[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 Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we have set aside the Simon amendment for 
the longer school year. We have also the Gorton amendment and the 
gender equity amendment.
  The Senator from Illinois has a further amendment on the Women's 
Equity and Education Act. I hope we would address that and then go to 
the Cochran amendment on the formula, which I think will be a major 
area of discussion and debate, since there are three or four different 
formulations of it. That is enormously important, obviously, to the 
States.
  And then during that period of time, we will see how we can address 
some of these other items. We are preserving everyone's rights, 
obviously. In terms of making the greatest progress on the bill, we 
have talked to the Senator from Mississippi and others that have 
formula amendments and they are prepared to go. I think that that is 
something which is extremely important in terms of the legislation. So 
we will try and move in that direct direction.
  Hopefully, we can dispose of this other Simon amendment and then move 
towards the formula amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would advise the Senator that the 
Senate has not formally set aside the amendment of the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we 
temporarily set aside the previous Simon amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 2424

  (Purpose: To increase the authorization of the Women's Educational 
                     Equity Program to $5 million)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] for himself, Mr. 
     Hatch, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Pell, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. 
     Moseley-Braun, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
     Metzenbaum, and Mrs. Boxer proposes an amendment numbered 
     2424.

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

  On page 995, line 10, strike ``$2,000,000'' and insert ``$5 
million''.

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, what this amendment does, frankly, is it 
increases the authorization for the Women's Educational Equity Program 
from $2 to $5 million. That is still $4 million below where we were 
before. The Appropriations Committee in the Senate has already approved 
$3.9 million.
  I offer this amendment in behalf of Senator Hatch and myself, and a 
number of Members of this body. It is very clear that we face an 
educational equity problem in this country as regards the female 
population in terms of students, in terms of administration, and in 
other areas. The program is doing solid work for a very, very small 
amount of money. I hope the Senate could accept the authorization.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment to 
the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. We have discussed this in 
both the committee and here on the floor.
  While this amendment is only a modest increase in the authorization 
for the Women's Equity and Education Act from, if I am correct, $2 to 
$5 million in authorization, I would have to speak against the 
amendment, although I am not going to request a vote, because I 
question whether this is an area in which we should be spending any 
Federal dollars at all.
  If I could just for a moment, Mr. President, say that while what is 
called the WEEA Program, the Women's Equity and Education Act, targets 
a perceived problem in education--gender bias in our schools--as a 
woman, I can attest to the fact that I did not really feel that I was 
disadvantaged in schools because I was a woman. And I went all through 
public schools in Topeka, KS.
  There are areas, certainly, where there is discrimination. But I am 
not sure that we can address it here with another additional amount of 
money in a Federal initiative.
  I think the presumption that girls are ``shortchanged'' in school is 
supported only by a small body of research which has questionable 
findings.
  For example, a study by the American Association of University Women 
found that girls receive less attention from teachers than do boys in 
the classroom, often resulting in lower self-esteem on the part of 
girls. What the study did not mention was that this perceived attention 
resulted from the fact that the boys received 8 to 10 times as many 
reprimands in the class as the girls. It was not positive attention.
  So, I am not sure, Mr. President, that these things do not get 
balanced out and, in fact, by perhaps making too much of something, we 
only create a problem where perhaps it did not exist before.
  With regard to academic achievement, boys typically score higher in 
math and science than girls, that is true, but girls get higher scores 
in reading and writing. Moreover, more girls go on to college and more 
receive master's degrees than their male counterparts.
  So I am just not sure that this actually holds up when we look at the 
whole picture. I know this is a popular issue with many of my 
colleagues and it is a difficult one to vote against in a program that 
claims to level the playing field for women and for girls in school. 
However, I do believe that we have no right to play on this particular 
field in the first place. It should be in our own local school 
districts and in our school boards, where we should be engaged in 
trying to correct any uneven playing fields.
  For that reason, I have great reservations. I will not ask for a 
vote, Mr. President, but I think it is important to note that we get 
into these issues and get into increasing funds for the best of 
intentions when actually I think we would be far better off leaving 
well enough alone.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support this proposition. I think it is 
justified and worthwhile.
  In the mid-1970's, a number of us tried to get the National Science 
Foundation to develop outreach programs to enhance women's achievement 
in math, science, chemistry, biology, and physics.
  If you look over those individuals, for example, that were getting 
grants from the National Science Foundation, really probably less than 
10 percent involved women in many of the technical sciences. I think 
what basically we were saying was that this country was losing an 
enormous asset, in terms of the ability and the interest and the 
commitment of a major segment of our society.
  This particular program is an extremely modest program. The 
appropriation is already up to $4 million. This would just barely cover 
the appropriation.
  What it is basically trying to do is enhance women's achievement in 
the classroom. It is basically targeted in terms of enriching the 
teacher's sensitivity, awareness, techniques and approaches in terms of 
bringing out the best in terms of women in the classroom.
  The resources which have been used to date have demonstrated to be 
successful. It is an extremely modest program. I know there are those 
concerned about it. I appreciate the position that has been taken here 
by our friend, the Senator from Kansas, but I hope that the amendment 
would be agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to rise associating myself 
with the comments of the ranking member, Senator Kassebaum of Kansas.
  My concern here is that we have already seen with this bill a number 
of Members come to the floor and add a few million here and a few 
million there. As Everett Dirksen said, that begins to become real 
money fairly quickly.
  The problem is that in this bill there is a huge amount of new 
programmatic activity which we do not have the money to pay for. There 
is also a large number of programs which remain in this bill which the 
President himself suggested should be eliminated.
  So the allocation of funds within this bill to the core activities 
which are needed to be done in this bill--which might be able to be 
increased, for example, if we did not have all these new programs--is 
constantly being chipped away instead by all these additional ideas 
that come to the floor.
  Now I am sure many of these ideas are very worthwhile. In fact, I 
like many of these ideas.

  But, the fact is we do not have a bottomless pocket here. We are 
having to make choices and make priorities, and to have Members 
continually coming down here and suggesting let us put another couple 
of million here and let us put another $10 million here, as already has 
happened a couple of times in this bill, is, in my opinion, fiscally 
irresponsible.
  I will be offering an amendment later in the day, hopefully, when I 
have the opportunity and in the proper order, to eliminate all the new 
programs that have been added to this bill so we can get back to the 
basic core function which this piece of legislation is directed at, 
which is a very appropriate function and which is a very important 
function.
  Chapter 1 dollars have played a major role in helping disadvantaged 
children get better prepared for and participate in school systems. But 
all these additional programs that are being put on here, many of them 
being wonderfully conceived ideas, simply are draining our ability to 
do the basic core programs. And we are not doing our job as a Senate of 
prioritizing what we can spend money on in a time of tight fiscal 
atmosphere.
  We are running, as everyone knows, a fairly significant deficit in 
this country. So every time we come up with a new idea which is a good 
idea and say, let us spend some money on it, we have to borrow that 
money from the American people and from the children of the next 
generation.
  I do not think it is fair to the children we are allegedly trying to 
assist to educate that we should load more debt onto their backs in 
order to constantly add new programs, many of which are so small, so 
minuscule they really cannot have a major impact across the Nation and 
really are issues, as the Senator from Kansas appropriately pointed 
out, more appropriately reserved to the decision process and the 
allocation of resources process at the local school board level.
  So I do not support this amendment. I understand there is not going 
to be a vote on it. I will not ask for a vote on it. But I do want to 
raise the flag here, that we are setting off on another instance of: 
Let us add another new program, let us add a few dollars to this 
program, let us increase that program, when in fact we are not doing 
our job to underwrite the basic programs of education in this country 
which we already have on the books.
  I point to one startling program as an example of that which is 94-
142, which is grossly underfunded and which, as a result, is skewing 
the resources at the local community level.
  So I hope we will not support this program, although I guess it is 
going to be accepted by the leadership. But when we get to my 
amendment, which raises this whole issue in a very definitive way--do 
we want to add $770 million worth of new programs to this bill--that 
Members will be sensitive to the fact that every time they add a new 
program it puts a drain on the capacity to do the other activities of 
this bill in an effective way.
  So that amendment is coming. I just want to put people on notice of 
it. I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Murray be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I simply point out Senator Kassebaum said 
most of these decisions are made at the local level, and she is 
absolutely correct in that. But, for example, history books--only 2 
percent of those who are featured in history books are women. You 
cannot correct that through the local school board. You need to correct 
that at the national level.
  There are small things like that that really become significant in 
the long run. I hope my colleagues will vote for this.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, 7 years ago, I suggested that American 
school children needed to spend more time in school--an additional 30 
to 40 days each year. The reason is simple: America will not be able to 
compete in the global economy, much less thrive in it, if we give our 
children vastly less education than our competitors give theirs.
  And, make no mistake about it: our children spend far less time in 
school than the children of other nations. On average, American 
children attend school 180 days each year. Meanwhile, other nations--
America's economic competitors--send their children to school much 
longer. In Japan, it is 243 days; in Germany, up to 220 days; and in 
Hong Kong, 195 days.
  This much we have known for years. But now we learn that it is not 
just a matter of days. In early May, the National Commission on Time 
and Learning, which was created by Congress in 1991, reported that in 
the four high school years, students in Japan, France, and Germany 
spend more than twice as many hours in core academic subjects--subjects 
such as math and science--as students in the United States. The 
Commission concluded that America's school children are--as the title 
of the Commission's report so aptly describes it--``Prisoners of 
Time.''
  As I see it, if we are to provide the future generations of Americans 
with the ability to compete in the global economy of the 21st century--
a competition based not on brawn but on brains--our choices are few.
  We can have inherently smarter students--students who can learn in 
180 days what it takes the rest of the world over 200 days to learn--
which we do not have.
  We can have significantly more accomplished teachers--which is 
difficult to achieve.
  Or, we can do what will inevitably be unpopular with students as well 
as teachers and probably some parents--but is inevitable if we are to 
solve the problem. And that is: send our children to school longer.
  That is why the National Commission on Time and Learning in its May 
report recommended what I have argued for the last 7 years: America's 
children need to spend more time in the classroom learning.
  Today, the Senate has the opportunity to put the Federal Government 
on record in support of a longer school year. The Simon amendment would 
authorize $100 million in grants to local schools that choose to extend 
the school year to at least 210 days--30 days longer than the current 
average year.
  It is important to emphasize that this amendment does not require 
schools to adopt a longer school year. Some have pointed out during 
this debate that the length of the school yer should be a local 
decision. And, I am willing to accept that argument. But, nothing in 
this amendment requires a longer school year. It merely will help those 
local schools that on their own choose to have a longer year.
  Another argument that I often hear against a longer school year is 
that the issue is not quantity but quality. On one level, that argument 
is right. It is important for all students to have a quality education, 
regardless of the length of the school year. But, as economist Lester 
Thurow has noted, those who argue quality over quantity are trying to 
reform education not with what is easy to do--``work longer and 
harder''--but with what is hard to do--``work smarter.''
  Having children spend more time in the classroom is not the only 
answer to a better system of education in this country. And, this 
amendment itself goes only part way in addressing the issue of a longer 
school year. But, it is a start, and it will provide local schools with 
some financial help to lengthen the school year. I urge my colleagues 
to support the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2424) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I understand we are close to being able 
to vote on the gender equity amendment. That is the amendment of the 
junior Senator from Illinois. I understand in just in a moment or two 
the Senator from Kansas will be here to speak to this issue. Then, 
hopefully, we can move ahead in a vote.
  Basically, I hope the amendment of the Senator from Illinois is 
accepted. Some years ago we had an amendment from the Senator from New 
Jersey, Senator Bradley, and myself that provided information to 
parents about what happened to many of the young people who attended 
universities on scholarships and whether they graduated.
  Some of our finest universities, with some of our best athletic 
programs, have an extraordinary record of achievement and 
accomplishment in graduating young men and women who had athletic 
scholarships, who had very good academic achievement and great success 
on the athletic fields, who went on to some very important 
opportunities in the future.
  We had also some examples of situations where individuals or students 
were given scholarships and once their useful life on the athletic 
field had expired, these individuals were effectively drummed out of 
the universities. And we also provided information as well in terms of 
various crime statistics so parents and applicants would have a good 
idea as to the nature of crime, both on campus and off campus.
  The amendment of the Senator from Illinois really builds upon what 
has been an accepted concept, and that is giving additional information 
to the public. Her amendment deals with gender equity in athletics. It 
requires institutions of higher education to disclose to prospective 
students, the public, and the Department of Education information 
related to the support for men's and women's sports, participation 
rates of men versus women in sports, the number of coaches, recruiting 
expenses, average coaching salaries for men and women. It discloses 
this to prospective students and also to the public--and a report to 
the Secretary of Education.
  I know there will be some who feel this will be onerous on 
universities. The fact of the matter is the universities have to comply 
with equity in terms of women's athletic programs--certainly since the 
Grove City title IX, and also the Grove City Supreme Court case, which 
we overturned here in the Senate to make sure there was going to be 
compliance.
  Effectively, all this does is make that information available. If 
they are not going to provide for this kind of equity, of course, that 
is a different situation. There are remedies to try to make sure they 
do. This really is to make it available. It assumes the colleges and 
universities are doing so, and all this amendment does is just make 
sure that information is out there and shared with the public so they 
would know.
  I support the amendment of the Senator from Illinois. I see she is 
here on the floor. I am very appreciative of her accommodation in terms 
of offering her amendment and speaking to it. We have had a time 
interruption because of the recess--appropriately so--earlier in the 
afternoon. I think momentarily we are going to be prepared to dispose 
of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the pending amendment is the 
amendment offered by the senior Senator from Illinois regarding the 
longer school year.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask that be temporarily set aside and 
we have before the Senate the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2422

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment becomes the amendment 
offered by the junior Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I spoke on this amendment earlier 
today and was detained in judiciary hearings until just a minute ago.
  I just would like to applaud and congratulate the Senator from 
Massachusetts for his leadership in this area, for his strong support 
of the equity in athletics and disclosure amendment, and urge its 
favorable consideration by my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
of Senator Moseley-Braun. I have enormous respect for the sincerity of 
the Senator from Illinois. I can fully appreciate what she is trying to 
address in this amendment.
  If I may just speak for a few moments as to why I am concerned about 
this amendment. One, not only do I think it adds additional 
bureaucratic confusion and burdens on institutions of higher education, 
but if this is to be addressed, I think it should have been addressed 
in the higher education bill rather than elementary and secondary 
legislation.
  I suggest also that it is duplicative of Federal laws that are 
already in existence.
  The premise of the amendment is that fewer dollars are spent on 
female athletes and coaches of many institutions of higher education, 
if I understand correctly. Again, there is the recognition of gender 
discrimination and the premise that the Federal Government should do 
something about that.
  If the charge is that there is discrimination in college athletic 
programs against women's sports, any civil rights claim is covered by 
title IX, which guards against sex discrimination in any Federal 
education program. The Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of 
Education enforces title IX, and it can request any data without this 
amendment.
  I suggest this amendment also duplicates similar, but less 
burdensome, requirements in the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1992 
which require institutions that offer athletic scholarships to report 
similar information. However, this amendment expands this paperwork 
burden and extends it to any institution that participates in Federal 
student aid programs.
  I just feel that, while with the best of intentions, it really adds 
an enormous burden of reporting requirements and, as far as students 
are concerned, I venture to say that for most students and 
institutions, an athletics program is only one of many factors to be 
considered in deciding which college to attend.
  In addition, a student is free to request such information from the 
institution without this amendment. Perhaps the Senator from Illinois 
hopes by this to develop records which show institutionally that going 
back even earlier in the process in elementary and secondary education 
we build up a gender discrimination that is then perceived in higher 
education.
  I am not going to ask for a vote on this amendment, Mr. President, 
but I am disappointed that we, again, continue to add burdens on our 
institutions of learning that I feel should not be added or imposed on 
our institutions of higher education or our elementary and secondary 
schools.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has yielded the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I have the highest regard and 
respect for the commitment of the Senator from Kansas as well. I ask 
the Senator from Kansas, is she not aware that the Higher Education 
Amendments of 1992 do not cover Division III schools or Ivy League 
schools, and this amendment, of course, would be a level playing field, 
it would be across the board and, again, where there are omissions in 
other previous acts.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes, Mr. President, I do acknowledge that is the 
case, that this would require reporting from all institutions. And as I 
say, I am not going to ask for a vote, but I do, again, question the 
burdensome requirements that it will impose.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senator from 
Illinois and simply ask her a question about the amendment.
  I have read through it. I tend to agree with my colleague from Kansas 
that this is a lot more reporting and paperwork. Assuming we are going 
to have the paperwork, I would like the Senator from Illinois to 
explain to me why one of the statistics that is to be included every 
year is not the income which the institution receives from each of 
these various sports.
  That may not be the only consideration as to how money is 
distributed, but it certainly is at least relevant to that. And I 
strongly suggest, I would be much more favorably disposed toward the 
amendment if one of the things in the report, so students could make an 
appropriate comparison, was how much money actually comes into the 
institution, which is paying out all this money, from each of these 
sports which is otherwise required to be reported?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Washington very much. It is almost ironic that he would ask that 
question. I was just asked that very question by a minister who is 
visiting from my home State. We were talking about it, and he said, 
``Is there a difference between how much the boys teams bring in versus 
the girls teams?'' He was kind of joking about it. I responded by 
saying the girls teams can make as much money as the boys teams do if 
they are given a chance.
  The Senator is correct. The amount of money that the teams make is 
not included as reporting, the notion being that we have not yet gotten 
to the point where income disparities in terms of earning potential of 
the various team sports was at issue. Our concern was in terms of 
equality of opportunity to participate, not equality of opportunity to 
earn money from it participation in team sports.
  The Senator's point is well taken. There may well be differentials in 
the amount that is earned by the boys teams versus the girls teams. But 
I think in the first instance we have an obligation to eliminate gender 
bias in terms of opportunities for students to participate.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator certainly understands this 
Senator would suggest that the amendment would be considered to be more 
fair and more all encompassing if the Senator from Illinois would 
modify it to include those figures. It certainly cannot hurt potential 
students or anyone else reading these figures to have a full 
understanding of the way athletic departments are funded.
  This was meant to be a friendly suggestion. One would think it would 
improve the amendment to ask for the inclusion of those figures.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator may be persuaded in that 
position. I personally do not find it enormously convincing. The whole 
point, in terms of the history of women in sports, is that they have 
been seriously shortchanged over a long period of time. We have had 
great difficulty in seeing that there was going to be some attention 
that was going to be given to women in sports.
  I have no objection to having that kind of inclusion, but it just 
seems to me that the amendment is driving at another factor. We can 
grant and acknowledge that sports, particularly football; basketball, 
particularly in the big 10; and others, are the great moneymakers in 
terms of colleges and universities and in terms of professional sports. 
If that is the issue, we stipulate that.
  The real question is, are we as a society going to, over a period of 
time in addressing many of the issues of gender inequity, really see, 
as a result of information that effectively is required under existing 
law, that it is going to be made available to the public?
  I inform the Senator from Illinois, perhaps we could accept the 
amendment and then the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from 
Washington can talk additionally about whether they would agree, 
whether they would desire to have it perfected and we can address that 
at another time.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield? Mr. 
President, I say to the Senator from Washington, I actually took his 
friendly suggestion. It is my understanding, and correct me if I am 
wrong, that if a friendly modification such as that means that the 
Senator from Washington would be prepared to support the amendment, if 
so modified--and he is nodding his assent--in that regard, I sent my 
staff over to work with the Senator's staff on language. Again, I would 
like to have the amendment accepted as quickly as we can agree on the 
modification as proposed.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Then what we will do is temporarily set that amendment 
aside, along with the others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun], is set aside.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from Massachusetts, 
[Mr. Kennedy], is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see the Senators from Mississippi and 
Arkansas here. I hope we can get about the debate now on the formulas. 
It is 4 o'clock. I appreciate the desire of our colleagues to address 
the Senate on different matters. This is a very important bill, and I 
am glad to and will stay here during the course of the evening, until 
we come to grips with this.
  I asked the Members to come down last evening. We have so asked them 
this morning. We have asked them earlier in the afternoon. I hope we 
can deal with the formula, which is a very legitimate issue and 
question and move forward with the debate on that item. It is 
important.
  I know there are members who do have amendments. We are going to ask 
them to come on down. We are going to move on through. It is 4 o'clock. 
Unless they are going to come down, we are going to ask for third 
reading on this measure. We have tried to accommodate Senators. The 
majority leader has. And if we are not going to find Members here, I am 
going to ask the majority leader if we cannot move ahead. We have tried 
to accommodate Members. We have remained on the floor. We would like to 
address what are the central issues on an item of enormous importance 
to the young people in this country.
  Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. GORTON. I believe that he, or his representatives and I and the 
Senator from Vermont have now agreed on a procedure to deal with what 
is the order, the amendment which I introduced this morning, and I 
think at least tentatively from the perspective of the Senator from 
Vermont and myself, we could quite soon agree to a time arrangement 
under which we voted successively on the two amendments at, say, 6 
o'clock. I think that is time to get everyone here who wants to speak 
on those amendments. And so if he can clear that on his side, I think I 
can clear that from the perspective of my own amendment. We could be on 
something of substance. We could get it done. We could have those votes 
and go on to something else. I am working on a minor amendment to the 
amendment of the Senator from Illinois. As soon as that is worked out, 
we could take that up and pass it in about 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Let me say the Senator from Washington has been 
extremely patient and willing to work with the Members here. We will 
inquire of the interested Senators on this issue. I hope that we could 
do that prior to the hour of 6. We will certainly talk with the Senator 
and do it in a way in which Senator Harkin and others would want to do 
it. But I would like to try, if we are able to move that in a timely 
way, to do so. But we will certainly work out that time with the 
Senator.
  Mr. GORTON. We are ready to go. We are ready to proceed.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is ready to go now.
  Mr. GORTON. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand from staff, the other interested parties 
are prepared to go as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas, [Mr. Bumpers], is 
recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment----
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold for a moment, the 
pending business is amendment No. 2423.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside so that I may offer an amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, if I may inquire, the 
pending amendment, I believe, is the Gorton amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Simon amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The Simon amendment. May I inquire--reserving my right 
to object--of the Senator from Arkansas as to the length of time his 
amendment will take and whether this is something that can be accepted 
or whether it is going to require considerable debate?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I cannot be very definite about this. It 
is a very important amendment. And my guess is it is going to take a 
while.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my understanding it is a formula amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes, it is a chapter 1 formula change.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope that we might accommodate 
Senators. We have been trying to get--this formula issue is going to 
have to be debated. It has reached sort of the heart and soul--we do 
not want to disadvantage any Members, but we are in the process of 
notifying other Senators who were interested in other issues, and I 
would hope that we could move ahead on it. As soon as we are able to 
contact others, we will try and at least see if we cannot resolve those 
items which are pending.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Still reserving the right to object, we now have 
Senator Harkin coming on the Gorton amendment. The amendment has been 
set aside. The Senator from Washington is ready to go. We are ready to 
agree on a unanimous-consent and get it out of the way so we can clear 
it and then spend the rest of the time probably on the formula 
amendments.
  So I would urge that we be allowed to get back to the Gorton 
amendment and resolve that and then proceed on to the formula. We have 
two formula advocates here, and it would seem to me it would be more 
logical to bring it in that kind of order.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's comments. I 
see the Senators from Arkansas and Mississippi in the Chamber. We have 
been trying to urge them to come over here for some period of time. And 
now, as they are experienced legislators and familiar with the way this 
process works, we are going to then move ahead and vote on the Gorton 
amendment and the Harkin amendment, as I understand it.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are certainly prepared to debate, and 
we are certainly prepared to enter into time agreement on it. In order 
not to waste any time, I am prepared and really prefer that the manager 
simply call for the regular order and bring up our amendment. The 
agreement is this: That the Gorton amendment will be debated and dealt 
with at the same time the Senator from Vermont is going to explain his 
alternative amendment to it. We will try to get one time agreement on 
both of them and vote on them respectively.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could suggest a way of proceeding, 
that the Senator from Arkansas withhold offering the amendment, and we 
could start the debate on it. That preserves the position of the 
Senator from Washington. We are all interested parties. We will try to 
resolve this. I think that will be the best utilization of the Senate's 
time. Otherwise, we are going to be in a period of quorum calls.
  I think there is really not much of a mystery about the basic 
concept. I know the Senator will want to address the substance of it. 
But if we could proceed in that way, I think it would save us a good 
deal of time this evening.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for a question? Is the Senator 
from Washington prepared to offer and debate his amendment?
  Mr. GORTON. The amendment of the Senator from Washington is the 
regular order. The Senator from Washington is prepared to make a brief 
additional statement to the one that he made this morning. I will let 
the Senator from Vermont speak on the other side. We have notified the 
other proponents, and I understand the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], 
is on the same side as the Senator from Vermont. He is on his way to 
the floor. I would just as soon start on the Gorton amendment, and the 
companion Jeffords amendment, and finish this as quickly as we can.
  The answer is I am prepared to start that now.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator from 
Massachusetts that I want to be helpful. I know how frustrating it can 
be in the chair he is sitting in and waiting for action. Now he perhaps 
has more action than he wants. I am reluctant to serve our amendment by 
beginning the debate and going to these others and coming back to it. I 
think the Senator can understand.
  Mr. KENNEDY. All right. I would suggest we start the debate and 
conclude the debate on the amendment of the Senator from Washington.
  I would ask that the interested Senators on this issue come to the 
floor because when the Senator from Washington concludes, we are going 
to move ahead on this in terms of having the votes on it. So those 
Members who are interested, we are urging them to come to the floor. We 
have tried to accommodate on this issue since early this morning. I 
think we have as I understand a way of proceeding. I would hope that we 
would accommodate and listen to the Senator from Washington--those who 
have differing views, which I personally do. But I know there are other 
Members. Then I hope we are going to resolve this issue so that we can 
move ahead.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from 
Massachusetts would yield. Will the Senator be willing to entertain a 
unanimous-consent agreement so we do not have a hiatus and move 
expeditiously, as he suggested, with the unanimous-consent agreement 
that the regular order be following disposition of the Gorton amendment 
and the Bumpers amendments? I promise that I will be here and ready.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. If I can, just to get on this process, I ask unanimous 
consent that we proceed immediately to the Gorton amendment, and that 
after some time to be agreed upon, we vote on the Gorton amendment; 
immediately after the Gorton amendment, an amendment to be offered by 
myself, Senator Jeffords, would be in order for debate and the time to 
be limited and to be voted on notwithstanding whatever the result is on 
the Gorton amendment.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I lodge an 
objection to that request. The amendment on equity in athletics is 
still pending. We can agree on a modification. If we can have that 
adopted by a voice vote and then go to the Gorton amendment, as stated 
in the unanimous consent request, I would be prepared to withdraw my 
objection.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have no objection to that being part of my unanimous 
consent; that immediately prior to going to the Gorton amendment, we 
take care of the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are going to go back. We are trying to 
accommodate the Members. Now I am going to ask for the regular order, 
and we are going to follow the rules of the Senate. We have attempted 
to accommodate different people on different times in different ways. 
The Members are entitled to know that we are going to proceed by the 
Senate rules.
  I am very grateful to all of those who have tried to be helpful. But 
we have now different matters that are before the Senate. We have the 
Senate rules, and we are going to follow those particular rules, and 
dispose of those amendments in an orderly way. We will do the best we 
can and stay here as long as we can. I am grateful. This in no way 
reflects in terms of others who have tried to accommodate. But we just 
have too many Members who have interests, and in order to preserve all 
of their rights, we are going to follow the Senate rules.
  Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order is the Gorton amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order is the Gorton amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Then we will proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is now the question before the body.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has been most 
generous to me, and as I understand it, all she needs to do is modify 
her amendment. I do not believe there is any more debate, and we can 
pass it in 30 seconds. I do not want to keep her here 2 hours for that.
  I ask unanimous consent that we allow the Senator from Illinois to 
modify her amendment and bring it to a voice vote, with the 
understanding that it requires no further debate, and it will be agreed 
to. We can have it done in 30 seconds.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I thank the Senator from Washington and the 
Senator from Massachusetts.


                    Amendment No. 2422, as Modified

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I send the modification to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 2422), as modified, 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; and 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 students 
     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 time 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 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 compensation of 
     the assistant coaches of women's sports teams, across all 
     offered sports.
       ``(xv) The total annual revenue generated from attendance 
     at athletic contests across all men's teams and women's 
     teams.
       ``(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), except that all such students 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 institution 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Illinois, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2422), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, at 10:30, probably 10:30 this morning, I 
laid down the Gorton-Lieberman amendment on school violence. It was 
debated briefly at that time. It is obviously controversial.
  I understand that the procedure that we will attempt to follow in 
this case, for the convenience of all Members, is that we will now 
discuss that amendment, and Senator Jeffords and others will discuss an 
alternative amendment on the same subject.
  We hope that the unanimous consent agreement will be reached under 
which there may very well be a time agreement. But, in any event, the 
two amendments will be voted on in sequence. They relate to one 
another. There does not need to be additional time after the vote on my 
amendment before the vote on the Jeffords amendment. That obviously has 
not been completely worked out yet. But that is the goal of I believe 
the proponents of both amendments.
  Mr. President, my amendment, simply to summarize briefly what I said 
this morning, is an amendment to restore a significant measure of 
control over seriously violent conduct in schools to local school 
district authority. Specifically, the amendment covers the weapons 
violations in schools, life-threatening acts, and activities in school 
on the part of students with those life-threatening activities, 
narrowly defined as it is defined in the sentencing guidelines.
  These, of course, are forms of authority which the public schools of 
the United States have exercised from time immemorial until the U.S. 
Congress began to involve itself in individual school discipline.
  There are two parts to the amendment. One is a general statement of 
the delegation of authority over offenses of this sort to the schools. 
The second is the amendment to the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act of 1975, which amends that act so that the same rules, 
with some restrictions, apply to those who are disabled, pursuant to 
which they can be removed from the school situation for up to 90 days, 
as long as they are provided with an alternative opportunity for 
education by a particular school district.
  Now, under IDEA, a student, no matter how violent, no matter how 
life-threatening his or her activities, no matter how offensive a 
weapons violation, cannot be removed from school for more than 10 days 
without the permission of the offender's parent, or a court order, 
which under Federal law, generally speaking, must come from a Federal 
court. This means, in practical terms, for our school authorities, that 
their disciplinary authority is almost negligible in this case.
  We have myriad cases in which dangerous students are consistently and 
constantly returned to school after very, very short suspensions. We 
have many instances in which the parents, against whose children an 
offense was committed, feel they have to take their children out of 
schools because of the inability to provide for this type of incident. 
In some instances, teachers are resigning their positions because they 
can no longer control their classrooms.
  This Senator--speaking on behalf of teachers, school administrators, 
parents and school directors, as a result of what I learned in January, 
very surprisingly, at an education summit--would very bluntly prefer to 
grant much more authority to local school districts. General disruption 
in the classroom ought to be the subject of discipline by local school 
authorities. It should not be interfered with by laws passed by the 
Congress of the United States.
  But in order to narrow the focus on only the most dangerous 
activities, the amendment I have introduced, together with Senator 
Lieberman and others, only applies to weapons violations, and narrowly 
defined life-threatening kinds of activities on the part of these 
students.
  This Senator recognizes that for some reason or other, this is 
extraordinarily controversial. But for the life of me, I cannot 
understand why it should be so controversial. Only two reasons occur to 
this Senator. One is that this Congress simply does not trust teachers, 
school administrators, and members of school boards, to make even these 
most fundamental decisions about the way in which their own schools are 
operating. Secondly, the answer is that next year the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act is up for reauthorization, and we ought to 
defer a discussion of this subject until that time.
  In response to the latter objection, this Senator has sunsetted the 
provision in his amendment to expire automatically when IDEA is, in 
fact, reauthorized. We know that the mere fact that it is up for 
reauthorization next year does not mean it will be reauthorized. It 
could be another 1, 2, or 3 years. We will discuss this subject now. I 
suspect this Senator will want a much broader delegation of authority 
to school districts then.
  But, in any event, this amendment will be subsumed in whatever is 
passed in such a reauthorization. Until then, however, I do not believe 
that just because this law is holy writ, and with all of the problems 
our schools face, that they should have to wait another year, 2 years, 
or 3 years, for a degree of authority, which almost every rational 
person thinks they ought to have at the present time.
  The choice--single or double--which the Senate will make, as a result 
of the informal agreement reached with the managers of the bill, is 
that Senator Jeffords will put forth an amendment which differs in two 
respects from my own. First, it will excise from my amendment any 
reference to life-threatening activities. In other words, the Jeffords 
amendment will not allow school districts to avoid all of the detailed 
provisions of IDEA in connection with life-threatening activities on 
the part of students.
  I think that explanation of the difference should show Members how 
they ought to vote. Why in the world we should not allow school 
districts authorities greater than their very narrow authority right 
now, when life-threatening activities take place in their classrooms, I 
cannot figure out.
  The other difference is that our amendment has sections applying to 
all students, delegating an even broader authority for those students 
who are not disabled. That section, as I understand it--I have not seen 
its final form yet--is not included in the Jeffords amendment. So 
Members will make a modest step forward if they were to pass only the 
Jeffords amendment. At least it does something with respect to weapons 
violations. It does nothing with respect to life-threatening situations 
in our schools.
  But we will get to vote on both of these amendments. It is, I 
suppose, consistent to vote for both of them, or for neither, or to 
vote for one and not vote for the other. But the fundamental difference 
between the two is whether or not we think there should be some change 
in the bureaucratic, court-written system now of disciplining students 
who engage in life-threatening actions during the course of their time 
in schools.
  Mr. President, this whole thing is getting more and more bizarre as 
we go on. In another connection, we have at least one report of a court 
case in which the disability claimed to protect the student is the fact 
that the student brought the gun to school. The student brings the gun 
to school, the school attempts to discipline him--and he is not a 
disabled student--and he claims that the mental condition that caused 
him to bring the gun to school is itself a disability, so he cannot be 
disciplined, or cannot be disciplined beyond the very narrow parameters 
of the present law.
  This is just too much to take, Mr. President. It is time that we 
allow school district authorities a greater degree of discretion with 
respect to students who bring weapons to school or engage in life-
threatening behavior with respect to other students or their teachers.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                       Time Limitation Agreement

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Gorton's amendment be laid aside, that Senator Jeffords then be 
recognized to offer a first-degree amendment on the same subject as 
Senator Gorton's amendment No. 2418; that there be 45 minutes under the 
control of Senator Jeffords and 30 minutes under the control of Senator 
Gorton, or his designee; that upon the use or yielding back of the time 
the Senate proceed to a vote on Senator Gorton's amendment to be 
followed by a vote on Senator Jeffords' amendment, and that the votes 
take place without any intervening action or debate, with no amendments 
in order to either amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator want to ask for the yeas and nays?
  Mr. GORTON. Are not the yeas and nays ordered?
  Mr. KENNEDY. On the Jeffords amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Jeffords amendment.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. GORTON. Senator Craig is now speaking on a somewhat different 
subject. Is this UC to begin upon the completion of Senator Craig's 
remarks?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at the 
conclusion of Senator Craig's remarks.
  Mr. GORTON. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator that the 
regular order, a request for the yeas and nays, is not before the body.
  Mr. KENNEDY. When the Senator does offer his remarks it will be in 
order to ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be in order at that point.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could we ask unanimous consent that it be in order at 
this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have not offered this amendment at this time. I will 
ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer the Jeffords amendment 
at this point.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in support of the Gorton amendment 
this afternoon. Earlier, before we went into recess, I also spoke in 
favor of the Feinstein-Dorgan amendment relating to guns coming to the 
schools of America, and the willingness on the part of this Senate to 
say in a very straightforward way that that is just not acceptable.
  The Gorton amendment says that it is not acceptable, that we do not 
recognize violence in the classroom, and that we do not give local 
school authorities the opportunity for appropriate discipline in the 
discouragement of that kind of activity.
  So for a few moments this afternoon, I would like to interrelate a 
concern that I have, which I think is spoken to in the Gorton 
amendment, and is also addressed in the Feinstein amendment, which is 
that it is clearly time for our country and this Senate to speak 
directly to the responsibility of the individual and the need to allow 
local authorities to be able to discipline and to respond accordingly 
to the act of the individual, instead of to this rather general 
approach we have had over the years that somehow individuals were 
products of society, and that we had to be careful in how we handled 
them because they were simply disadvantaged in the nature in which they 
had been socially adjusted.
  If they were misadjusted, somehow that was not the fault of the 
individual. It was the fault of society, and we must accordingly 
respond.
  Mr. President, that is kind of part of the debate that is involved 
here this afternoon and why there are some Senators who would like to 
modify the Gorton amendment.
  The Republican leader was on the floor just a few moments ago 
speaking to his frustration over a crime conference that struck from a 
crime bill some very strong efforts to react to and to control 
individuals in this society who have decided to be deviant from the 
laws and the norms of our society and somehow either go undisciplined 
or in some way almost rewarded for their deviate acts.
  That is probably why we are debating education today and in the midst 
of that educational debate we are talking about guns. It is almost 
unique that we would be doing so. But the reason we are is because over 
250,000 guns a day come to our public schools, and our local school 
officials' hands are nearly tied in their inability to act responsibly, 
directly, and quickly to that kind of an issue.
  Something is wrong.
  The Senator from Washington is attempting to respond to it. The 
Senator from California is attempting to respond to it. The Senator 
from the Dakotas is attempting to respond to it.
  So for a few moments this afternoon I would like to react to it with 
a statement that I thought about for sometime in relation to an action 
that is underway by this administration as it relates to the control of 
criminal violence in our country, and while it does not seem to fit in 
the educational context, I think it does fit because it is most 
appropriate that we discuss it here this afternoon.
  I think some of you may remember the summary that was featured in the 
article in U.S. News & World Report in April, and it also mentioned 
certainly a colleague of ours from the West, Congresswoman Barbara 
Vucanovich of Nevada on the House floor during the debate on the gun 
ban.
  It is the product of an interagency working group on violence, 
appointed by this administration, a group composed of representatives 
from the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human 
Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, as well as the 
Domestic Policy Council and the Office on National Drug Policy.
  Why should anyone take notice of this kind of activity? Why should I 
be discussing it this afternoon in context to this particular bill? 
Here is why, because I think that there are some important statements 
here that are very frustrating to me but are reflective of why we are 
here debating the issue as we debate it today.
  Mr. President, I was discussing a report on violence that was 
produced by a group of individuals inside the Clinton administration, 
and I do believe it does fit the debate and the discussions that we are 
involved in today.
  Now, the question is, why should we take notice of this particular 
report and why does it fit in the context of our debate today?
  For one thing, some of the suggestions in the summary are already 
implemented and are working their way through the process of the 
executive branch or Congress. Others may still be under review. But, 
more important, these suggestions in the report that relate to violence 
in America tell us a lot about the mindset of this administration and 
the President's closest advisers and why somehow this Senate does not 
want to give to local school authorities the direct ability to 
discipline deviants or students who would choose to act against the 
well-being of fellow students.
  I am particularly interested in the section of the summary of that 
report that deals with firearm violence. Before turning to what this 
section says, let me tell you about what it does not say.
  What is completely missing from this section is any acknowledgement 
of firearm benefits.
  Now, I am not talking about sports and hunting. Somehow today as 
people discuss firearms in America they only want to say that under the 
second amendment it is sports and hunting that is appropriate. Those 
may be benefits enjoyed by millions of Americans. But this report is 
supposed to be about violence and not recreation.
  What I am talking about is the fact that guns save lives and prevent 
injuries, crime and violence in our country every day. This report 
completely ignores the fact that guns are used for self-defense at 
least as often and statistics will suggest substantially more than they 
are used in violent acts with a criminal purpose in mind.
  Our Founding Fathers knew that firearms secured liberty. Millions of 
Americans since their time have understood that concept. Today, perhaps 
half of America's households own guns. We take our gun ownership for 
granted, just as we take for granted that our Government would never 
force us to give up our means of self-defense.
  Now comes this report. Not only does it list a variety of schemes for 
regulating firearms, but it even gives strategies for reshaping the way 
people think about firearms in America. Those strategies include 
building a scientific basis for justifying gun control and exploiting 
human psychology to build antagonism toward guns. While we are dealing 
with education, there is nothing wrong with what this bill is 
attempting to do. It sets simply parameters of ownership in this case 
in light of juveniles and in all acts of the juveniles of America over 
time we said certain things were appropriate and certain things were 
not appropriate.
  But what is interesting is that this administration is saying and 
this report clearly says that with the rest of America we need to talk 
about a paradigm shift to move the debate on guns away from philosophy 
and into a discussion of accident statistics.
  In other words, Mr. President, this report urges the administration 
to forget that liberty is at stake and that there is another side to 
the gun debate and to this debate except violence.
  This report does not suggest any research into the defense or the 
defensive use of firearms. It does not suggest methods for promoting 
gun ownership for purposes of marksmanship and responsible actions.
  Instead, it portrays the gun as a menace to society. In the section 
entitled ``Description Of The Problem,'' it refers to a ``flood of 
guns,'' and an ``epidemic of gun violence.'' And it suggests that the 
Federal Government ought to take such appropriate action to curb 
firearm injuries that it took with highway safety.
  All of sudden it becomes this manageable thing out there, that if you 
simply write the right Federal laws it is as easy to manage as highway 
safety.
  Aside from the constitutional problems that this argument obviously 
has--and they have obviously ignored it--there are the problems I just 
mentioned: Unlike motor vehicles, firearms actually play a role in 
preventing injuries and death, if properly used. There is also the 
problem that virtually all motor vehicle injuries are as a result of an 
accident--while only a tiny fraction of gun injuries are accidental.
  But let me get in to the specifics of the report.
  The report's recommendations include excise taxes on guns and 
ammunition--that has already been debated on the floor; it has been 
talked about, at least--licensing, registration, bans on manufacturing, 
and reducing the number of licensed firearms dealers.
  Let me read a few excerpts from this report.
  By the way, this is a report that was kept under lock and key. The 
press could not get their hands on it until just recently. Other 
individuals who tried to acquire it were told that it was not 
available. We finally demanded its presence in our office and it was 
brought to us.
  Let me quote from the report.

       To complement the above measures, effective firearm control 
     should consider limiting production of certain new firearms 
     and ammunition, especially the most dangerous weapons. In 
     addition to bans on new production of assault weapons (as in 
     Senator Feinstein's amendment to the Crime Bill), 
     consideration should be given to placing higher taxes on 
     handguns, which remain the weapon of choice among criminals, 
     accounting for approximately 80% of all firearms homicides.
       It is also possible that increased excise taxes on handguns 
     and particularly dangerous ammunition would help offset the 
     cost of providing medical care to gunshot victims and support 
     state regulatory and enforcement efforts to prevent firearms 
     injuries. If additional taxes are going to be imposed, 
     consideration should be given to setting them at a cost per 
     gun or bullet, rather than a percentage of manufacturers' 
     prices, because cheap guns and expensive guns can do equal 
     damage.
       By themselves, restrictions on new manufacture and sales of 
     various firearms will not reduce our huge existing arsenal of 
     firearms, or keep those firearms away from criminals and 
     those who may cause harm. State or local amnesty or buy-back 
     programs may help reduce the arsenal as suggested by the 
     recent experience with the Toys R Us swap program, as would 
     elimination of the government practice of selling to 
     civilians the firearms that are seized in crimes. New 
     requirements that firearms purchasers be licensed and/or be 
     mandated to register their firearms, combined with stricter 
     enforcement of laws prohibiting sale of firearms to certain 
     groups of people, could significantly reduce access to guns 
     by those who should not have them. Increasing dealer 
     liability for negligent sales would also help.

  But that is not all. The working group has a lot more 
recommendations:

       In addition to, or as an alternative to, a licensing scheme 
     (where firearms purchasers might have to pass a gun safety 
     test and a background check to receive a permit to buy any 
     firearm or ammunition), the federal government should 
     consider creating a class of ``restricted weapons.'' This 
     list would include all handguns and semi-automatic long guns 
     that are not otherwise outlawed and could be purchased or 
     carried only by persons holding valid registration 
     certificates. These restricted weapon certificates could be 
     issued by the local police or licensing authorities only 
     after applicants had passed a background check for felonies, 
     violent misdemeanors, mental illness, etc.; demonstrated a 
     satisfactory knowledge of the safe and responsible use of 
     firearms; accepted liability for injuries resulting from the 
     negligent use or storage of these weapons; and showed that 
     the firearm would be used only for specified legitimate 
     purposes. Restricted weapons could be possessed only in one's 
     home, one's place of business, on the premises of a target 
     range (depending on the terms of the registration 
     certificate), or while being transported to or from any of 
     the above. Possession of an unregistered, restricted firearm 
     or unlawful public carrying of a restricted firearm would be 
     a punishable federal offense. Developing this class of 
     restricted firearms would thus divide firearms into three 
     groups: banned, restricted, and unrestricted (i.e. long guns 
     which are not semi-automatic).
       Tighter restrictions on retail firearm sales must be 
     supplemented by efforts to block the two streams by which 
     criminals most often obtain their firearms--the illegal black 
     market and theft. Such a regulatory scheme might look as 
     follows: The federal government would regulate secondary 
     transfers of all firearms to prevent their delivery to those 
     prohibited by law to have weapons. To transfer a firearm, an 
     unlicensed person would be required, along with the 
     transferee, either to go to the premises of a licensed dealer 
     and document the transfer in the dealer's records, or to mail 
     a transfer application to the local police (including the 
     name and residence of both the transferor and transferee). 
     The transferee would be required to certify that he is not a 
     prohibited purchaser (as he must now do in order to buy a 
     firearm from a licensed dealer), and, in the case of a 
     handgun, to wait five days for a background check. To control 
     theft from licensed dealers, the federal law would require 
     dealers to store their firearms securely. The regimen would 
     involve stricter penalties for gun theft, as well.
       To ensure dealer compliance, we suggest reducing the number 
     of licensed firearm dealers (currently numbering almost 
     250,000) by implementing higher fees such as the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has recommended (the Brady law 
     mandates fees of $200 for a three year license, and the ATF 
     is considering fees as high as $600 per year) and tighter 
     application standards beyond what has been accomplished by 
     the Brady law.
       Also the federal government, as well as the states, should 
     redouble efforts to monitor and regulate licensed dealers. 
     Furthermore, we could consider adopting on a national basis 
     the Virginia law prohibiting licensed dealers from selling 
     more than one firearm per month to any single individual. The 
     Brady law requires that dealers notify state or local law 
     enforcement authorities of multiple sales of two or more 
     pistols or revolvers in any five day period to an unlicensed 
     person.

  These schemes are offered in the name of making it harder for the 
wrong people to get guns. But Mr. President, there is nothing in any of 
these schemes that limits their effect to the wrong people. On the 
contrary, each and every one of these ideas would restrict the ability 
of the right people, or the law-abiding people, to obtain firearms for 
legitimate purposes--including the prevention of crime, injury or 
death.
  In this country, we don't restrict the freedoms of everybody in order 
to prevent the crimes of a few. For instance, we do not require 
reporters to submit their writings to a Government board for approval 
before publication to prevent false reporting. That is called first 
amendment rights. We respect due process for everyone, even though some 
criminals may benefit from it. We do not require people to get 
Government clearance before they join associations, even though some 
associations might be formed for criminal purposes.
  Those are basic freedoms protected by the Constitution, just as the 
right to bear arms.
  The report does not stop there, Mr. President. It also suggests 
``reducing the lethality of firearms.''

       3. Reduce the lethality of firearms. The manufacture and 
     importation of firearms that are inherently unsafe and 
     excessively lethal continues in the United States. Federal 
     law requires imported weapons to adhere to design and safety 
     standards; however, current federal policies do not impose 
     the same design and safety standards on domestically 
     manufactured weapons and ammunition. Many handguns now 
     manufactured in the United States for civilian use would fail 
     these tests.
       The recent approval of the Feinstein amendment to the 
     Senate's Crime Bill, which would prohibit the new manufacture 
     and sale of 19 specified assault weapon models and any 
     copycat versions, together with the existing ban on 
     production of certain armor-piercing ammunition, demonstrates 
     a willingness to ban extremely dangerous firearms and 
     ammunition. Both efforts have substantial public support. We 
     should consider the further steps of adopting specific 
     performance standards that would prohibit manufacture of 
     firearms capable of firing more than a certain number of 
     rounds or a certain number of bullets per second as well as 
     ammunition that, under specified firing conditions, pierces 
     armor, expands more than a certain percentage upon impact, or 
     ignites upon contact.
       Additionally, the federal government should require 
     domestically-manufactured firearms to incorporate the same 
     safety features as imported firearms; We should encourage or 
     mandate the use of trigger locks, limit magazine sizes, and 
     continue to fund research into ``Smart Gun'' technologies 
     capable of rendering firearms unusable except by their 
     owners.

  Again, the basic problem with this entire concept is that it would 
miss the people who are the problem, and restrict the freedoms of the 
people who do not cause criminal violence.
  The report also suggests building a scientific basis for justifying 
gun control:

       4. Support research to develop a sound scientific basis for 
     preventing firearm injuries:
       (a) Undertake research through the CDC and NIJ to better 
     understand the risks and benefits of firearm ownership, the 
     patterns of acquisition, ownership and use, and the causes of 
     firearm injuries.
       (b) Establish a National Firearm Injury Reporting System at 
     CDC.

  Mr. President, it is significant that the recommendations focus this 
so-called scientific effort on the Centers for Disease Control. That 
organization has been criticized by medical professionals for its 
political bias, including its stated political objective of making the 
private ownership of guns not only illegal, but socially unacceptable. 
Before the Government spends a dime, we can predict exactly what 
conclusions CDC will reach on any research involving gun violence.
  Let us talk about the most cynical and disturbing section of this 
report: recommendations on reframing the public debate on firearms.

       5. Reframe the public debate on firearms.
       (a) Change the stage from politics and philosophy to 
     science: We need to reframe the public discussion about 
     firearms injuries, from a political or philosophical debate 
     on ``gun control'' as an all-or-none binary intervention to a 
     discussion based on scientifically documented risks and 
     benefits of firearm access and rigorously evaluated policy 
     options. This is a paradigm shift.

  It would indeed by a paradigm shift, Mr. President--to get Americans 
to put liberty in second place, behind safety and the convenience of 
the Federal Government.
  One thing this report neglects to mention is that the right to bear 
arms is not some abstract notion of the Founding Fathers. It is based 
on human experience in combating tyranny. An armed citizen has the 
power to resist threats from other citizens or the Government.
  It is no surprise that the Federal Government is uneasy even about 
guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. That is exactly what the 
Founding Fathers wanted: a very real check on the power of the 
Government over the people.
  There are some people--even some in the Senate--who refer to the 
right to keep and bear arms as an anachronism. They do not think we 
could possibly see Government tyranny today.
  Those people are turning their backs on the lessons of history--not 
just the history of this country, but the history of the world.
  Generation after generation, country after country, governments have 
committed atrocities against their people--atrocities that could only 
be committed after the people were disarmed by gun control laws.
  I do not suggest that all those who support gun control condone 
genocide or tyranny. However, after considerable study and reflection, 
I must suggest that history shows gun control creates an opportunity 
for oppression that does not exist with an armed public.
  That is why this recommendation is so disturbing. To put aside all 
philosophical and political considerations would be to ignore the 
lessons written in blood throughout human history. Those are lessons we 
should never forget.
  Let me move on to the next recommendation.

       (b) Place specific changes in the context of multiple 
     interventions: We need to let people know that progress in 
     preventing firearms injuries will come just as the great 
     progress we made in reducing motor vehicle deaths came not by 
     banning cars, but from building safer cars, safer roads, 
     getting drunk drivers off the roads, and enforcing licensing 
     requirements. No one measure is the answer. The Brady law is 
     one small step forward. It is not ``either . . . or'' it is 
     ``this and this and this . . .''

  Can it be more clear, Mr. President? This is exactly what we are 
seeing today from the administration and its antiliberty friends in 
Congress. It is not a single bill, but a thousand variations of the 
same theme of making guns, not people, responsible for criminal 
violence.
  The next recommendation has my vote for the most cynical, coldly-
calculated and manipulative recommendation in this entire report:

       (c) Focus on children: Nobody will oppose programs to 
     prevent children from shooting children. Need to focus on 
     reducing access by children to firearms.

  How well President Clinton's advisers know the American public.
  They certainly are correct: If you frighten people into thinking 
their children are threatened, they will do as you want. They might 
even accept restrictions on their own personal freedom, if they can be 
convinced it will protect their children.
  Well, that explains the administration's constant drumbeat about guns 
in schools. Whether or not the statistics are true, we can be sure 
there is an agenda behind it.
  Senator Kohl and I produced an amendment to the crime bill to limit 
juvenile ownership and possession of guns.
  Finally, Mr. President, we come to the last, and perhaps the most 
disturbing, of the firearms-related recommendations:

       (d) Stress the importance of changing behavior and the 
     social environment as additional ways to prevent firearm 
     violence: We need to rebuild the social capital and address 
     poverty, discrimination, lack of jobs, lack of education, 
     lack of hope, and drugs and alcohol abuse. We have learned a 
     lot of lessons about how to change behaviors as well as 
     focusing on the firearms themselves. You can't take guns away 
     from men who are frightened, from women who are scared, or 
     from communities which are scared without giving them 
     reassurance and a sense of security.

  For me, this puts in perspective the President's interest in 100,000 
new police on the streets of America. Maybe that is the kind of 
reassurance and sense of security that this administration thinks will 
create the right climate for taking guns away from law-abiding 
citizens.
  The reason I bring this to the attention of the Senate today and in 
context of the debate of violence in the classrooms of America--which 
in part can be because of a lack of discipline or control that somehow 
our courts and this Congress has wrestled away from local school boards 
and State officials in being able to control deviant students, as they 
attempt to establish an educational environment--is we are going to 
debate the crime bill in a few days. Hopefully, we will see a 
conference before us. In that context, I hope that we can make sense of 
bringing about some good criminal law for this country.
  We passed a Brady bill recently. We said that was it, or at least 
some of the gun control advocates said, that was it. The report says 
``No measure is the answer. The Brady bill is a small step.'' And then 
it said--and this is the report--``We want this and this and more'' in 
an absolute form of attempting to establish a new mindset for control. 
It says, ``A focus on children.''
  Believe it or not, they want to use children, to educate children, if 
you will, to manipulate the mind.
  I do not often come to the floor and talk about these kinds of 
things, but this report by this administration has it in print. And 
when they found out what their people had said was controversial, they 
tried to hide it.
  So let me say, in conclusion, Mr. President, after I wrestled this 
report out of the hands of this task force, I now have it available in 
my office. I think it is interesting reading for Senators and other 
people who are interested in public policy, but, most importantly, 
interested in trying to bring about good law that controls criminals, 
that creates the kind of environment that the Senator from Washington 
is trying to create, that allows discipline in our society, instead of 
somehow using the argument that we are out of control and in that 
environment need to take away certain rights from individuals that are 
now current and constitutional.
  Those are important debates. What the Senator from Washington does is 
constitutional. What the Senator from California did was 
constitutional.
  But let me suggest that the report of this administration skirts on 
the edge of ignoring our rights and our Constitution.


                           Amendment No. 2425

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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the Jeffords amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2425.

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

       At the end of title IV, insert the following:

     SEC.   . LOCAL CONTROL OVER VIOLENCE.

       (a) Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--In paragraph (3) of section 615(e) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1415(e)(3)) is amended--
       (A) by striking `During' and inserting `(A) Except as 
     provided in paragraph (B), during'; and
       (B) 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 is determined to have brought a 
     weapon to school under the jurisdiction of such agency, then 
     the child may be placed in an interim alternative educational 
     setting for not more than 90 days, consistent with State law.
       ``(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.''.
       (2) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) and the amendments made 
     by paragraph (1) 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.
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in title XVII of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (relating to Gun-Free 
     Schools) shall be construed to supersede the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act or to prevent a local educational 
     agency that has expelled a student from such student's 
     regular school setting from providing educational services to 
     such student in an alternative setting, as provided by State 
     law, policy, or otherwise determined by such local 
     educational agency.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand it now there is a time 
allocation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator from 
Vermont has 30 minutes, the Senator from Washington has 45 minutes on 
the amendment--excuse me, the Senator from Vermont has 45 minutes and 
the Senator from Washington has 30 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand it, there will be a debate on both of 
those amendments,
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. At conclusion of that time there will be back-to-back 
votes, the first vote on the amendment of the Senator from Washington 
and the second vote on the amendment of the Senators from Vermont and 
Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Iowa. I will be happy to yield more as time goes by.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Harkin is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me see if I can, for the benefit of 
Senators who are here and those who may be in their offices, try to lay 
out the scenario that we have here.
  We have two amendments pending, a Gorton amendment and a Jeffords 
amendment. The first vote will be on Gorton, then a second vote on 
Jeffords.
  What are the differences here? First of all, if I did not know the 
Senator from Washington better--and I know him well and he is a good 
man--I would say this amendment is a mean-spirited amendment. But I 
know the Senator better than that. I know he is genuinely concerned 
about violence in schools, as I am, and as we all are.
  I also know the Senator from Washington would not in any way want to 
take away rights held by the most discriminated against and 
disadvantaged in our society--children with disabilities. No, I do not 
think the Senator from Washington would want to tell the most 
disadvantaged members of our society, children with disabilities, ``I 
am sorry, you have no due process rights.''
  What is the issue here? The issue is whether or not the careful 
balance that has been struck in the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, providing due process rights to children with 
disabilities and their parents and the interests of the schools--
whether that careful balance will be ripped apart--that is the essence, 
basically, of at least one part of the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Washington.
  Really, the Senator from Washington has two parts to his amendment. 
The first part is dealing with children with disabilities who bring 
weapons to school. When we passed the Gun-Free Schools Act, the 
amendment offered by Senator Dorgan and Senator Feinstein was added as 
a part of the bill. It covers, basically, children who bring weapons to 
schools. But it leaves out children with disabilities.
  The Senator from Washington brings children with disabilities under 
that Gun-Free Schools Act and says no matter what, disabled or not, if 
you bring a weapon to school then you can be removed from your current 
education placement and placed in an alternative placement for 90 days. 
To that extent, I have no problem with the amendment. Weapons are well 
defined. You know if a kid has a gun. To that extent we support it and 
that is what the Jeffords amendment does. The Jeffords amendment 
encompasses children with disabilities under the Gun-Free Schools Act.
  So what is the difference between Jeffords and Gorton? It is the 
second part of Gorton that I believe is so harmful to children with 
disabilities. Here is what it says. In his amendment my colleague talks 
about a weapon. Then he says, ``or a child with a disability who has 
demonstrated life-threatening behavior in the classroom or on school 
premises.''
  It is the inclusion of the phrase ``life-threatening behavior'' that 
rips apart the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, and the due 
process rights of our children and their parents. Because what happens, 
then, is if this child demonstrates life-threatening behavior they can 
be kicked out of school for up to 90 days. And then, if the parent of 
the child decides to contest that in a due process hearing and decides 
to go to court, why, then the child will be kept out of that school 
until the whole process is finished. That could be a year. We know how 
long it takes, sometimes, for court cases to be heard.
  The Senator then tries to define life-threatening behavior. This is 
what galls me more than anything else. The Senator defines life-
threatening behavior 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.''
  Where did this definition come from? This came from the sentencing 
guidelines for convicted criminals. We are not talking about convicted 
criminals here. We are talking about the most discriminated against 
members of our society, children with disabilities. And we are going to 
say: Life-threatening behavior?
  Life-threatening function? It says here, ``a substantial impairment 
of the function of a bodily member.'' What about a kid who has epilepsy 
and has an epileptic fit and falls over and hits his head? That is life 
threatening.
  Or ``mental faculty that is likely to be permanent.'' What about an 
autistic kid who sometimes beats his head against a wall? That could be 
life threatening or could be threatening to permanently damage that 
kid's mental faculty. It has nothing to do with whether that kid is a 
criminal or not. It has something to do with whether that kid is 
disabled or not. So we are not talking about convicted criminals. We 
are talking about the most disadvantaged members of our society.
  Then the Senator sunsets it and says we will sunset this provision 
until we reauthorize the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
  We have settled law in this area. We have a Supreme Court case, which 
I will talk about momentarily. It is working well. What the Senator 
from Washington would do with this amendment is stir the pot until we 
are able to report out a reauthorization of the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act, which my subcommittee on disability policy 
will report out sometime next year. But what this would do would be to 
open the doors for school districts to be able to define life-
threatening behavior so as to throw children out of school because they 
are disabled.
  You might say, schools would not do that, would they? Mr. President, 
that is exactly why we passed the Education of the Handicapped Act; why 
we superseded that with the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act. History is replete with kids with disabilities being shunted aside 
and thrown out of our schools and not educated simply because they 
acted a little bit different, or because they had a disability.
  Again, in Iowa we have Mike McTaggart, the principal at West Middle 
School in Sioux City. He put it this way. He said, ``I have no problems 
with the education guidelines.'' Mr. President, I ask the Senator from 
Washington to listen to this. Before Mr. McTaggart became principal of 
the school in Sioux City, their school had 692 suspensions; 220 of 
those were disabled. But Mr. McTaggart took over the school. He 
instituted policies of guidelines for the teachers reaching out to the 
parents to bring the parents in to talk with them, setting up 
individual education programs for the students. And what happened after 
he took over? The next year they had 122 suspensions; zero were 
disabled kids. From 220 in 1 year to zero the next year. That is 
because we had a principal who understood what it meant to have these 
guidelines in practice for disabled children. This is what the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Washington would rip apart.
  Again, I repeat, the Jeffords amendment--to the extent the Senator 
from Washington wants to reach to those children who bring weapons and 
guns to schools, I have no objection to that. He is right on target.
  But to the extent that the Senator from Washington wants to say that 
any child with a disability who exhibits a life-threatening activity 
can be thrown out of school, Mr. President, that is blatantly wrong. It 
is wrong, and we cannot allow that to happen.
  Everyone cares about making our schools safe. No one cares more about 
having safe schools than parents with disabled children, because it is 
their kids that are usually the most vulnerable, the most picked on, 
the ones most threatened in our schools. Parents with kids who are 
disabled care very much about safe schools.
  Mr. President, we are all concerned about the school officials, to 
ensure they have a safe environment conducive for learning, especially 
for kids with disabilities.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Washington is opposed by 
many key education groups: The National PTA; the National Education 
Association; the National Association of State Boards of Education; the 
Council of Chief State School Officers; the National Association of 
State Directors of Special Education; the Council for Exceptional 
Children; the Councils of Administrators of Special Education; the 
Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities; and the National Parent 
Network all oppose the Gorton amendment.
  This amendment, as I said, tears apart the fabric of IDEA. Earlier in 
the day, I said to the Senator from Washington and to others that I 
have chaired the Disability Policy Subcommittee with great pride since 
1987. Not once have I brought a bill dealing with disability issues to 
the floor of the Senate to have it amended. I do not do that, because I 
believe disability issues are so important that they should not be 
subjected to partisan wrangling or to inflammatory speeches or 
anecdotal types of stories that may inflame passions.
  Since 1987--and I say this with great pride--we have worked together 
with Members from the opposite side of the aisle, with Senator 
Durenberger, who has been my ranking member since then. We have brought 
in disability groups. We have brought in school officials. We work 
these things out before so we have a consensus agreement and we have 
support, so when we bring a bill out here on disabilities issues, as I 
said, we never had an amendment.
  I do not intend to have one on IDEA because we intend to work it out 
and we will cover these issues. But let us do it next year when we 
reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Let us not 
do it on this bill. So we should reach a consensus.
  Lastly, the Gorton amendment ignores a Supreme Court ruling, a 7-2 
ruling, in 1988. It was a very conservative Supreme Court. The only two 
dissenting Justices objected on mootness grounds, not on the essence of 
the case. The case is Honig versus Doe, right on point with the issue I 
am talking about. It had to do with a school district that threw some 
kids out because they were acting up because they were disabled. I have 
to say this because, if you listen to the Senator from Washington, you 
would think that these schools and the teachers and superintendents 
have nothing available to them if kids act up and act in a threatening 
manner.
  Let me read what the Supreme Court said in that 7-2 decision:

       The ``stay-put'' provision ``does not leave educators 
     hamstrung.'' The Department of Education has observed that, 
     ``while the child's placement may not be changed. . . this 
     does not preclude the agency from using its normal procedures 
     for dealing with children who are endangering themselves or 
     others.'' Such procedures may include the use of study 
     carrels, timeouts, detention or the restriction of 
     privileges. More drastically, where a student poses an 
     immediate threat to the safety of others, officials may 
     temporarily suspend him or her for up to 10 school days.

  So already if a child with a disability acts up, the school can 
suspend them for up to 10 days:

       This authority, which respondent in no way disputes, not 
     only ensures school administrators can protect the safety of 
     others by promptly removing the most dangerous of students, 
     it also provides a ``cooling down'' period during which 
     officials can initiate IEP review.

  That is, the Individual Education Program review:

       * * * a cooling down period * * * and seek to persuade the 
     child's parents to agree to an interim placement. And in 
     those cases in which the parents of a truly dangerous child 
     adamantly refuse to permit any change in placement, the 10-
     day respite gives school officials an opportunity to invoke 
     the aid of the courts which--

  And I have to add this emphatically--

       * * * which empowers courts to grant any appropriate 
     relief.

  So the school can do all of these things. Basically what the Gorton 
amendment does is it overturns a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in 1988, as 
I said, by a very conservative Reagan Supreme Court.
  In closing, Mr. President, let us not disturb this balance. For every 
story that the Senator from Washington can tell or any other Senator 
can tell about a disruptive student in a school and the problems that 
causes, I can tell a story about a child with a disability who acted up 
because the school did not provide that child with an individual 
education program.
  I have case after case after case, hundreds, thousands of cases where 
kids with disabilities, because the school did not want to deal with 
them, were kicked out without any due process of law.
  What the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act does is it 
provides that balance, that carefully crafted balance to give the 
schools the authority--up to 10 days, separate classrooms, study 
carrels, detention and, if need be, to go to court to get any relief 
necessary, at the same time to provide that the parents can keep their 
child in that school studying during that period of time.
  I would hate to see that careful balance disrupted by some stories of 
violence in schools. We are all opposed to that. We all want to stop 
the violence in our schools, but, please, in doing so, I plead with my 
fellow Senators, do not take it out on the most discriminated against 
of our kids, our disabled children. Do not do that. We fought too long 
and too hard to get them their rightful place in the Sun in our 
country. Do not knock them down again.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I do not think there is anybody in this 
entire United States who understands this subject better than the 
Senator from Iowa, nor has been a better champion of that. I value his 
counsel, but I also rise today as a supporter of the amendment.
  When the Senator speaks of balance, I think we have to put it in the 
context of a learning environment. I have heard from my schools in 
Montana that when that balance is upset, we have to take into 
consideration who else is in that environment to learn--it is a 
learning environment--and that takes that away.
  Teachers in our schools are often threatened, even physically 
attacked by students, and these violent students often victimize other 
classmates as well and, in doing so, they also put themselves in 
jeopardy. Yet, in many cases these violent students cannot be removed 
from schools because of the provisions of this act, and also there are 
advocacy groups--God bless them and we have to have them--that just 
will not let it happen. I do not think it was the intention of this 
bill's authors to allow dangerous students to remain in the classroom. 
In fact, I know it was not. I know how thoroughly they crafted this 
legislation and how they feel about it. We have to take a look at the 
learning environment. Yet, because of this law, a small number of 
students can jeopardize the learning process and the safety of teachers 
and students.

  This amendment allows school officials to take that student out of 
that environment and put him or her in an environment where it is safer 
not only for the school but also for the student him or herself. It has 
to be done. You just cannot willy-nilly take the student from the 
class.
  This is a vast improvement of the current situation, and I strongly 
support returning the decision to remove dangerous students from the 
classroom back to the local level. Our children deserve the chance to 
learn and our teachers deserve the chance to teach in a safe 
environment.
  Yes, we will reauthorize IDEA in the next Congress, but this 
amendment is a giant step in the correct direction until we do.
  I thank my colleague from Washington, Senator Gorton, for introducing 
the amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes from the 
time allotted to the Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 26 minutes and 40 seconds.
  The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment by my friend from Washington, Senator Gorton, concerning 
disciplining disabled children, and to support the amendment offered by 
my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords.
  The amendment by my colleague, Senator Gorton, is well intentioned. I 
have known him as long as he has been here on his two trips to this 
place and I know a man of both experience and conviction. But from my 
own experience, and particularly my experience with the bill which is 
entitled the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, and some of 
the difficulties that my colleague from Iowa has already spoken to, 
that we have dealt with in terms of issues of due process, I must 
characterize his amendment as well intentioned but as disregarding the 
due process procedures which are set forth in the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act. It would permit arbitrary action by school 
officials regarding the discipline of children with disabilities, and 
that is the very thing that IDEA is supposed to prevent.
  IDEA establishes a process, a process that allows a school district 
to unilaterally exclude children with disabilities who exhibit 
dangerous and disruptive behavior from the classroom for up to 10 days. 
During that period of time, school officials can meet with families to 
determine how to deal with the student's situation. If a child is 
removed for more than 10 days, parents can seek a due process hearing 
and/or other appropriate remedies.
  While this process, Mr. President, is probably not perfect--in fact, 
I am sure it is not--it does balance the rights and the interests of 
involved parties. We are, all of us, concerned about violence in our 
schools, but the Gorton amendment is not the best way to respond to 
this problem. It could inadvertently prove harmful to those disabled 
students whose behavior appears to be disruptive but does not in 
actuality pose a serious threat to other persons.
  I believe we should focus on those students who truly pose a danger 
to other students and teachers. For that reason, I believe that the 
amendment by my colleague, Senator Jeffords, focuses on those students 
and reasonably addresses the problems of school violence. It builds on 
the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which is already part of the Goals 
2000 legislation. The act provides that local education agencies may 
not receive Federal education funds unless they have a policy requiring 
expulsion from school for at least a year for students who bring guns 
to school. The Jeffords amendment includes a sunset provision that 
becomes effective when the IDEA reauthorization is signed into law.
  We need to find out, Mr. President, whether violent behavior by 
students with disabilities is a serious problem. It is my hope that all 
of us--lawmakers, educators, parents, and students--can sit down 
together next year during the IDEA reauthorization to find a way to 
resolve this issue. I know my colleague from Washington will be here. I 
know he will be involved at that time in that issue, and I think his 
contributions at that time will be much more valuable than the one he 
is suggesting now. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Gorton 
amendment and support the Jeffords amendment regarding discipline of 
children with disabilities.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota yields the floor. 
The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, just a brief remark while I await the 
arrival of my colleague and cosponsor of this amendment, Senator 
Lieberman.
  First, of course, this Senator is very much in agreement with the 
steps that are taken in the Jeffords amendment, an amendment which was 
only offered as a result of the pressure imposed by the amendment 
proposed by this Senator and which, ironically, amends IDEA just as 
precisely as does the Gorton amendment. And if the additional 
provisions of the Gorton amendment do not provide due process, neither 
do the provisions of the Jeffords amendment to exactly the same degree.
  The answer, of course, is that the Jeffords amendment does provide 
due process, as does the one proposed by this Senator as well.
  The difference between the two of us is, first, a trust in the 
ability and faithfulness of individual school authorities to make 
determinations about the learning environment of their schools.
  That we should be discussing in this mostly empty body a national set 
of rules which we impose on every school in the land without the 
slightest knowledge of what takes place in those classrooms, overriding 
the judgments of individual teachers and principals and school board 
members, to this Senator answers the question all by itself. Of course, 
we should not be doing so. We can operate with the greatest of good 
will, as is clearly the case with the Senator from Iowa, and still make 
mistakes, and those mistakes are made every day by those who are 
violent in school, those who bring weapons to school, those who engage 
in life-threatening behavior in school, driving out of the schools very 
often sometimes teachers, sometimes other peaceful students.
  That is the real world. And it is to provide some degree of balance 
that this amendment was introduced. Would it reverse the wonderful work 
of the superintendent in Iowa? Of course, it would not. It would have 
given that superintendent in Iowa a greater degree of flexibility in 
solving his own problems than he has under the present law.
  Will this amendment mean that if there is a court challenge, a 
student can be kept out of school indefinitely? Of course not. There is 
a 90-day limit whether there is a court challenge or not.
  Does this mean that these students will get no education? Of course 
not. In order to utilize the provisions in the Gorton amendment, the 
school district must provide an alternative education atmosphere even 
for the disruptive and violent disabled students.
  Now, a few days ago we simply had in our proposed amendment authority 
for school districts to deal with life-threatening behavior. The very 
groups that are now protesting against our definition protested against 
that phrase because they felt it was far too broad, that it allowed too 
much authority for individual school districts, and so we came up with 
the narrowest definition of life-threatening behavior we could find, 
that in the criminal sentencing guidelines, which is deliberately 
narrow so that people cannot be sent to jail for this kind of activity 
unless it truly is life-threatening.
  So now for having come up with the narrowest definition of life-
threatening behavior, in order to attempt to oblige the other side, we 
are criticized for it. But essentially, when it gets right down to it, 
these opponents say that school districts should not have the authority 
to remove from a regular classroom to a special classroom students 
engaged in truly life-threatening activities for a period of 90 days 
without going to a Federal court to do so.
  That is really what the difference is for. If you do not trust your 
school authority to be able to determine a life- threatening behavior 
on the part of students to themselves or most often to the other 
students, and get those students out of the classroom for 90 days, then 
you do not trust your school administrators or teachers to do anything. 
They should not be teaching or administering schools.
  A vote against my amendment says that we cannot trust anyone in the 
United States except ourselves, a Federal bureaucracy, and the U.S. 
district court judges to suspend a student from school for more than 10 
days for life-threatening behavior.
  Mr. President, I just do not believe that of our school authority. 
The people who are on the front line want this kind of authority. They 
deserve more authority than this amendment gives them. We may debate 
more authority at some time next year. But they certainly deserve this 
now.
  One final comment on the Supreme Court decision, Honig versus Doe. Of 
course, we are changing the result of Honig versus Doe. It is not a 
constitutional decision. It is a decision interpreting the Individuals 
With Disabilities Education Act, interpreting it quite correctly, 
interpreting it very narrowly because that is what Congress meant 
according to the Supreme Court. But as in other Supreme Court decisions 
on statutory interpretation, if we change the statute, the Supreme 
Court will change its decision. It was not saying it thought it was a 
good idea. It is saying this is what Congress passed, we suggest that 
Congress change that law, and allow school district authority a 
reasonable degree of discretion in bringing peace and order to their 
classrooms.
  I note the presence on the floor of my principal cosponsor, the 
Senator from Connecticut. I will yield to him such of my remaining time 
as he may need.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, before we hear from the Senator from 
Connecticut, will the Senator from Washington yield for a question?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 18 minutes and 
50 seconds.
  Mr. GORTON. Yes. I yield.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Washington 
from his legal background if the circumstance currently applying to 
those students under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 
constitutes a different class under the criminal statute for people 
under that act than ordinary students who are not under that act?
  Mr. GORTON. No. This is not a criminal statute, I say to my friend 
from Utah. It establishes two very distinct classes of students: The 
nondisabled student who is subject to the full discipline of the 
school, and the disabled student over whose discipline the school 
district has very, very narrow authority. As this Senator said earlier, 
we are now getting the claim that the very fact of violent activity or 
bringing the gun to school is evidence of disability so that the 
student cannot be disciplined.
  Mr. BENNETT. The Senator in his explanation has given me the 
understanding that I was seeking which is that in effect two different 
classes of students have been created, perhaps not under a criminal 
act. But in administrative fact you have created a circumstance where 
disciplinary actions for one class are not appropriate for another 
class.
  Mr. GORTON. Are not legal for another class.
  Mr. BENNETT. Not legal for another class, and it seems to the Senator 
from Utah that this creation of two separate classes is very 
detrimental to any kind of orderly control of a student circumstance.
  I thank the Senator for his clarification.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman].


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  I ask unanimous consent that Charles Rothwell, who is a fellow in my 
office, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the debate on 
the School Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, whose time is the Senator speaking on?
  Mr. GORTON. Mine.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. It is my understanding that I was speaking on the time 
under the control of the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of this amendment with the Senator 
from Washington. I am a cosponsor because I have received mail and 
calls from principals and teachers in Connecticut complaining about the 
current state of the law.
  Mr. President, let me just step back and put this in context. If you 
ask the American people today whether they think this country is headed 
in the wrong direction or the right direction, almost 70 percent say 
the wrong direction. This has puzzled social commentators and pollsters 
because the economy is in recovery and the economy is supposed to 
determine so much of the public's attitude.
  But in my opinion, the major reason the public sees America going in 
the wrong direction is that they see a loss of values in our country, a 
loss of standards, and a loss of discipline. There is a sense that too 
much of our country is out of control, and that we can no longer take 
for granted some of the basic assumptions that we as Americans used to 
make about what it meant to live in this great and civilized society.
  One of the basic assumptions that I grew up with, that sadly is no 
longer true in so many cases, is that a parent can send a child to 
school and not worry about the safety of the child on the way to school 
or in school. The facts here are startling. My colleagues indicated 
them earlier.
  Let me mention a few. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention through their epidemiologic surveillance systems tell us 
that in 1990, 20 percent of all students reported carrying a weapon to 
school at least once in the last preceding 30 days. That increased to 
26 percent in 1991. In 1990, 31 percent of all male high school 
students carried a weapon to school during the preceding 30 days, and 
that increased to 40 percent in 1991.
  Mr. President, we have heard and read and seen of too many cases of 
violence committed against students in the schools, and too many cases 
of violence committed against teachers.
  The other thing is I must be getting old, although I do not think so. 
But you know, we took for granted that when you went to school you 
treated the teacher with respect. As a matter of fact, there was some 
fear of the teacher and the principal. That was not so long ago. Today, 
as I talked to teachers, I find--not all, obviously--but all too many 
telling me that it is impossible in the first instance to maintain a 
basic level of order in the classroom so that they can even have a 
chance to teach the students what parents send their schools to learn. 
Beyond that, the guns in the classroom, violence, and acts of 
aggression committed against teachers are unthinkable in our country 
generally.
  So we have a problem of crime and safety in our schools. It is a 
problem that this Chamber has recognized, both in one of titles of the 
bill before us, and in fact in title V of this act, and in fact in the 
anticrime bill which has just emerged from conference this morning.
  So I think as we approach the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Washington, which I am cosponsoring, we have to acknowledge that there 
is a problem. Let us go to what he and I are trying to do, which is to 
create, not even a level playing field, but a playing field that at 
least makes it somewhat more likely that teachers and school 
administrators will be able to maintain order in the schoolroom, to 
protect their safety and the safety of other students, let alone to 
create the basic preconditions in which teaching and learning may 
occur.
  I heard my colleague and friend from Iowa speaking before. He has 
been a great leader in the effort to obtain equal rights and 
opportunities and protections for those who are disabled in our 
society, and I respect him greatly for that. It just seems to me that 
the provisions of the IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act, passed in 1975--almost 20 years ago--have been used in a way that 
does not recognize the reality that I have just described in too many 
classrooms and schools in America today and, in that sense, the noble 
purposes of that act are being misused.
  Mr. President, let me read you part of a letter I received from a 
teacher in Connecticut, who describes the IDEA as, ``The law that was 
passed by Congress was indeed a good and needed law, but it has been 
made into a dangerous and ineffective law.'' He tells the story about 
students who have gone through a pupil planning and placement team, the 
PPT, process, and are then labeled ``socially and emotionally 
maladjusted'', SEM students. Students are usually brought before one of 
these PPT processes because they act out in one form or another. That 
is, they break the rules of the school in the classroom repeatedly. 
They are diagnosed as SEM and are given special help by a sociologist 
or school psychologist, which is all appropriate, and they may be put 
in special classes. This teacher says, ``So far so good. The problem 
develops when they continue to break the rules. A different set of 
standards are now applied,'' just as the Senator from Utah has 
suggested. ``Punishment for the same infraction for a special education 
student and a mainstream student differ, with special education 
students escaping with much less of a punishment.''
  Here is a basic problem--and, again, I am reading from this teacher 
from East Hartford, CT: ``The expectations of behavior of a special 
education student is lower. The rules are changed, the punishments 
differ. How do we ever expect this student to become socially and 
emotionally adjusted to the norms and rules of society when they are 
not required to?'' the teacher asks. He says, ``I am not talking about 
matters of style; I am referring to dangerous activities which threaten 
the safety of the entire school population. In East Hartford,'' this 
teacher goes on, ``students who carry knives to school are expelled for 
180 days. That is permitted by State law. However, a special education 
student''--that is, one who has been adjudged so under the socially and 
emotionally maladjusted category, or other categories--``would only be 
given a maximum 10-day suspension, without extraordinary and cumbersome 
and expensive measures by the school system.'' He goes on to say, ``We 
are sending the wrong message to our kids, and they know it.'' He says, 
``As a teacher, I know that these students think, they can't touch me. 
They act all over the school as if they are immune to the rules and 
norms of school and classroom behavior. Indeed, why shouldn't they? 
They are immune.''
  I do not present this as the final word on the subject. I present it 
as the cry from the heart of a teacher trying to be a teacher, who 
feels that this well-intended law is now being misused to the detriment 
of the safety of the students and teachers and administrators in the 
school system, let alone the ability to teach.
  Mr. President, what the Senator from Washington has done is just to 
give--again, in fact, obviously the IDEA law dictates to the local 
school system. We are trying to free the local school system from that 
Federal control and let them discipline students a little more like 
they would without any Federal control, to hopefully reestablish some 
sense of order and respect for teachers and school administrators. In 
fact, we do not create a totally level playing field. In the case that 
the teacher from Connecticut cited, a student with a knife is expelled 
for 180 days, but that is not so for a student covered by the IDEA 
program. Under this amendment, that student, for 90 days, is put into a 
special educational setting, and the process goes from there.
  Mr. President, the bone of contention here--because I know the 
Senator from Vermont and others agree there should be an expulsion when 
a gun or weapon is carried to school--is this whole question of 
extending or removing the special protections when a student has 
committed a life-threatening act. This is a pretty tight definition of 
life-threatening act. I know some of those who oppose the amendment 
Senator Gorton and I have sponsored feel it would be misused and 
teachers and administrators will pick on students who are disruptive 
who should not be picked on. But that switches the traditional burden 
here in a way that does not make sense and, to me, is very disruptive. 
It suggests that we have to begin with a distrust of the educators and 
put the burden on them, as opposed to giving them the benefit of the 
doubt when dealing with disruptive students.
  I believe from the bottom of my heart that the typical teacher and 
administrator is not going to misuse the disciplinary powers they have 
against a child who would come under these special protections, because 
they know the burden they face in court if they do. Let us talk about 
the definition of life-threatening behavior in this proposal. 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.'' It is a tough 
definition, I understand. A student under the IDEA program could, I 
have heard stories like this from teachers in Connecticut; and any 
student could, but we are talking about the differing capacities to 
punish a student--could grab a teacher, push her up against the wall, 
call her names, and not come under the more level playing field of 
discipline that this amendment would create, because that is not life-
threatening behavior.
  I understand the tremendous work that the Senator from Iowa and 
others have done in this area, and I understand that the Individuals 
With Disabilities Education Act is up for reauthorization in the next 
Congress. But it seems to me that this is a matter of real urgency. I 
hear it from teachers and principals in Connecticut. I think we ought 
to act here to give them the authority they need, with the confidence 
that they will use it with good judgment, understanding that in this 
amendment there is a sunset provision that says that this amendment, if 
it passes, shall be effective until the date of enactment of the 
reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. In 
other words, there is a sunset provision here. So it will receive full 
consideration, or reconsideration, by the committee and by this Chamber 
during the reauthorization process of the IDEA.
  There is a crisis out there, and it is a crisis of fundamental 
values, and I think it calls for immediate action.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield to my friend from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Connecticut for 
yielding. I know he has the interest of the kids at heart. I know he is 
a well-meaning individual, and I know that the Senator from Connecticut 
would not in any way want to again kick down kids with disabilities any 
more than they have been in our society.
  I know we have problems of violence in our schools. I know we hear 
from teachers. I hear from them, too. But we also hear from parents 
with children with disabilities who are having all kinds of problems 
getting schools to adhere to the law.
  I mentioned before the Senator arrived on the floor of a principal at 
a school in Iowa. The year before he became superintendent they had 220 
disabled kids expelled from school. He came and took over. The school 
instituted the individual education programs, got the teachers and the 
parents together. The next year zero kids were expelled who were 
disabled.
  Again, a lot of administrators say it is easier to get rid of them 
and get them out of there.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Iowa. I 
appreciate what he is saying.
  Of course, as I said before, I respect greatly his leadership and 
record in this area. I say to him that this particular definition of 
life-threatening behavior was chosen because it is a tough definition; 
that is, it is demanding. It creates a high standard so that it will 
not send a message out mistakably to teachers and school administrators 
that simple disruptive behavior can remove the special protections.
  Disabled for this case is mostly talking about socially, emotionally 
maladjusted kids received under IDEA.
  Again, it leaves out a range of behavior that most of us and most 
parents who send their kids to school find horrific. Again, I heard the 
stories from the teachers, where students are picked up and pressed 
against the wall and students threatened.
  This happens from kids in the IDEA program and a lot of kids outside. 
We are just saying if that happens, or something worse, the teacher 
ought to have the ability to discipline.
  We are not evening out the playing field totally. We are simply 
saying that a student exhibiting this life-threatening behavior has to 
be placed in an alternative education program for not more than 90 
days. That student will still receive special treatment as compared to 
the students not in this special program.
  Mr. President, I gather my time is up. I thank the Chair.
  I ask support for the amendment and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized, 23 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. How much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-three minutes are remaining.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to try to simplify this 
matter as much as I can.
  We have had a lot of discussion, minutes and hours of discussion, but 
I think we should get down to the very simple aspects of what we are 
talking about here. I think my colleagues will see the merit of voting 
for the Jeffords amendment and against the Gorton amendment.
  The question is, do you make any distinction for children with 
disabilities? Under the Gorton amendment, if there is a gun involved 
with bodily harm, or a threat of bodily harm, you are out. It is as 
simple as that. You are out for a year, whether it is related to the 
disability or unrelated to the disability. And that distinction is 
important. There is no difference. You are out for a year.
  My amendment treats disabled children differently from nondisabled 
children. If the offense is related to the gun, but unrelated to the 
disability, you are out for a year, the same as the Gorton amendment. 
On the other hand, if it involves a gun and you are a disabled child 
and it is related to your disability, you are out for 90 days during 
which time they can determine as to whether or not you will be in an 
appropriate educational situation to the extent under IDEA. Rather than 
10 days, it will be 90 days. During that period they can determine what 
additional remedies ought to be provided. That is if a gun is involved.
  Let me explain that kind of a situation to you and give some meaning 
to it. Suppose a child is very mentally retarded, of minimum IQ, and 
his friends think it would be fun to play a trick. They have a gun. It 
is unloaded. There is not going to be any real threat or harm. They 
say, ``Why don't we play a trick on little Jane? She is a pain, and she 
is really a miserable little child. So why don't you take this and, 
just to teach her, go up and point that gun at her and see what she 
does?''
  Well, under the Gorton amendment that child is gone for a year out of 
school. Under our amendment the child would be under IDEA. The 90-day 
provision would apply rather than the 10-day provision so that it can 
be determined if there was actually a threat. What kind of action 
should we take during that period of time?
  That takes care of the gun situation, and I would hope that my 
colleagues would see the merit in giving flexibility and not 
interfering with the provisions of IDEA for a child under those 
circumstances. I do not believe any of my colleagues would say under 
those particular situations, that child ought to be thrown out of 
school for a year.
  Let us go to the case of a situation involving the threat of bodily 
harm and related to the disability. Under those circumstances, the 
person would be under IDEA's 10-day provision, but I would point out 
that under the Supreme Court decision that has dealt with these kind of 
problems, there is much that can be done to ensure that there is no 
bodily harm or threat of bodily harm created where they can take the 
actions necessary in order to prevent a recurrence of that particular 
incident. I will read to you a summary of the Supreme Court decision in 
Honig versus Doe, 1988:

       The Supreme Court dealt with the issue in Honig v. Doe, 
     where it held that the statutory provision was clear in its 
     requirement that the child ``shall remain'' in the current 
     educational placement pending the completion of due process 
     procedures. However, the Court found that Congress did not 
     leave school administrators powerless to deal with such 
     violent students since the following procedures were allowed: 
     The use of temporary suspensions for 10 days, interim 
     placements where parents and the school are able to agree, 
     and the authority for school officials to file a suit for 
     appropriate injunctive relief where an agreement cannot be 
     reached. The Supreme Court found that IDEA balanced the 
     rights of the child with a disability to remain in school by 
     denying a school the unilateral power to expel such children 
     with the rights of the school to maintain a safe learning 
     environment. However, although these procedures allow for 
     control of violent children with disabilities, it has been 
     argued that they are cumbersome, hindering the ability of 
     school officials to maintain a disciplined environment 
     conducive to learning.

  However, there is a different issue with respect to the rights of 
others as to continuing their education, but it is clear that under the 
Jeffords amendment, and not under the Gorton amendment, disabled 
children will be not disrupted unless it is in the situations which I 
described, that is if it is related to the gun. However, there is a 
change. There are 90 days to evaluate and take these things into 
consideration rather than the 10 days. However, if it is related to a 
disability and related to bodily harm or threat, you are under IDEA, 
with all of the protections which I mentioned that the Supreme Court of 
the United States had found available.
  So I want to say this. We have had a lot of discussion on this issue. 
There is a lot over emotion connected with it. But there is nothing 
that will make our disability community more anxious, and more 
concerned, than to know that these poor unfortunate children with 
disabilities will be arbitrarily, without hearing, and without any 
attempt to protect themselves, be thrown out of school under the Gorton 
amendment.
  So I would hope you will keep in mind--I suppose you can vote for 
both amendments if you want to, and under the procedure you can. But if 
you have compassion and understanding for people who have children with 
disabilities who would be concerned and worried that their child may be 
placed in a position like I mentioned earlier, through no fault of 
their own, but because of an impairment in their thinking or some other 
problem, reject the Gorton amendment which will throw them arbitrarily 
out of school for a year.
  So I hope, after looking at this, that my colleagues realize that it 
has nothing to do with the situation with a gun, and unrelated to the 
disability. Under those circumstances, the Gorton amendment and the 
Jeffords amendment are the same.
  On the other hand, in those kinds of circumstances where a disability 
of the child is involved, should they not be given some special 
consideration?
  That is all we are asking in the Jeffords amendment. If you are 
compassionate, and believe that children with disabilities need a 
little extra care, a little extra feeling, a little extra attention to 
the problem, then you ought to vote for the Jeffords amendment to 
ensure that they get the protection that is presently guaranteed them 
under the law.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 14 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the other side have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired on the other side.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield such time as the Senator would desire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is impossible to understand the 
detrimental effect of the Gorton amendment on children with 
disabilities without having a better understanding of the congressional 
intent in enacting IDEA and the specific components of the legal 
framework.
  In 1975, when Congress passed the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act [IDEA] more than one-half of the Nation's children with 
disabilities were not receiving appropriate educational services and 
one out of eight of these children was excluded from the public school 
system altogether. According to a study conducted by the U.S. 
Department of Education, 82 percent of emotionally disturbed children 
were unserved in 1974-75.
  The history of the act makes it clear that Congress was deeply 
concerned that school officials were using disciplinary procedures to 
exclude and deny appropriate education to children with disabilities. 
Congress determined that the best way to assure that its mandate that 
every child with a disability receive a free appropriate public 
education was carried out was to establish procedural protections for 
parents to guard against unilateral school district action.
  The specific provisions of the act require the school districts to 
provide a free appropriate public education for each child with a 
disability, regardless of the nature or severity of the child's 
disability in conformity with the child's individualized education 
program [IEP]. The IEP is a program ``specially designed to meet the 
unique needs'' of the child with a disability.
  Placement decisions must then be made by individuals knowledgeable 
about the child and the meaning of the evaluation data.
  In short, the whole thrust of the IDEA is to make the placement fit 
the unique needs of the child and to do so through meaningful parent 
participation in partnership with educators.
  Under IDEA parents are afforded a number of procedural protections 
when disagreements with school officials arise. In the words of the 
U.S. Supreme Court in Honig versus Doe these protections are ``designed 
to ensure parental participation in decisions concerning the education 
of their disabled children and to provide administrative and judicial 
review of any decisions with which those parents disagree.''
  Specifically, under the IDEA a parent can challenge a decision by a 
school official and request a due process hearing before an independent 
hearing examiner. The parents also have a right to appeal this decision 
to the courts.
  Pending the resolution of the appeals, the child is entitled to stay-
put in his or her then current educational placement unless the public 
agency and the parents of the child agree otherwise.
  It is the stay-put provision that Senator Gorton is attempting to gut 
through his amendment. This is the provision that several school 
officials tried to gut several years ago in the Honig versus Doe case.
  The issue in Honig versus Doe, concerned the interpretation of the 
stay-put provision. More specifically, the issue in the case boiled 
down to whether there is a dangerous exception to the stay-put 
provision
  Senators Chafee, Jeffords, Kennedy, along with myself and other 
Members of Congress, in a friend of the court brief, urged the Court to 
conclude that there was no such exception. As the brief pointed out, 
``The legislative history overwhelmingly illustrates Congress' desire 
to prohibit unilateral school actions.''
  Consistent with the urging of the Congressional brief, the Court 
concluded that Congress

       * * * very much meant to strip schools of the unilateral 
     authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled 
     students from school . . . and directed that in the future 
     the removal of students with disabilities could be 
     accomplished only with the permission of the parents or, as a 
     last resort, the courts.

  The Court also concluded that Congress took these actions because of 
findings that school officials used disciplinary measures to exclude 
children from the classroom.
  Senator Gorton would lead you to believe that school official's hands 
are tied by IDEA; that they have no recourse against dangerous 
children.
  Mr. President, this is not true. Period. Let me quote from the 
Supreme Court decision: the stay put provision ``does not leave 
educators hamstrung.''

       The Department of Education has observed that, `while the 
     child's placement may not be changed [during any complaint 
     proceeding], this does not preclude the agency from using its 
     normal procedures for dealing with children who are 
     endangering themselves or others.' Comment following 34 CFR 
     300.513 (1987). Such procedures may include the use of study 
     carrels, time-outs, detention, or the restriction of 
     privileges. More drastically, where a student poses an 
     immediate threat to the safety of others, officials may 
     temporarily suspend him or her for up to 10 school days. This 
     authority, which respondent in no way disputes, not only 
     ensures that school administrators can protect the safety of 
     others by promptly removing the most dangerous of students, 
     it also provides a ``cooling down'' period during which 
     officials can initiate IEP review and seek to persuade the 
     child's parents to agree to an interim placement. And in 
     those cases in which the parents of a truly dangerous child 
     adamantly refuse to permit any change in placement, the 10-
     day respite gives school officials an opportunity to invoke 
     the aid of the courts under 1415(e)(2), which empowers courts 
     to grant any appropriate relief.

  As I explained previously in my remarks, Mike McTaggart, principal at 
West Middle School in Sioux City, IA put it this way, ``I have no 
problems with the special education guidelines. The Court decisions 
make sense to me.'' We heard from several administrators from the State 
of Washington. One told us that in 10 years he never had to go to court 
for an injunction. The threat alone was sufficient with even the most 
recalcitrant parents. He went on to say that ``the law does not put us 
in an unreasonable situation but does provide an important protection 
for students with disabilities.''
  The U.S. Department of Education has explained the current policy 
regarding disciplining children with disabilities in letters responding 
to individual inquiries. Unfortunately, these interpretations are not 
widely disseminated and therefore many educators around the country are 
totally unaware of the options they actually have.
  Current policy regarding the disciplining of children with 
disabilities is consistent with Honig versus Doe case.
  In brief the policy is as follows:
  First, a school district can unilaterally exclude children with 
disabilities from the classroom for dangerous or disruptive behavior, 
no question asked, for up to 10 days. During this period, the school 
district can use normal disciplinary procedures and meet with the 
family to determine what alternative strategies, including alternative 
placements, might be more appropriate.
  Second, if the removal is for more than 10 days, it is considered a 
change of placement.
  Third, if parent and school officials agree on the need to change the 
placement or the child's IEP, the process stops here and the 
modifications are implemented.
  Fourth, a parent that disagrees with the school district's proposed 
actions may file a complaint, seek a due process hearing, and insist 
that the child ``stay put'' in his or her current placement pending the 
resolution of the appeals.
  Fifth, at all times, school officials can use ``normal'' disciplinary 
procedures such as study carrels, timeouts, or other restrictions if it 
is determined that the child's behavior was not related to his or her 
disability. If the child's behavior is related to the disability, these 
procedures can be used if they are consistent with his or her IEP.
  Sixth, if the school district believes that it would endanger other 
students to return the child to his or her current placement, the 
school district can go to court and seek an order permitting a change 
in placement.
  In sum, the legal framework of IDEA established by Congress with its 
focus on providing meaningful parent participation through the reliance 
on due process protections was enacted to put a stop to the shameful 
history of exclusion, segregation, inadequate education, and expulsion 
of children with disabilities.
  The Gorton amendment punches a gaping hole in this legal framework.
  The current legal framework carefully balances the rights of parents 
and school officials in order to bring about agreement between the 
parties. Parent/educator partnership is the linchpin of the law. The 
law encourages communication and dialogue, particularly in the 
development of the IEP. However, people don't always agree. When 
potential disagreements surface additional tools are included to nudge 
the parents and educators to keep talking. Parents can assert that 
their child must stay put pending appeals. The school district can 
assert its authority to override this right and obtain a court order to 
remove the child.
  Thus, each party has a tool at their disposal which they can use or 
threaten to use. In an overwhelming majority of cases, the availability 
of these tools forces both parties to come to an agreement.
  This amendment destroys that balance by taking away the parents' tool 
and allows the school district to make unilateral unchecked decisions. 
My colleague from the State of Washington will tell you that his 
amendment is very narrow because it only deals with life-threatening 
behavior. This amendment is not narrow. Under this amendment all a 
school official has to do is assert that any behavior is life-
threatening and the school official can unilaterally change a disabled 
child's placement. Thus, the stay-put provision is effectively repealed 
by this amendment.
  By allowing unilateral placements, there is a strong likelihood that 
in far too many school districts around this country we will return to 
the bad old days of exclusion, isolation, segregation, and the denial 
of appropriate services for children with disabilities.
  What an irony that this should occur the week disabled people around 
the country are celebrating their independence day, for on July 26, 
1990, President Bush signed into law the ADA.
  In sum, the Gorton amendment, by effectively repealing the stay put 
provision upsets the careful balance between the rights of parents and 
school officials.
  The Gorton amendment is also bad policy. It will result in an 
increase not a decrease in violence in the schools. Let me explain.
  The fundamental point made in the Chafee-Jeffords-Harkin friend of 
the court brief in the Honig versus Doe case was that we do not have to 
choose between school chaos and denying appropriate education to 
children with disabilities to maintain decorum in the schools. The 
brief stated:

       Congress believed that the system could be modified in a 
     manner that would protect the interests of all students and 
     school personnel by requiring the development of appropriate 
     programs, providing supportive or related services, training 
     of personnel, and tailoring educational programs to the 
     unique needs of the individual child with a disability.

  The brief went on to explain that allowing a dangerousness exception 
to the stay-put provision--as proposed by the Gorton amendment--would:

       * * * establish extremely bad public and educational 
     policy. School districts would have no incentive to actually 
     develop an appropriate program to address the needs of a 
     disruptive student pending due process procedures * * * 
     Compliance with the law encourages utilization of state of 
     the art educational strategies,* * *.
       Suspension for behavior related to a child's disability 
     puts the blame on the disabled child instead of on the 
     inadequacies of the system. This is exactly what Congress 
     sought to avoid in enacting IDEA.

  A child with a disability whose needs are not being met or properly 
addressed may suffer from cumulative frustration and confusion and may, 
as a result, present behavior problems.
  Under the current law, the parent could assert that the child's 
disruptive behavior is a manifestation of the failure of the school 
system to provide an appropriate education and insist that the 
appropriate services be provided.
  Under the Gorton amendment, the school system could remove the child 
by alleging that the behavior is life-threatening even when the 
disruptive behavior is the direct result of the system's failure to 
provide necessary services. The school system could then isolate the 
child; provide few, if any, services; or place the child in a 
restrictive setting where he learns even more aggressive and violent 
behavior.
  More violence, not less, will be the outcome. This outcome is 
intolerable. In the words of the Chafee-Jeffords-Harkin brief:

       Punishing a disruptive child by exclusion for weeks, 
     months, and even years during the pendency of administrative 
     and court proceedings when the school district could provide 
     modifications to the child's program is to excuse system 
     failure by projecting blame onto the student.

  This is not some hypothetical possibility. It is real and it is 
happening today to children with disabilities in school systems that 
act in violation of existing law.
  Let me give you an example. Titus is a disabled student. For 6 years 
he had received special education services. His grades were average. He 
was not a behavior problem. When he entered seventh grade and changed 
schools, the school system stopped providing special education because 
of an administrative error and without notifying his parents.
  During this year he was failing all his courses. Without the special 
education services, his learning disability prevented him from 
comprehending what the teachers were talking about. One day Titus was 
involved in a fight at school with another student. The fight occurred 
when another student made fun of the fact that he was failing his 
courses.
  Titus was illegally expelled from school without following any of the 
IDEA procedural protections for 7 months. By the time his mother sought 
legal assistance, he was suffering from severe depression and became 
increasingly suicidal. By the time he returned to school--a year after 
the illegal explulsion--he needed treatment for manic depression. Titus 
soon engaged in criminal activity and was convicted of a felony.
  In prison, his teachers made the following statement to his lawyers: 
``Titus is always very cooperative. Why were his emotional and learning 
difficulties so poorly addressed in school.
  Titus' antisocial behaviors are the direct result of the failure of 
the school system to provide him with a free appropriate public 
education to which he was entitled and the failure of the system to 
comply with the due process protections in the law.
  How many more Titus' are we going to have under the Gorton amendment.
  The Gorton amendment overturn a 7 to 2 Supreme Court decision 
interpreting the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] as 
a floor amendment to S. 1513, a bill reauthorizing the ESEA without 
hearings, discussion, and attempts to reach consensus among the 
concerned parties.
  The amendment has been drafted without any meaningful understanding 
of the nature and magnitude of the problem of violence by children with 
disabilities. We simply do not have any data. In fact, what is known 
suggests that disabled children are most frequently the brunt of 
violence not the perpetrators.
  This amendment will exacerbate tensions between parents and schools 
officials in a time when we should be doing everything in our power to 
facilitate partnerships and trust. This amendment is creating outrage, 
anger, fear, and bitterness in the souls of parents of children with 
disabilities across this country. Every day they live with the 
challenges of bringing up a child with a disability at home.
  It is unacceptable to blame a child who acts out for what, in many 
instances, may be a lack of appropriate education and related services, 
the lack of appropriate behavior management techniques, and the lack of 
teacher training.
  Next year we are going to reauthorize the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act. Current law may not be perfect and, in 
fact, we may need to make certain modifications. As chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Disability Policy I am committed to conducting a 
thorough review of the issue. Let's not act in a hasty fashion; let's 
do it right as part of the reauthorization of IDEA. Let's not fix one 
problem and create new ones because we did not take the time to fix it 
right.
  Finally, this amendment should be opposed because it is divisive in 
an area where bipartisanship and consensus building is the norm. I have 
been the chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy since the 
beginning of the 100th Congress.
  When I took over the chairmanship from our former colleague, Lowell 
Weicker, he implored me to carry on the tradition of this subcommittee 
of seeking bipartisan consensus on matters before the subcommittee. I 
am pleased to report that over the past 7 years we have succeeded on 
reaching a bipartisan consensus on every provision of every bill. I 
believe that we succeed because we listen to and work with all 
concerned parties, including representatives of school boards, school 
administrators, teachers, parents, and the disability community.
  I pledge to my colleagues that we will make the same effort to 
address the issue of disciplining children with disabilities as part of 
the reauthorization of IDEA, including a thorough review of the stay-
put provision and, if considered necessary, amend this provision of the 
IDEA.
  So I close by saying please, let us take care of the weapons. We can 
take care of the weapons in the Jeffords amendment. But let us not kick 
children with disabilities down one more time. These children are only 
asking for a fair chance. They are only asking that the schools follow 
the laws that we have put down, here in Congress, to provide them with 
a free appropriate public education. It has been 4 years since the 
adoption of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Madam President. Let 
us not turn the clock back. Let us turn down the Gorton amendment and 
let us adopt the Jeffords amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, is there a minute remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 1 minute.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank both Senator Jeffords and 
Senator Harkin for an excellent presentation. I hope the Senate will 
resist the Gorton amendment. We have taken the Dorgan amendment on 
guns. We have taken the Gorton amendment on violent students on 
record--we have taken a Gorton amendment about parental involvement and 
disciplinary actions, and we are overriding the IDEA with regard to 
guns. We have made every effort to try to respond to the problems of 
violence. I think the excellent presentation that has been made by the 
Senators from Vermont and Iowa should be the position that the Senate 
accepts on this amendment.
  I hope the Senate will reject the Gorton amendment and support the 
Jeffords-Harkin amendment.


                    amendment no. 2425, as modified

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, the Senator 
may proceed.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The copy is at the desk.
  I will read it. On page 3 of my amendment:

       Strike lines 3-11 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       (b) Nothing in the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
     Act shall supersede the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools 
     Act (section1501 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act) when the child's behavior is unrelated to his or her 
     disability.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The modification to amendment (No. 2425) is as follows:

       On page 3 strike lines 3-11 and insert in lieu thereof the 
     following:
       (b) Nothing in the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
     Act shall supersede the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools 
     Act (section 1501 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act) when the child's behavior is unrelated to his or her 
     disability.


                       vote on amendment no. 2418

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having expired, the question occurs 
on amendment 2418 offered by the Senator from Washington, Senator 
Gorton.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll on the Gorton amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 239 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boren
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--40

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Chafee
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Riegle
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So, the amendment (No. 2418) was agreed to.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    amendment no. 2425, as modified

  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with my colleague, Mr. Jeffords. It is my understanding that the 
provisions of the Senator's amendment are fully consistent with 
guidance provided by the U.S. Department of Education in a recent 
opinion on the application of the Gun-Free Schools Act to students 
covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Act?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator is correct in his understanding.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 
U.S. Department of Education interpretation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Guidance Concerning State and Local Responsibilities Under The Gun-Free 
                          Schools Act of 1994

       The Gun-Free Schools Act [Act] states that, as a condition 
     of receiving any assistance under the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act, local educational agencies [LEAs] 
     must have in effect a policy requiring the expulsion from 
     school for a period of not less than one year of any student 
     who brings a firearm to school, except that the LEA's chief 
     administering officer may modify the expulsion requirement on 
     a case-by-case basis. Under this provision, an LEA would be 
     permitted to discipline students with disabilities in 
     accordance with the requirements of Part B of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] and Section 504 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and thereby maintain 
     eligibility for Federal financial assistance.
       Question. When does the Gun-Free Schools Act take effect?
       Answer. The requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act took 
     effect on March 31, 1994.
       Question. What provisions must the revised policy contain?
       Answer. The policy must require the expulsion from school 
     for a period of not less than one year of any student who is 
     determined to have brought a weapon to a school under the 
     jurisdiction of the LEA. In order to comply with existing 
     requirements of IDEA and Section 504 regarding discipline of 
     students with disabilities, an LEA must include in its policy 
     the exception that permits its chief administering officer to 
     modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.
       Question. Do the requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act 
     conflict with requirements that apply to students with 
     disabilities?
       Answer. Compliance with the Gun-Free Schools Act may be 
     achieved consistently with the requirements that apply to 
     students with disabilities as long as discipline of such 
     students is determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance 
     with the disability laws. Students with disabilities may be 
     expelled for behavior unrelated to their disabilities as long 
     as the procedural safeguards required by IDEA and Section 504 
     are followed. IDEA also requires that educational services 
     must continue, although they may be in another setting, for 
     students with disabilities who are properly expelled.
       If it is determined that the student's action in bringing a 
     firearm to school is related to the student's disability, 
     IDEA and Section 504 do not permit the LEA to expel the 
     student. However, under IDEA and Section 504, a student with 
     a disability may be suspended for up to ten days. LEAs may 
     also seek a court order to remove a student who is considered 
     to be dangerous. In addition, the child's may be changed in 
     accordance with procedures under those laws to address 
     concerns for the safety of that child and other children.
       Question. Is an LEA required to expel any student who 
     brings a firearm to school, without exception?
       Answer. No. The Gun-Free Schools Act provides that the 
     LEA's policy may allow its chief administering officer to 
     modify the expulsion requirement for a student on a case-by-
     case basis. An LEA may comply with the requirements of IDEA 
     and Section 504 under the provision for case-by-case 
     modification.

  Mr. HARKIN. I am also concerned about how the amendment is intended 
to apply to a child with a disability who does not understand the 
consequences of his or her behavior and for whom the current placement 
is the best possible place to teach the child about the danger of 
weapons and to deter the child for ever bringing firearms to school. If 
this child is removed from the current placement, the damage to the 
child could be lifelong without in any way increasing the safety of the 
other children. I don't want a school district to feel compelled to 
remove a disabled child who will not pose a future threat of weapons 
possession if properly monitored and educated in his current placement.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I agree. This amendment will give the local school 
district the ability to make case-by-case determinations based on the 
facts and circumstances of a particular case, consistent with the 
underlying purposes of IDEA. We do not want to punish children because 
of their disabilities if the public policy of increased safety is not 
furthered. This amendment allows appropriate action where the safety of 
other children is at stake.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2425, as modified, and offered by the Senator from 
Vermont [Mr. Jeffords]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will now call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2425), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam 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.
 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support 
for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 
This legislation provides funding for all major Federal elementary and 
secondary programs. It is a good bill and an important one.
  I especially like this reauthorization bill because, first, it 
improves the old chapter I program; second, it provides for more 
extensive teacher training; third, it also addresses school violence, 
and fourth, it contains gender equity provisions throughout.
  First, Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairmen, Senator 
Kennedy and Senator Pell, for their work on revamping the chapter I 
distribution formula, now title I, the largest federally funded 
education program for disadvantaged students in poor areas. I know it 
was not easy. It is a complicated formula and it is difficult to 
satisfy the needs of all States.
  I know that in Maryland title I helps Maryland's disadvantaged 
students to get the education they need and deserve.
  The Labor Committee's formula streamlines the title I Federal program 
into one formula and targets the money to more economically 
disadvantaged students. That is a step in the right direction.
  Second, Mr. President, this bill expands the Eisenhower Teacher 
Training Program to include training in other core subjects. Yet, this 
bill still recognizes and emphasizes the original purpose of the 
Eisenhower program, to train teachers in math and science. I support 
professional development for our teachers because they are the backbone 
of our educational system. They must be up to speed on all subjects, 
especially math and science.
  By age 13, the math and science achievement of American students lags 
behind that of students in other countries. Yet, if we are going to 
keep pace with the rest of the world in developing new technology, or 
students--and our teachers--will need strong math and science skills.
  I have worked hard in my VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee to see 
that math and science education programs are funded because I know the 
importance of training all students for the future.
  Third, this legislation expands the Drug Free Schools and Communities 
Act to encourage school safety programs. Title V of this bill provides 
funds for violence prevention programs in our schools, such as early 
intervention programs, counseling, mentoring and before and after 
school programs.
  Mr. President, this is an extremely important section of this 
legislation because we must do everything we can to make every school 
in America free from drugs and violence.
  I have seen the way that crime has infiltrated our schools and our 
community. In January of last year, I held a town meeting with students 
at Canton Middle School in Baltimore.
  These assertive 12, 13, and 14 year olds were mainly concerned with 
one issue--crime. Mr. President, 12 year olds should be concerned about 
getting their homework done, not about running from gunfire on the 
playground or on their way home from school.
  We cannot tolerate any more of what is happening on our streets and 
in our schools. We need to say yes to kids who say no to drugs and yes 
to homework. We need to make investments in our youth before the 
trouble begins.
  Finally, to help create an environmental more conducive to learning, 
I am especially pleased that this bill incorporates a package of bills 
introduced by myself and my colleagues on gender equity.
  I, and my colleague, Senator Harkin, have included language in this 
legislation to make sure that teachers are sensitive to the needs of 
all students. I know teachers do the best job they can. We want to be 
sure, however, that no student is overlooked and that all students are 
treated equally in the classroom--girls and boys. So, in this 
legislation teachers will also have access to professional development 
programs on gender equality training.
  I added language to this bill to build on the concept of making our 
schools safe. The language I added suggests that schools make the 
elimination of sexual harassment and abuse a part of its mission to 
create a healthy school environment for girls and boys.
  Let me give you one example of why this language is important. Last 
April, for example, in Montgomery county, MD, the county public schools 
and Montgomery County Commission for Women sponsored a hearing on 
sexual harassment in education.
  Forty brave witnesses, including students, parents, and teachers, 
presented disturbing testimony about harassment between staff members, 
between staff and students, and peer harassment--among students.
  One young girl said that instead of recognizing harassment as a 
problem, girls are usually taught how to handle it.
  Fortunately, Montgomery County made a commitment to examine this 
issue and has designed a policy for handling harassment and procedures 
for responding to complaints.
  But, other places are not so lucky. Training and education is needed 
so that our schools are safe and healthy environments for learning. An 
abusive environment is no place for students to learn. My goal is to 
make every classroom and every school in the United States conducive to 
learning for all students.
  To that end, Mr. President, I would like to make one final point. I 
am a strong supporter of an initiative called Character Counts. This is 
an initiative to bring back some of the community building spirit that 
this country has lost. It encourages building individual capacity among 
our young people so that they can be a productive part of a larger 
community. I am proud to cosponsor the amendment offered by my 
colleagues, Senator Domenici and Senator Dodd.
  To me character education means trustworthiness, fairness, justice 
and caring, civic virtue and citizenship; those aspects of continuity 
that will help us to not only cope with change, but to embrace change, 
and lead us into the 21st century.
  We need to advocate for a society based on virtue and value and not a 
society where every aspect of our cultural communication reward and 
exploits violence and vulgarity.
  That is not what the United States is about, and that is not what 
built the United States of America. What built the United States of 
America was virtue and value, not violence and vulgarity.
  People have known this for years. It is the habits of the heart that 
de Tocqueville spoke about. It is all about neighbors caring for 
neighbors, personal responsibility, personal respect for yourself and 
respect for others. It is about social responsibility, the desire to be 
part of a neighborhood, a community, and to truly be a citizen of the 
United States of America.
  So I am happy to lend my voice and my efforts to this cause that I 
believe transcends party and geographic lines. I am happy to be a part 
of this coalition.
  Finally, Mr. President, I have only mentioned a few of the good 
things in this bill. It improves teacher training, enhances school 
violence prevention programs, and increases the awareness of gender 
equity concerns. But, most importantly, it reauthorizes secondary 
education programs through 1999 intended to help the poorest students.
  The education of our youth is an investment we cannot afford to 
overlook. It is what is best for our children and our future. I am 
pleased to support this legislation and I look forward to its 
passage.


                           Amendment No. 2423

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on the Simon Amendment 
No. 2423.
  The majority leader.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of the Simon amendment Senator Bumpers be recognized to 
offer his formula change amendment; that there be a time limitation of 
2 hours for debate on that amendment, equally divided and controlled in 
the usual form, with no amendments in order, nor to any language which 
may be stricken; and that at 9 p.m. the Senate vote on or in relation 
to the Bumpers amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I hope 
I will not, I have two amendments which will be accepted, but I have a 
few things I want to say about them. If we are still going to be on the 
bill tomorrow, I will be happy to wait until tomorrow.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, if I might inquire through the Chair 
of the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator says he has something to 
say about them. How long does the Senator intend to take on the two 
amendments which will be accepted, I understand?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. MITCHELL. How long would the Senator like?
  Mr. BYRD. I think what I would have to say might be between 20 and 30 
minutes, even though the amendments are going to be accepted.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Would it be agreeable to the Senator to have his 
amendments accepted and make his statements immediately after the vote 
on the Bumpers amendment this evening?
  Mr. BYRD. No. I do not want to be contrary, I say to the 
distinguished majority leader, but nobody will be listening then, and 
they may not be listening now, but at least they will not be home.
  Mr. MITCHELL. We are going to be in session after the Bumpers vote so 
there will be as many Senators listening then as now.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not want to wait until 9 o'clock to put 
in my amendments.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Of course, we have a large number of Senators we are 
trying to accommodate here, as I know the distinguished chairman is 
aware, having done it many times himself.
  Mr. BYRD. Why do not we do this if it will be agreeable to all sides, 
including Mr. Bumpers: Give me 20 minutes. If the majority leader could 
work that into his request, that following the acceptance of the 
amendment by Mr. Simon that I have 20 minutes on two amendments.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I then modify my request so that 
following the disposition of the Simon amendment, Senator Byrd be 
recognized for 20 minutes to offer two amendments, which I am advised 
by all concerned will be accepted; that following the disposition of 
those amendments, which will then be approximately 7:15 Senator Bumpers 
be recognized, and that the rest of the agreement remain as stated 
except that the vote on or in relation to the Bumpers amendment occur 
at 9:15 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank our colleagues for their cooperation.
  Mr. BUMPERS. May I ask what just happened?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Senator Bumpers will be recognized to offer an 
amendment at approximately 7:15; that we have 2 hours equally divided 
and have a vote on or in relation to Senator Bumpers' amendment at 9:15 
this evening.
  Mr. BUMPERS. What about me between then?
  Mr. MITCHELL. The Simon amendment will be accepted and Senator Byrd 
will offer two amendments which will be accepted.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, if the distinguished majority leader will 
yield, I have a feeling of remorse.
  The distinguished majority leader has bent over backward, and so has 
the manager and ranking manager, to accommodate me. I want to 
accommodate them.
  I will offer my amendments immediately after the disposition of the 
Simon amendment. My amendments will be accepted. And I will do as the 
distinguished majority leader suggested. Sometime this evening I will 
make my eloquent remarks and just ask unanimous consent that they be 
inserted in the Record prior to the vote on my amendments.
  Mr. MITCHELL. That is very thoughtful. But since we have reached this 
agreement, rather than reopening it, which would take more time, I 
suggest the Senator go ahead and, frankly, from the standpoint of 
several Senators who want to attend a function, a few more minutes 
might well be beneficial to them.
  So if it is agreeable to Senators, we have the agreement, I think it 
is best that we now execute the agreement rather than spending time 
talking about the agreement.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Should by some miracle of miracles these amendments be 
adopted and accepted prior to 7:15, would I be free to offer my 
amendment then?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, the Senator would be. The agreement does not 
specify the time. I estimated the time based upon what Senator Byrd 
indicated he would require.
  And we are going to continue. We are hoping to get a finite list of 
amendments to this bill and continue thereafter in an effort to make 
further good progress on this bill.
  I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                    Amendment No. 2423, as Modified

  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I submit a revision of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does have a right to modify his 
amendment, and the amendment is so modified.
  So the amendment (No. 2423) was modified, as follows:

       Insert on p. 1030 and renumber accordingly:

                      ``PART O--LONGER SCHOOL YEAR

     ``SEC. 13401. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This part may be cited as the `Longer School Year 
     Incentive Act of 1994'.

     ``SEC. 13402. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds as follows:
       ``(1) A competitive world economy requires that students in 
     the United States receive education and training that is at 
     least as rigorous and high-quality as the education and 
     training received by students in competitor countries.
       ``(2) Despite our Nation's transformation from a farm-based 
     economy to one based on manufacturing and services, the 
     school year is still based on the summer needs of an agrarian 
     economy.
       ``(3) For most students in the United States, the school 
     year is 180 days long. In Japan students go to school 243 
     days per year, in Germany students go to school 240 days per 
     year, in Austria students go to school 216 days per year, in 
     Denmark students go to school 200 days per year, and in 
     Switzerland students go to school 195 days per year.
       ``(4) In the final four years of schooling, students in 
     schools in the United States spend a total of 1,460 hours on 
     core academic subjects, less than half of the 3,528 hours so 
     spent in Germany, the 3,280 hours so spent in France, and the 
     3,170 hours so spent in Japan.
       ``(5) American students' lack of formal schooling is not 
     counterbalanced with more homework. The opposite is true, as 
     half of all European students report spending at least two 
     hours on homework per day, compared to only 29 percent of 
     American students. Twenty-two percent of American students 
     watch five or more hours of television per day, while less 
     than eight percent of European students watch that much 
     television.
       ``(6) More than half of teachers surveyed in the United 
     States cite `children who are left on their own after school' 
     as a major problem.
       ``(7) Over the summer months, disadvantaged students not 
     only fail to advance academically, but many forget much of 
     what such students had learned during the previous school 
     year.
       ``(8) Funding constraints as well as the strong pull of 
     tradition have made extending the school year difficult for 
     most States and school districts.
       ``(9) Experiments with extended and multi-track school 
     years have been associated with both increased learning and 
     more efficient use of school facilities.

     ``SEC. 13403. PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this part to allow the Secretary to 
     provide financial incentives and assistance to States or 
     local educational agencies to enable such States or agencies 
     to substantially increase the amount of time that students 
     spend participating in quality academic programs, and to 
     promote flexibility in school scheduling.

     ``SEC. 13404. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

       ``The Secretary is authorized to award grants to States or 
     local educational agencies to enable such States or agencies 
     to support public school improvement efforts that include the 
     expansion of time devoted to core academic subjects and the 
     extension of the school year to not less than 210 days.

     ``SEC. 13405. APPLICATION.

       ``Any State or local educational agency desiring assistance 
     under this part shall submit to the Secretary an application 
     at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       Authorization: For the purpose of carrying out this part 
     there are authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1995 and such sums as may be recessary for each 
     of the succeeding fiscal years.

  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, that is the amendment that we discussed 
at some length earlier encouraging the lengthening of the school year 
by local school districts. There was a question about where the funding 
was coming from. That was the matter of controversy that has now been 
worked out.
  I believe there is no opposition to this amendment now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate on the Simon 
amendment?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. May I inquire of the distinguished Senator from Illinois as 
to whether or not I am a cosponsor.
  Mr. SIMON. Let me assure that Senator Byrd is a cosponsor, along with 
Senator Pell, Senator Chafee, and Senator Kohl.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment offered by 
Senator Simon to provide financial incentives to States or local 
education agencies to increase the amount of time that students spend 
in the classroom.
  States and local school systems are experiencing some very tough 
financial times, and, of course, it costs money to extend the school 
year or the school day. However, it will cost us much more as a nation 
if we continue to shortchange both our students and our teachers by not 
encouraging them to increase the amount of time that they spend 
together in the classroom.
  I have long been an outspoken advocate for the pursuit of excellence. 
I have long believed that learning is a lifelong process. Therefore, it 
has long been a mystery to me how we can expect our children to excel 
when increasingly they spend so little time on core academic subjects.
  According to the report ``Prisoners of Time'' issued by the National 
Education Commission on Time and Learning, American students spend, on 
average 180 days in school. The traditional school day is about 5.6 
hours of classroom time. Further, the report pointed out that while the 
school day was originally designed for the core subjects, in actual 
fact, today, only about 3 hours of each day is spent on core subjects. 
The remainder of the day is spent in other activities, such as drivers' 
training, homeroom, study halls, lunch, and pep rallies. In short, the 
Commission's report found that our educational system is hampered by 
the clock, and as such is not addressing the needs of the students, the 
teachers, the community, or the Nation.
  We are in an age in which scientific, technological, and mathematical 
abilities are critical for maximum national economic progress and 
international competitiveness. This Nation must have engineers, 
mathematicians, and scientists to keep us on the cutting edge of 
emerging technologies. We must also have scholars who understand the 
workings of government and the lessons of history. Clearly, our schools 
are not doing the job that they must do if we are to run first in the 
global economic race. There are too many distractions in our schools. 
More time must be given to serious students who want to learn and to 
serious teachers determined to teach. The Japanese school year is 243 
days long, and we can readily see the evidence of the benefits of that 
longer school year in the academic performance of Japanese students.
  The German school year is 240 days long. Shouldn't we be getting a 
message here? Our kids go to school only 180 days and only about half 
of those days are spent in serious study.
  That is roughly 60 days a year spent on core studies. No wonder our 
students are falling behind. We have been talking about the need to do 
something to improve the quality of education in our schools for some 
time, but talking has gotten us nowhere.
  How can we expect teachers to teach and children to learn when the 
average amount of time in a school day allotted to serious study is 
just 3 short hours?
  The minds of our young people are being wasted. American kids seem to 
be majoring in television, soap operas, hard rock, videos, and horror 
movies, rather than algebra, science, or history.
  We must get back to basics. The basics of reading, writing, and 
arithmetic need to be skills that are mastered early. Without the 
basics, students cannot even begin to master the more difficult skills 
that will be required in order for them to be productive members of 
society and to have any hope of a successful life.
  Educators and parents alike are finally starting to understand the 
urgent need to improve the quality of our education system. Quality 
cannot be achieved when only 3 hours per day are devoted to learning 
the basics. This amendment will provide assistance to States and local 
school systems which want to try to improve the quality of their 
education efforts by extending the school day or the school year. This 
is a good amendment, and I urge its adoption. Let us spend more time on 
learning in our public schools before the time runs out for our 
children and for the Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, just for 1 minute. This idea makes a 
great deal of sense, and we want to work very closely with the Senator 
from Illinois and also the Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. Pell] who 
has talked about this for many, many years.
  Senator Feingold, I think, had some questions about the earlier kind 
of amendment, and I expressed that to the Senator from Illinois.
  I would hope that we will move ahead and accept this amendment. If 
for some reason those concerns have not been allayed, and I believe 
they have, but if they have not, then I will come back to the Senator 
from Illinois and ask for at least an opportunity for him to be heard 
and his concerns be addressed later during the night.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I would like to also say that I have 
no objection to the Senator's amendment, on one condition that he will 
make me a cosponsor.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-
Braun] also be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont and the junior Senator from Illinois are 
added as cosponsors.
  Is there any further debate on this amendment?
  Observing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2423), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). Under the unanimous-consent 
agreement, the Chair now recognizes the Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________