[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 101 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1513, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1513) entitled the ``Improving America's Schools 
     Act of 1994.''

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 2418

 (Purpose: To provide local school officials control over violence in 
       classrooms and on school property, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bond, Mr. Murkowski, and 
     Mr. Bennett, proposes an amendment numbered 2418.

  Mr. GORTON. Madam 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 title IV, insert the following:

     SEC.   . LOCAL CONTROL OVER SCHOOL VIOLENCE.

       (1) In General.--In any school that receives Federal funds, 
     if a student brings to or possesses on school property or at 
     a school-sponsored event a weapon as such term is defined in, 
     and in contravention of, school policy, or has demonstrated 
     life threatening behavior in the classroom or on school 
     premises, then the student shall be subjected to the 
     disciplinary actions as determined by the local educational 
     agency.
       (b) Individuals With Disabilities.--Paragraph (3) of 
     section 615(e) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 1415(e)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``During'' and inserting ``(A) Except as 
     provided in subparagraph (B), during'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B)(i) Except as provided in clause (iii), if the 
     proceedings conducted pursuant to this section involve a 
     child with a disability who brings to or possesses on school 
     property or at a school-sponsored event a weapon as such term 
     is defined in, and in contravention of, school policy, or a 
     child with a disability who has demonstrated life threatening 
     behavior in the classroom or on school premises, then the 
     child may be placed in an interim alternative educational 
     setting for not more than 90 days.
       ``(ii) The interim alternative educational setting 
     described in clause (i) shall be decided by the individuals 
     described in section 602(a)(20).
       ``(iii) If a parent or guardian of a child described in 
     clause (i) requests a due process hearing pursuant to 
     paragraph (2) of subsection (b), then the child shall remain 
     in the alternative educational setting described in such 
     clause during the pendency of any proceedings conducted 
     pursuant to this section, unless the parents and the local 
     educational agency agree otherwise.''.
       (c) Sunset Provision.--This section, and the amendments 
     made by this section, shall be effective during the period 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on 
     the date of enactment of an Act (enacted after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act) that reauthorizes the Individuals 
     With Disabilities Education Act.
       (D) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     term ``life threatening behavior'' is defined as ``an injury 
     involving a substantial risk of death: loss or substantial 
     impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or 
     mental faculty that is likely to be permanent; or an obvious 
     disfigurement that is likely to be permanent.''

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, this amendment is presented on behalf of 
myself and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman].
  I ask unanimous consent that Senators Burns, Craig, Bond, Murkowski, 
and Bennett be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, during the final vote on Goals 2000, 
after the conference committee on that bill had summarily dropped a 
school violence amendment which I proposed and which was accepted by 
the Senate, I vowed to press for legislation during the next education 
bill to come before the Congress to make it safer to walk the halls and 
sit at the desks of our Nation's schools.
  On behalf of parents, educators, and students, I am here today to 
fulfill that promise. Violence is tearing our society apart and is 
destroying educational opportunities for America's young people.
  It is time we took the steps necessary to regain control of our 
Nation's schools. In Washington State, for example, violent crimes by 
youths have doubled in number in the past decade, despite a 3-percent 
reduction in the youth population. Our superintendent of public 
instruction recently released her annual report of weapons in 
Washington State schools for the 1992-93 school year. A total of 2,237 
incidents of possession of firearms or dangerous weapons on school 
premises were reported by school districts and approved private 
schools.
  The prevalence of such incidents is constantly increasing, as is the 
variation and types of weapons. We must address this problem now. We 
must ensure the safety of our children in school and provide a learning 
environment free of violence and disruption.
  According to the national crime survey, each year nearly 3 million 
thefts and violent crimes--1 crime every 6 seconds--takes place on or 
near school grounds. The same study suggests that 67 out of every 1,000 
teenagers are victims of a violent crime each year.
  I have a strong personal stake in the debate over education reform 
and school safety. My wife, Sally, and I have just been blessed with 
the birth of our sixth grandchild. As a grandparent, I am deeply 
apprehensive about their safety in our schools and on our streets. 
Perhaps in the Halls of Congress we can feel immune from what is going 
on in our local communities. The threat of violence in our schools and 
communities is tragic. While we in Congress simply debate this issue, 
teachers, and school officials have lost the right to control their 
classrooms. Violent and disruptive students who prevent others from 
learning cannot be disciplined effectively by reason of Federal rules 
and for fear of lawsuits.
  According to the Washington State Parents and Teachers Association, 
Federal regulations make it difficult to create a safe, orderly 
environment in our schools. Educators are unreasonably hampered when 
they try to prevent or reduce violence. They find that Federal 
regulations inhibit their ability to design and implement commonsense 
discipline in their schools. This call for reform came through loud and 
clear earlier this year in a statewide education conference I held in 
Fife, WA. The primary concern expressed to me by the almost 200 
parents, teachers, principals, students, business people, and other 
community leaders was the growing problem of violence in our schools.
  The participants urged the need to get the Federal Government off the 
backs of local educators and to let them do their jobs. Educators must 
be allowed adequately to address the problems of violent and criminal 
behavior in their schools. They must be able to restore discipline and 
reduce violence in our schools and in our communities. It is time for 
us to make school violence a top priority and to stop inhibiting its 
suppression. We must regain control of our classrooms now. We can begin 
by giving the authority to school officials to do their jobs.
  Madam President, this local-control-over-school-violence amendment, 
cosponsored by Senator Lieberman and several others at this point, does 
just that. It increases the authority of the educators and our local 
schools to address serious disciplinary problems. Today, our education 
system provides a dual system of discipline. Some students who are 
involved in bringing dangerous weapons to class or who demonstrate 
life-threatening behavior are properly disciplined while others are 
not.
  It is destructive and discriminatory to have one set of rules for 
regular students and another for special education students protected 
under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. This sends an 
unclear and unfair message to all our students. Educators in Washington 
State emphasized to me that the stay-put provision of section 615 of 
the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is a source of 
discontent and frustration. These educators who deal with disciplinary 
problems on a daily basis tell me that their hands are tied by the 
stay-put provision.
  The stay-put provision in part B of IDEA was established to protect 
the educational placement of students with conditions that require them 
to receive special education and related services. It established a 
mechanism to place students in an educational program within the school 
system. Once placed, the student cannot be removed for more than 10 
school days without parental consent or unless the school obtains a 
court injunction for a permanent change in placement for the student.
  Court interpretations of a well-intended provision of the Individuals 
With Disabilities Education Act make it extremely difficult to remove 
or suspend any IDEA protected student from the classroom more than 10 
days without lengthy and expensive special hearings. The protections 
for IDEA students were created in 1975 when acts of violence that occur 
in today's schools across the Nation could not have been imagined. 
Today's reality combined with these IDEA protections leave all 
students, including others with disabilities, and teachers at risk.
  In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Honig versus Doe that public 
schools may not expel or remove disruptive, emotionally disturbed 
children from their classes for more than 10 days, even to protect 
others from physical assault, unless they get permission from the 
parents or a judge. The decision, of course, is based on IDEA, not on 
the Constitution. If we amend the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act, as this amendment does, Honig versus Doe becomes 
irrelevant.
  The stay-put provision in the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act makes it difficult to remove from the classroom a student with a 
disability who has attacked a teacher or a student or who has brought a 
weapon into the classroom. The reasoning behind the provision--to 
protect students with disabilities from having their educational 
placement changed without regard to their individualized education 
plan--is impossible to defend when the disabled student threatens the 
life and safety of other students and teachers. These 1975 protections 
were enacted at a time at which it could not have been known students 
would be bringing dangerous weapons into the classroom. School safety 
is seriously jeopardized by this rule now that guns and violence are 
widespread.
  To my colleagues, I implore you to join with me in confronting this 
dual system of discipline in our schools. By supporting this amendment, 
we will be providing educators with tools to remove from the classroom 
seriously violent students who are currently protected from this change 
of placement under IDEA. Rather than having to readmit a student after 
the statutory maximum 10-days waiting period or obtain a court 
injunction, educators will have the authority to place such a student 
in an interim educational program until the school district determines 
the appropriate educational placement, which it must do within 90 days.
  This ``local control over school violence'' amendment applies to all 
students, not just to those with educational disabilities. It increases 
the disciplinary power of our local school officials to deal with 
weapons offenses and life-threatening behavior. The section addressing 
the Individuals With Disabilities Act makes it permissible immediately 
to remove a student who brings to a school or a school-sponsored event 
a weapon that violates school policy. It also allows the removal of a 
student who has demonstrated life-threatening behavior in the classroom 
or on school premises. It requires that the child be moved and put in 
the interim alternative setting until a decision is reached. If parents 
call for a due process hearing, the child stays in the interim 
placement rather than in the classroom where further disruptions could 
occur. Again, this provides our teachers and the school districts much-
needed local disciplinary control.
  Opponents claim that this attacks the disabled. This is just not 
true. This amendment is not designed to deprive anyone of his or her 
opportunity to learn. It is designed, rather, to protect the majority 
of the students in our Nation's schools from the threat of serious 
violent behavior.
  Some argue that we should wait until next year when all of the 
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is reauthorized to offer 
this amendment. Why should we neglect the pressing safety problems in 
our Nation's schools today? How many more destructive incidents must 
occur before Congress takes action? But even so, in order to address 
some of my opponents' concerns, we have included a sunset provision in 
the amendment. This amendment will sunset when the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act is reauthorized unless, of course, it is 
extended and expanded.
  In my opinion, and I believe my colleagues will agree, no student, 
whether or not he or she is disabled, has the right to bring a 
dangerous weapon to class or to school property or to a school-
sponsored event, nor should any student be able to engage in life-
threatening behavior in the classroom without appropriate disciplinary 
action being taken. This type of behavior is destructive to the 
learning environment of all our children and must not be tolerated. We 
must ensure the safety of the students in our Nation's schools. No 
student can learn in an environment of fear. The ability of school 
districts to remove these students increases the safety for all 
students. As Members of Congress, we have the authority to restore a 
balance to the current dual system of discipline in our schools.
  Madam President, this Senator has discussed this problem with a large 
number of educators in my State. Those educators have shared incident 
after incident of violence and disruption taking place in their schools 
every single day. Let me share a few examples to demonstrate the dual 
system of discipline. Take, for example, the situation in Washington 
State where a first grader brought a large screwdriver to school, put 
it to the throat of another first grader and said he was going to run 
it through the child's throat. The student was a special needs student 
and special education laws came into play so that the child was put 
back into the same classroom. The parents of the traumatized student 
withdrew their child and threatened to file a lawsuit. The offender was 
able to continue subsequent acts which continued to terrorize other 
students.
  Or a fourth grade student who concealed a knife in her backpack, 
extorted lunch money from other students by threatening that she would 
use it on them. When she did pull the knife and physically intimidated 
a schoolmate, the school was able to begin the disciplinary process, 
only to discover when the parents came in that she had been a special 
education student 2 years earlier in a previous school district and the 
present school had no record of the placement. The parents appealed the 
disciplinary action and the girl was sent back to class pending 
settlement.
  Or a fifth grade physically handicapped student in the regular 
classroom, special education qualified due to physical disability, 
threw tantrums and hit a teacher for up to 40 minutes at a time. Again, 
the school was severely limited in potential sanctions because of the 
special education mandate.
  Or a sixth grade student who brought a gun to school, used it to 
threaten and intimidate, waving it around and telling students who he 
would kill. The gun turned out to be a facsimile, though it is metal, 
dark in color, and looks very real. Parents claim, because of his 
learning disability, he was ``just joking around.'' Here again is a 
situation where, due to special education status, the student was 
returned to class.
  More instances: A behaviorally disturbed special education student 
physically abused his classmates. On one occasion the teacher 
restrained the child and was herself kicked and punched several times. 
After a lengthy process, the student was suspended for 5 school days. 
Upon his return, the same activities began again with the addition of 
threats to the life of the teacher. The student could be suspended only 
for short periods of time during the remainder of the year. The teacher 
resigned her teaching position with the district.
  Madam President, these unfortunate incidents are occurring in school 
districts across the country. Let me share with you an article that 
appeared less than 2 months ago in the Los Angeles Times describing a 
situation in Orange County in which a 6-year-old kindergartener who 
allegedly bit teachers, threw a desk, hit and spit at students, and 
sent a teacher and her aide out on medical leave and was sued by the 
Huntington Beach School District. The injuries were not found serious 
enough for the student to be removed. As a result of the stay-put 
provisions in the IDEA, a judge forced the school to keep this student 
in the classroom. Parents of 12 of the 31 children in the class 
temporarily removed their children for fear of endangerment. In this 
case, as in others, the right of all schoolchildren for a violence-free 
classroom was not taken into account.
  In some cases IDEA is manipulated by students who have never been 
recognized as having a disability but receive protection after engaging 
in unacceptable school behavior. For example, in February of this year, 
a 17-year-old student at El Capitan High School in a California 
district who took a handgun to school in clear violation of State law 
and school district rules was allowed to stay in school pending 
resolution of a disability issue.
  The school would have to prove that there was a high likelihood that 
the boy's presence on campus would create a violent situation in order 
to remove him for longer than the mandatory 10 days. It must also be 
determined whether the student is a victim of ``attention deficit 
disorder'' and, therefore, deserving a special education status.
  In other words, Madam President, the very antisocial actions are 
claimed to demonstrate disability and to prevent discipline by schools.
  This ingenious legal theory will allow dangerous students to remain 
on campus simply because of an allegation of disability, and all they 
may have to do is to allege entitlement for special education. Because 
the school district's decision to deny special education, and appealed 
as high as the Supreme Court, a student using the loophole may stay in 
school indefinitely.
  In this respect, we have the same or similar situation which was 
discussed to the shock of other Members on the floor here not long ago 
about the fact that disability payments are made under some portions of 
the Social Security Act to children who are disruptive in school 
because the disruptive activity itself is considered evidence of 
disability and, therefore, allows for an extra Social Security subsidy 
for those students and their parents.
  Our schools, and our school authorities, need help now, and the help 
they need is the authority to do their own jobs without being 
interfered with from Washington, DC. But we are not going to provide 
the proper educational atmosphere for our students until we restore 
authority to our school authorities to do the job that they need to do.
  Madam President, this is an extremely limited amendment. School 
authorities in my State and across the country wish to be freed from 
Federal regulations on school disruption on a very, very broad basis. 
With a great deal of caution however, we have limited this amendment to 
weapons violations, and to life-threatening behavior which in turn is 
defined as it is under the guidelines for the sentencing commission for 
those who are to go to prison.
  I am certain that next year or the year after--whenever we get to the 
renewal of the IDEA act--there will be a debate on whether or not we 
should not grant more authority to our local schoolteachers and school 
board members.
  This law, and the refusal to agree easily to this amendment, are an 
expression of mistrust in the people who teach our children and who run 
their schools. We give lip service to local control. But when it comes 
right down to it we do not want that local control to be followed. If 
we are to have safe schools, we must allow these decisions to be made 
by the authorities and in the communities most affected by them.
  As a result, five national educational associations have strongly 
endorsed this amendment.
  They include the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 
the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National 
School Boards Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the 
American Association of School Administrators. Strong support from the 
education community in Washington State where the push for this 
amendment began is widespread. I have the support of the Washington 
Association of School Principals, the Washington School Directors' 
Association, the Washington State PTA, the Committee for the Right To 
Keep and Bear Arms, the Clover Park School District, and the Wapato 
School District.
  Madam President, I submit for the Record the letters of support that 
I received from these groups and I request that the Record include them 
as if they were read.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    July 26, 1994.
     Re Support for Senator Gorton's local control over school 
       violence amendment to S. 1513.
     Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: The above national education 
     organizations urge you to vote in favor of Senator Gorton's 
     Amendment to S. 1513 which would modify the stay-put 
     provisions on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     (IDEA) to ensure school safety. With the growing wave of 
     violent incidents in our schools, educators need to be able 
     to take reasonable measures to protect all students, teachers 
     and other school personnel from bodily harm while still 
     meeting the needs of children with disabilities for a free 
     appropriate public education.
       While only a minority of the students commit violence, a 
     troubling number of incidents occur where students with 
     disabilities do assault or otherwise threaten the safety of 
     other students and school staff for reasons that may or may 
     not be related to their disability. Under current law, school 
     officials do not have adequate authority in these situations 
     to ensure school safety.
       The stay-put provisions of the IDEA prevent school 
     administrators from suspending students for more than ten 
     days without the permission of a judge or the child's 
     parents. And even if the school district goes to court, the 
     school district's burden of proof is so high that they often 
     cannot take the common sense steps they need to protect 
     students.
       When Judge Judith Keep recently ruled that IDEA forced her 
     to order a school in El Capitan, California to readmit a 
     student who had taken a gun to school, she stated IDEA is ``a 
     wonderfully noble Act [but] can * * * undercut a school's 
     ability to discipline students.'' Indeed, the U.S. Department 
     of Education has argued that even congressionally-mandated 
     expulsion polices for students who bring guns to schools do 
     not supersede the stay-put provisions of IDEA.
       The Gorton Amendment provides a balanced and reasonable 
     first step to correct these problems and protect the safety 
     of all students--those with disabilities as well as 
     those without. In cases where the disabled student 
     demonstrates life threatening behavior, school officials 
     could take a student out of the classroom and place the 
     student in an alternative educational setting for up to 90 
     days. If the parents contested the placement, school 
     safety would still be preserved; the student would remain 
     in the interim educational placement until a final 
     placement decision was made. The amendment also provides a 
     means for Senator Dorgan's recently enacted mandatory 
     expulsion and alternative education policies for students 
     who bring weapons to school to apply under IDEA.
       The inadequacies of current law are significant and 
     dangerous and need to be resolved as soon as possible by the 
     Congress. Waiting another year--or longer--for the regular 
     IDEA reauthorization to be complete is not an adequate 
     response to the pressing safety problems in our schools 
     today. The Gorton amendment appropriately balances the needs 
     of all students for a safe place to learn and strive to 
     achieve the ambitious national education goals set by 
     Congress in Goals 2000. We urge you to vote in favor of the 
     Gorton amendment to S. 1513.
           Sincerely,
     American Association of School Administrators.
     American Federation of Teachers.
     National Association of Elementary School Principals.
     National Association of Secondary School Principals.
     National School Boards Association.
                                  ____



                              American Federation of Teachers,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The American Federation of Teachers 
     supports your amendment to S. 1513 with respect to modifying 
     the stay-put provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act.
       The AFT believes your amendment will not diminish the 
     rights of disabled students under I.D.E.A. Rather, it will 
     offer disabled and other students appropriate protection from 
     violence by a small number of students who bring weapons to 
     school or demonstrate life threatening behavior in the 
     classroom or on school premises. Furthermore, it will 
     continue due process rights and require continuing 
     educational services in an interim alternative placement for 
     any student exhibiting such behavior.
       The AFT also supports your amendments concerning student 
     records and parental responsibility. It is important to allow 
     the transfer of disciplinary records among schools and to 
     encourage the participation of parents in disciplinary 
     actions affecting their children.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Albert Shanker,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                           National School Boards Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, July 13, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Hart Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The National School Boards Association 
     (NSBA), on behalf of the more than 95,000 local school board 
     members nationwide, would like to offer its support for your 
     amendment to S. 1513 which would modify the stay-put 
     provisions of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 
     (IDEA). We also support your amendment which would clarify 
     current educational privacy law so that educators can 
     transfer student records more easily in order to insure 
     student safety.
       The plague of violence is having a growing impact on 
     children and youth across America and in many schools is 
     endangering student safety. We support the amendment to IDEA 
     because, in some cases of violence by students with 
     disabilities, school administrators do not have the authority 
     to act decisively to insure the safety of other students.
       Your amendment to the stay-put provisions of IDEA will 
     allow school administrators to remove a temporarily violent 
     student from the regular classroom while still providing the 
     student with a free, appropriate public education. Because 
     the amendment will protect the civil rights of students with 
     disabilities while enhancing the ability of school 
     authorities to insure student safety, we support adoption of 
     the amendment by the Senate.
       We also support your amendment to the Family Educational 
     and Privacy Rights Act which clarifies that school 
     administrators can transfer the records of students who pose 
     safety risks to other students. In this way we can be certain 
     that other schools have the information necessary to take 
     appropriate actions to insure student safety. We urge 
     Senators to support this amendment.
       We believe that these two proposed changes in law would 
     enhance school safety and we urge the Senate to support them.
       If you have questions regarding this issue, please contact 
     me at 703-838-6704.
           Yours very truly,
                                                  Edward R. Kealy,
                                       Director, Federal Programs.
                                  f___

          The National Association of Secondary School Principals,
                                         Reston, VA, July 7, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: On behalf of the 42,000 members of the 
     National Association of Secondary School Principals, I want 
     to express our support for the three amendments you intend to 
     offer to S. 1513, ``The Improving America's Schools Act of 
     1994.'' These amendments are an important step toward 
     improving parental involvement in our schools, particularly 
     regarding the issues of school discipline and providing 
     greater latitude to school officials coping with violence on 
     school premises.
       First, your Sense of the Senate amendment is an important 
     statement about the integral role that parents must play in 
     ensuring an effective learning climate in our schools. 
     Parents whose children display violent behavior toward 
     teachers, fellow students, and school employees must not only 
     be informed, but they must support school officials in their 
     effort to effect appropriate disciplinary action. We strongly 
     urge that this Sense of the Senate amendment be adopted and 
     become a part of the Senate's ongoing consideration with 
     regard to improving schools.
       Second, the amendment designed to assure that school 
     officials are fully informed about a student's past record of 
     violent behavior must have the Senate's support. Principals 
     across the nation are charged with the responsibility of 
     assuring the safety and wellbeing of all those within the 
     school facility. This amendment would give school officials 
     the necessary information to enable them to fulfill that 
     important charge. Too often schools receive students whose 
     record of violent, even criminal, activity is not made 
     available to principals. These record-keeping barriers must 
     be broken and principals and other school officials must have 
     access to information that has the potential of undermining 
     their effort to ensure a safe school.
       Finally, we strongly support the amendment to the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 
     addressing the violent behavior of some disabled children. 
     This amendment seeks to allow school officials to separate 
     violent children in a special education program from the 
     classroom or the school premises should they demonstrate life 
     threatening behavior. Currently, the IDEA grants parents veto 
     power over the change of placement in a school's special 
     education program. While this entitlement assures absolute 
     parental involvement in a child's educational placement, it 
     often hampers a principal's effort to provide a safe learning 
     environment.
       The nation's principals believe that this is a critical 
     issue with regard to public confidence in our local schools. 
     It is profoundly discrediting to our institutions for a dual 
     system of justice to be administered on such a regular basis, 
     with one system for our disabled children and an entirely 
     different system to the other students. This duality must be 
     halted if we are to genuinely assure our communities that 
     their schools are safe havens of learning.
       Although some would advocate waiting to amend the IDEA 
     until next year, the nation's secondary principals believe 
     that action should be taken now as part of an overall effort 
     to make our schools safer. We look forward to working with 
     you in assuring that these important amendments are adopted 
     by the United States Senate and ultimately, are part of the 
     final version of ESEA.
           Sincerely,
                                              Dr. Timothy J. Dyer,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                              American Association


                                     of School Administrators,

                                     Arlington, VA, July 19, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The American Association of School 
     Administrators (AASA), would like to thank you for your 
     proposed school safety amendments to S. 1513, the 
     reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act. Schools should be safe havens from the violence in the 
     rest of our society. We hope that your amendments and the 
     safe schools programs in S. 1513 will help make every school 
     a warm safe place for children to learn.
       The amendment regarding the ``stay put'' rule is of 
     particular interest to AASA. We support your amendment. 
     Stretching the suspension period to 90 days permits a more 
     orderly process of fact finding and looking for alternatives 
     than the 10 days in federal regulations. We, however, are 
     concerned that your amendment will experience difficulty 
     because the criteria for suspension are not precise enough. 
     What constitutes a weapon or life threatening behavior will 
     provide a basis for defeating the amendment.
       If the amendment falls and the vote is close enough to 
     initiate negotiations, we urge you to use terms that are 
     defined in the code of federal regulations and observable 
     behaviors as the criteria for suspension.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bruce Hunter,
                              Senior Associate Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                The Association of


                                 Washington School Principals,

                                       Olympia, WA, June 17, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: We are beginning to sense a bit of 
     optimism in the struggle to reduce youth violence in the 
     state of Washington. One obvious key to our success will be 
     the ability to share necessary information among agencies and 
     between schools with respect to those students who have been 
     convicted of a violent act or have a history of violent 
     behavior. This sharing of information is essential in order 
     for proper school placement and supervision of the student 
     involved, as well as for reasonable protection of all other 
     students. Parents, students and public demand and deserve 
     safe schools.
       The Association of Washington School Principals for your 
     willingness and persistence in championing the cause of safe 
     schools and communities as well as for your overall support 
     for public education. We have met with other educators, 
     parents, representatives of state government, the juvenile 
     rehabilitation, and parent advocates to discuss the issues 
     surrounding the sharing of student records, particularly as 
     related to identified special education students. The 
     principals' point of view follows.
       We are very supportive of your three suggested amendments 
     to current status language. Your recommendation provides a 
     mechanism to appropriately remove violent or potentially 
     violent students from school. No student, with or without 
     handicapping conditions has the right to commit violent acts 
     in our schools. The right of the parent to advocate for the 
     child in interim/alternative placement is protected, while at 
     the same time allowing professionals in the school to remove 
     the violent offender where necessary.
       Unfortunately, under current statute, in situations where 
     parents refuse and agreement to the recommended alternative/
     interim placement cannot be reached, that violent 
     student remains in the educational setting under 
     provisions of ``stay-Put.'' Interim placement for up to 90 
     days without parent consent allows adequate opportunity 
     for final resolution while protecting the vast majority of 
     our students.
       We certainly support your proposal for involvement of 
     parents of children who display violent behavior in 
     determining their disciplinary action and enforcement.
       Finally, we appreciate your addition to section 438 of the 
     General Provisions Act which clarifies the right and 
     obligation of school officials to share student discipline 
     records as appropriate. Our request for such clarifying 
     language is generated by the ongoing misperception regarding 
     what FERPA does or does not permit.
       These are significant changes which will greatly assist us 
     in reducing incidents of violence in Washington's public 
     schools. Again, thank you and best wishes.
           Sincerely,
     Walter Ball,
                                     Associate Executive Director.
     Brian Barker,
                                     Associate Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                  Washington State


                                School Directors' Association,

                                       Olympia, WA, June 17, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office building, 
       Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State School Directors' 
     Association, representing the 1482 locally-elected school 
     board members in our state's 296 school districts, is very 
     supportive of your proposed student safety amendments to S. 
     1513.
       These proposed amendments address three issues of 
     importance to our members:
       1. It clarifies that students may be removed from a 
     classroom setting if their actions threaten themselves or 
     others, while not specifying the precise duration of that 
     removal (suspension or expulsion):
       2. It assures that if the offending student is in a special 
     education program that said student will not be denied an 
     educational opportunity, but instead be placed in an 
     alternative setting pending disciplinary decisions (due 
     process must be followed); and
       3. It also assures that federal laws on student discipline 
     or weapons violations shall not supersede state or local 
     regulations.
       This is a good and helpful amendment. WSSDA appreciates the 
     assistance and the willingness to seek our input that we have 
     observed from your office, and specifically from Jennifer 
     Parsons, on this important matter. And I might add that the 
     other proposed amendments regarding school and parental 
     responsibility also look very good to us.
       Thank you very much.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Dwayne Slate,
                                     Associate Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                         Washington State PTA,

                                        Tacoma, WA, July 13, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The Washington State PTA supports the 
     School Violence Amendment to the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Act which you are sponsoring. We appreciate your 
     concern about the issue of violence in our public schools. As 
     both parents and educators expressed at your Education Summit 
     in January, the issue of youth violence is a priority for all 
     of us who are advocates for children.
       Educators and parents stressed that there are federal 
     regulations which make it difficult to create a safe, orderly 
     environment in our schools. Educators are unreasonably 
     hampered in their efforts to prevent or reduce incidents of 
     violent behavior. They find that regulations inhibit their 
     ability to design and implement discipline in their schools.
       As Section 602(a)(20) of the IDEA does include parents in 
     the Individual Educational Placement team, which will 
     determine placement for violent students, the Washington 
     State PTA feels confident that parents' rights have been 
     protected in this plan. Parents need to be involved in the 
     decision making process, but also need to be accountable for 
     the actions of their children who display violent or 
     threatening behavior toward others.
       We understand that parents of disabled children are 
     concerned about the effect of this amendment on the rights of 
     their children. However, parents and teachers have observed 
     that when a student displays violent behavior in the 
     classroom, which the teacher is unable to address by removing 
     that student from the classroom, the educational performance 
     of all students is adversely impacted. The educational 
     performance of special needs students is severely diminished, 
     as well. Thus, the Washington State PTA believes that this 
     amendment will provide needed protection for all students.
       We applaud your support for the safety and welfare of the 
     students of Washington.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Cara Lockett,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                        Wapato Public Schools,

                                         Wapato, WA, July 8, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: The purpose of this letter is to 
     support your efforts in amending S. 1513 and the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Act. Though you will undoubtedly face 
     strong opposition on the Senate Floor, your proposed 
     amendments are timely and much needed in the educational 
     community if we are to complete our task of restructuring 
     America's schools.
       Of particular interest is your proposal to amend the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDA). No one in education 
     will argue against the right of special education students to 
     receive equal educational opportunities. However, it seems 
     that in our rush to insure these rights we have forgotten the 
     rights of other students to receive those same opportunities 
     on an equal basis.
       Inclusion models which place special education students in 
     regular classrooms work well for the majority of children. 
     They adjust well and participate with other students in 
     mainstream activities. Unfortunately, a minority of special 
     education children can and do become violent, abusive or 
     disruptive. In these cases all children lose their 
     opportunity for quality education.
       Under current law schools have extremely limited options in 
     dealing with these children. Extensive documentations and 
     hearings generally result in short term removal. Once the 
     child returns to the classroom the cycle begins again. This 
     is particularly frustrating with students who tend to be 
     violent.
       Two examples of this type of situation come to mind. In the 
     first a behaviorally disturbed special education student 
     physically abused his classmates. On one occasion the teacher 
     restrained the child and was herself kicked and punched 
     several times. After a lengthy process the student was 
     suspended for 5 school days. Upon return the same activities 
     began again with the addition of life threats to the teacher. 
     The student was suspended for short periods of time during 
     the remainder of the year and the teacher resigned her 
     position with the district.
       The second incident involved a middle school boy with a 
     long history of aggressive behavior toward teachers and 
     students. Because of his special education qualification the 
     district was again limited in its ability to provide optional 
     learning environments. In this case the student was 
     ultimately removed from school. Not by the school but the 
     courts after he participated with some other youths in nearly 
     beating a man to death in downtown Yakima.
       There are thousands of stories similar to this taking place 
     daily in our nation's schools. The result can be seen in an 
     ever increasing exodus from public to private educational 
     institutions. Your proposed IDA amendment might be the first 
     step in helping to curb this trend.
       It can be argued that the amendment does not go far enough, 
     that we need even more options beyond the 90 day alternative. 
     To this I would reply that any change which helps us do our 
     job is better than the current situation. Also, the first 
     step has to come before we are able to move further.
       We applaud you in your efforts and wish you the best of 
     luck in bringing about passage of these amendments. I know 
     that at least the IDA amendment will meet with opposition, 
     but hopefully its sufficiently moderate to meet with the 
     approval of a majority of your colleague.
       Again our support for your efforts on passing these 
     amendments and our thanks for your work of behalf of public 
     education.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Richard Foss,
                                         Associate Superintendent.
                                  ____

                                        Citizens Committee for the


                                  Right to Keep and Bear Arms,

                                      Bellevue, WA, July 14, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Gorton: Thank you for introducing the Local 
     Control over School Violence amendment to S. 1513. This 
     amendment addresses the very real problem of violent behavior 
     in our schools. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep 
     and Bear Arms fully supports your amendment to S. 1513 and 
     other legislation that identifies and helps to control the 
     type of dangerous behavior that has made many of our public 
     schools more like war zones than educational facilities.
       As you know, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep 
     and Bear Arms has long been a supporter of bills that 
     identify and restrict specific criminal and violent behaviors 
     and activities. Bills of this type enhance public safety 
     without treading on basic civil liberties.
       The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a well 
     intentioned act, but in many cases it has taken away from 
     schools and educators the ability to control behavior that 
     destroys the educational environment and places all of our 
     youth at risk. The Local Control over School Violence 
     amendment to S. 1513 will help to correct that flaw.
       If there is anything we can do to help the Local Control 
     over School Violence amendment along the road to passage, 
     please don't hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Paul M. Williams,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                  Clover Park School District,

                                        Tacoma, WA, June 28, 1994.
                                                 Jennifer Parsons,
     Office of Slade Gorton, Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Jennifer: At your request, several administrators have 
     reviewed the draft language regarding Youth Violence. In our 
     opinion, these changes will significantly increase the 
     ability of school administrators to deal with violence/
     assaultive students. We commend the Senator for his interest 
     in this important issue and his diligence in attempting to 
     modify Federal law to deal with it.
       Unfortunately, due to the end of the school year I was 
     unable to get any antidotes for you. Good luck to you and the 
     Senator as you work on this important matter.
           Yours truly,
                                                   Karen A. Forys,
                                                   Superintendent.

  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, let me share with you some excerpts from 
these letters of support.

       AFT--The American Federation of Teachers believes that your 
     amendment will not diminish the rights of disabled students 
     under IDEA. Rather, it will offer disabled and other students 
     appropriate protection from violence by a small number of 
     students who bring weapons to school or demonstrate life 
     threatening behavior in the classroom or on school premises. 
     Furthermore, it will continue due process rights and require 
     continuing educational services in an interim alternative 
     placement for any student exhibiting such behavior.
       National School Boards Association--Your amendment to the 
     stay-put provision of IDEA will allow school administrators 
     to remove a temporarily violent student from the regular 
     classroom while still providing the student with a free, 
     appropriate public education. Because the amendment will 
     protect the civil rights of students with disabilities while 
     enhancing the ability of school authorities to ensure student 
     safety, we support adoption of the amendment by the Senate.
       National Association of Secondary School Principals--We 
     strongly support the amendment to the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, addressing the violent behavior 
     of some disabled children. This amendment seeks to allow 
     school officials to separate violent children in a special 
     education program from the classroom or the school premises 
     should they demonstrate life threatening behavior. * * * 
     Although some would advocate waiting to amend the IDEA until 
     next year, the nation's secondary school principals believe 
     that action should be taken now as part of an overall effort 
     to make our schools safer.
       WA State PTA--We understand that parents of disabled 
     children are concerned about the effect of this amendment on 
     the rights of their children. However, parents and teachers 
     have observed that when a student displays violent behavior 
     in the classroom, which the teacher is unable to address by 
     temporarily removing that student from the classroom, the 
     educational performance of all students is adversely 
     impacted. The educational performance of special needs 
     students is severely diminished, as well. Thus, the 
     Washington State PTA believes that this amendment will 
     provide needed protection for all students. We applaud your 
     support for the safety and welfare of the students of 
     Washington.

  Madam President, included in the committee amendments are two other 
of my proposals to address school violence. The first is a 
clarification of the current law explaining what information can be 
placed in the student's cumulative record and transferred to the next 
school the student will attend. The second amendment is a sense-of-the-
Senate provision that encourages parental responsibility in connection 
with disciplinary actions involving their children.


                            student records

  I have been told by many educators in my State that the maintenance 
and transfer of student records are often inadequate. These educators 
claim that student records indicating that the student is a serious 
disciplinary problem are often not being transferred among schools so 
that the cumulative student record often doesn't reflect the reasons 
why the student was expelled. For example: If a student brings a weapon 
to class or displays behavior that has the potential to inflict severe 
bodily harm and the student is expelled from school and enrolls in a 
new school--the new school is often not informed of the student's past 
discipline problems. Even more disturbing is the fact that the 
information is often not accessible.
  Teachers and principals want to have this information on new students 
entering their school who have a history of bringing a weapon to class 
or the potential to cause serious harm to the teacher or other 
students. They need this information in order to control their 
classrooms.
  The Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act [FERPA], deals with the 
release of educational records and protects the rights of students. 
There is definitely a problem with the statutory interpretation of this 
act. Many educators do not realize that Federal law [FERPA] already 
allows for the maintenance and transfer of records. School records are 
not being updated and transferred because school districts find the 
language unclear and are fearful of lawsuits. A clarification of FERPA 
will define the law to educators clearing up any misunderstanding 
surrounding student record maintenance and transfer. It states that 
nothing in section 438 of the General Education Provisions Act 
prohibits schools from maintaining records about students who pose 
safety risks or from disclosing such information to other schools 
attended by those students.
  A clarification of the FERPA language will substantially assist our 
educators because it will now be clear what information can be placed 
in the permanent record and where this information can be transferred. 
This is an important step in allowing our nation's educators to know 
the background of the students entering their schools in order to 
prepare for discipline problems.


                        parental responsibility

  As a parent and grandparent, I believe that parents should take 
responsibility for their child's actions and become involved in the 
school disciplinary proceedings. This amendment reaffirms the 
importance of parental involvement in the children's learning process. 
Parents of children who display violent behavior must be informed of 
the misbehavior and should support school officials in taking 
appropriate disciplinary action. The role of parents in both the 
education and discipline of their children is essential to enhancing 
learning and must be encouraged.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--with the 
approval of the author of the amendment--that this amendment be 
temporarily set aside so that we can consider the amendments of the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Specter].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2419

 (Purpose: To provide demonstration projects to test the effectiveness 
          of private management of public education programs)

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I send an 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2419.

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

       On page 538, on line 2, strike ``; and'' and insert the 
     following: ``, including contracts with private management 
     companies;''.
       On page 538, on line 5, before the period add the 
     following: ``; and
       ``(IX) contracting out the management of troubled schools 
     to private management firms''.
       On page 780, line 9, strike ``and''.
       On page 780, after line 11, before the ``.'' insert the 
     following: ``; and
       ``(I) establish partnerships with private educational 
     providers whose comprehensive technology systems address the 
     need of children in poverty.''
       On page 1000, line 10 strike the ``and'', and insert the 
     following:
       ``(R) demonstrations that are designed to test the 
     effectiveness of private management of public educational 
     programs, with at least one demonstration carried out in each 
     of the ten Department of Education regions, and with funds 
     used to support planning, start-up costs and evaluation; 
     and''
       On page 1000, line 11, strike ``(R)'' and insert: ``(S)''.
       On page 1165, before Part G, insert the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC.   . PRIVATELY MANAGED SCHOOLS.

       ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to deny States or 
     local educational agencies the opportunity to use Federal 
     funds to contract with private management firms.''

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would establish at least 
10 demonstration projects to test the effectiveness of private 
management of public educational programs.
  The thrust of the amendment is to see how effective private 
management of public education would be in dealing with the very, very 
serious problems in the American school systems today. We have in our 
school system some 43 million schoolchildren, and there is no doubt 
that the educational programs in our schools are failing to meet the 
challenge.
  We have seen a number of cities adopt private management of schools, 
such as Boston, MA; Worcester, MA; Lowell, MA; Wichita, KS; Austin, TX. 
The Baltimore experience, so far, looks promising, although the 
experience is not sufficient to be conclusive. The District of Columbia 
private school system had considered private management and decided not 
to because of some underlying political controversy.
  Last Saturday's New York Times details the very serious situation in 
the Newark school system, where the State of New Jersey Education 
Department was preparing for a Newark's schools. What we have seen of 
privatization has been attractive, and it is the thrust of this 
amendment to have at least 10 pilot projects, 10 demonstration 
projects, to be able to test this out in some detail.
  I first became interested in this whole approach when I found that 
the distinguished president of Yale University, Benno Schmidt, left his 
position to take an executive post with a private administrative 
operation for schools. When I first heard about the privatization of 
schools--running schools for a profit--my initial inclination was in 
the negative. And then, after a while, I thought it over and decided if 
a private administrative operation can attract the talent like the 
president of Yale University and various other talented people with 
other companies, why not give it a try. In the Goals 2000 bill, Mr. 
President, we have a limited provision that allows States, if they 
wish, to use some of that Federal funding to test out privatization.
  But this amendment would go substantially further in allowing these 
10 demonstration projects to come into existence to test the 
effectiveness of the private management of the public educational 
program.
  It is not necessary to talk at great length about the problems in 
American education or about the need for improvement in American 
education to prepare the young people of our country for the 21st 
century.
  Education may not be the panacea for America's problems, but nothing 
comes closer to giving us a very real and lasting solution. The 
challenge is to find new and better ways to teach the country's 43 
million school children. That takes new ideas. It also means finding 
new approaches to free up teachers and school administrators from 
noninstructional duties, allowing them to devote more time and 
resources to the task of educating our children. As a member of the 
U.S. Senate subcommittee that this year recommended more than $27.4 
billion for education programs, I take this challenge seriously. That 
is why in January, I called a hearing to learn more about an idea now 
being tested by a handful of school districts--contracting with private 
firms to manage some facets of public school education.
  Among those at the hearing were school superintendents, union 
representatives, education policy experts, and the heads of two private 
management firms, including former Yale president, Benno Schmidt. Each 
gave his or her own unique perspective on the idea. In Baltimore City, 
12 schools are currently being managed by a private firm. At the 
hearing, Baltimore city Superintendent Dr. Walter Amprey reported 
seeing an increased level of parent involvement and greater interest in 
computerized instruction. Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Amprey views 
the link between public education and business as a way to unite the 
hands of educators and at the same time instill accountability in our 
education system.
  When I first heard of proposals by private companies to administer 
public schools for profit, my reaction was decisively negative. But, 
when I reflected on it, I thought: why not? If public school 
administration could attract talented people like Benno Schmidt, and 
have the benefit of his initiative and ability, it could be a decisive 
net benefit to the public schools.
  Actually, the idea was not entirely new. The past several years have 
seen the emergence of a number of for-profit private firms offering to 
assume certain aspects of school operations, including day-to-day 
administration, teacher training, and other noninstructional 
activities. Typically, these companies manage the school for the same 
cost as is currently spent by the public schools, about $5,900 per 
pupil. Initially, the companies invest their own capital in upgrading 
the learning environment by repairing and modernizing the school 
building, cleaning, painting, and installing state-of-the-art 
computers. After that initial investment, the onus is on the companies 
to reduce school operating costs. A portion of the money saved through 
management efficiencies is returned to the school; the remainder is 
profit to the management firm.

  But, as Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of 
Teachers accurately points out, the concept of private management of 
public schools has yet to prove itself. And anyone who views this as a 
quick fix is bound for disappointment.
  The amendment which I am offering today, will provide funds for 
demonstration projects to find out if private firms have something to 
offer today's schools. The amendment would authorize at least 10 
demonstration projects to test the effectiveness of private management 
of public educational programs. Projects would be spread over the 10 
Department of Education regions of the country, with funds being used 
to support planning and start-up costs. At the end of the demonstration 
program, an independent evaluation of each project will be done which 
will provide a true picture of how effective private management firms 
have been in educating children. The amendment will also amend other 
provisions of the bill to assure that State and local educational 
agencies could use Federal funds to contract with private management 
firms if they wish to do so.
  Admittedly, any reform is difficult, and any change from past 
practice is likely to stir controversy. But given what is at stake for 
the future well-being of this country, a public-private partnership, 
such as that offered by private management companies, with input from 
teachers, students, parents, and administrators deserves careful 
consideration.
  Mr. President, the managers of the bill, as I understand it, have 
agreed to the amendment. So I shall not spend any further time at this 
point elaborating upon it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. I do have serious concerns about the idea of 
encouraging wholesale private management of schools. Schools are not 
businesses, and I do not believe competition is the answer to the 
problems of the public school system.
  However, in some cases schools are badly in need of help. In these 
cases, schools may choose to take advantage of private management in a 
carefully controlled way, I think it is appropriate to allow schools to 
use the Federal education fund for this purpose, so, Mr. President, I 
urge that the amendment be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there other Senators wishing to be heard 
on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2419) was agreed to.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 2420

    (Purpose: To establish a grant program to provide workplace and 
 community transition training to youth offenders in prisons, and for 
                            other purposes)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Pell 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself 
     and Mr. Pell, proposes an amendment numbered 2420.

  Mr. SPECTER. 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 appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . GRANTS TO STATES FOR WORKPLACE AND COMMUNITY 
                   TRANSITION TRAINING FOR INCARCERATED YOUTH 
                   OFFENDERS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Over 150,000 youth offenders age 21 and younger are 
     incarcerated in the Nation's jails, juvenile facilities, and 
     prisons.
       (2) Most youth offenders who are incarcerated have been 
     sentenced as first-time adult felons.
       (3) Approximately 75 percent of youth offenders are high 
     school dropouts who lack basic literacy and life skills, have 
     little or no job experience, and lack marketable skills.
       (4) The average incarcerated youth has attended school only 
     through grade 10.
       (5) Most of these youths can be derived from a life of 
     crime into productive citizenship with available educational, 
     vocational, work skills, and related service programs.
       (6) If not involved with educational programs while 
     incarcerated, almost all of these youths will return to a 
     life of crime upon release.
       (7) The average length of sentence for a youth offender is 
     about 3 years. Time spent in prison provides a unique 
     opportunity for education and training.
       (8) Even with quality education and training provided 
     during incarceration, a period of intense supervision, 
     support, and counseling is needed upon release to ensure 
     effective reintegration of youth offenders into society.
       (9) Research consistently shows that the vast majority of 
     incarcerated youths will not return to the public schools to 
     complete their education.
       (10) There is a need for alternative educational 
     opportunities during incarceration and after release.
       (b) Definition.--The term ``youth offender'' means a male 
     or female offender under the age of 25, who is incarcerated 
     in a State prison, including a prerelease facility.
       (c) Grant Program.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     in accordance with this section to provide grants to the 
     States to assist and encourage incarcerated youths to acquire 
     functional literacy, life, and job skills, through the 
     pursuit of a postsecondary education certificate, or an 
     associate of arts or bachelor's degree while in prison, and 
     employment counseling and other related services which start 
     during incarceration and continues through prerelease and 
     while on parole.
       (d) Application.--To be eligible for a grant under this 
     section, a State agency shall submit to the Secretary a 
     proposal for a youth offender program that--
       (1) identifies the scope of the problem, including the 
     number of incarcerated youths in need of postsecondary 
     education and vocational training;
       (2) lists the accredited public or private educational 
     institution or institutions that will provide postsecondary 
     educational services;
       (3) lists the cooperating agencies, public and private, or 
     businesses that will provide related services, such as 
     counseling in the areas of career development, substance 
     abuse, health, and parenting skills;
       (4) describes the evaluation methods and performance 
     measures that the State will employ, provided that such 
     methods and measures are appropriate to meet the goals and 
     objectives of the proposal, and that they include measures 
     of--
       (A) program completion;
       (B) student academic and vocational skill attainment;
       (C) success in job placement and retention; and
       (D) recidivism;
       (5) describes how the proposed programs are to be 
     integrated with existing State correctional education 
     programs (such as adult education, graduate education degree 
     programs, and vocational training) and State industry 
     programs;
       (6) addresses the educational needs of youth offenders who 
     are in alternative programs (such as boot camps); and
       (7) describes how students will be selected so that only 
     youth offenders eligible under subsection (f) will be 
     enrolled in postsecondary programs.
       (e) Program Requirements.--Each State agency receiving a 
     grant under this section shall--
       (1) integrate activities carried out under the grant with 
     the objectives and activities of the school-to-work programs 
     of such State, including--
       (A) work experience or apprenticeship programs;
       (B) transitional worksite job training for vocational 
     education students that is related to the occupational goals 
     of such students and closely linked to classroom and 
     laboratory instruction;
       (C) placement services in occupations that the students are 
     preparing to enter;
       (D) employment-based learning programs; and
       (E) programs that address State and local labor shortages;
       (2) annually report to the Secretary and the Attorney 
     General on the results of the evaluations conducted using the 
     methods and performance measures contained in the proposal; 
     and
       (3) provide to each State not more than $1,500 annually for 
     tuition, books, and essential materials, and not more than 
     $300 annually of related services such as career development, 
     substance abuse counseling, parenting skills training, and 
     health education, for each eligible incarcerated youth.
       (f) Student Eligibility.--A youth offender shall be 
     eligible for participation in a program receiving a grant 
     under this section if the youth offender--
       (1) is eligible to be released within 5 years (including a 
     youth offender who is eligible for parole within such time); 
     and
       (2) is 25 years of age or younger.
       (g) Length of Participation.--A program receiving a grant 
     under this section shall provide educational and related 
     services to each participating youth offender for a period 
     not to exceed 5 years, 1 year of which may be devoted to 
     study in a graduate education degree program or to remedial 
     education services for students who have obtained a high 
     school diploma. Educational and related services shall start 
     during the period of incarceration in prison or prerelease 
     and may continue during the period of parole.
       (h) Education Delivery Systems.--Correctional education 
     agencies and cooperating institutions shall, to the extent 
     practicable, use high-tech applications in developing 
     programs to meet the requirements and goals of this program.
       (i) Allocation of Funds.--From the amounts appropriated 
     pursuant to subsection (j), the Secretary shall allot to each 
     State an amount that bears the same relationship to such 
     funds as the total number of eligible students in such State 
     bears to the total number of eligible students in all States.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section--
       (1) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; and
       (2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1996 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the thrust of this amendment is to 
provide for an authorization to allow Federal funds to be spent for 
educating youthful offenders up to the age of 25, who are eligible for 
parole or release within 5 years.
  The recidivism in America is well known. The problems of career 
criminals are also well known, with career criminals committing about 
70 percent of the offenses.
  Career criminals commit two or three robberies or burglaries a day. 
When I was district attorney of the city of Philadelphia for some 8 
years, I found this group of career criminals to be the bane of law 
enforcement, really wreaking havoc on law-abiding citizens. It is no 
surprise that when someone who is illiterate leaves jail, without a 
trade or a skill, that that individual returns to a life of crime.
  There has been relatively little sympathy for the offender in terms 
of trying to take the offender out of the crime cycle. But there is 
considerable concern about taking the offender out of the crime cycle 
in order to protect the public.
  The amendment here would provide up to $1,500 in education, for 
tuitions and books, and up to $300 for career development, and 
counseling on drugs and health education. This provision is necessary 
because the crime bill makes all prisoners ineligible for the Pell 
grant program.
  There is a great deal of talk about ``three strikes and you are 
out,'' which I believe is overly simplistic. I say that based upon the 
experience that I had as district attorney of Philadelphia, when I 
tried to get judges to impose life sentences on habitual offenders. 
When that moment of sentencing comes, unless there is a sense on the 
part of the sentencing judge that it is fair to impose a life sentence, 
it simply does not happen.
  Where we have realistic rehabilitation--that is literacy training so 
someone who leaves jail will be able to read and write, and job 
training so there is a way for that individual to support himself or 
herself--then if the person gets into future trouble, becomes a second 
offender and a third offender, then I think it is realistic to have 
life sentences for career criminals.
  We do have an effective bill in the Federal system providing for 
mandatory sentences up to life in jail for career criminals who are 
found in possession of a firearm. That was a bill which I introduced in 
1981 and finally was enacted in 1984, and it was expanded in 1986.
  This amendment is directed at a very limited segment of the 
population, those who are 25 or younger, and who are eligible for 
parole or release within 5 years.
  The amendment provides for an authorization of $18 million for the 
first year. I believe that there will be funds available from the 
appropriations subcommittee where I serve as ranking Republican, and I 
think that this amendment would be a very, very positive step forward 
in providing this realistic rehabilitation for a narrow target group--
the young offenders, up to 25 years of age, who are eligible for parole 
or release within 5 years.
  Mr. President, there are approximately 1 million people incarcerated 
in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities in this Nation. Of these 
incarcerated individuals, more than 75 percent have not completed high 
school, and most have few if any job skills. In some States, 60 percent 
of prison inmates cannot read at the sixth grade level.
  It is my belief that criminal offenders, especially the juvenile, 
first and second offenders, should be given a chance at rehabilitation 
and gainful employment. That chance can only come through education.
  With the provision to eliminate of Pell grants for prisoners, that is 
contained in both the House and Senate versions of the crime bill, 
other resources to break the cycle of recidivism are needed. Young 
nonviolent offenders need a second chance, and education is the only 
opportunity they will have to receive that chance.
  The amendment which I offer today, would authorize $18 million to 
provide the young offender, up to 25 years of age, who is eligible for 
parole within 5 years, to acquire an education while incarcerated. Up 
to $1,500 per young offender would be provided to States for tuition 
and books. An additional $300 would also be available for career 
guidance, substance abuse counseling, health education, and parenting 
skills training. States would be required to evaluate the effectiveness 
of the education, and study the impact of that education on recidivism 
rates, in order to quality for funds under the program.
  Given the impact that education and job training can have on repeat 
offenders, this amendment will help save money in the long run.
  It is my understanding that this amendment has been accepted by the 
managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Rhode 
Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would just like to congratulate the 
Senator from Pennsylvania on the offering of this amendment. I think it 
is an excellent one. It will lead to reduction in the rate of 
recidivism that is so apparent among our prisoners today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank both the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and the Senator from Rhode Island for this amendment. They 
have made a strong case for it.
  Not long ago, I was up in Massachusetts at Mount Wachusett Community 
College, which had been providing the Pell grant programs for some 
State prisoners. I had a chance to talk to those who were involved in 
the educational programs. They recounted to me the numerical comparison 
between those who had some opportunity for continued education versus 
those who did not.
  We made a judgment in this body to terminate these programs, and I 
believe that decision was regrettable. But it was an overwhelming vote 
here in the Senate.
  This amendment is an attempt to target some resources on younger 
individuals who, as described by the Senator from Pennsylvania, are 
moving out into the community. To the extent that is possible, this 
amendment aims to at least give these individuals additional 
educational opportunity, so that they have a better chance of success 
in the world outside of prison. I think this amendment makes eminently 
good sense. As we all know, when you take the profile of individuals 
who are on death row, you will find that the great majority of them 
have never completed a high school education.
  This is a very modest program. I think it is worthwhile. It is an 
important program, and I urge the Senate to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion of the amendment.
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2420) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to lay on the 
table is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2421

  (Purpose: To authorize a demonstration to test the effectiveness of 
    prenatal education and counseling on student pregnancy outcomes)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2421.

  Mr. SPECTER. 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 1,000, before line 13, insert the following:
       (T) demonstrations that are designed to test whether 
     prenatal education and counseling provided to pregnant 
     students, emphasizing the importance of prenatal care; the 
     value of sound diet and nutrition habits; and the harmful 
     effects of smoking, alcohol and substance abuse on fetal 
     development.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment would address the problem 
of pregnancies in the teen population by authorizing a demonstration 
project designed to test whether involving schools in providing 
prenatal education and counseling to pregnant students could have a 
positive effect on pregnancy outcomes.
  Mr. President, this is a subject that I have been concerned about for 
more than a decade, when I saw for the first time a 1-pound baby, which 
was a very startling revelation to me--a 1-pound baby, a child about as 
big as the size of my hand, 16 ounces, sometimes 18 ounces, sometimes 
20 ounces.
  Such a child coming into this world is a human tragedy, because at 
such a low birthweight, there are medical problems that stay with that 
child for the balance of the child's life.
  It is also an enormous financial drain, with the costs for very low 
birthweight children running in excess of $150,000 per child, sometimes 
as much as $200,000, until the child leaves the hospital. The cost 
involved in these 1-pound babies, low birthweight babies, is 
multibillions of dollars.
  It is a subject which my bill--Senate bill 18, on comprehensive 
health care--addresses; a bill which I introduced on the first day of 
the 103d Congress back on January 21, 1993, and a measure which I 
intend to press if, and when health care legislation comes to the 
floor. Parenthetically, I hope it is very, very soon.
  This amendment is directed at the problem generally by providing for 
prenatal education and counseling to pregnant students in schools. 
There is a great deal of controversy on the overall subject of sex 
education, a very complicated subject which is left for another day. 
But there is no doubt but when a young woman is pregnant there is 
absolutely no reason why that young woman should not be counseled in 
what it takes to care for herself during the pregnancy and what it 
takes for the care of the expected child.
  Dr. Koop has outlined a program of a minimum of four prenatal visits 
and one postnatal visit, which would vastly improve the problem of 
these low birthweight babies.
  It seems to me that the community health centers simply cannot reach 
this teen population, and at a minimum there ought to be information 
and counseling to these young women, so that they have the basic 
information to get proper nutrition for themselves and their expected 
child.
  Senator Moynihan has been a leader in the Senate and has identified 
the problem of unintended teen babies, children giving birth to babies, 
as the most important problem facing our country, an issue which we 
have to address in many contexts.
  This is a modest step in terms of the counseling. But it could be 
very, very important to tens of thousands of women, and tens of 
thousands of children to be born to these young women who come into the 
world weighing 1 pound--16, 18, 20 ounces. It is tough enough coming 
into the world weighing 8 pounds 10 ounces, which I understand my 
birthweight had been, let alone coming into the world weighing only a 
pound.
  I think this could have a very profound effect on many, many lives in 
America.
  When one talks of social ills in America today, the problem of 
increasing numbers of births to adolescents is always at the top of the 
list. Between 1986 and 1991, the rate of births to teens aged 15 to 19 
rose 11.9 percent, from 50.2 percent to 62.1 births per 1,000 females. 
We must find programs to address the teen pregnancy problem and to 
reduce the rising costs associated with teen births, particularly low-
birthweight births.
  Low birthweight is the leading and most preventable cause of infant 
mortality. Each year about 7 percent, or 287,000, of the 4,100,000 
American babies born in the United States are born of low birthweight, 
multiplying their risk of death and disability.
  Infants who have been exposed to drugs, alcohol or tobacco in utero 
are more likely to be born prematurely and with low birthweight. These 
children are at increased risk of dying in their first year of life or 
suffering from long-term disabilities. I became interested in this 
problem, after visiting hospitals in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and 
seeing 1-pound babies, whose chances for survival were severely 
jeopardized. If you weigh 16 or 20 ounces, it is a human tragedy.
  Beyond the human tragedy of low birthweight there are the financial 
consequences. In 1990, the hospital-related costs for caring for all 
low-birthweight newborns totaled more than $2 billion, over $21,000 on 
average. For infants of extremely low birthweight hospitals costs often 
exceed $150,000.
  It is generally recognized that prenatal care that begins early, 
continues throughout pregnancy, and is appropriate to the mother's 
level of health risk can effectively prevent low-birthweight births and 
improve birth outcomes.
  Because teenage mothers are less likely to eat nutritiously or to get 
prenatal care, and are more likely to smoke or drink than older 
mothers, they are also more likely to give birth to low-birthweight 
infants.
  This amendment would help to address this problem by authorizing a 
demonstration project to test whether involving schools in providing 
prenatal education and counseling to pregnant students, could have a 
positive effect on pregnancy outcomes. Education and counseling would 
emphasize the importance of prenatal care; the value of sound diet and 
nutrition habits, and the harmful effects of smoking and alcohol and 
substance abuse on fetal development. It is essential that we take 
advantage of every opportunity to provide pregnant women with 
information to ensure a healthy pregnancy outcome. My amendment ensures 
that an opportunity to provide this information is not missed.
  Again, I understand that the managers of the bill have agreed to 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to accept this 
amendment. It encourages the Secretary, as part of the legislation to 
fund and support innovative and creative programs for schools, to 
undertake the kind of initiative described in the amendment.
  In the health legislation that was passed out of our Committee on 
Human Resources, we have a very important provision for the development 
of school health information and services, which was worked out in a 
bipartisan fashion. I am very hopeful that that provision will 
eventually see successful passage.
  I think that there is a great need for the services described in this 
amendment. The need is particularly great in the urban areas of this 
country, not only with regard to teenage pregnancy, but also with 
regard to young children who are exposed to both substance abuse and 
physical abuse. These children grow up in a very harsh and difficult 
climate, and have very important and serious health needs, both 
physical and mental.
  We have shaped into our health legislation a modest but important 
down payment in terms of making a range of different health services 
available, with parents and community personnel to be involved in 
shaping the program. I think there is a great need for these services.
  I am, therefore, very hopeful that we can have an even more expansive 
and elaborate program than the one outlined in this amendment. But this 
amendment will certainly give a clear indication that these kinds of 
initiatives will be supported. I think there is a very serious need for 
them and I welcome the opportunity to support the initiative.
  I urge that we accept the amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts 
for his support and comments.
  This amendment would provide allowable use of funds for innovative 
education, as the Senator from Massachusetts states.
  There has been a suggestion made that a slight addition be added to 
the amendment, the language ``could have on students.''
  So at this time, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2421), as modified, is as follows:
       On Page 1,000, before line 13, insert the following:
       (T) demonstrations that are designed to test whether 
     prenatal education and counseling provided to pregnant 
     students, emphasizing the importance of prenatal care; the 
     value of sound diet and nutrition habits; and the harmful 
     effects of smoking, alcohol and substance abuse on fetal 
     development could have on students.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if there is no other debate, I ask that 
the amendment be adopted. I understand it is agreeable to the manager 
on the Republican side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2421), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SPECTER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
California, [Mrs. Feinstein].


                   Zero Tolerance for Guns in Schools

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment 
which you authored and I cosponsored, Mr. President, which is entitled 
``Zero Tolerance for Guns in Schools.'' From the time that we presented 
this amendment publicly, I am very pleased that the chairman of the 
committee has accepted the amendment and that the Senator from 
Massachusetts has included that amendment in bill language.
  I think it is appropriate, though, that we both speak about this 
amendment. I would like to make a few remarks and then replace you in 
the chair so that you will have an opportunity to do the same.
  Mr. President, I took a look at the Congressional Research Service 
report on each State and what those States did with respect to guns in 
schools, what policies States had to regulate guns in schools. What I 
found was a wide variation, a wide panoply, if you will, of rules and 
regulations; some more effective than others.
  So then I took a look at my own State. Do we really have a problem 
with guns in schools in California?
  Mr. President, I must report to you, most sadly, we have a major 
problem of guns in schools, despite the fact that the California 
legislature passed a law which said schools have the right to put 
forward legislation. Again, the legislation varies and the penalties 
vary.
  The thought has occurred to me that we should have a well-stated 
policy all across this United States that schools are for children to 
learn and that we will not tolerate guns in schools.
  If you receive Federal money as a school, you must have in place a 
zero tolerance for guns in schools. If a youngster brings a gun to 
school, that youngster under this provision would be expelled for 1 
year. Now, the principal has an ability, in our amendment, to make an 
exception if there is good reason to make that exception. But the point 
I believe we want to establish is that you cannot learn in school if 
someone is sitting next to you with a loaded .45 or loaded .38, or 
whatever the weapon may be.
  The San Francisco Chronicle on July 11 did a poll. What they found--I 
do not have a big chart--but, ``Bay High Schoolers Surrounded By Guns, 
Violence; Survey Finds Weapons In School.'' ``Students in the San 
Francisco Bay Area who say they have carried a weapon to school: 22 
percent.'' This is a national survey that finds that 13 percent carry 
weapons to school.
  What our amendment would say is henceforth this is not permissible. 
Henceforth, if you carry a weapon to school, regardless, there is a 
penalty and it is expulsion for not less than 1 year.
  I might tell you, 3 weeks ago I went into a classroom in Hollywood, 
CA. This was not a troubled community. This is Hollywood, CA. It was a 
fourth grade classroom. And every youngster in that classroom spoke 
eloquently about how afraid they were to go to school.
  I asked the question, ``How many of you hear gunfire?''
  I thought maybe a sprinkling of hands would go up. Every single 
child's hand went up in that classroom.
  I said, ``How many of you have seen an adult attack another adult?'' 
And 60 percent of the hands went up in the classroom.
  What we are trying to do, Mr. President, and I believe you agree with 
me, is say in every way, in every shape, in every form, we need to 
begin to address violence in our society--whether it is in a crime bill 
now in conference, whether it is in an education bill now on the floor 
of the U.S. Senate, whether it is in Commerce bills or Ag bills or any 
other kind of bill. We know there is a problem out there with violence. 
I go home and I find the State legislature is talking about how much 
money they can appropriate for metal detectors in schools--metal 
detectors in schools. Youngsters should not have to go through metal 
detectors to go to school. What we are doing in this amendment--and I 
am so grateful to the committee chairman for accepting the amendment--
is saying there is no place, there is no excuse, there is no rationale 
to have a gun in a public school in the United States of America.
  It is legislation whose time has come. And I believe it is 
legislation for which legions of American children are going to be 
grateful.
  In the $13 billion in this bill, every school will have to subscribe 
to a policy: No guns. If you bring a gun, you are out for a year.
  So, I thank the Chairman for his leadership in this issue. I was 
pleased to join with him. I am thankful to the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I am also thankful for the many letters and phone calls 
I have had from all across this Nation saying thank you for finally 
doing something--at last--so our children can go to school in safety.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of 
the Senator from California.
  I take this opportunity to do so because it is almost unique that we 
can agree on an issue related to firearms in our country today. But I 
do so because she is absolutely right. America's schools must be safe 
havens for education and learning and that cannot be accomplished if 
the over 250,000 handguns that it is reported each day come to our 
public schools are allowed to continue to come to them. There is 
absolutely no reason why that would occur.
  Except there is a reason. And I think it is a reason important for us 
to understand. While there may be the element of machoism in today's 
society for people, even in their youth, to carry guns in order to be 
so viewed by their peers for doing so, there is, amongst some of our 
young people, the element of fear, fear that they might be harmed. And 
they would choose to use a gun in their defense for that purpose.
  That is a tragic but very true statement. So I think, while this 
legislation and the effort of the two Senators involved is well-
founded, and I support it, clearly we must go beyond just that in our 
society to recognize there is something fundamentally wrong. School 
students did not always bring handguns to school. If they had a 
dispute, they solved it with their knuckles. That happened in the 
schoolyard, when Billy pushed Johnny for whatever reason.
  Tragically, today there is a mindset in our society that one provokes 
violence in a way that is lethal. That is because that schoolchild the 
Senator from California is talking about has literally spent thousands 
and thousands of hours watching television in which acts of real 
violence were committed. By the time that student graduates from 
elementary school, he or she will have viewed over 250,000 examples of 
extreme violence on television.
  So why are they bringing guns today? Partly because it is in the 
culture. It is in the culture that they have been viewing for so long 
that we have tolerated extreme acts of violence to be viewed on our 
televisions. That is why 30 years ago it did not happen, even though a 
handgun or a long gun might have been available to a young person.
  Senator Kohl and I recognized this problem some months ago when we 
were debating the crime bill here and introduced legislation that would 
make it prohibitive for a juvenile to own or possess a handgun--a gun, 
for that matter--except under very limited circumstances. So this takes 
the effort one step further, as it should.
  But let us remember that this is merely a Band-Aid on a much, much 
larger problem in our society. While the Senator from California and I 
would disagree about rights and access and ownership and all of that 
kind of thing, obviously we do not disagree on the fact that a very 
real problem exists in society and there must be very real consequences 
for individuals' acts. And the very real consequence is spelled out in 
this bill: Expelled for 1 year if you bring a gun to school. For the 
first time we are saying to our young people, if you act outside the 
law, you will be treated accordingly.
  For the last 30 years we have pampered. We said, oh, it is not the 
individual who is in error, it is society that is in error for allowing 
them to have tools to provoke acts of violence because individuals are 
not necessarily violent.
  For the first time--in a little way--we are saying it is an 
individual act and the individual is responsible, the juvenile is 
responsible and we are going to treat them accordingly. And that is 
appropriate--as it should be. I find myself in support of this 
provision of the act. I think it is an important step forward. Clearly 
the schools of America have to be safe for learning. It is not a place 
to bring a gun.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The manager, the Senator from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I will be glad to yield to my 
colleague. I see on the floor Senator Moseley-Braun, who has an 
amendment. We have until noontime. Then I understand the Senate will be 
in recess out of respect for our recently departed friend and 
colleague, Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania. Then we will resume again at 3.
  I want to take a moment to indicate to the membership where we are. I 
know Members want to speak on certain measures--if we can get them 
worked out and accepted, whatever time we have can be utilized for 
debating items that may be in controversy. But obviously Members have 
the right to speak on any of the matters they desire.
  So I hope we could at least get Senator Moseley-Braun's amendment 
laid down prior to the time of 12 o'clock. Then we can deal with that 
issue, finding out during the recess time whether it is going to 
necessitate a rollcall; and then, just after we dispose of that, it is 
my hope that we can consider Senator Simon's amendment regarding the 
longer school year. Then following that we would get into the formula 
amendment of Senator Cochran, which I think will take the time of the 
afternoon when we will have the greatest attention and interest.
  That will be the way that I hope we will proceed. Again, I hope that 
if other Members have amendments that they will be in touch with us so 
that we can process them during the time of the recess, and we will be 
able to move the legislation forward in a timely way.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I will be brief so there will be time 
for the Senator from Illinois to offer an amendment.
  I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from California [Mrs. 
Feinstein]. Senator Feinstein and I have worked many, many months on 
this legislation. It became law in Goals 2000. It will now, with the 
help of Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords and the committee, become 
law when this bill is eventually signed by the President. We very much 
appreciate that.
  I understand that some do not necessarily like this amendment. It is 
not their favorite amendment. But the fact is, the Senator from 
California [Mrs. Feinstein] and I feel very strongly that you cannot 
discuss learning unless you first address safety. Kids cannot learn in 
school when they fear for their safety.
  Things have changed in American schools, regrettably. I went to a 
very small school. I graduated in a high school class of 9 in a town of 
300 people. That was a small town, a small school. Senator Craig talked 
about the old days. In the old days, the major problems in school were 
truancy and speaking out of turn and pushing someone.
  What are the problems in today's schools? Go to any school and ask, 
especially in the major cities. The problems are guns and violence and 
drugs and teenage pregnancies. Things have changed radically.
  On the question of safety, if we do not address the issue of guns in 
schools, we can spend a lot of money on academic programs, but kids are 
not going to be able to learn because they are going to sit there 
during the day and worry about their safety.
  I would like to say that Senator Moseley-Braun is a cosponsor of our 
amendment. We appreciate that very much. I recently visited a school 10 
or 15 blocks from this building. I met with a wonderful principal, Mr. 
Neal. He runs a good school. He has one of the best reputations in this 
city. I met with wonderful kids in that school who come from the 
projects and from backgrounds that are difficult. The school has bars 
on all of its windows. I walked through a metal detector. The first 
person I saw was not a smiling teacher. It was a security guard at a 
metal detector.
  I left that school thinking how much I regret that it has come to 
this. I like this principal and I hope these kids do well and I met 
teachers who were wonderful.
  Only weeks after that, in that same building, down near the cafeteria 
where I visited, some kid bumped another at a water fountain and the 
other pulled out a pistol and shot the kid four times. The fact is, 
this scene is going on all over this country, and we must address it.
  We have constructed a proposal that says there will be no more 
excuses and there will be zero tolerance, and every student and every 
parent across this country ought to understand something fundamental 
and simple: You cannot bring a gun to an American school. If you do, 
there will be a certain and exact penalty. We provide a 1-year 
expulsion.
  Our proposal has sparked a lively debate. Some say you are out of 
line, this is very unreasonable. I say, look, we are way past the time 
where we make excuses for bad behavior. Anybody who thinks they can 
legitimately bring a gun through the front door of a school is not 
thinking at all. If we are going to have people who bring guns to 
school because they do not think and who settle disputes in schools 
with handguns or other shooting devices, then, in my judgment, they 
deserve a certain punishment.
  I hope that everybody in this country understands a year or two from 
now that our law says nobody is going to bring guns to school. Do not 
even think about bringing a gun to school. The penalty is too great. We 
provide an exception on a case-by-case basis. If there is something 
unusual, the head of the school district can make a decision that this 
case is exceptional: The kid meant no harm, it was a mistake; they are 
going to go hunting after school; there is a starter pistol in the 
backpack for the gym program. If it is a legitimate mistake, the school 
administrator can make that exception.
  One other point. Senator Feinstein and I do not propose to be 
concerned about firearms used in an ROTC program, about firearms used 
in a hunter safety course, or about firearms used in connection with 
historical re-enactment. People asked me questions about that. No, we 
are not talking about that. We are talking about students who bring 
guns to schools.
  The Senator from California, I think, has been doing a wonderful job 
on these issues. I am pleased to work with her on this legislation. It 
is now law, as enacted in Goals 2000, and I hope this will remain law 
when this bill is signed by the President. We will have changed the 
mindset and changed the attitude all across this country as to whether 
anybody ought to dare try to bring a gun to school. Then we will have 
restored some safety in America's classrooms. We will have fostered an 
environment in which American children can learn the way I know they 
are capable.
  I understand some other amendments will be offered prior to the 12 
o'clock hour. I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, at the outset, I would like to 
associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from North Dakota, as 
well as the Presiding Officer's remarks, in support of the guns in 
school legislation. I could not agree with you more.
  While my colleague said I was a cosponsor, I do not think I am yet, 
so I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2422

    (Purpose: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require 
 institutions of higher education to disclose participation rates, and 
  program support expenditures, in college athletic programs, and for 
                            other purposes)

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], for herself 
     and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 2422.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. 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 1357, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC.  . HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Equity 
     in Athletics Disclosure Act''.
       (b) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) participation in athletic pursuits plays an important 
     role in teaching young Americans how to work on teams, handle 
     challenges and overcome obstacles;
       (2) participation in athletic pursuits plays an important 
     role in keeping the minds and bodies of young Americans 
     healthy and physically fit;
       (3) there is increasing concern among citizens, educators, 
     and public officials regarding the athletic opportunities for 
     young men and women at institutions of higher education;
       (4) a recent study by the National Collegiate Athletic 
     Association found that in Division I-A institutions, only 20 
     percent of the average athletic department operations budget 
     of $1,310,000 is spent on women's athletics; 15 percent of 
     the average recruiting budget of $318,402 is spent on 
     recruiting female athletes; the average scholarship expenses 
     for men is $1,300,000 and $505,246 for women; an average of 
     143 grants are awarded to male athletes and 59 to women 
     athletes;
       (5) female college athletes receive less than 18 percent of 
     the athletics recruiting dollar and less than 24 percent of 
     the athletics operating dollar;
       (6) male college athletes receive approximately 
     $179,000,000 more per year in athletic scholarship grants 
     than female college athletes;
       (7) prospective students and prospective student athletes 
     should be aware of the commitments of an institution to 
     providing equitable athletic opportunities for its men and 
     women students; and
       (8) knowledge of an institution's expenditures for women's 
     and men's athletic programs would help prospective student 
     and prospective student athletes make informed judgments 
     about the commitments of a given institution of higher 
     education to providing equitable athletic benefits to its men 
     and women students.
       (c) Amendment.--Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(g) Disclosure of Athletic Program Participation Rates 
     and Financial Support Data.--
       ``(1) Data required.--Each institution of higher education 
     that participates in any program under this title, and has an 
     intercollegiate athletic program, shall annually submit a 
     report to the Secretary that contains the following 
     information:
       ``(A) For each men's team, women's team, and any team that 
     includes both male and female athletes, the following data:
       ``(i) The total number of participants and their gender.
       ``(ii) The total athletic scholarship expenditures.
       ``(iii) A figure that represents the total athletic 
     scholarship expenditures divided by the total number of 
     participants.
       ``(iv) The total number of contests for the team.
       ``(v) The per capita operating expenses for the team
       ``(vi) The per capita recruiting expenses for the team.
       ``(vii) The per capita personnel expenses for the team.
       ``(viii) Whether the head coach is male or female and 
     whether the head coach is full or part time.
       ``(ix) The number of assistant coaches that are male and 
     the number of assistant coaches that are female and whether 
     each particular coach is full time or part time.
       ``(x) The number of graduate assistant coaches that are 
     male and the number of graduate assistant coaches that are 
     female.
       ``(xi) The number of volunteer assistant coaches that are 
     male and the number of volunteer assistant coaches that are 
     female.
       ``(xii) The ratio of participants to coaches.
       ``(xiii) The average annual institutional compensation of 
     the head coaches of men's sports teams, across all offered 
     sports, and the average annual institutional compensation of 
     the head coaches of women's sports teams, across all offered 
     sports.
       ``(xiv) The average annual institutional compensation of 
     each of the assistant coaches of men's sports teams, across 
     all offered sports, and the average annual institutional 
     compensation of the assistant coaches of women's sports 
     teams, across all offered sports.
       ``(B) A statement of the following data:
       ``(i) The ratio of male participants to female participants 
     in the entire athletic program.
       ``(ii) The ratio of male athletic scholarship expenses to 
     female athletic scholarship expenses in the entire athletic 
     program.
       ``(2) Disclosure to prospective students.--An institution 
     of higher education described in paragraph (1) that offers 
     admission to a potential student shall provide to such 
     student, upon request, the information contained in the 
     report submitted by such institution to the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1), and all students offered admission to such 
     institution shall be informed of their right to request such 
     information.
       ``(3) Disclosure to the public.--An institution of higher 
     education described in paragraph (1) shall make available to 
     the public, upon request, the information contained in the 
     report submitted by such information to the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Secretary's duty to publish a report of the data.--On 
     or before July 1, 1995, and each July 1 thereafter, the 
     Secretary, using the reports submitted under this subsection, 
     shall compile, publish, and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of the Congress, a report that includes the 
     information contained in such reports identified by (A) the 
     individual institutions, and (B) by the athletic conferences 
     recognized by the National Collegiate Athletic Association 
     and the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics.
       ``(5) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `operating expenses' means all nonscholarship 
     expenditures.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (c) 
     shall take effect on July 1, 1994.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, Senators Kennedy, Simon, Harkin, 
Mikulski, and I introduced several bills last September as a 
cooperative effort to address the widespread gender inequities in our 
Nation's schools. These bills, which are collectively known as the 
Gender Equity in Education package, include the Equity in Education 
Amendments Act, the Women's Educational Equity Restoration Act, the 
Fairness in Education for Girls and Boys Act, and the Equity in 
Athletics Disclosure Act.
  Mr. President, all four of these bills are important because they 
will help the Secretary of Education enforce title IX of the Education 
Amendments of 1972, the principal Federal statute prohibiting sex 
discrimination in education.
  S. 1513 includes much of the gender equity in education package. 
However, one major component, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, 
is not yet included in the Improving America's Schools Act. The 
amendment now before the Senate will make this final gender equity 
initiative a part of S. 1513.
  Mr. President, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 has 
helped to eliminate many discriminatory policies--such as rules that 
only boys could take shop classes. Yet, because institutions of higher 
education are not required to disclose gender equity information 
regarding their intercollegiate athletic programs, many are still not 
in full compliance.
  In fact, the National Collegiate Athletic Association [NCAA], the 
American Council on Education [ACE], and my colleague from Illinois--
Congresswoman Cardiss Collins--have all documented the prevalence of 
gender inequities in intercollegiate athletics.
  In 1992, the NCAA conducted a one-time study on gender equity in 
men's and women's intercollegiate athletic programs at all Division I-A 
schools. As expected, this study found that female college athletes 
receive less than 18 percent of the athletic recruiting dollar and less 
than 24 percent of the athletic program operating dollars. This report 
also found that the average scholarship budget for men's teams is $1.3 
million but only $500,000 for women's teams.
  Mr. President, the American Council on Education [ACE] has also 
documented gross gender inequities in intercollegiate athletic coaching 
staffs. In a recent survey of 1,410 post-secondary institutions, ACE 
found that women represent only 8 percent of athletic directors and 
only 6 percent of sports information directors.
  Over the last 3 years, Congresswoman Collins has also used her 
position as chairwoman of the House Commerce, Consumer Protection, and 
Competitiveness Subcommittee to highlight the gender inequities which 
plague intercollegiate athletics.
  In three separate hearings, student athletes and coaches alike have 
testified that women's teams often have poorer facilities for training; 
worse hours for practice and competition; inferior travel 
accommodations; and little, if any, promotional support.
  Mr. President, the American Association of University Women have 
supported this legislation strongly and they say:

       By requiring colleges and universities to disclose their 
     expenditures and participation rates in women's and men's 
     sports programs, this bill would help address a key problem 
     of bias against women and girls in schools.

  4I ask unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              American Association


                                          of University Women,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1994.
     Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: On behalf of AAUW's 150,000 
     members nationwide, I am writing to express our strong 
     support for including the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act 
     (S 1468) in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. By 
     requiring colleges and universities to disclose their 
     expenditures and participation rates in men's and women's 
     sports programs, S 1468 would help address a key problem of 
     bias against women and girls in school.
       As you know, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 
     prohibits sex discrimination in institutions receiving 
     federal funds. Yet a 1992 National Collegiate Athletics 
     Association study found that male athletes receive more than 
     two-thirds of all college scholarships and five times more 
     money in their recruitment budget. S 1468 would provide the 
     foundation for making Title IX effective in our college and 
     university athletic programs by improving access to 
     information about compliance for individual schools.
       Reseach reported in ``The AAUW Report: How Schools 
     Shortchange Girls'' shows that extracurricular activities 
     play an important role in teenagers' socialization and self-
     concepts. Unfortunately, during secondary school, boys' 
     participation in athletics is still almost twice that of 
     girls. Although girls enjoy participation in sports as much 
     as boys do, they often shy away because of the way they see 
     themselves in relation to sports. We believe the lack of 
     female role models in athletics and the lesser opportunities 
     these girls see in their schools and in their futures greatly 
     contributes to their reticence and biased notions of sports. 
     If we hope to enhance girls' participation in athletics, with 
     all its attending benefits, we must provide for equitable 
     opportunities at all levels of education.
       We commend you for your leadership on this issue. Please 
     contact April Osajima on our staff if we can be of any 
     assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jackie DeFazio.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. The amendment addresses this gender inequity by 
requiring institutions of higher education that receive Federal funds 
to disclose information on participation rates, coaching staffs, and 
program expenses for each of their men's and women's intercollegiate 
athletic teams.
  The amendment would also require institutions to disclose upon 
request this information to the general public and to students who need 
this information in order to make informed decisions regarding their 
education. It would also require them to provide this information to 
the Secretary of Education, who would then report it to the Congress.
  Mr. President, the NCAA has begun to address the problem of gender 
inequity through its 1992 study.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  I see that the hour is just moving to 12 o'clock, at which time we 
are going to recess in respect for the memory of our colleague, Senator 
Scott.
  I ask unanimous consent that when we resume, the Senator from 
Illinois be recognized to complete her statement on this very important 
amendment.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I have exactly another 30 seconds 
worth of dialog. If it is all right, I would just as soon conclude at 
this time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I so ask unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Again, very briefly, the NCAA has taken its own 
initiative, but it needs help. It is very clear that they need the 
support for disclosure of this information.
  Previously, when the NCAA attempted to get this information, they 
received 20 percent voluntary compliance. This legislation will give 
100 percent information disclosure regarding fairness in our athletic 
programs.
  I would like to conclude my remarks by saying we will never be able 
to achieve excellence in education unless we eliminate gender bias. 
This legislation goes a long way in providing us with the basis to do 
so.
  I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman for his allowing me time to 
continue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see that the hour of 12 noon has 
arrived. I think there will be a brief further discussion about this 
when we resume at 3 o'clock. We may very well have the vote at that 
time and then follow, hopefully, the sequence which I have outlined 
earlier. And we hope, as I said, that Members who have other amendments 
will inform the staff or Senator Jeffords and myself.

                          ____________________