[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 27, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1993

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           amendment no. 2417

  (Purpose: To create a demonstration program to provide students who 
attend violence-prone schools with scholarships to enable such students 
                        to attend safe schools)

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am, along with the distinguished Senator 
from Indiana, offering an amendment. We have revised the amendment and 
I am having copies made. But I thought maybe, in the interest of time, 
we could make our statements and then we will send the amendment to the 
desk.
  I would add that I have discussed this with the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and the Senator from Kansas, Senator 
Kassebaum.
  It may or may not be that we can vote this evening because one of our 
cosponsors, Senator Lieberman, is not available. But we will just have 
to see what happens.
  Mr. President, when I read the newspapers these days, it is hard for 
me to imagine the violence that many students experience in our 
Nation's schools. I guess you could go back to when we were in school. 
When I was in school, we had a bully or two. But we did not have armed 
thugs--ones that would make Kim Il-song cringe--roaming the halls.
  Let us not fool ourselves. Violence is not isolated to a few schools. 
In fact, it is nearing epidemic proportions. It happens in the inner 
cities, and unfortunately, it is happening in the Heartland and even in 
Kansas. I am saddened to say that we have had beatings and shootings in 
Wichita, Topeka, Kansas City, and even in some of our smaller towns 
like Junction City. These are not statistics. They are somebody's 
little girl or boy. And sometimes they are teachers and principals.
  Earlier this year, Congress helped schools tighten security by 
passing the Safe Schools Act. That measure was definitely a step in the 
right direction. It seems to me, however, that more metal detectors 
will not give parents and their children the peace of mind they are 
entitled to. Parents deserve more options. They should not be forced to 
send their children to crime ridden schools.
  Mr. President, since we passed the Safe Schools Act, I have found 
that many of my colleagues shared the same concerns. Over the course of 
the last several months, my office has worked closely with Senators 
Coats, Lieberman, Danforth, and Brown to find a way to give parents 
more alternatives. What we have come up with is Fight or Flight, a 
demonstration program that would help low-income parents send their 
children to safer elementary and secondary schools.
  Let me give you a summary of what the bill would do.
  Fight or Flight is a $30 million demonstration that will target as 
many as 20 crime prone schools. It will be authorized under Goals 2000. 
For those States which wish to participate, only students from schools 
that the Secretary of Education designates as crime-prone will be 
eligible for educational vouchers that can be spent at both private and 
public schools.
  Eligibility requirements.--Students will be eligible if they attend a 
violence-prone school and if they qualify for free or reduced priced 
meals under the National School Lunch Act.
  Use of scholarship funds.--Funds can be used for tuition and fees, 
reasonable transportation costs, and parents can use up to $500 to 
obtain supplementary academic services for their child. For students 
attending a private school, any remaining funds will be returned to the 
State to provide additional vouchers. Public schools, on the other 
hand, will be able to keep remaining funds.
  National evaluation.--This amendment would require the Secretary to 
compare the achievement of participating and nonparticipating students, 
and to assess the program's effects on increasing parental and 
community satisfaction and its ability to foster greater parental 
involvement.
  No loss of Federal funds to public schools.--Public schools which 
lose students as a direct result of the demonstration may count such 
children for purposes of receiving funds under any program administered 
by the U.S. Secretary of Education.
  Civil rights protection.--Participating schools may not discriminate 
on the basis of race. The amendment also stipulates that demonstration 
projects could not continue if they interfere with desegregation plans.
  Finally, Fight or Flight is limited to a 3-year demonstration 
program.
  Some say, ``What happens at the end of 3 years? This is going to be 
another one of those unfunded mandates.''
  So we have revised our amendment to make certain this is a 
demonstration project, period. It is not an effort to start something 
and then leave it up to the States or local communities, what we call 
an unfunded mandate.
  In short, this is a very simple amendment. If your son or daughter 
attends one of 20 violent schools, you can use fight or flight to send 
them to a safe school. I think that would make a lot of sense to a lot 
of parents in inner cities and, as I said, in middle-sized or smaller 
cities.
  I am certain that few of my colleagues will argue that fight or 
flight will kill off some inner-city schools. Personally, I am more 
concerned about the students, more concerned about their safety. You 
can replace buildings, but you cannot replace children. And that is 
what this amendment is all about.
  The bottom line is that students should have safe places to learn. If 
a school is crime-ridden, I see no reason why children should be forced 
to go there, especially if the only thing keeping them there is that 
their families cannot afford to send them to a better school.
  Many of us have struggled with the so-called issue of school choice. 
I for one believe it is a concept worth testing. I am not saying that 
either public or private schools are inherently better. The point is 
that all Americans, rich or poor, should be able to choose the best 
education for themselves and for their children. By introducing an 
element of competition, we can encourage schools to work harder to 
provide the best possible education. But that is not what this 
amendment is about. It is about helping parents protect their children 
from the violence that seems to run rampant in some of our Nation's 
schools.
  Mr. President, there are strongly held beliefs on both sides of the 
choice issue. I respect the beliefs of others, but I think this may be 
an exception and I think we made and can make a good case.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this amendment. This is an 
opportunity to give students a safer education. If they are not being 
terrorized on a daily or weekly or monthly basis, it may offer a great 
opportunity for more learning, and a lot of good things could come from 
this particular amendment.
  I want to particularly congratulate my colleague from Indiana, who 
has been the moving force on this amendment. I am very happy to join 
with him as a cosponsor.
  I now send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr. Coats, 
     and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 2417.

  Mr. DOLE. 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:
       On page 1296, after line 25, insert the following:
      ``TITLE XVII--FIGHT OR FLIGHT: PROTECTING AMERICAN STUDENTS

     ``SEC. 1701. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This title may be cited as the `Fight or Flight: 
     Protecting American Students Act of 1994'.

     ``SEC. 1702. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       ``(1) violence and crime have increased significantly in 
     our Nation's schools;
       ``(2) it is estimated that 3,000,000 violent acts or thefts 
     occur in or near schools, and that one in five high school 
     students carries a weapon;
       ``(3) the incidence of violence and criminal activity 
     within elementary and secondary schools threatens the school 
     environment and interferes with the learning process; and
       ``(4) students have a right to be safe and secure in their 
     persons while attending school.
       ``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this title--
       ``(1) to provide children from low-income families who 
     attend violence-prone schools with the option of attending 
     safer elementary and secondary schools;
       ``(2) to improve schools and academic programs by providing 
     certain low-income parents with increased consumer power and 
     dollars to choose safer schools and programs that such 
     parents determine best fit the needs of their children;
       ``(3) to engage more fully certain low-income parents in 
     their children's schooling;
       ``(4) through families, to provide at the school site new 
     dollars that teachers and principals may use to help certain 
     children achieve the high educational standards called for by 
     the National Education Goals; and
       ``(5) to demonstrate, through a competitive discretionary 
     demonstration grant program, the effects of programs that 
     provide certain low-income families with more of the same 
     choices regarding all schools, including public, private, or 
     religious schools, that wealthier families have.

     ``SEC. 1703. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this title--
       ``(1) the term `choice school' means any public or private 
     elementary or secondary school, including a private sectarian 
     school, that is not a violence-prone school;
       ``(2) the term `eligible child' means a child in grades 1 
     through 12 who--
       ``(A) is eligible for free or reduced price meals under the 
     National School Lunch Act; and
       ``(B) attended a violence-prone school prior to receiving 
     assistance under this title;
       ``(3) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
       ``(4) the term `violence-prone school' means a school 
     that--
       ``(A) serves an area in which there is a high rate of--
       ``(i) homicides committed by persons between the ages 5 to 
     18, inclusive;
       ``(ii) referrals of youth to juvenile court;
       ``(iii) youth under the supervision of the courts;
       ``(iv) expulsions and suspensions of students from school;
       ``(v) referrals of youth, for disciplinary reasons, to 
     alternative schools; or
       ``(vi) victimization of youth by violence, crime, or other 
     forms of abuse; and
       ``(B) has serious school crime, violence, and discipline 
     problems, as indicated by other appropriate data.

     ``SEC. 1704. FUNDING AND RESERVATION.

       ``(a) Funding.--From amounts appropriated to carry out the 
     Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the Secretary shall make 
     available $30,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1995 
     through 1997.
       ``(b) Reservation.--Of the sums made available pursuant to 
     subsection (a) for any fiscal year, the Secretary may reserve 
     not more than $1,500,000 over three years to carry out the 
     national evaluation described in section 1711.

     ``SEC. 1705. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``(a) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to make not 
     more than 20 grants nationally, on a competitive basis, to 
     States to enable such States to carry out educational choice 
     demonstration projects in accordance with this title.
       ``(b) Amount.--The Secretary shall award grants under this 
     title annually, and shall determine the amount of such grants 
     by taking into account the availability of appropriations, 
     the number and quality of applications, and other factors 
     related to the purposes of this title that the Secretary 
     determines are appropriate.
       ``(c) Supplement Not Supplant.--Grant funds awarded under 
     this title shall 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 to public elementary and 
     secondary schools for the activities assisted under this 
     title.

     ``SEC. 1706. SCHOLARSHIPS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Use of funds for scholarships.--Each State receiving 
     funds under this title shall use such funds to provide 
     scholarships to the parents of eligible children.
       ``(2) Number.--Each State shall determine the number of 
     scholarships to be awarded in such State.
       ``(3) Amount.--(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), each State 
     shall determine the amount of each scholarship in such State.
       ``(B) The amount of a scholarship under this title in a 
     State shall be the same for every site in such State.
       ``(b) Special Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the amount of scholarship assistance received under this 
     title shall not be deemed to be income of the parents or 
     child for Federal income tax purposes or for purposes of 
     determining eligibility for any other Federal assistance.
       ``(c) Continuation.--Subject to the limitation paragraph 
     ``d'' each State receiving funds under this title may provide 
     a scholarship in each year of the State's program to the 
     parents of each eligible child to whom the State provided a 
     scholarship in the previous year of the program, unless--
       ``(1) the eligible child no longer resides within the area 
     served by a violence-prone school; or
       ``(2) the eligible child no longer attends an elementary or 
     secondary school.
       ``(d) Special Rule.--If the amount of the grant made to a 
     State under this title is not sufficient to provide all of 
     the scholarships to the parents of each eligible child who is 
     served by the State, then the State shall only be required to 
     provide scholarships to parents of the eligible children who 
     are from the lowest income families to the extent that they 
     are funded.

     ``SEC. 1707. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each State that desires a grant under 
     this title shall submit an application to the Secretary at 
     such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe.
       ``(b) Contents.--Each application described in paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       ``(1) information demonstrating that the State will comply 
     with the other requirements of this title;
       (1)(a) ``a definition of violence prone school using the 
     parameters set forth in section 1703.
       ``(2) a description of the procedures to be used to provide 
     scholarships to parents and to enable parents to redeem those 
     scholarships, such as the issuance of checks payable both to 
     parents and to schools; and
       ``(3) a description of--
       ``(A) the procedures by which a choice school will make a 
     pro rata refund to the State for any participating eligible 
     child who, before completing 50 percent of the choice school 
     attendance period for which the scholarship was issued--
       ``(i) is released or expelled from the choice school; or
       ``(ii) withdraws from the choice school for any reason; or
       ``(B) another refund policy that addresses special 
     circumstances the State can reasonably anticipate and that 
     the State demonstrates, to the Secretary's satisfaction, 
     adequately protects participating eligible children, in 
     accordance with the purposes of this title,

     except that no such refund procedure or policy shall require 
     a choice school to refund any portion of funds received under 
     this title due to a permanent change of residence of a parent 
     of an eligible child for whom scholarship assistance under 
     this title was awarded.
       ``(c) Updating.--Each such application shall be updated 
     annually in such manner as the Secretary may determine 
     necessary to reflect revised conditions.

     ``SEC. 1708. USE OF SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS.

       ``The Federal portion of any scholarship awarded to the 
     parents of an eligible child under this title shall be used 
     in the following sequence:
       ``(1) First.--First, for--
       ``(A) the payment of tuition and fees at a choice school 
     that is selected by the parents of the child for whom the 
     scholarship was provided; and
       ``(B) the reasonable costs of the eligible child's 
     transportation to the choice school, if--
       ``(i) the choice school is not the school to which the 
     eligible child would be assigned in the absence of a program 
     assisted under this title; and
       ``(ii) the parents of an eligible child choose to use the 
     scholarship funds for such transportation.
       ``(2) Second.--Second, if the parents so choose, to obtain 
     supplementary academic services for the eligible child, at a 
     cost of not more than $500, from any provider chosen by the 
     parents that the State, in accordance with regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary, determines is capable of 
     providing such services and has an appropriate refund policy.
       ``(3) Third.--Third--
       ``(A) if the child attends a public choice school, any 
     remaining funds shall be made available to such school to 
     enable such school to conduct educational programs that help 
     students at such school achieve high levels of academic 
     excellence; or
       ``(B) if the child attends a private choice school, any 
     remaining funds shall be made available to the State to 
     enable the State to award additional scholarships under this 
     title in that year or the succeeding year of the State's 
     program.

     ``SEC. 1709. REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Effect on Other Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Eligible children participating in a 
     demonstration project under this title, who, in the absence 
     of such project, would have received services under part A of 
     title I of this Act shall be provided such services.
       ``(2) Part b of the individuals with disabilities education 
     act.--Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect the 
     applicability or requirements of part B of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act.
       ``(b) Counting of Children.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for purposes of receiving funds under any 
     program administered by the Secretary, any school 
     participating in a demonstration project under this title may 
     count eligible children who, in the absence of such project, 
     would attend such school.
       ``(c) Information.--Notwithstanding section 9 of the 
     National School Lunch Act, a State receiving a grant under 
     this title may use information collected for the purpose of 
     determining eligibility for free or reduced price meals to 
     determine a child's eligibility to participate in a 
     demonstration project under this title. All such information 
     shall otherwise remain confidential, and information 
     pertaining to income may be disclosed only to persons who 
     need that information for the purposes of a demonstration 
     project under this title.
       ``(d) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Assistance to families not institutions.--
     Scholarships under this title shall be considered to be aid 
     to families, not institutions. A parent's expenditure of 
     scholarship funds at a choice school or for supplementary 
     academic services under this title shall not be construed to 
     be Federal financial aid or assistance to that school or to 
     the provider of those supplementary academic services.
       ``(2) Antidiscrimination provisions.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the provisions of 
     paragraph (1), in order to receive scholarship funds under 
     this title a choice school or provider of academic services 
     under this title shall comply with the antidiscrimination 
     provisions of section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000d), section 901 of the Education Amendments of 
     1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
     Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).
       ``(B) Implementing regulations required.--The Secretary 
     shall promulgate regulations to implement the provisions of 
     this paragraph, taking into account the purposes of this 
     title and the nature, variety, and missions of choice schools 
     and providers that may participate in providing services to 
     children under this title.
       ``(e) Consideration of Federal Funds Prohibited.--No 
     Federal, State, or local agency may, in any fiscal year, take 
     into account Federal funds provided to a State or to the 
     parents of any child under this title in determining whether 
     to provide any other funds from Federal, State, or local 
     resources, or in determining the amount of such assistance, 
     to such State or to the choice school attended by such child.
       ``(f) State Law.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     to supersede or modify any provision of a State constitution 
     or State law that prohibits the expenditure of public funds 
     in or by religious or other private institutions, except that 
     no provision of a State constitution or State law shall be 
     construed or applied to prohibit any State from paying the 
     administrative costs of a program under this title or 
     providing any Federal funds received under this title to 
     parents for use at a religious or other private institution.
       ``(g) Secretary.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     to authorize the Secretary to exercise any direction, 
     supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of 
     instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational 
     institution or school participating in a program assisted 
     under this title.
       ``(h) Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to interfere with any desegregation plans that 
     involve school attendance areas affected by this title.

     ``SEC. 1710. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION.

       ``Each State receiving a grant under this title shall 
     provide timely notice of the demonstration project to parents 
     of eligible children residing in the area to be served. At a 
     minimum, such notice shall--
       ``(1) describe the demonstration project;
       ``(2) describe the eligibility requirements for 
     participation;
       ``(3) describe the information needed to establish a 
     child's eligibility for participation in the demonstration 
     project;
       ``(4) describe the selection procedures to be used if the 
     number of eligible children seeking to participate exceeds 
     the number that can be accommodated;
       ``(5) provide a list of violence-prone schools located in 
     the State; and
       ``(6) include the schedule for parents to apply for their 
     children to participate.

     ``SEC. 1711. EVALUATION.

       ``From funds reserved under section ____02(b), the 
     Secretary shall conduct a national evaluation of the 
     activities assisted under this title. Such evaluation shall, 
     at a minimum--
       ``(1) assess the implementation of projects assisted under 
     this title and such projects' effect on the participants, 
     schools, and communities served under this title, including 
     the degree of parental involvement in, and satisfaction with, 
     the project and their children's education; and
       ``(2)(A) evaluate the educational achievement of eligible 
     children who participate in the projects assisted under this 
     title, during the periods--
       ``(i) before the provision of scholarship assistance under 
     this title;
       ``(ii) during such provision; and
       ``(iii) after such provision; and
       ``(B) compare such achievement with such achievement, 
     during comparable periods, of similar children who do not so 
     participate.

     ``SEC. 1712. REPORTS.

       ``(a) Report by Grant Recipient.--Each State receiving a 
     grant under this title shall submit an annual report to the 
     Secretary, at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(b) Report by Secretary.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall report annually to 
     the President and the President shall report annually to the 
     Congress on the progress of the demonstration projects 
     assisted under this title, including information submitted by 
     each State receiving a grant under this title and from other 
     sources.
       ``(2) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit a report to 
     the President and the President shall submit a report to the 
     Congress on the national evaluation described in section 1711 
     within 9 months after the conclusion of the demonstration 
     projects assisted under this title.

     ``SEC. 1713. ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations to enforce the provisions of this title.
       ``(b) Private Cause of Action Prohibited.--No provision or 
     requirement of this title shall be enforced through a private 
     cause of action.''.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I want to join the minority leader in 
offering this amendment. We have been debating over the last several 
years the concept of school choice. I am particularly pleased to be 
able to merge the amendment that was originally, I believe, offered by 
Senator Hatch, which I have offered several times in the last 2 or 3 
years, to merge this with an idea that the minority leader has come up 
with that I think has a lot of validity. Because it takes a concept 
that has been advocated and that I think has a great deal of merit and 
marries it with a particular problem that exists in many of our inner-
city schools. It is that concern that parents have about the safety of 
their children, along with their concerns that their children receive a 
good education, that has been brought together in this particular 
amendment that the minority leader has just sent to the desk.
  Let me detail some of the reasons why I believe this particular 
amendment is needed.
  The memory of rushing her son off to school on February 22, 1993, 
still haunts Margaret Ensley.
  ``He was so slow, he just moved so slowly,'' she recalled. ``I kept 
after him: `hurry up, you'll miss the school bus.' * * * I hurried him 
to his death.''
  That morning, Michael Ensley was shot dead by a 15-year-old classmate 
during a snack break at Reseda High School.
  Michael Ensley's story, unfortunately, is not an isolated case. Many 
of our schools are becoming increasingly violent places.
  In 1992, 9 percent of 8th graders, 10 percent of 10th graders, and 6 
percent of 12th graders reported that they had brought a weapon to 
school at least once during the previous month. Not once in their 
school career, but once during the previous month.
  Nearly 3 million crimes occur on or near schools every year; 16,000 
take place each day, or one every 6 seconds.
  Nationwide, between 1986 and June 1990, at least 75 people were 
killed with guns at school, over 200 were severely wounded by guns, and 
at least 242 were held hostage at school by gun-wielding assailants.
  The violence is so widespread that children today are afraid to go to 
school. ``I'm scared. I'm still scared,'' said Glenn Browne, Jr., who 
lost a kidney after being shot by an 18-year-old gang member at Dorsey 
High School in Los Angeles. ``I'm scared that they will come back and 
get me.'' As President Clinton has pointed out, Glenn Browne is not the 
only child to go to school. I quote the President:

       A hundred and sixty thousand kids stay home everyday from 
     school, because they're worried if they're going to be safe 
     at school. Are they learning anything? Are they going to be 
     competitive workers?

  The answer is no. No child can live, let alone learn, in such an 
environment. No child should be forced to attend a crime-ridden, drug-
infested school.
  But, unfortunately that is too often the case. Children are forced to 
attend unsafe schools simply so that school buildings can remain open. 
That is why the Senate passed the Safe Schools Act, offered by our 
colleague Senator Dodd, from Connecticut, to provide assistance to 
schools to help them fight violence. And I supported that bill and I 
think it is a step in the right direction. But it clearly has not 
solved the problem or will not solve the problem.
  Installing metal detectors and hiring security guards is not enough. 
Just ask 14-year-old Michelle McKie. Michelle was shot in the head just 
400 feet from her metal-detector-equipped school. Michelle was one of 
the lucky ones because she lived. Children like Michelle and George and 
Michael should not have to fear going to school, but parents with 
limited means do not have the luxury wealthier parents have, the 
ability to afford to live in safer neighborhoods or send their children 
to safer schools.
  It is easy--at least available--for affluent families in America to 
make a choice as to where they send their children to school. If they 
are unhappy with the local school, or unhappy with the public education 
system or the school which their children are going to, private or 
public, they can place their children in another school--in a parochial 
school or private school, giving their children what they believe are 
opportunities for a better education. That is true for those with 
means. That is not true for children from low-income families. In many 
of our inner cities and in many of our rural areas they simply do not 
have the choice or the financial wherewithal to make any decision other 
than sending their child to the public school.
  Public school systems as we know have tried all kinds of different 
innovations. They have reduced the size of classes, they have increased 
the length of the school year, they have raised teachers' salaries, 
they have lowered expectations, they have painted buildings, installed 
metal detectors, encouraged ethnicity, focused on self esteem. The 
bottom line is that most of these changes have not truly made a 
difference in educating children. They have not significantly altered 
the quality of education provided to these students. And they obviously 
have not improved results as measured by SAT scores or other tests--we 
have actually seen a reduction in these scores.
  So the truth is, for low-income American families there is no choice 
about where they send their children to school for educational 
purposes. There is no competition within the system to force or to 
bring about innovative changes to make those schools better. And most 
important in terms of this amendment, there is no choice on the part of 
low-income parents to remove their child from an unhealthy, unsafe 
situation with the option of placing them in a safer school so they 
have the opportunity to learn.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield? I understand Senator Lieberman 
is returning momentarily, prepared to speak on this. Just to try to 
give our colleagues an idea--I plan to stay here. If it is agreeable, 
we would be glad to enter into a time limitation, just in terms of the 
notification of the Members.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will be happy to do that. As a Senator 
who has pressed long and hard for some scheduling sensibility, in terms 
of what we are going to do and when we are going to vote, particularly 
in the evening, I am more than happy to enter into a time agreement. I 
have, obviously, not had a chance to check with Senator Lieberman or 
others. I would think before I am finished with my statement we can 
quickly run a check and find out how many other Members want to speak 
and how long they want to speak. It is perfectly acceptable to this 
Senator to work out a time agreement and set a vote if that is what is 
necessary.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We will try to pursue that. From our side, I know 
Senator Dodd wanted to speak, but I do not think we would, on our side, 
take more than probably 20 minutes or so. We will see what the desire 
is.
  Mr. COATS. I would state to the Senator I think that is probably 
going to be roughly what we would need.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just to give Senators information, in that time we will 
try to indicate to the membership, at that vote, in consultation with 
the leader, what the rest of the evening will look like.
  Mr. COATS. The Senator does anticipate a vote, then, following the 
debate?
  Mr. KENNEDY. On this matter this evening, yes.
  Mr. COATS. To continue, we have had a number of discussions about the 
concept of choice on the Senate floor. In fact, I offered an amendment 
in February and received 41 votes. That amendment was offered to 
provide demonstration programs for the choice concept--a $30 million 
authorized amount--that could be used in schools, 6 different schools, 
to test the concept of choice with a report back by the Secretary of 
Education to the Congress after a 2-year period of time so we could 
determine whether or not this concept was valid, in terms of improving 
educational opportunities.
  During that debate, however, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator 
Byrd, came down and began discussing the amendment in terms of the 
crime and violence situation that exists in many of our schools. It was 
really that Senator's lengthy and important discussion of that aspect 
of the choice amendment that prompted Senator Dole and I, and others, 
along with Senator Lieberman, to adjust our amendment to primarily 
focus it on schools in low-income areas and high crime areas. What we 
are attempting to do is provide opportunities to parents of children 
who have no options, either relative to improving their educational 
opportunities given the local school that becomes their only choice, or 
in terms of increasing or improving their safety--which obviously has 
an effect on learning.
  So the essence of this amendment is to direct the demonstration 
project--I want to stress this is not a mandate. This is purely a 
voluntary effort to stretch that opportunity relative to crime infested 
and violent areas and give parents a choice in that regard.
  I do not know whether or not choice is the answer to all the problems 
with our educational system. I do know that what we have tried to date 
has not succeeded. Therefore, this idea, which I think is an innovative 
idea--and I think there are some examples of how it has worked around 
the country that we ought to look at--but I think it is an innovative 
enough idea with enough promise that we at least ought to try it.
  So all we are doing with this amendment is simply saying try it. If 
the proponents of choice are correct, we will have some evidence to 
suggest that perhaps this is something we want to expand. If the 
opponents of school choice are correct in their assertions that it will 
not work, we will have evidence of that before the Senate. So, our 
message is, ``Try it, you might like it.'' If you are right and it does 
not work, then you will know. But why not at least give it a try?
  So the amendment we are offering today is very simple. It says let us 
set aside a small amount of education dollars to allow low-income 
children to escape from violent schools. Our amendment would go 
specifically for the purpose of providing assistance to children from 
the lowest income homes who are trapped in violence-prone schools. The 
children who would be eligible under this program would be children who 
qualify for reduced school lunch prices or full subsidy on school lunch 
and income-based measurement.
  A violence-prone school is defined using the same criteria used in 
the Safe Schools Act which was passed by the Senate. Senator Dodd in 
that legislation outlined criteria which were used then, or will be 
used under this amendment, to define what a violence-prone school is. 
So that legislation is already in place. That has been adopted by the 
Senate.
  The funds that would be made available under this amendment could be 
used to opt into and to pay for education costs at alternative schools. 
It would be the parents' choice as to which school they could send 
their children.
  There is no limitation. There is no restriction, yet there is no 
proscription of what school needs to be chosen.
  Mr. President, it is also important for Members to know that we have 
incorporated a very strict civil rights and desegregation protection 
clause to make sure that participating schools can, in no way, 
discriminate on the basis of race.
  We also stipulate that demonstration projects cannot continue if they 
interfere with these segregation plans. So Members should be aware that 
nothing in this demonstration choice project can be used to thwart any 
desegregation plan or violate any civil rights of any student. No 
decisions, in terms of participation, can be made on the basis of race.
  The total cost of the demonstration project would be a $30 million 
annual amount, and there would be no more than 20 schools that could 
participate. Schools would voluntarily apply for grants through the 
Secretary of Education.
  It is also important to note, Mr. President, that we have 
specifically protected public schools from the loss of income that they 
might receive under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act because 
we do not want schools to be in a position where they will be penalized 
for losing students who have opted out because of the choice program 
that is available to parents and students within that particular area.
  My home State of Indiana has several existing choice initiatives 
underway. One program originated by an individual in our State pays 
half the tuition for children from low-income families to attend 
private schools. The program serves already 1,100 students and has a 
waiting list of 650. Our public schools are also experimenting with 
choice. Indianapolis public schools, for example, have initiated the 
Select Schools Program. More than 80 percent of parents participated 
this year.
  I really do not understand why anyone would want to oppose this 
particular amendment. It is not a mandate, it is purely voluntary. It 
provides a basis for which we in Congress can evaluate the validity of 
this particular concept. As I said, if it turns out that it 
substantially improves opportunity for low-income children, then why 
would we not want to provide that data to school districts and 
education agencies across the country? Why would we not want to have 
that set of information available so we can make intelligent choices? 
After all, our bottom line is not preserving any particular system. Our 
bottom line ought to be how do we provide the best education 
opportunities we can to American children?
  In this particular area, we have denied that opportunity to children 
from low-income homes simply because they do not have the opportunity 
of choice as other students do from homes of increased means.
  It is important to understand what the amendment does not do. It does 
not force choice on anyone. It is purely voluntary. It will not upset 
the American public education system. We are doing this simply on a 
voluntary basis. It will not drain resources away from any public 
school or education system. We have a specific protection against that. 
The Secretary cannot provide any reduction in funds or deny any funds 
that a public school would otherwise be eligible for, even though 
students in that school opted out or numbers decreased. It cannot 
adversely affect the amount of funds available at this time.
  Choice in education does not destroy public education. In fact, I 
would argue that it enhances public education. My hometown of Fort 
Wayne, IN, has had for decades an education system that has thrived on 
competition. We have a vigorous, effective Catholic parochial school 
system in Fort Wayne. We have a vigorous, effective Lutheran school 
system because of our heavy concentration of Lutheran belief. They have 
established their own system of schools. Those two systems exist 
alongside, I would say, with other private education opportunities, 
side by side with the public schools of Fort Wayne, IN, and all are 
successful.
  They are successful because the parents and the students of Fort 
Wayne, IN, have a choice. The competition between those three systems 
has caused each system to better their education program, to compete 
with each other for the students and they work hand in hand. Parents in 
Fort Wayne have opportunities which parents in many States do not have.
  Why do we not give this option to other schools, to other areas and, 
particularly, why do we not make it available to students of low-income 
parents in violence-prone areas?
  I think there are many rational reasons to vote for this amendment. 
But I am going to close and give you 10 reasons to vote for this 
amendment. Reason No. 1, Michael Ensley; reason No. 2, Jose Luis Lopez; 
reason No. 3, Michelle McKie; reason No. 4, Cecilia Rios; reason No. 5, 
Demetrius Rice; reason No. 6, Glenn Brown, Jr.; reason No. 7, Gabriel 
Gettleson; reason No. 8, Jerome Cook; reason No. 9, Robert Tran; and 
reason No. 10, Jarrell Tompkins--all students, tragic stories of 
students injured or killed, subjected to violence because they had no 
choice as to where they could go to school.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 examples be 
printed in the Record. I will not take my colleagues' time in reading 
these tragic cases.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Violence In Schools

       ``A hundred and sixty thousand kids stay home every day 
     from school, because they're worried if they're going to be 
     safe at school. Are they learning anything? Are they going to 
     be competitive workers? If you have the school drop-out rate, 
     the poverty rate among kids, the level of crime and violence, 
     if we spend money putting people in jail that we should be 
     spending educating people on new technologies. All of these 
     things drag our capacity down.''--President Bill Clinton 
     (from CNN, Larry King Live), April 20, 1994.
       No one should need a reason to support the Coats-Dole 
     amendment. But just in cased anyone does, here are ten:
       1. Michael Ensley.
       2. Jose Luis Lopez.
       3. Michelle McKie.
       4. Cecilia Rios.
       5. Demetrius Rice.
       6. Glenn Browne Jr.
       7. Gabriel Gettleson.
       8 Jerome Cook.
       9. Robert Tran.
       10. Jarrell Tompkins.


                              TRAGEDY ONE

       The memory of rushing her son off to school on Feb. 22, 
     1993 still haunts Margaret Ensley. ``He was so slow, he just 
     moved so slowly,'' she recalled. ``I kept after him: `Hurry 
     up, you'll miss the school bus.' . . . I hurried him to his 
     death.'' That morning, Michael Ensley was shot dead by a 15 
     year old classmate during a snack break at Reseda High School 
     in Los Angeles, CA. (Los Angeles Times, February 20, 1994)


                              tragedy two

       Miquel Camarena, 19, faces life in prison without the 
     possibility of parole for the murder of Jose Luis Lopez, a 
     17-year-old varsity soccer player who was shot in the head as 
     he drove to school in Santa Ana, CA. Two days before the 
     shooting, Camarena had lost a fistfight with the victim's 
     brother. (Los Angeles Times, June 11, 1994)


                             tragedy three

       A sixteen year old teenager who told police he was ``field-
     testing'' a friend's handgun shot a Queens, NY high school 
     student in the head outside her school, causing her to lose 
     sight in her right eye. Michelle McKie, 14, a sophomore at 
     Springfield Gardens High School, was about 400 feet from the 
     building--which is equipped with metal detectors--when she 
     was struck in the right temple. (Newsday, May 25, 1994)


                              tragedy four

       In San Pablo, CA in March 1994, the body of Richmond High 
     School student Cecilia Rios, 15, was discovered in a 
     stairwell at Edward M. Downer Elementary School. She had been 
     raped and brutally murdered, police said, by a 17-year-old 
     acquaintance whose motive was robbery. (San Francisco 
     Examiner, April 25, 1994)


                              tragedy five

       In January 1993, Demetrius Rice, a 16-year-old student at 
     Fairfax High School in Los Angeles, CA was shot to death by a 
     classmate who accidentally fired a .357 magnum during an 
     English class. (Los Angeles Times, February 20, 1994)


                              tragedy six

       Glenn Browne Jr. was shot by an 18-year-old gang member at 
     Dorsey High School in Los Angeles, CA while he was waiting in 
     a registration line on the first day of school. Glenn lost a 
     kidney and will never again participate in sports. ``I'm 
     Scared--I'm still scared,'' said Glenn Jr. ``I'm scared that 
     they will come back and get me. I think about my body (and) 
     how messed up I am. I can't play football or any sports at 
     all. I can't really do nothing.'' The gang member who shot 
     Glenn was looking for someone else. (Los Angeles Times, 
     February 20, 1994)


                             tragedy seven

       17-year-old Gabriel Gettleson was shot and critically 
     injured at Chatsworth High School in Los Angeles, CA when he 
     refused to give his backpack to two boys. Gettleson was 
     waiting for his mother to pick him up and take him to his 
     job. (Los Angeles Times, February 20, 1994)


                             tragedy eight

       In March, Jerome Cook, 17, was shot four times at close 
     range by Cornell Cheeks, 17, in a crowded stairwell at 
     Eastern High School right here in Washington, DC. (Washington 
     Times, March 10, 1994)


                              tragedy nine

       In San Francisco, CA in February 1994, Wallenberg High 
     School student Robert Tran, 17, was shot to death by a 
     teenager with a .38 caliber revolver, three blocks from the 
     Inner Richmond District campus. Tran's offense: intervening 
     in a fight at a bus stop. (San Francisco Examiner, April 25, 
     1994)


                              tragedy ten

       Jarrell Tompkins, 15 years old, has been wondering how to 
     protect himself at Intermediate School 52 in Melrose in the 
     Bronx ever since a classmate grabbed him and pressed a razor 
     to his throat in a hallway robbery. (New York Times, December 
     12, 1993)

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, these are reasons why the Dole amendment is 
necessary. Let us give it a try. Let us see if it works. If it does 
not, then the opponents can say we tried it and it does not work, let 
us move on to something else. If it does, maybe we can make some 
opportunities to young people. I think that should be our goal.
  I will be happy to either yield the floor or submit for a question.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this certainly is intriguing the way the 
Senator describes it. My question is, when we put in place a 
demonstration program, we have in mind that it is going to lead to some 
sort of goal that will solve the problem. In this case, the problem the 
Senator from Indiana is pointing out is violence in the schools.
  I am a little confused as to how removing kids from the violent area 
and placing them in another area is going to help solve the underlying 
problem of violence in the schools. I expect that it may show that the 
children who leave the schools do better, but I do not believe that it 
addresses the central issue of making these schools safer places for 
our children to attend. How will this program solve the problem we have 
here which is the violent schools themselves? What will this 
demonstration program accomplish other than moving everybody out of the 
school?
  Mr. COATS. There are two problems we are dealing with. One is how do 
we improve educational opportunities and the quality of education for 
young people. That was the original intent of the choice amendment that 
I offered in February.
  It will demonstrate, as if we need the demonstration, we can 
demonstrate and we can allow the Secretary of Education to test the 
concept and report back to us as to whether or not the educational 
advantages and opportunities that many parents think their children 
will have if they have a choice of schools, whether or not that is a 
valid concept.
  But it will also give parents who select into the choice program 
because they happen to live in violence-prone areas an opportunity to 
provide a safer learning environment for their young people. It does 
not solve the problem of crime in schools. The Safe Schools Act which 
we passed is more directly related to solving this specific problem, 
and we have to solve that problem.
  But in the meantime, why do we not at least allow, on a test basis--
we would like to do it on a greatly expanded basis, but we cannot get 
the votes for that--why do we not at least allow on a test basis a 
concept that we can report back to the Congress and see what difference 
it might have made.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Just to follow up, it seems to me that the Senator from 
Indiana already thinks he knows what the outcome of this test will be 
and that he just wants to develop a school choice program. Certainly, 
if it does not work with schools in violent areas, choice is not going 
to work anywhere.
  However, I still do not understand how this program will solve the 
school violence problem for those unfortunate kids who have to remain 
in the school. The Senator gave a list of kids' names. Next year there 
will be different kids. There will always be kids attending violent 
schools if we do not solve the basic problem. Not all of the children 
will go to private schools. I am a little confused as to what we are 
going to learn from this demonstration project, other than what we 
might expect, and that is kids in safe schools will do better than kids 
in violent schools.
  Mr. COATS. As I said, we are attempting to reach two goals. One of 
those goals is directed to give the parents the opportunity to protect 
their children. One of those goals is to be able to tell the parents of 
these students whose names I have read, Michael Ensley's mother and 
Jose Luis Lopez' mother and father, and Michelle McKie's mother and 
father, that they do have a choice; that they will not be strictly 
limited by their income; that they will have an opportunity to send 
their young people--remove their child from a school that they know is 
not only not contributing to their learning but is so violence-prone 
that their very health and safety is in jeopardy.
  Now, it may send a signal to some of those inner-city schools that 
unless they can find a way to provide a safer environment, that school 
ought to close. But I think the safety of the students ought to be our 
primary concern, not whether or not the building remains in a 
particular location. As Senator Dole said, maybe some inner-city 
schools will have to close because we will not be able to solve the 
problem, we will not be able to come up with enough metal detectors or 
security guards to provide parents the assurance that their children 
will be safe. And if that is the case, rather than perpetuate a system 
that, number one, is not educating those children, but, number two, 
cannot keep them safe, why not at least look at alternative ways to 
provide education to our young people. It may mean moving the whole 
school to another location, if that is necessary to provide a learning 
environment and safety for the students.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. One more question, if I may. As the Senator knows, 
there are numerous sources of funding that the Senator could have 
tapped into for funds to support this demonstration. In this bill, for 
example, there are a large number of demonstration projects. In 
addition, this type of demonstration program seems particularly 
relevant to the Safe Schools Act. Why did the Senator choose to take 
funds from the Goals 2000 program, funds that are designated as 
planning money for States, not for demonstration programs?
  Mr. COATS. My understanding is that because the Goals 2000 funds 
became available last month, just last month, only one State, Hawaii, 
was ready to apply for those funds, so those funds are sitting there 
unused at this particular time. We thought this was an appropriate way 
to use the funds.
  As the Senator knows, we are all searching for scarce resources, and 
if it is not one it is another. But I just think that out of the very 
substantial--how much is this bill?
  Apparently the section that we are dealing with is a $400 million-
some section, and we are allocating $30 million out of this section for 
this particular purpose. We think it is a worthy demonstration project 
and would make good use of those funds.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Is my memory correct that the Senator voted against the 
Goals 2000 bill?
  Mr. COATS. It is. But not for that reason. I voted against it because 
the opportunity-to-learn standards I thought imposed Federal mandates 
and Federal restrictions on States and decisions that I thought ought 
to be made at the State and local level now had the potential of being 
usurped at the Federal level.
  But that was a different reason for voting against that bill than 
what we are talking about here. Just because I voted against the bill 
does not mean that I am not willing to tap some of the funds for what I 
think is a better purpose.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I think that is rather obvious. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are waiting for Senator Lieberman, who 
is a cosponsor with me and Senator Dole on this amendment.
  I would note that it is a bipartisan effort, Republicans and 
Democrats concerned about the serious problem we have in many of our 
public schools, particularly our inner-city schools, joining together 
to try to fashion an idea and a solution--at least test the concept. I 
think it is a modest effort, hopefully one that would be proven to be 
successful so that we could expand it in the future. I do not see what 
Members have to fear about testing something. That is what this is 
designed to do. It is a demonstration project allocating $30 million.
  I will yield the floor at this particular time. My colleague, Senator 
Lieberman, has just arrived and Senator Kennedy perhaps wants to 
respond. So, Mr. President, I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have talked with the majority and the 
minority leaders and the floor managers, and they are prepared to have 
a vote on this up and down at 8:15, with no other amendments to be in 
order prior to the disposition of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it so ordered. The vote will occur at 8:15.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have now 20 minutes, so why not have 
the Senator from Connecticut, if he would, take 5 or 6 minutes, and 
then I think Senator Dodd and I would share the remaining time, if that 
is agreeable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] 
is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Coats and Dole in a 
bipartisan effort to give school choice a chance to prove itself as one 
solution to the problem of educating poor children in America.
  We all know the tragic record of public education in some of 
America's poorest neighborhoods. Children have to worry more about 
getting shot than learning. And more and more people are becoming 
convinced that the answer is just not more money. If the bureaucracy of 
education in poor cities and towns is broken, additional money may be 
wasted--not invested in our children.
  That is why many of us are looking for new answers to this education 
crisis. We want big change because we recognize how damaging the status 
quo is to America's children in particular, and American society in 
general. Who can deny that the lack of a good education is directly 
related to the problem we are focused on like crime, welfare, 
dependency, unwed mother-and-fatherhood, unemployment?
  In both Goals 2000 and in Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 we 
have made a concerted effort to build a new framework for educational 
change, innovation and effectiveness at the local level. The charter 
schools program, a concept developed and implemented at the State and 
local levels and which provides for new and innovative public schools 
is an example of that new framework for choice now supported by these 
two bills. It is in this spirit of innovation, of building a framework 
for choice and a realization that localities have the best insight to 
implement change that works, that this amendment is offered.
  The amendment simply establishes a program of demonstration projects 
for school vouchers which would empower the parents of poor children, 
especially those exposed to violence in their schools, to choose a 
private, parochial or public school instead of being given no choice at 
all. It will give poor children the same educational options middle 
class children now have. Faced with the loss of children, the program 
could motivate public schools to be more competitive, to react much 
more forcefully in tackling their problems. The legislation tries to 
replace a bureaucratic framework with a competitive framework to drive 
improvements. Our proposal is modest, inexpensive and potentially 
revolutionary in its impact if it succeeds and adds another degree of 
freedom of choice for our communities.
  School vouchers represent fairness. People who are poor have 
relatively few choices in life. But one important part of their life 
that I believe they deserve a choice is when it comes to the education 
of their children.
  Given the choices, I believe many poor parents will choose to send 
their children to better public schools or to private * * * and 
particularly to private parochial schools. There is evidence that 
parochial schools are a great alternative to public schools for some 
students. For example, a Rand Corp. study evaluated the performance of 
a comparable group of black and hispanic children at Catholic parochial 
schools and public schools. The study showed that the gap in 
performance between minority children and all other children dropped 
significantly in the parochial school system.
  The Rand study also found that these parochial schools performed 
better because they had a rigorous academic curriculum, were 
independent of the stifling effects of too much bureaucracy, and they 
could provide students with more attention. I personally believe the 
success of parochial schools also has something to do with a special 
sense of mission, purpose and values.
  Some people are concerned that extending vouchers to low income 
students will harm, or even destroy, public education. That is 
nonsense. What we are trying to do is recognize that some of the 
schools in the most economically depressed parts of our country are 
failing our children. This is not another program which will result in 
moving the advantaged student out of the public school system. This is 
however all about whether schools which have been successful at 
educating those who can afford choice can also be successful at 
educating those who we now provide the opportunity of choice. It is a 
program in which families can provide their children with an 
opportunity of a quality education instead of waiting for future 
solutions provided in this fine bill to take effect but which in all 
likelihood will be too late for their own children.
  We need to, first give students a choice so they can make a better 
life for themselves. Second, we must create competition for the 
established bureaucracy and the failing schools that can result in the 
kinds of changes that money can't buy * * * changes in the quality of 
what is taught, and the environment in which it is taught. This 
demonstration program will help all schools, including public schools, 
learn new ways to meet the needs of some of our most disadvantaged 
students.
  So today I join with Senators Coats and Dole in saying give choice a 
chance. If it works, we can expand it to the benefit of millions of 
young people throughout our country. If we do not try, we will never 
know how much it could have helped. We will only know that the current 
system until it is drastically changed, will go on, failing too many of 
our kids, especially those who need the most help.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I am glad to join with my colleagues 
from Indiana and Kansas in supporting this amendment which again puts 
before the Members of the Senate the choice of whether we are going to 
allow choice for parents of children in our school systems to send 
their kids to a range of alternatives to educate them. And really more 
specifically this is a question of whether we are going to give 
children in poor families the same opportunity that children in 
wealthier families have to go to the school of their choice if they are 
not satisfied with the public school in their area for various reasons, 
either the quality of education or, as this amendment points out, the 
quality of safety and security.
  Mr. President, in so many ways we come back on this floor to matters 
that deal with the public's concern about values and the erosion of 
values in our society. And the concern of so many parents I talk to in 
Connecticut about how they can raise their children in this society in 
the way that they want to raise them. So many parents have said to me 
that they feel in conflict with other forces in society--entertainment, 
peer pressure--and so the values they want to give their kids are 
harder to carry forth.
  The public schools in the United States have been really given too 
many burdens, asked to answer and respond to so many social crises that 
I express in the first instance my admiration for so many of the 
administrators and teachers who are doing such extraordinarily good 
work in our public school system, but the fact is that the public 
school system as we know it, of which I am proud to say I am a product 
and supporter, the public school system, unfortunately, is failing many 
of our children, failing to educate them, prepare them, give them not 
only the skills but in some measure the values that we want them to 
have to be successful, self-sufficient, and in the broadest sense be 
good citizens.
  The idea of school choice I think proceeds from these principles, and 
it is to give parents a choice of where they can send their kids. To do 
so, to recognize and honor that parental role but also to create some 
competition in the school systems so that through that competition 
hopefully the public schools, which are our main responsibility, will 
become better.
  Mr. President, my interest in school choice, I will be frank to say, 
also has one of its origins in my own observations of the religious or 
parochial schools in the State of Connecticut, performing I think with 
remarkable effectiveness, performing with remarkable effectiveness and 
value this educational function particularly in cities with poorer 
areas, with a real sense of mission.
  Mr. President, I made reference to a Rand Corp. study that evaluated 
the performance of a comparable group of poorer children at Catholic 
parochial schools and public schools and showed that there was a 
remarkable gap in performance.
  That is to say, the gap in performance between poor children and 
minority children and the rest of the population diminished 
dramatically in the parochial school system. The Rand study found that 
these parochial schools perform better because they had a rigorous 
academic curriculum, were independent of the stifling effects of too 
much bureaucracy--which unfortunately burdens some of our public school 
systems--and they were provided more attention.
  I also must say that part of this study said that the students in the 
parochial schools did better because all the students were held to a 
higher standard and were, in a sense, given the courage and confidence 
to believe that they could do better, and, as a result, did better. I 
personally believe that the success of these schools has a lot to do 
with the sense of mission and purpose and values of those who run them.
  So many of these schools in urban areas are suffering financially. So 
many have failed in the last decade that we have this anomaly of a 
separate school system that is performing a public function so 
brilliantly and yet does not have the wherewithal to go forward.
  In part, this amendment, which recognizes and honors the capacity of 
parents to choose where they want to send their children also is an 
attempt to provide an alternative that will give their children the 
values that we miss in our society.
  Mr. President, I ask for a moment more to conclude my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, let us talk briefly----
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what was 
the request?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Two moments more.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, we have an agreement for 
a vote at 8:15. Other Members have complied with that. I want to be 
fair to all the Members.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I would have objected, if I had known that the 
limitations were going to be that strict. I will take a minute and 
enter my statement in the Record.
  The point is that this is a test. Are any of us in this Chamber so 
secure about the success of our current school system and so sure that 
we do not want to give more choice that we are not even prepared to 
test how a choice system will affect parental rights, education of our 
children, and, yes, public schools, and come back after 3 years and 
decide, based on that test, whether we should go forward or terminate 
it and realize that there is nothing more to do?
  Mr. President, I say that our schools are failing a lot of our 
children. The choice is one way to better educate them, better prepare 
them, and it is at least worth the test provided in this amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains for those opposed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut and to 
Senator Byrd whatever time remains.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield? Is there time left for anyone else?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Connecticut has 4 minutes. We have 
agreed to have a vote at 8:15 by consent, since we worked that out with 
the majority and minority leaders.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes and the Senator from Vermont 
2 minutes.
  Mr. President, one thing that does not have to be demonstrated is 
whether children learn better in a safe school rather than in a nonsafe 
school. The idea that we have to have a demonstration program of $60 
million for that really is not a very, very significant persuasive 
argument. We know from all the national assessments, from all of the 
State assessments, and from the assessments made in title I that 
children learn more in terms of a safe school. That is number one. We 
have to ask ourselves. Does this really add to the whole issue of 
violence prevention in our schools?
  Over the period of this last year, in our Goals 2000 bill, we have 
important authorization for grants to school districts for violence 
prevention. I am a conferee on the crime bill. We have $100 million for 
school safety in there. We have the community schools program of $500 
million over 3 years to support after-school summer activities to 
provide alternatives to violence; the prevention council of the Senator 
from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], to support community-based activities; 
drug-free schools. There is $500 million in this bill to do the same 
kinds of things to deal with the problems of violence and, also, of 
substance abuse.
  We are attempting to deal with that. And the idea that we have 
another program to try to deal with that, I think, at this time takes 
scarce resources that are out there to support this effort for needy 
children. That is what the ESEA program is all about. It is about needy 
children. To take scarce resources out of that kind of program makes no 
sense.
  It is basically a voucher program. It is as plain and simple as that. 
We know that. This amendment is called ``fight or flight.'' If we adopt 
the amendment, we will be giving up the fight and encouraging only the 
flight.
  By giving the vouchers to children in unsafe schools, this amendment 
would abandon the schools that most need help. Effectively, as the 
Senator from Vermont pointed out, we would be abandoning all the other 
children in those schools. We need to help them as well. So instead of 
flight, we should take up the fight against school violence.
  I believe we have made an important downpayment on that program. We 
will need the help and the support of all Members. But I hope that this 
measure is not accepted. We should not abandon our public schools. We 
should make them safer and more substance free.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The Senator from Connecticut is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Thank you, Madam President. Let me thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from Vermont.
  It is a rare occasion that I differ with my colleague from 
Connecticut on issues. But on this issue, we fundamentally disagree.
  Let me say to my colleagues, we have had this debate in the past. The 
question here is the same as always--should we move away from the 
public school system. Choice, it has an appealing sound, but what we 
are basically talking about is Federal funding of a dual school system.
  So whether we frame the argument in terms of safety, money or 
whatever other issue people may come up with, we always must come back 
to the same basic issue. So finding a different logic for it does not 
in any way digress from what the fundamental question is. The 
fundamental question is should we use American taxpayer money to fund a 
dual school system? In my view, that would be a tragic mistake.
  If school safety is the issue, we ought to take the resources 
identified in this amendment, $30 million, and apply them to our effort 
to make schools safer. Earlier this year, when we passed the Safe 
Schools Act, we were only able to manage to get some $20 million for 
the entire program. I wish I could have gotten more when I introduced 
that bill. But that is all I could get.
  This amendment would take $30 million, $10 million more than we were 
able to get for the entire Nation to improve the safety of our public 
schools, and come up with pilot programs in 20 States to give a few the 
opportunity to go someplace else.
  In my view, we must confront the problem--not run from it. And 
violence is serious. As I said earlier today, it is very difficult for 
children to learn or teachers to teach in a threatening environment. In 
New Haven, CT, the public secondary schools spend almost $1 million 
dollars a year for security and safety. That is tragic, in my view; but 
at least they are working to make the schools safer through concrete, 
directed efforts to improve the school environment.
  This amendment presents a much different course of action--abandon 
the schools. Schools will not get less violent, less threatening, less 
intimidating for those students and those teachers by merely 
encouraging some to go off to a private or parochial school. Our 
responsibility--all of us as citizens; forget our titles as Senators or 
Congressmen--our job as citizens is to go to work on this problem in 
the public and private sector to come up with some answer to reduce the 
violence and not to walk away from it.
  And our schools need our help--violence, disinvestment, and declining 
revenues plague some of our schools, just as they do many other 
community institutions. But our schools are not ignoring these 
problems. Even with limited resources, many are digging themselves out 
of these problems to offer real hope and opportunities to students. 
James Comer in Connecticut has lead a revolution in public schools 
across the country to support parents and improve education through 
community involvement and reinvestment in the schools. Public magnet 
and charter schools are flourishing in offering innovative curriculum 
to students. School safety programs, from conflict resolution training 
to metal detectors, are becoming as common in schools as social studies 
as schools work to meet the challenge of violence.
  Our goal must be to lend a hand in these critical efforts not 
withdraw our support. And that is exactly what this amendment does in 
diverting Goals 2000 schools improvement funds to private school 
vouchers.
  The sponsors of this amendment have perhaps aptly titled it ``Fight 
or Flight.'' And they chose flight as a response to the crisis in our 
schools. Mr. President, I believe, we, as citizens and as a body, must 
chose the more courageous path. We must fight for our public schools, 
not fly from them, when they most need our help.
  That would be a great tragedy. And the adoption of this amendment 
would, in fact, do just that.
  Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts whatever 
time I have remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I assume we have 5 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield that to the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts, the manager of the bill. I do not need 5 minutes. I wish 
to express opposition to the amendment, and I direct my attention and 
the attention of the Senate to section 1704, ``Funding and 
Reservations,'' which reads as follows: ``Funding: From amounts 
appropriated to carry out the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the 
Secretary shall make available $30 million for each of the fiscal years 
1995 through 1997.''
  Madam President, this is not an appropriations bill.
  Mr. COATS. Will the Senator yield on that? I think I can clarify that 
for the Senator, because he is absolutely right.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield.


                   Modification to Amendment No. 2417

  Mr. COATS. Senator, there was a drafting error. The legislative 
counsel, the individual who handles the education area, unfortunately, 
was at a funeral today, and so the bill was handed to someone else, and 
they made an error. I have a modification which would change that. The 
Senator is right. It should read that ``there is hereby authorized to 
be appropriated.'' The word ``authorized'' was left out.
  So I send this modification to the desk. It is an important 
modification. It was an error as a result of the individual who 
normally drafts this not being available today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2417), as modified, is as follows:

       In lieu of section 1704(a) insert:
       Sec. 1704. (a) Authorization.--There are hereby authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section.
       (1) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; and
       (2) Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1996 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter.

  Mr. BYRD. Very well. I thank the Senator for his modification. I 
yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry. As I understand it, it is $30 
million this year, and so it could be any number, any figure 
afterwards. So it could be $30 million this year, and it could be any 
figure into the future on the Goals 2000.
  Mr. COATS. More or less, Madam President.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I see the time is about expired. I hope 
that this amendment, for the reasons outlined here, will not be 
accepted.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I share the concerns expressed about 
the serious issue of violence in our schools. That is why I cosponsored 
the Safe Schools Act, an important violence prevention initiative 
recently passed and funded by Congress.
  In addition, the Improving America's Schools Act which we are 
considering today will expand the focus of the Drug-Free School Program 
to include violence prevention. This important expanded program will 
provide funds to local schools for projects designed to combat problems 
of violence and enhance school safety. Funds can support a variety of 
approaches, including important violence prevention activities such as 
conflict resolution, peer counseling, and after-school programs.
  I want every child to attend a safe school. But I fail to see how the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Kansas will help us to accomplish 
this goal. This is yet another amendment which proposes to abandon our 
public schools, rather than helping them to surmount their problems.
  The amendment will do nothing to help those schools and neighborhoods 
which are beset by violence. Instead, it will make matters worse, by 
diverting scarce funds from our public schools to private and religious 
schools.
  I want to remind my colleagues that twice within the last 2\1/2\ 
years, the Senate has gone on record against this ill-conceived policy, 
defeating two separate amendments which would have provided vouchers 
for students attending private and religious schools. It was a bad idea 
then, and it's still a bad idea now.
  Yet today we are once again faced with an amendment which would offer 
public funds to children attending private schools--the so-called 
``Fight or Flight'' amendment.
  And the fact that the name and the details have changed, doesn't 
change the reality that this is simply the same old proposal under a 
different disguise--a cynical attempt to use the fear of violence to 
enact the same old voucher scheme.
  And it doesn't change the fact that this is simply bad public policy, 
which would unwisely break down the barrier between church and state 
and distract our attention from the real needs of our public schools 
and the vast majority of American children who attend those public 
schools.
  Private school vouchers will do nothing to help these children, since 
private schools are under no obligation to accept them. Private schools 
can select students based on any criteria they wish, rejecting those 
who may be discipline problems, or disabled, or who may have learning 
disabilities. In Milwaukee, for example, one of the few sites where 
vouchers have been tested, vouchers are available for 1,000 
public school children. Yet the private schools have never enrolled 
more than 750 or so of these students.

  Funneling Federal funds to private schools drains limited funds away 
from underfunded Public Education Programs at a time when public 
schools throughout our Nation are facing serious financial problems.
  The current budget situation places severe constraints on funding for 
Federal Education Programs. This is not the time to divert scarce 
dollars to private and sectarian schools.
  And once again, Mr. President, this is the nose under the tent 
amendment. While this amendment may be somewhat limited in scope, make 
no mistake, passage of this amendment would set a dangerous precedent 
and open the door to unlimited expansion of funding for private and 
religious schools.
  If we are really concerned about violence in our schools we should 
address that problem head on by providing our public schools with the 
support and resources they need to deal with their problems.
  The ``Flight'' amendment proposes simply to abandon our system of 
public education, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.


                       flight or flight amendment

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President I rise to support the amendment 
offered by my distinguished colleagues from Kansas, Indiana, and 
Connecticut which authorizes a limited demonstration program to give 
low-income parents expanded education choices for their children.
  This 3-year demonstration is focused on low-income children who 
attend crime prone schools. Eligibility is based on students who 
qualify for free or reduced price meals under the National School Lunch 
Act. Only those students from schools that the Secretary of Education 
designates as crime prone will be eligible for a $2,000 scholarship 
that can be spent at private and public schools. Parents can use grant 
funds for tuition and fees, reasonable transportation costs, and 
supplementary education services for their children.
  As my colleagues know, my own State of Minnesota has taken the lead 
nationally in expanding the right of parents to choose which schools 
their children will attend. Minnesota has also been at the forefront of 
efforts nationally to expand the number and diversity of schools that 
parents may choose from.
  Even in a State like Minnesota which is known for its leadership on 
public school choice, we are using a number of different ways of 
delivering what is a new and broader understanding of public education. 
More and more creative education reform ideas are being tested, like 
charter schools, which can bring the public and private sectors 
together.
  At a time when our communities and schools are under increased 
pressure, I believe that we need to try a number of different 
approaches to improve the academic achievement of our children. This 
amendment offers another way to do just that. I intend to support this 
amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the Republican leader.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. 
Helms] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Bennett
     Bond
     Boren
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bumpers
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                             NOT VOTING--2

     DeConcini
     Helms
       
  So the amendment (No. 2417), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, that was the final vote for the 
evening. We have a full agenda for tomorrow.
  I have talked with the Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] who 
indicated he would be prepared to lay down his amendment as the first 
order of business. We hope that we would be able to, after the 
beginning of the debate, perhaps indicate to the membership the time 
that we might need to consider that amendment.
  Then we have a number of other amendments. Although we will not ask 
consent tonight, I hope to lay down after that the amendment of the 
Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman]. He had even indicated he would 
be prepared to debate his amendment this evening, but we had already 
indicated to the Senator from Washington that his would be the first 
order of business. So that is the way we will proceed.
  We hope that Members who do have additional amendments would be in 
touch with us during the course of the evening and with staff so that 
we could try and accommodate the Members on their different proposals 
and to move along on the consideration of this legislation.
  I think this has been a very instructive day. We have had two major 
policy issues that have been raised, which, at least for the purposes 
of this legislation, have been resolved.
  There will be several other items tomorrow. But it would certainly 
appear to me, with the items which we have been given, that we will be 
able to move along in a pretty reasonable fashion. There are the broad 
issues related to the census that we will have to deal with. We have 
the single-sex school amendment by Senator Danforth. There is the 
longer year programs of Senator Simon; increasing funding for 
education, basically by Senator Simon and Senator Wellstone; some rural 
national service programs by Senator McConnell; and probably two or 
maybe three other items. There is also the IDEA amendment of Senator 
Gorton.
  So I ask that all Members that do have amendments if they would 
communicate them through the night and early in the morning.
  I understand what the leader has said that he has every intention of 
completing this legislation and also completing the Breyer nomination 
prior to the conclusion of business this week.
  We are planning to be here all day. We understand that there will be 
a period of time at the noon hour for the services for our recent 
departed colleague, Hugh Scott, of Pennsylvania. But we will be here 
during the morning. We will try to work even through that period to try 
to dispose of some of the amendments and through the afternoon.
  The leader has indicated--and we want to indicate to all of the 
Members--that we intend to go through the evening tomorrow. It is 
Thursday evening. That is the late night Senate evening. We will be 
prepared to move along and consider amendments during the course of the 
evening tomorrow night.
  The majority leader and the minority leader will obviously make the 
ultimate decision on the schedule, but that is the way that we will 
proceed.
  Again, I say, I hope all of the Members that do have amendments will 
let us know.
  I want to thank all Members for their cooperation today. We have had 
a good discussion and debate. I think it has been an important debate. 
Obviously, Members have thought a good deal about these issues. I think 
it has been a very constructive day in the consideration of a very, 
very important bill. We will look forward to similar debates tomorrow.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________