[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 141 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10859-S10861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1295. A bill to provide for dropout prevention; to the Committee 
on Labor and Human Resources.


              THE NATIONAL DROPOUT PREVENTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Dropout Prevention Act. I will talk just a bit about the issue and talk 
about the problem that I am trying to address and that this act is 
intending to address. It is a problem, I think, all Senators should 
join me in trying to resolve and I believe will join me in trying to 
resolve.
  We have a serious problem on our hands that is a threat to the youth 
of America. The problem is that far too many of our kids are dropping 
out of high school before they graduate. Some, even, are dropping out 
of middle school before they proceed on to high school.
  Each fall, starting about a month ago, students begin dropping out of 
school and they drop out in very, very large numbers. Nationwide, 
nearly half a million kids leave school each year. That is, leaving 
school not by graduating but leaving school early and deciding not to 
stay in school and graduate. That is 2,700 dropouts for each school 
day. Studies show that our children are dropping out at a younger and 
younger age.
  Who are these kids who are dropping out of school? The charts that I 
have here make the case fairly well. They are largely from low-income 
and middle-income families, and as a percent they are largely minority. 
The numbers are disturbing across the board, but they are particularly 
alarming for Hispanic students.
  First, on the income level. If you look at this chart, the top line 
shows the period from 1975 to 1995, a 20-year period. On the left-hand 
side we show the dropout rates for grades 10-12, ages 15-24, by family 
income. What this means is that among students from low-income families 
at times it has been as high as 17 percent that have dropped out in a 
particular year. In middle-income families, it is closer to 6 to 8 
percent, and in high-income families it is substantially lower than 
that. When you break it down not just by income level but by ethnic 
background, you can see that the problem is concentrated and 
particularly alarming for Hispanic students who are dropping out at a 
rate more than double that of non-Hispanic students. Also, black 
students drop out at a rate about 50 percent higher than the rate for 
white students.
  You can see from this chart the point I am making here, the top line, 
the red line, represents the percentage of Hispanic students dropping 
out. This is called status dropout rates for persons 16-24, and you can 
see somewhere between 30 and 35 percent of Spanish students nationwide 
drop out rather than compete high school. It is a very serious problem, 
particularly in that group, and of course that is a great concern in my 
State where a very large percent of the student population is Hispanic.
  Why are they dropping out? With all the emphasis on self-reliance 
these days it is tempting to ask what is wrong with kids that so many 
of them are leaving school. When you actually sit down and talk to 
these young people, as I have done across New Mexico, you soon learn 
that it is not the kids that are failing the schools as much as it is 
the schools that are failing our young people. Ask groups of high 
school students why they and their friends are leaving school and you 
will hear the same answers again and again. Some of them are bored with 
the dumbed-down lessons that they don't see as having any relevance to 
their own lives. They are lost in giant school buildings with endless 
corridors and teachers who have very little time to give them or to use 
in encouraging them to succeed in their school work. They are trapped 
in an educational system that does not meet the individual needs of 
individual students.
  With all the focus on education these days you would think this issue 
would be getting substantial attention but, in fact, it is not getting 
any real attention. It has been 8 years since President Bush and the 
Nation's Governors established as a national goal that we would 
graduate 90 percent of high school seniors by the year 2000. Obviously, 
we are much closer to the year 2000, but we are nowhere near the goal 
of graduating 90 percent of our students before they drop out of 
school.
  Now, let's talk a little about the bill we are introducing, this 
National Dropout Prevention Act of 1997. This is the only comprehensive 
effort that we have seen, that we have come up with, or that we are 
aware of anyone coming up with, that will prevent students from 
dropping out of school and take this issue head on.
  Let me outline the proposal very briefly. First, two basic points. 
The reasons that kids drop out of school cut across racial and ethnic 
lines. The solutions we are proposing are aimed at helping all at-risk 
students make it through high school. Second, the emphasis here is on 
preventing students from dropping out of school by reforming the 
schools that they are in rather than trying to help students later 
after they have made the decision to leave school.
  But what I am proposing in this bill sets out to achieve four basic 
goals:
  First, to focus greater national attention on the problem and to 
coordinate our Federal efforts to deal with the issue.
  Second, to provide more resources to help communities to fight back 
at this problem.
  Third, to enable school districts to try effective prevention 
strategies that have been shown to work.
  Fourth, to enlist the States where most of the resources are and most 
of the policy is related to education in the effort to keep more kids 
in school.
  The bill directs the President to appoint a dropout czar within the 
Department of Education who would coordinate efforts at the national 
level, would streamline programs, would recommend changes and, most 
importantly, could be held accountable for progress on dropout 
prevention. This czar would make sure that existing Federal programs 
such as the Upward Bound Program and vocational education do their 
level best to help at-risk kids to complete high school.
  Second and third, this bill creates a new $100 million grant program 
to reach the 1,000 schools across the country with the highest dropout 
rates. With these funds, schools would be able to try proven strategies 
that have been shown to work--strategies like breaking larger schools 
down into smaller learning communities so that kids can have regular 
and closer contact with the adults in the school, particularly with 
their teachers, and can have challenging and relevant work to do.
  Finally, because States are so much a part of our educational system, 
we would ask them to place a greater emphasis on dropout prevention as 
well. We have asked in this bill that instead of awarding education 
dollars based on how many students are enrolled in school 40 days into 
the year, as my State does and as many States do, the States change 
their laws so that they monitor enrollment levels throughout the school 
year. Because gathering accurate data is the first step toward fixing 
the problem, we also ask that States keep track of who is leaving 
school.
  Let me show you a chart. This chart takes the 23 States that 
presently collect data on the number of students dropping out of school 
and it ranks them. It shows that, according to the statistics we have, 
as a percentage dropout rate, New Mexico --and this is on an annual 
basis--ranks third in the country. Each Senator can look at this list 
and determine very quickly, first,

[[Page S10860]]

whether his or her State collects data on this subject and, second 
where his or her State ranks in dealing with the problem.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, let me just summarize what our bill 
does. It coordinates the Federal dropout prevention initiatives; it 
streamlines the unconnected and overlapping dropout prevention 
programs; it provides additional Federal resources for dropout 
prevention programs at the State level and local school district level; 
it targets and expands participation by at-risk students in the 
programs, and it calls on State and local agencies to coordinate and 
expand their own efforts.
  Mr. President, this is a difficult problem. It is one that we are not 
going to solve by waving some magic wand. The effort will demand a 
concerted effort, a real commitment by State and local leaders, 
parents, educators and, of course, students. But if the issue is not 
placed on the national agenda and done so immediately, our chances of 
meeting this 90 percent graduation target any time in the near future 
will be greatly diminished. Clearly, it will be impossible to meet that 
by the year 2000. But, hopefully, we can meet it some time in the next 
decade if we get about the business of trying to do so.
  This legislation is being introduced, Mr. President, with the hope 
that we can begin to educate others in the Congress about the 
seriousness of the problem, begin to educate others in the country 
about the seriousness of the problem. I hope we can get colleagues to 
cosponsor the legislation and that we can move toward hearings on the 
bill some time in the Labor and Human Resources Committee early after 
we reconvene in the second session of this Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COCHRAN:
  S. 1296. A bill to reform the laws relating to Postal Service 
finances, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


                the postal financing reform act of 1997

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Postal 
Financing Reform Act of 1997. This bill gives the Postal Service the 
authority to deposit funds in private sector institutions, invest in 
the open market, and borrow from private credit markets.
  The statutory restrictions of current law on postal finances, 
borrowing, and purchasing were designed for a Postal Service that 
required regular infusions of appropriated funds to maintain public 
service levels. For almost two decades now, the Postal Service has been 
a self-supporting system.
  The maintenance of U.S. Treasury control over Postal Service banking, 
investing, and borrowing is no longer necessary or justified. Current 
law prevents the Service from obtaining the most favorable combination 
of prices and services and results in added operating costs of over 
$100,000,000 annually. Under this new approach, the Treasury Department 
would retain much of its current oversight, but it would no longer be 
the sole provider of certain financial services to the Postal Service. 
This bill makes the relationship between the Treasury and the Postal 
Service similar to the relationship other government sponsored 
enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have with the Treasury.
  The bill I am introducing includes four main sections--those being 
sections 2 through 5. Section 2 amends title 39 of the United States 
Code to authorize the Postal Service to deposit its revenues in the 
Postal Service Fund within the U.S. Treasury or any Federal Reserve 
banks or depositories for public funds. The requirement to obtain the 
Secretary of the Treasury's approval before any funds deposited 
elsewhere would be eliminated.
  The third section terminates Treasury control of Postal Service 
investments. This will permit the Postal Service to invest any excess 
funds either in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the Government of the 
United States, or in such other obligations or securities as it deems 
advisable, provided that such investment is determined to be closely 
related to Postal Service operations by the Postal Board of Governors. 
By providing the Postal Service with an opportunity to invest in U.S. 
Government obligations or other obligations on its own accord without 
unnecessary constraints, this section of the bill would permit the 
Postal Service to take advantage of favorable market conditions, and 
give it the ability to make equity investments which fit its business 
strategies.
  Section 4 removes the control of the Secretary of the Treasury over 
the Postal Service's financial borrowing decisions. The Postal Service 
would still be required to consult with the Secretary of the Treasury 
regarding the terms and conditions of the sale of any obligations 
issued by the Postal Service under section 2006(a) of title 39, and the 
Secretary would still exercise a power of approval over the timing of a 
sale of obligations, in much the same manner as the Treasury acts as a 
traffic cop with regard to the timing of obligations issued by other 
government-sponsored enterprises.
  Finally, this bill removes the requirement of the Secretary of the 
Treasury to purchase up to $2 billion in obligations of the Postal 
Service. This section would still permit the Secretary of the Treasury 
to purchase Postal Service obligations, but only upon mutual agreement 
between the Secretary and the Postal Service. Removing this put on the 
Treasury would be consistent with the purpose of directing the Postal 
Service borrowing to the private sector where it would be able to take 
advantage of a broader market. This section would also make Treasury 
purchases of Postal Service obligations exempt from the various 
borrowing limits in title 39 of the United States Code thus enabling 
the Postal Service and the Treasury by mutual agreement to address an 
unforeseen emergency situation. Such exempt purchases would themselves 
be capped at $2.5 billion of outstanding obligations at any one time.
  I invite Senators to consider this proposal for reform and support 
this effort to ensure a more efficient and financially sound U.S. 
Postal Service.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record. 
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1296

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Postal Financing Reform Act 
     of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. END OF TREASURY CONTROL OF POSTAL SERVICE BANKING.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 2003 of title 
     39, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) The Postal Service, in its sole discretion--
       ``(1) may provide that amounts which would otherwise be 
     deposited in the revolving fund referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall instead, to the extent considered appropriated by the 
     Postal Service, be directly deposited in a Federal Reserve 
     bank or a depository for public funds selected by the Postal 
     Service; and
       ``(2) may provide for transfers of amounts under this 
     subsection between or among--
       ``(A) Federal Reserve banks;
       ``(B) depositories for public funds; and
       ``(C) the revolving fund referred to in subsection (a).''.
       (b) Savings Provision.--Until the authority under section 
     2003(d) of title 39, United States Code, as amended by 
     subsection (a), becomes available, the provisions of such 
     section 2003(d), as last in effect before being so amended, 
     shall be treated as if still in effect.
       (c) Status of Moneys Unchanged.--
       (1) Any amounts invested under section 2003(c) of title 39, 
     United States Code, as amended by this Act, shall be 
     considered to be part of the Postal Service Fund, to the same 
     extent as if such amounts had been invested under section 
     2003(c) of such title 39, as last in effect before the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Any amounts deposited or transferred under section 
     2003(d) of title 39, United States Code, as amended by this 
     Act, shall be considered to be part of the Postal Service 
     Fund, to the same extent as if such amounts had been 
     transferred under section 2003(d) of such title 39, as last 
     in effect before the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. POSTAL SERVICE INVESTMENTS.

       Section 2003(c) of title 39, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking all after ``it may'' and inserting the following: 
     ``invest such amounts as it considers appropriate in--
       ``(1) obligations of, or obligations guaranteed by, the 
     Government of the United States; and
       ``(2) such other obligations or securities as it deems 
     appropriate, if such investment is closely related to Postal 
     Service operations as determined by the Board of 
     Governors.''.

     SEC. 4. ELIMINATION OF TREASURY PREEMPTION OF BORROWING BY 
                   THE POSTAL SERVICE.

       Section 2006(a) of title 39, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:

[[Page S10861]]

       ``(a) Before selling any issue of obligations under section 
     2005 of this title, the Postal Service shall advise the 
     Secretary of the Treasury of the amount, proposed date of 
     sale, maturities, terms and conditions, and expected maximum 
     rates or interest of the proposed issue in appropriate 
     detail. The Postal Service shall consult with the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, or the designee of the Secretary, under this 
     subsection for a reasonable period of time as determined by 
     the Postal Service. The sale and issue of obligations 
     described under this subsection shall not be subject to 
     approval by the Secretary of the Treasury.''.

     SEC. 5. ELIMINATION OF POSTAL SERVICE ``PUT'' ON TREASURY.

       Section 2006(b) of title 39, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Upon request of the Postal Service, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury may purchase obligations of the Postal 
     Service in such amount as the Secretary and the Postal 
     Service, in their discretion, may agree.
       ``(2) The obligations purchased by the Secretary pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) shall be exempt from the maximum amount 
     limitations of section 2005(a), if--
       ``(A) the total outstanding amount of obligations exempt 
     from section 2005(a) does not exceed $2,500,000 at any one 
     time; and
       ``(B) the Secretary and the Postal Service jointly 
     determine that such exemption is necessary to carry out the 
     purposes of this chapter.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall become 
     effective 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S. 1298. A bill to designate a Federal building located in Florence, 
Alabama, as the ``Justice John McKinley Federal Building''; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


               the justice john mckinley federal building

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce 
legislation to honor John McKinley. John McKinley was a statesman, an 
influential State legislator, one of the founding trustees of the 
University of Alabama, U.S. Senator, and the first U.S. Supreme Court 
Justice from the State of Alabama.
  Born on May 1, 1780, in Culpepper County, VA, John McKinley began his 
career in Kentucky after learning the law on his own. In 1818, he moved 
to Alabama and shortly after his arrival, McKinley, along with Andrew 
Jackson and John Coffee, became a member of the Cypress Land Co. This 
company was the largest single purchaser of land in north Alabama in 
the land boom of 1818. In addition to pursuing his fortune, John 
McKinley almost immediately entered Alabama politics. In 1820, he was 
elected to the State legislature.
  In 1826, McKinley was elected by the State legislature to the U.S. 
Senate where he served until 1831. In the Old Senate Chamber, just down 
the hall, he espoused a political theory that to many in Washington may 
seem quaint. He believed that the national government's sovereignty was 
limited solely to the powers granted by the Constitution unless 
expressly relinquished by the States. As chairman of the Committee on 
Public Lands, he promoted transferring Federal lands to the States for 
economic development. Defeated for a second term in the Senate, 
McKinley returned to the Alabama legislature.
  In the legislature, McKinley gained considerable influence by 
denouncing the national bank and endorsing President Jackson s efforts 
to dismantle it. He also supported Martin Van Buren, Jackson's 
candidate for President in 1836. When the Jacksonian Democrats regained 
control of the State legislature, the new majority re-elected McKinley 
to the Senate. Shortly thereafter, as a reward for his loyalty to 
Jackson and endorsement of Van Buren, the newly elected President 
nominated McKinley for a seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate 
confirmed his nomination 1 week later on September 25, 1837, by voice 
vote.
  Justice John McKinley was assigned to the ninth circuit, which 
encompassed Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. While riding 
circuit in Mobile, AL, Justice McKinley heard the first of three cases 
collectively known as Bank of Augusta versus Earle. In this 
controversial decision, McKinley upheld an Alabama statute prohibiting 
out-of-State banks from making loans in Alabama. The case which was 
appealed to the Supreme Court was heard in 1839.
  The Court overturned the McKinley decision, and only McKinley 
dissented. Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote the majority opinion which 
declared that there was a law of comity that applied among the States. 
Therefore, a bank had as much a legal right to offer interstate loans 
as they do in the charter State. In the lone dissent, however, McKinley 
made the interesting point that the Court's majority had applied the 
State sovereignty doctrine in the extreme and that the States ceased to 
be nations when they ratified the Constitution.
  His most significant contribution to the Court was writing the 
majority opinion in Pollard's Lesse versus Hagan (1845). This opinion 
declared that the Federal Government held public lands in trust until a 
territory became a State. At the time a territory entered the Union, 
the public land was rightfully State property. This decision provided a 
legal basis for opening public lands and for furthering economic 
development.
  In addition to Pollard, Justice McKinley wrote nine other opinions in 
1845, his most prolific year on the Court. After 1845, his work became 
sporadic due to general poor health. He attended, however, the Court's 
sessions as regularly as possible and contributed as best he could. 
John McKinley remained a member of the Court until his death in the 
spring of 1852.
  There is no Federal building to honor Justice McKinley, and the 
legislation that I am introducing will correct this oversight. The bill 
designates the Federal courthouse and U.S. Post Office complex in 
Florence, AL as the ``Justice John McKinley Federal Building.'' The 
legislation has received the endorsement of the following: Mayor Frost 
and the Florence City Council, the Lauderdale County Commission, 
Tennessee Valley Historical Society, Florence Historical Board, 
Heritage Preservation, Inc., the Alabama State Bar Association, the 
Lauderdale County Bar Association, and the McKinley Young Lawyers of 
the Shoals.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and pay tribute to 
this Alabama statesman.

                          ____________________