community to be involved in the creation and in the
execution of programs to fight youth drug abuse and violence.
Our language would allow afterschool programs to apply for Safe and
Drug Free School grants as long as they meet the same standards as any
other applicant. If afterschool programs use research-based drug and
violence prevention programs, and if they prove they reduce drug and
violence in schools, then they will have fair access to Safe and Drug
Free School funding.
I really cannot talk about the Safe and Drug Free Schools Programs
without mentioning one of the most tough

[[Page 10603]]

and effective fighters against youth drug abuse and school violence,
and that is the first lady of my home State of Ohio, Hope Taft. Hope
Taft has dedicated years of her life to help make our schools safer and
drug free, and she was instrumental in the development of this language
that is in front of us today, language we have written into the
education bill. She is really the voice for community-based
organizations. I commend her for the great contribution she made to
this bill. Through her efforts, she has raised awareness of the dangers
of youth drug abuse and violence in our schools.
Let me also applaud President Bush for his support of this program.
During the campaign, President Bush promised to increase funding for
the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program by over $100 million over 5
years. I commend him for that commitment. It is truly the kind of
commitment we need to continue to improve this very vital program.
The Safe and Drug Free Schools program is a critical part of
restoring effectiveness and balance in our national drug policy. And
ultimately, if we don't restore effectiveness, more and more children
will use drugs, leading to greater levels of violence, criminal
activity, and delinquency. Unless we take action--unless we take the
necessary steps to reverse these disturbing trends--we will be
sacrificing today's youth and our country's future.
Quite frankly, children simply cannot learn when they are under the
influence of drugs or alcohol. Children cannot learn when they more
worried about their safety than their homework. Children cannot learn
when they are scared. That's why we must ensure that children and the
adults who work in our schools are safe--that they are free from drugs
and violence.
As we continue to debate education reforms in this nation, we need to
remember that improvements to our school buildings, increased
professional development efforts for our teachers and administrators,
and changes in education policies will not help our young people
realize their true potential as long as drugs and violence are in their
schools. It's that simple.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?
Mr. DeWINE. Yes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Ohio. He no
longer serves on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
But he did serve on it. I have enjoyed my work in the Senate over the
years, but never as much as I have enjoyed working with the Senator
from Ohio on a number of different issues, and this one in particular
which he just addressed, and that is the problem of substance abuse and
children.
We managed to put together a pretty good bill a few years ago on safe
and drug free schools, largely because of the efforts of the Senator
from Ohio. I commend him publicly for his present work and over the
years. He brings a lot of personal experience as well. He has a pretty
good size clan in his own right. I think it is almost a baseball team.
Mr. DeWINE. We are one short of a baseball team.
Mr. DODD. He brings a great deal of passion and understanding. So
much of what he is talking about bears directly on the subject matter
to which he has dedicated a good part of his service. I thank him for
it and look forward to working with him in the future.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague. Again, I compliment him for the
great deal of work he did. It was a great pleasure to work with him and
his staff. I think the language in the bill improves the current law
and is a significant improvement. I think it is going to make a
difference. I appreciate his great work.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, my time has about expired. I wonder if my
friend from New Hampshire will offer to yield me time, and I ask
unanimous consent that just prior to the vote, which I think is going
to occur around 2 o'clock, that I be given a couple of minutes to make
a final summation of my argument.
Mr. GREGG. Two minutes on both sides.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I withhold that for a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I have listened with interest and have
been impressed by the enthusiasm, energy, and commitment of the Senator
from Connecticut to the 21st century program, which is something I
strongly support myself. In fact, during my prior life when I was
chairman of the Appropriations Committee on Commerce, State, Justice
and working with Senator Hollings, we essentially funded what amounted
to the afterschool program initiatives in different areas, especially
in the Boys and Girls Clubs and programs with Big Brothers and Big
Sisters.
I was able to put into this bill language which I am very excited
about because I think it will significantly improve the 21st century
program, which allows community-based organizations to participate in
the program for the first time, instead of having programs which are
totally managed by the local educational organization. The schools
basically weren't working all that well, quite honestly, in many areas
because basically at the end of the schoolday, teachers were tired, and
developing programs that kept teachers around the school building after
the schoolday was hard to do, and understandably so.
Now we are going to infuse the afterschool programs with community-
based organizations. Some of them can be faith-based organizations,
which is very exciting. You will get, I am sure, Boys and Girls Clubs,
and again Big Brothers and Big Sisters, that will actually physically
be on site for the afterschool programs.
There is a major educational component in that amendment which was
adopted in committee. I think you will also get groups such as the CYO
that might be involved in things like this, or other faith-based groups
that basically won't be in the school teaching religious values--that
would be inappropriate--but will be in the school teaching life-needed
skills or organizing sports programs perhaps in the school period.
After-the-schoolday is something I have worked very hard on as a
Member of the Senate on the committee and admire and appreciate the
commitment of the Senator from Connecticut to the after-the-schoolday
programs. We all understand that the period from 3 to 6 is a period
where youth are at risk, unfortunately, in many of our communities. And
for them to have some place constructive to go is very important.
This amendment doesn't really address that issue because, in my
humble opinion, this amendment goes to the question of management. Who
makes the decision as to how the after-the-schoolday is controlled,
whether it is going to be a categorical program coming from the Federal
Government that says you must have an afterschool program or the
alternative, which I think makes much more sense--whether a State or a
community decides to take all the educational formula funding programs,
merge them together, and set them up as a program, the purpose of which
is to make sure the children participating in those programs actually
exceed the academic success of the children who are not in those
programs.
As a result, we get a better return for the dollars spent in these
various areas. We get better students who are better prepared for life.
We get students who are coming through the school year with a better
academic achievement level.
That should be, of course, our goal in this bill. It is the goal of
the Straight A's Program.
The question as to how the day is structured would be left at the
local community level, or the State level, and wouldn't be directed
from within the Federal Government.
This is the difference. It is not a question of whether there will be
an afterschool program. It is a question of who will make the decision
as to how funds are allocated within the formula grant program for
designing the afterschool program and the schoolday program.
To step back, I think it is important to understand the basic concept
of

[[Page 10604]]

Straight A's. The concept of Straight A's is that we give the local
school districts and the States, or those who wish to apply anyway, the
opportunity--it is only a limited number--to set up a program where
they actually commit that the low-income child will do better--this is
the important point--than the other children in the school district in
academic achievement, and, therefore, getting prepared for life and
being competitive in our society and having a chance to participate in
the American dream.
In exchange for making that commitment to the kids who are from low-
income families to actually exceed the average yearly progress in the
community generally for students, we will allow the local school
districts and the States to design the program free of stress on the
input side.
The 21st century program, along with the other 16 formula programs
that are put into this proposal for the development of Straight A's,
are all strong, oriented programs. It has significant restrictions.
They are very categorical and very directive. They are very top-down
command and control programs. They all have specific purposes, but the
fundamental goal of all of them is to get a child up to speed
academically and at a level where they are actually going to be
constructive and productive citizens in our society.
We have said, with the Straight A's experiment--in a few States; in a
very few States, potentially 7 States and 25 school districts--let's
try an experiment. Let's say to the local communities, rather than
having the top-down command and control, the traditional Federal
control of strings-attached dollars, we will take all those dollars,
put them in a basket and give them to the local communities, but the
condition of you taking those dollars is that you are going to have to
commit to prove that the children those dollars are directed towards
are going to do better than the other children in the community.
So it is not as if the States and the local school districts are
getting some huge influx of dollars with no restrictions or no
responsibilities. The responsibility is even greater, but it is at the
end of the system versus at the beginning. Instead of saying how they
will do it, we expect results; and then we are going to test them to
make sure those results are actually being achieved.
It is a very creative approach. It really is part of the essence of
the underlying agreement and bill which we negotiated and which was the
result of the impetus that came from the President. The President's
concept on education is really pretty simple. It is that we should
focus on the child, and that we should expect the child to obtain
academic achievement, and that we should do that by giving flexibility
to the local school districts; in exchange for the flexibility, we are
going to have strict accountability to see that the children have
attained academic achievement.
So the concept is to create an initiative and demonstration programs
which will, at least with these 16 categorical programs, put them in a
basket and give those dollars to the States with great flexibility, or
give those dollars to the communities with great flexibility, but in
exchange expect academic achievement subject to strict accountability,
focused on the child.
This program, this Straight A's Program, meets all the conditions and
all the ideas that have been put forward by the President as one of the
key purposes of his educational initiatives. That is why there is such
an intense discussion about it today.
If you listen to the Senator from Connecticut, you obviously have to
be drawn to his ability to present his case well, but the point is, if
we go back to the approach offered by the Senator from Connecticut,
then we will have fundamentally undermined what is one of the primary
thrusts of the President's initiatives in trying to break out of this
mold into which we have put education for the last 25 years, where for
generation after generation we have seen low-income kids being left
behind, which isn't acceptable.
So the President has come up with this idea. Actually, it is an idea
that was developed by the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, a couple
of years ago. The President adopted it. He has taken this idea and put
it into his package. That is why it is so critical that this amendment
be defeated. Because if it is adopted, it basically takes the heart out
of the Straight A's Program and as a result undermines one of the key
thrusts of the President's initiatives to try to bring low-income kids
not only up to speed but, in this case, actually putting them ahead of
their peers in education.
I see the Senator from Nevada is trying to get my attention.
Obviously, he wishes to make a point. I yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator from New Hampshire yielding for a
brief unanimous consent request.

Amendment No. 518, As Further Modified

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
518, as modified, and previously agreed to, be further modified with
the language at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is so modified.
The modification is as follows:

``SEC. 5126J. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
chapter $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and each subsequent
fiscal year.''.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the consent
with respect to the Dodd amendment be modified to provide that the vote
in relation to the Dodd amendment occur upon disposition of the
Cantwell amendment No. 630, provided that the previous consent with
respect to the Nelson amendment No. 533, and other amendments within
that consent agreement, reflect this change.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, to clarify for Members exactly where we are
now, the Senate will debate the other amendments in a previous order,
and the Senate will vote in relation to the Dodd amendment at about
2:15.
Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, prior to the
vote on the Dodd amendment, the Senator from New Hampshire be
recognized for 2 minutes and the Senator from Connecticut be recognized
for 2 minutes in the appropriate order. Senator Dodd would go last.
That vote would occur at about 2:15 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the other amendments in this order are going
to be disposed of by voice vote by virtue of a previous agreement we
have. I appreciate very much my friend from New Hampshire yielding. I
know it was awkward, but I appreciate it very much.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 533, As Modified, To Amendment No. 358

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
amendment No. 533 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Hampshire yield back
all time on the Dodd amendment?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we reserve our time. I ask unanimous
consent that our time be reserved and it be set aside until after the
Nelson amendment has been completed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is laid aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson] proposes an
amendment numbered 533, as modified.

[[Page 10605]]

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for mentoring programs for students)

On page 586, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

SEC. 405. MENTORING PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--Title IV of Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 is further amended by adding at the end
the following:

``PART E--MENTORING PROGRAMS

``SEC. 4501. DEFINITIONS.

``In this part:
``(1) Child with greatest need.--The term `child with
greatest need' means a child at risk of educational failure,
dropping out of school, or involvement in criminal or
delinquent activities, or that has lack of strong positive
adult role models.
``(2) Mentor.--The term `mentor' means an individual who
works with a child to provide a positive role model for the
child, to establish a supportive relationship with the child,
and to provide the child with academic assistance and
exposure to new experiences and examples of opportunity that
enhance the ability of the child to become a responsible
adult.
``(3) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

``SEC. 4502. PURPOSES.

``The purposes of this part are to make assistance
available to promote mentoring programs for children with
greatest need--
``(1) to assist such children in receiving support and
guidance from a caring adult;
``(2) to improve the academic performance of such children;
``(3) to improve interpersonal relationships between such
children and their peers, teachers, other adults, and family
members;
``(4) to reduce the dropout rate of such children; and
``(5) to reduce juvenile delinquency and involvement in
gangs by such children.

``SEC. 4503. GRANT PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--In accordance with this section, the
Secretary may make grants to eligible entities to assist such
entities in establishing and supporting mentoring programs
and activities that--
``(1) are designed to link children with greatest need
(particularly such children living in rural areas, high crime
areas, or troubled home environments, or such children
experiencing educational failure) with responsible adults,
who--
``(A) have received training and support in mentoring;
``(B) have been screened using appropriate reference
checks, child and domestic abuse record checks, and criminal
background checks; and
``(C) are interested in working with youth; and
``(2) are intended to achieve 1 or more of the following
goals:
``(A) Provide general guidance to children with greatest
need.
``(B) Promote personal and social responsibility among
children with greatest need.
``(C) Increase participation by children with greatest need
in, and enhance their ability to benefit from, elementary and
secondary education.
``(D) Discourage illegal use of drugs and alcohol,
violence, use of dangerous weapons, promiscuous behavior, and
other criminal, harmful, or potentially harmful activity by
children with greatest need.
``(E) Encourage children with greatest need to participate
in community service and community activities.
``(F) Encourage children with greatest need to set goals
for themselves or to plan for their futures, including
encouraging such children to make graduation from secondary
school a goal and to make plans for postsecondary education
or training.
``(G) Discourage involvement of children with greatest need
in gangs.
``(b) Eligible Entities.--Each of the following is an
entity eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a):
``(1) A local educational agency.
``(2) A nonprofit, community-based organization.
``(3) A partnership between an agency referred to in
paragraph (1) and an organization referred to in paragraph
(2).
``(c) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Each entity receiving a grant under this
section shall use the grant funds for activities that
establish or implement a mentoring program, including--
``(A) hiring of mentoring coordinators and support staff;
``(B) providing for the professional development of
mentoring coordinators and support staff;
``(C) recruitment, screening, and training of adult
mentors;
``(D) reimbursement of schools, if appropriate, for the use
of school materials or supplies in carrying out the program;
``(E) dissemination of outreach materials;
``(F) evaluation of the program using scientifically based
methods; and
``(G) such other activities as the Secretary may reasonably
prescribe by rule.
``(2) Prohibited uses.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an
entity receiving a grant under this section may not use the
grant funds--
``(A) to directly compensate mentors;
``(B) to obtain educational or other materials or equipment
that would otherwise be used in the ordinary course of the
entity's operations;
``(C) to support litigation of any kind; or
``(D) for any other purpose reasonably prohibited by the
Secretary by rule.
``(d) Term of Grant.--Each grant made under this section
shall be available for expenditure for a period of 3 years.
``(e) Application.--Each eligible entity seeking a grant
under this section shall submit to the Secretary an
application that includes--
``(1) a description of the mentoring plan the applicant
proposes to carry out with such grant;
``(2) information on the children expected to be served by
the mentoring program for which such grant is sought;
``(3) a description of the mechanism that applicant will
use to match children with mentors based on the needs of the
children;
``(4) an assurance that no mentor will be assigned to
mentor so many children that the assignment would undermine
either the mentor's ability to be an effective mentor or the
mentor's ability to establish a close relationship (a one-on-
one relationship, where practicable) with each mentored
child;
``(5) an assurance that mentoring programs will provide
children with a variety of experiences and support,
including--
``(A) emotional support;
``(B) academic assistance; and
``(C) exposure to experiences that children might not
otherwise encounter on their own;
``(6) an assurance that mentoring programs will be
monitored to ensure that each child assigned a mentor
benefits from that assignment and that there will be a
provision for the assignment of a new mentor if the
relationship between the original mentor is not beneficial to
the child;
``(7) information on the method by which mentors and
children will be recruited to the mentor program;
``(8) information on the method by which prospective
mentors will be screened;
``(9) information on the training that will be provided to
mentors; and
``(10) information on the system that the applicant will
use to manage and monitor information relating to the
program's reference checks, child and domestic abuse record
checks, and criminal background checks and to its procedure
for matching children with mentors.
``(f) Selection.--
``(1) Competitive basis.--In accordance with this
subsection, the Secretary shall select grant recipients from
among qualified applicants on a competitive basis.
``(2) Priority.--In selecting grant recipients under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority to each
applicant that--
``(A) serves children with greatest need living in rural
areas, high crime areas, or troubled home environments, or
who attend schools with violence problems;
``(B) provides background screening of mentors, training of
mentors, and technical assistance in carrying out mentoring
programs;
``(C) proposes a mentoring program under which each mentor
will be assigned to not more children than the mentor can
serve effectively; or
``(D) proposes a school-based mentoring program.
``(3) Other considerations.--In selecting grant recipients
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall also consider--
``(A) the degree to which the location of the programs
proposed by each applicant contributes to a fair distribution
of programs with respect to urban and rural locations;
``(B) the quality of the mentoring programs proposed by
each applicant, including--
``(i) the resources, if any, the applicant will dedicate to
providing children with opportunities for job training or
postsecondary education;
``(ii) the degree to which parents, teachers, community-
based organizations, and the local community have
participated, or will participate, in the design and
implementation of the applicant's mentoring program;
``(iii) the degree to which the applicant can ensure that
mentors will develop longstanding relationships with the
children they mentor;
``(iv) the degree to which the applicant will serve
children with greatest need in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and
8th grades; and
``(v) the degree to which the program will continue to
serve children from the 4th grade through graduation from
secondary school; and
``(C) the capability of each applicant to effectively
implement its mentoring program.
``(4) Grant to each state.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection, in selecting grant recipients
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall select not less than
1 grant recipient from each State for which there is a
qualified applicant.
``(g) Model Screening Guidelines.--

[[Page 10606]]

``(1) In general.--Based on model screening guidelines
developed by the Office of Juvenile Programs of the
Department of Justice, the Secretary shall develop and
distribute to program participants specific model guidelines
for the screening of mentors who seek to participate in
programs to be assisted under this part.
``(2) Background checks.--The guidelines developed under
this subsection shall include, at a minimum, a requirement
that potential mentors be subject to reference checks, child
and domestic abuse record checks, and criminal background
checks.

``SEC. 4504. STUDY BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

``(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study to identify successful school-
based mentoring programs, and the elements, policies, or
procedures of such programs that can be replicated.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this part, the Comptroller General shall submit
a report to the Secretary and Congress containing the results
of the study conducted under this section.
``(c) Use of Information.--The Secretary shall use
information contained in the report referred to in subsection
(b)--
``(1) to improve the quality of existing mentoring programs
assisted under this part and other mentoring programs
assisted under this Act; and
``(2) to develop models for new programs to be assisted or
carried out under this Act.

``SEC. 4505. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
section 4503 $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums
as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003 through
2006.''.
(b) Grant for Training and Technical Support.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Education shall make a
grant, in such amount as the Secretary considers appropriate,
to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America for the purpose of
providing training and technical support to grant recipients
under part E of title IV of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as added by subsection (a), through
the existing system regional mentoring development centers
specified in paragraph (2).
(2) Regional mentoring development centers.--The regional
mentoring development centers referred to in this paragraph
are regional mentoring development centers located as
follows:
(A) In Phoenix, Arizona.
(B) In Atlanta, Georgia.
(C) In Boston, Massachusetts.
(D) In St. Louis, Missouri.
(E) In Columbus, Ohio.
(F) In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
(G) In Dallas, Texas.
(H) In Seattle, Washington.
(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the training and technical
support provided through the grant under this subsection is
to enable grant recipients to design, develop, and implement
quality mentoring programs with the capacity to be sustained
beyond the term of the grant.
(4) Services.--The training and technical support provided
through the grant under this subsection shall include--
(A) professional training for staff;
(B) program development and management;
(C) strategic fund development;
(D) mentor development; and
(E) marketing and communications.
(5) Funding.--Amounts the grant under this subsection shall
be derived from the amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 4505 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965, as added by subsection (a), for fiscal year 2002.

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to ask the Senate's
support for the Mentoring for Success Act, the amendment that is before
the Senate today.
This amendment concerns the welfare of our Nation's most precious
asset, our children. Children comprise only 20 percent of our
population, but they are 100 percent of our future. I am hopeful my
colleagues will carefully consider their significance. This amendment
gives us the opportunity to support our children and the future of our
country at the same time.
The environment in which many of our children are raised looks
nothing like the one in which I and many of my colleagues grew up.
Close to 50 percent of our children are raised in single-parent
households. In most cases, single parents work long hours. Their energy
and resources are stretched thin. While there are many successful
single parents, there are some cases where a single parent simply
cannot and does not, for a variety of reasons, adequately serve as the
role model a child might need. As a consequence, many of these children
replace that void with drugs, alcohol, and violence. Other children who
may not come from single families are faced with a home life that may
be particularly difficult because of an abusive parent or maybe a
parent incapacitated due to illness. This amendment is for these
children.
Of course, it can't fix family problems or bring broken families back
together, but it can help change these children's lives and brighten
their future.
I am proud to say that this amendment is inspired by the success of a
mentoring program in my State which was originally started by
Congressman Tom Osborne, the sponsor of companion legislation adopted
by the House.
As many know, before my friend and fellow Nebraskan Tom Osborne
became a Congressman this last year, he was coach of the beloved
University of Nebraska Huskers football team. This man knows a thing or
two about winning strategies and how to implement them, not just on the
field but in the community as well.
In 1991, he and his wife Nancy began the Team Mates Program in
Lincoln, NE, which paired members of the University of Nebraska
football team with middle school students. He had such great success
with the program that he expanded it across the State of Nebraska in
1998. I was proud to assist him in that effort as Governor at that
time, and I joined the Team Mates board of directors so I could
continue my involvement with such an effective and important mission.
Now Congressman Osborne has taken his experience and turned it into
worthwhile legislation. This amendment would authorize $50 million for
a new competitive grant program to award local school districts,
community-based organizations, or a partnership between the two to find
mentoring initiatives. Each State would receive at least one grant
under this program. I am pleased to be here today and to continue my
support for mentoring programs.
Mentoring programs funded by grants made available through this
legislation would pair children with role models who could provide
stable emotional support, academic assistance, and exposure to positive
experiences that they may not otherwise receive.
The mentors are not parental replacements. Rather, they are helping
hands who offer a glimmer of hope to kids who are forced, through no
fault of their own, to contend with tough situations and bleak
prospects.
Priority would be given to programs that serve children with the
greatest need in rural areas, high crime areas, or troubled home or
school environments, and only programs that require thorough background
screening of participating adults would be eligible to receive funding.
Mentoring for Success is intended to provide guidance to children in
need, to promote personal and social responsibility, to improve
academic achievement, to discourage use of illegal drugs, alcohol,
violence, gang involvement, or other harmful behavior, and to encourage
children to set goals for themselves, including postsecondary training
or education.
Young people today are confronted on a daily basis with situations
that my generation simply didn't know could exist. I was fortunate
enough to be raised in a loving and caring household. My generation
needed support, encouragement, and stability. Today our kids need it,
too. That is one thing that simply has not changed. Mentors can provide
that support. I know it works. It has in Nebraska. I am convinced that
Mentoring for Success will prove it will work everywhere.
What began as a spark in Nebraska has the potential to become a flame
of optimism for at-risk children all across the country. I am proud
today to be able to convey that this measure will in fact help our
children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time in opposition?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
I thank the good Senator for bringing this issue to our attention. I
might mention, I was with their superintendent of schools in Boston a
week ago during our break, Tom Payzant. He

[[Page 10607]]

was talking about eight kinds of mentors working in schools there and
the positive impact they are having in terms of the discipline in the
schools and helping to resolve some of the tensions in the schools.
He said that 10 years ago he never would have thought this kind of
need would be there, but it is there. He said he could use eight more
very quickly and easily. It is a good idea. It is a good suggestion.
Obviously, it will be voluntary. Communities will have to apply but it
is another way of trying to help resolve some of the tensions that
exist in many of the schools and provide a safer environment. There are
a lot of different ways of trying to do it. This is a very positive and
constructive way.
We welcome the amendment and urge the passage of it at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is
agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
The amendment (No. 533), as modified, was agreed to.
The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts and the bipartisan leadership that has brought this
education bill to us in a most timely manner, at a most important time
in the history of public education in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend, under the
previous order, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, was to be
recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida has spoken to me
for 2 days about being able to address the Senate on the importance of
education. I mentioned that during the lunch hour there is not as much
of a clamor for floor time. He has a short speech. Would it be
agreeable to my colleague from Massachusetts if he is able to complete
his statement for a brief time, 4 or 5 minutes?
Mr. KERRY. I have no objection if the definition of ``brief'' is 4 or
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida may continue.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank both of the Senators from
Massachusetts. Indeed, as a new Senator, I am learning that the
definition of ``brief'' is generally not understood in this Chamber.
Yet I will adhere to the common understanding in Webster's Dictionary
of the term ``brief'' and keep it to less than 5 minutes. I thank the
Senator from Massachusetts.
As a product of public education, I am very privileged to be a part
of the debate and what I think is going to be part of the solution. One
of the major components of the future quality of that is now being
considered before this body. This legislation that we are now
considering marks a victory for many and, most especially, for the
American people who have overwhelmingly said that the education of
their children is their No. 1 priority.
I have been guided through this debate by the experiences that I
bring to this Chamber by my own educational upbringing, and what I
experienced in the public schools of Brevard County, FL, was due in
large part to having highly qualified teachers.
Who among us does not have some significant life-changing or life-
steering experience by the interaction with a quality teacher? Those
teachers, in my case, were in schools that were in good repair and in
an environment that was conducive to learning. So during debate on this
bill many of us have pushed for those same goals--reducing class size
by putting more teachers in our classrooms, funding to help build and
repair our schools, accountability to monitor the progress of each of
our schools, and accountability to monitor the progress of every child
in those schools.
Those principles have been incorporated in the many amendments that
have now strengthened this bill, such as increased funding to put a
highly qualified teacher in every classroom and to support teacher
recruitment; full funding for special education; full funding for title
I for disadvantaged students; modernization of school libraries; and
also targeting of funds to low-income children. Another example of an
amendment that we have is an incentive for schools to adopt high-
quality assessments to chart student progress.
Today, in this country, some 90 percent of our children attend public
schools. To continue that strong and important legacy of our public
schools, and now to strengthen them for the many challenges ahead, we
must ensure that our public schools are safe and conducive to learning
for all students from all walks of life.
I believe this bill creates a framework through which we can reach
every student, be it an inner-city student, a rural student, a
physically challenged student, a low-income student, a suburban
student, or a learning impaired student.
Our goal is to provide each of those students with the opportunity to
achieve. In the end, reaching every student and improving every school
is our goal, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction--
an important step.
But as we complete action on this bill, we must ensure that our
commitment to better education is backed by the appropriations needed
to make it happen. That part of the debate won't end this week, or even
this year. So at every step of the way I intend to stand up for the
Federal assistance needed to ensure a high-quality education for all of
our children.
I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share my heart on this
subject that is of most importance to the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield for a second, I thank the good
Senator for his comments. Senator Nelson has been very much involved in
the debate on education and has taken a great interest. We have
benefited from this involvement. We welcome his continued ideas and
recommendations, and we hope he will be even more active as we are
dealing with additional educational issues. I am very grateful to him
for all his good work and for his excellent statement. I thank the
Senator.

Amendments Nos. 423 and 455 to Amendment No. 358

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, is
recognized to offer two amendments en bloc, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself,
Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Carper, proposes an amendment
numbered 423.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself,
Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Carper, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes
an amendment numbered 455.

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 423

(Purpose: To provide for professional development and other activities
for principals)

On page 383, after line 21, insert the following:

SEC. __. TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS.

Part A of title II (as amended in section 201) is further
amended--
(1) by striking the title heading and all that follows
through the part heading for part A and inserting the
following:

``TITLE II--TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

``PART A--TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL QUALITY;

[[Page 10608]]

knowledge of theories of learning, curricula design,
supervision and evaluation of teaching and learning,
assessment design and application, child and adolescent
development, and public reporting and accountability.''; and
(B) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ``teachers'' each
place it appears and inserting ``teachers, principals,'';
(4) in section 2112(b)(4), by striking ``teaching force''
and inserting ``teachers and principals'';
(5) in section 2113(b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``teacher'' and inserting ``teacher and principal'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)'';
(II) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:

``(ii) principals have the instructional leadership skills
to help teachers teach and students learn;''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``, and principals
have the instructional leadership skills,'' before
``necessary'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the initial teaching
experience'' and inserting ``an initial experience as a
teacher or a principal'';
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``of teachers'' and inserting ``of teachers
and principals'';
(ii) by striking ``degree'' and inserting ``or master's
degree''; and
(iii) by striking ``teachers.'' and inserting ``teachers or
principals.''; and
(D) in paragraph (7), by striking ``teacher'' and inserting
``teacher and principal'';
(6) in section 2122(c)(2)--
(A) by striking ``and, where appropriate,
administrators,''; and
(B) by inserting ``and to give principals the instructional
leadership skills to help teachers,'' after ``skills,'';
(7) in section 2123(b)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and principal'' before
``mentoring'';
(B) in paragraph (3), striking the period and inserting ``,
nonprofit organizations, local educational agencies, or
consortia of appropriate educational entities.''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``teachers'' and inserting ``teachers and
principals''; and
(ii) by striking ``teaching'' and inserting ``employment as
teachers or principals, respectively'';
(8) in section 2133(a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``, paraprofessionals, and, if appropriate,
principals'' and inserting ``and paraprofessionals''; and
(B) by striking the semicolon and inserting the following:
``and that principals have the instructional leadership
skills that will help the principals work most effectively
with teachers to help students master core academic
subjects;'';
(9) in section 2134--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``teachers'' and
inserting ``teachers and principals''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``teachers'' and inserting ``teachers and
principals''; and
(ii) by inserting ``a principal organization,'' after
``teacher organization,''; and
(10) in section 2142(a)(2), by striking subparagraph (A)
and inserting the following:
``(A) shall establish for the local educational agency an
annual measurable performance objective for increasing
retention of teachers and principals in the first 3 years of
their careers as teachers and principals, respectively;
and''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 455

(Purpose: To modify provisions of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act of 1994 with respect to alternative education)

On page 505, line 18, insert after ``intervention,'' the
following: ``high quality alternative education for
chronically disruptive and violent students that includes
drug and violence prevention programs,''.
On page 528, line 11, strike ``and''.
On page 528, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
``(15) developing, establishing, or improving alternative
educational opportunities for chronically disruptive and
violent students that are designed to promote drug and
violence prevention, reduce disruptive behavior, to reduce
the need for repeat suspensions and expulsions, to enable
students to meet challenging State academic standards, and to
enable students to return to the regular classroom as soon as
possible;
``(16) training teachers, pupil services personnel, and
other appropriate school staff on effective strategies for
dealing with chronically disruptive and violent students;
and''.
On page 528, line 12, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(17)''.
On page 541, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
``(15) the provision of educational supports, services, and
programs, including drug and violence prevention programs,
using trained and qualified staff, for students who have been
suspended or expelled so such students make continuing
progress toward meeting the State's challenging academic
standards and to enable students to return to the regular
classroom as soon as possible;
``(16) training teachers, pupil services personnel, and
other appropriate school staff on effective strategies for
dealing with disruptive students;''.
On page 541, line 10, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(17)''.
On page 541, line 18, strike ``(16)'' and insert ``(18)''.
On page 550, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(10) the development of professional development programs
necessary for teachers, other educators, and pupil services
personnel to implement alternative education supports,
services, and programs for chronically disruptive and violent
students;
``(11) the development, establishment, or improvement of
alternative education models, either established within a
school or separate and apart from an existing school, that
are designed to promote drug and violence prevention, reduce
disruptive behavior, to reduce the need for repeat
suspensions and expulsions, to enable students to meet
challenging State academic standards, and to enable students
to return to the regular classroom as soon as possible;''.
On page 550, line 17, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(12)''.
On page 550, line 22, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(13)''.
On page 551, line 3, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(14)''.
On page 551, line 9, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(15)''.

Amendments Nos. 423 and 455, As Modified

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send two modifications to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendments are so modified.
The amendments, as modified, are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 423, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To provide for professional development and other activities
for principals)

On page 383, after line 21, insert the following:

SEC. __. TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS.

Part A of title II (as amended in section 201) is further
amended--
(1) by striking the title heading and all that follows
through the part heading for part A and inserting the
following:

``TITLE II--TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS

``PART A--TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL QUALITY'';

(2) in section 2101(1)--
(A) by striking ``teacher quality'' and inserting ``teacher
and principal quality''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon ``and highly
qualified principals and assistant principals in schools'';
(3) in section 2102--
(A) in paragraph (4)--
(i) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``and'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) with respect to an elementary school or secondary
school principal, a principal--
``(i)(I) with at least a master's degree in educational
administration and at least 3 years of classroom teaching
experience; or
``(II) who has completed a rigorous alternative
certification program that includes instructional leadership
courses, an internship under the guidance of an accomplished
principal, and classroom teaching experience;
``(ii) who is certified or licensed as a principal by the
State involved; and
``(iii) who can demonstrate a high level of competence as
an instructional leader with knowledge of theories of
learning, curricula design, supervision and evaluation of
teaching and learning, assessment design and application,
child and adolescent development, and public reporting and
accountability.''; and
(B) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ``teachers'' each
place it appears and inserting ``teachers, principals, and
assistant principals,'';
(4) in section 2112(b)(4), by striking ``teaching force''
and inserting ``teachers, principals, and assistant
principals'';
(5) in section 2113(b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``teacher'' and inserting ``teacher and principal'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(A)'';
(II) by adding ``and'' after the semicolon; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 10609]]

(iii) by striking ``teachers.'' and inserting ``teachers or
principals.''; and
(D) in paragraph (7), by striking ``teacher'' and inserting
``teacher and principal'';
(6) in section 2122(c)(2)--
(A) by striking ``and, where appropriate,
administrators,''; and
(B) by inserting ``and to give principals and assistant
principals the instructional leadership skills to help
teachers,'' after ``skills,'';
(7) in section 2123(b)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and principal'' before
``mentoring'';
(B) in paragraph (3), striking the period and inserting ``,
nonprofit organizations, local educational agencies, or
consortia of appropriate educational entities.''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``teachers'' and inserting ``teachers,
principals, and assistant principals''; and
(ii) by striking ``teaching'' and inserting ``employment as
teachers, principals, or assistant principals,
respectively'';
(8) in section 2133(a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``, paraprofessionals, and, if appropriate,
principals'' and inserting ``and paraprofessionals''; and
(B) by striking the semicolon and inserting the following:
``and that principals and assistant principals have the
instructional leadership skills that will help such
principals and assistant principals work most effectively
with teachers to help students master core academic
subjects;'';
(9) in section 2134--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``teachers'' and
inserting ``teachers and principals''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``teachers'' and inserting ``teachers and
principals''; and
(ii) by inserting ``a principal organization,'' after
``teacher organization,''; and
(10) in section 2142(a)(2), by striking subparagraph (A)
and inserting the following:
``(A) shall establish for the local educational agency an
annual measurable performance objective for increasing
retention of teachers, principals, and assistant principals
in the first 3 years of their careers as teachers,
principals, and assistant principals respectively; and''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 455, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To modify provisions of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act of 1994 with respect to alternative education)

On page 505, line 18, insert after ``intervention,'' the
following: ``high quality alternative education for
chronically disruptive, drug-abusing, and violent students
that includes drug and violence prevention programs,''.
On page 528, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
``(15) developing, establishing, or improving alternative
educational opportunities for chronically disruptive, drug-
abusing, and violent students that are designed to promote
drug and violence prevention, reduce disruptive behavior, to
reduce the need for repeat suspensions and expulsions, to
enable students to meet challenging State academic standards,
and to enable students to return to the regular classroom as
soon as possible;
``(16) training teachers, pupil services personnel, and
other appropriate school staff on effective strategies for
dealing with chronically disruptive, drug-abusing, and
violent students;''.
On page 541, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
``(15) the provision of educational supports, services, and
programs, including drug and violence prevention and
intervention programs, using trained and qualified staff, for
students who have been suspended or expelled so such students
make continuing progress toward meeting the State's
challenging academic standards and to enable students to
return to the regular classroom as soon as possible;
``(16) training teachers, pupil services personnel, and
other appropriate school staff on effective strategies for
dealing with disruptive students;''.
On page 541, line 10, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(17)''.
On page 541, line 18, strike ``(16)'' and insert ``(18)''.
On page 550, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(10) the development of professional development programs
necessary for teachers, other educators, and pupil services
personnel to implement alternative education supports,
services, and programs for chronically disruptive, drug-
abusing, and violent students;
``(11) the development, establishment, or improvement of
alternative education models, either established within a
school or separate and apart from an existing school, that
are designed to promote drug and violence prevention, reduce
disruptive behavior, to reduce the need for repeat
suspensions and expulsions, to enable students to meet
challenging State academic standards, and to enable students
to return to the regular classroom as soon as possible;''.
On page 550, line 17, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(12)''.
On page 550, line 22, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(13)''.
On page 551, line 3, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(14)''.
On page 551, line 9, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(15)''.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin by expressing not just my
gratitude, but the gratitude of everybody in the Senate who understands
the dynamics of this process, and to my senior colleague from
Massachusetts; there is no stronger, more forceful, more committed
advocate for the schools of our country than my colleague, Ted Kennedy.
I think his work in leading this for weeks now on the floor will speak
for itself in the end when we will pass a bill that this country will
be proud of--providing, of course, that we ultimately provide the
resources necessary to empower this framework to take hold. I salute my
colleague for his leadership and thank him for what he has been doing.
I also thank my friend from Florida for his gracious comments and for
his strict adherence to the common understanding of Webster's
Dictionary.
These are two amendments which I have offered today with my good
friend from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. One deals with the quality
and supply of our Nation's principals, and one deals with the provision
of alternative educational opportunities for chronically violent and
disruptive students.
I am pleased to have Senator Carper, Senator Reed of Rhode Island,
and Senator Levin joining us as original cosponsors of the principals
amendment.
The fact is very straightforward. In the next year, we are going to
be faced with a leadership crisis in our schools. Many of today's
principals are reaching the age of retirement, and there is clear
evidence that reveals a decline in the number of candidates for each
opening. For example, by the end of this school year, more than 400 New
York City principals will have retired. In Washington State, nearly 300
principals, or 15 percent of the total, left their jobs at the end of
the last school year. The Dallas Morning News reported that Texas is
about to face the greatest shortage of principals it has ever
encountered, with some studies predicting a 50-percent turnover rate
among the State's 8,500 principals and assistant principals within the
next 10 years.
Schools all over the country are faced with the question of who will
replace these retiring principals, who will provide the critical
leadership for our educational system.
Qualified candidates are becoming increasingly hard to find. In the
1998 survey of school districts, half of the districts reported a
shortage of qualified candidates. The attrition rate for elementary
school principals now stands at 42 percent for the decade from 1988 to
1998, and it is expected to remain at least as high through this
decade.
Indeed, some predictions are it could reach as high as 60 percent as
principals of the baby boom generation reach retirement age.
This is happening at a time when the U.S. Department of Labor
estimates that the need for principals in our country will grow with
rising school enrollments through at least 2005. If we do not stem the
flow of retirees and buoy up the number of aspiring principals, we will
face a critical school leadership crisis, one that could debilitate any
of the other reform efforts we are making today.
Not only, however, is the supply of principals vital to the success
of education reform, but obviously the quality of our principals is
also critical. A good principal can create the climate that fosters
excellence in teaching and learning while an ineffective one can
quickly thwart the progress of the most dedicated reformers.
I think any of us who has been to any school in this country,
particularly when we walk into a blue ribbon school, we will
acknowledge that if the school is working, if the school is
particularly a blue ribbon school, that school has a blue ribbon
principal.
Every school in this country that works begins with the leadership in
the school itself. Without a good leader, it is hard to instigate or
sustain any meaningful change, and schools will not be transformed,
restructured, or reconstituted absent that leadership.

[[Page 10610]]

Education reform policies, such as the ones we hope will be
instituted as a result of the BEST Act, are meaningless without strong
leadership to implement them in school. Today we all know principals
face a whole different set of challenges than their predecessors. One
of the greatest challenges is providing a positive learning environment
for a highly diverse student population. By the middle of the new
century, more than half of the population will be made up of those
whose families originated in Africa, Asia, or Latin America.
Principals will certainly need to understand and be prepared to
integrate into their schools a new generation of sophisticated
technology which, in turn, will require them to place a high priority
on staff development for teachers and for themselves. I do not believe
it is possible to underestimate the impact technology will continue to
have on teaching and administration.
Increased responsibilities without increased support will continue to
hamper school districts' abilities to attract qualified principals. It
is another reason the resource issue is so critical ultimately to the
success of the legislation we will pass.
The amendment the Senator from Oregon and I are offering addresses
this critical problem by giving States greater flexibility in the use
of their title II dollars so that funding can be used to retain high-
quality principals and improve principal quality.
I point out that with respect to the second amendment we are
offering, Senator Smith and I and others share a twofold concern. The
quality of teaching and learning suffers significantly when one or two
disruptive students or violent students monopolize a classroom and the
attention of a teacher, and that violent and disruptive student is
often in desperate need of services, supports, and greater levels of
attention than are provided in the traditional classroom.
We have a choice: We can either deal with the problems of these young
people while they are in school, while we know where to find them,
while we have them under our control, while we have the opportunity to
provide them services, or we can wait for them to drop out or turn to
the streets or encounter them later in the juvenile justice system of
the country.

The intent of this amendment is to ensure that our classrooms are
safe, drug free, and that all students are provided with a meaningful
opportunity to learn.
The amendment we are offering amends the Safe and Drug Free Schools
Program and expands its purpose to include the provision of alternative
education opportunities. This amendment will allow the list of
allowable Federal, State, and local uses of funds under the Safe and
Drug Free Schools Program to include the option of providing
alternative education, supports to chronically disruptive, drug
abusing, and violent students.
One option to ensure that classrooms and schools are safe and
manageable has been to require removal of disruptive and dangerous
students. Typically this is accomplished through expulsions and long-
term suspensions. However, while expelling and suspending may make
schools safer and more manageable, students' problems do not go away
when they are removed from the classroom--the problems just go
somewhere else.
School districts across the country report experiencing significant
increases in both the number of students expelled and the length of
time they are excluded from their schools. The consensus among
educators and others concerned with at-risk youth is that it is vital
for expelled students to receive educational counseling or other
services to help modify their behavior while they are away from school.
Without such services, students generally return to school no better
disciplined and no better able to manage their anger or peaceably
resolve disputes. They will also have fallen behind in their education,
and any underlying causes of their violent behavior may be unresolved.
Research has shown a link between suspension/expulsion and later
dropping out of school, with resulting personal and social costs.
Alternative education works. My home State of Massachusetts has some
excellent alternative education programs. The superintendent of the
Boston Public Schools created an Alternative Education Task Force in
Octeober, 1998. A recent report of this Task Force found that
alternative education programs have helped to reduce the dropout rate
both in Boston Public Schools and in other community-based programs.
One Boston Public Schools alternative education program, the
Community Academy, has been recognized by the U.S. Department of
Education as one of the top nine exemplary programs in the country. The
students enrolled in the Community Academy are from grades 6-12 and are
referred by principals, guidance counselors, and parents. The Community
Academy's small, highly structured and closely monitored program
provides a setting where these students can receive the attention and
services they need to get their lives on track and enable them to focus
on learning. All students of Community Academy are monitored through
intervention stragtegies by the program's staff, including case
managers, clinicians, instructors, and parents.
The school system in Springfield, MA, has established six alternative
schools. And since they began their alternative sites, the dropout rate
in Springfield has declined from 11.8 percent to 4.9 percent. The
superintendent of the Springfield schools made a commitment that all
students in Springfield will receive an education, including suspended
or expelled students, he has stood by that commitment, and in
Springfield they are seeing real results.
An example of alternative education is Springfield Academy,
Springfield, MA. The principal is Alex Gillat.
Gertrude is a teenager who does not have contact with her parents and
resides with her older sister and two younger siblings. While enrolled
in a local high school, Gertrude had many difficulties both in and out
of school and ultimately was expelled because she attacked another
student with a hammer. Gertrude spent a little over a year at the
Springfield Academy. I am very happy to report that Gertrude graduated
last year and is currently enrolled in a university. She is supported
in her studies by a number of scholarships.
Daniev came from a family with a history of drug abuse. His father
died of a heroin overdose and he too became a heavy user of drugs and
alcohol. Chronically truant, Daniev one day witnessed a friend get
killed as they walked along the railroad tracks in Springfield. After
that incident, Daniev suffered post traumatic stress disorder. Around
this time, Daniev was enrolled at Springfield Academy. With the aid of
the staff, counselors, and a Navy recruiter, Daniev quit using drugs
and alcohol, successfully completed high school, and is now enlisted in
the Navy.
Another example is Bridge Academy, Springfield, MA. The principal is
Allen Menkell.
Cyrus is a senior in high school and is literally on the cusp of
graduation, but Cyrus almost didn't make it. In addition to problems
with substance abuse, Cyrus' father passed away, and soon thereafter,
his younger brother died of leukemia. Cyrus was about to drop out of
his ``last chance school,'' but teachers at Bridge Academy rallied
around him, and helped him to see how much he had accomplished. Cyrus
will graduate this month, and may go on to community college.
It is shocking to think where these young people would be without the
opportunities that alternative schools like those in Springfield and
Boston provided them with. But what is all too common is that these
alternative learning environments do not exist. What is all too common
is that these young people would not have anywhere to turn.
I call attention to the fact that the superintendent of Boston Public
Schools created an alternative education task force in October of 1998.
A recent report of the task force found it has helped reduce the
dropout rate both in the Boston public schools and in other community-
based programs.

[[Page 10611]]

One alternative program has been recognized by the Department of
Education as one of the exemplary programs in the country.
In addition, in Springfield, MA, they have established six
alternative schools, and since they began their alternative sites, the
dropout rate in Springfield has declined from 11.8 percent to 4.9
percent.
An alternative education opportunity makes a difference--a difference
to the child who needs it and a difference to the children who are
often trapped in a classroom that will not work because of the
disruptive student.
I urge my colleagues to embrace both of these amendments as
supportive of the intentions and goals of this legislation.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen seconds.
Mr. CARPER. May I have 8 of those 19 seconds?
Mr. KERRY. I ask for an additional minute for my colleague. I
apologize.
Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield 5 minutes.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am grateful to both Senators.
Senator Kerry offered two wonderful amendments. I am pleased to be an
original cosponsor of both of them. I thank him for his leadership.
We have spent a fair amount of time talking about academic standards
we have set in our schools and other States have set in their schools.
We have spent a fair amount of time acknowledging tests are being taken
to measure student progress and we need to hold folks accountable--
schools, school districts, and teachers.
It has been acknowledged again and again how important having a good
teacher in a classroom is to enable all students to reach the standards
that are being set in their respective States.
Professional development of teachers is critical in my State of
Delaware, obviously Massachusetts, and other places. Senator Kerry put
his finger on it. It is not enough just to work on the professional
development of the teachers or to make sure we have teachers who know
their business, know their stuff, love to teach, love kids in our
classrooms, but it is critically important that the men and women
leading those schools, the principals and assistant principals, learn
how to do their jobs well.
One of the toughest jobs going these days is not as a Member of the
Senate, not even President of the United States. I think one of the
toughest jobs in America today is trying to be principal of a school
and run the school with all of its challenges--the kids, the
curriculum, Federal and State regulations coming at them, dealing with
the parents, many of whom are not present in the lives of their
children, passing referendums. It is a tough job.
The idea that we acknowledge not just that it is a tough job but say
to States, you can use some of this Federal money to make sure more of
the people leading our schools know how to do their tough job well, is
just a wonderful step we are taking.
The second thing I want to say with respect to funding, providing the
possibility for Federal funds for alternative schools for chronically
disruptive students, is that every child can learn. Children who are
chronically disruptive came to school behind, started behind, and fell
further behind. In many cases they did not have parents engaged in
their lives and may not have had the right teachers. Even those kids
can learn. They may need to be in a classroom other than the one they
are sitting in today or this year. They may need to be in a different
school, but they can learn in a different school. If we include in the
alternative for disruptive students trained educators and leaders who
know how to work with those students who come from tough backgrounds,
those kids can learn and can meet the standards, as well.
Our role is not to say to States that they have to use this money to
train school leaders and principals; our job is not to say they have to
use this to provide for alternative schools for disruptive students;
but with the amendments we make it an option.
I commend Senator Kerry and Senator Smith from Oregon for joining in
offering this amendment. I am pleased to stand in support.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his leadership as a
Governor. He did a superb job in the State of Delaware, leading in some
of the reforms incorporated herein. We appreciate and respect that and
thank him for his support and comments with respect to these
amendments.
Mr. KENNEDY. I urge the acceptance of these amendments.
The amendment, as my friend and colleague has pointed out, using the
Safe and Drug Free Schools for the development of alternative
educational opportunities for these students causing problems in school
makes a great deal of sense. This is a problem.
One of the things we understand is that children do not learn when
they are distracted and there is violence. Even though schools are one
of the safest places to be at any time, we know there are incidents
which occur. The Senator has made an excellent recommendation.
On the issue of the principals, as we have learned very well with the
Jeremiah Burke School, a principal took a school that lost
accreditation and within 6 years, this last year--and it is the only
high school in Boston that is eligible for title I funds, which means
it has to have 70 percent eligibility which, in economic terms, are the
neediest children probably in the city --this year, 100 percent of the
graduates were accepted into college. I think it was as much the
principal's leadership in that as anything else.
The Senator has for a long time talked about the importance of the
quality of principals. This is a particular area he has spent a great
deal of time on and has visited a lot of the schools and spoken
eloquently and effectively on the issue.
These are two very good amendments. I thank the Senator for the good
work he does on education.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor
with Senator Kerry today and am grateful that the manager of this bill
has accepted our amendments. I will speak to No. 423. This is something
Senator Kerry and I worked on for some time because of our fundamental
belief that principals shape the environment in which teachers and
students ultimately succeed or fail. We believe improving the quality
of school is the most effective way to make systematic improvements in
our educational system.
The school principal of today is more than a manager. Today's
principal needs to be an effective instructional leader. Instructional
leaders develop and implement strategies for improving teaching and
learning; they develop a vision and establish clear goals for student
performance.
School principals provide direction in achieving state goals;
encourage others to contribute to goal achievement; secure commitment
to a course of action from individuals and groups in the school and
community. They are instrumental to the success of a school, and we
have a responsibility to help them succeed in this role.
To be effective, principals need more than workshops or other one-
time professional development ``events.'' They need high quality,
ongoing professional development focused on student achievement.
There is no doubt that teacher quality is important, but it is the
collection of teachers working with a unified purpose that transforms a
school. That critical development comes only with a skilled effective
leader at the helm.
A 1999 report issued by the National Association of State Boards of
Education characterized effective principals as the ``lynchpins of
school improvement'' and the ``gatekeepers of change.'' The National
Association of State Boards of Education views principals as impacting
both the implementation and sustainability of reforms focused on
student achievement.
Principals have a powerful effect on the culture of a school:
Teachers will model the behavior of a principal whom they trust and who
has knowledge about good instruction.

[[Page 10612]]

Currently, professional development funding is available to teachers,
but far too few principals receive similar professional development
options because school districts often decide to devote limited funding
to teacher programs first. That is why this amendment allows principals
to access federal professional development funds.
Not only do we need to help our current principals be more effective,
we also need to address the critical shortage of school administrators.
Too many schools opened this fall without a principal. Although the
teacher shortage is well known, discussions about the lack of qualified
school leaders to fill the position of principal have just begun, and
they have begun with this amendment.
In Vermont, one of every five principals has retired or resigned
since the end of the last school year.
In Washington State, 15 percent of principals did the same last year.
In 1999, New York City had 200 schools that opened with temporary
leaders.
School districts face a monumental task of finding effective leaders
for our nation's schools. Cities and states nationwide report principal
vacancies and only a trickle of qualified applicants, if any, willing
to fill the positions.
A recent study by the Educational Research Service estimates that
more than 40 percent of public school principals will retire over the
next ten years. Our school leaders are graying and we are not replacing
them with enough qualified candidates.
Leadership plays a pivotal role in all spheres of our national life,
but we have not yet made it a priority in schools. The business and
corporate community has long considered enlightened leadership a
prerequisite for successful change. It cultivates young leaders and
provides extraordinary resources for their development. The commitment
to developing and ensuring strong leadership extends to the armed
forces, where we provide officer-training programs and service
academies for preparing leaders for all military services.
We need to do the same for the potential leaders of our schools. This
amendment does exactly that, by allowing funds to be used for mentoring
aspiring principals and recruiting leadership candidates.
There are excellent programs around the country, like Portland State
University's Graduate School of Education, ready to help train
administrators, if necessary funds are made available.
The role of the principal must be recognized if schools are going to
improve on a national level. The new policies being implemented here in
Congress will, for the most part, have to be implemented at the school
level by principals.
We have a responsibility to equip principals to carry out the
achievement goals we have set for them.
I am asking my colleagues along with Senator Kennedy and others to
support our Principals amendment. This amendment will allow states to
use Teacher Quality funds to improve the quality of elementary and
secondary principals and assistant principals.
This could include such state options as reforming principal
certification, ensuring that principals have the instructional skills
to help educators teach, and mentoring principals. These functions
could help states ensure that enough high quality principals are ready
to lead our children and our schools into the 21st century.
I would also like to address the need for alternative education in
our children's schools. Senator Kerry and I have been working together
for several years to address the problem of educating troubled and
chronically disruptive children in schools.
Today we offer an amendment, number 455, which will allow states to
use Title VI Safe and Drug Free Schools money for alternative
education, when it relates to drug and violence prevention, and to try
to prevent these students from dropping out of school.
Alternative education options need to exist for the benefit of all
students--both the disruptive students and their classmates.
Removing potentially violent or chronically disruptive children from
the classroom can leave other students free to learn.
But more than that, just removing these difficult students from the
classroom without providing alternative placements simply leaves them
unsupervised. It also leaves them without opportunities to learn the
skills they will need in life. This puts the students at even higher
risk for failure later in life.
What these children need is appropriate, intensive assistance that
can only be provided outside the regular classroom. Alternative
education can meet their needs for supervision, remediation of
behavior, maintenance of academic progress, and it can help prevent
them from dropping out.
Clearly, alternative education will not be a ``magic bullet'';
however, it can serve a number of very important purposes. First, it
can improve safety in schools, by working with students who may be a
danger to themselves, other children, and staff.
Second, alternative education can also prevent disruptions to
learning for the overwhelming majority of students who come to school
to learn.
Third, as I have already mentioned, it can provide appropriate help
to chronically disruptive and violent students. According to
administrators in Multnomah County's Department of Community Justice,
half the youth who are on probation or parole are also enrolled in
alternative schools. Just think of the implications for society and
these individuals and their families later in life if these troubled
youngsters are denied the support they need to grow both academically
and behaviorally.
Finally, alternative education options can prevent high risk students
from dropping out of school. This gives them a much better chance of
becoming contributing members of society.
Research from the Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, based in
my home state of Oregon, has shown that at least two thirds of the
students in community based alternative schools--all former dropouts--
have found academic and social success after being enrolled in the
program.
Last winter, I talked with 150 Oregon educators about the best ways
to prevent students from dropping out. Among the solutions, they
recommended alternative education as a critical tool for keeping kids
in school.
Despite the fact that we know that alternative education is so
critical, there are simply not enough dollars available to reach all
the students who need it.
I am holding letters from educators in my home state telling me of
their great need for federal help to fund alternative school options. I
know this need for funds exists across the country as well.
Therefore, I ask you to join my distinguished colleague, Senator
Kerry, and me in support of our alternative education amendment.
Allowing states to use Safe and Drug Free Schools funds for alternative
education will help ensure that no children, even the ones at highest
risk, are left behind.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has all time been yielded?
Mr. KENNEDY. We are prepared to yield back the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc, No. 423, as modified, and No. 455, as modified.
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 423 and 455), as modified) were agreed to, en
bloc.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider and lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 630, As Modified

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent to call up previously proposed
amendment No. 630, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bipartisan
amendment that was made possible

[[Page 10613]]

with the help of my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming,
Mr. Enzi, and I also express my appreciation to Senators Kennedy and
Gregg for their help on this amendment. They have done a terrific job
of moving this education bill through the process this year.
We have all experienced going home and hearing from teachers that too
often technology is simply not well integrated into the classrooms.
While we spend billions on technology in schools, too often these funds
do not have the full potential impact because the technology dollars
often are focused just on equipment itself.
This bipartisan amendment simply requires that school districts which
seek to use Federal technology dollars do so in a way that explicitly
details how they are going to integrate teacher training and
professional development, curriculum development, and proper system
resources.
Furthermore, the amendment will ask the Department of Education to
report on these strategies to identify the BEST practices on bringing
technology and training into the classroom so schools that are
successful can be used as a model to scale BEST education practices and
technology at the national level.
This amendment has been supported by a number of national teaching
organizations as well as many of the technology industry, such as AOL-
Time Warner, Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, Computer and Communications
Industry Alliance, and many others.
I ask unanimous consent their letters in support of this amendment be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Computer & Communications

Industry Association,

Washignton, DC, June 7, 2001.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell, On behalf of the Computer &
Communications Industry Association (CCIA), I write to
express support for the Developing Best Practices for
technology in Education Amendment to S. 1, the Better
Education for Students and Teachers Act. CCIA applauds your
leadership efforts in introducing this amendment.
The Cantwell-Enzi bipartisan education technology amendment
to ESEA is a positive step forward in ongoing efforts to
bring technology to the classroom in a comprehensive and
effective way. This amendment will enable schools across the
country to integrate technology into classrooms to give all
our children the opportunity to take advantage of the many
benefits that technology and the Internet can provide.
Our schools will most benefit by the development of
programs that employ technology effectively and can be
implemented by any school or district. This amendment
recognizes that to be successful we must integrate
technological resources with two other crucial elements:
teacher training and professional development and curriculum
development.
We are pleased to support the Cantwell-Enzi amendment and
believe it will encourage the development of best practices
for the use of scalable technology in states and local
districts around the country and assessment and evaluation of
the effectiveness of those strategies. we are delighted to
support this amendment as one important step in bringing
technology to the classroom and will pledge to work for its
passage.
Sincerely,
EJ Black,
President and CEO.
____

Business Software Alliance,

Washingon, DC, June 7, 2001.
Senator Maria Cantwell
U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Cantwell: I am writing to commend you on your
initiative to ensure that teachers and students can take full
advantage of the opportunities presented to them by having
computers and Internet connections available as an integral
part of teaching. You have correctly identified a critical
need: it is not enough to make computers available in the
classroom, teachers must integrate them into their everyday
instructional activities.
As you are well aware, technology companies often have a
hard time finding new employees that have the needed levels
of math and science training, as well as computer literacy.
In a survey conducted last year, BSA CEOs projected that, on
average, 9 percent of the openings for skilled workers went
unfilled in 2000. We believe a long-term approach is needed
that takes into account education policy, particularly in
regard to providing incentives for and increasing the
interest of our nation's youth to study math and science.
We support your proposed amendment to the education bill
because it would promote more specific and rigorous use of
technology in the classroom. Today, while many classrooms
have a computer, too few of our teachers make use of it on a
systematic basis. We believe the Cantwell-Enzi amendment will
address these issues, changing the way our students improve
their computer skills.
As we understand it, your proposal would require local and
state agencies to include in their education plans three
criteria: 1) teacher training and development in the use of
technology; 2) curricular development that incorporates
computers and the internet; and 3) a plan to rationally
allocate technology resources. Additionally, your proposal
would direct the Department of Education to develop plans and
programs on best ways to use technology in teaching.
We applaud your leadership in this critical area, and we
stand ready to work with you.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Holleyman,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
____

Superintendent

of Public Instruction,

Olympia, WA, June 7, 2001.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell: Thank you for your efforts to
improve the delivery of technology funding under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act by offering amendment
#630 regarding ``Developing Best Practices for Technology in
Education.''
The federal government has been the largest single investor
in education technology in this nation over the past decade.
To further improve the effective integration of technology,
training, and research-based best practices will ensure that
our national investment continues to be prudent and targeted
to efforts that improve student learning.
For state and local technology plans to miss connections to
the development of educator's skills, the development of the
curriculum they will use, or the development of best
practices in technology resources and systems, would be to
miss a tremendous opportunity to build student success.
Requiring these elements in plans makes eminent sense. In
addition, the national evaluation of technology plans will
allow the nation as a whole to learn from and to build on the
success of those, such as the many entrepreneurial educators
in Washington state, who have solved thorny problems of
technology integration with creativity, wisdom, and vision. I
do not want to suggest that in any way schools are not making
progress in effectively using technology. We have examples of
effective uses of technology from around the country, and
particularly in the state of Washington, through the use of
our K-20 Network (dozens of examples are described at http://
www.wa.gov/k20/).
Washington state, as a leader in technology innovation and
in the integration of technology into effective use in the
classroom, has much to gain by the passage of the Cantwell-
Enzi amendment to ESEA.
Sincerely,
Terry Bergeson,
State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
____

AOL Time Warner,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2001.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell: I am writing to voice AOL-Time
Warner's enthusiastic support for your National Digital
School District Amendment to S. 1, the BEST Act. We believe
that your amendment furthers the goals of this bill as well
as those of Congress and the Administration by encouraging
innovative education strategies and public/private
partnerships, and mandating program effectiveness
assessments. We applaud your understanding of the importance
of the use of technology to educate America's youth.
As you know, AOL-Time Warner has a deep and abiding
interest in ensuring that all students receive an education
that not only grounds them in the basics--reading, writing,
and arithmetic--but simultaneously prepares them for
employment in the global, high-technology economy. To achieve
these goals, we believe that all students must gain access to
21st Century learning tools and skills, and that teachers
must receive training in how to use new technologies and
integrate them into their classrooms. Through our
establishment of AOL@School, a free online learning tool that
helps administrators, teachers, and students gain quick and
easy access to the best educational content available on the
Web, and our support of PowerUP, a non-profit organization
that provides underserved youth with access to technology and
mentoring, AOL-TW has made 21st Century technology literacy a
cornerstone of our business and philanthropic efforts.
We believe that your amendment will not only complement
these and other education technology projects in which AOL-
Time Warner has been involved, but will leave a legacy of
best practices for states and school districts to emulate.

[[Page 10614]]

Thank you again for your demonstrated leadership on this
issue.
Sincerely,
Jill A. Lesser,
Senior Vice President, Domestic Public Policy.
____

Sun Microsystems, Inc.,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2001.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell: On behalf of Sun Microsystems, Inc.,
I would like to thank and congratulate both you and Senator
Enzi on the introduction of S.A. 630: ``Developing Best
Practices for Technology in Education.'' S.A. 630 is a worthy
addition to S.1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
and we fully endorse your efforts. We believe that S.A. 630
is a logical and much needed step that will help schools,
school districts, teachers, and students all achieve
significant gains in performance and efficiency by requiring
the development of comprehensive strategies for technology.
As schools move towards a greater dependence on computer
technology, they are continually faced with expensive
hardware and software expenditures, continual upgrades,
expensive technical support, and a constant need for teacher
re-training. By encouraging the adoption of ``best
practices,'' we believe more schools will move toward a web-
based learning model, allowing anytime, anywhere access to
educational resources. Through web-based learning, our
schools can achieve greater efficiency, increase access to
educational resources and allow teachers to spend time doing
what they do best--teach.
Therefore, we specifically support the Cantwell-Enzi
Amendment because it meets the challenges of brining
education to the classroom by:
1. Requiring that local and state agencies develop
strategies that include teacher development and training;
curriculum development; and technology system resources to be
eligible for over $1 billion in federal technology funds;
2. Encouraging the development of best practices for the
use of technology in schools that can be scalable in states
and local districts around the country.
The single most important thing the federal government can
do to promote real educational reform is to encourage a shift
towards web-based learning. We believe this amendment is an
important step, and are proud to support your efforts.
Sincerely,
Kim Jones,
Vice President, Global Education and
Research.
____

SchoolTone Alliance,

Chicago, IL, June 6, 2001.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell: On behalf of the members of the
SchoolTone Alliance, I write to express support for the
National Digital School Districts Amendment to S. 1, the
Better Education for Students and Teachers Act, SchoolTone
Alliance applauds your leadership efforts in introducing this
amendment.
The amendment addresses the very real challenges faced in
effectively using technology in our nation's classrooms by
strengthening teacher training, improving curricular
development, allocating scarce resources and identifying best
practices. Last year the bipartisan Congressional Web-based
Education Commission released its report, The Power of the
Internet for Learning, and called upon policymakers to enact
an ``e-learning agenda.'' Your amendment implements the
vision articulated in that report and will act as a catalyst
in moving the power of the Internet for learning from promise
to practice.
The SchoolTone Alliance is a not-for-profit, independent
consortium of companies promoting the benefits of Internet-
based computing in schools. SchoolTone Alliance member
companies include: ACTV HyperTV Networks, Inc.; AOL@School;
bigchalk,com; Blackboard, Inc.; BritannicaSchool.com;
Broadware Technologies; HighWired.com; Isis Communications
Limited; JASON Foundation; Lucent Technologies; National
Semiconductor; Power School; SaskTel; SchoolCity.com;
SchoolCruiser/Timecruiser Computing; Simplexis.com; SRI
International; Sun Microsystems, Inc. and VIP Tone, Inc.
SchoolTone Alliance and its members look forward to working
with you on a mutual agenda of bringing technology to all
students and in making it a more effective and efficient tool
for learning.
Sincerely,
Irene K. Spero,
Executive Director.
____

University of Washington,

Seattle, WA, June 6, 2001.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Maria: We commend you for your leadership on the
Cantwell-Enzi Amendment of S.1, S.A. 630: ``Developing Best
Practices for Technology in Education.''
There is widespread agreement that technology has the
potential to dramatically enhance teaching and learning.
In the past few years, we have made great progress in
providing computers and connectivity in our classrooms, both
nationally and in Washington State. In Washington State, for
example, the proportion of K-12 classrooms with Internet
access increased from 64% to 87% between 1998 and 2000.
However, just providing computers and connectivity is not
sufficient. In Washington State, nearly half of all schools
have no equipment replacement plan within a five-year cycle.
Three-fourths of all schools cannot meet an equipment
downtime goal of two days or less. The average time spent on
staff/teacher in-service technology training is one hour per
year. Per-student expenditures on all aspects of technology
range from an average of $22/student in the bottom 10% of
Washington's 297 school districts, to an average of $357/
student in the top 10%. Curriculum lags tremendously. So does
research on educational outcomes--measured as a fraction of
total expenditures, computer chip manufacturers spend 200
times as much on R&D, and potato chip manufacturers spend 20
times as much!
Your amendment will encourage the thoughtful and effective
integration of technology into the classroom, in a way that
truly does enhance teaching and learning. Again, thank you
for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Edward D. Lazowska,
Bill & Melinda Gates Chair in Computer Science, Department
of Computer Science & Engineering.
Patricia M. Wasley,
Dean and Professor, College of Education.
____

Microsoft Corporation,

Washington, DC, June 12, 2001.
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cantwell: On behalf of Microsoft Corporation,
I would like to commend you on the introduction of your
amendment, ``Developing Best Practices for Technology in
Education,'' to S.1, the ``Better Education for Students and
Teachers Act.'' As strong supporters of bipartisan education
reform, Microsoft applauds your leadership and vision on this
important issue, and we share your commitment to providing
educators with the tools and training they need to integrate
technology effectively into their classrooms.
Using technology to raise student achievement and improve
professional development is vital as we seek to reform our
education system. Our own initiative to promote professional
development, the Microsoft Classroom Teacher Network, has
helped provide technology training to nearly 1.5 million
teachers annually. In addition, Microsoft has developed a
suite of software tools, particularly the Encarta Class
Server, Web-based curriculum development platform designed to
aid teachers in classroom management. Microsoft also supports
the Boys & Girls Club of America Club Tech program which
gives students access to technology after school thereby
providing particularly low-income children, with access to a
wide array of educational technology experiences and
opportunities.
By helping to provide teachers with the resources necessary
to succeed, and by ensuring that educators nationwide will
have access to information regarding the most effective uses
of technology in raising student achievement, your amendment
will help promote creativity and innovation in our education
system and ensure that no child is left behind.
Sincerely,
Jack Krumholtz,
Director, Federal Government Affairs,
Associate General Counsel.

Ms. CANTWELL. I also ask the support of my colleagues in passing this
legislation to make sure our technology dollars at the national level
are used efficiently and effectively, that some of the models being
established even in the private sector be considered as we move forward
on getting the best for education under this amendment. I encourage my
colleagues to support it, and again thank Senator Enzi, my staff and
Senator Enzi's staff on their bipartisan effort in passing this
legislation.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Washington for this proposal.
She brings enormous experience in this area as one who has
demonstrated, in another life, great perception about the possibilities
of the computer world and what it can mean for enhancing education. Her
recommendations in the form of this amendment are something we value.
We have provisions reflected in the legislation, as the Senator has
noted, but I think this perception that she has brought with this
amendment will be enormously useful and valuable.
We had a good description of the proposal earlier last evening. She
has

[[Page 10615]]

given us additional comments today. We are prepared to recommend the
amendment be accepted. I do so at this time. I think we are prepared to
accept it.
I thank the Senator for her diligence in pursuing this matter. She
has been enormously cooperative with the floor managers in arranging to
bring this to the attention of the Senate. We are grateful to her for
her accommodation but most importantly for the substance of this
proposal, which will add to the enhancement of children's knowledge in
the area of computer technology.
We are prepared to accept that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. KENNEDY. We yield the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 630) as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are expecting a vote in a few moments
on the Dodd amendment. Sometime after that, we will be dealing with the
Hutchinson amendment and then the Schumer proposal. There will be the
Schumer proposal and then there will be another first-degree amendment.
Then later in the afternoon, after those, we hope to consider the
Clinton amendments.
This gives an idea on how we are going to be spending the early
afternoon, midafternoon. That ought to bring us into mid-late
afternoon. We are making very important progress. We still have some
important measures yet to address. But we are making good progress. We
are very grateful for the cooperation of our colleagues.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 382

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will vote in about 7 minutes. I
understand the Senator from Connecticut has 2 minutes reserved prior to
the vote. I will use several minutes in opposition to the amendment
that has been put forth by the Senator from Connecticut. I have had the
opportunity to make some main points and speak in opposition to this
amendment.
It really boils down to two things. The first is the area of
procedure. The Dodd amendment strips out what has been agreed to in a
bipartisan way, Democrats, Republicans, and the White House, in
negotiations that went on for days and weeks. Our colleagues absolutely
must understand that this reaches into the agreement we have and strips
out and really destroys a program called Straight A's, a program we
feel very strongly about, a program that captures many of the
fundamental reforms and principles that I believe will strongly change
the nature of education so that we will no longer have this increasing
achievement gap. Those principles are flexibility, accountability, and
local control.
The substance of what is in the underlying bill is that we have
basically taken about nine categorical programs, non-title I, money for
the low-income, non-title I funds. There are about 18 to 20 categorical
programs. We took nine of those programs and basically said a State can
apply, or a district can actually apply, and basically say we will use
that money in such a way that we can identify locally with the
flexibility and local control--which is so important--we will address
the needs we see that are putting up a roadblock for us to educate our
children.
Linked to that is our agreement that the accountability of student
achievement we will demand by entering into this arrangement in order
to obtain those funds with such flexibility is that we are going to
meet higher standards than anywhere else in the bill. That was
negotiated.
The other things we have not been talking about very much in terms of
this whole concept of being a block grant. Let me just basically say it
was negotiated that the standards are high, performance has to be
demonstrated, or you drop out of that program.
The second point I want to make is that we have come together to
negotiate this part of the bill. The fact that you would strip out a
part of the bill where people say that is just one program, it needs to
be understood that of the overall funding that is in this pilot
program--a pilot program we would like to see opened to all States,
but, no, we negotiated if from 50 to 40 to 30 to 20 to 10 to 7; so we
already negotiated the categorical programs down. We all debated and
decreased that from 18 to 9, so it is as small as it can possibly be in
this negotiated way. And if you remove a program that accounts for
about 40 percent of the funding, that destroys Straight A's, this
innovative program that is set before us.
Therefore, I would argue that if our goal is to leave no child
behind, we should leave at least one element of hope in this bill to
capture the flexibility, the local control, and the strong
accountability in which we, as Republicans, believe so strongly.
Adoption of the Dodd amendment guts Straight A's, guts this
flexibility, guts this local control, and guts this opportunity to
truly leave no child behind. Thus, I urge defeat of this amendment by
the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself a minute and a half.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with respect to the amendment No. 431, as
modified, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 433, 436, 431 As Modified, and 419, en bloc, to
Amendment No. 358

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we are again in a position to clear
amendments by unanimous consent. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc, and
any modifications, where applicable, be agreed to, the amendments be
agreed to, en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the
table, en bloc.
They are Reed amendment No. 433, Reed amendment No. 436, Reed
amendment No. 431, as modified, and Specter amendment No. 419.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 433

(Purpose: To amend a definition)

On page 307, line 16, strike ``and''.
On page 307, line 18, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 307, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
``(V) encourage and provide instruction on how to work with
and involve parents to foster student achievement.''
____

amendment no. 436

(Purpose: To make a technical correction relating to parental
involvement)

On page 90, line 5, after ``problems'' insert the
following:
``including problems, if any, in implementing the parental
involvement requirements described in section 1118, the
professional development requirements described in section
1119, and the responsibilities of the school and local
educational agency under the school plan''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 431, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To provide for greater parental involvement)

On page 125, line 6, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Section''.
On page 127, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(b) Grants.--Section 1118(a)(3) (20 U.S.C. 6319(a)(3)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C)(i)(I) The Secretary is authorized to award grants to
local educational agencies to enable the local educational
agencies to supplement the implementation of the provisions
of this section and to allow for the expansion of other
recognized and proven initiatives and policies to improve
student

[[Page 10616]]

achievement through the involvement of parents.
``(II) Each local educational agency desiring a grant under
this subparagraph shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
``(ii) Each application submitted under clause (i)(II)
shall describe the activities to be undertaken using funds
received under this subparagraph, shall set forth the process
by which the local educational agency will annually evaluate
the effectiveness of the agency's activities in improving
student achievement and increasing parental involvement shall
include an assurance that the local educational agency will
notify parents of the option to transfer their child to
another public school under section 1116(c)(7) or to obtain
supplemental services for their child under section
1116(c)(8), in accordance with those sections.
``(iii) Each grant under this subparagraph shall be awarded
for a 5-year period.
``(iv) The Secretary shall conduct a review of the
activities carried out by each local educational agency using
funds received under this subparagraph to determine whether
the local educational agency demonstrates improvement in
student achievement and an increase in parental involvement.
``(v) The Secretary shall terminate grants to a local
educational agency under this subparagraph after the fourth
year if the Secretary determines that the evaluations
conducted by such agency and the reviews conducted by the
Secretary show no improvement in the local educational
agency's student achievement and no increase in such agency's
parental involvement.
``(vi) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
this subparagraph $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, and such
sums as may be necessary for each subsequent fiscal year.''.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 419

(Purpose: To improve the provisions related to initiatives for
neglected, delinquent, or at risk students)

On page 233, strike lines 9 through 14, and insert the
following:
``(a) Transition Services.--Each State agency shall reserve
not less than 5 percent and not more than 30 percent of the
amount such agency receives under this chapter for any fiscal
year to support--
``(1) projects that facilitate the transition of children
and youth from State-operated institutions to local
educational agencies; or
``(2) the successful reentry of youth offenders, who are
age 20 or younger and have received a secondary school
diploma or its recognized equivalent, into postsecondary
education and vocational training programs through strategies
designed to expose the youth to, and prepare the youth for,
postsecondary education and vocational training programs,
such as--
``(A) preplacement programs that allow adjudicated or
incarcerated students to audit or attend courses on college,
university, or community college campuses, or through
programs provided in institutional settings;
``(B) worksite schools, in which institutions of higher
education and private or public employers partner to create
programs to help students make a successful transition to
postsecondary education and employment;
``(C) essential support services to ensure the success of
the youth, such as--
``(i) personal, vocational, and academic counseling;
``(ii) placement services designed to place the youth in a
university, college, or junior college program;
``(iii) health services;
``(iv) information concerning, and assistance in obtaining,
available student financial aid;
``(v) exposure to cultural events; and
``(vi) job placement services.
On page 233, strike lines 20 through 24.
On page 234, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

``SEC. 1419. EVALUATION; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; ANNUAL MODEL
PROGRAM.

``The Secretary shall reserve not more than 5 percent of
the amount made available to carry out this chapter for a
fiscal year--
``(1) to develop a uniform model to evaluate the
effectiveness of programs assisted under this chapter;
``(2) to provide technical assistance to and support the
capacity building of State agency programs assisted under
this chapter; and
``(3) to create an annual model correctional youthful
offender program event under which a national award is given
to programs assisted under this chapter which demonstrate
program excellence in--
``(A) transition services for reentry in and completion of
regular or other education programs operated by a local
educational agency;
``(B) transition services to job training programs and
employment, utilizing existing support programs such as One
Stop Career Centers;
``(C) transition services for participation in
postsecondary education programs;
``(D) the successful reentry into the community; and
``(E) the impact on recidivism reduction for juvenile and
adult programs.
On page 242, line 19, strike ``and''.
On page 242, line 22, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 242, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
``(5) participate in postsecondary education and job
training programs.
On page 243, line 6, insert ``and the Secretary'' after
``agency''.

Amendment No. 382

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me inquire. I gather we have a unanimous
consent agreement to have 4 minutes equally divided to make closing
arguments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. FRIST. We are done.
Mr. DODD. I have 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, I had printed in the Record letters
in support of my afterschool amendment, letters from Fight Crime:
Invest in Kids, from 1,000 chiefs of police, prosecutors, crime
survivors, and police organizations. Their letters are strong letters
in terms of the value of afterschool programs.
Seventy percent of the chiefs of police have said the best method for
reducing the problems of afterschool violence is a good afterschool
program.
There have been almost 3,000 applications for 21st century learning
centers since the concept was introduced a number of years ago. It has
been the largest single request from local communities and community-
based organizations in the history of the Department of Education.
My point is simply this. I am willing to support, and I support the
Straight A's block grant program. I want to take out, however, the 5.7
percent of funding--that is all it amounts to--for afterschool
programs. That program ought not end up subject to the vagaries of what
happens to a State education agency.
We ought to let local communities decide whether or not they want an
afterschool program. We are going to say in 7 States, in 25 school
districts--that could comprise as many as 26 million children--for the
next 7 years, that afterschool programs will be left to a jump ball, in
effect.
This is a program that is supported by Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs. I
have strong letters from the YMCAs, YWCAs--the 2,500 across the
country--that urge--in fact, beg in this letter--that we adopt this
amendment. It isn't me asking for this. This is not D's and R's
fighting with each other. These are people every day who are out there
trying to make sure that kids can be in a safe environment after
school. That is really what this amounts to. Chiefs of police say it is
important. School administrators will tell you it is important.
This does not destroy the block grant program at all. This idea that
it does is not based on any independent analysis of it at all. So I
urge this amendment be adopted. It means a lot to our local
communities. We now have 11 million kids who are home alone at the end
of each school day. We need to do better by these children.
An afterschool program, based on the 21st century concept, certainly
is deserving of that support. I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just 15 seconds. We are going to hold
Members accountable on the amount of time for the vote on this
amendment. So I hope all Members will make it their business to be in
the Chamber on time because we have to accommodate other Members who
have accommodated our schedule. We are making good progress. We are
going to conform to the Senate rules in relation to the time for the
vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Dodd amendment
No. 382. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 10617]]

Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--51

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--2

Biden
Landrieu

The amendment (No. 382) was rejected.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I missed this vote by a couple seconds. I
was conducting a hearing on the Balkans. It was my fault. I am not
suggesting that it is anybody's fault but mine. But if I had been here
in time to vote, I want the Record to reflect that I would have voted
for the Dodd amendment. I realize I cannot have my vote recorded, but I
want to be recorded as being in favor of the Dodd amendment if I had
been here in time. I apologize to my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 555, As Modified

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order in
relation to amendment No. 555.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right, and the amendment
is now pending.

Amendment No. 555, As Further Modified

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I send a further modification to
amendment No. 555 to the desk and ask unanimous consent it be so
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request to further
modify the amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

At the end of title IX add the following:

902. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE ACCESS OF
ARMED FORCES RECRUITERS TO STUDENT DIRECTORY
INFORMATION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Service in the Armed Forces of the United States is
voluntary.
(2) Recruiting quality persons in the numbers necessary to
maintain the strengths of the Armed Forces authorized by
Congress is vital to the United States national defense.
(3) Recruiting quality servicemembers is very challenging,
and as a result, Armed Forces recruiters must devote
extraordinary time and effort to their work in order to fill
monthly requirements for immediate accessions.
(4) In meeting goals for recruiting high quality men and
women, each of the Armed Forces faces intense competition
from the other Armed Forces, from the private sector, and
from institutions offering postsecondary education.
(5) Despite a variety of innovative approaches taken by
recruiters, and the extensive benefits that are available to
those who join the Armed Forces, it is becoming increasingly
difficult for the Armed Forces to meet recruiting goals.
(6) A number of high schools across the country have denied
recruiters access to students or to student directory
information.
(7) In 1999, the Army was denied access on 4,515 occasions,
the Navy was denied access on 4,364 occasions, the Marine
Corps was denied access on 4,884 occasions, and the Air Force
was denied access on 5,465 occasions.
(8) As of the beginning of 2000, nearly 25 percent of all
high schools in the United States did not release student
directory information requested by Armed Forces recruiters.
(9) In testimony presented to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate, recruiters stated that the single
biggest obstacle to carrying out the recruiting mission was
denial of access to student directory information, as the
student directory is the basic tool of the recruiter.
(10) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to
student directory information unfairly hurts the youth of the
United States, as it prevents students from receiving
important information on the education and training benefits
offered by the Armed Forces and impairs students'
decisionmaking on careers by limiting the information on the
options available to them.
(11) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to
student directory information undermines United States
national defense, and makes it more difficult to recruit high
quality young Americans in numbers sufficient to maintain the
readiness of the Armed Forces and to provide for the national
security.
(12) Section 503 of title 10, United States Code, requires
local educational agencies, as of July 1, 2002, to provide
recruiters access to secondary schools on the same basis that
those agencies provide access to representatives of colleges,
universities, and private sector employers.
(b) Campaign To Promote Access.--
(1) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, each State shall transmit to the
Secretary of Education a list of each school, if any, in that
State that--
(A) during the 12 months preceding the date of enactment of
this Act, has denied access to students or to student
directory information to a military recruiter; or
(B) has in effect a policy to deny access to students or to
student directory information to military recruiters.
(2) Education program.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Education, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall, not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, make
awards to States and schools using funds available under
section 6201(d) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
to educate principals, school administrators, and other
educators regarding career opportunities in the Armed Forces,
and the access standard required under section 503 of title
10, United States Code.
(B) Targeted schools.--In selecting schools for awards
required under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give
priority to selecting schools that are included on the lists
transmitted to Congress under paragraph (1).

SEC. 903. MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

(a) Denial of funds.--
(1) Prohibition.--No funds available to the Department of
Defense may be provided by grant or contract to any
institution of higher education (including any school of law,
whether or not accredited by the American Bar Association)
that has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents,
the Secretary of Defense from obtaining for military
recruiting purposes--
(A) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or
(B) access to directory information pertaining to students.
(2) Covered students.--Students referred to in paragraph
(1) are individuals who are 17 years of age or older.
(b) Procedures for Determination.--The Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Education,
shall prescribe regulations that contain procedures for
determining if and when an educational institution has denied
or prevented access to students or information described in
subsection (a).
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``directory information'' means, with respect to a student,
the student's name, address, telephone listing, date and
place of birth, level of education, degrees received, and the
most recent previous educational institution enrolled in by
the student.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I want to make a brief presentation on

[[Page 10618]]

this amendment and the need for this amendment. Senator Sessions may
also wish to make a brief statement regarding this amendment.
I believe in discussions with Senator Kennedy and Senator Reid this
amendment has been agreed to, but I do want to make a brief statement
about it and give Senator Sessions an opportunity to do likewise.
In my role last year as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee on
Armed Services, we held two hearings regarding recruitment to our armed
services. One of the tragedies I became aware of was there are
literally thousands of high schools across the United States that have
denied access to our military recruiters. That is a national shame.
In fact, we found that in 1999, which is the last year figures are
available, the Army was denied access to 4,515 high schools; The Navy
was denied access to 4,364 high schools; The Marine Corps was denied
access to 4,884 high schools; and the Air Force was denied access to
5,465 high schools.
These same high schools across the country are providing student
directory information to college recruiters. They are providing routine
access to employers, to class ring companies. I was very concerned
about this. As a result, I put a provision in last year's Defense
authorization bill that required those high schools that want to deny
access to go through a process in which the publicly elected school
board members would have to vote proactively to deny access on a
discriminatory basis to military recruiters.
I do not think many are going to do that. The thousands of schools
that are denying access are doing so usually at the whim of a principal
or superintendent who, for one reason or another, does not believe
recruiters should come on campus.
I believe they should have equal access. To the extent they allow
college recruiters and employers to recruit, then our military
recruiters should be able to come on that campus and tell their story,
and they have a great story to tell. They have a story to tell about
career opportunities in our armed services. They have a story to tell
about educational benefits that are offered in the armed services. They
have a story to tell about what Congress has done to enhance health
care benefits for those who make a career in the armed services. They
have a great story to tell young people, and young people need to have
this career option laid out before them. The military should not be
discriminated against.
We put those provisions in, and Senator Kennedy worked closely with
us ensuring it was not too heavy handed. In fact, there is a whole
process set up in which schools that are denying access will have
everyone clear up to the Secretary of Defense notified. The Governor of
the State will be notified, and a process is put in place whereby
whatever problems may have led to that discriminatory denial of access
can be addressed and hopefully amicably addressed so recruiters can get
into the schools again.
Only when a publicly elected school board votes publicly to deny
access will they be able to opt out of the bill. If they ignore the
law, which was passed by the Congress last year and signed into law,
they open themselves to a Federal lawsuit.
What we are finding out now is we are approaching the 1 year out from
when the law takes effect. Recruiters have told me this year, personnel
chiefs have told me this year that they are finding principals do not
know there has been a change in the law. Superintendents simply do not
know that this is the new law of the land.
My amendment tells the Secretary of Education that he must begin an
educational campaign in the course of this next year so superintendents
and principals are not going to have the excuse that they did not know.
They are going to know what the new policy is. They are going to know
what the new law is and begin, hopefully, to prepare for July 1, 2001,
when that law takes effect. I am very pleased that on both sides of the
aisle, in a bipartisan way, there is an agreement. This has been a good
step to take. This is a good vehicle for this provision in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I am also pleased Senator Sessions of Alabama called to my attention
another problem that has developed. I yield to Senator Sessions for a
statement about that provision he has added in a modification to the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Arkansas for his leadership on
this important issue. The U.S. military has been a guardian of liberty
for the United States and for freedom-loving people all over the world.
It has preserved our freedom. I wish it were not so that we had to have
a military, but we do, and it is critically important the men and women
in the military have the best education, and they recruit the best
young people in America, urging them to consider a career in the
military.
There is a group that is active in America that sometimes is hostile
to that. One of the most astounding things I learned a few years ago as
attorney general of the State of Alabama, a young man I hired to work
in my office went to law school, and the law school he attended would
not allow military recruiters to come on the law school campus to
solicit lawyers to join the military. I was astounded. He said the
students got up a petition to protest it. I thought he was kidding. He
was not kidding. In fact, that was the circumstance.
I talked to the dean and I later drafted legislation to require that
law schools allow recruiters on campus. They told me apparently it is a
problem, and it may be a reality all over America. They said the reason
this was occurring was because the accrediting agencies for law schools
take the position that the ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy of the U.S.
military, approved by former President Bill Clinton, is discriminatory
and, therefore, law schools cannot allow anybody who discriminates to
come on campus. So they have made that an accrediting factor and have
intimidated law schools.
This unelected group--who they are, I am not sure; perhaps they are
leftover antiwar activists--is dictating this around the country.
I think this legislation will be a healthy signal that the Senate
says, as I told this law school dean: You have freedom. We have a rule
of law in America today because men and women in uniform have defended
against the Communist totalitarians, the Nazi oppressors, and defeated
them and preserved liberty. The very concept, the very idea that a
legal arm of the Defense Department, the JAG officers, are not
respected and cannot recruit on the campus of the best law schools is
unacceptable.
I appreciate the opportunity that Senator Hutchinson has provided to
allow this amendment be included as a part of his legislation. I think
it is good public policy. I think it is wrong to allow this to happen
in America today. I think this legislation could make a big step in
eliminating the problem. If it does not, we may have to have more
specific legislation in the future.
I thank the Chair. I thank Senator Hutchinson. I thank Senator
Kennedy and Senator Gregg.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand that the final modification
may take a moment or two. There is the question about out of which fund
the resources will come. I understand the proponents want it out of the
Secretary's discretionary fund rather than the initial funding, which
was about $125 million that was going to be used for bonuses for States
and communities that meet their responsibilities in developing their
tests. We are just checking on the cross-reference number.
That aside, I thank Senator Hutchinson and Senator Sessions for their
cooperation in working this amendment through. We have a procedure in
place now so we can focus responsibility if there is a denial for
access to the campuses of this country. It does seem to me that the
armed services ought to have the same ability for access to students as
other groups that are recruiting at these universities and colleges and
schools. I think that is a rather basic and fundamental concept and one
with which I agree.

[[Page 10619]]

I think we have a proposal to try to move that process forward. There
is some existing legislation in place. This is a restatement of that
legislation because there has been some question in some minds whether
the existing legislation did the job. I thought the member of the
Committee on Armed Services, the one who had visited this issue
previously, thought it did, but we have some additional ways of
encouraging schools and colleges and law schools to give consideration
to recruiters. That has been included in this amendment. That is
acceptable to me, and I hope when it is finalized, which should be in a
moment, we will move ahead and accept the amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, and I especially
thank the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from Alabama for
bringing this amendment forward. I think it is absolutely essential
that we, as the Senate, put ourselves unalterably on the record, in a
clear manner, that we believe the armed services have every right, and
in fact colleges have an obligation to allow them, to recruit on their
campuses, whether they be law schools, whether they be graduate
schools, or whether they be undergraduate schools.
The attempt to exclude the military services from different colleges
is an example of political correctness run to its extreme. As the
branch of government which funds the armed services and which has a
critical obligation of making sure the armed services is filled with
talented citizens, it is our obligation to recruit aggressively. The
natural place to recruit is in the higher system of education and in
our high schools.
I congratulate the Senator. It is an excellent amendment. I look
forward to its passage.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Hutchinson
amendment be temporarily laid aside so I may offer an amendment which I
believe will be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 456, As Modified, to Amendment No. 358

Mr. DODD. I send a modification of the early childhood educator
professional development amendment No. 456 to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and
Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 456, as modified.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 383, after line 21, add the following:

``PART E--EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

``SEC. 2501. PURPOSE.

``In support of the national effort to attain the first of
America's Education Goals, the purpose of this part is to
enhance the school readiness of young children, particularly
disadvantaged young children, and to prevent them from
encountering difficulties once they enter school, by
improving the knowledge and skills of early childhood
educators who work in communities that have high
concentrations of children living in poverty.

``SEC. 2502. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

``(a) Grants to Partnerships.--The Secretary shall carry
out the purpose of this part by awarding grants, on a
competitive basis, to partnerships consisting of--
``(1)(A) one or more institutions of higher education that
provide professional development for early childhood
educators who work with children from low-income families in
high-need communities; or
``(B) another public or private entity that provides such
professional development;
``(2) one or more public agencies (including local
educational agencies, State educational agencies, State human
services agencies, and State and local agencies administering
programs under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
of 1990), Head Start agencies, or private organizations; and
``(3) to the extent feasible, an entity with demonstrated
experience in providing training to educators in early
childhood education programs in identifying and preventing
behavior problems or working with children identified or
suspected to be victims of abuse.
``(b) Duration and Number of Grants.--
``(1) Duration.--Each grant under this part shall be
awarded for not more than 4 years.
``(2) Number.--No partnership may receive more than 1 grant
under this part.

``SEC. 2503. APPLICATIONS.

``(a) Applications Required.--Any partnership that desires
to receive a grant under this part shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner,
and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
``(b) Contents.--Each such application shall include--
``(1) a description of the high-need community to be served
by the project, including such demographic and socioeconomic
information as the Secretary may request;
``(2) information on the quality of the early childhood
educator professional development program currently conducted
by the institution of higher education or other provider in
the partnership;
``(3) the results of the needs assessment that the entities
in the partnership have undertaken to determine the most
critical professional development needs of the early
childhood educators to be served by the partnership and in
the broader community, and a description of how the proposed
project will address those needs;
``(4) a description of how the proposed project will be
carried out, including--
``(A) how individuals will be selected to participate;
``(B) the types of research-based professional development
activities that will be carried out;
``(C) how research on effective professional development
and on adult learning will be used to design and deliver
project activities;
``(D) how the project will coordinate with and build on,
and will not supplant or duplicate, early childhood education
professional development activities that exist in the
community;
``(E) how the project will train early childhood educators
to provide services that are based on developmentally
appropriate practices and the best available research on
child social, emotional, physical and cognitive development
and on early childhood pedagogy;
``(F) how the program will train early childhood educators
to meet the diverse educational needs of children in the
community, including children who have limited English
proficiency, disabilities, or other special needs; and
``(G) how the project will train early childhood educators
in identifying and preventing behavioral problems or working
with children identified as or suspected to be victims of
abuse;
``(5) a description of--
``(A) the specific objectives that the partnership will
seek to attain through the project, and how the partnership
will measure progress toward attainment of those objectives;
and
``(B) how the objectives and the measurement activities
align with the performance indicators established by the
Secretary under section 2506(a);
``(6) a description of the partnership's plan for
continuing the activities carried out under the project, so
that the activities continue once Federal funding ceases;
``(7) an assurance that, where applicable, the project will
provide appropriate professional development to volunteers
working directly with young children, as well as to paid
staff; and
``(8) an assurance that, in developing its application and
in carrying out its project, the partnership has consulted
with, and will consult with, relevant agencies, early
childhood educator organizations, and early childhood
providers that are not members of the partnership.

``SEC. 2504. SELECTION OF GRANTEES.

``(a) Criteria.--The Secretary shall select partnerships to
receive funding on the basis of the community's need for
assistance and the quality of the applications.
``(b) Geographic Distribution.--In selecting partnerships,
the Secretary shall seek to ensure that communities in
different regions of the Nation, as well as both urban and
rural communities, are served.

``SEC. 2505. USES OF FUNDS.

``(a) In General.--Each partnership receiving a grant under
this part shall use the grant funds to carry out activities
that will improve the knowledge and skills of early childhood
educators who are working in early childhood programs that
are located in high-need communities and serve concentrations
of children from low-income families.
``(b) Allowable Activities.--Such activities may include--
``(1) professional development for individuals working as
early childhood educators, particularly to familiarize those
individuals with the application of recent research on child,
language, and literacy development and on early childhood
pedagogy;
``(2) professional development for early childhood
educators in working with parents, based on the best current
research on child social, emotional, physical and cognitive
development and parent involvement, so that the educators can
prepare their children to succeed in school;
``(3) professional development for early childhood
educators to work with children who have limited English
proficiency, disabilities, and other special needs;
``(4) professional development to train early childhood
educators in identifying and

[[Page 10620]]

preventing behavioral problems in children or working with
children identified or suspected to be victims of abuse;
``(5) activities that assist and support early childhood
educators during their first three years in the field;
``(6) development and implementation of early childhood
educator professional development programs that make use of
distance learning and other technologies;
``(7) professional development activities related to the
selection and use of screening and diagnostic assessments to
improve teaching and learning; and
``(8) data collection, evaluation, and reporting needed to
meet the requirements of this part relating to
accountability.

``SEC. 2506. ACCOUNTABILITY.

``(a) Performance Indicators.--Simultaneously with the
publication of any application notice for grants under this
part, the Secretary shall announce performance indicators for
this part, which shall be designed to measure--
``(1) the quality and accessibility of the professional
development provided;
``(2) the impact of that professional development on the
early childhood education provided by the individuals who are
trained; and
``(3) such other measures of program impact as the
Secretary determines appropriate.
``(b) Annual Reports; Termination.--
``(1) Annual reports.--Each partnership receiving a grant
under this part shall report annually to the Secretary on the
partnership's progress against the performance indicators.
``(2) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate a grant
under this part at any time if the Secretary determines that
the partnership is not making satisfactory progress against
the indicators.

``SEC. 2507. COST-SHARING.

``(a) In General.--Each partnership shall provide, from
other sources, which may include other Federal sources--
``(1) at least 50 percent of the total cost of its project
for the grant period; and
``(2) at least 20 percent of the project cost in each year.
``(b) Acceptable Contributions.--A partnership may meet the
requirement of subsection (a) through cash or in-kind
contributions, fairly valued.
``(c) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive or modify the
requirements of subsection (a) in cases of demonstrated
financial hardship.

``SEC. 2508. DEFINITIONS.

``In this part:
``(1) High-need community.--
``(A) In general.--The term `high-need community' means--
``(i) a municipality, or a portion of a municipality, in
which at least 50 percent of the children are from low-income
families; or
``(ii) a municipality that is one of the 10 percent of
municipalities within the State having the greatest numbers
of such children.
``(B) Determination.--In determining which communities are
described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall use such
data as the Secretary determines are most accurate and
appropriate.
``(2) Low-income family.--The term `low-income family'
means a family with an income below the poverty line (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised
annually in accordance with section 673(2) of the Community
Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2))) applicable to a
family of the size involved for the most recent fiscal year
for which satisfactory data are available.
``(3) Early childhood educator.--The term `early childhood
educator' means a person providing or employed by a provider
of non-residential child care services (including center-
based, family-based, and in-home child care services) that is
legally operating under State law, and that complies with
applicable State and local requirements for the provision of
child care services to children at any age from birth through
kindergarten.

``SEC. 2509. FEDERAL COORDINATION.

``The Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall coordinate activities under this part and
other early childhood programs administered by the two
Secretaries.

``SEC. 2510. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are
authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for fiscal year
2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 6
succeeding fiscal years.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
Mr. DODD. I have cleared the modification with the manager and the
ranking member. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator
Corzine of New Jersey. It is the early childhood educator professional
development amendment.
We have been talking a lot in the last few days about raising the
quality of education for all children. Learning starts, as we all know,
very early--earlier than most people imagined a few years ago. If we
want to succeed with educational reform, we have to help those
educators work with very young children.
We know from research that quality child care makes a difference in
children's readiness for school, their behavior, and their social and
emotional development.
A study following children in Chicago enrolled in the Child Parent
Program and other early childhood programs over a 15 year period,
reported in the May 9, 2001 Journal of the American Medical
Association, shows that low-income children in high-quality,
comprehensive early childhood education programs have lower rates of
juvenile arrests and violent arrests.
The National Academy of Sciences' report, Neurons to Neighborhoods,
also stressed the importance of quality early childhood education to
child development.
And, many other studies confirm that children who attend early
childhood education programs led by highly qualified educators are more
likely to have better behavior skills, more enriched vocabularies and
pre-reading skills, and to succeed in school.
Yet we do not give the caregivers and teachers who nurture 13 million
children outside of their homes every day the training that they want
and need.
Many child care and preschool teachers have only a high school
diploma. And, often, preschool teachers receive only ten hours of
training each year.
Children who can't interact well with other children or their
teachers are going to have a better chance at learning to read if we
develop their reading skills in conjunction with their other
developmental needs.
For children to be ready for school and to learn to read, their early
childhood educators must have the training to help them develop
intellectually and socially.
This amendment would provide for grants to local partnerships to
train early childhood educators in children's social, emotional,
cognitive, and physical development, including ways to identify and
prevent behavior problems and children who are victims of abuse.
Violence prevention must begin with very young children. With the
skills and knowledge on how to effectively help young children deal
with anger and conflict without violence and to support their learning,
many more children will succeed in school and beyond.
If we can deal with these issues early in life, we can help prevent
negative, even violent, behavioral problems later.
We must invest in the teachers of our young children.
This amendment is supported by a long list of organizations
representing the early childhood educator community, including the
American Federation of Teachers, the Children's Defense Fund, the
Departments of Education in Maryland, New York State, Oregon, Rhode
Island, and South Carolina, the National Association for the Education
of young Children, the National Head Start Association, the YMCA, the
YWCA, and many others.
I ask my colleagues to join me in Senator Corzine in supporting this
important amendment.
I think the amendment is being agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut
for his initiative in this area. He makes a number of good points about
the need for high-quality teachers being involved in early childhood
education programs. The amendment is acceptable to the managers on this
side.
If there is no other debate, I will urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 456), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Previously Submitted Amendment No. 458

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am not going to offer this amendment. I
will

[[Page 10621]]

ask unanimous consent the amendment be printed in the Record, the one I
was about to offer on equity for Puerto Rico, amendment No. 458. I ask
unanimous consent this amendment be printed in the Record.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001, under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. DODD. I do not intend to offer this amendment, but I wanted to
raise it as a subject matter that has been discussed both in the other
body and here. As we all know, Puerto Rico is part of America. They do
not have Senators here, so from time to time those of us who have been
involved and care about the hundreds of thousands, millions of people
who live on the island of Puerto Rico, and the 600,000 children on that
island, and the quality of education they receive, take on the
responsibility of trying to raise the issues that are important to
these fellow Americans.
This amendment I will not offer right now. The House has included
some language to deal with title I education in Puerto Rico. I am
hopeful in conference maybe we can work out some accommodation that
will serve these children.
Title I is very important to Puerto Rico because of the island's high
concentration of low-income children. Mr. President, 93 percent of
Puerto Rico's public schools participate in title I. More than 600,000
children benefit from the title I program. The cost of educating
children in Puerto Rico is comparable to the cost of educating children
in the 50 States. In fact, the cost of living in San Juan, Puerto Rico,
its capital, is higher than the cost of living in most other major
American cities. Failure to provide equitable treatment to Puerto Rico
and its children who are American citizens, American children,
perpetuates a system that denies those children the access to quality
education that every child deserves.
The President has articulated in his statements that we should be
leaving no child behind in this country. The Puerto Rican children, as
I said, have no Senators to represent them. They do have a very fine
Representative in the other body, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, who represents
the island of Puerto Rico in the other body. He does not have a vote,
but he has a voice. He votes in committees. He has talked to me and
other Members about the importance of title I funding in Puerto Rico.
So on behalf of my colleague in the other body, on behalf of the
600,000 children in Puerto Rico and their families, I put this
amendment in the Record. I raise the issue here to let them know we
will continue to pursue this matter when it comes up in conference.
Puerto Rico is working very hard to help its children compete. Over
the last 5 years, it has increased its per pupil investment in
education by 58 percent. That is more than any State in the United
States and more than the national average, but because of the unfair
treatment we give this group of Americans, Puerto Rican children
receive only three-quarters of the resources they would receive were
they to move to Connecticut, Rhode Island, or any other State. Even
though they are American citizens, we do not provide them the full
funding every other State gets under title I under proportionality, so
these fellow citizens of ours are not treated as equally as others.
On behalf of the people of Puerto Rico, I hope that situation will be
corrected. We will fight very hard for it in conference, but
recognizing the realities here on the floor, I am fearful such an
amendment might fail. I think there is a better chance of working out
something with the other body in conference that will accommodate these
people.
The 516,000 poor children in Puerto Rico should know we have not
given up and we will carry on this battle in conference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with my friend and colleague from
Connecticut in pointing out to this body the unfairness of the
treatment of Puerto Rico.
If I am not mistaken, I think they have a greater participation in
the military forces of this country than any State or other territory.
I remember at one time when we were battling on questions of the Food
Stamp Program pointing out the number of Puerto Rican Congressional
Medal of Honor winners in the conflicts of this Nation. They are, in
many instances, the earliest units that get called up to the service of
this country. They have served all over the globe and have proudly worn
the American uniform. Yet they are being constantly shortchanged in
this extraordinarily important area, important to families in our 50
States. But these families in Puerto Rico care as deeply as any
families do in any part of the United States about their children, and
the hopes and dreams of those children are just as real as the hopes
and dreams of children here.
So I give assurance to the Senator. We have talked about this. It was
raised briefly in the markup of our committee. We will work with our
colleagues on the other side and with our friends in Puerto Rico and
hopefully with the administration to move us in the direction of
treating them equitably and fairly. They are not so treated at this
time. I think the American people would certainly support that.
If we are able to get the additional funding, which I am hopeful we
are able to do, the opportunities will be even greater. But I thank the
Senator for bringing up this subject.
We want to give full notice to all of our colleagues that we are
going to try to find a way to treat Puerto Rico fairly, as they should
be treated and as they are not being treated at the present time.
I thank the Senator for bringing this matter to our attention.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague from
Massachusetts in saluting the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator
from New Jersey for this outstanding amendment. I think it has been
summed up well by both speakers. The funding in Puerto Rico is not what
it should be. Certainly given that every Puerto Rican is an American
citizen, given the fact that we have, particularly with my State and so
many of the others, people who are going back and forth, educated in
one, work in the other, and go back home to retire, we want the best
educated people in Puerto Rico that we can have.
Title I said we are going to do that for people who are less
advantaged than the rest of us. To exclude Puerto Rico from that
formula is both unfair to their birthright as citizens, to the fact
they fight in the military, to the fact that they do all the things all
of us do, and at the same time it is also foolish because a better
educated Puerto Rico makes a stronger America and a stronger American
economy.
Certainly it affects the State that I represent very directly.
This is an excellent amendment. I think the Senator from Connecticut
has done the right thing by not forcing the debate. I join him in an
earnest wish that the conferees will take care of this problem in
conference so that we will finally do right by the children of Puerto
Rico, American citizens as are we.
I yield the floor.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Schumer be recognized to offer an amendment regarding funding with 40
minutes for debate; further, that when Senator Domenici offers his
amendment regarding funding, which is at the desk, the debate be
limited to 40 minutes; further, that the debate on the two amendments
be divided as follow: Senators Schumer, Domenici,

[[Page 10622]]

Gregg, and Kennedy; further, that upon the use or yielding back of the
time, the Senate vote in relation to the Domenici amendment followed by
4 minutes for closing debate, and a vote in relation to the Schumer
amendment with no second-degree amendments be in order.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not
object. I wonder if we could add ``or their designee.''
Mr. KENNEDY. I so add ``or their designee.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.

Amendment No. 800 To Amendment No. 358

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes an
amendment numbered 800.

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should
appropriate all funds authorized for elementary and secondary education
in fiscal year 2002)

At the appropriate place insert the following:

SEC. 902. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON APPROPRIATION OF ALL FUNDS
AUTHORIZED FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) President George W. Bush has said that bipartisan
education reform will be the cornerstone of his
administration and that no child should be left behind;
(2) the Bush administration has said that too many of the
neediest students of our Nation are being left behind and
that the Federal Government can, and must, help close the
achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their
peers;
(3) more of the children of our Nation are enrolled in
public school today than at any time since 1971;
(4) math and science skills are increasingly important as
the global economy transforms into a high tech economy;
(5) last year's Glenn Commission concluded that the most
consistent and powerful predictors of student achievement in
math and science are whether the student's teacher had full
teaching certification and a college major in the field being
taught; and
(6) Congress increased appropriations for elementary and
secondary education by 20 percent in fiscal year 2001.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Congress should appropriate all funds authorized for
elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2002.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask that I be yielded 10 minutes of the
pending time to the Schumer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
myself and my colleague from California, Senator Boxer. We have worked
hard on this amendment. I very much appreciate her efforts and
inspiration on this amendment.
Our amendment is very simple. I am going to read it to the body so
there can be no mistake about it. After a bunch of whereas clauses, on
line 23, page 2, it says:

(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that Congress should appropriate all funds authorized for
elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2002.

The amendment is very simple. Basically it says to this body, to the
other body, and to the White House: Put your money where your mouth is.
We have been talking about education, as we should, for the last 2
weeks. We have been saying how important education is to the future of
America. We have been debating--and I think in a rather good debate--
the various new programs we wish to add to education. We have talked
about modifying other programs. As a result, so that these will not be
empty promises, we have added over $10.6 billion to the authorization
level if you just count the five major programs: IDEA, title I, teacher
quality, bilingual immigrant, and afterschool. There are several more
billion that have been added as well.
What a hollow promise it would be if we passed this bill and then did
not appropriate the money. To those who have been listening to this
debate in the gallery and elsewhere, an authorization brings no new
money to a program. It is simply an ability to open up a bank account
up to a certain level. It is the appropriation that actually puts the
money in the bank account. It is only the appropriation that will fund
the special education or the teachers for underachieving children or
the teachers of high quality throughout America or the afterschool
programs.
If we were to authorize a beautiful shiny bill and put it in a nice
box and put a ribbon on it and send it to the White House, and the
President were to have a big signing ceremony, and then in the summer,
when the appropriations process began, we were to not appropriate even
close to the amount of money we have authorized, all our talk the last
few weeks would be a hollow promise. We would be saying, yes, we care
about education, but we do not care enough about education to fund it.
All the things that make the public cynical about this city, and even
about this Chamber, would come to be realized in those two
contradictory acts: One, great debate and discussion about programs,
and then later in the summer, no money to fund all the programs we are
talking about.
Why is this amendment necessary? It is certainly true that we do not
always appropriate every dollar we authorize. But it is quite glaring
in the actions we have taken thus far. The President has run on a
platform as an education President. This Senate debates this bill and
says we are going to be the education Senate. Yet in the budget we
passed--in the President's budget--the increase in the amount of money
actually proposed for education is considerably less than last year and
the year before and the year before.
So are we serious or are we just fooling the American people? Is this
a real debate or is this just for show to make us feel good and make
our constituents feel good? That is the fundamental question with which
this amendment deals.
I know there are many in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle who
believe so strongly in this matter that they don't want to allow this
bill to actually get to the President's desk until we see if there is
going to be money for it.
This amendment that I have authored with the Senator from California
says that. It says, very simply, that we are going to put our money
where all our verbiage has been. It says, very simply, that we care
enough, as hard and tight as this budget is, that we are going to find
room to pay for quality teachers, to pay for special education.
It says we realize that the local property tax, which funds education
throughout America, is so high for almost all of our constituents that
if we do not come to their aid, the quality of our schools will
certainly decline.
I know the Senator from New Mexico has an amendment, but it is a
meaningless amendment; I do not know why he even offered it because all
his amendment says--let me read it--is: the Senate make funding
consistent with the President's budget.
I would not advise people to vote for it if they have been voting for
these increased programs because the President's budget does not fund
them.
I say to my colleagues, we just have finished 2 weeks of a debate
where we have debated how this program should be changed, whether this
one should get $500 million or $600 million. That is not much when you
consider it is all of America, with the tens of millions of
schoolchildren we have in this great country. How can we then just go
ahead and vote for the amendment by the Senator from New Mexico which
says we are not going to fund it? Because that is what Senator
Domenici's amendment says. It says, we are not going to fund education
to the extent that we have just voted in the last 2 weeks we should
fund education.
Are we going to make this the bill of fulfilled dreams for so many
schoolchildren or the bill of broken promises? That is what the
contrast is. The Schumer-Boxer amendment says we are

[[Page 10623]]

going to try to help you reach your dream; we are going to help you
fund your schools to make your schools better. The Domenici amendment
says it is already a broken promise even though we are voting for an
authorization for the kids in special ed, which consumes such a high
percentage of local school budgets; for the kids in title I who need a
little help to read up to grade level; for teacher quality so that our
kids get the best teachers, and teaching is an elite profession in the
21st century. The Schumer amendment says we are going to deliver. The
Domenici amendment says we are not, so don't pay any attention to what
we have done over the last 2 weeks.
Mr. President, I yield to my colleague and coauthor of this
amendment, the Senator from California, 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York. As
usual, he has really cut through a lot of the fussiness surrounding
this debate and made the point clear. That is why I was so proud to
team up with him.
All we are saying in this amendment is, fund the programs you just
voted to fund. It is as simple as that. And just so everybody
understands it, I will explain it one more time. In every program that
we put forward in the Federal Government, no matter what it is, you
basically have an authorization, which is the nod. It says to the
appropriators: It is OK to fund the military up to this amount; it is
OK to fund education up to this amount, highways up to this amount.
That is the authorization.
The next step that makes it all a reality is the funding, the actual
funding of those programs. That is called appropriations. So the
Schumer-Boxer amendment simply says--and I am going to say it in his
words because they come from the heart and soul of Brooklyn, NY--put
your money where your mouth is.
Everyone understands what that means. We can all give the greatest
speeches coming out of our mouths--golden words, beautiful words. What
does it mean if you do not back it up with reality, with substance,
and, in this case, with funding?
It doesn't mean anything for amendments to pass and then not to fund
them. I guess the senatorial way to say it would be, fulfill your
commitments that you made on this ESEA bill. That is all it says.
We have been debating this for weeks. Senator Domenici's alternative
to Schumer-Boxer essentially says: All this was wasted time. We are not
going to fund all of this. We are just going to go back to the
President's budget which shorts all of these programs.
The next chart shows what we have voted to fund in this bill. By the
way, I have not included everything, but Senator Collins will recognize
this because she worked hard on some of these items. Senator Cochran
will recognize it because he worked hard on this, as well as Senators
Lincoln, Akaka, Mikulski, Reed, and Domenici. I worked with Senator
Ensign. These are quite bipartisan. As a matter of fact, the first one,
title I, full funding, is a Dodd-Collins amendment. So look at what we
have done.
The authorizing level we just passed for the current year is $15
billion, and the Bush budget is $9 billion. So there is a gap we need
to fill. IDEA, which is for special education, the kids who need the
help, it is funded at $8.8 billion for next year; the President's
budget is $7.3 billion. There is a shortfall. Continuing the list:
Teacher quality, $3 billion compared to $2.6 billion; the Boxer-Ensign
bill on afterschool, $1.5 billion compared to $846 million; grants for
enhanced testing, $200 million, a new program; math and science
education, Dick Durbin's amendment, up $400 million; bilingual
education, up, that was Lincoln Chafee; small programs, Thad Cochran,
that is zero in the President's budget, $416 million here; economic
education, $10 million, a new program; community technology, $100
million to zero; school libraries, $500 million to zero in the Bush
budget; and mental health grants, I say to my friend, Senator Domenici,
$50 million, a new program. He doesn't even say we ought to fund his
own amendment. He says stick to the President's budget. He would not
fund the program he brought here, and he worked with Senator Kennedy on
it. It was done by unanimous consent. It was that popular.
So here we have it in black and white. This is only $10.4 billion. I
understand the difference now is $12.3 billion because after we made
this chart, we approved some other programs.
I say to the Senator from New York and to the Senator from
Massachusetts and to Senator Collins, who is managing the floor for the
Republicans: We have to do more than just say nice words. We have to do
more than stand here and say ``our children are our future.'' How many
of us have said that? Probably all of us at one time, that we care
about them. We have to say more than just education is our priority.
What we have to do is come behind those words with the resources.
This bill is about reform. If you want results, you need the
resources. It is kind of like the three R's. This next chart is the
essence of the Schumer-Boxer amendment. On our side of the aisle what
we are saying is--and we hope Republicans will join us--we want reform.
We have proven that by this bill. We want resources. We have proven
that by this amendment. And we expect results. We are going to hold
people accountable for results.
So far, our Republican friends support reform. But if they back the
Domenici alternative to Schumer-Boxer, I think we can truly say they
don't support resources and they cannot possibly expect results.
Every one of these programs I have shown you has been brought to the
Senate by various Senators. Now is the time when the rubber meets the
road. Another saying, one we hear a lot: The rubber meets the road. How
are you going to bring into effect these wonderful programs, such as
teacher quality, title I, grants for enhanced testing, math and
science, bilingual ed, small programs, economic education, community
technology centers, school libraries, mental health clinics,
afterschool programs, if you don't bring to the fore the resources? Or,
said in a better way in the Schumer-Boxer amendment: It is the sense of
the Senate that Congress should appropriate all funds authorized for
elementary and secondary education in fiscal year 2002.
To my colleagues who may be listening in their offices, if you vote
against the Schumer-Boxer amendment, I have to say, I don't understand
why you voted for this wonderful list of enhancements for our children.
It just does not make sense. We are saying, you voted for the
authorizing of these programs; now vote for the appropriations.
As my colleague Senator Schumer has stated: Some Members feel so
strongly about it, they did not even want to bring this bill to the
floor until we had a meeting of the minds with our Republican friends
and the President that these programs would be funded or at least some
of them would be funded.
I urge my colleagues to come together, Republicans and Democrats
alike, and give the thumbs up to this bill. You all say you like it.
President Bush has held meetings. He has had Congressman Miller on one
side and Ted Kennedy on the other. That is great. Photo ops are great.
We all love them. You show you are for the kids and then your budget
falls $12 billion short next year of what we need to do to carry out
all this important work we have done over weeks and weeks on this bill.
I thank my colleague from New York. We have joined together, east
coast, west coast. We hope all those in the middle will join us and
defeat the Domenici amendment. If all we are going to do is appropriate
the money in the President's budget, we can't really do this.
The most important thing, regardless of what we do with Domenici, is
to support the Schumer-Boxer amendment. That will show that we mean
what we say and we say what we mean. And we should be a model to our
children. I look up in the galleries and see a lot of kids here. They
are watching us. We had better mean what we say.

[[Page 10624]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know my friend and colleague from Iowa
wanted some time as well. I do not see him on the floor. Do I
understand now I have up to 10 minutes; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes on the two
amendments.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. I yield myself 7 minutes.
The end is in sight in terms of the completion of this legislation
and this phase of the legislative process. It has been on the floor now
for several weeks. We have had good debates on a number of very
important measures. We still have some remaining items through the
afternoon, hopefully recessing at a reasonable hour this evening. Then
we will have a full morning and early afternoon tomorrow with a series
of amendments by Senators Helms, Murray, and Sessions. Hopefully, we
will be able to conclude the legislation by tomorrow at a reasonable
time.
It is appropriate, as we are coming into the final hours of
consideration of the legislation, to take stock of where we are, to
take stock of the legislation, and then to look down the road in terms
of the future.
We are going to be completing this legislation. We will move to the
conference with the House of Representatives, which has a somewhat
different approach than we have, but we have a fundamental agreement on
what we are going to do. We will have an opportunity to address those
issues and to find common ground with the House. Then we will come back
here with a final product.
I am strongly committed and will work very hard to make sure we are
going to come back with a program that is going to, in this instance,
include the funding for the IDEA programs, which make such a difference
for children in my State and across the country. By that I mean the
mandatory spending for the IDEA. We have had bipartisan support to
include that in the legislation. It was reflected here during the
discussion, not only on that amendment but on others, as well, by
Republicans and Democrats. It is vitally important. It makes a great
deal of difference in terms of the results on this whole program.
When you take the funding of IDEA and also the funding in terms of
title I, plus what we have done with other elements in terms of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and if we are going to move
toward a real funding and investment in our children, I think we have
the most unique opportunity we have had in recent times to make a major
difference in terms of the neediest children in our country. We should
not miss it.
What we have seen over the period of these past several weeks is the
attempt to try and get it right in terms of working to make sure that
children in local communities are going to have available to them
tried, tested, and proven programs that can provide academic
achievement and advancement. That is what this legislation is really
all about. We know what needs to be done. The question is, do we have
the willpower to be able to do it? That is what this amendment of
Senator Schumer and Senator Boxer really is all about--to put the
Senate on record in the final hours of this debate that we believe we
need the resources made available to the children in this country that
otherwise would be denied it.
Mr. President, we have to understand that this legislation isn't
going to solve all of the problems. We will be back in another 6 years
trying to deal with these issues again. But what the proponents of this
amendment understand is that what is really essential is the investment
in the early education of the children of this country, to invest in
Early Start, Healthy Start, early learning, and children in terms of
the Head Start Program. We are strongly committed to that. We are all
strongly committed to the concept of having a child ready to learn when
they go into school. That is a given. The funding is not there. The
funding is not there for those programs.
Many of us are greatly disappointed because when we are talking about
the children, particularly the very small children and the children who
will be affected by this legislation, we are defining the future of
this Nation. We are defining the future of our democracy, the future of
our economy, and the future of the relationships these individuals are
going to have with their families.
This is about America's future. For my money, there isn't a more
important investment that we can make. This is about our children and
about our future.
This chart reflects the progress we have made in recent times in the
elementary and secondary education budget increases. We have seen that
over the period of the last 7 years it has gone up by 8.6 percent. We
have heard it said that money isn't everything, money doesn't solve all
the problems, and let's not just throw money at education. We
understand that. The fact is, though, the investment here is a clear
reflection about our Nation's priorities.
As a matter of national priority, do we think investing in the
neediest children in our country is a priority in which we ought to
invest?
This amendment says, yes, there is no higher priority. What we have
had and what we are looking at is the budget that has been proposed by
this administration, by this President, supported by this Republican
Party and its Republican leadership. When you look at that record, the
proposed ESEA budget increases that will be incorporated, this concept
in the Domenici amendment, there is a 2.6 percent increase in 2002.
That is a $1 billion addition for IDEA and $700 million for the title I
program--$700 million for the title I program.
We are only reaching a third of the children at the present time. And
then if you look at this chart for the years 2003, zero; 2004, zero;
2005, zero; 2006, zero; 2007, zero; 2008, zero; 2009, zero; 2010 zero.
The number of children at the end of the next 10 years is going to be
the same number that we have at the present time. There will be no
increase in the total number of children who will be there, in contrast
to the amendment of the Senator from New York and the Senator from
California, which says we are going to build to make sure that if we do
have something in here, and the funding for the IDEA program, we are
going to see an expansion in investing in those children. We are going
to make sure that all of the children who are eligible--the 10 million
children--will participate in the whole range of programs.
Who wants to make the choice today about which child is going to get
supplementary services and which will not, or which will get a summer
school program and which will not, or which will get the afterschool
program and which one will not? What are we going to say about that?
This amendment says that our Nation's priorities are clear and they
should be expressed on the floor of the Senate in a bipartisan way.
Seventy percent of the Members of this body, Republican and Democrats
alike, supported the idea for full funding for the title I program. We
have brought about the reforms that many of the critics have stated.
The real question is, are we going to be true to the concept that we
are going to leave no child behind? Without this amendment, and without
the resources here, we are leaving two out of three children behind,
make no mistake about it.
Finally, in our elementary and secondary education bill, we
effectively guarantee that every child that is eligible for the title I
program in the ESEA will reach proficiency by the time this legislation
expires. That is an empty promise if we are only going to fund this
program to reach one out of three. We should not represent to the
American people that we are committed to not leaving children behind if
we are not going to back that up with the kinds of American resources
that we have available at this time and which should be invested in
these children. That is the way I read this amendment.

[[Page 10625]]

I thank the Senators for bringing this measure up. I hope it is going
to get strong support because it is really a reflection of the kind of
commitment that this body has for the future of our Nation and, most
important, the future of the children of our country.
Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time not to be charged.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 801, As Modified

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an
amendment I send to the desk be a substitute for the amendment that has
been previously stated to be a Domenici amendment. This is the Domenici
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AUTHORIZATIONS.

Findings.--
(1) This bill currently authorizes at least $30 billion in
discretionary spending on elementary and secondary education
programs in fiscal year 2002.
(2) Over the 2002-8 period, this bill authorizes more than
$300 billion for these same programs.
(3) Congress currently provides $18.4 billion for these
same programs.
It is therefore the Sense of the Senate that:
(1) The Appropriations Committee shall fund the
authorizations in this bill to the maximum extent possible.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to read this to everyone so there
will be an understanding of where we are.
First, I did not have enough time this afternoon or I would have
searched the records of legislation we passed that comes out of
committees that have authorizing authority. Clearly, the committee that
reported this bill that has been debated so mightily on or about May 3,
with intervening time used for some other bills, is an authorizing
committee. There is no authority in the committee that my good friend
Senator Kennedy chairs to appropriate money. I do not think anybody
will argue with that point.
The appropriators each year appropriate money in various
appropriations bills, one of which will contain the appropriated money
for education.
What we have been doing in the meantime on this education bill is
very typical of what we do on any new authorization bill.
People bring to the floor amendments to the authorizing bill that
says we want to authorize a different program with different amounts of
money covering different groups of people so that historically in the
U.S. Congress, whenever authorizing legislation has been passed, it is,
for the most part, substantially higher than the amount appropriated by
the Appropriations Committee, which has the single and sole authority
to appropriate money.
I do not believe anyone is going to stand in this Chamber today and
say the education committee appropriated this money and each Senator
who offered an amendment that was voted on, whether it was adopted 95-0
or by 2 votes, whatever the case may be--nobody is going to say that
amendment was appropriating money, making money available to the
Department of Education to do certain things.
Those amendments and the basic underlying bill create a policy or an
authorizing gamut from which the appropriators fund some or all of what
is in authorizing legislation.
We have set about in the Senate to adopt many amendments. I am quite
certain that when the appropriations bill comes to the floor, if we
want to take every one of these amendments and stand up before the
Senate and say, ``I want to offer this amendment to the appropriations
bill because I want to add more money,'' I am sure it will be
considered. The question is, will it be adopted? The question is, will
it be automatic? I think the answer is, we do not know whether it will
be adopted when it comes to appropriating, and certainly there is no
question that it has not yet been appropriated.
I say in this amendment--and I think everybody who is concerned about
education funding ought to vote for it--the following: This bill before
us, without the remaining amendments that are still to be adopted,
currently authorizes at least $30 billion in discretionary spending for
elementary and secondary education programs in fiscal year 2002--$30
billion at least that we voted on in the bill and with the authorizing
amendments.
Likewise, if you take the multiple years covered by this
authorization bill, 2002 to 2008, the bill authorizes more than $300
billion for these same programs, the ones we are currently funding in
the next finding I made. Currently we are funding these programs at
$18.4 billion a year. We are almost doubling that, and then over a
number of years we are more than doubling the funding that is currently
being applied to these programs.
After I make these findings, I conclude very simply:

It is therefore the Sense of the Senate that: The
Appropriations Committee shall fund the authorizations in
this bill to the maximum extent possible.

That means that is exactly what is going to happen, and we ought to
go ahead and recognize it and urge the appropriators to do this. It
does not matter what we say in this bill. Unless we choose to take over
the reins of appropriating and put it in this bill, it does not matter
what we vote for, it matters what the appropriators give to fund this
bill.
They already know that whatever the budget is, education is given the
highest priority. In fact, education of a comparable nature to what I
have been speaking of goes up 11.4 percent in the basic budget of the
President and in the basic budget that was adopted by the Congress.
Even those numbers are not binding because the appropriators will
decide out of all the priorities how much they want to take away from
other programs or exceed the budget to put more of that in education.
That is the prerogative of the committee with the consensus and, in
some instances, perhaps a 60-vote majority being required. The Senate
and the House will decide how much of the authorizing bill that is
going to be adopted either Friday or next week shall be funded by the
appropriators.
I certainly do not come before the Senate saying I know which
programs ought to be funded by the appropriators. I happen to be on the
Appropriations Committee, but in due course they will have their own
hearings, as we do all the time. This is not a rarity, to pass an
authorizing bill that has much more in it than the appropriators pay
for, and they are not doing anything wrong by not funding it as much as
is authorized. That is the prerogative of the appropriators.
In simple language, I hope everybody who is interested in maximizing
the appropriation of money to the education programs, all of which are
encapsulated in this bill which Senator Kennedy has been managing since
they took the majority and Senator Judd Gregg has managed on our side--
it is a very good bill, one that for the first time has some major
changes. We might, in fact, look back in a few years and say that bill
that was debated all those days caused us to do some things very
differently than we have in the past. Who knows, if you listen to the
President, if you listen to some in this Chamber who advocate these new
ideas, it may very well be that we will have improved the results of
our National Government's money going to States for school systems that
are either run by the district or by county.
I compliment those who have participated in this bill. I voted for a
number of the amendments, but certainly the truth is that the
Appropriations Committee will decide how much of that they can afford
under the budget they will have before them, and the Senate will decide
on an appropriations bill as the matter comes up: How many more of
these new programs do you want to fund in the year 2002?

[[Page 10626]]

I believe the Senate has adopted many provisions that will not be
funded. Certainly, I am not talking about title I, but I am talking
about many of the amendments, maybe even some that this Senator has
offered that are part of this very large authorizing bill. But I will
not be surprised if some of those I have offered and some of those
others have offered will not be funded by the appropriators as we work
our way through the 13 appropriations bills.
It is all right with me if Senators want to say everything else will
have to be reduced and changed because we are going to fund in
appropriations every single amendment that has been offered to this
bill, we will fund them in their entirety. If one wants to vote for
that, that is fine. Perhaps one can vote for that, and perhaps one can
vote for the Domenici amendment that says, do the maximum
appropriators; do the maximum amount you can under the budget
restraints you will be living under as appropriators.
Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for the courtesy. The Senator from
California and I offered this amendment not for every time the
authorization strays from the appropriation--we know it does that a
lot--but for two reasons: One, we wish to make education a top
priority. That is what the President has said, that is what some
Members in speeches have said. Yet when we look at what has been newly
authorized, it brings us to a level of $37 billion.
What is in the budget that the then-chair of the Budget Committee
proposes was $20.1 billion, which is only $1.7 billion higher than last
year? So I ask my friend from New Mexico to give a little elaboration
on what the phrase ``to the maximum extent possible'' means. Is only
$1.7 billion possible? We have walled off military spending in the
budget the good Senator has proposed. We have a separate offset for
agriculture.
The Senator from California and I fear, if left on its own, education
will get no new funding or very little new funding and this debate will
be for naught. I ask my colleague to elaborate, since he is our expert
from that side of the aisle on the budget, what does ``to the maximum
extent possible'' mean? How much money is left for education? Is it
closer to the $37 billion level in this authorization or to what I
consider very small and not sufficient $20 billion, a $1.7 billion
increase over last year?
I thank the Senator for yielding for that question.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask the Senator if he has better numbers than I
do. The bill currently authorizes at least 30. Are you suggesting that
is 37? I will live with your numbers. Does the Senator think it is $37
billion we have authorized in this bill?
Mr. SCHUMER. I say to my colleague, it is probably a little more than
37, but we added up everything we could get our hands on, and it comes
to 37.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let's say it is somewhere between 30 and 37 and perhaps
even between 30 and 40 is authorized in this bill.
Mr. SCHUMER. If my colleague will yield, I think that number is less
important than the number that we think we will actually appropriate.
That is the purpose of the amendment.
In the budget we have only appropriated an additional $1.7 billion as
opposed to $20 billion more that is authorized. I would like to come
closer to the $20 billion than the $1.7 billion, particularly if we
want to be the ``education Senate,'' particularly if the President
wants to be the ``education President.''
In talking about education, pictures going to school are not going to
educate our kids. It is the real dollars that do. I ask my colleague,
just with his knowledge, which far exceeds my knowledge, to give us
some ballpark of what ``to the maximum extent possible,'' might mean.
Mr. DOMENICI. First of all, I am certainly not trying to avoid that.
I am very prepared to answer it. If you will relax for a minute and let
me answer it, we will all have a nice afternoon.
First, let me say it may shock everyone to hear this, but frankly the
Appropriations Committee will decide what that number is. In all
honesty, they will decide that. But they won't decide it based on this
authorization bill. They will do it based upon what they want to
establish as the priorities for expenditures for fiscal year 2002.
But if the Senator wants to know what numbers were offered by the
budget as it cleared the Congress--and these are not binding; these are
assumptions--then I will tell you that the budget resolution assumed
$6.2 billion more than the President. So it is $6.2 billion added to
$18.4 billion which makes it a total of $24.6 billion that is assumed
in the budget resolution as being fundable.
I am not going to stand here and say they will fund that much, nor am
I going to say they will fund that little. The truth is, unless the
Senate chose today to pass a statute and it got signed by the President
and it said the appropriators are going to appropriate and they are
hereby ordered to appropriate the amount of money contained in this
bill, then there is nothing we can do about it. They are going to do
what they think is right based upon the available resources and what
the Senate at large decides as these appropriations come forward.
I did not come to the floor to prejudge what they would do. I came to
the floor to make sure everybody understands that an authorizing bill
is very different than an appropriations bill. It has been different
forever. I shouldn't say forever, but essentially for about 70 years we
have had both appropriations and authorizations. They really are not
the same. I regret to say we have even appropriated when there is no
authorization for many parts of our Government. We have not authorized
for years and the appropriators pay for the function of Government
anyway.
I am comfortable that this Senate and the Appropriations Committee
will maximize, as I indicated, the resources they put into education. I
am confident because it has been the will of this Senate over and over
as we vote that we put more rather than less in education. So I think
that will happen.
Having said that, I think it is pretty clear that ``maximum'' is a
dictionary definition. It is not a number definition. It just says the
most you can. Whatever you are looking at, do to the extent possible.
Do the most for education. That is what I put in my resolve clause
because I think, honestly, to vote for anything other than that is to
deny the reality of what is going to happen, prejudged, preordained by
the rules we follow in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Massachusetts
has yielded to me his 10 minutes. How much time remains on our side,
which I believe is my time plus the time of the Senator from
Massachusetts?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York has 12 minutes. The
Senator from New Mexico has 4 minutes 12 seconds. The Senator from New
Hampshire has 20 minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask my colleague from New Hampshire if he wants to
take some of his time now since we are down on our side and the Senator
from New Hampshire has the full 20 minutes, unless he desires to yield
most of it back. I will take 5 minutes, and I know the Senator from
California will take 5 minutes, and that is it. We are finished on our
side.
Mr. GREGG. I say to the Senator from New York, that seems reasonable.
I will speak for a few minutes and reserve time. I will reserve 10
minutes to balance out with that side.
We are into a numbers game obviously. I am not sure that will have a
positive impact on how this bill is perceived because the essence of
this bill is the policy. Authorizing bills are about policy. I think
people need to understand that. Authorizing committees tend to put
numbers on bills but appropriating committees spend the money.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I can state that as much
as we admire the authorizing committees, sometimes we act independently
of the authorizing committee. The key to an

[[Page 10627]]

authorizing bill is the policy that is laid down relative to
educational reform.
In this bill, there is a lot of very interesting, very significant
policy, the purpose of which is to depart from a course that has
regrettably produced year after year of failure in educating our low-
income children, and move on a course which will hopefully give our
children from low-income families a better opportunity to learn and be
competitive with their peers, and therefore participate in America and
the prosperity of our Nation.
The basic themes of the policy in this bill, as I have outlined a
number of times, is that it is child centered. It involves giving more
flexibility to local communities and the teachers and the parents and
the principals. In exchange for that flexibility, it builds in a desire
to see much greater academic achievement on the part of low-income kids
who today, regrettably, read at two or three grade levels less than
their peers and graduate at a 50-percent rate from high school. It has
significant accountability standards to make sure those academic
achievements are accomplished.
The policy in this bill is strong. It is unique in the sense of the
tradition of Federal involvement in education in that it takes a new
road to a large degree.
The authorizing levels in this bill, however, are really not that
relevant to what is going to happen, in my humble opinion. The reason I
say that is because it has become almost a form of gamesmanship on this
floor to constantly throw more money into the number at the authorizing
level. All you have to do is look at what we have done in the last few
weeks to recognize that.
Over the last few weeks we have added into this budget, into this
bill, literally huge increases in the authorized level. We have
increased the authorization level by 47 percent in the mandatory area,
adding $112 billion. Over the term of the bill, which would be 7 years,
we have added $211 billion, for a 101-percent increase.
In the year 2000, we have increased the authorizing level by $11
billion, bringing the total to $38.8 billion, or a 120-percent
increase. That has all been done in about a week's time, maybe a week
and a half, as we picked up speed over the last few days.
We need to put that in context. This bill has been on this floor
before. We have heard from the other side that we have to authorize and
then we have to appropriate to the highest level possible to achieve
the most significant results because money translates into achievement.
Of course we know money doesn't translate into achievement. But even if
we were to accept that argument, and we were to go back a few years--
for example, the last time this bill was authorized, back in 1994-
1995--we would find the enthusiasm for bumping up the authorizations
when we had a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress was not
quite so high. It could have been at that time they were dealing with
reality versus politics.
At that time, when the authorizing bill came through, the ESEA
authorizing bill came through, the actual increase in educational
spending that resulted from it was .012 percent--.012 percent. In fact,
the actual educational funding was cut in that year by $484 million.
The increase in title I specifically was less than 6 percent in that
year.
You might say there was a deficit then so Congress had to be much
more restrained in its activity. But I would point out that at that
time the Senator from Massachusetts represented that the bill as it was
passed and authorized--remember the authorization levels were
essentially no increase at all--he said it was the most important
reauthorization of ESEA since that landmark act was passed in 1965. So,
obviously, at that time at least the chairman of the committee thought
it achieved the goals it was supposed to have achieved. In fact, he
went on to hail its academic accountability standards. It would achieve
those levels at the levels it was authorized or else he would not have
said it was such a great bill.
I do not know what has changed in 6 years, other than we have a
different President and a different Congress. Yes, we do have a
surplus. But as a practical matter, if the bill was so good and strong
when there was virtually no authorization increase, why today do we
have to have an authorization increase which has, just in 7 days,
jumped so radically? Remember when this bill came out of committee the
authorization increases in it were already exceeding 100 percent of
what the underlying authorized levels were when we started out. So we
are talking about 100 percent on top of 100 percent.
I also note if spending on education has to be so aggressively
pursued in order to accomplish the goals of better education, somebody
must not have informed the prior President of that. The prior
President's increases in title I spending, President Clinton's
increases, were rather small--not only during the period that we had a
deficit but during the period that we had the surplus, from 1998-1999.
In the period of surplus, the increased proposal was $36 million; in
1999 his increased proposal was $219 million; in the year 2000-2001 he
proposed a $401 million increase in title I funding.
In the area of special education, he essentially proposed no increase
in 1998, 1999, 1999-2000, and then in 2000-2001 he proposed an
increase.
As a practical matter, President Clinton, who I believe was committed
to education--in fact, when I was Governor and he was Governor we held
an education conference down in Charlottesville, as I recall--was one
of the leaders on the issue. I state he certainly maintained that view
throughout his Presidency. He thought he could accomplish his goals on
education during a period of surplus with the dollars he outlined.
What is President Bush suggesting? I think that brings us sort of
into a complete circle. President Bush has suggested a very significant
increase in funding. Remember, President Clinton's request was $401
million. President Bush's funding request in this area is $500 million.
That was his request.
In negotiations leading up to bringing this bill to the floor, the
President went well beyond that request and, in fact, has offered an
increase in title I funding which represents a 50-percent increase in
funding in 1 year.
In the special education area, President Bush has proposed the
largest single increase ever proposed by a President in special
education funding. President Bush has proposed a 50-percent increase,
or offered a 50-percent increase in title 1 funding as part of the
negotiations leading up to this bill. He has proposed in his budget a
$500 million increase, which is $100 million more than President
Clinton proposed, and he has proposed the single largest increase in
special education funding ever proposed by a President.
It is reasonably disingenuous to take the position that this
President isn't committed to education on the policy side, and also on
the spending side, to support that policy, because he has walked the
walk and made the proposals to accomplish it, which brings us to the
question of what is the purpose of this sense of the Senate amendment.
It is to ask the appropriating committee to fully fund authorizations
which have come at us on this floor for the last 5 or 7 or 8 days--it
has in actuality been 14 days since we really went on the bill in an
intense way--authorizations which, as I mentioned earlier, represent in
those few days an over 120-percent increase in this year's budget, a
100-percent increase in the 7-year budget representing $211 billion,
and a 47-percent increase in special education funding. I think you are
going to have trouble with the appropriating committee to accomplish
that. We have to be realistic.
I suppose when the defense authorizers come to the floor they might
offer the same type of SOS, and they might say we want defense
authorizations fully appropriated also. They would probably have a
pretty good case for that because the obligation of the National
Government is national defense.
Then I suspect when the health committee, which I happen to be a
member

[[Page 10628]]

of, and which this committee comes out of, comes forward with the
authorization levels for NIH, for which we have significantly increased
the appropriations, or for some other health activity which is very
important, such as prescription drugs, or whatever the item might be,
we are going to ask for full appropriations their, too.
The list goes on and on. The obligations of the Federal Government
are significant.
But when you increase the authorizations on the floor of the Senate
by 120 percent in 7 days on a bill that came out which had almost a
100-percent increase in it to begin with, and you increase the
authorization by $200 billion on a bill which came out with already
$235 billion in it when it hit the floor, which was a significant
increase, a dramatic increase over present law, I think you are making
a statement: Yes; that you want a commitment to education, but I think
you are also probably acknowledging realistically that you are never
going to hit those goals.
It is just not reasonable to expect that the appropriations committee
is going to have that type of change sitting in its pocket to move into
this area. But when the President of the United States comes forward
and says he is committed to a 50-percent increase in funding for title
I, that is pretty significant.
When the President of the United States comes forward and offers the
biggest increase in history that a President has ever asked in special
education, I think the Appropriations Committee will take that
position.
In the end, I believe these accounts will receive the very
significant dramatic increases that they deserve. In fact, it is very
obvious from the President's proposal that the education accounts are
going to receive the largest rate increase ever by a factor probably of
100 percent or maybe more--200 or 300 percent--of any accounts in the
Federal Government. The only agency that will probably be able to
compete and the only area where competition will be even close will be
NIH where we are committed to doubling funding over a period of time.
But I don't think even the NIH increases as a percentage are going to
be anywhere near the percentage of increases we are going to see coming
as a result of this President's commitment to education.
Once again, I suspect that this amendment, although well-intentioned,
is going a bit beyond what reality is as far as the Congress functions
because I think we all understand that the appropriating committees do
not necessarily listen to authorizing committees when it comes to
money. Authorizing committees define policy. That is our primary
responsibility. We have done a good job of it in this bill.
Because of the President's commitment in this area, I am pretty
confident that the appropriating committee will make a dramatic
increase in the spending commitment to education which will allow us to
accomplish policies that we hopefully are going to pass with this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from New
Hampshire have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 3 and a
half minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHUMER. I have 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think this is really where the rubber
meets the road. Are we serious about the work we have accomplished? I
went over this in great detail. I don't know if the Chair can read this
from his seat. I have listed all the bipartisan programs that we have
added to this bill, beautiful programs such as IDEA, increasing
funding, teacher quality, some of these my colleague worked very hard
on himself, mental health programs, these were all added in a
bipartisan fashion. It adds up here to $10 billion more than is in the
Bush budget. We know that we even have done more.
The Schumer-Boxer amendment is important because what we say is all
of this hard work, all of this coming together, all of this
bipartisanship, all of this work for the children of America should be
funded. Very simply put, that is exactly what Senator Schumer and I are
doing in this amendment. It is a sense of the Senate.
What is the argument that the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici,
has lodged against the Schumer-Boxer amendment? First he looked at the
Senator from New York, and I guess the Senator will remember, and he
said: I hope the Senator from New York will relax and we will all have
a happy afternoon. Then he went on to say: It is impossible to fund
this. That is not a happy afternoon for any of us who care about kids.
But I also want to say to my friend from New York, do not relax until
every child in New York, every child in New Jersey, every child in
California, every child in Mississippi, Louisiana and every other State
has a good quality public education.
I hope you will not listen to that advice. I hope you will stay
focused, as you always do, on these issues and keep giving us these
kinds of amendments so we make sure we mean what we say and we say what
we mean.
The Senator from New Mexico said some other things too. He said to
the Senator from New York and to the Senator from California: You can't
tell the Appropriations Committee what to do. That is ridiculous. And
in your amendment you are saying, fund these programs to the extent of
the authorization. We are not telling them what to do. We are passing a
sense of the Senate.
One, we are not telling them what to do. We are asking them to
consider the sense of the Senate that these programs should be fully
funded.
I want to make another point and I wish the Senator from New Mexico
was on the floor. His comments were really disingenuous. He was
chairman of the Budget Committee when the Budget Committee came out
with the budget. Do you know what he did? My friend from New York knows
it well. He not only set the size of the tax cut, which the Finance
Committee has jurisdiction over, but he also made that whole debate
filibuster-proof. Did he tell us what to do? Oh, yes, he did. Did he
also make sure that agriculture spending would be protected? He sure
did. Do you know that the chairman of the Budget Committee had the
authority to decide the increases in agriculture, not the
Appropriations Committee, and do you know that the chairman of the
Budget Committee--it is no longer Senator Domenici; it is now Senator
Conrad, a sort of twist of fate--said that the chairman of the Budget
Committee is now going to decide how much we are going to spend on the
military. So when the Senator from New Mexico chastises the Senator
from New York and the Senator from California and says----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield the Senator from California one additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 additional
minute.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, when the Senator from New Mexico tells
these two Senators--who have a simple sense of the Senate that we agree
only carries moral authority, doesn't tell them exactly what to do--we
are overstepping our bounds, I have to say that is amazing to me
because that is coming from my friend--I served with him on the Budget
Committee for many years--who actually gave power to the chairmen of
the committees to say what the appropriate level should be for military
spending and ag expending. I do not see it.
You will note, that committee did not stand up for education. They
said we could have a piece of the extra $6 billion that may be lying
around. All we are saying is, give education a chance to be fully
funded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I hope my colleagues will support the Schumer amendment.

[[Page 10629]]

I thank my colleague from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to my friend and
colleague, our leader on education, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr.
Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Chair tell me when there are 30 seconds
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what this debate is really about is
whether we, as a body, are going to be satisfied with the budget that
has been proposed by the President and the Republicans that gives a $1
billion increase in IDEA and a $700 million increase for the title I
program, or whether we are going to try to fund ESEA, the title I
program, for the full funding, whether we are going to fund ESEA the
way bipartisan votes over the last 3 days have indicated is the desire
of this body.
I hear a great deal about the budget, but the budget isn't law. Do we
understand that? The budget isn't law. In this body, we have the
ability and the power--if we believe in something--to pass legislation
that is going to fund the programs the way they should be funded. That
is what this battle is about.
With all respect to my good friend from New Mexico, his proposal is a
cop-out. It says: As much as possible. We know what is possible. He was
the chairman of the Budget Committee. They are going to follow the
Budget Committee, and that is going to be peanuts for educating the
children of this country. You cannot educate children with a tin cup.
You cannot do it on the cheap. You have to invest in them.
That is what the Schumer amendment is all about. That is why, if we
believe that education is important, and that we want to reach all of
the children--not just a third--if you want to reach just a third in
fiscal year 2008, you vote with Senator Domenici. That is exactly what
you are going to do. But don't make any more speeches about ``we are
not going to leave any child behind.'' Put those speeches away. Put
those speeches away forever. That is what this vote is about.
We have the opportunity of funding it so no child is left behind. It
is as simple as that. One is just a cop-out. The other is a
reaffirmation and statement of what has happened in the Senate Chamber
over the period of these past weeks. And it is a statement and a
comment that we are going to commit ourselves to work every single day
for the remaining time of this session, and during the appropriations
battles, and after that every single time, to invest in the children
and the future of this Nation. That is what the Schumer amendment is
all about. That is why it should be supported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Almost 4 minutes.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts. One day, if I am here a long time, I might be able to
reach 10 percent of his eloquence. And I would be happy with that. He
sums it up just perfectly.
Let me say, first, in reference to my good friend from New Mexico, he
says the budget does not have room to appropriate all that is
authorized. In the budget he put together, they walled off military
spending, they walled off transportation spending, they walled off
agriculture spending. They said they are going to get what they need.
What is really wounding to those of us who believe so much in
education is not simply that education was not walled off but the
doublespeak that is going on in this Capitol.
The President did not campaign as the military President. He did not
campaign as the agriculture President. He is not busy taking pictures
with big trucks as the transportation President. He campaigned as the
education President.
Then they hand up a budget whose increase in actual spending is
miserly. To say this is doublespeak is kind. This is why the American
people despise Washington, because there are all the photo
opportunities and all the slogans, and then when it comes to actually
putting the money on the table to help keep our country No. 1--by
educating it--we come up with 100 excuses.
Where are the excuses for the military? Where are the excuses for
agriculture? Where are the excuses for transportation? This is just not
right. This is just not fair.
We spent 2 weeks debating education in a bipartisan way. We talked
about how we are coming together. And then we find that the amount of
money the budget will allow is a $1.7 billion increase. That is what
the President proposed? Less than President Clinton, much less than
President Clinton's increase in the previous 3 years when we had a
surplus.
If you don't want to fund education, don't say you are the
``education President.'' If you don't want to fund education, don't say
you are the ``education Senate.'' Don't talk about leaving no child
behind when you are leaving 80 percent of the children behind with this
budget.
Is this amendment that the Senator from California and I have put
together a foolproof amendment? Is it foolproof? No. It is a sense of
the Senate. It is saying: Let's live up to our promises, our promises
not to ourselves but our promises to the children of America and the
people of America who we said we were going to help.
This amendment simply says: Put your money where your mouth is. Don't
give a lot of speeches, don't do a lot of photo opportunities unless
you spend it. We know they can do it if they want. The Domenici
amendment, which says ``do as much as possible,'' is the most elastic
check I have ever seen. No one will cash it.
So, my colleagues, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Domenici amendment,
which will not provide the necessary funding for our kids, and a
``yes'' vote on the Schumer-Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Hampshire has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GREGG. Is that all the time remaining on either side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is all the time remaining.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the energy of the Senator from
New York, but I cannot agree with his position. The fact is, we finally
have a President who is focused on education, who is focused on the
fact that we, as a nation, and as a federal government, have totally
failed in our responsibility to low-income children. We have spent over
$120 billion of taxpayers' money, and we have still left the low-income
child behind in America.
We finally have a President who has said: No longer are we going to
tolerate this. We are not going to tolerate taking taxpayers' money and
allegedly using it to benefit the low-income child, and finding out
that generation after generation of low-income children have not been
able to realize the American dream because they have not been able to
get an education. We have a President who has finally stood up for the
low-income child and his or her right to receive a decent education in
our country.
We brought a bill to this Chamber. It isn't exactly what I wanted, I
know it isn't exactly what the other side wanted, but it has, as its
essence, the elements that will bring about some significant changes in
the way we deliver education in this country, especially on behalf of
low-income children. And, more importantly--or equally as important--
the President has said: I am going to support that policy with dollars.
He has put on the table more dollars than the prior President ever put
on the table, by a factor, in the area of title I, of about, by my
calculations, 10. In the area of special ed, he has proposed the single
largest increase ever proposed by a President.
The simple fact is, this President has backed up his commitment to
education with a commitment of dollars. What we have seen on the floor
for the last 12 days is a lot of Members who want to put out a press
release saying they have increased it even more. And so they know when
we are using authorization money, that we are using

[[Page 10630]]

funny money to some degree. The real money comes out of the
Appropriations Committee. We know that when the Appropriations
Committee meets, it is going to make its decisions no matter what the
authorization committee says because that is the way it has worked
around here since time immemorial, or at least in this century.
As a practical matter, what we can do that is constructive is pass a
good bill that has good policy and also make it clear to the
Appropriations Committee that we expect them to fund education to the
fullest extent possible, which is what the Domenici amendment requests
and what is reasonable.
We have somebody backing us up on this, and that is the President,
who has already said that the number proposed in the budget is
something he is going to exceed, again by a factor of potentially 10,
or somewhere in that range, in the area of title I.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico had an additional 4 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from New Mexico has yielded his time to me, so
I claim the Senator's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I yield back the time and ask for the yeas and nays on the
Domenici amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
Schumer-Boxer amendment as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Domenici
amendment No. 801, as modified. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--50

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Voinovich
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Dodd

The amendment (No. 801), as modified, was rejected.
Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 800

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 4 minutes is evenly
divided between the Senators from New York and the Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I assume I have 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SCHUMER. I yield 1 minute to my colleague on this amendment, the
Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we have been working for 7 or 8 weeks on
this bill. What is wonderful about it is we have worked on it under the
Republican leadership and now under the Democratic leadership. What we
have done is quite extraordinary. We have truly made education a
priority in this Nation.
This chart lists all of the good things we have added to this bill
over and above the Bush budget. Members from both sides of the aisle
have added these amendments, whether afterschool, IDEA, title I,
teacher quality. I don't even have time to go through the whole list in
a minute.
In our amendment, the Schumer-Boxer amendment, we are saying we
should fund this bill. We should fund these programs. We should lift
these kids up and deliver on the rhetoric and the promises we have
made.
It is a very simple amendment. I urge the support of Members.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It says we
ought to do what we say we are going to do. We have made and the
President has made education a hallmark of this election campaign and
this new Congress, beginning in Washington. It would be the cruelest of
broken promises to have a debate for weeks and then not actually
appropriate the money we say we are going to appropriate.
The present budget resolution cannot do it. It has a paltry $1.7
billion increase, not enough to even do one-quarter of what we say we
are going to do on title I, let alone all the other priorities.
If Members want to put their money where their mouth is, if Members
want to give the people in America faith in the system, that we do not
just debate things but we do things, Members will vote for this
amendment that says it is the sense of the Senate that we ought to
appropriate what we are authorizing. This is for the kids of America. I
urge a bipartisan vote for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from
New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it has been the history of the Senate
that we authorize legislation and we appropriate or pay for legislation
that has been adopted. In this case, this sense-of-the-Senate
resolution stands that on its head and says, whatever it is we voted on
to be authorized, we shall fund. The appropriators shall pay for it.
Now, historically we always authorize more than we can afford. We are
doing the same thing in this bill. As a matter of fact, if that sense
of the Senate were adopted, we would increase education 100 percent in
the first year--not 10, not 20, not 30, but 100 percent. Over the next
7 years, we would increase it by $300 billion. This has nothing to do
with the President's commitments. It has to do with the Senate taking a
typical authorization bill and adding all kinds of nice, good,
wholesome, wonderful amendments that we are not going to pay for
because we don't have the money. The appropriators will pay for what
they can afford. We cannot tell the appropriators in advance; they have
a myriad of programs to look at in terms of priorities, and we would be
telling them it is the sense of the majority of Members saying:
Appropriators, you will; you shall; there is no escape; you will pay
for every amendment that has been adopted as if it were appropriated.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed, I am pleased to.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while I support many of the provisions in
this bill, and I support increased Federal aid for education, I think
this amendment is premature. I did not vote for the previous amendment
upon which

[[Page 10631]]

the Senate just acted. At this time, appropriators have no idea what
the conference report on this bill will resemble. We have no idea what
the final dollar amount for this bill will be. We may not know that
final amount for several weeks. It would be misleading to commit to any
particular dollar figure before we see where the conference report on
this bill shows us to be. To do otherwise is to ask the Appropriations
Committee to buy a pig in a poke.
I will not support this amendment. I did not support the previous
amendment.
To jump in now and to commit to an unknown funding level, I think, as
an appropriator, is irresponsible. As an appropriator, I cannot do
that. I will not do that. And if this continues, we will see more and
more of these amendments that try to put the Senate on record and
committing the Appropriations Committee to bind itself to a money
figure before we really know all the facts.
Resources are scarce this year and we will have to stretch and strain
to meet this Nation's needs. Premature commitments will only make the
difficult job of appropriating more difficult. To use an old West
Virginia expression: I'll roll up my britches when I get to the creek.
We will do the best we can when we have more information.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 800. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--50

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kohl
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Dodd

The amendment (No. 800) was rejected.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand, if there is going to be
a little lull in the routine right now, I thought I would take
advantage of this opportunity to advise the Senate that, at my request,
the managers' amendment, No. 585, to this bill includes a new provision
in the Early Reading First Program. The Early Reading First Program is
designed to improve the language and early literacy development of
children ages 3 through 5. Reading, as we all know, is the most
important and fundamental skill for children to learn.
This new provision in the bill will allow the use of Federal funds
and authorize the appropriation of funds for dissemination of a reading
readiness screening tool that is based on top quality research for
children in this age group.
The National Council on Learning Disabilities has developed such a
tool which is based on the report and research that was reviewed by the
National Reading Panel.
To acquaint the Senate with the work that has been done in this area,
the National Reading Panel was created at our suggestion as a result of
legislation that was introduced back in 1997. Subsequently, the report
accompanying the Fiscal Year 1998 Labor-HHS and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act called on the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development and the Department of Education to form a panel to
evaluate existing research on the teaching of reading to children, to
identify proven methodologies, and suggest ways for dissemination of
this information to teachers, parents, universities, and others.
As a result of that initiative and the work that was done, there has
been published one example of this initiative. It is prepared by the
National Center for Learning Disabilities.
With this legislation that is identified by me in this amendment in
the managers' package, this is the kind of material that will be
disseminated with the use of Federal funds to schools, to universities,
to departments of education at universities, and others who are
interested in the latest and best information about how to teach young
children who have reading difficulties, and new techniques for teaching
those who will acquire developmental skills at a faster rate and more
efficiently, to equip them to be successful in the early grades of
school.
So I bring this to the attention of the Senate to let everyone know
that there has been, over time, a very successful effort, first by the
research institutes at the National Institutes of Health, to do some
fundamental research into why children have difficulties learning to
read, and things that can be done to help overcome those difficulties.
That research has now been used by the Department of Education
because of legislation we adopted in the past, and now we have come to
the point where there are some specific programs and practices that are
being recommended throughout the country as a result of the work of the
National Reading Panel whom we charged with the job of translating
those research findings into teaching practices and techniques.
What this research has told us--just as an example--is that 75
percent of children with reading difficulties who are not identified by
the time they reach age 9 will still have poor reading skills at the
end of high school; 80 to 90 percent of children identified with
learning disabilities have their primary deficits in reading and
language-based processes; research provides reliable ways to determine
whether children as young as age 4 are developing the fundamental
skills necessary to learn to read; and last, early identification and
effective, early intervention can dramatically reduce the numbers of
students failing in reading.
Back in April of last year, the panel submitted its report to
Congress at a hearing of our Senate Appropriations subcommittee chaired
by Senator Specter of Pennsylvania. Some of the most important research
that I hoped could be made available to teachers and parents is the
information about the skills young children need to have in order to be
ready to read and, beyond that, how to help them attain those skills.
This dissemination of a user-friendly predictor of reading readiness
will ensure that more children arrive at school with the skills they
need, and early identification of those children who need extra help
will be possible.
This amendment will finally ensure that parents and teachers have
available the first tool they need to begin

[[Page 10632]]

the important steps to learning to read.
The Department of Education's monthly publication ``Community
Update'' for April 2001 features an article by Dr. Reid Lyon, chief of
the Child Development and Behavior Branch at the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development. He says in the article:

Today's teachers have a number of resources that can help
them discriminate between research that can be trusted and
research that cannot be. One such resource is The Report of
the National Reading Panel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Dr. Reid Lyon's
article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Solid Research, Solid Teaching

(By G. Reid Lyon)

Teachers frequently tell me that they see little value in
basing their teaching practices on the results of
``educational research.'' They point out that the research
reports are difficult to understand, frequently do not apply
to the specific children they are teaching, and often reflect
``turf battles'' between academics espousing different
research philosophies.
I know firsthand the devastating effect that poor quality
research has on teaching practices and the trust teachers
have in educational research. As a brand new third-grade
teacher in the mid-1970s, I was responsible for teaching 28
students of varying abilities and backgrounds. Unfortunately,
many of my students had not yet learned basic reading skills
and were clearly floundering in almost every aspect of their
academic work.
However, the university courses that I had taken to become
certified as an elementary school teacher led em to believe
these youngsters would learn to read when they were ready.
Likewise, my school's reading curriculum was based on the
assumption that learning to read was a natural process,
similar to learning to listen and speak. Thus children did
not need to be taught basic reading skills in a systematic or
direct manner.
At the beginning of the year, a third of my students read
so slowly and inaccurately that they could not comprehend
what they read. Their spelling was also nothing to write home
about. Unfortunately, by the end of the year, these same
students continued to read slowly and inaccurately. The only
change I could discern was that their motivation to read had
waned--they would actually avoid reading--and their self-
esteem had suffered considerably. Likewise, I felt like a
failure as a teacher.
It wasn't until later in my research career that I learned
that the way I was trained to teach reading, and the way that
the reading series recommended that literacy concepts should
be taught, were based upon research that was questionable at
best. Indeed, I came to learn later that the assumptions upon
which the instructional philosophy and methods rested had
never been adequately tested through well-designed studies.
Today's teachers have a number of resources that can help
them discriminate between research that can be trusted and
research that cannot be. Now, when almost every reading
program and set of instructional materials are said to be
``research-based,'' teachers need to know that many of these
products are based upon beliefs and dogma rather than on
scientific data.
One such resource is the The Report of the National Panel--
An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research
Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading
Instruction, available free by request at
www.nationalreadingpanel.org. The report is published jointly
by the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, the U.S. Department of Education, and the
National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). NIFL, a government
agency that disseminates evidence-based information on
reading, is also developing information and tools
specifically for teachers.
All teachers want to do the best for their students. When
our children learn, everyone wins. Solid, research-based
approaches can help children do just that!

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Amendment No. 516, As Further Modified

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 516, as modified, and ask
that it be further modified with the language I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

On page 586, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:

SEC. __. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS OF
DILAPIDATED OR ENVIRONMENTALLY UNHEALTHY PUBLIC
SCHOOL BUILDINGS ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN AND THE
HEALTHY AND HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS PROGRAM.

Title IV, as amended by this title, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:

``PART E--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

``SEC. 4501. STUDY CONCERNING THE HEALTH AND LEARNING IMPACTS
OF DILAPIDATED OR ENVIRONMENTALLY UNHEALTHY
PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS ON AMERICA'S CHILDREN.

``(a) Study Authorized.--The Secretary of Education, in
conjunction with the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and in consultation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Secretary of Energy, shall conduct a study on the health and
learning impacts of dilapidated or environmentally unhealthy
public school buildings on children that have attended or are
attending such schools.
``(b) Study Specifications.--The following information
shall be included in the study conducted under subsection
(a):
``(1) The characteristics of public elementary and
secondary school buildings that contribute to unhealthy
school environments, including the prevalence of such
characteristics in public elementary and secondary school
buildings. Such characteristics may include school buildings
that--
``(A) have been built on contaminated property;
``(B) have poor in-door air quality;
``(C) have high occurrences of mold;
``(D) have ineffective ventilation, heating or cooling
systems, inadequate lighting, drinking water that does not
meet health-based standards, infestations of rodents,
insects, or other animals that may carry or cause disease;
``(E) have dust or debris from crumbling structures or
construction efforts; and
``(F) have been subjected to use of pesticides,
insecticides, chemicals, or cleaners, lead-based paint, or
asbestos or have radon or other hazardous substances
prohibited by Federal or State Codes.
``(2) The health and learning impacts of dilapidated or
environmentally unhealthy public school buildings on students
that are attending or that have attended a school described
in subsection (a), including information on the rates of such
impacts where available. Such health impacts may include
higher than expected incidence of injury, infectious disease,
or chronic disease, such as asthma, allergies, elevated blood
lead levels, behavioral disorders, or ultimately cancer. Such
learning impacts may include lower levels of student
achievement, inability of students to concentrate, and other
educational indicators.
``(3) Recommendations to Congress on how to assist schools
that are out of compliance with Federal or State codes to
achieve healthy and safe school environments, how to improve
the overall monitoring of public school building health, and
a cost estimate of bringing all public schools up to such
standards.
``(4) The identification of the existing gaps in
information regarding the health of public elementary and
secondary school buildings and the health and learning
impacts on students that attend dilapidated or
environmentally unhealthy public schools, including
recommendations for obtaining such information.
``(5) The capacity (such as the district bonded
indebtedness or the indebtedness authorized by the district
electorate and payable from the general property taxes levied
by the district) of public schools that are dilapidated or
environmentally unhealthy to provide additional funds to meet
some or all of the school's renovation, repair, or
construction needs.
``(6) The degree to which funds expended by public schools
to implement improvements or to address the conditions
examined under this study are, or have been, appropriately
managed by the legally responsible entities.
``(c) Study Completion.--The study under subsection (a)
shall be completed by the earlier of--
``(1) not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act; or
``(2) not later than December 31, 2002.
``(d) Public Dissemination.--The Secretary shall make the
study under this section available for public consumption
through the Educational Resources Information Center National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities of the Department of
Education.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the
conduct of the study under subsection (a).

``SEC. 4502. HEALTHY AND HIGH PERFORMANCE SCHOOLS PROGRAM.

``(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
`Healthy and High Performance Schools Act of 2001'.
``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to assist
local educational agencies

[[Page 10633]]

in the production of high performance elementary school and
secondary school buildings that are energy-efficient and
environmentally healthy.
``(c) Program Establishment and Administration.--
``(1) Program.--There is established in the Department of
Education the High Performance Schools Program (in this
section referred to as the `Program').
``(2) Grants.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, may, through the Program,
award grants to State educational agencies to permit such
State educational agencies to carry out paragraph (3).
``(3) State use of funds.--
``(A) Subgrants.--
``(i) In general.--A State educational agency receiving a
grant under this section shall use the grant funds made
available under subsection (d)(1)(A) to award subgrants to
local educational agencies to permit such local educational
agencies to carry out the activities described in paragraph
(4).
``(ii) Limitation.--A State educational agency shall award
subgrants under clause (i) to the neediest local educational
agencies as determined by the state and that have made a
commitment to use the subgrant funds to develop healthy, high
performance school buildings in accordance with the plan
developed and approved pursuant to clause (iii)(I).
``(iii) Implementation.--

``(I) Plans.--A State educational agency shall award
subgrants under subparagraph (A) only to local educational
agencies that, in consultation with the State educational
agency and State offices with responsibilities relating to
energy and health, have developed plans that the State
educational agency determines to be feasible and appropriate
in order to achieve the purposes for which such subgrants are
made.
``(II) Supplementing grant funds.--The State educational
agency shall encourage qualifying local educational agencies
to supplement their subgrant funds with funds from other
sources in the implementation of their plans.

``(B) Administration.--A State educational agency receiving
a grant under this section shall use the grant funds made
available under subsection (d)(1)(B)--
``(i) to evaluate compliance by local educational agencies
with the requirements of this section;
``(ii) to distribute information and materials on healthy,
high performance school buildings for both new and existing
facilities;
``(iii) to organize and conduct programs for school board
members, school district personnel, and others to disseminate
information on healthy, high performance school buildings;
``(iv) to obtain technical services and assistance in
planning and designing healthy, high performance school
buildings; and
``(v) to collect and monitor information pertaining to the
healthy, high performance school building projects funded
under this section.
``(4) Local use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--A subgrant received by a local
educational agency under paragraph (3)(A) shall be used for
renovation projects that--
``(i) achieve energy-efficiency performance that reduces
energy use to at least 30 percent below that of a school
constructed in compliance with standards prescribed in
Chapter 8 of the 2000 International Energy Conservation Code,
or a similar State code intended to achieve substantially
equivalent results; and
``(ii) achieve environmentally healthy schools in
compliance with Federal and State codes intended to achieve
healthy and safe school environments.
``(B) Existing buildings.--A local educational agency
receiving a subgrant under paragraph (3)(A) for renovation of
existing school buildings shall use such subgrant funds--
``(i) to achieve energy efficiency performance that reduces
energy use below the school's baseline consumption, assuming
a 3-year, weather-normalized average for calculating such
baseline
``(ii) and to help bring schools into compliance with
Federal and State health and safety standards.
``(d) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A State receiving a grant under this
section shall use--
``(A) not less than 70 percent of such grant funds to carry
out subsection (c)(3)(A); and
``(B) not less than 15 percent of such grant funds to carry
out subsection (c)(3)(B).
``(2) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve up to 1% per
year from amounts appropriated under subsection (f) to assist
State educational agencies in coordinating and implementing
the Program.
``(e) Report to Congress.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall conduct a biennial
review of State actions implementing this section, and shall
report to Congress on the results of such reviews.
``(2) Reviews.--In conducting such reviews, the Secretary
shall assess the effectiveness of the calculation procedures
used by State educational agencies in establishing
eligibility of local educational agencies for subgrants under
this section, and may assess other aspects of the Program to
determine whether the aspects have been effectively
implemented.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out
this section--
``(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
``(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2003 through 2011.
``(g) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Healthy, high performance school building.--The term
`healthy, high performance school building' means a school
building which, in its design, construction, operation, and
maintenance, maximizes use of renewable energy and energy-
efficient practices, is cost-effective, uses affordable,
environmentally preferable, durable materials, enhances
indoor environmental quality, and protects and conserves
water.
``(2) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means
energy produced by solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, or
biomass power.''.
(f) Limitations.--No funds received under this section may
be used for--
(1) payment of maintenance of costs in connection with any
projects constructed in whole or in part with Federal funds
provided under this Act;
(2) the construction of new school facilities;
(3) stadiums or other facilities primarily used for
athletic contests or exhibitions or other events for which
admission is charged to the general public.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, last week I offered this amendment to
address two critical concerns faced by our schools that often do not
rise to the forefront of our education debate but frequently have a
direct impact on how well our children can learn and how much it costs
to run the average school in our country.
The first issue is ensuring that our children attend schools that are
environmentally sound in order to protect their health and well-being.
The second issue is helping schools save money on their energy bills
by providing them with resources to become more energy efficient. Our
schools can then reinvest those energy savings where they belong, into
educational resources such as books or computers or more training for
teachers, which can really make a difference in the lives of children.
I understand that since the time I offered this amendment, there has
been some concerns that the amendment might help to fund new school
construction or renovation projects. Let me be very clear that while I
do support a Federal role in school modernization, construction, and
renovation, this amendment is not intended to address the unmet needs
of our Nation's schools when it comes to construction and renovation.
I have offered this amendment because I am very concerned that we
simply do not have a comprehensive understanding of the problems
children face who attend environmentally unhealthy or dilapidated
schools. There are no nationwide statistics or in-depth research to
help us know and understand the extent of the problems in our schools.
While the majority in this body may not agree that the Federal
Government should have a role in helping States and localities
construct and renovate public schools, I do strongly believe--and
believe there should be broad support for the proposition--that we must
understand better the health and educational impacts children may face
if they attend schools that have environmentally unhealthy conditions,
or that the deterioration of the schools are such that it affects a
child's health.
Every day, in old or poorly maintained school buildings around the
country, students of all ages sit in classrooms where they are forced
to breathe in stale air or even mold spores that make them sick and
could have long-term debilitating effects on their abilities to learn.
We know from a 1996 GAO study that 15,000 schools in our country have
indoor pollution or ventilation problems affecting over 11 million
children and that, furthermore, as many as 25 million children
nationwide are attending schools with at least one unsatisfactory
environmental condition. But we often have no idea whatsoever what
effects these so-called ``sick" schools have on the students who attend
them.
At least once a week I read stories in the press such as the one I
found in the New York Post this morning. The Post reported that while
doing work on subway stations in the Bronx, transit

[[Page 10634]]

crews chipped lead paint into the air, with no protection to catch that
paint, which then fell into the yard of a public school filled with
students from kindergarten through to the seventh grade.
I also know the Presiding Officer is deeply concerned about something
we recently learned, which is that playground equipment is sometimes
treated with arsenic and that arsenic-treated playground equipment is
then put into the playgrounds of our schools. The Presiding Officer has
been a leader in trying to end this terrible practice so that we
protect our children who, based on my experience--being one once a very
long time ago, but having raised my own and going to many playgrounds--
children do the strangest things. They roll on the ground. They put the
dirt in their mouths. They bite the playground equipment. You never
know what a child may do. That is my point. We have to be sure the
environment in which our children attend school and the playgrounds on
which they play are not causing them harm.
In that 1996 GAO study, we found that two-thirds of the schools that
were investigated were not in compliance with requirements to remove or
correct hazardous substances, including asbestos, lead, underground
storage tanks, and radon.
Experts believe that exposures during the early years, when children
are developing, can have severe long-term effects. Even more alarming,
a recent study indicates that children exposed to levels of lead now
considered safe may be at risk of lead poisoning from peeling paint.
Listen to this new research conducted by the Children's Hospital
Medical Center of Cincinnati, OH, showing that children who have less
than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood experience a decline
in their IQs. There was an average of a 5.5-percent drop in a child's
IQ for every 10-microgram increase in lead. Children in this study
experienced hearing loss, speech delay, balance difficulties, and even
tendencies toward acting out and violent behavior.
I am also concerned that we are facing a soaring rate of asthma
across the country. The epicenter is in New York City and California,
but it affects every State in the Union. The indoor air quality of our
schools must be examined to find out whether or not it is contributing
to this skyrocketing rate of asthma, which is the leading cause of
school absenteeism.
These bits and pieces of research, only a few of which I have shared
in these remarks, paint a picture of a problem that we must learn more
about. Groups around the country have done a great job bringing this to
our attention.
I, again, applaud the Healthy Schools Network in Albany, NY, for all
the tremendous work it has done to document this problem in New York
State. Since I introduced this amendment, I have been pleased to
receive the endorsement of the American Lung Association, the Asthma
and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Public Health
Association, the Institute of Children's Environmental Health, the
Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network, the New York City Board of
Education, the Parent Teacher Association, the American Federation of
Teachers, and the Children's Environmental Health Network.
The American Public Health Association recently passed a resolution
calling for further research on the extent and impact of children's
environmental health and safety risks and exposures at school and
prevention measures, including research sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Education. This amendment would authorize $2 million for
a study conducted by the Department of Education, in conjunction with
the Centers for Disease Control and the Environmental Protection
Agency, to evaluate the health and learning impacts of environmentally
unhealthy and dilapidated public school buildings, the impacts on
children who have attended or are attending such schools. We would ask
the researchers specifically to determine the characteristics of our
public elementary and secondary school buildings that contribute to any
unhealthy environment.
In addition to this study, I have also called for resources to help
our States and local school districts make their schools healthier and
more energy efficient. I am very pleased I was able to work closely
with Senator Murkowski to align my amendment with a concept he had
included in his comprehensive energy bill to help our schools become
more energy efficient.
Both the chair of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, and the
ranking minority member, Senator Murkowski, have offered their support
for this amendment. They recognize the importance of helping our
schools become more energy efficient and being able to increase our
energy supply while paying for the cost of energy.
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that schools could save 25 to
30 percent of the money they spend on energy. That is about $1.5
billion. And they could achieve this through better building design,
using energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies, and improving
operations and maintenance.
About 2 weeks ago, I went to Kingston, NY. I visited a school
district that is ahead of the curve, which got a grant to do exactly
what the grants in this amendment would provide. They have already
saved--in this rather small school district--$400,000. Because of that,
I put out this brochure, ``Smart Schools Save Energy.'' It is to
promote energy efficiency in New York State schools. We have
distributed it to every single superintendent in New York.
It talks about what can be done to save energy costs. The catch is,
as superintendents have told me, there is no money in their current
budgets to do this. It is kind of a catch-22 problem. If they could
save the money from energy use, then they would have the money to put
into other needs, such as better teacher training and the like.
This amendment provides the grants that will help schools make their
buildings healthier and more energy efficient. By incorporating
provisions of legislation I recently introduced, the Healthy and High
Performance Schools Act of 2001, we will be able to provide more
information about the materials to be used and to help districts
organize and conduct programs for school board members and personnel
and to help provide compliance with Federal and State codes to make
each of our schools healthier and more energy efficient.
I stress that, while these funds could not be used to construct new
buildings, they would help schools assess how they can become more
energy efficient when and if they do renovate their schools, which
would save money in the long run.
This is the kind of common sense help we could provide to our schools
around the country. I believe we owe it to our students and certainly
to the parents who send their children off to school every day to make
sure there is nothing at all in any schoolroom in any school building
or on any school playground that could harm their child. If we
undertake this study, we will be able to give the kind of information
and help that every parent and every school district needs, and we will
be able to provide assistance to make sure schools are energy
efficient, which will save money.
As we have talked now for weeks, trying to provide the resources to
enable our children to learn is the primary goal of every single one of
us here.
I would be very grateful for support for this amendment to enable
this to come about as part of our overall educational reform efforts.
I ask for a vote on the amendment, and I yield back the remainder of
my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, what is the order of business at this
time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Clinton amendment
No. 416.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now turn
to amendment No. 604, an amendment I have offered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Clinton
amendment? The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page 10635]]

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are ready for action on the Clinton
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Sessions now be recognized to call up amendment No. 604, as modified,
and that following the reporting of the amendment by the clerk, Senator
Harkin or his designee be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment
regarding IDEA, which is at the desk; further, that there be 1 hour for
debate on the amendments with 15 minutes under the control of each of
the following Senators: Harkin, Sessions, Kennedy, and Gregg; further,
when the Senate resumes consideration of the education bill at 9 a.m.
on Thursday, there will be an additional 60 minutes for closing remarks
provided as above; further, upon the use or yielding back of the time,
the Senate vote in relation to the Harkin amendment, followed by 4
minutes of debate, 2 minutes on each side, and a vote in relation
thereafter to the Sessions amendment.
Following that, the Senate will resume consideration of the Helms
amendments Nos. 574 and 648.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, my
concern would be if I may give my remarks first, before Senator Harkin.
I am concerned about that. That would be my request.
Mr. REID. That is fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alabama object?
Mr. REID. Does the Senator withdraw his objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. My request was that I be allowed to speak first.
Mr. REID. Of course.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will not object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Without objection, the pending amendment is laid aside, and the
Senator from Alabama is recognized.

Amendment No. 604, As Modified, To Amendment No. 358

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 604, as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an
amendment numbered 604, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 604, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
regarding discipline)

At the appropriate place, insert:

TITLE __--INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

SEC. __01. DISCIPLINE.

Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(n) Uniform Policies.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), and
notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a State
educational agency or local educational agency may establish
and implement uniform policies regarding discipline and order
applicable to all children under the jurisdiction of the
agency to ensure the safety of such children and an
appropriate educational atmosphere in the schools under the
jurisdiction of the agency.
``(2) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--A child with a disability who is removed
from the child's regular educational placement under
paragraph (1) shall receive a free appropriate public
education which may be provided in an alternative educational
setting if the behavior that led to the child's removal is a
manifestation of the child's disability, as determined under
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (k)(4).
``(B) Manifestation determination.--The manifestation
determination shall be made immediately, if possible, but in
no case later than 10 school days after school personnel
decide to remove the child with a disability from the child's
regular educational placement.
``(C) Determination that behavior was not manifestation of
disability.--If the result of the manifestation review is a
determination that the behavior of the child with a
disability was not a manifestation of the child's disability,
appropriate school personnel may apply to the child the same
relevant disciplinary procedures as would apply to children
without a disability.''.

SEC. __02. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.

Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) (as amended by section __01) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Discipline Determinations by Local Authority.--
``(1) Individual determinations.--In carrying out any
disciplinary policy described in subsection (n)(1), school
personnel shall have discretion to consider all germane
factors in each individual case and modify any disciplinary
action on a case-by-case basis.
``(2) Defense.--Nothing in subsection (n) precludes a child
with a disability who is disciplined under such subsection
from asserting a defense that the alleged act was
unintentional or innocent.
``(3) Limitation.--
``(A) Review of manifestation determination.--If the
parents or the local educational agency disagree with a
manifestation determination under subsection (n)(2), the
parents or the agency may request a review of that
determination through the procedures described in subsections
(f) through (i).
``(B) Placement during review.--During the course of any
review proceedings under subparagraph (A), the child shall
receive a free appropriate public education which may be
provided in an alternative educational placement.''.

SEC. __03. ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES.

(a) In General.--At the written request of a parent (as
defined in section 602(19)(A) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act) of a child with a disability (as
defined in section 602(3) of such Act), a local educational
agency in which the child resides, or a State educational
agency that is responsible for educating the child, may
transfer the child to any accredited school that--
(1) is specifically designed to serve children with
disabilities;
(2) is selected by the child's parents;
(3) agrees to accept the child; and
(4) carries out a program that the local educational
agency, or State educational agency, if appropriate,
determines will benefit the child.
(b) Payment to School; Limitation on Further
Responsibility.--
(1) In general.--For each year for which a child with a
disability attends a school pursuant to subsection (a), the
local educational agency or State educational agency shall
pay the school, from amounts available to the agency under
part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, an
amount equal to the per-pupil expenditure for all children in
its public elementary and secondary schools, or, in the case
of a State educational agency, the average per-pupil
expenditure for the State, as defined in section 3(2) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(2) Transfer.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
a local educational agency or State educational agency that
transfers a child with a disability to a school under
subsection (a) shall have no other responsibility for the
education of the child while the child attends that school.
(c) Use of Funds; Additional Charges to Parents.--A school
receiving funds under subsection (b)(1)--
(1) shall use the funds only to meet the costs of the
child's attendance at the school; and
(2) may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, charge
the child's parents for the costs of the child's attendance
at the school that exceed the amount of those funds.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, there is a real problem in education
today in kindergarten through 12th grade. Anybody who talks to teachers
at any length, as I have, will realize that discipline is a key problem
for teachers, principals, and administrators. It undermines the ability
of learning in the classroom, and it is not a healthy environment too
often. It is a real challenge today.
Children are always difficult to manage, and in today's world I think
it is more so than in the past. I have been to quite a number of
schools in my State over the last year--maybe as many as 20. Each time,
I spent a good deal of time with teachers and principals and sometimes
superintendents

[[Page 10636]]

and board members. We talked about what is going on. I can say with
absolute certainty that they told me over and over again that the
biggest problem they see from the Federal Government is the discipline
rules that have been set forth under the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act.
I suggest that if anybody is doubtful about that, call a
schoolteacher they know and talk to them about what is being said and
what is occurring within their schools. I was amazed. It is a Federal
mandate. It is a law that has the best of all intentions to deal with
disabled children, and I support it entirely. But there have been some
unintended consequences in how children are disciplined in a classroom.
We have absolutely created two classes of children for the purpose of
discipline.
I have had teachers tell me: Jeff, last year in this very school a
child who was a disabled child sold marijuana to two other children.
The two who bought it were removed from school. The one who sold it,
because he was disabled, could not be removed from school under Federal
law. I have had circumstances where another teacher told me about two
children who brought a gun to the parking lot. They didn't bring it
into the school, but they violated the school rules, and one that was
disabled was able to stay in school. The teacher said: Every time I see
that other child who was removed from our classroom, I know and he
knows that another who did the very same act was not removed from the
school.
In addition to that, there are extraordinary problems within the
classroom. I want to share some comments and letters I received from
teachers in my State. I don't believe it is different from around the
country. At one of our hearings that Senator Jeffords chaired last
year, a superintendent from Vermont came and testified that 20 percent
of his school district's budget goes to IDEA students. It is a matter
of great importance. We want to give them the highest possible
opportunity to succeed, but we also want to be sure we aren't creating
a circumstance that makes learning more difficult in the classroom than
it ought to be.
Let me read to you from a special education program coordinator's
letter. This person works with special ed kids. He said:

Thank you for your efforts to amend IDEA 97.

We thought that was going to help when it passed in 1997. Teachers
and principals are telling me it made the situation worse. It didn't
help.

The restrictions inherent in this legislation have the
potential to cripple a school system beyond repair. Although
my job is to advocate for students with disabilities, I also
feel a responsibility to protect the rights of all children
to an appropriate education.

An elementary school principal wrote:

Today, general educators at all grade levels must deal with
a large number of students who are challenged. Having to deal
with these behavior problems and to constantly change
behavior interventions not only takes away from important
instructional time, but inadvertently reinforces a disabled
child's behavior. All class rules should apply to all
students. Therefore, they should have the same disciplinary
actions.

A middle school principal wrote:

I am a middle school principal of a great school with
wonderful children. I have witnessed the evolution of IDEA
and am very concerned about the impact these regulations have
on public education. This issue is causing many fine teachers
to reconsider their choice of professions after a few years
in education.

Most of us know that most teachers who decide to give up the
profession do so because of discipline problems and the frustrations of
trying to maintain discipline in the classroom.
A high school principal wrote:

I am writing to support your efforts to change some of the
current special education laws. The current laws are very
frustrating in dealing with disruptive pupils. In order for
us to maintain and provide a safe environment for all
students, your provisions must be made in the law.

A city school superintendent wrote this:

In the short time since these regulations have been in
effect, numerous instances have taken place involving special
ed students where hardships, disruptions, and chaos have
resulted from restraints placed on the administrators by the
new regulations.

Another superintendent wrote:

We have written to advise you of our frustrations with
trying to implement the 1997 amendments to IDEA relating to
classroom discipline of disabled students. Classroom teachers
must devote a significant amount of time and attention to
address behaviors that interfere with the learning of
students with disabilities or their required disciplinary
action. Often this time and attention is to the detriment of
the other students in the classroom and valuable
instructional time is lost.
It is of a particular concern to me as a superintendent to
know that the roles and responsibilities of both our general
and special educators have been redefined to the degree that
teachers and administrators cannot act immediately when the
situation demands it.
Our teachers and administrators are committed to serving
all children, regardless of needs, in a fair and equitable
manner. If we don't teach these children right from wrong at
a young age, how can they learn to act as good law-abiding
citizens as adults.

Another one writes:

There have been several students with disabilities at our
school who totally disrupt the learning environment of the
regular classroom. They yell out, try to run away, are
defiant and create havoc in the classroom. The teachers are
required to spend so much time with these disruptive students
that the other students are missing out on the quality
instruction they need to be successful. I hope that when you
consider changes in IDEA, you will not lose sight of those
other students who need to be provided with quality
education.

The letters go on. I will add one more:

I have dealt with several instances over the last 3 years
in which special education students have disrupted classrooms
and threatened administrators and teachers.

I have heard that more than once.

In many cases, their parents use psychologists and lawyers
to create a climate of intimidation.

Another teacher wrote me this letter. I thought it was particularly
poignant:

As a special educator of 6 years, I consider myself on the
front lines of the ongoing battles that take place on a daily
basis in our Nation's schools. I strongly believe that part
of the ammunition that fuels these struggles are the rights
guaranteed to certain individuals by IDEA 97. The law, though
well-intentioned, has become one of the single greatest
obstacles that educators face in their fight to provide all
our children with a quality environment education delivered
in a safe environment.
There are examples that I can offer firsthand. However, let
me reiterate, I am a special educator. I have dedicated my
life to helping children with special needs. It is my job to
study and know the abilities and limitations of such
children. I have a bachelor's degree in psychology and
master's degree in special education and a Ph.D. in good old
common sense. Nowhere in my educational process have I been
taught that a certain few disabled students should have a
right to endanger the right to an education of all other
disabled children. It's nonsense, it's wrong, it's dangerous,
and it must be stopped.
There is no telling how many instructional hours are lost
by teachers in dealing with behavioral problems. In times of
an increasing competitive global society, it is no wonder
that American students fall short. Certain students are
allowed to remain in the classroom robbing the other children
of hours that can never be replaced. There is no need to
extend the school day. There is no need to extend the school
year.
If the politicians would just make it possible for
educators to take back the time lost on a daily basis, there
is no doubt we could have a better educated student. It is
even more frustrating when it is a special education child
who knows and boasts that ``they can't do anything to me,''
and he is placed back in the classroom to disrupt it day
after day, week after week.
It is clear that IDEA 97 not only undermines the
educational process, it also undermines the authority of
educators. In a time when our profession is being called upon
to protect our children from increasingly dangerous sources,
our credibility is being stripped from us. I am sure you have
heard the saying that teachers are scared of the principals,
the principals are scared of the superintendents, the
superintendents are scared of the parents, the parents are
scared of the children, and the children are scared of no
one. And why should they be?
I have experienced the ramifications of the new and
improved law firsthand. I had one child attempt to assault
me. He had been successful with two other teachers. He was
suspended for 1 day. I had another child make sexual gestures
to me in front of the entire class. Despite the fact that
every child in my class and a majority of the children in the
school knew of it, I was told by my assistant principal that
nothing could be done because special-ed kids have rights.
I literally got in my car to leave that day, but my
financial obligations to my family and my moral
responsibility to my children I had in my class kept me
there. The particular child I spoke about frequently made

[[Page 10637]]

vulgar comments and threats to my girls in my class on every
opportunity he had when there was no adult present.
Fortunately, the girls, also special-ed, could talk to me
about it. Unfortunately they had to put up with it because
nothing could be done.
I know of a learning disabled child who cut a girl in a
fight. The child and her parents then attempted to sue the
school system because the child was burned when she grabbed a
coffee pot to break it over another child's head.
I know of another specific incident where three children
brought firearms to school. The two regular children were
expelled; the special-ed student was back in school the
following week.
I fully expect that you and your colleagues in Washington
will do what it takes to take our schools back from this
small group of children who feel it is their right to
endanger the education of every other child in the school. As
my grandmother said, right is right and wrong is wrong, and
to enable this to continue is wrong.

There are other letters. I want to read one more from a student. It
makes the point, I think, very well:

I am a 14-year-old 8th grader. I have a problem. There is
this girl that goes to school with me, and she is an ADD
student.

A disabled student.

She has been harassing me for no reason. She has pretty
much done everything from breaking my glasses to telling me
she is going to kill me. This really bothers me because she
is an ADD student and the only punishment she ever gets is a
slap on the hand. My principal says there is not much he can
do because of her status. I asked, what would happen if I
threatened her back? And he told me I would be suspended from
school and forced to stay away. The most she has ever gotten
is 3 days in-school suspension. I think this is wrong. She
scares me, and I'm tired of this. It has been going on for 5
months, and it's really getting scary.

Mr. President, it is a very small percentage of disabled students who
are behaving in this way, but even a few who would do so make it very
difficult for the schoolteachers and principals to conduct a safe
class. It is an important issue for us. In terms of all the things we
are doing here, if you talk to your teachers in your school systems, if
we can make some improvement in this situation, they would feel as
though Congress has listened to them and has responded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for an additional 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time did I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You asked for an additional 3 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Originally, when I began.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You had 15 minutes when you began.
Mr. SESSIONS. I am sorry, I thought it was 30.
I conclude by saying this amendment I offer will say this, and this
is very important. It is a very modest attempt at improving the
situation. If a child is a disabled child and their misbehavior is not
connected to their disability, then they can, and I think should, be
treated like any other child in the school.
If a child has a nervous condition and cannot control himself, then
that child ought to be placed in an environment within the school that
is healthy for him, and this law would require that. They could not be
removed from school if their actions or misbehavior were connected to
that disability, but if they had perhaps a movement disability and they
are selling dope, they ought to be treated like any other child in the
school. That is what this amendment says.
No. 2, it says if a school acts on a child, that they can take them
out of a mainstream classroom and place them in another classroom until
a hearing has been conducted about an individual educational plan for
that child so they can be provided special education. Under current
law, they have to be back in the classroom at least within 45 days, and
in other circumstances, less than that. They go right back in before a
determination can be made. This will give more flexibility to
principals and teachers.
Finally, under current law, if a school believed that a student could
be sent to a school for the blind, for example, and this doesn't have
anything to do with discipline, the State or local school system could
pay the tuition and let that child go to the school for the blind. The
trouble is, the special schools often cost a lot of money. The school
system does the best they can with their own programs. My parent would
expand options for these parents. If parents think others might be
better, this amendment says if the school agrees and if the parents
agree, they can take the value of the tuition that child has and go to
a special school that has the ability to deal with that disability.
There are some superior schools for the blind, for the deaf, perhaps
better than most public schools. A lot of families sacrifice to send
their children there. This funding could assist them in making that
choice, to the benefit of the child. It is purely an option that, I
think, is healthy and benefits disabled children. I can't imagine
anyone not supporting it.
I believe this is a modest amendment that will begin to help in some
way to deal with an unfortunate situation. So many of the children do
so well. The vast majority of our disabled children do exceedingly
well, and we have great programs.
This bill we are passing today provides unprecedented new funding for
IDEA. We are excited about those possibilities, but we ought to deal
with this particular problem that is disrupting our schools.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator be good enough to help
me understand the Senator's amendment? Is it the Senator's position
that if the child is disciplined and the discipline is a reflection of
the form of disability, does the Senator agree there should be
alternative educational services available to that child?
Mr. SESSIONS. I do. In fact, to that extent, we continue a double
standard for a child. The school would have the option to move the
child to an alternative setting, but not remove him from the school or
not deny educational services.
My amendment does that. It says if the discipline problem is a
product or related to their disability then the child may not be denied
educational services.
Mr. KENNEDY. If it falls under that category, you are still for
providing the services, which I think is very important.
As I understood the amendment, would the services be required to be
provided in a school that was just for the disabled?
Mr. SESSIONS. No.
Mr. KENNEDY. Page 4 of the amendment suggests they have alternative
educational services and that may be in some other setting, some
alternative setting.
Mr. SESSIONS. I say it this way: Most school systems are required
under Federal law to provide educational services. If they have special
needs, they have to provide them. Many children have an individual, one
single individual who goes with that single child all day long to help
them.
Our amendment gives one little option that, I think, would be helpful
to parents or teachers. It says if the parents came in and believed a
school for the blind or a school for the deaf down the street has a
better program than public education, and the school agreed, and it is
a certified school for that disability, they could ask for, if the
school agreed, funding to go to that other school.
Mr. KENNEDY. I know the Senator has included ``is selected by the
child's parents,'' so you have parental involvement. It is not the
concern that many have, that the child might just be put in a setting
which would be just for special needs children and then it would be the
resegregation of disabled children. I see in this language you have
``selected by the child's parents.'' It is designed to serve children
with disabilities, and if the place agrees to accept the child and it
carries out a program that a local or State educational agency finds is
appropriate and will benefit the child.
The Senator can see the concern about whether that would be a dumbing
down kind of a process in education. It would be a quality educational
opportunity that would be

[[Page 10638]]

suitable for that child. That is the concern. I don't know whether
there are ways of addressing that.
Mr. SESSIONS. First, let me say thank you so much, and to your staff,
for giving careful attention to this. Many items have been included
because you have suggested them. You are asking questions that are
important.
As a result of our discussions with lawyers who deal with these
issues, school people, your staff and others, we made this language
crystal clear. It says a local educational agency responsible for
educating a child may transfer the child to an accredited school if it
is selected by the child's parents and carries out the program and the
school determines that program would benefit the child. In other words,
both the parents and the school must agree. The parents cannot say: I
want to take my money and take my child to this school. The school
would have to agree. The parents would have to agree. That provides the
protection from abuse that might otherwise occur.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is where the payment comes into effect because you
would have to offset the expenses for that child and there would be the
allocations of resources for offsetting the payment and for education
for that institution; is that right?
Mr. SESSIONS. That is correct. It could not exceed the average daily
expenditure cost of the child and it could be only used for the
education of the child.
Mr. KENNEDY. What happens to the child with a disability who has a
behavioral problem that is not related to the disability?
Mr. SESSIONS. If their discipline or behavioral problem is not
related to their misbehavior, then this language will say they would be
treated like any other child who misbehaves in school, subject to
discipline, suspension, or other disciplinary action a school would
normally impose.
I know you would like to say any child, perhaps, could have an
alternative, but I am not sure we have the funding to do that. But I
don't think in this instance if their misbehavior is not connected to
their disability, they should be treated preferentially to another
child.
Mr. KENNEDY. What is the experience in the Senator's own State as to
how school districts deal with the children? Do they provide
alternative educational experiences or not?
Mr. SESSIONS. I think most schools are doing a pretty good job. As
the Senator knows, the Federal Government committed to pay 40 percent
of IDEA costs and never paid much more than 10 percent or 15 percent of
that. This bill would fully fund that 40 percent.
But under the law--and there are groups of parents who meet, advocacy
groups, and lawyers who are active in Alabama and every State--if they
are emotionally disturbed children and they cannot control themselves,
they cannot be removed from school as a result of that. If they are a
danger to themselves or others then they can be provided services in an
alternative setting, perhaps, but they cannot be denied educational
services. That is the universal in the United States.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his response to the questions.
There are some others maybe I could talk about with the Senator in the
morning. There is an alternative to the Sessions amendment. But we will
look forward to the presentations in the morning. As I understand it,
the Senator will have a half hour, Senator Harkin or his designee will
have a half hour to get into the description of the alternative. Then
we will make a judgment.
I appreciate the response of the Senator to the questions. I thank
him.

Amendments Nos. 369 As Further Modified, 484 As Modified, 441 As
Modified, 549 As Modified, 446 As Modified, 555 As Further Modified,
And 609, en block, to Amendment No. 358

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this evening we are in a position to
clear amendments by unanimous consent. I therefore ask unanimous
consent it be in order for these amendments to be considered en bloc,
any modifications where applicable be agreed to, the amendments be
agreed to en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. These include amendments No. 369, Feinstein; No. 484,
Bingaman; No. 441, Lugar-Bingaman; No. 549, Hagel; No. 446, DeWine; No.
555, Hutchison; No. 609, Feinstein. And I ask unanimous consent to
vitiate the yeas and nays on No. 555.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 369, as further modified

(Purpose: To specify the purposes for which funds provided under
subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used)

On page 137, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

SEC. . LIMITATIONS ON FUNDS.

Subpart 1 of part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is
amended by inserting after section 1120B (20 U.S.C. 6323) the
following:

``SEC. 1120C. LIMITATION OF FUNDS.

``An LEA may not use funds received under this subpart for:
``(A) purchase or lease of privately owned facilities;
``(B) purchase or provision of facilities maintenance,
gardening, landscaping, or janitorial services, or the
payment of utility costs:
``(C) the construction of facilities;
``(D) the acquisition of real property;
``(E) the payment of travel and attendance costs at
conferences or other meetings other than travel and
attendance necessary for professional development; or
``(F) the purchase or lease of vehicles.''
____

amendment no 484 as modified

(Purpose: To amend education technology programs)

On page 16, line 4, insert ``servers and storage devices,''
before ``video''.
On page 16, line 5, insert ``and other digital'' after
``web-based''.
On page 16, line 7, strike ``environments for problem-
solving'' and insert ``learning environments,''.
On page 182, line 16, insert ``, including education
technology such as software and other digital curricula,''
after ``materials''.
On page 317, line 16, insert ``, including through a grant
or contract with a for-profit or nonprofit entity'' after
``activities''.
On page 317, line 26, insert ``, including technology
literacy'' after ``skills''.
On page 319, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(12) Encouraging and supporting the training of teachers
and administrators to effectively integrate technology into
curricula and instruction, including the ability to collect,
manage, and analyze data to improve teaching, decision making
and school improvement efforts and accountability.
``(13) Developing or supporting programs that encourage or
expand the use of technology to provide professional
development, including through Internet-based distance
education and peer networks.
On page 325, line 18, insert ``, including through a grant
or contract with a for-profit or nonprofit entity'' after
``activities''.
On page 326, line 2, strike ``and''.
On page 326, line 7, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 326, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
``(D) effective integration of technology into curricula
and instruction to enhance the learning environment and
improve student academic achievement, performance, technology
literacy; and
``(E) ability to collect, manage, and analyze data,
including through use of technology, to inform teaching.
On page 326, line 11, insert ``, other for profit or
nonprofit entities, and through distance education'' after
``education''.
On page 344, line 5, strike ``and''.
On page 344, line 10, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 344, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(5) improve and expand training of math and science
teachers, including in the effective integration of
technology into curricula and instruction.
On page 348, line 8, strike ``and''.
On page 348, line 15, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 349, line 10, insert ``and technology-based
teaching methods'' after ``methods''.
On page 349, line 19, strike ``experiment oriented'' and
insert ``innovative''.
On page 356, line 21, strike the period and insert ``, and
to improve the ability of institutions of higher education to
carry out such programs''.
On page 358, line 17, insert ``both'' after ``would''.
On page 358, line 24, strike the semi colon and insert
``and to improve the ability of at least 1 participating
institution of higher education as described in section
2232(a)(1) to ensure such preparation;''.
Beginning on page 360, strike line 23 through line 7, page
361, and insert the following:

[[Page 10639]]

``(A) learn the full range of resources that can be
accessed through the use of technology;
``(B) integrate a variety of technologies into the
curricula and instruction in order to expand students'
knowledge;
``(C) evaluate educational technologies and their potential
for use in instruction;
``(D) help students develop their technical skills; and
``(F) use technology to collect, manage and analyze data to
inform their teaching and decision-making;''.
On page 361, strike lines 22 through 24 and insert the
following:
``(6) subject to section 2232(c)(2), acquiring technology
equipment, networking capabilities, infrastructure and
software and digital curriculum to carry out the project.
On page 365, line 10, insert ``and teacher training in
technology under section 3122'' before ``prior''.
On page 367, line 24, strike the period and insert ``and
have a substantial demonstrated need for assistance in
acquiring and integrating technology.''.
On page 369, strike line 3 through line 22, and insert the
following:
``(1) outlines the long-term strategies for improving
student performance, academic achievement, and technology
literacy, through the effective use of technology in
classrooms throughout the State, including through improving
the capacity of teachers to effectively integrate technology
into the curricula and instruction;
``(2) outlines long-term strategies for financing
technology education in the State to ensure all students,
teachers, and classrooms will have access to technology,
describes how the State will use funds provided under this
part to help ensure such access, and describes how business,
industry, and other public and private agencies, including
libraries, library literacy programs, and institutions of
higher education, can participate in the implementation,
ongoing planning, and support of the plan;
``(3) provides assurance that financial assistance provided
under this part shall supplement, not supplant, State and
local funds; and
``(5) meets such other criteria as the Secretary may
establish in order to enable such agency to provide
assistance to local educational agencies that have the
highest numbers or percentages of children in poverty and
demonstrate the greatest need for technology, in order to
enable such local educational agencies, for the benefit of
school sites served by such local educational agencies, to
improve student academic achievement and student performance.
On page 370, strike line 5 through line 26, and insert the
following:
``(1) acquiring, adapting, expanding, implementing and
maintaining existing and new applications of technology, to
support the school reform effort, improve student academic
achievement, performance, and technology literacy;
``(2) providing ongoing professional development in the
integration of quality educational technologies into school
curriculum;
``(3) acquiring connectivity with wide area networks for
purposes of accessing information, educational programming
sources and professional development, particularly with
institutions of higher education and public libraries;
``(4) providing educational services for adults and
families;
``(5) repairing and maintaining school technology
equipment;
``(6) acquiring, expanding, and implementing technology to
collect, manage, and analyze data, including student
achievement data, to inform teaching, decision-making, and
school improvement efforts, including the training of
teachers and administrators; and
``(7) using technology to promote parent and family
involvement and support communications between parents,
teachers, and students.
Beginning on page 371, strike line 14 through line 13, page
373, and insert the following:
``(1) a description of how the activities to be carried out
by the local educational agency under this part will be based
on a review of relevant research and an explanation of why
the activities are expected to improve student achievement,
and technology literacy;
``(2) an explanation of how the acquired technologies will
be integrated into the curriculum to help the local
educational agency improve student academic achievement,
student performance, and teaching;
``(3) a description of the type of technologies to be
acquired, including services, software, and digital
curricula, including specific provisions for interoperability
among components of such technologies;
``(4) a description of how the local educational agency
will ensure ongoing, sustained professional development for
teachers, administrators, and school library media personnel
served by the local educational agency to further the
effective use of technology in the classroom or library media
center, including a list of those entities that will partner
with the local educational agency in providing ongoing
sustained professional development;
``(5) the projected cost of technologies to be acquired and
related expenses needed to implement the plan;
``(6) a description of how the local educational agency
will coordinate the technology provided pursuant to this part
with other grant funds available for technology from other
Federal, State, and local sources;
``(7) a description of a process for the ongoing evaluation
of how technologies acquired under this part will be
integrated into the school curriculum; and will affect
technology literacy and student academic achievement,
performance, as related to challenging State content
standards and State student performance standards in all
subjects; and
``(8) a description of the evaluation plan that the local
educational agency will carry out pursuant to section
2308(a).
Beginning on page 374, strike line 19 through line 2, page
375, and insert the following:
``(1) increased professional development and increased
effective use of technology in educating students;
``(2) increased;
``(3) increased access to technology in the classroom,
especially in low-income schools; and
``(5) other indicators reflecting increased student
academic achievement or student performance, as a result of
technology.
On page 375, line 13, strike ``in all of the areas''.
On page 379, strike line 4 through line 19, and insert the
following:
``(5) Exchange.--The plan shall describe the manner in
which the Secretary will promote the exchange of information
among States, local educational agencies, schools, consortia,
and other entities concerning the conditions and practices
that support effective use of technology in improving
teaching and student educational opportunities, academic
achievement, and technology literacy.
``(6) Goals.--The plan shall describe the Secretary's long-
range measurable goals and objectives relating to the
purposes of this part.
____

AMENDMENT NO. 441, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To provide for comprehensive school reform)

On page 34, line 8, strike ``$250,000,000'' and insert
``$500,000,000''.
On page 86, line 22, insert before the semicolon the
following: ``and may include a strategy for the
implementation of a comprehensive school reform model that
meets each of the components described in section 1706(a)''.
On page 258, line 22, strike ``and''.
On page 258, line 25, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 258, after line 25, add the following:
``(iii) 3 percent to promote quality initiatives described
in section 1708.''.
On page 260, strike lines 5 through 9, and insert the
following:
``(2) how the State educational agency will ensure that
funds under this part are limited to comprehensive school
reform programs that--
``(A) include each of the components described in section
1706(a);
``(B) have the capacity to improve the academic achievement
of all students in core academic subjects within
participating schools; and
``(C) are supported by technical assistance providers that
have a successful track record, and the capacity to deliver
high quality materials, professional development for school
personnel and on-site support during the full implementation
period of the reforms.''.
On page 260, line 15, insert ``annually'' before
``evaluate''.
On page 261, line 7, insert before the period the
following: ``to support comprehensive school reforms in
schools that are eligible for funds under part A''.
On page 261, line 11, strike ``for the particular'' and
insert ``of''.
On page 261, line 12, strike ``reform plan'' and insert
``reforms''.
On page 263, line 1, strike ``and''.
On page 263, line 2, strike ``reform model selected and
used'' and insert ``reforms selected and used, and a copy of
the State's evaluation of the implementation of comprehensive
school reforms supported under this part and the student
results achieved''.
On page 263, strike lines 15 through 17, and insert the
following:
``(2) describe the comprehensive school reforms based on
scientifically-based research and effective practices that
such schools will implement;''.
On page 264, line 1, insert ``comprehensive'' after
``such''.
On page 264, line 10, strike ``innovative'' and insert
``proven''.
On page 264, line 14, strike ``schools with diverse
characteristics'' and insert ``schools''.
On page 265, line 18, strike ``and''.
On page 265, line 22, strike ``school reform effort.'' and
insert ``comprehensive school reform effort; and''.
On page 265, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
On page 265, line 25 strike ``the approaches identified''
and all that follows through

[[Page 10640]]

``Secretary'' on line 1 of page 266, and insert ``nationally
available''.
On page 266, line 2, strike ``programs'' and insert
``program''.
On page 266, after line 23, add the following:

``SEC. 1708. QUALITY INITIATIVES.

``The Secretary, through grants or contracts, shall
promote--
``(1) a public-private effort, in which funds are matched
by the private sector, to assist States, local educational
agencies, and schools, in making informed decisions upon
approving or selecting providers of comprehensive school
reform, consistent with the requirements described in section
1706(a); and
``(2) activities to foster the development of comprehensive
school reform models and to provide effective capacity
building for comprehensive school reform providers to expand
their work in more schools, assure quality, and promote
financial stability.
____

amendment no. 549, as modified

(Purpose: To provide for the awarding of school facility modernization
grants on a competitive basis)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . SCHOOL FACILITY MODERNIZATION GRANTS.

Subsection (b) of section 8007 (20 U.S.C. 7707(b)) (as
amended by section 1811 of the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act
of 2000 (as enacted into law by section 1 of Public Law 106-
398)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) School Facility Modernization Grants Authorized.--
``(1) Funding and allocation.--
``(A) Funding.--From 60 percent of the amount appropriated
for each fiscal year under section 8014(e), the Secretary
shall award grants in accordance with this subsection to
eligible local educational agencies to enable the local
educational agencies to carry out modernization of school
facilities.
``(B) Allocation.--From amounts made available for a fiscal
year under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall allocate--
``(i) 10 percent of such amount for grants to local
educational agencies described in paragraph (2)(A);
``(ii) 45 percent of such amount for grants to local
educational agencies described in paragraph (2)(B), of which,
10 percent shall be available for emergency grants that shall
not be subject to the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (4); and
``(iii) 45 percent of such amount for grants to local
educational agencies described in paragraph (2)(C), of which,
10 percent shall be available for emergency grants that shall
not be subject to the requirements of subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (4).
``(C) Special rule.--A local educational agency described
in clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (B) may use grant
funds made available under this subsection for a school
facility located on or near Federal property only if the
school facility is located at a school where not less than 25
percent of the children in average daily attendance in the
school for the preceding school year are children for which a
determination is made under section 8003(a)(1).
``(2) Eligibility requirements.--A local educational agency
is eligible to receive funds under this subsection only if--
``(A) such agency received assistance under section 8002(a)
for the fiscal year and has an assessed value of taxable
property per student in the school district that is less than
the average of the assessed value of taxable property per
student in the State in which the local educational agency is
located;
``(B) such agency had an enrollment of children determined
under section 8003(a)(1)(C) which constituted at least 25
percent of the number of children who were in average daily
attendance in the schools of such agency during the school
year preceding the school year for which the determination is
made; or
``(C) such agency had an enrollment of children determined
under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (D) of section 8003(a)(1)
which constituted at least 25 percent of the number of
children who were in average daily attendance in the schools
of such agency during the school year preceding the school
year for which the determination is made.
``(3) Award criteria.--In awarding grants under this
subsection, the Secretary shall review applications submitted
with respect to each type of agency represented by local
educational agencies that qualify under each of subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2). In evaluating an
application, the Secretary shall consider the following
criteria:
``(A) The extent to which the local educational agency
lacks the fiscal capacity to undertake the modernization
project without Federal assistance.
``(B) the extent to which property in the local educational
agency is nontaxable due to the presence of the Federal
Government.
``(C) The extent to which the local educational agency
serves high numbers or percentages of children described in
subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 8003(a)(1).
``(D) the need for modernization to meet--
``(i) the threat that the condition of the school facility
poses to the health, safety, and well-being of students;
``(ii) overcrowding conditions as evidenced by the use of
trailers and portable buildings and the potential for future
overcrowding because of increased enrollment; and
``(iii) facility needs resulting from actions of the
Federal Government.
``(E) The age of the school facility to be modernized.
``(4) Other award provisions.--
``(A) Amount.--In determining the amount of a grant awarded
under this subsection; the peer group and Secretary shall
consider the cost of the modernization and the ability of the
local educational agency to produce sufficient funds to carry
out the activities for which assistance is sought.
``(B) Federal share.--The Federal funds provided under this
subsection to a local educational agency shall not exceed 50
percent of the total cost of the project to be assisted under
this subsection. A local educational agency may use in-kind
contributions, excluding land contributions, to meet the
matching requirement of the preceding sentence.
``(C) Maximum grant.--A local educational agency described
in this subsection may not receive a grant under this
subsection in an amount that exceeds $5,000,000 during any 2-
year period.
``(5) Applications.--A local educational agency that
desires to receive a grant under this subsection shall submit
an application to the Secretary, who shall forward such
application to the appropriate peer group under paragraph
(3), at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may require. Each application
shall contain--
``(A) a listing of the school facilities to be modernized
including the number and percentage of children determined
under section 8003(a)(1) in average daily attendance in each
school facility;
``(B) a description of the ownership of the property on
which the current school facility is located or on which the
planned school facility will be located;
``(C) a description of how the local educational agency
meets the award criteria under paragraph (3);
``(D) a description of the modernization to be supported
with funds provided under this subsection;
``(E) a cost estimate of the proposed modernization; and
``(F) such other information and assurances as the
Secretary may reasonably require.
``(g) Emergency grants.--
``(A) Applications.--Each local educational agency applying
for a grant under paragraph (1)(B)(ii) or (1)(b)(iii) that
desires a grant under this subsection shall include in the
application submitted under paragraph (5) a signed statement
from an appropriate local official certifying that a health
or safety emergency exists.
``(B) Special rules.--The Secretary shall make every effort
to meet fully the school facility needs of local educational
agencies applying for a grant under paragraph (1)(B)(ii) or
(1)(B)(iii).
``(C) Priority.--If the Secretary receives more than one
application from local educational agencies described in
paragraph (1)(B)(ii) or (1)(B)(iii) for grants under this
subsection for any fiscal year, the Secretary shall give
priority to local educational agencies based on the severity
of the emergency, as determined by the peer review group and
the Secretary, and when the application was received.
``(D) Consideration for following year.--A local
educational agency described in paragraph (2) that applies
for a grant under this subsection for any fiscal year and
does not receive the grant shall have the application for the
grant considered for the following fiscal year, subject to
the priority described in subparagraph (C).
``(7) General limitations.--
``(A) Real property.--No grant funds awarded under this
subsection shall be used for the acquisition of any interest
in real property.
``(B) Maintenance.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to authorize the payment of maintenance costs in
connection with any school facility modernized in whole or in
part with Federal funds provided under this subsection.
``(C) Environmental safeguards.--All projects carried out
with Federal funds provided under this subsection shall
comply with all revelant Federal, State, and local
environmental laws and regulations.
``(D) Athletic and similar school facilities.--No Federal
funds received under this subsection shall be used for
outdoor stadiums or other school facilities that are
primarily used for athletic contests or exhibitions, or other
events, for which admission is charged to the general public.
``(8) Supplement not supplant.--An eligible local
educational agency shall use funds received under this
subsection only to supplement the amount of funds that would,
in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from
non-Federal sources for the modernization of school
facilities used for educational purposes, and not to supplant
such funds.''.

[[Page 10641]]

____
amendment no. 446 As modified

(Purpose: To modify provisions relating the the Safe and Drug Free
Schools and Communities Act of 1994 with respect to violence
prevention)

On page 514, line 10, insert ``, suspended and expelled
students,'' after ``dropouts''.
On page 524, line 7, insert before the semicolon the
following: ``including administrative incident reports,
anonymous surveys of students or teachers, and focus
groups''.
On page 535, line 21, strike ``violence problem'' and
insert ``and violence problems''.
On page 537, line 15, by inserting `` and violence'' after
``use,''.
On page 539, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
``(6) administrative approaches to promote school safety,
including professional development for principals and
administrators to promote effectiveness and innovation,
implementing a school disciplinary code, and effective
communication of the school disciplinary code to both
students and parents at the beginning of the school year;''.
On page 545, line 9, insert ``, that is subject to
independent review,'' after ``data''.
On page 545, lines 10 and 11, strike ``social disapproval
of''.
On page 545, line 12, after the period add the following:
``The collected data shall include incident reports by
schools officials, anonymous student surveys, and anonymous
teacher surveys.''.
On page 549, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
``(4) the provision of information on violence prevention
and education and school safety to the Department of Justice,
for dissemination by the National Resource Center for Safe
Schools as a national clearinghouse on violence and school
safety information;''.
On page 550, line 14, insert ``administrative approaches,
security services,'' after ``include''.
On page 553, line 2, insert ``to'' after ``research''.
On page 553, after line 24, add the following:
``(J) Researchers and expert practitioners.
____

amendment no. 555 as further modified

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Education to establish a campaign
to educate principals, school administrators, and other educators
regarding access to secondary schools for military recruiting purposes,
and for other purposes)

At the end of title IX, add the following:

SEC. 902. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE ACCESS
OF ARMED FORCES RECRUITERS TO STUDENT DIRECTORY
INFORMATION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Service in the Armed Forces of the United States is
voluntary.
(2) Recruiting quality persons in the numbers necessary to
maintain the strengths of the Armed Forces authorized by
Congress is vital to the United States national defense.
(3) Recruiting quality servicemembers is very challenging,
and as a result, Armed Forces recruiters must devote
extraordinary time and effort to their work in order to fill
monthly requirements for immediate accessions.
(4) In meeting goals for recruiting high quality men and
women, each of the Armed Forces faces intense competition
from the other Armed Forces, from the private sector, and
from institutions offering postsecondary education.
(5) Despite a variety of innovative approaches taken by
recruiters, and the extensive benefits that are available to
those who join the Armed Forces, it is becoming increasingly
difficult for the Armed Forces to meet recruiting goals.
(6) A number of high schools across the country have denied
recruiters access to students or to student directory
information.
(7) In 1999, the Army was denied access to students or
student directories on 4,515 to students or student
directories occasions, the Navy was denied access on 4,364
occasions, the Marine Corps was denied access on to students
or student directories 4,884 occasions, and the Air Force was
denied access to students or students directories on 5,465
occasions.
(8) As of the beginning of 2000, nearly 25 percent of all
high schools in the United States did not release student
directory information requested by Armed Forces recruiters.
(9) In testimony presented to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate, recruiters stated that the single
biggest obstacle to carrying out the recruiting mission was
denial of access to student directory information, as the
student directory is the basic tool of the recruiter.
(10) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to
student directory information unfairly hurts the youth of the
United States, as it prevents students from receiving
important information on the education and training benefits
offered by the Armed Forces and impairs students'
decisionmaking on careers by limiting the information on the
options available to them.
(11) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to
student directory information undermines United States
national defense, and makes it more difficult to recruit high
quality young Americans in numbers sufficient to maintain the
readiness of the Armed Forces and to provide for the national
security.
(12) Section 503 of title 10, United States Code, requires
local educational agencies, as of July 1, 2002, to provide
recruiters access to secondary schools on the same basis that
those agencies provide access to representatives of colleges,
universities, and private sector employers.
(b) Campaign to Promote Access.--
(1) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, each State shall transmit to the
Secretary of Education a list of each school, if any, in that
State that--
(A) during the 12 months preceding the date of enactment of
this Act, has denied access to students or to student
directory information to a military recruiter; or
(B) has in effect a policy to deny access to students or to
student directory information to military recruiters.
(2) Education program.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Education, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall, not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, make
awards to States and schools using no more than $3 million of
funds available under section 6203(c) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act to educate principals, school
administrators, and other educators regarding career
opportunities in the Armed Forces, and the access standard
required under section 503 of title 10, United States Code.
(B) Targeted schools.--In selecting schools for awards
required under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall give
priority to selecting schools that are included on the lists
transmitted to Congress under paragraph (1).

SEC. 903. MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

(a) Denial of funds.--
(1) Prohibition.--No funds available to the Department of
Defense may be provided by grant or contract to any
institution of higher education (including any school of law,
whether or not accredited by the American Bar Association)
that has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents,
the Secretary of Defense from obtaining for military
recruiting purposes--
(2) institutions in paragraph (1) shall be exempt if they
have a long-standing policy of pacifism based on historical
religious affiliation.
(A) entry to campuses or access to students on campuses; or
(B) access to directory information pertaining to students.
(3) Covered students.--Students referred to in paragraph
(1) are individuals who are 17 years of age or older.
(b) Procedures for Determination.--The Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Education,
shall prescribe regulations that contain procedures for
determining if and when an educational institution has denied
or prevented access to students or information described in
subsection (a).
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``directory information'' means, with respect to a student,
the student's name, address, telephone listing, date and
place of birth, level of education, degrees received, and the
most recent previous educational institution enrolled in by
the student.
____

amendment no. 609

(Purpose: To require audits of local education agencies to determine
how funds are being expended)

At the appropriate place in title I, insert the following:

SEC. __. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY SPENDING AUDITS.

(a) Audits.--The Office of the Inspector General of the
Department of Education shall conduct not less than 6 audits
of local education agencies that receive funds under part A
of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 in each fiscal year to more clearly determine
specifically how local education agencies are expending such
funds. Such audits shall be conducted in 6 local educational
agencies that represent the size, ethnic, economic and
geographic diversity of local educational agencies and shall
examine the extent to which funds have been expended for
academic instruction in the core curriculum and activities
unrelated to academic instruction in the core curriculum,
such as the payment of janitorial, utility and other
maintenance services, the purchase and lease of vehicles, and
the payment for travel and attendance costs at conferences.
(b) Report.--Not later than 3 months after the completion
of the audits under subsection (a) in each year, the Office
of the Inspector General of the Department of Education shall
submit a report on each audit to the Committee on Education
and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the
Senate.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see none of my colleagues here to make
further comments and statements on

[[Page 10642]]

this. We will resume the debates tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. I thank
all our colleagues for their help and their cooperation. We have made
good progress and we look forward to a final passage sometime tomorrow
afternoon.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. What is the
situation on the floor at the present time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Sessions
amendment No. 604, as modified.
Mr. HARKIN. Is there a time agreement on that amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is to be recognized to
call up an amendment, and he has 15 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I have 15 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume
then at this time. I may ask for a bit more.
Mr. President, I looked at this amendment, and all I can say is here
we go again. How many times do we have to go down this road of saying
that the disciplinary problems in our schools are because of kids with
disabilities, and if we only can get ahold of those kids with
disabilities and do something about them, then we can straighten out
the discipline problem in our schools?
We have been down this road many times before. Fortunately, this body
has recognized the importance of IDEA's protections in the past, and I
hope we will do so again.
We as a nation decided sometime ago that segregation was wrong. I am
not talking about segregation of races. We decided that a long time
ago. That was wrong. I am talking about the segregation of people with
disabilities from our society. We as a country said it was wrong to
take kids from their families and send them halfway across the State to
some alternative setting, when they could have had a decent, adequate
education right in their own community, in their own school district,
in their own neighborhood, if they were just given some appropriate
support.
The reason I feel so deeply about this is that it is very personal to
me. My brother was sent away halfway across the State from our small
hometown when he was a kid because he was deaf. He was put in an
institution to get his education--segregated from society, from his
family, from his friends, from the town in which he grew up.
Well, those were the old days. I thought we as a society had
progressed beyond that. When we passed the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act in 1975--my first year here in the
Congress--we said we are not going to do that anymore; to the maximum
extent possible, we are going to integrate kids with disabilities into
our local educational institutions, and we are going to provide the
support services those kids need to get an education.
I can remember when my oldest daughter was in grade school and when
the first couple of kids with disabilities came into the classroom.
There was a bit of a hue and cry. Some of the parents didn't like it.
They thought it was going to take attention away from the other kids
because they would have to pay more attention to the kids with
disabilities. But because of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act, the school had to take these kids and provide the
services. A wonderfully amazing thing happened. These young kids in
that classroom, who perhaps had never associated with anyone their age
with a disability, all of a sudden became drawn to these two kids who
were in the classroom with their disabilities.
They became more sensitive to these kids, and the kids with
disabilities found they could associate with kids without disabilities.
I saw a wonderful thing happen, and I saw the families who later on
said: This is not a bad deal. It sensitized them to the fact that this
could happen to any one of them any day of the week. Any one of us
could become disabled--mentally or physically--at any time. It shows
the vulnerability of human nature, but it also shows that kids with
disabilities can learn and reach their maximum potential.
Do we want to turn the clock back? Do we want to go back to those
days when we took those kids out of that setting and put them in a
separate setting and said: No, you can't be in a classroom with other
kids.
I do not mean to overblow this amendment, but that is exactly what
this amendment will do. This amendment, in section 2(A), says:

A child with a disability who is removed from the child's
regular educational placement under paragraph (1) shall
receive a free appropriate public education which may be
provided in an alternative education setting if the behavior
that led to the child's removal is a manifestation of the
child's disability as determined under subparagraphs--

And so on.
What that says is that a child with disabilities can be removed. Yes;
schools must continue to give him a free appropriate public education--
but in an alternative education setting. I read that to mean a
segregated setting, someplace across town, someplace where they
segregate kids with disabilities.
Under current law, you have to provide a free appropriate public
education but before you remove a child you have to consider certain
factors, including whether the behavior was a result of their
disability. This would turn the clock back to days when schools could
segregate.
You say: What if that kid acted up and harmed someone? Don't you want
him removed, put in a setting where they cannot harm someone? Yes, I
want safety in the classroom, too, but think about this before you vote
on this. This is an example I will tell you that occurs every single
day in classrooms all over America with kids with disabilities.
I will use a young deaf kid again because I am so familiar with that.
A young deaf kid is in a classroom. They are using a TV monitor to show
some educational programs. The classroom teacher inadvertently or
advertently did not provide for captioning or the school did not
provide for the captioning. The student who is deaf cannot understand
what is going on.
This may go on for a couple of days until finally the kid who is deaf
starts acting up. He may reach over and hit the kid next to him, may
grab the kid next to him, may throw something. So a school takes that
kid out of the classroom.
Under the Sessions amendment, there is no inquiry as to whether or
not the kid was provided the adequate appropriate supportive services.
Instead, this deaf child could be segregated based on the fact that the
school failed to provide appropriate services.
Under present law, there would be a due process hearing as to why
that kid acted up. They might bring in a counselor and a deaf
interpreter. Maybe the kid will say: I am mad because I can't
understand what is going on.
The Sessions amendment says: We don't care; get him out of here.
In addition, I have a great deal of empathy with our elementary and
secondary school teachers all over America, many of whom have not been
trained and who do not really know how to handle kids with
disabilities. They have big classrooms. They have 28, 30 kids in a
classroom, and they get a couple of kids with disabilities in their
classroom. What are they going to do?
The real problem is that teachers aren't getting trained and no one
is providing supportive services to these kids as is supposed to be
done under law. They create a disturbance. They are not provided the
appropriate supportive services so they can learn in that setting.
The teacher is at wits end. He or she would say: I've got to get
these kids out of here. I can't teach the rest of these kids.
The kids tell the parents: We have kids acting up all the time; they
are disturbing the classroom; I can't study. The parents call the
principal. The

[[Page 10643]]

principal says get those kids out of there.
I feel sorry for those teachers. The answer is not to segregate the
kids. The answer is to meet our obligations--our moral obligations and
our legal obligations--to make sure these kids get the supportive
services they need to learn in that environment.
It seems to be cost is no objection when they want to segregate kids
and put them in an institution. We don't care what it costs. But in
order to provide the kind of supportive services they may need in an
integrated classroom, why, well, that costs too much money.
It does not cost too much money. It can cost more to segregate those
kids than to provide the services they need to help them.
As I said, I have a lot of empathy with these teachers because I have
been in those classrooms. I feel sorry for those teachers. They do not
have the support. But, now they are going to get help because on this
bill, under an amendment offered by Senator Hagel and this Senator,
adopted unanimously by the Senate, we are finally going to provide full
funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which we
have been talking about since 1975.
That amounts, over the next 10 years to about $181 billion that the
Federal Government has now said to the States: We are now going to give
the money out we have been talking about for the last 26 years.
Now we can get the supportive services these teachers need, and if we
couple that with class size reduction and reducing the number of kids
in classrooms, then we have the right formula. We have the right
formula not only for kids with disabilities, but for kids without
disabilities.
I know people get disturbed. They hear about all the discipline
problems in our classrooms, and I am not saying there are not
discipline problems. But I have sat in this Senate Chamber, and I have
heard Senator after Senator in the past talk about the gun incidents at
Columbine, San Diego, Pennsylvania--and then they talk about
discipline, and it always comes down to kids with disabilities.
I challenge them or anybody else to show me one of those violent
instances where a child under an IEP, an Individualized Education
Program, a kid with a disability was involved. Why is it when we have
shootings, we have guns, and we have things that happen in the schools,
the first thing that comes on the floor of the Senate is to beat up on
the kids with disabilities? The discipline amendments don't go after
kids without disabilities; they always go after kids with disabilities.
I ask: Why? Why? They are the most vulnerable in our society.
We had a tough time reauthorizing IDEA a few years ago. Senator
Jeffords and I, Senator Kennedy and others, worked hard on it. We got
all sides to agree on what we would do when we finally reauthorized.
And now we have the funds in this bill to pay for it. Before we go
after kids with disabilities, let's identify the real problems.
The Sessions amendment says to parents with kids with disabilities,
tough luck, you are out of the picture. We will take those kids and
kick them out and segregate them and you don't have anything to say
about it.
Why are we picking on the kids with disabilities? Honest to God, I
just don't understand this.
Do I disagree we have some discipline problems in school? No, we do
have discipline problems in school. Of course we do. But it is not
because of kids with disabilities. I challenge someone, please, step
forward and show me the data that it is kids with disabilities causing
these problems.
I don't want kids in the classroom who will hurt themselves or hurt
others. If a kid is truly violent and can't be controlled, even with
supportive services, that kid should not be there. We have set up
through a long history of 26 years processes and procedures to ensure
that kids with disabilities have due process, as do their families.
IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, allows schools
to remove those kids. A GAO report released in January concluded that
special education students who are involved in serious misconduct are
being disciplined in generally a similar manner to regular education
students based on information that principals reported to us in our
review of the limited extant research. That means IDEA is not limiting
a school's ability to discipline children with disabilities.
Again, what does the Sessions amendment do? I repeat, under the guise
of discipline, it allows us to resegregate these kids, to turn back the
clock. The second thing it does is allow schools to cease services to
these kids. Section C allows the children not only to be taken out but
to cease services.
A kid with a disability needs services, needs support; a kid can be
not only segregated but have services cease. That is adding insult to
injury. What are you going to do, throw them out on the street? Think
about a kid with a serious disability, who is already frustrated by
their disability. And now you will stop the services and throw them out
on the street? Talk about a timebomb waiting to happen.
The one thing we have always mandated under discipline procedures for
kids with disabilities is you have to keep the services going to these
kids. Nobody is going to throw them out on the streets. But the
Sessions amendment allows services to cease.
The Sessions amendment also creates a program that allows parents to
take money from the public schools to go into private schools. Under
the amendment, the local educational agency could wash its hands of
responsibility for that child. Again, the Federal dollars end up in
private schools without any accountability as to how those dollars get
spent. The local educational agency washes its hands.
We have been down this road before. If I had a dollar for every
iteration of this amendment we have had on this floor in 20 years, I
would be a rich man. They always say, ``We will tweak it here and tweak
it there,'' but it always comes down to the same two or three things:
segregate them out, cut out the services, and let them go out on the
streets. It always comes down to that.
I have had my say. I will continue to speak out on this as long as I
am on this Senate floor. I don't mean tonight; I mean as long as I am
in the Senate. These families with kids with disabilities, a lot of
times families are at their wit's end. A lot of times the parents are
working. A lot of times it is a single parent. They are working hard,
have a kid with a disability who requires a lot of attention, a lot of
care, a lot of love, and the last thing they need is to get kicked in
the teeth by the Senate. The last thing they need is to have to go out
and try to find a lawyer to fight it in court.
I thank the Chair's indulgence, but this is an issue I care very
deeply about. There are ways of addressing this issue. This is not the
way to do it. Don't go after the most vulnerable kids when it cannot be
proven. You cannot show me the data. That is all I ask. Show me the
data where it is kids with disabilities who are causing these problems.
Show me the data and make me a believer. I have lived with this too
long. I have worked on this issue too long. The data is not there. If
you can show it to me, I will change my mind.

Amendment No. 802 to Amendment No. 358

My amendment is at the desk and I ask my amendment be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for Mr. Kennedy, for
himself and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 802.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

amendment no. 802

(Purpose: To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
regarding discipline)

At the appropriate place insert the following:

TITLE __--INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

SEC. __01. DISCIPLINE.

Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

[[Page 10644]]

``(n) Uniform Policies.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), and
notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a State
educational agency or local educational agency may establish
and implement uniform policies regarding discipline
applicable to all children under the jurisdiction of the
agency to ensure the safety of such children and an
appropriate educational atmosphere in the schools under the
jurisdiction of the agency.
``(2) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--A child with a disability who is removed
from the child's regular educational placement under
paragraph (1) shall receive a free appropriate public
education which may be provided in an alternative educational
setting pursuant to Sec 615K, if the behavior that led to the
child's removal is a manifestation of the child's disability,
as determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection
(k)(4).
``(B) Manifestation determination.--The manifestation
determination shall be made immediately, if possible, but in
no case later than 10 school days after school personnel
decide to remove the child with a disability from the child's
regular educational placement.
``(C) Determination that behavior was not manifestation of
disability.--If the result of the manifestation review is a
determination that the behavior of the child with a
disability was not a manifestation of the child's disability,
appropriate school personnel may apply to the child the same
relevant disciplinary procedures as would apply to children
without a disability.'', except as provided in 612(a)(1).

SEC. __02. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again I want to make it clear what my
amendment does. It basically takes the Sessions amendment, leaves most
of it the way it is, but it just says, No. 1, you cannot segregate; you
cannot segregate these kids--unless you follow the law. Under the
present law, you can segregate kids if they are violent. But before you
segregate you have to follow certain processes and procedures.
The second thing my amendment says is you cannot cease services; you
cannot stop the services to these kids even if they have been removed
from the classroom.
Finally, it deletes the last section that would allow local school
districts to hand over federal dollars, without any accountability on
how those dollars are being spent.
I think it is a reasonable and a logical approach to this problem, as
I have said many times before. I do not mind people who want to have
better discipline in the classrooms. I sent two kids through public
schools. Yes, I want discipline in the classrooms. I want a well-
structured classroom just as the Presiding Officer does for his kids
and grandkids, I am sure. But this is not the way to do it. This is not
the way to do it.
The way to do it is to do it under the procedures and processes that
will ensure the kids with disabilities have the services and the
support they need so they will not be segregated ever again in our
society.
I thank the Chair for his indulgence. I yield the floor and I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

vote explanation

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this morning I was not present during
rollcall vote number 182, the Santorum amendment. I was attending a
meeting in the Russell building. Unfortunately, the mechanism designed
to alert Members of votes was malfunctioning. Therefore, I was unaware
that a vote was in progress.
Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted in favor of the
Santorum amendment.

Amendment No. 634, As Further Modified

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previously
modified Stevens-Inouye amendment, which was agreed to, No. 634, be
further modified with the changes I now send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:

amendment no. 634 as further modified

(Purpose: To make amendments with respect to programs for Alaska
Natives and Native Hawaiians, and with respect to Impact Aid payments
for certain heavily impacted local educational agencies)

On page 872, strike lines 15 through 18, and insert the
following:

part;
``(L) construction, renovation, and modernization of any
elementary school, secondary school, or structure related to
an elementary school or secondary school, run by the
Department of Education of the State of Hawaii, that serves a
predominantly Native Hawaiian student body; and
``(M) other activities, consistent with the purposes of
this part, to meet the educational needs of Native Hawaiian
children and adults.
On page 873, strike line 18 and insert the following:
$35,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may
On page 879, strike lines 8 through 15, and insert the
following:
``(1) Grants and contracts.--The Secretary is authorized to
make grants to, or enter into contracts with, Alaska Native
organizations, educational entities with experience in
developing or operating Alaska Native programs or programs of
instruction conducted in Alaska Native languages, cultural
and community-based organizations with experience in
developing or operating programs to benefit Alaska Natives,
and consortia of organizations and entities described in this
paragraph to carry out programs that meet the purposes of
this part.
On page 881, strike lines 22 through 25, and insert the
following:
part;
``(I) remedial and enrichment programs to assist Alaska
Native students in performing at a high level on standardized
tests;
``(J) education and training of Alaska Native students
enrolled in a degree program that will lead to certification
or licensing as teachers;
``(K) parenting education for parents and caregivers of
Alaska Native children to improve parenting and caregiving
skills (including skills relating to discipline and cognitive
development), including parenting education provided through
in-home visitation of new mothers;
``(L) cultural education programs operated by the Alaska
Native Heritage Center and designed to share the Alaska
Native culture with students;
``(M) a cultural exchange program operated by the Alaska
Humanities Forum and designed to share Alaska Native culture
with urban students in a rural setting, which shall be known
as the Rose Cultural Exchange Program;
``(N) activities carried out through Even Start programs
carried out under subpart 1 of part B of title I and Head
Start programs carried out under the Head Start Act,
including the training of teachers for programs described in
this subparagraph;
``(O) other early learning and preschool programs;
``(P) dropout prevention programs such as the Cook Inlet
Tribal Council's Partners for Success program;
``(Q) an Alaska Initiative for Community Engagement
program;
``(R) career preparation activities to enable Alaska Native
children and adults to prepare for meaningful employment,
including programs providing tech-prep, mentoring, training,
and apprenticeship activities;
``(S) provision of operational support and construction
funding, and purchasing of equipment, to develop regional
vocational schools in rural areas of Alaska, including
boarding schools, for Alaska Native students in grades 9 to
12, and higher levels of education, to provide the students
with necessary resources to prepare for skilled employment
opportunities; and

[[Page 10645]]

``(T) other activities, consistent with the purposes of
this part, to meet the educational needs of Alaska Native
children and adults.
On page 882, strike lines 16 through 19 and insert the
following:
``(c) Priorities.--In awarding grants or contracts to carry
out activities described in subsection (a)(2), except for
activities listed in subsection (d)(2), the Secretary shall
give priority to applications from Alaska Native regional
nonprofit organizations, or consortia that include at least 1
Alaska Native regional nonprofit organization.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--For fiscal year 2002 and each of the 6
succeeding fiscal years, there is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this section the same amount as is
authorized to be appropriated under section 7205 for
activities under that section for that fiscal year.
``(2) Availability of funds.--Of the funds appropriated and
made available under this section for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall make available--
``(A) not less than $1,000,000 to support activities
described in subsection (a)(2)(K);
``(B) not less than $1,000,000 to support activities
described in subsection (a)(2)(L);
``(C) not less than $1,000,000 to support activities
described in subsection (a)(2)(M);
``(D) not less than $2,000,000 to support activities
described in subsection (a)(2)(P); and
``(E) not less than $2,000,000 to support activities
described in subsection (a)(2)(Q).
On page 883, between lines 16 and 17, insert the following:
``(e) Reporting Requirements.--Each recipient of a grant or
contract under this part shall, not later than March 15 of
each fiscal year in which the organization expends funds
under the grant or contract, prepare and submit to the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, summary
reports, of not more than 2 pages in length. Such reports
shall describe activities undertaken under the grant or
contract, and progress made toward the overall objectives of
the activities to be carried out under the grant or contract.
On page 886, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--IMPACT AID

SEC. 801. ELIGIBILITY UNDER SECTION 8003 FOR CERTAIN HEAVILY
IMPACTED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

(a) Eligibility.--Section 8003(b)(2)(C) (20 U.S.C.
7703(b)(2)(C)) is amended--
(1) in clauses (i) and (ii) by inserting after ``Federal
military installation'' each place it appears the following:
``(or the agency is a qualified local educational agency as
described in clause (iv))''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) Qualified local educational agency.--A qualified
local educational agency described in this clause is an
agency that meets the following requirements:

``(I) The boundaries are the same as island property
designated by the Secretary of the Interior to be property
that is held in trust by the Federal Government.
``(II) The agency has no taxing authority.
``(III) The agency received a payment under paragraph (1)
for fiscal year 2001.''.

(b) Effective Date.--The Secretary shall consider an
application for a payment under section 8003(b)(2) for fiscal
year 2002 from a qualified local educational agency described
in section 8003(b)(2)(C)(iv), as added by subsection (a), as
meeting the requirements of section 8003(b)(2)(C)(iii), and
shall provide a payment under section 8003(b)(2) for fiscal
year 2002, if the agency submits to the Secretary an
application for payment under such section not later than 60
days after the date of enactment of this Act.

____________________