[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 8 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1150, the Goals 2000 bill,
which the clerk will now report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1150) to improve learning and teaching by
providing a national framework for education reform; to
promote the research, consensus building, and systematic
changes needed to ensure equitable educational opportunities
and high levels of educational achievement for all American
students; to provide a framework for reauthorization of all
Federal education programs; to promote the development and
adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards
and certifications, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Pending:
(1) Dorgan amendment No. 1369, to require each local
educational agency, as a condition for receiving Federal
assistance, to implement a gun-free program in its schools.
(2) Kennedy amendment No. 1375 (to Amendment No. 1369), to
express the sense of the Senate regarding guns in schools.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are expecting our colleagues, Senator
Hatfield and Senator Durenberger, on the floor shortly. I thought I
would take this time until they arrive to demonstrate some of the
things that are happening in different parts of the country which have
been inspiring circumstances and which we have tried to take advantage
of and incorporate in this legislation. Programs like these are why we
believe this legislation, although it has limited resources, supports
or actually reflects the priorities that most families give to
education in this country.
Taken within the context of a variety of other kinds of efforts that
we are involved in as a Congress and Senate, and with this
administration, with its leadership under President Clinton and Mrs.
Clinton, this legislation can make an important difference in terms of
the quality of education for our young people.
I mentioned in the closing moments last evening what we are trying to
do for young people in this country by expanding the Head Start Program
and strengthening the quality of the Head Start Program, even reaching
down to the youngest of children.
I think, and the President and Mrs. Clinton understand, that the
early support of expectant mothers is something which is also
important, so that we have well babies. Simultaneously, we try to
ensure that they are going to grow up in a climate and atmosphere which
is supportive and nurturing and helpful in developing self-esteem.
There are obviously a variety of different factors that impact that
condition but, nonetheless, the efforts of all of us to make that a
positive experience are certainly reflected in what we are currently
undertaking.
We will have the opportunity to pass the reauthorization of the Head
Start Program, with the recommendations that have been made in terms of
bipartisan support, in these next few months. Also tied into this
legislation, and I will elaborate in greater detail, are some of the
examples that we have observed in different parts of the country, and
which have really been the source of the direction and the inspiration,
on which this particular legislation will focus.
In these next several months we will also have the reauthorization of
Chapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Program. That will
be about $7 billion. It is the principal instrument by which the
Federal Government supports those children who are at greatest risk and
of greatest need. We have a series of recommendations that have been
made by the administration, and we will be addressing those later in
this session. But that again is related to what we are trying to do
with the Head Start Program; tying the Head Start Program into the
early years of educational experience and making sure that elementary
and secondary education--the Title I program--fits into the Head Start
Program.
This is something that we can do. We made some progress in the last
reauthorization. And we can do a good deal more in that area as well.
We are talking, as well, in line with the President's program on
health insurance reform, about providing for school-based clinics,
obviously with the support of the local communities, with the support
of parents, and with the support of teachers and the school districts.
We have seen where these school clinics have been effective. We have
several of them in my own State of Massachusetts. The Cambridge Rindge
and Latin School, for example, has a good program. All one has to do is
visit that high school and talk to those involved in the school clinic
program, which provides health care services to the students.
We find that, in urban areas, up to one-third of the children who go
to those schools are abused in some form or shape, or live in an
abusive family, whether it is substance abuse or physical abuse. What a
difference it makes to those children to know that there is at least a
secure group of helpful people who will be supportive of them, and who
will help them make it through extraordinary challenges, maintain their
interests in making educational progress, and keep them from dropping
out of school and becoming part of the gangs and part of a lost
generation.
That is important, and that, obviously, will help and assist many of
our young people as they are hopefully moving toward enhanced academic
achievement in this program.
As we mentioned briefly yesterday, we are making efforts with the
private sector to move from the school to work, recognizing that, of
the 100 percent of young people who graduate from high school, about 30
percent of them go on to some form of continued education or training;
60 to 65 percent, or even higher, in many of regions of our country, do
not.
We find an enormous disparity in terms of the opportunities for those
who go on to higher education, which I certainly support, and those who
do not continue their education. It is much different, really, than a
generation ago, when I first came to the Senate, where if your
grandfather had worked in the Four River Shipyard, your father had
worked there, and maybe even your son had worked there--the women of
the family clearly did not--there was at least an understanding that if
you graduated from high school and you had developed certain skills and
worked during the course of the summer, you would move into a job which
would be rewarding, which would be satisfying, and which would permit
you to live a constructive and productive life and that provided for
the family as well.
Over the period of the last 20 years, there has been a 20 percent
real loss in wages for young people who graduate from high school with
no additional training. The disparity between those who leave high
school without additional training, and those who are able to get
additional training through colleges, whether they are 2- or 4-year
colleges, grows and continues to grow. Continued training and continued
education is not a luxury for our society, it is an absolute necessity
if we are going to compete in a world-class economy.
We could have legislation addressing this issue, hopefully, and
according to the leader, as a follow-on piece of legislation. We have
emergency programs in terms of the earthquake victims. Certainly, with
the strong bipartisan support we have had in the committee, and the
strong support we have from administration, the Chamber of Commerce,
and the National Association of Manufacturers, it is very important and
closely tied to what we are considering today. As a matter of fact,
there are provisions in this legislation establishing the skills
standards that are directly related to the school-to-work program.
So, again, this is a correction that is important. There are efforts
being made to enhance the schools through technology and technology
assistance, currently known as S. 1040, to ensure that young people, as
students in our public schools, are going to have the similar kinds of
advantages that those in many of our private schools have in terms of
the technology and the technology training available to students and
teachers, so that they can use the technology to really enhance
academic achievement. This is something that is extremely important.
In our committee, there have been bipartisan efforts in terms of
attaching to the legislation the repayment of debt of a young person in
our country resulting from continuing education, so that they can pay
it out over a period of years in terms of percent of income. There is
also the movement toward a direct loan program, which is being tested
now, and which many of us support. And we did believe that a fair test
and examination should take place.
The guaranteed student loan program has worked, and before we move
into this whole new area, I think, that we have a responsibility to
make sure that something which has worked well, and has been effective,
should be supplanted by something we hope will be even more effective
and mean additional savings to our young people.
I must say that I think we can make improvements in terms of the
bureaucracy and the rules and regulations that affect all of these
programs. I know we have, Under Secretary Riley and Madeleine Kunin,
and Tom Payzant, who works with them, individuals who are
knowledgeable, both as former Governors in the first two circumstances,
and as someone who has been an outstanding supervisor, who can help us
work our way through the elimination of a lot of the bureaucracy. I
think that is important.
We make a downpayment on that in this legislation by providing a
great deal more flexibility, in terms of both the States and local
communities, permitting them to use scarce resources more wisely for
the students. That is, certainly, one of the important aspects of this
program.
There are other features as well, such as the tying-in of the
voluntary national service program for our young people, that can make
a difference.
So, we look at it, at least most of us look at it, as an effort in
strengthening this whole next generation, from the earliest of times
through certainly the college experience, by trying to provide, albeit
with limited resources, the kind of encouragement that can make such a
very important difference for the young people of this country.
Just very briefly--I see my friend from New Mexico, who wants to
speak--I will just mention this comment and then continue on during the
course of the day.
I had hoped to talk about some of the encouraging things being done
by a number of the States. But I will just close this part of the
debate by pointing out that there is agreement among the general public
that we, as a country and as a society, have not done enough. More than
85 percent of Americans believe that the Nation needs higher education
standards in order to be economically competitive. I think we all agree
with that. We should be establishing benchmarks which can be achieved
by our young people and which call upon the best among them to achieve
those academic levels.
Fifty-four percent of Americans believe that we lack clear standards
of what students should know and be able to do upon graduation.
Obviously, there are extraordinary circumstances, and I can mention a
number of schools in Massachusetts that are some of the leading
educational institutions in the country and that are public schools.
But American people generally feel that we lack clear standards of what
students should know and be able to do upon graduation. Three-quarters
of Americans believe that the Nation does not invest enough in K-12
education. I think this is something that we talked briefly about last
night, and which many of us believe, and national leadership will help
raise the visibility of academic standards.
We are certainly hopeful that this bill is successful, and we believe
that it will be; that with the increase in terms of academic
achievement and accomplishment, there will be a reawakening by the
American people to the importance of this kind of investment at the
local, State, and Federal levels, and we can meet our responsibilities
to the young people in a more effective way.
I will yield the floor at this time and come back to this theme as we
have more time during the course of the morning.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
Bingaman], is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in general in favor of
this legislation. I compliment the Senator from Massachusetts, the
Senator from Vermont, and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Pell, who
is the chairman of the subcommittee, on this very important
legislation. I do believe that when history is written about this 103d
Congress, if we are successful in enacting this Goals 2000 legislation,
it will be one of the main achievements recognized by future
generations.
For a number of years, I have argued for establishing realistic and
measurable national education goals. It is clear we cannot bring out
the best in our young people if we do not expect the best of them. I
also believe we cannot fairly expect the best from them if we do not
tell them and their teachers and their parents what is considered an
acceptable standard. In past Congresses, I have introduced legislation
to accomplish this. I am pleased to see that many of the provisions I
earlier proposed are contained in this important legislation.
The Goals 2000 legislation will codify the six national education
goals which were set by the President and the Nation's Governors
several years ago. They will add a new goal on parental involvement as
well as authorize and expand the National Education Goals Panel on
which I served with Senator Cochran from Mississippi, representing the
Senate on that panel.
I strongly believe that the national education goals challenge our
Nation's school systems to achieve the highest quality education for
our youth. Specific goals provide direction; they provide
accountability. They are essential tools in educational reform. In the
years I have been on the Education Goals Panel, I worked closely with
the Governors in reporting on progress toward the goals that have been
set. I believe, as I have believed and I continue to believe, those
goals provide the right direction for schools and the opportunity to
measure progress reliably and usefully.
Let me say a few words about this National Education Goals Panel.
This legislation would expand its membership and responsibilities and
give it a source of funding. It provides a bipartisan mechanism for
building a national consensus which involves, of course, the Governors
and the States, where the primary responsibility for education has
traditionally been in our system of government and will remain. But the
National Education Goals Panel is a way for the States to join with the
Federal Government and with the local communities to pursue common
goals.
This legislation also establishes the National Education Standards
and Improvement Council. This is a council that identifies and
certifies the voluntary national content and student performance
standards. This is a necessary part of the goals process that was
established by the Governors several years ago. Standards tell us how
we go about reaching the goals; what is meant by being competent in
particular core subjects. They give us the yardstick which we can use
to tell us whether those goals are being achieved.
Also, standards not only tell the experts this, but they tell the
students and the teachers and the parents what is expected of them.
Since those standards are clearly intended to be world-class standards,
developed with the knowledge of what other countries expect of their
young people, they can help keep our American students from falling
behind students in other parts of the world.
Our Nation's economic prosperity is linked to an educational system
that emphasizes national standards of excellence.
A national system of standards and assessment in conjunction with
other reform efforts, such as greater use of educational technology
which I will refer to here in a moment, can be a foundation for overall
educational reform in order to increase the level of student
achievement throughout our country.
Mr. President, I read an interesting study recently which was done at
Cornell University which did a study of textbooks used in our public
schools over the last several decades. The conclusion of the study was
that those textbooks have had the effect of, as they refer to it,
dumbing down over that period from the Second World War. This ``dumbing
down'' of our textbooks has been a significant contributor to the
decline in the verbal scholastic aptitude test scores over that same
period. Low standards, whether they be in textbook writing or in
curriculum development or in other instructional materials
unfortunately produce dumbed down kids as well as dumbed down
textbooks. That is clearly not what we need in this Nation.
We want our children to meet high standards. They are capable of
meeting high standards. I have talked to many parents in my home State
of New Mexico, and I have yet to meet a single parent who does not want
his child or her child to meet high academic standards.
I cannot leave the subject of standards without noting that this
legislation also provides that the standards developed by the National
Council will be reviewed and approved by the goals panel. The goals
panel has adopted a set of principles for itself to guide it in
reviewing those standards. Those principles I believe will serve the
country well.
Let me say a few words about educational technology. This legislation
also contains provisions concerning technology that I believe are
absolutely necessary if we are to have a chance of achieving the goals
that we are setting for ourselves. The Senator from Massachusetts
pointed the direction with the Star Schools Program several years ago.
We need to take that one step further. We need to emphasize and help
States and local school districts to effectively use technology in
providing education.
The administration has placed a high priority on revitalizing
education through systemic reform. I strongly believe that without
technology as an integral part of that reform activity we will be
missing a great opportunity.
I also believe that technology offers a very cost-efficient way for
us to provide greater educational opportunities and equity in
educational opportunities to all of our students and their teachers.
I am very pleased that the chairman accepted my amendment to ensure
that educational reform include a component for technology. These
provisions which were originally in Senate bill 1040, the Technology
for Education Act of 1993, provisions that we are now taking from that
act and putting in this legislation, establish an office of educational
technology within the Department of Education to be administered by the
director of educational technology. They provide funds for State
technology planning grants to incorporate technology into statewide
reform activities required by the Goals 2000 legislation.
Last year, under the leadership of the Vice President, the Nation
began to deal in a coordinated and a comprehensive way with the
opportunities and challenges presented by these rapidly changing
technologies. Goals 2000 takes the first step toward making sure that
education has a place at the table in discussing the potential uses of
technology.
Last October, the House and Senate appropriations conference
committee approved funding to begin these activities contingent upon us
passing this authorization bill. For fiscal year 1994, the conference
committee approved $500,000 to fund the office of educational
technology, and an additional $5 million to fund the State technology
planning grants which are called for in our legislation.
With these provisions, we are enlisting a grassroots effort within
the States to allow teachers, businesses, parents, and students to take
steps to alter the traditional educational environment through a more
creative use of technology in our schools.
In my home State of New Mexico, I have seen firsthand the tremendous
difference that technology can make. We have many small rural schools
in our State, and the distances between the schools and the population
centers is sometimes fairly great.
High schools in San Jon, House, and Grady--which are some of the most
rural communities in our State--those high schools are taking advanced
courses, advanced classes that include advanced placement and language
classes from the community college that is over 50 miles away in
Clovis, NM. Those classes would not be available to those students were
it not for the technology of distance learning. That technology has
given those students equal access to the kinds of instruction that
students in Albuquerque or Sante Fe are able to take advantage of.
This is one of many examples across the country of how increased
application of educational technology can dramatically improve the
learning in our schools.
These provisions, which are included in this Goals 2000 legislation,
lay the base for further support for uses of technology in education
which we have included in Senate bill 1040 that I referred to earlier.
That legislation, Senate bill 1040, which I hope can be on the Senate
floor in the near future, provides more Federal grants to staff
development, product development, and acquisition of other technology
products.
I would like to say a few words about American Indian education as
part of this larger bill that is being considered by the Senate today.
I want to commend the chairman for adding important provisions to this
bill to include a very important segment of our population, American
Indian children, their parents, and their tribal leaders.
As a Senator from New Mexico, a State rich in diverse cultures, I
believe it is essential that we ensure all segments of our society,
from the inner cities of New York to the pueblos of New Mexico, are
included in the national effort to attain ambitious goals such as are
set out in this legislation.
The chairman accepted major portions of my amendment to ensure that
American Indians have a voice in the process of reaching national
consensus for educational reform.
I believe that Indian tribes must play a key role in the development
of reform plans if we are to ensure that Indian children are able to
achieve those goals as our other children attempt to do as well.
Let me say a few words about health education, Mr. President. I want
to thank the chairman of the committee again and all members of the
committee for their willingness to work with me on a series of very
modest changes in the bill regarding age-appropriate comprehensive
health education.
The language agreed to by the committee modifies in a very modest way
several of the goal objectives. The references to comprehensive
sequential health education in Senate bill 1150 are the result of a
compromise. I do not believe they should be objectionable to anybody in
this body. In my view, we really need to do much more. We need to make
a commitment to comprehensive school health education for all of our
children.
That is why Senator Cohen and I introduced a bill entitled ``Healthy
Students-Healthy Schools'' in the last Congress, and again in this
Congress. We will not stop discussing the issue until legislation
containing those provisions is finally enacted.
Over the next several weeks and months, I look forward to working
with others on the Labor and Human Resources Committee and with others
throughout the Senate toward enactment of the Healthy Students-Healthy
Schools Act that Senator Cohen and I introduced.
The language included in the Goals 2000 legislation, and the
inclusion of some key provisions on comprehensive school health
education in President's Health Security Act, are modest but firm first
steps toward more effective health education in our schools.
Restructuring our system of education is not a simple task. We face
many challenges.
However, I do believe we are well equipped for that battle. We have a
commitment, a strong commitment from our President for educational
reform along with many dedicated citizens working together to meet the
challenges set forth in the national education goals.
With bipartisan leadership from the goals panel, I am hopeful that
that commitment and that work will produce better schools and a better
America for all of us.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation,
and again I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member for their
leadership in presenting this to the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Order of Procedure
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour
of 10:30 having passed, either the Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
Durenberger] or the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] will be
recognized to offer an amendment regarding the flexibility from Federal
regulations. There will be 30 minutes for debate with the time equally
divided in the usual form. No second-degree amendments will be in order
to this amendment.
If there is no objection the pending amendments will be temporarily
laid aside.
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is recognized.
Amendment No. 1377
(Purpose: To encourage and assist States, local educational agencies,
and schools in their comprehensive educational reform efforts by
allowing flexibility in the application of selected Federal statutory
or regulatory requirements that present barriers to education
restructuring and reform)
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] (for himself, Mr.
Durenberger, Mr. Pell, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Graham) proposes
an amendment numbered 1377.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of section 311, insert the following:
(e) Flexibility Demonstration.--
(1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the
``Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act''.
(2) Program authorized.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out an education
flexibility demonstration program under which the Secretary
authorizes not more than 6 eligible States to waive any
statutory or regulatory requirement applicable to any program
or Act described in subsection (b), other than requirements
described in subsection (c), for such eligible State or any
local educational agency or school within such State.
(B) Award rule.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall select for participation in the demonstration
program described in subparagraph (A) three eligible States
that each have a population of 3,500,000 or greater and three
eligible States that each have a population of less than
3,500,000, determined in accordance with the most recent
decennial census of the population performed by the Bureau of
the Census.
(C) Designation.--Each eligible State participating in the
demonstration program described in subparagraph (A) shall be
known as an ``Ed-Flex Partnership State''.
(3) Eligible state.--For the purpose of this subsection the
term ``eligible State'' means a State that--
(A) has developed a State improvement plan under section
306 that is approved by the Secretary; and
(B) waives State statutory or regulatory requirements
relating to education while holding local educational
agencies or schools within the State that are affected by
such waivers accountable for the performance of the students
who are affected by such waivers.
(4) State application.--(A) Each eligible State desiring to
participate in the education flexibility demonstration
program under this subsection shall submit an application to
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
Each such application shall demonstrate that the eligible
State has adopted an educational flexibility plan for such
State that includes--
(i) a description of the process the eligible State will
use to evaluate applications from local educational agencies
or schools requesting waivers of--
(I) Federal statutory or regulatory requirements described
in paragraph (2)(A); and
(II) State statutory or regulatory requirements relating to
education; and
(ii) a detailed description of the State statutory and
regulatory requirements relating to education that the
eligible State will waive.
(B) The Secretary may approve an application described in
subparagraph (A) only if the Secretary determines that such
application demonstrates substantial promise of assisting the
eligible State and affected local education agencies and
schools with in such State in carrying out comprehensive
educational reform and otherwise meeting the purposes of this
Act, after considering--
(i) the comprehensiveness and quality of the educational
flexibility plan described in subparagraph (A);
(ii) the ability of such plan to ensure accountability for
the activities and goals described in such plan;
(iii) the significance of the State statutory or regulatory
requirements relating to education that will be waived; and
(iv) the quality of the eligible State's process for
approving applications for waivers of Federal statutory or
regulatory requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) and for
monitoring and evaluating the results of such waivers.
(5) Local application.--(A) Each local educational agency
or school requesting a waiver of a Federal statutory or
regulatory requirement described in paragraph (2)(A) and any
relevant State statutory or regulatory requirement for an
eligible State shall submit an application to such State at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
such State may reasonably require. Each such application
shall--
(i) indicate each Federal program affected and the
statutory or regulatory requirement that will be waived;
(ii) describe the purposes and overall expected outcomes of
waiving each such requirement;
(iii) describe for each school year specific, measurable,
educational goals for each local educational agency or school
affected by the proposed waiver; and
(iv) explain why the waiver will assist the local
educational agency or school in reaching such goals.
(B) An eligible State shall evaluate an application
submitted under subparagraph (A) in accordance with the
State's educational flexibility plan described in paragraph
(4)(A).
(C) An eligible State shall not approve an application for
a waiver under this paragraph unless--
(i) the local educational agency or school requesting such
waiver has developed a local reform plan that is applicable
to such agency or school, respectively; and
(ii) the waiver of Federal statutory or regulatory
requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) will assist the
local educational agency or school in reaching its
educational goals.
(6) Monitoring.--Each eligible State participating in the
demonstration program under this subsection shall annually
monitor the activities of local education agencies and
schools receiving waivers under this subsection and shall
submit an annual report regarding such monitoring to the
Secretary.
(7) Duration of federal waivers.--(A) The Secretary shall
not approve the application of an eligible State under
paragraph (4) for a period exceeding 5 years, except that the
Secretary may extend such period if the Secretary determines
that the eligible State's authority to grant waivers has been
effective in enabling such State or affected local
educational agencies or schools to carry out their local
reform plans.
(B) The Secretary shall periodically review the performance
of any eligible State granting waivers of Federal statutory
or regulatory requirements described in paragraph (2)(A) and
shall terminate such State's authority to grant such waivers
if the Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity for
hearing, that such State's performance has been inadequate to
justify continuation of such authority.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to
lay aside this amendment that I might make a statement on another part
of this bill that does not call for any action by the floor and then
return to this amendment to take it up.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I want to just make a few comments
regarding the Goals 2000.
I want to thank my colleagues on the Labor Committee for accepting my
legislation to establish a seventh national education goal encouraging
the involvement of parents and families in education. To borrow a page
from Abraham Lincoln: Without the support of parents our schools cannot
succeed. With it, they cannot fail. Without parental involvement, the
six national education goals will not be attained by the year 2000. The
national PTA and the Oregon PTA have my highest praise for helping to
provide grassroots support for this measure all across the country.
Again I thank the leadership of the committee for accepting this new
national education goal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Senators
Kennedy and Kassebaum regarding the parental goal and a copy of the GAO
report on ed-flex be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have just visited the ``State of the
Union'' and have outlined some of this country's biggest problems as
well as our greatest needs. From crime, education, and welfare reform--
to health care and job training--many of the answers to our problems
can be traced to inefficiencies in our families, values, and
educational systems.
The American family and our children are in severe jeopardy, and I am
one Member of the Senate who believes that a solution can be found
through education--education as a means to arm parents in their efforts
to fight for their children's future, a future that bypasses the lure
of drugs and violence. No other single issue can impact our Nation's
future more than a well-conceived education system which represents a
pathway out of crisis and a means of empowering both parent and child
to work together to find a better life within themselves and the
greater community.
Education is the foundation on which the soul of a nation is built.
Our consideration of education legislation demands our collective and
undivided attention. But we must first ask ourselves, what is the
appropriate role at the Federal level?
Traditionally, it has been to ensure that the disenfranchised have
access to our educational system and to provide resources to ease the
path toward an educated life, whether it be through early childhood
programs like Head Start or student financial assistance for higher
education.
Today, we are considering formalizing another role for Federal
involvement: to support the efforts of the States in attaining their
reform goals; to encourage voluntary standards in certain subject
fields; and to allow States the flexibility to innovate in their uses
of Federal funds. I believe this is a logical extension of the Federal
role in education, as long as it is permissive and not prescriptive.
Over the past year, we have been telling our constituents that we are
facing an educational crisis in this country. The problem has been
identified, yet we continue to only repeat what parents and students
live with every day. They better than most already know the realities--
budget cuts, overcrowding, drugs, high dropout rates, teen pregnancies,
and gang violence, to name a few. I charge that it's Congress' turn to
draw the line that will connect Federal and State partnerships in
combating these trends. We must make the commitment to back up the
States--to back up parents and families--and to encourage the positive
innovations that are being made at local levels.
The bill before use today was formed with the intent to provide
resources for bottom-up education reform in local, State, and Federal
partnership. Through the Goals 2000 legislation, the Federal Government
is finally inviting parents and families into the education system,
rather than just assuming their involvement.
My legislation, S. 1118, to add the role of parents and families to
our national education goals, has been included as part of the
committee amendment to Goals 2000. In addition, the chairman and the
ranking member of the Senate Labor Committee have assured me that this
language will survive conference with the House.
Mr. President, at this time I would like to read the new goal and the
objectives:
By the year 2000, every school and home will promote
partnerships that will increase parental involvement and
participation in promoting the social, emotional, and
academic growth of children.
(i) Every State will develop policies to assist local
schools and school districts to establish programs for
increasing partnerships that respond to the varying needs of
parents and the home, including parents of children who are
disadvantaged, bilingual or disabled:
(ii) Every school will actively engage parents and families
in a partnership which supports the academic work of children
at home and shared educational decision-making at school; and
(iii) Parents and families will help to ensure that schools
are adequately supported and will hold schools and teachers
to high standards of accountability.
There is tremendous support for this important addition. This new
goal follows directly from the vigorous work of the Oregon PTA and
subsequent meetings in my office with their delegation last March. The
national PTA has added its powerful voice in support and has collected
grassroots support all across the country for this effort.
Additional endorsements have been received from such organizations as
the Council of Great City Schools, the American Association of
Administrators, the Council for Exceptional Children, the NAACP, and
the National Association for Bilingual Education, among many others.
Most importantly, the administration is now supporting this goal and is
making public commitments to make this issue a priority--the power of
the Federal bully pulpit, whether in the form of the President or the
Secretary of Education, can go a long way toward setting expectations
in this area.
Why this goal was not included with the other six in the first place
remains a mystery to me. From the day the goals were first made public,
every teacher in the country could have told us that these goals would
not be reached without first providing a means to make education valued
in the great majority of homes in this Nation. Many told me.
Classroom teachers should not have the added responsibility to sow
the seeds of love, respect, safety, and excitement for learning. These
values need to be established in the home, nurtured, and then fostered
by our teachers, administrators, and educational systems.
Teachers, schools, and States are making a commitment to help
families and children where they can; the Federal Government is
striving to make that commitment; parents need to step up and take even
more responsibility for their children, and assume the values of
responsibility and accountability themselves, and instill these virtues
in their children.
Practically all reports dealing with the status of education today
list the dramatic changes in family structure as one of the principal
causes of educational problems. When over 40 percent of today's
schoolchildren will have lived in a single-parent household or are from
two-parent families with both parents working, specific efforts must be
made to provide for parent-school interaction. The report, ``Conditions
of Education 1993,'' issued the Department of Education in July
confirms that children who grow up in low-income families or with
undereducated parents are often unable to pull out of a cycle of low
achievement. Those families need help in interacting with schools.
Whatever the reason for the omission of parental involvement in the
original plan, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to rectify
this oversight today. The fact is, studies show that good schools exist
where good parent-school relationships exist. But schools alone cannot
do the job. History has proven the validity of the old African proverb,
``It takes an entire village to raise a child.'' The most reasonable
place to start is with partnerships between the family and the school.
Regardless of Congress' action or inaction, States can and are
responding to the call for reform on their own without our help. My own
State of Oregon enacted the Oregon Education Act for the 21st century
in June 1991. This is a remarkably far-reaching mandate for change
involving parents, students, education professionals, and members of
the business community. Our goal is to have the best educated citizens
in the Nation by the year 2000 and a work force equal to any in the
world by the year 2010. To accomplish this, early childhood education
has been made a top priority coupled with initiatives to bridge the gap
between education and the workforce. This program allows for a flexible
delivery system, an ongoing public dialogue, procedures to waive
inhibiting regulations, and site-based decisionmaking that fits
Oregon's needs.
Other States are adopting similar measures to varying degrees, but
much more can be done if we do it in concert with one another--the
State-Federal partnership in education has a long history of success,
and I believe Goals 2000 offers the opportunity to strengthen it even
further.
We must ensure that our efforts with this new legislation will
recognize the reform that has already taken place in States like mine
and others. Reform plans that have been enacted by State legislatures
will become official Goals 2000 reform plans once approved by the
Secretary of Education. Those States which are already well on board
the reform bandwagon must not be asked to slow down.
During this debate, I will seek to clarify that preexisting plans are
eligible under the Goals 2000 legislation and, as long as they are
broadbased, will generally be approved by the Secretary of Education. I
would like to thank Senator Simpson and his staff for their assistance
with this critical piece of Goals 2000.
Just as parents need flexibility in working with the schools, so,
too, must we foster that sense of flexibility in regard to the State-
Federal partnership. I am pleased, Mr. President, about the regulatory
flexibility provisions included in this bill. I believe we all realize
that as new Federal programs are added--categorical or not--to public
law, and Federal funds are tied to these programs, we run an increasing
risk of loading requirements on schools that inadvertently impede
educational achievement.
Programs we design here, with even the best input available, may not
address the increasingly diverse educational needs of the students with
which schools must contend. To force States, school districts, or even
individual schools within the same district to jump through the same
set of regulatory hoops can lead to the inefficient use of funds and a
subsequent lack of progress. We must make sure that we provide
sufficient flexibility to schools so that they may best identify and
achieve the results of their program.
I introduced legislation in March 1993 known as the Educational
Flexibility Act, S. 525, which gives the Secretary of Education and
heads of other Federal agencies the authority to waive inhibiting
requirements. The Senate passed similar language as an amendment to
America 2000 last Congress, by vote of 95 to 0, but the conference
report on the bill never emerged. Since that time, Senator Kennedy,
Kassebaum, and I requested that the General Accounting Office report to
us on efforts of flexibility going on throughout the country.
I am heartened that many of the provisions of S. 525 have been
incorporated into this bill. Still there is much that can be done. In
the coming years, we will be insisting that our educators swim in the
uncharted and potentially stormy waters of reform. To require them to
do so with the weight of unnecessary regulations on their backs is to
invite failure or, at best, delay in attaining our goal of preparing
children for the future. Today we are signaling schools all across this
country that we believe in their abilities to define there own needs
and create innovative solutions, and we will help them as much as
possible.
We are not going to attain the national education goals if we end up
burying our teachers even deeper in paperwork that takes time away from
their students. The only reform measures that will ultimately make any
difference are those that result in positive changes in the classroom.
We must not impede these changes.
We must pay attention. Goals 2000 offers an opportunity to both the
Federal Government and the States: The message is simply this:
Education reform is encouraged. The state of the Union--our future--
will only be as bright as the intellectual glow that our parents,
teachers, and schools can instill in the eyes of our children today. We
must start with the root of our problems if we are to effect change in
the larger society.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Senate, Committee on
Labor and Human Resources,
Washington, DC, November 2, 1993.
Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mark: We appreciate your cooperation in working with
us on the new parent involvement education goal which will be
added to the Senate Goals 2000 bill. We share your views
about the importance of parental involvement in a child's
education and are committed to ensuring the inclusion of this
goal in the final conference bill.
Sincerely,
Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
U.S. Senator.
Edward M. Kennedy,
U.S. Senator.
____
U.S. General Accounting Office,
Washington, DC, November 3, 1993.
Hon. Mark O. Hatfield,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate.
Dear Senator Hatfield: In order to raise the performance of
all of the nation's students, the Congress is considering
education reform legislation. The approach it is considering,
called systemic reform, involves all levels on the education
system--national, state, district, and school--and sets high
standards of achievement for all students.\1\ A key part of
such reform is providing freedom from regulations\2\ that,
according to experts, can constrain school improvement
efforts. Under systemic reform, this regulatory flexibility
would be given to schools in exchange for increasing
accountability for student achievement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This letter responds to your request for preliminary
findings from our ongoing study of states' regulatory
flexibility efforts. You asked for these findings to assist
you in considering the Goals 2000: Educate America Act,\3\
which would provide grants to states for systemic reform
efforts and includes a number of provisions for increasing
flexibility in federal education programs.
As part of our study, we visited three states,\4\ selected
because they (1) were involved in statewide education reform
efforts, (2) had provided flexibility to schools with respect
to their state regulations, and (3) had included students
with special needs in their efforts to provide more
regulatory flexibility to schools. Special needs students are
those who need special assistance to improve their
achievement, such as students who are disadvantaged,\5\ have
limited proficiency in English, or have disabilities.\6\ We
reviewed each state's improvement efforts and interviewed
state, district, and school officials in the three states. We
also met with federal education officials and reviewed
studies of systemic reform and state regulatory flexibility
efforts.
The regulatory flexibility efforts of the three states we
visited varied.
One state had three programs that provided flexibility: two
demonstration programs for a limited number of schools and
one program for all schools that receive funds for students
with special needs. In the first program, schools applied to
the state for grants; waivers of state regulations could be
requested as part of schools' plans to improve. In the
second, schools submitted applications that detailed their
improvement plans and, upon approval, were then exempted from
most state education regulations. The third program allowed
schools the flexibility to combine funds for students with
special needs in order to better coordinate services for
these students.
The second state had two programs: one that provided
regulatory flexibility as a reward to schools whose students
had high performance on state achievement tests, and a
demonstration program in which a small number of schools were
given flexibility over many state regulations in order to
give them the freedom to develop new instructional techniques
and assessment systems.
The third state completely revised its education system by
eliminating many procedural requirements for all schools,
such as the prescribed minimum number of daily minutes of
instruction, in return for evidence of improved student
achievement.
Finally, all three states allowed most schools to request
waivers of state regulations on a case-by-case basis, whether
or not these schools participated in the states' other
regulatory flexibility efforts.
You asked us four specific questions on school reform,
which we address as follows:
1. How have schools used regulatory flexibility in their
school improvement efforts?
School improvement efforts that used regulatory flexibility
provided by the states fell into two general categories:
innovative classroom structures and integrated instructional
models. Innovative classroom structures included (1)
combining students into multigrade groups so that teachers
could address the needs of students based on their
developmental needs rather than their ages and (2)
restructuring the school day to allow schools to schedule
longer blocks of time in order to cover subject areas in
greater depth and allow teachers more time for planning.
Integrated instructional models combined more than one
subject into thematic units and included some units taught by
teams of teachers. For example, one school integrated
different subjects--reading, art, science, and math--into a
unit on weather.
To enable schools to try these innovative structures and
integrated instructional models, states provided many
different kinds of regulatory flexibility. For example,
states provided flexibility by (1) waiving regulations
relating to class structure, such as the length of the school
day and class size restrictions; (2) allowing teachers to
teach subjects for which they were not specifically
credentialed, such as allowing a mathematics teacher, as part
of a team, to teach a thematic unit on social studies; (3)
allowing funds to be combined, such as one state that allowed
schools to combine most of their funds for students with
special needs in order to encourage teachers and
administrators to work together in planning programs for
these students; and (4) allowing teachers to include
students in special programs based on their evaluations of
students' needs rather than solely on test results or
outside evaluations, such as allowing students whose
scores on a reading test were just above the program's
cut-off score to be included in a reading program for
disadvantaged students.
Many schools, however, chose not to use the regulatory
flexibility that was available to them. In all three states,
schools were permitted to request waivers from state
regulations on a case-by-case basis, but the states received
few requests. In one state, about 20 percent of the schools
were granted flexibility in return for good performance on
standardized tests\7\ however, according to district
officials, about half of the schools granted flexibility had
not used it to attempt improvement.
Several factors appeared to contribute to whether or not
schools took advantage of regulatory flexibility to attempt
improvement. Schools that developed plans for improvement as
part of a planning process requested many waivers from
regulations in several districts we visited. Schools that had
not developed plans for improvement may not yet have done
enough work to know which regulations were barriers to what
they wanted to do, according to state officials. Many schools
had been recently required to prepare school improvement
plans and, as a result, state officials expected to receive
more requests for waivers.
The availability of technical assistance also seemed to
make a difference in whether schools took advantage of
regulatory flexibility to attempt improvement. Technical
assistance included (1) providing examples of innovations,
(2) establishing networks of schools involved in reform, and
(3) providing schools with information on organizations
working on education reform. This assistance, however, was
not available to all schools. Although all three states had
established centers to assist schools in their improvement
efforts, not all schools that requested assistance received
it, because funds were limited.
Finally, incentives, and the lack of them, in the designs
of the states' programs appeared to affect schools'
participation and their willingness to attempt improvement.
For example, one state provided an incentive to schools to
attempt improvement by giving grants to schools that
participated in its demonstration program. In another state,
the program that rewarded schools with flexibility for good
performance did not provide an incentive for some schools to
improve because school officials felt that their programs
were already good enough since they had been designated high-
performing. In addition, when flexibility was provided on a
temporary basis, some school officials were reluctant to make
changes that might later be rescinded. For example, if a
school decided to increase its class sizes beyond the state
requirement and hire more student aides for these larger
classes, the school would have to replace some of the aides
with state-credentialed teachers if the school lost its
eligibility in the program.
2. What kinds of accountability systems have states
established to accompany regulatory flexibility?
Providing accountability for student achievement in return
for regulatory flexibility is a key element of systemic
reform. None of the three states, however, had fully
implemented an accountability system that allowed it to both
(1) measure the effects of schools' improvements efforts on
student achievement and (2) provide consequences to schools:
rewards to schools that improve student achievement and
assistance to schools that fail to improve. All three states
had accountability systems that included statewide student
assessments. All three were also developing new assessment
systems that would better link assessment to high standards
of achievement, although none of them had completed the task.
Only one of the states, however, had developed an
accountability system with consequences for all schools, and
it had not yet been fully implemented. Another state had not
yet included consequences as a part of its accountability
system. The third state rewarded schools that had met the
program's definition of high achievement by providing the
schools with flexibility, but, by design, low-performing
schools were not included in the program.
3. How are special needs students affected by states'
regulatory flexibility efforts?
To varying degrees, all three states provided regulatory
flexibility in their programs for students with
special needs. All three allowed flexibility in their
programs for disadvantaged students. For example, in one
state, requirements for minimum number of minutes of
instruction for all students, including disadvantaged
students, were waived in all high-performing schools.
Two of the states allowed flexibility in their programs for
students with disabilities. In one state, for example, funds
for students with disabilities were combined with general
funds so that schools could more easily educate all students
in regular classrooms. According to district officials, this
allowed students with disabilities to be included in the
state's new primary program, which combined children from
kindergarten through third grade into multigrade classes.
State and district officials reported that it was difficult
to include programs for students with disabilities in their
state regulatory flexibility efforts because of the
complexity of special education requirements and the concerns
of parents of these students.
All three of the states were struggling with how to provide
better accountability for the achievement of students with
special needs. All of the states used their assessments to
measure the achievement of disadvantaged students. One state,
however, had not adapted its assessment for the state's large
population of students with limited English proficiency. In
addition, one state allowed schools to exempt many students
with disabilities from its new assessment system because
procedures had not yet been established for making the
assessments accessible to these students. Another state had
not made it possible for most students with severe
disabilities to be assessed.
Two of the states were also working on how to separate the
assessment scores of special needs students from total
student scores in order to determine how well schools were
meeting the needs of these students. For example, officials
in one state were concerned that special needs students at
high-performing schools might not be achieving as well as
other students. The needs of these students could potentially
be overlooked because (1) the state did not require that
assessment scores for these students be reported separately--
only total student achievement was tracked--and (2) no on-
site monitoring of schools in the flexibility program was
required. In the one state that assessed all students,
including those with disabilities, state officials had not
yet decided how to separate out the data for reporting the
progress of some categories of its students with special
needs.
4. What are the lessons from our preliminary findings for
the Congress as it considers the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act?
As the Congress considers the Goals 2000: Educate America
Act, the preliminary findings from our study of states'
experiences in granting schools more regulatory flexibility
provide some lessons. If the Congress intends flexibility to
be used to improve schools, then our results suggest that it
should be only one part of congressional efforts to improve
student achievement. Although regulatory flexibility can
contribute to school improvement, flexibility alone does not
always encourage schools to improve. Other state actions,
such as providing technical assistance and encouraging
schools and districts to develop plans for improvement, can
help schools identify approaches for improvement and when
flexibility is needed to implement them. Thus, our
preliminary findings suggest that federal legislation link
flexibility to other specific efforts to help schools plan
improvements, as Goals 2000 does.
Our preliminary findings, and a recent GAO report on
systemwide reform,\8\ also indicate that reform efforts
require schools to make a major investment of time and
resources. Thus, schools may not take advantage of
flexibility that is granted for a limited period of time. The
Goals 2000: Educate America Act allows states to apply for
waivers from federal requirements for, initially, a maximum
of 3 years in the approved House bill and 5 years in the
proposed Senate bill. The Congress will need to consider
whether the time limit proposed for waivers from federal
requirements in Goals 2000 is long enough to (1) encourage
schools, districts, and states to invest in major reforms and
(2) implement the reforms. In addition, the Congress should
consider the potential impact that the renewal process for
waivers--including the kinds of evidence of improvement that
will be requested by the Secretary of Education--will have on
districts' and states' willingness to request waivers.
Goals 2000 recognizes the importance of accountability in
its provisions for states to develop and implement assessment
systems. Our preliminary findings suggest, however, that
states are not yet able to determine the effects of
regulatory flexibility on the achievement of many students
with special needs. If the Congress intends that
regulatory flexibility apply to students with special
needs, then school districts and states will need to
include these students in their assessment systems, as
provided for in Goals 2000. The Congress may need to
clarify, however, that the achievement of these students
be monitored separately.
We are also sending this letter to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member, Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.
We are continuing work on our study; our forthcoming report
will contain more detailed descriptions of regulatory
flexibility efforts in the three states we visited. If you
have any questions or need additional information, please
call me at (202) 512-7014 or Beatrice F. Birman at (202) 512-
7008.
Sincerely yours,
Linda G. Morra,
Director, Education and Employment Issues.
footnotes
\1\For a discussion of this approach, see Marshall S. Smith
and Jennifer O'Day, ``Systemic School Reform,'' Politics of
Education Association Yearbook 1990, pp. 233-267. See also
Systemwide Education Reform: Federal Leadership Could
Facilitate District-Level Efforts (GAO/HRD-93-97, Apr. 30,
1993).
\2\The term ``regulation'' refers to a variety of
governmental policies, including, but not limited to,
regulations. It also refers to statutes, guidelines, rules,
policies, and interpretations of these items by local
educators and policymakers.
\3\The Goals 2000: Educate America Act refers to titles I-IV
of S. 1150, which is currently being considered in the
Senate, and H.R. 1804, which was passed by the House of
Representatives on October 13, 1993.
\4\The states will be identified in the final report.
\5\The three states we studied defined disadvantaged students
as those who were poor, had low achievement on state-required
tests, or both.
\6\The majority of students with disabilities are identified
as having specific learning disabilities, speech or language
impairments, mental retardation, or serious emotional
disturbance.
\7\Although other factors were considered, such as attendance
and dropout rates, the formula used to determine which
schools were high performing was heavily weighted towards the
results of a standardized test given to most students in the
state.
\8\GAO/HRD-93-97, April 30, 1993.
Now, I would like to direct a few questions to my friend and
colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts. It is my understanding that
to receive funds under title III of S. 1150 a State must develop or
have already developed a school improvement plan. Is this correct?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, my colleague from Oregon is correct. Funds will be
available during the first year to assist States that wish to develop
plans for systemic education improvement. In subsequent years the funds
might be used to complete a State's plan or to implement the plan
already developed if the application meets the prescribed criteria.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator, for this now gets to the heart of
my concern. My State of Oregon has already developed an outstanding
statewide educational improvement plan which I believe meets the aims
of Goals 2000. There are other States in similar situations. Will a
State that has developed a plan to restructure its educational system
prior to the enactment of this bill, need to develop a new plan in
order to receive funds under this act?
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Oregon for recognizing the need
to clarify this important point. If a State has already enacted a
school reform plan and elects to submit the proposal in order to
receive funding for its implementation, the Secretary may approve that
plan even if it was not developed in accordance with the exact
provisions of this bill.
The Senator from Oregon and I have worked together on many important
education issues in the past, and I am sure we are in agreement that
the purpose of the bill is to assist State and local efforts not to
force States to engage in superfluous effort. This bill specifically
states that ``Federal funds should be targeted to support State and
local initiatives and to leverage State and local resources for
designing and implementing systemwide education improvement plans.''
Preexisting plans will be certified by the Secretary when they are
based upon broad-based input from educators and policymakers and if
they address the broad issues outlined in the bill.
Mr. HATFIELD. In Oregon, our plan was developed by the State
legislature. Other States have gone through similar processes sometimes
pursuant to a court order. In some States, State boards of education
working through powers delegated by legislators have also implemented
reform efforts. If a State developed a plan through such processes, am
I correct in my interpretation that such a plan would be considered to
be developed with ``broad-based input'' as stated in this bill? Is it
intended that legislatively enacted plans would usually be acceptable
to the Secretary?
Mr. KENNEDY. If a plan is comprehensive, systemic, and directed
toward helping all students meet challenging standards, it will be
acceptable. In any case, States that have taken the initiative in
formulating a viable plan and, in some cases have the implementation
procedures underway ought to be complimented and encouraged and in no
way penalized for their leadership.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I am in complete
agreement with recognizing the actions taken by States such as Oregon
as adequate for purposes of Goals 2000 educational reform plans.
amendment no. 1377
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to return now to the
amendment that I am proposing.
I am pleased to offer an amendment today on behalf of myself and my
colleagues, Senators Durenberger, Pell, Jeffords, and Graham of
Florida, which builds on the education flexibility provisions already
included in Goals 2000. We are proposing the Education Flexibility
Partnership Act to offer six states an enhanced arrangement in which to
try regulatory flexibility.
Senator Durenberger and I have been working together, with the
assistance of the committee, to insure that the provisions in Goals
2000 will be of the most possible assistance to States as they embark
upon systemic education reform efforts. In that vein, we have worked to
guarantee that schools that do not receive funding under Goals 2000 are
still eligible for waivers of Federal regulation. We have also improved
the accountability provisions in the bill since that is the essence of
the trade-off between the States and the Federal Government--we will
release the Federal straightjacket in exchange for careful
accountability of the results of such waivers.
Under Goals 2000, states apply directly to the Federal Secretary of
Education for waivers of regulations. Waivers are limited to a specific
list of programs--Chapter 1, Chapter 2, the Eisenhower Math and Science
Education Act, the Emergency Immigrant Education Act, Drug-free
Schools, and the Carl Perkins Vocational Act, and will not be granted
if they relate to the health and safety of our children. In addition,
Federal funds must continue to be used to meet the aims of the programs
under which they were allocated to the States. While I believe this is
an adequate arrangement, I am hopeful that my amendment will allow us
to explore another possible route for the granting of education
flexibility.
The amendment I am offering today requires the Secretary of Education
to establish a demonstration program for six States, which will be
known as Ed-Flex Partnership States. Rather than the Secretary of
Education making the decisions on waiver applications, this
demonstration will allow the Secretary to negotiate an arrangement with
six States in which, within certain limitations, the State itself can
grant waivers. The effect will be to streamline the granting of
regulatory waivers.
In order to quality for this demonstration, a State must have an
approved Goals 2000 improvement plan and must demonstrate a major
commitment to waiving State statutory and regulatory requirements. As
we all know, many of the truly onerous regulations originate at the
State level. This demonstration is designed to support the efforts of
States like Oregon, Florida and others which are already waiving State
regulations, by adding a Federal waiver tool to their arsenal.
The rationale behind this amendment comes from a report I
commissioned from the Government Accounting Office last year. The
report tells us that waivers of regulation make the most sense when
they are done in concert at the local, State, and Federal level.
Allowing the State the ability to make these decisions, pursuant to
their agreement with the Secretary, will enhance the innovation and
creativity we hope and expect will arise under the education
flexibility program. By no means, however, are we giving the states
free rein. The Secretary will have full authority to monitor the
demonstration States and, after notice and appeal, terminate the
authority if necessary. As this is a true demonstration in which we
hope to establish a database on which to move forward, we are
specifying that three of six States selected have populations below 3.5
million and three have populations above, based on census data.
At this point, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an
opinion by the American Law Division of the Congressional Research
Service which affirms that this concept is a proper delegation of
authority to State educational agencies as long as guidance is given to
them to use in granting waivers.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congressional Research Service,
The Library of Congress,
Washington, DC, November 18, 1993.
To: Hon. Mark Hatfield; Attention: Sue Hildick.
From: American Law Division.
Subject: Delegation of Regulatory Waiver Authority to State
Educational Agencies Under S. 1150.
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the
validity of a proposed amendment to S. 1150--the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act. Specifically you inquired as to whether
amending section 311 of the bill to allow regulatory waiver
determinations to be made by the state educational agency
rather than the Secretary of Education would constitute a
valid delegation of legislative authority. Upon examination
of the proposed amendment and relevant judicial precedent, it
appears that the provision would properly delegate authority
to state educational agencies, if language were included to
provide guidance to the state in making waiver
determinations.
regulatory flexibility under s. 1150 and the proposed amendment
Section 311 of the bill establishes a process by which
states and local school districts may seek waiver of various
Federal statutory and regulatory requirements in order to
facilitate the implementation of the state or local education
reform plan mandated under Title III. Under the provision,
the state educational agency, on behalf of itself, a local
educational agency (LEA) or an individual school may apply to
the Secretary of Education for waiver for the statutory and
regulatory requirements set out under the statutes enumerated
in the bill. The Secretary may grant the waiver upon a
finding that the requirement ``impedes the ability of the
state, . . . local agency or school, to carry out the [s]tate
or local improvement plan.'' In addition, the state
educational agency must waive or agree to waive similar state
requirements.
Essentially, Senator Hatfield's proposal would amend
section 311 to authorize the state educational agency to
grant regulatory waiver requests made by local school
districts and individual schools, pursuant to an
``educational flexibility'' plan approved by the Secretary.
Under the plan, the state would be required to outline the
process to be used in evaluating LEA waiver requests. Upon
approval of the plan, the state educational agency would be
required to transmit a list of the approved LEA applications
to the Secretary; conduct an annual audit of the approved
plans and include the results of the audit as part of an
annual report to the Secretary.
delegation of waiver authority to the state educational agency
The proposed amendment to section 311 does not appear to
raise serious constitutional delegation concerns as the
Supreme Court has consistently upheld legislative delegations
of authority where the legislation provides some
``intelligible principle'' to which the recipient of the
delegation is to conform.\1\ Moreover, the required
``principle'' apparently need not be narrow or detailed as
the Court has upheld congressional delegations containing the
broadest of legislative direction, including provisions
authorizing a Federal agency to fix ``fair and equitable''
commodities prices\2\; the Federal Power Act which authorized
the Federal Power Commission to determine ``just and
reasonable'' rates\3\ and provisions within the
Communications Act of 1934 directing the Federal
Communications Commission to regulate broadcast licensing
``in the public interest''.\4\
Footnotes at the end of article.
Thus, Congress' delegation of authority to waive statutory
and regulatory requirements under S. 1150, as amended by
Senator Hatfield's proposal, would be generally supported by
long standing Supreme Court precedent on the issue. However,
it would be advisable to include within the proposed
amendment some standard by which the state educational agency
would be guided in making its decision to grant LEA waiver
requests. For example, the language presently included in
section 311 that requires a finding that the particular
Federal requirement would ``impede the ability of the state,
. . . [LEA] or school . . . to carry out the state or local
improvement plan'' would appear a sufficiently ``intelligible
principle'' to withstand a challenge to the delegation.
Just as Congress' ability to delegate its legislative
authority has been generally upheld, sufficient precedent can
be found to support such delegations to state, local and even
private entities to enforce and execute Federal law. For
example, in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins\5\, the
Court upheld provisions within the Bituminous Coal Act of
1937 which authorized the organization of coal producers
under the Bituminous Coal Code to fix minimum prices for code
members in accordance with stated standards. Prices set by
the Code were subject to approval by the National Bituminous
Coal Commission, the Federal agency responsible for
administering the act. In upholding the statute, the Court
noted that the Commission exercised the ultimate authority
to determine the prices and maintained ``authority and
surveillance over the activities of [the
organization].''\6\
More recently provisions within the Beef Promotion and
Research Act, delegating authority to a private body, have
been similarly upheld where supervisory authority was vested
in a governmental agency. That act establishes a Cattlemen's
Beef Promotion and Research Board, composed of cattle
producers and importers, which is authorized to ``develop
plans or projects of promotion and advertising, research,
consumer information, and industry information * * *''\7\
Assessments are imposed on cattle producers which are
remitted to the Board to implement the program. The program
was ultimately upheld in U.S. v. Frame\8\, where the court
found significant the fact that the Secretary of Agriculture
was authorized under the act to exercise considerable
supervision over the composition and operations of the Board.
Specifically, the Secretary selected members of the Board
from lists of nominations submitted by producers and
importers throughout the country. In addition, the Secretary
had approval authority with respect to the Board's budgets,
plans or projects, expenditures and contracting
activities.\9\
Applying the line of reasoning set out in these decisions,
it appears that an amendment delegating waiver authority to
the state educational agencies would withstand judicial
scrutiny. Similar to the provisions upheld in Adkins and
Frame, the bill would provide the Secretary of Education with
significant supervisory authority over the state educational
agency in the conduct of its regulatory relief program under
section 311, as proposed to be amended, the state educational
agency would be required to annually submit, for secretarial
review, the results of the performance audits required under
the bill. Most significant, subsection (d) authorizes the
Secretary to terminate a regulatory waiver, upon a finding
that the performance of the waiver recipient has been
``inadequate to justify the continuation of the waiver.''
Moreover, numerous legislative precedent can be found in
which Congress has sought to delegate authority to implement
Federal law to the states. For example, the Medical Waste
Tracking Act of 1988 authorized the states to impose civil
and criminal penalties for violations of the Act ``to the
same extent as the Administrator'' of the Environmental
Protection Agency.\10\ In addition, many Federal consumer
protection statutes contain provisions delegating
administrative and enforcement authority to the states,
including the Water Pollution Prevention and Control (Clean
Water) Act\11\; the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1990\12\,
the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990\13\; and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.\14\
Kevin B. Greely,
Legislative Attorney.
footnotes
\1\See J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S.
394, 409 (1928); see also Touby v. United States, 111 S.Ct.
1752 (1991); Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989).
\2\Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742 (1948).
\3\Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co., 320 U.S.
591 (1944).
\4\National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S.
190 (1943).
\5\310 U.S. 381 (1940).
\6\Id. at 399.
\7\See generally 7 U.S.C. 2901-2911.
\8\885 F.2d 1119 (3rd Cir. 1989).
\9\Id. at 1128-1129. See also Nobelcraft Industries v.
Secretary of Labor, 614 F.2d 199 (9th Cir. 1980)(Upholding
provision in the Occupational Safety and Health Act directing
the Secretary of Labor to adopt interim standards, in
particular areas, adopted by private standards producing
organizations); Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188
(1982)(Upholding provision in Part B of the Social Security
Act authorizing the use of hearing officers appointed by
private carriers to adjudicate Medicare claims).
\10\See Pub. L. 100-582.
\11\33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342.
\12\See Pub. L. 101-608.
\13\Pub. L. 101-535.
\14\47 U.S.C. Sec. 227.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have done so by indicating that
States should not approve waivers for local education agencies or
schools unless a reform plan is in place and the waiver will assist the
LEA or school in reaching its educational goals.
Mr. President, my colleagues may recall that when we last considered
legislation like Goals 2000, it was called America 2000 and it was
proposed by President Bush. The legislation ultimately passed the
Senate and attached to it was my amendment which provided for an
original ed-flex demonstration in six States--that was the highpoint in
negotiations at that time which was 2 years ago. The amendment passed
95 to 0 on a rollcall vote here in the Senate.
Today, the Goals 2000 legislation has broad authority for ed-flex for
our schools, but still under the same onus of coming to Washington for
an answer. The amendment I am offering is leap years ahead of where we
were with America 2000--while it is still a demonstration for six
States it is an effort by the Federal Government to truly partner with
the States and allow them the maximum latitude to reform their schools,
at their level.
I would like to thank Senators Pell, Jeffords, Kennedy, and Kassebaum
for their support and assistance with this amendment. In addition, the
Department of Education has been a partner with me in designing this
amendment and I would like to particularly thank Mike Cohen of
Secretary Riley's staff for his assistance.
At this time, I have completed my opening statement. I see one of my
cosponsors, my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, I ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise, together with my
distinguished colleagues from Oregon, Rhode Island, and Florida to
offer the Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act
amendment.
My colleague from Oregon has already done an outstanding job in
explaining the amendment. I would just like to add some relativity to
the amendment and express also my appreciation to the members of the
Labor and Human Resources Committee, with whom I enjoy company, and
their staffs for their assistance with this amendment as well.
This amendment is completely consistent with the mission of Goals
2000--to reform public education in America through real system reform.
The ed-flex demonstration supports bottom-up reform. Its purpose is
to encourage and assist States, school districts, and schools in their
reform efforts by allowing States to grant waivers of both Federal and
State statutory and regulatory requirements that now present barriers
to education restructuring and reform.
Mr. President, educational leaders in Minnesota have told me that the
flexibility offered by this amendment is just what States that are on
the cutting edge of reform both want and need.
Minnesota has already done a great deal on its own to reduce the
volume of input oriented top down State regulation in education and
shift the focus of accountability to results--to what students actually
learn.
More than 75 school districts in Minnesota--including Rochester and
North Branch--have been given broad waivers from State rules and
regulations by the State board of education, making it possible to
introduce important innovations in schools all across the State.
Minnesota's charter schools law also offers the opportunity for
individual schools to operate free from most rules and regulations in
exchange for a contract with their school districts that holds each
school accountable for improved learner outcomes.
The 1993 Minnesota Legislature approved a proposal that repeals
literally hundreds of outdated and cumbersome rules and regulations
that have little or nothing to do with what students need to know to
get a good job or to be successful in life.
And, finally, the Minnesota Department of Education is now engaged in
a major initiative designed to totally refocus accountability for
schools in Minnesota away from hours and days and years in the
classroom--toward promoting and graduating students on the basis of
what they actually learn.
This amendment will further assist States like Minnesota that want to
get out from under the burden of Federal rules and regulations that
focus on these top down inputs--the outdated, outmoded, unreliable
rules--and that--far too often--get in the way of the changes that
teachers and principals know would do well for students.
Mr. President, last year Senators Hatfield, Kennedy and Kassebaum
commissioned an ongoing study done by the General Accounting Office
which provides a sound rationale for the ed-flex amendment that my
colleagues and I are offering. I believe that report has been put in
the Record by my colleague from Oregon.
The report says that in order to raise the performance of all of the
Nation's students, education reform must ``involve all levels of the
education system--national, State, district, and school--and set high
standards of achievement for all students.''
A key part of this kind of comprehensive reform is providing freedom
from regulations that get in the way of what teachers and parents and
others at the local level know needs to be done to change the way we
teach and learn.
``Under systemic reform,'' the GAO study concluded, ``this regulatory
flexibility would be given to schools in exchange for increasing
accountability for student achievement.''
Under this amendment, Mr. President, six States will be allowed to
participate in the ed-flex demonstration. Three must have a population
of over 3.5 million people and three States below that level.
My own State of Minnesota has expressed strong interest in
participating in this demonstration. And, our State's Commissioner of
Education Linda Powell has informed me that her department is strongly
supportive of the opportunities this amendment would provide.
In a recent letter, Commissioner Powell told me:
We believe that this (amendment) recognizes that the states
have individual differences and that, while Congress clearly
has the responsibility to set the policy for the nation,
because of the unique needs and state direction, the states
should be able to operate programs as they see fit as long as
they are meeting the policies set by Congress in the Act.
States also need to accept the responsibility to be held
accountable for meeting those statutory policies.
Commissioner Powell also said:
Minnesota recognizes that all learners can achieve and be
successful. We also believe that we need to concentrate on
the results of learning and not as much on the administrative
processes.
Mr. President, this amendment will help teachers, principals and
students in States like Minnesota accelerate their education reform
efforts. It will allow States to test new forms of accountability
needed to meet the high standards that Goals 2000 will now place in
law.
I strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to lend
their support, as well.
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont [Mr.
Jeffords] is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I will speak briefly.
I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. I
think it is an excellent one. He has been an outspoken proponent of
regulatory flexibility and I am certainly glad to add my name as a
cosponsor.
My colleagues may remember that this amendment, or one similar to it,
was passed when we were on a similar bill sometime ago. Let us just
hope that this time it will get enacted into law.
The amendment before us allows six States to be designated as ed-flex
partnership States. These States would be given authority to waive
specific Federal regulations within their State for local education.
I think it is incredible, as we go forward, to fully understand that
we have laid out for ourselves a schedule which will be very, very
difficult to meet if we are to try to solve the problems of education
by the year 2000. So we are going to need the most flexibility, at
least in respect to allowing some States, through their own means,
without the hindrance of regulation, to be able to establish programs
and plans and curricula and whatever else they need in order to make
sure that we have a chance at accomplishing the goals which we have set
out.
So I am very pleased to be a cosponsor and look forward to supporting
this amendment in conference.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I too want to thank our colleagues for
their initiatives and their strong commitment toward this kind of
flexibility.
I think any one of us who has had a chance to talk to teachers and to
school principals at the local levels has countless stories about their
feelings that they could make an important difference, if only they
were given additional degrees of flexibility.
I think all of us are familiar with some of the challenges that we
have faced in the past, where we did reduce the kinds of regulations,
and some of the resources that we had were diverted to other purposes.
The response to that was to put on other rules and other regulations. I
think many of us believe that they form a straitjacket in local
communities.
This is a very reasonable approach which permits flexibility in the
six States. We have included additional flexibility for other States,
as well, in terms of the development of their program. We are going to
encourage that kind of flexibility and keep a very careful eye on how
the scarce resources are utilized. I think all of us are hopeful it
will be successful and will be monitoring it closely to be sure those
resources are actually utilized in the schools.
There are some areas, obviously, particular commitments that we have
in terms of some of the special needs and other rules, that will not be
waived, that guarantee certain protections for individual students. But
this is, I think, a very useful, important, and constructive idea. I
think it should be agreed to by an overwhelming majority and I
certainly urge all my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Senator Pell is recognized.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to support and cosponsor the
amendment offered by Senator Hatfield. It would establish a
demonstration program in six States to test the concept of regulatory
flexibility.
This is something we ought to do. Again and again, we hear concern
from the State and local level about the constraints placed upon
education agencies by onerous Federal regulations. The complaint is
often accompanied by an expression of frustration that compliance with
Federal regulations often hampers programs from serving children in the
way the program was intended. Because of this, I am of the mind that we
ought to test whether or not this is, indeed, the actual situation. The
best way to do that is through a demonstration program of the nature
proposed by the Senator from Oregon.
There are three aspects of the proposed demonstration that are
particularly noteworthy. First, it requires that the States meet the
original purpose of the program for which they seek regulatory
flexibility. This will ensure that the reason behind the program will
not be lost, and that the intended services will continue to reach
those for whom the program was designed.
Second, the demonstration program requires that the State also look
at State regulations. We often find that burdensome regulations are not
solely a matter of Federal law; they also extend to State regulations.
Therefore, as we move to provide greater regulatory flexibility at the
Federal level, we should do the same at the State level.
Third, the demonstration program requires a good mix of participants.
It would include both large and small States. This is important in
determining whether or not the flexibility is, in any way, tied to the
size of the State. The adequacy of the demonstration program is very
definitely enhanced by this provision.
Mr. President, this is a good measure and I urge its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on
the amendment, No. 1377, occur at 11:25 today without intervening
action. This has been cleared with the Republican manager.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe there are others who want to
address this issue. As I mentioned before, I certainly hope there will
be overwhelming support for this program. Not only did we accept this
on our last education bill, but we were able to maintain it in the
conference as well. We certainly hope we will be able to do so in this
conference as well. The House does not have a comparable report.
I know there are others who want to talk about either this issue or
others before the time expires. I just wanted to follow up on my
comments from earlier this morning about some of the aspects of this
legislation, some of the experiences that have taken place in a number
of schools in different parts of the country, and why we are very
hopeful this legislation will have, really, a far-reaching impact in
strengthening the academic achievement of young people in this country.
I tried earlier today to describe in broader terms what our committee
was about and what I think the administration, the Congress, and the
Senate, in a bipartisan way, have been about in terms of the young
people in this country.
I would like to come back to one of the important--essential--aspects
of this legislation, and that is the focus we give to the teachers in
our schools. Last spring, I met with a group of some 20 outstanding
teachers from Massachusetts. They had been selected from school systems
all over our State. It was an extraordinary group of men and women
gathered at Boston College just outside of Boston. We had a long,
informal conversation. In reviewing this legislation, they absolutely
convinced me that we were on the right track. The conversation helps to
underscore why the Goals 2000 is right in its emphasis on teacher
development. Goals 2000 would allow States to make grants to schools
for this purpose. Here are some of the things that the teachers told
me.
The personal relationship between teacher and student is about 80
percent of the equation in getting kids to succeed. They reminded both
myself and others to think back about our own education. You probably
do not remember a textbook or media lab or curriculum, but you do
remember a teacher. I think that applies, really, to all of us. It is
critical that we give the teacher only the number of students that he
or she could get to know, and that would allow him or her to find the
key to reaching each student.
Later on, when I visited the school I mentioned, the Fenway High
School College at Bunker Hill, just 10 days ago, it was very clear to
me that this bond between the kids and the teacher was really what was
motivating the kids to stay in school and work hard. I heard it time in
and time out, from the kids as well as from the teachers and
principals. A teacher told me that he started to call up students after
they dropped out of school, and 7 times out of 10, the student's reason
was, ``Nobody even knew I was there or cared if I stayed.'' I think
this point is really an important one.
The teacher obviously has to be well educated himself or herself to
know and understand learning. The teachers I spoke with wanted time to
study and learn themselves and not to be overwhelmed by too large
classes and too much paperwork. That we heard time in and time out. One
of the things we have seen and will continue to see is, when the
teachers have some additional time, and when they are given some
additional support, in terms of looking at different types of curricula
and the opportunity to work together, they are enormously creative and
imaginative in really reshaping the school itself. We have dozens of
examples of that. During the course of the day, if we have the
additional time--we want, obviously to move on to the amendments--but I
will go into some detail on it. I think there are some enormously
interesting stories.
Teachers want to be able to collaborate more, but they cannot,
because there is no time in the school day. They have too much
paperwork. They want to be valued. They want to be respected. And they
want access to things other professionals have, like telephones. One
teacher said there was only one phone in her school for 41 teachers.
Against this background, I might mention that we, all of us, are
pleased with the latest interim report of the National Board For
Professional Teaching Standards. They are making good progress and they
support standards for teachers as well as for everyone else. That is
really in harmony with what we are trying to do with the content
standards and also the various kinds of evaluations.
We also look at the teacher standards as well. We have the interim
report. We are expecting a follow-on report as well, and that has been
enormously impressive and it is a part of our whole effort.
I see my colleague, the Senator from Montana. I will continue to give
examples when time is available. I see my friend seeking recognition. I
yield the floor.
Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana
[Mr. Burns].
Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Burns pertaining to the introduction of S. 1822
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will continue with some examples that
were taken in the State of Minnesota, the charter schools, and a couple
of schools in Dade County. A number of efforts that they developed has
been reported by Tom Toch in the U.S. News article.
I had the opportunity to see these under Superintendent Fernandez,
when he was the superintendent in Dade County. He has developed a whole
program to promote teacher training and teachers' involvement. He
reported that initially when they were hiring teachers, he had a choice
of 1 out of 2 teachers to come down into the schools. When he finished
the program, in terms of the teacher development, teacher support, and
teacher training, he had the choice of 1 out of 7, and he was able to
make a judgment and determination toward improving, in a very
significant way, the quality of the teachers in the classroom, with all
of the attendant implications in terms of students and parents.
Once his program really developed, there was an increasing
involvement of parents and, obviously, of the students. They
participated in an experiment conducted by the teachers themselves,
where both parents and students attended Saturday classes. It was made
clear that participation was voluntary, and they thought that both
parents and students would not want to come if the students had weak
academic achievement. But instead, the classrooms were overcrowded.
Students brought the parents and were, in many instances, eager to
attend the schools with the active support of the parents, because of
the programs they had. One program actually provided a sabbatical to
teachers themselves, after they had been teachers in the system for 7
or 8 years, giving them a period of time off so that they could upgrade
their own skills, and upgrade other kinds of efforts in that school
district which were very creative and innovative and applicable in that
particular district.
These were the kinds of initiatives which were very evident, and
which I saw personally in Dade County. There are similar examples in
the charter schools in Minnesota which have been reported.
It is important to know that in my own city of Boston, only 62
percent, or 62 cents out of every dollar that is expended on a young
person, actually is spent on the classrooms, the students and the
teachers. The rest is spent for administrative costs.
Obviously, in terms of the reorganization structure, in terms of the
classroom and schools, we are very hopeful that that percentage will
change. It is about 60 percent, generally, nationwide.
I think there are important opportunities within this legislation to
try and see how there can be a stronger emphasis, with scarce
resources, on using funds more effectively in terms of supporting the
teachers and the classrooms.
There is a great desire for setting up teacher training in
classrooms; clinical schools where teachers are trained, just as
doctors are trained in hospitals. Such training would energize the
teachers who do the teaching, and really help new teachers and veteran
teachers in the schools.
I might say, just getting back to Dade County, that their teacher
organizations conduct a mentor program with students in the Dade County
system, to interest them in pursuing teaching careers. Teachers bring
the students to their various meetings and develop programs to interest
some of the ablest, brightest, and youngest students to pursue a career
in teaching. This program has paid off in developing a number of very
talented, bright, young students who are making an early decision to go
into teaching. These teachers, obviously, are from the communities that
these schools are serving. That kind of innovativeness had received
increasing and broad support.
One of the developments that we have seen at a number of different
high schools is the stripping the curriculum of superficial and
nonessential courses; the concept of ``less is more.'' Students take so
many courses that they do not learn any really well. Too many courses
are trivial. We need fewer, longer, more disciplined courses. This is
the concept of Ted Sizer and the essential schools. A number of our
major cities, including Boston, have those. It is an interesting,
historical fact that at the time of the classics and the Renaissance,
they generally only taught three courses, sometimes four courses
including perhaps philosophy, language, and a basic science course. But
there were only three or four courses at that time. In many instances
now, we see such a diversity of courses that many of our young people
do not have the opportunity to get that kind of focus and get that
direction with good teachers to be able to really learn in the basic
areas.
This is something that we have seen in a number of the schools. In my
city of Boston, they have reduced the number of courses, extended the
period of time, and improved the whole learning process, because they
now have more time. Less time is focused on the teacher just directing
in front of the class, and more time is directed to encouraging a much
greater involvement of the students, and that has made an important
difference. It is certainly one of those systems that ought to be
reviewed by teachers. It may be important for some; it may not work for
others, but it is certainly something that has taken place around the
country.
Kentucky has pioneered a new kind of testing that is a sharp
departure from the multiple choice tests virtually all schools use.
These tests include projects that require students to put together what
they have learned in several different classes to try to bring together
the knowledge that is learned in each class. I have seen a number of
classrooms where students, young students in the early grades, are
beginning language training, and they are looking at the continents in
geography, and then reading about the continents in French,
continuously learning the words, and then learning about those
continents in other classes, so that there is a tying-in of information
that is educationally relevant to students at an early age. It has been
interesting to see some of the impressive results that have developed
from that process. But continued innovation such as this obviously
becomes increasingly complex and difficult. Teachers need to have the
time to be able to work through new concepts with other teachers.
Perhaps in some grades it would work well, others it might not. But
nonetheless, there are some innovative concepts that can work in a
variety of different environments.
I see, Mr. President, time has just about expired at this time, so I
would suggest the absence of a quorum and indicate that we expect this
vote now to commence in the next couple of minutes. We are very hopeful
that other Senators who have amendments will come to the floor and
indicate their willingness to debate these issues so we can move this
whole process along.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts suggests the
absence of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 1377 offered by the Senator from Oregon [Mr.
Hatfield]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain],
the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], and the Senator from Alaska
[Mr. Stevens] are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeConcini). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durenberger
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hatfield
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
NOT VOTING--3
McCain
Nickles
Stevens
So the amendment (No. 1377) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1375
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is the
amendment in the second degree No. 1375 offered by Mr. Kennedy of
Massachusetts.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are making good progress, and I
appreciate the cooperation.
As to the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut that deals with
the issue of violence in schools, I know he is prepared to offer that
now. I think it is a very constructive amendment. It is a timely one
because there have already been appropriations for this subject to
authorization prior to early spring, and there was unanimous consent
for that.
Afterward, we will go, hopefully, to the Coats-Lieberman amendment at
just about 1 o'clock. There is a 1-hour time limitation on that
amendment, and Senator Grassley will follow that. We will try to work
that out if we have time now. I know Senator Gregg has an amendment.
We are glad to try to accommodate if we are able to move along the
other amendments as well as in terms of time.
We are beginning to move along. We will have Senator Helms'
amendment, which is listed as four different amendments. We are
prepared to deal with those as well.
So we are making some good progress. We are grateful for the support.
I think we will have a continued series of votes now periodically,
and we hope that our Members will keep close so we do not have to delay
voting on amendments and delay the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised that the pending
amendments must be set aside.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
existing amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1378
(Purpose: To help local school systems achieve Goal 6 of the national
education goals, which provides that by the year 2000, every school in
America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined
environment conducive to learning, by ensuring that all schools are
safe and free of violence)
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy,
Senator Jeffords, Senator Pell, Senator Cochran, Senator Metzenbaum,
Senator Simon, Senator Wofford, Senator Wellstone, Senator Mikulski,
Senator Glenn, and Senator Lieberman, I send an amendment to the desk
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, (Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Pell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Metzenbaum,
Mr. Simon, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Glenn, and Mr. Lieberman), proposes an amendment numbered
1378.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new title:
TITLE ____--SAFE SCHOOLS
SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE; STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.
(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Safe
Schools Act of 1993''.
(b) Statement of Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title
to help local school systems achieve Goal Six of the National
Education Goals, which provides that by the year 2000, every
school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will
offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning, by
ensuring that all schools are safe and free of violence.
SEC. ____02. SAFE SCHOOLS PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--From funds appropriated pursuant to the
authority of subsection (b)(1), the Secretary shall make
competitive grants to eligible local educational agencies to
enable such agencies to carry out projects and activities
designed to achieve Goal Six of the National Education Goals
by helping to ensure that all schools are safe and free of
violence.
(2) Grant duration and amount.--Grants under this title may
not exceed--
(A) two fiscal years in duration, except that the Secretary
shall not award any new grants in fiscal year 1996 but may
make payments pursuant to a 2-year grant which terminates in
such fiscal year; and
(B) $3,000,000 in any fiscal year.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$75,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, $100,000,000 for fiscal
year 1995, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
1996, to carry out this title.
(2) Reservation.--The Secretary is authorized in each
fiscal year to reserve not more than 10 percent of the amount
appropriated pursuant to the authority of paragraph (1) to
carry out national leadership activities described in section
____06, of which 50 percent of such amount shall be available
in such fiscal year to carry out the program described in
section ____06(b).
SEC. ____03. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.
(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this title, a local educational agency shall demonstrate in
the application submitted pursuant to section ____04(a) that
such agency--
(1) serves an area in which there is a high rate of--
(A) homicides committed by persons between the ages 5 to
18, inclusive;
(B) referrals of youth to juvenile court;
(C) youth under the supervision of the courts;
(D) expulsions and suspension of students from school;
(E) referrals of youth, for disciplinary reasons, to
alternative schools; or
(F) victimization of youth by violence, crime, or other
forms of abuse; and
(2) has serious school crime, violence, and discipline
problems, as indicated by other appropriate data.
(b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this title, the
Secretary shall give priority to a local educational agency
that--
(1) receives assistance under section 1006 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 or meets the
criteria described in clauses (i) and (ii) of section
1006(a)(1)(A) of such Act; and
(2) submits an application that assures a strong local
commitment to the projects or activities assisted under this
title, such as--
(A) the formation of partnerships among the local
educational agency, a community-based organization, a
nonprofit organization with a demonstrated commitment to or
expertise in developing education programs or providing
educational services to students or the public, a local law
enforcement agency, or any combination thereof; and
(B) a high level of youth participation in such projects or
activities.
(c) Definitions.--For the purpose of this title--
(1) the term ``local educational agency'' has the same
meaning given to such term in section 1471(12) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
(2) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of
Education.
SEC. ____04. APPLICATIONS AND PLANS.
(a) Application.--In order to receive a grant under this
title, a local educational agency shall submit to the
Secretary an application that includes--
(1) an assessment of the current violence and crime
problems in the schools and community to be served by the
grant;
(2) an assurance that the applicant has written policies
regarding school safety, student discipline, and the
appropriate handling of violent or disruptive acts;
(3) a description of the schools and communities to be
served by the grant, the projects and activities to be
carried out with grant funds, and how these projects and
activities will help to reduce the current violence and crime
problems in such schools and communities;
(4) if the local educational agency receives funds under
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, an explanation of how
projects and activities assisted under this title will be
coordinated with and support such agency's comprehensive
local improvement plan prepared under that Act;
(5) the applicant's plan to establish school-level advisory
committees, which include faculty, parents, staff, and
students, for each school to be served by the grant and a
description of how each committee will assist in assessing
that school's violence and discipline problems as well as in
designing appropriate programs, policies, and practices to
address those problems;
(6) the applicant's plan for collecting baseline and future
data, by individual schools, to monitor violence and
discipline problems and to measure such applicant's progress
in achieving the purpose of this title;
(7) an assurance that grant funds under this title will be
used to supplement and not to supplant State and local funds
that would, in the absence of funds under this title, be made
available by the applicant for the purpose of this title;
(8) an assurance that the applicant will cooperate with,
and provide assistance to, the Secretary in gathering
statistics and other data the Secretary determines are
necessary to assess the effectiveness of projects and
activities assisted under this title or the extent of school
violence and discipline problems throughout the Nation;
(9) an assurance that the local educational agency has a
written policy that prohibits sexual contact between school
personnel and a student; and
(10) such other information as the Secretary may require.
(b) Plan.--In order to receive funds under this title for a
second year, a grantee shall submit to the Secretary a
comprehensive, long-term, school safety plan for reducing and
preventing school violence and discipline problems. Such plan
shall contain--
(1) a description of how the grantee will coordinate its
school crime and violence prevention efforts with education,
law-enforcement, judicial, health, social service, and other
appropriate agencies and organizations serving the community;
and
(2) in the case that the grantee receives funds under the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, an explanation of how the
grantee's comprehensive plan under this subsection is
consistent with and supports its comprehensive local
improvement plan prepared under that Act, if such explanation
differs from that provided in the grantee's application under
that Act.
SEC. ____05. USE OF FUNDS.
(a) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--A local educational agency shall use grant
funds received under this title for one or more of the
following activities:
(A) Identifying and assessing school violence and
discipline problems, including coordinating needs assessment
activities and education, law-enforcement, judicial, health,
social service, and other appropriate agencies and
organizations.
(B) Conducting school safety reviews or violence prevention
reviews of programs, policies, practices, and facilities to
determine what changes are needed to reduce or prevent
violence and promote safety and discipline.
(C) Planning for comprehensive, long-term strategies for
addressing and preventing school violence and discipline
problems through the involvement and coordination of school
programs with other education, law-enforcement, judicial,
health, social service, and other appropriate agencies and
organizations.
(D) Training school personnel in programs of demonstrated
effectiveness in addressing violence, including violence
prevention, conflict resolution, anger management, peer
mediation, and identification of high-risk youth.
(E) Community education programs, including video- and
technology-based projects, informing parents, businesses,
local government, the media and other appropriate entities
about--
(i) the local educational agency's plan to promote school
safety and reduce and prevent school violence and discipline
problems; and
(ii) the need for community support.
(F) Coordination of school-based activities designed to
promote school safety and reduce or prevent school violence
and discipline problems with related efforts of education,
law-enforcement, judicial, health, social service, and other
appropriate agencies and organizations.
(G) Developing and implementing violence prevention
activities, including--
(i) conflict resolution and social skills development for
students, teachers, aides, other school personnel, and
parents;
(ii) disciplinary alternatives to expulsion and suspension
of students who exhibit violent or anti-social behavior;
(iii) student-led activities such as peer mediation, peer
counseling, and student courts; or
(iv) alternative after-school programs that provide safe
havens for students, which may include cultural,
recreational, and educational and instructional activities.
(H) Educating students and parents regarding the dangers of
guns and other weapons and the consequences of their use.
(I) Developing and implementing innovative curricula to
prevent violence in schools and training staff how to stop
disruptive or violent behavior if such behavior occurs.
(J) Supporting ``safe zones of passage'' for students
between home and school through such measures as Drug- and
Weapon-Free School Zones, enhanced law enforcement, and
neighborhood patrols.
(K) Counseling programs for victims and witnesses of school
violence and crime.
(L) Minor remodeling to promote security and reduce the
risk of violence, such as removing lockers, installing better
lights, and upgrading locks.
(M) Acquiring and installing metal detectors and hiring
security personnel.
(N) Reimbursing law enforcement authorities for their
personnel who participate in school violence prevention
activities.
(O) Evaluating projects and activities assisted under this
title.
(P) The cost of administering projects or activities
assisted under this title.
(Q) Other projects or activities that meet the purpose of
this title.
(2) Limitation.--A local educational agency may use not
more than--
(A) a total of 10 percent of grant funds received under
this title in each fiscal year for activities described in
subparagraphs (J), (L), (M), and (N) of paragraph (1); and
(B) 5 percent of grant funds received under this title in
each fiscal year for activities described in subparagraph (P)
of paragraph (1).
(3) Prohibition.--A local educational agency may not use
grant funds received under this title for construction.
SEC. ____06. NATIONAL LEADERSHIP.
(a) In General.--To carry out the purpose of this title,
the Secretary is authorized to use funds reserved under
section ____02(b)(2) to conduct national leadership
activities such as research, program development and
evaluation, data collection, public awareness activities,
training and technical assistance, dissemination (through
appropriate research entities assisted by the Department of
Education) of information on successful projects, activities,
and strategies developed pursuant to this title, and peer
review of applications under this title. The Secretary may
carry out such activities directly, through interagency
agreements, or through grants, contracts or cooperative
agreements.
(b) National Model City.--The Secretary shall designate the
District of Columbia as a national model city and shall
provide funds made available pursuant to section ____02(b)(2)
in each fiscal year to a local educational agency serving the
District of Columbia in an amount sufficient to enable such
agency to carry out a comprehensive program to address school
and youth violence.
SEC. ____07. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE EDUCATION STATISTICS
SYSTEM.
Subparagraph (A) of section 406(h)(2) of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221e-1(h)(2)(A)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(2) by adding after clause (vii) the following new clause:
``(viii) school safety policy, and statistics on the
incidents of school violence; and''.
SEC. ____08. COORDINATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE.
The Attorney General, through the Coordinating Council on
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department
of Justice, shall coordinate the programs and activities
carried out under this Act with the programs and activities
carried out by the departments and offices represented within
the Council that provide assistance under other law for
purposes that are similar to the purpose of this Act, in
order to avoid redundancy and coordinate Federal assistance,
research, and programs for youth violence prevention.
SEC. ____09. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have a statement I want to make on this
amendment, but Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois has some
obligations she needs to attend to. She has a second-degree amendment
that she cares to offer at this time.
So I will withhold making my statement at this juncture and yield to
the Senator from Illinois for the purpose of offering the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank you very much, and my thanks to the
Senator from Connecticut.
I have a statement that I would like to make in support of this
amendment, but Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell has an even more
pressing engagement, so I would like to first defer to him as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. President; and I thank my colleague from
Illinois.
I did not know the amendment was coming up this quickly, so I am
sorry that I have to press forward.
I rise in support of this amendment. I think it is an amendment that
can be very easily misread and misconstrued in this day of tight
budgets.
As many of my colleagues know, in my home State of Colorado, I have
been trying to work with inner-city gang violence and spend a good deal
of my time and evenings in that city visiting with gang members
themselves. I see this as an extremely important amendment.
Just yesterday, our Senate Chaplain had made some arrangements, in
fact, to bring some youngsters from Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Denver
who were active members of gangs to be able to come to the gallery in
the Senate and watch our proceedings.
Today, some of them are over on the House side involved in a hearing
on violence and victims' reactions to violence. This morning, they went
to the National Cathedral, to the National Prayer Breakfast, in some
hopes that some would understand that there is a much bigger lifestyle
out there than being involved in gangs.
I had a chance to meet with them yesterday. I talked to them about
the inner-city programs, about the midnight basketball programs. They
tell me it is one of few alternatives to being on the streets, being
involved in that program in Denver, CO. It is highly successful.
There have been a number of independent reports that say gang
activities in public housing has decreased; that many players have
found permanent jobs; that many players have completed GED
requirements. Certainly those who believe in both rehabilitation and
offering alternatives to street violence support this amendment by
Carol Moseley-Braun.
We know that we are not going to find all the answers on a basketball
court, but certainly it has to be one of the answers in providing
alternative things to late-night activities.
I, myself, was a product of a publicly funded sports program and
often think that perhaps if I had not had those opportunities, I would
be in a different kind of institution now than the U.S. Senate.
But certainly we can recognize, in a time of tightening budgets, that
it is much more cost effective, in terms of dollars and societal
trauma, to put youngsters in gyms rather than in prisons.
We have already proven we can be tough on the crime bill. I hope in
this bill we can also prove we are smarter, also.
I just wanted to rise to offer my support to my colleague, Senator
Moseley-Braun, and to congratulate her on bringing this amendment to
the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Amendment No. 1379 to Amendment No. 1378
(Purpose: To amend section 520 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development to make grants to establish midnight basketball league
training and partnership programs incorporating employment counseling,
job training, and other educational activities for residents of public
housing and federally assisted housing and other low-income families)
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment
cosponsored by Senator Campbell, Senator Simon, Senator Lautenberg, and
Senator Robb, that is designed to help our Nation meet the second
national educational goal by increasing educational opportunities for
youth and young adults who live in public and public-assisted housing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send the amendment to the
desk?
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], for herself,
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Simon, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Robb
proposes an amendment numbered 1379 to amendment No. 1378.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. 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:
At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
TITLE ____--MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL LEAGUE TRAINING AND PARTNERSHIP
SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Midnight Basketball League
Training and Partnership Act''.
SEC. ____02. GRANTS FOR MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL LEAGUE TRAINING
AND PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS.
Section 520 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 11903a) is amended--
(1) in the section heading by inserting ``and assisted''
after ``public'';
(2) in the subsection heading for subsection (a), by
inserting ``Public Housing'' before ``Youth''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(l) Midnight Basketball League Training and Partnership
Programs.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall make grants, to the extent that amounts are
approved in appropriations Acts under paragraph (13), to--
``(A) eligible entities to assist such entities in carrying
out midnight basketball league programs meeting the
requirements of paragraph (4); and
``(B) eligible advisory entities to provide technical
assistance to eligible entities in establishing and operating
such midnight basketball league programs.
``(2) Eligible entities.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), grants
under paragraph (1)(A) may be made only to the following
eligible entities:
``(i) Entities eligible under subsection (b) for a grant
under subsection (a).
``(ii) Nonprofit organizations providing employment
counseling, job training, or other educational services.
``(iii) Nonprofit organizations providing federally
assisted low-income housing.
``(B) Prohibition on second grants.--A grant under
paragraph (1)(A) may not be made to an eligible entity if the
entity has previously received a grant under such paragraph,
except that the Secretary may exempt an eligible advisory
entity from the prohibition under this subparagraph in
extraordinary circumstances.
``(3) Use of grant amounts.--Any eligible entity that
receives a grant under paragraph (1)(A) may use such amounts
only--
``(A) to establish or carry out a midnight basketball
league program under paragraph (4);
``(B) for salaries for administrators and staff of the
program;
``(C) for other administrative costs of the program, except
that not more than 5 percent of the grant amount may be used
for such administrative costs; and
``(D) for costs of training and assistance provided under
paragraph (4)(I).
``(4) Program requirements.--Each eligible entity receiving
a grant under paragraph (1)(A) shall establish a midnight
basketball league program as follows:
``(A) The program shall establish a basketball league of
not less than 8 teams having 10 players each.
``(B) Not less than 50 percent of the players in the
basketball league shall be residents of federally assisted
low-income housing or members of low-income families (as such
term is defined in section 3(b) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937).
``(C) The program shall be designed to serve primarily
youths and young adults from a neighborhood or community
whose population has not less than 2 of the following
characteristics (in comparison with national averages):
``(i) A substantial problem regarding use or sale of
illegal drugs.
``(ii) A high incidence of crimes committed by youths or
young adults.
``(iii) A high incidence of persons infected with the human
immunodeficiency virus or sexually transmitted diseases.
``(iv) A high incidence of pregnancy or a high birth rate,
among adolescents.
``(v) A high unemployment rate for youths and young adults.
``(vi) A high rate of high school drop-outs.
``(D) The program shall require each player in the league
to attend employment counseling, job training, and other
educational classes provided under the program, which shall
be held immediately following the conclusion of league
basketball games at or near the site of the games and at
other specified times.
``(E) The program shall serve only youths and young adults
who demonstrate a need for such counseling, training, and
education provided by the program, in accordance with
criteria for demonstrating need, which shall be established
by the Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory
Committee.
``(F) The majority of the basketball games of the league
shall be held between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.
at a location in the neighborhood or community served by the
program.
``(G) The program shall obtain sponsors for each team in
the basketball league. Sponsors shall be private individuals
or businesses in the neighborhood or community served by the
program who make financial contributions to the program and
participate in or supplement the employment, job training,
and educational services provided to the players under the
program with additional training or educational
opportunities.
``(H) The program shall comply with any criteria
established by the Secretary, in consultation with the
Advisory Committee established under paragraph (9).
``(I) Administrators or organizers of the program shall
receive training and technical assistance provided by
eligible advisory entities receiving grants under paragraph
(8).
``(5) Grant amount limitations.--
``(A) Private contributions.--The Secretary may not make a
grant under paragraph (1)(A) to an eligible entity that
applies for a grant under paragraph (6) unless the applicant
entity certifies to the Secretary that the entity will
supplement the grant amounts with amounts of funds from non-
Federal sources, as follows:
``(i) In each of the first 2 years that amounts from the
grant are disbursed (under subparagraph (E)), an amount
sufficient to provide not less than 35 percent of the cost of
carrying out the midnight basketball league program.
``(ii) In each of the last 3 years that amounts from the
grant are disbursed, an amount sufficient to provide not less
than 50 percent of the cost of carrying out the midnight
basketball league program.
``(B) Non-federal funds.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `funds from non-Federal sources' includes amounts
from nonprofit organizations, public housing agencies,
States, units of general local government, and Indian housing
authorities, private contributions, any salary paid to staff
(other than from grant amounts under paragraph (1)(A)) to
carry out the program of the eligible entity, in-kind
contributions to carry out the program (as determined by the
Secretary after consultation with the Advisory Committee),
the value of any donated material, equipment, or building,
the value of any lease on a building, the value of any
utilities provided, and the value of any time and services
contributed by volunteers to carry out the program of the
eligible entity.
``(C) Prohibition on substitution of funds.--Grant amounts
under paragraph (1)(A) and amounts provided by States and
units of general local government to supplement grant amounts
may not be used to replace other public funds previously
used, or designated for use, under this section.
``(D) Maximum and minimum grant amounts.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary may not make a grant under
paragraph (1)(A) to any single eligible entity in an amount
less than $55,000 or exceeding $130,000, except as provided
in clause (ii).
``(ii) Exception for large leagues.--In the case of a
league having more than 80 players, a grant under paragraph
(1)(A) may exceed $130,000, but may not exceed the amount
equal to 35 percent of the cost of carrying out the midnight
basketball league program.
``(E) Disbursement.--Amounts provided under a grant under
paragraph (1)(A) shall be disbursed to the eligible entity
receiving the grant over the 5-year period beginning on the
date that the entity is selected to receive the grant, as
follows:
``(i) In each of the first 2 years of such 5-year period,
23 percent of the total grant amount shall be disbursed to
the entity.
``(ii) In each of the last 3 years of such 5-year period,
18 percent of the total grant amount shall be disbursed to
the entity.
``(6) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under paragraph (1)(A), an eligible entity shall submit to
the Secretary an application in the form and manner required
by the Secretary (after consultation with the Advisory
Committee), which shall include--
``(A) a description of the midnight basketball league
program to be carried out by the entity, including a
description of the employment counseling, job training, and
other educational services to be provided;
``(B) letters of agreement from service providers to
provide training and counseling services required under
paragraph (4) and a description of such service providers;
``(C) letters of agreement providing for facilities for
basketball games and counseling, training, and educational
services required under paragraph (4) and a description of
the facilities;
``(D) a list of persons and businesses from the community
served by the program who have expressed interest in
sponsoring, or have made commitments to sponsor, a team in
the midnight basketball league; and
``(E) evidence that the neighborhood or community served by
the program meets the requirements of paragraph (4)(C).
``(7) Selection.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Advisory Committee, shall select eligible entities that have
submitted applications under paragraph (6) to receive grants
under paragraph (1)(A). The Secretary, in consultation with
the Advisory Committee, shall establish criteria for
selection of applicants to receive such grants. The criteria
shall include a preference for selection of eligible entities
carrying out midnight basketball league programs in suburban
and rural areas.
``(8) Technical assistance grants.--Technical assistance
grants under paragraph (1)(B) shall be made as follows:
``(A) Eligible advisory entities.--Technical assistance
grants may be made only to entities that--
``(i) are experienced and have expertise in establishing,
operating, or administering successful and effective programs
for midnight basketball and employment, job training, and
educational services similar to the programs under paragraph
(4); and
``(ii) have provided technical assistance to other entities
regarding establishment and operation of such programs.
``(B) Use.--Amounts received under technical assistance
grants shall be used to establish centers for providing
technical assistance to entities receiving grants under
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection and subsection (a)
regarding establishment, operation, and administration of
effective and successful midnight basketball league programs
under this subsection and subsection (c)(3).
``(C) Number and amount.--To the extent that amounts are
provided in appropriations Acts under paragraph (13)(B) in
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall make technical
assistance grants under paragraph (1)(B). In each fiscal year
that such amounts are available the Secretary shall make 4
such grants, as follows:
``(i) 2 grants shall be made to eligible advisory entities
for development of midnight basketball league programs in
public housing projects.
``(ii) 2 grants shall be made to eligible advisory entities
for development of midnight basketball league programs in
suburban or rural areas.
Each grant shall be in an amount not exceeding $25,000.
``(9) Advisory committee.--The Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development shall appoint an Advisory Committee to
assist the Secretary in providing grants under this
subsection. The Advisory Committee shall be composed of not
more than 7 members, as follows:
``(A) Not less than 2 individuals who are involved in
managing or administering midnight basketball programs that
the Secretary determines have been successful and effective.
Such individuals may not be involved in a program assisted
under this subsection or a member or employee of an eligible
advisory entity that receives a technical assistance grant
under paragraph (1)(B).
``(B) A representative of the Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention of the Public Health Service, Department of Health
and Human Services, who is involved in administering the
grant program for prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation
model projects for high risk youth under section 509A of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa-8), who shall be
selected by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
``(C) A representative of the Department of Education, who
shall be selected by the Secretary of Education.
``(D) A representative of the Department of Health and
Human Services, who shall be selected by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services from among officers and employees
of the Department involved in issues relating to high-risk
youth.
``(10) Reports.--The Secretary shall require each eligible
entity receiving a grant under paragraph (1)(A) and each
eligible advisory entity receiving a grant under paragraph
(1)(B) to submit to the Secretary, for each year in which
grant amounts are received by the entity, a report describing
the activities carried out with such amounts.
``(11) Study.--To the extent amounts are provided under
appropriation Acts pursuant to paragraph (13)(C), the
Secretary shall make a grant to one entity qualified to carry
out a study under this paragraph. The entity shall use such
grant amounts to carry out a scientific study of the
effectiveness of midnight basketball league programs under
paragraph (4) of eligible entities receiving grants under
paragraph (1)(A). The Secretary shall require such entity to
submit a report describing the study and any conclusions and
recommendations resulting from the study to the Congress and
the Secretary not later than the expiration of the 2-year
period beginning on the date that the grant under this
paragraph is made.
``(12) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) The term `Advisory Committee' means the Advisory
Committee established under paragraph (9).
``(B) The term `eligible advisory entity' means an entity
meeting the requirements under paragraph (8)(A).
``(C) The term `eligible entity' means an entity described
under paragraph (2)(A).
``(D) The term `federally assisted low-income housing' has
the meaning given the term in section 5126 of the Public and
Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act of 1990.
``(13) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated--
``(A) for grants under paragraph (1)(A), $2,650,000 in each
of fiscal years 1994 and 1995;
``(B) for technical assistance grants under paragraph
(1)(B), $100,000 in each of fiscal years 1994 and 1995; and
``(C) for a study grant under paragraph (11), $250,000 in
fiscal year 1994.''.
SEC. ____03. PUBLIC HOUSING MIDNIGHT BASKETBALL LEAGUE
PROGRAMS.
Section 520(c) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act (42 U.S.C 11903a(c)) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Midnight basketball league programs.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this subsection and subsection (d), a
grant under this section may be used to carry out any youth
sports program that meets the requirements of a midnight
basketball league program under subsection (l)(4) (not
including subparagraph (B) of such subsection) if the program
serves primarily youths and young adults from the public
housing project in which the program assisted by the grant is
operated.''.
Ms MOSELEY-BRAUN. This amendment would authorize less than $6 million
for the development of new and existing midnight basketball leagues
which serve high school dropouts and students at risk of dropping out.
Now, I want to say to my colleagues, the name midnight basketball is,
in some regards, misleading. Although midnight basketball sounds like a
recreational program, in fact, it is actually an educational, crime
prevention, and socializing program designed to provide young people
with alternatives to the street and alternatives to crime.
Midnight basketball has worked in over 41 communities across the
United States. It has promoted youth development by requiring leagues
to form public and private partnerships with local companies.
Under this amendment, midnight basketball leagues would be eligible
for grants ranging from $55,000 to $130,000--spread out over 5 year
periods.
Leagues would have to provide 35 percent in matching non-Federal
funds for the first 2 years, and 50 percent in matching funds
thereafter.
In Chicago, private sponsors have not only contributed funds to help
finance the leagues and teams, they have also helped midnight
basketball leagues offer educational programs including one-on-one
tutorial sessions and GED classes which league players are required to
attend after each game.
Private sponsors have also served as important adult mentors and role
models for the young people living in housing projects in the city of
Chicago.
Mr. President, midnight basketball leagues also help prevent crime by
requiring that a majority of midnight basketball games be played during
the hours when most youth crimes are committed--10 p.m. to 2 a.m.
As a result, midnight basketball leagues in Chicago and elsewhere
have successfully assigned rival gang members to the same teams--
effecting truces both on and off the court.
I am proud to say that many league players in Chicago have also
recently completed their GED requirements and that none of them were in
trouble with the law during the time they were involved in this
program.
In Chicago, midnight basketball leagues have been able to serve 80
youngsters a year at a cost of about $85,000. It costs about that much
to incarcerate one juvenile for 2 years.
If midnight basketball helps keep even one of the participating young
people out of our criminal justice system, this program will have
served the taxpayers very well.
Mr. President, midnight basketball has been a real success in Chicago
and in 40 other communities across the country where leagues have
already been formed.
In fact, NBC Nightly News reported last November 4 that 20 of the 150
participants in the Camden, NJ, midnight basketball league are either
in college or on their way to college.
This program can help us achieve one of the goals of the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act--achieving a 90-percent graduation rate--by giving
youth and young adults an opportunity to be socialized and educated in
a context in which there is adult supervision and involvement.
I want to share for a moment, Mr. President, my own experience with
the approach that is represented in this program, because, as I said,
the title ``midnight basketball'' is misleading.
The midnight basketball program essentially uses basketball as an
opportunity, an opportunity to provide tutoring, an opportunity to
provide counseling, an opportunity to show youth and young adults that
they have other options than being out on the streets.
Mr. President, I was a dropout for awhile in my young life. I managed
to get a job working in public housing projects which was considered to
be a very good job at the time.
But my role was to supervise young people in a program that was much
like the midnight basketball program. I was a supervisor, but I guess
by osmosis, the message that was being communicated to these young
people spilled over to me. As a result, I was then convinced that it
did make sense to go back to school; it did make sense to try to reach
broader horizons; it did make sense to try to make something of myself;
it did make sense to try to give something back to my community.
And so, having seen programs like midnight basketball on a very
personal level, I became an advocate of the midnight basketball
approach even before it was called that.
Now we have seen the midnight basketball approach work--targeting our
young people who are the most neglected, the most at risk of dropping
out, the most at risk of hopelessness, the most at risk of not having a
gainful, productive activity in the afterschool hours. I ask the Senate
to lend its support this afternoon to the midnight basketball
approach--an innovative, novel approach which involves all sectors of
the community in meeting the needs of young men and women.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment
offered by our colleague from Illinois. I would point out we have a
very successful midnight basketball program in Bridgeport, CT. It has
been very successful and has achieved many of the same results our
colleague from Illinois has identified in her amendment. I think this
is a fine addition to our proposal on safe schools and urge the
adoption of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I also commend our friend and colleague
from Illinois. I had an opportunity to spend an afternoon with those
law enforcement individuals in Boston who are assigned to the gangs.
They were very strong in their commitment to deal with those individual
members of the gangs that were difficult and violent, and had that
proclivity. But they were also equally supportive of trying to
intervene with this kind of program so individuals would have
alternatives to gang violence. It is completely consistent with what
has been accepted in the Senate in the omnibus crime bill.
I commend the Senator for bringing this up. All of us understand we
do not utilize our schools, whether they are in the urban or rural
community, nearly to the extent we should with the range of activities.
This is a demonstrated successful program, and I thank her for these
additions. Hopefully, we will have an acceptance of the amendment.
Mr. PELL. I would just like to express a word of support for the
amendment. It is an excellent one. It is a job that needs to be done
and the amendment should be agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I certainly believe this kind of program
could be very beneficial and I have had no objection raised on this
side of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Illinois, and at
an appropriate moment I will ask for adoption of the amendment. But in
the meantime I would like to make, if I could, a general statement on
the underlying amendment, that is the safe schools amendment.
I am offering this safe schools amendment. I wish it were not
necessary. I wish this were something that would not have to be a part
of the Goals 2000, but I think all of us in this Chamber, regardless of
where we come from, are painfully aware of what is happening.
Even in the most secure neighbors, it seems, violence in our schools
has become a fact of life--tragically. The amendment addresses the
sixth goal as stated in the Goals 2000 proposal, going back to the
conference in Virginia initiated by President Bush and supported by
Governors and others at the time. That sixth goal states that all of
our schools should be safe and secure.
This amendment which I bring to the floor has the cosponsorships I
have mentioned of a broad spectrum of our colleagues on both sides of
the aisle. And I ask unanimous consent Senator DeConcini of Arizona be
included as cosponsor as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. It responds to the growing crisis of violence in our
Nation's schools. This measure will help our schools protect their
students and preserve a learning environment free from violence.
This is a problem that would have been inconceivable only a few short
years ago. But it is a problem that has now grown so serious that it
demands a Federal response. The Safe Schools Act that I am proposing
today will be a major component of this response. Much of the answer
resides in our States and localities. We do not mandate specifically in
each instance what a State or local school district ought to do. But we
give them broad authority to come up with ideas and sanctions and
proposals that would meet the unique circumstances of these districts
and of these States, again reinforcing the underlying principle
associated with this legislation that the Senator from Massachusetts
has brought to the floor, and that is flexibility: Allow our
communities to respond in a fashion they deem appropriate.
We need this legislation because, for far too many of our Nation's
children, the fear of violence rather than the challenge of learning
has become the reality of each school day. Let me cite a few examples,
some of which my colleagues will be painfully aware of.
Just a few city blocks from where we gather in this Chamber, the U.S.
Senate, gunfire broke out only a few days ago in the hallways of Dunbar
High School, followed by more shots outside the building. Thankfully no
one was hurt in that exchange of gunfire, but the incident caused panic
throughout that school, causing students to scurry for cover and to
flee the building much as if a fire had broken out.
Late last year young Miguel de Jesus, a young high school student in
New Britain, CT, was shot, gunned down, mortally wounded on the school
steps at 7 a.m. in front of hundreds of schoolchildren arriving for
school that morning. Jettie Tisdale, a principal at an innercity
elementary school in Bridgeport, CT, testified before our Labor and
Human Resources Committee late last year that in her school, her
elementary school, she has installed bulletproof glass to protect her
kindergarten students from stray bullets. She also patrols the
playgrounds at recess to provide possible deterrence to violence.
This is in an elementary school. Children in some parts of that city
who live within two blocks of the school have to be bused to school in
the morning because of the problems of violence; bused to school from
within two blocks of the institution because of what these children
face walking to school.
Statistical evidence is overwhelming. Our schools are becoming
dangerous places and it is not just anecdotal, citing the few examples
that I have. Numerous studies from all quarters have indicated the
seriousness and the breadth of this problem.
The Center for Disease Control has estimated that nearly 1 in 5
students carries a weapon--a knife, a firearm, or a club--to school.
Roughly 130,000 students, it is estimated, bring a gun to school every
day; the overwhelming majority not to inflict violence on one of their
classmates but to protect themselves from the violence they anticipate
from some of the students or someone outside of the school. The
National Crime Survey has estimated that nearly 3 million crimes occur
on or near school campuses each year. A recent national survey in USA
Weekend found that 37 percent of students said they do not feel safe at
school any longer, and 63 percent said they would learn more if they
felt safer.
A U.S. Department of Education study found that 8 percent of public
school teachers had reported being physically attacked during the
previous school year.
The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence reports that from 1986 to
1990, 65 students and 6 school employees were gunned down at school;
another 201 were severely wounded at school; and 242 were held hostage
at gunpoint at school.
As these numbers demonstrate, violence is killing and injuring
children across our Nation. We all know this simply from reading our
morning newspapers. What is less obvious is the terrible impact this
violence is having on school budgets, at a time when they can hardly
afford to meet their educational expenses. Security measures made
necessary by violent incidents in schools are sapping vital resources
away from teaching and learning. In New Haven, CT, for instance, the
school district spent some $700,000 last year just in 1 year for school
security. This is money that could otherwise have been spent on books
and teachers and computers.
My colleagues may recall a few weeks ago I cited statistics involving
educational tools available at one of the innercity high schools that I
visited in New Haven. There were only 13 computers for the entire
senior high school student population. They literally line up in the
afternoon to get a few minutes on that computer. Only 13 for literally
7,000 high school students. That is the same school in that same
district that is spending almost $1 million a year for cops on
corridors and metal detectors. Think of what that $700,000 could do for
that senior high school that could use a few more computers.
This safe schools bill is not going to answer every problem, but we
provide resources in this amendment that will allow for States and
localities to get some of those dollars to offset some of these
staggering costs of security that they currently have to provide.
The Safe School Act is entirely consistent with the Goals 2000
legislation, because it represents an initial effort to meet goal 6,
which I mentioned earlier, which calls for all schools in America to be
free from drugs and violence and to offer a disciplined environment
conducive to learning.
I will argue in many ways that this goal is the foundation on which
all others rest. You cannot learn if you are frightened to death. Too
many of our kids are frightened to death every single day. So all other
five goals depend upon our ability to provide some modicum of security
for teachers and students during the school day.
Students are never going to learn when they fear for their safety.
Teachers are never going to be able to teach when they have to be on
the lookout for guns and knives in their classrooms. And schools are
not going to be able to provide their students with all of the tools
for learning when their budgets are drained by security devices and
police officers in their corridors.
The Safe Schools Act contains a number of different tools that
schools can use to reduce violence within their walls. School districts
hard hit by violence will be eligible for funds to secure their
buildings by installing metal detectors, conducting minor remodeling,
hiring security personnel and adopting other security measures. We all
know that steps such as these are stop-gap attempts to stem the rising
tide of school violence.
They are not obviously the long-term solutions to this problem. This
amendment recognizes this fact by requiring participating schools to
get at the root causes of violence. The amendment would fund in
addition to the measures I mentioned earlier, conflict resolution
training, social skills development, peer mediation counseling, new
curriculum on violence prevention and after-school programs. Much of
this, I sadly tell you, should have been done by the parents before
they ever come to school. Tragically, a lot of these kids are not
getting it at home. Unfortunately, our schools have to begin taking on
some of these additional responsibilities. That is a fact of life. So
these funds will provide these schools with the ability to do some of
these things.
The Clinton administration has strongly supported this balanced
approach to school violence. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley,
originally proposed this legislation. I introduced it last year, along
with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Pell,
and Senator Jeffords on June 17. Since that time, we have been joined
by numerous other colleagues. I mentioned some already, including our
distinguished colleague from Mississippi, who I see on the floor,
Senator Cochran, and others.
We held a hearing in September, and this bill was unanimously
reported to the full Senate early in November. We thought this
particular bill, the Goals 2000 legislation, was an appropriate vehicle
on which to attach this amendment, and that is the reason that I offer
it.
We also have the support of many organizations. The amendment we are
offering today includes language offered by Senator Glenn to assure
that the Safe Schools program is coordinated with other Federal efforts
in this area.
Senator Cochran will shortly come forward with language defining a
State role to help disseminate the good ideas developed under safe
schools to other communities and their States. We already have heard
the pending second-degree amendment from our colleague from Illinois on
the midnight basketball program. Senator Simpson has another amendment
to make sure that rural schools will not be discriminated against in
these areas, which we will accept as well and will be included as a
part of this package.
As Senator Kennedy already pointed out, thanks to the good efforts of
Senator Harkin, of Iowa, and others on the Appropriations Committee,
this legislation already received $20 million for fiscal year 1994.
Obviously, it needs authorization language in order for that money to
become available to our States and localities; hence, the necessity and
the timeliness of offering this amendment on this bill.
So, Mr. President, in conclusion, the case for the Safe Schools Act,
I think, is clear and compelling. Again, I want to emphasize we offer a
lot of flexibility here. We do not get down to specific measures that
each school district must impose.
Sanctions, for instance, are permissible within school districts
against students who bring guns or drugs to school. That can include
expulsion--whatever remedies the various school districts and States
would like to impose. We thought it appropriate not to get into the
specificity of ordering certain sanctions but again to allow the
communities and the States to decide for themselves what are
appropriate responses to these problems of violence that are inflicting
our school districts.
So I urge the adoption of this amendment and urge adoption for
support, as well, of the various second-degree amendments that will
still have to be ordered.
My colleague from Vermont, I know, is interested in responding to
this, so I will be glad to yield at this time.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I ask unanimous
consent that, after disposition of the amendment, I be allowed to pay
tribute to Senator Ted Stevens who is celebrating his 25th anniversary
in the U.S. Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will be brief. I, first of all, want
to commend the Senator from Connecticut. I know how hard he has worked
on the Safe Schools Act. I certainly want to inform the body that I
think it is a tremendous step forward in trying to make sure that we do
have in this Nation schools that are safe.
I also am very pleased, and I think we are doing an important thing,
that we are establishing Washington, DC, as a model under this premise.
Good Lord, if we cannot make the schools in Washington, DC, safe, I do
not know how we should as a Federal Government expect any city to make
their schools safe.
I also want to commend the Senator from Illinois. I think the
amendment she has offered is an excellent one. I support it. I think we
are ready for a vote.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if we adopt the amendment without
offering the second-degree amendment, we will have to offer the second-
degree amendment to the bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that the second-
degree amendment is already pending.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could I suggest that we adopt the
amendment of the Senator from Illinois and then that would open up the
tree and then we would consider the amendment of the Senator from
Mississippi. Then I think we would also like to explore with the
Senator from Connecticut the possibility of a Dorgan amendment that
might also be included in the package. I have not talked with the
Senator about it. I wonder if we can accept the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois and then consider the amendment of the Senator
from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to that procedure,
and I thank the distinguished manager.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 1379.
The amendment (No. 1379) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Chafee
and Lautenberg also be included as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Amendment No. 1380 to Amendment No. 1378, As Amended
(Purpose: To establish the State Leadership Activities to Promote Safe
Schools Act)
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk to the
Dodd amendment and ask that it be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an
amendment numbered 1380 to amendment 1378, as amended.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 15, after line 3, insert the following:
PART B--STATE LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE SAFE SCHOOLS
SEC. 21. STATE LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE SAFE
SCHOOLS PROGRAM.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``State
Leadership Activities to Promote Safe Schools Act''.
(b) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to award grants
to State educational agencies from allocations under
subsection (c) to enable such agencies to carry out the
authorized activities described in subsection (e).
(c) Allocation.--Each State educational agency having an
application approved under subsection (d) shall be eligible
to receive a grant under this section for each fiscal year
that bears that same ratio to the amount appropriated
pursuant to the authority of subsection (f) for such year as
the amount such State educational agency receives pursuant to
section 1006 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 for such year bears to the total amount allocated to all
such agencies in all States having applications approved
under subsection (d) for such year, except that no State
educational agency having an application approved under
subsection (d) in any fiscal year shall receive less than
$100,000 for such year.
(d) Application.--Each State educational agency desiring a
grant under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner and containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require. Each
such application shall--
(1) describe the activities and services for which
assistance is sought;
(2) contain a statement of the State educational agency's
goals and objectives for violence prevention and a
description of the procedures to be used for assessing and
publicly reporting progress toward meeting those goals and
objectives; and
(3) contain a description of how the State educational
agency will coordinate such agency's activities under this
section with the violence prevention efforts of other State
agencies.
(e) Use of Funds.--Grant funds awarded under this section
shall be used--
(1) to support a statewide resource coordinator;
(2) to provide technical assistance to both rural and urban
local school districts;
(3) to disseminate to local educational agencies and
schools information on successful school violence prevention
programs funded through Federal, State, local and private
sources;
(4) to make available to local educational agencies teacher
training and parent and student awareness programs, which
training and programs may be provided through video or other
telecommunications approaches;
(5) to supplement and not supplant other Federal, State and
local funds available to carry out the activities assisted
under this section; and
(6) for other activities the Secretary may deem
appropriate.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
1995 and 1996 to carry out this section.
On page 2, between lines 1 and 2, insert the following:
PART A--SAFE SCHOOLS PRGRAM
On page 2, line 3, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 2, line 6, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 2, line 23, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 3, line 10, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 3, line 21, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 4, line 15, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 4, line 24, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 5, line 11, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 5, line 20, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 6, line 14, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 7, line 5, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 7, line 7, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 7, line 9, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 7, line 10, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 7, line 15, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 7, line 23, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 8, line 18, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 11, line 25, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 12, line 2, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 12, line 4, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 12, line 8, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 12, line 12, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 12, line 16, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 12, line 20, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 13, line 2, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 13, line 3, strike ``title'' and insert ``part''.
On page 15, line 2, strike ``title'' each place such term
appears and insert ``part''.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the sixth goal established by the
Nation's Governors and President George Bush in an historic meeting at
the national education Summit in 1989 provided that:
By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of
drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment
conducive to learning.
The only problem I have with that goal is that it probably should be
the first rather than the sixth goal. If you go to school afraid about
being harmed by a fellow student or becoming a victim of a drive-by
shooting, you are not going to learn anything.
It is in this kind of environment that we find so many of our
Nation's schoolchildren. It is time the Federal Government took some
responsibility for providing guidance and assistance to State and local
governments and local administrators as they try to deal with these
very real and very serious and sometimes very deadly problems in our
Nation's schools.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide some additional funds to
States to share information among school districts about safe schools
programs that are working and producing good benefits not only in that
particular State, but around the country.
Funds would be distributed to all States based on the chapter 1
concentration grant formula. Ten million dollars is authorized to
support a State coordinator, who could provide information about safe
schools initiatives and develop programs to help prevent and deal with
school violence. At least $100,000 would be made available to every
State.
I called the State superintendent of education in Mississippi, Tom
Burnham, and asked him what we could do to help stem school violence.
He suggested the need for a State safe schools coordinator because of
an inadequate amount of information at the State level about some of
the problems and the successful ways communities deal with school
violence. In local jurisdictions and in individual schools, there is a
need for more information about programs to address the problem of
school violence. States need to determine the most serious problems so
they can deal with them on an emergency basis.
This amendment responds to a very real and very important need that
is now unmet at the State level.
The funds included in the Cochran amendment will be targeted for:
Supporting the services of a statewide resource coordinator;
Providing technical assistance to both rural and urban local school
districts;
Disseminating information on successful school violence prevention
programs funded through other Federal, State, local or private sources;
and
Finding other activities the State educational agency deems
appropriate to assist in reducing school violence and crime.
Mr. President, America's school children should not fear for their
lives on the way to, during, or on their way home from school. There
are numerous examples in every State of violence every day in our
schools. Children in schools are killing each other. People commit
drive by shootings in playground areas at schools. Youth gangs are a
serious problem. These problems plague not only our large cities, but
our rural communities as well.
As a result, students in violent schools are much less likely to
concentrate on higher academic achievement and to stay in school and
receive the educational preparation necessary to become full partners
in our society. And parents are outraged that their children cannot
learn in a peaceful environment.
The trends are alarming, According to the 1993 National Education
Goals Report, 9 percent of 8th graders, 10 percent of 10th graders, and
6 percent of 12th graders brought a gun to school in the previous month
in 1992. Something must be done to stop our children from bringing
firearms on school property.
We expect students to be serious about school. But schools and their
surrounding communities also have an obligation to create an
environment where teaching and learning can take place.
President Bush and the Nation's Governors established six national
education goals for the Nation's elementary and secondary schools in
1989 at the historic Charlottesville Education Summit. The sixth goal
is ``by the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs
and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to
learning.''
I believe my amendment will assist State's efforts to curb the
growing problem of violence in the classrooms.
I thank the managers of the bill and other Senators who support this
amendment.
I hope the Senate will support this amendment as an amendment to the
amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, an important initiative
before the body at this time.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Cochran amendment, I
commend our colleague from Mississippi. He identifies a very legitimate
and serious problem. There are a lot of terrific programs that people
are engaged in across the country in antiviolence efforts. I recently
participated in a dinner here in Washington with people who came from
cities from across the country--Oakland, Boston, Chicago, New York,
Detroit--people who are not in local government, State Government,
people running boys clubs, girls clubs, after-school programs that are
very successful. You do not hear about them. It is the child who
engages in an act of violence who gets the headline. For obvious
reasons we do not read about the child who goes off in the afternoon
where there is an alternative to just hanging out.
Too many of these ideas are left at the local level. What the Senator
from Mississippi is achieving with this amendment is to make sure that
these good ideas get known by other communities. Dissemination of
information is critically important if these ideas are going to reach
other communities.
I commend the Senator for the amendment and urge its adoption.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I join in the remarks of the Senators from Connecticut
and Mississippi.
I strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1380) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 1381 to amendment 1378
(Purpose: To require that, to the extent practicable, grants shall be
awarded to eligible local educational agencies serving rural, as well
as urban, areas)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I have an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], for Mr. Simpson,
proposes an amendment numbered 1381:
On page 3, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
(3) Geographic distribution.--To the extent practicable,
grants under this title shall be awarded to eligible local
educational agencies serving rural, as well as urban, areas.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment is a simple one. It
basically establishes that rural areas ought to be considered and be
included when grants are awarded. We have many problems with schools in
the rural areas, and to ignore that in this legislation would be a
mistake. I believe it will be accepted, and I wish to commend the
Senator from Wyoming for bringing this amendment to our attention.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be added as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
I think it is a good amendment. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1381) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the safe
schools amendment, and I urge adoption of the underlying amendment
with, obviously, all of the amendments that have been added to it.
amendment no. 1378
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senator Dodd's
amendment to S. 1150, to improve safety and security in the Nation's
schools. I was an original cosponsor of this legislation when it was
introduced by my Connecticut colleague as the Safe Schools Act of 1993.
President Clinton supports this legislation, and I thank both the
President and Senator Dodd for their leadership on the bill.
The legislation addresses an urgent need. I hear repeatedly from
educators in my State that violence in schools threatens the health and
even the lives of their students and, needless to say, seriously
impedes their ability to educate our kids. Earlier this week, David
Manning, the principal of Conard High School in West Hartford, CT,
informed me that improving school safety has become the number one
priority for Connecticut's high school principals, and he urged me to
support this amendment. Educators should not have to play a central
role in the war on crime. But, the bottom line is, we will not achieve
the educational achievement goals set forth in this bill unless our
schools are safe.
This legislation will provide assistance to the most troubled school
districts. Participating schools will be awarded $3 million a year for
up to 2 years to implement crime reduction measures. Schools will have
flexibility to use the funds in ways that best meet their needs. So,
for example, schools could enhance law enforcement, they could take
measures to protect children as they go between home and school, and
they could invest in peer counseling and other preventive measures.
These and other innovative programs will help free our children and
teachers from violence and the fear of violence that impede learning
and threaten the well-being of our children and our communities.
The amendment will help move the Nation closer to one of our national
education goals. Goal Six states that, by the year 2000, every school
in America will be free of drugs and violence. We must achieve this
goal, and we must achieve it as soon as possible. This legislation is
an important step forward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the underlying amendment.
The amendment (No. 1378), as amended, 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Alaska is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
allowed to make a brief statement as if in morning business to pay
tribute to my colleague, the senior Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens],
who is celebrating his 25th anniversary in this body today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
____________________