[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 22 (Thursday, March 2, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1088-S1111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AFFORDABLE EDUCATION ACT OF 1999--Continued
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kerry
amendment be set aside so the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, can
offer her amendment at this time.
[[Page S1089]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am happy to do this in 5 minutes or
maybe, at the most, 6.
I thank my friend from Georgia, my friend from Nevada, and my friend
from Louisiana, who graciously agreed I could go ahead of her.
Amendment No. 2880
(Purpose: To require schools that receive Federal funding to notify
parents of certain pesticide applications on school grounds)
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 2880.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. ______. PESTICIDE APPLICATION IN SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--Each school that receives Federal funding
shall--
(1) take steps to reduce the exposure of children to
pesticides on school grounds, both indoors and outdoors; and
(2) provide parents and guardians of children that attend
the school with advance notification of certain pesticide
applications on school grounds in accordance with subsections
(b) and (c).
(b) EPA List of Toxic Pesticides.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall distribute to each school that
receives Federal funding the current manual of the
Environmental Protection Agency that guides schools in the
establishment of a least toxic pesticide policy.
(2) List.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall provide each school that receives
Federal funding with a list of pesticides that contain a
substance that the Administrator has identified as a known or
probable carcinogen, a developmental or reproductive toxin,
or a category I or II acute nerve toxin.
(c) Parental Notification of Toxic Pesticide Applications
in Schools.--
(1) In general.--On or after the date that is 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, any school that
receives Federal funding shall not apply any pesticide
described in paragraph (b)(2) on school grounds, either
indoors or outdoors, unless an administrative official of the
school provides notice of the planned application to parents
and guardians of children that attend the school not later
than 48 hours before the application of the pesticide.
(2) Notice.--The notice described in paragraph (1)--
(A) shall include--
(i) a description of the intended area of application; and
(ii) the name of each pesticide to be applied; and
(B) shall indicate whether the pesticide is a known or
probable carcinogen, a developmental or reproductive toxin,
or a category I or II acute nerve toxin.
(3) Incorporation of notice.--The notice described in
paragraph (1) may be incorporated in any notice that is being
sent to parents and guardians at the time at which the
pesticide notice is required to be sent.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very hopeful that this amendment,
unlike the other one that I have pending, will get the support of my
friends on the other side of the aisle.
For a long time I have been talking about the need for a children's
environmental protection act. It is very important we understand that
our children are not little adults; they are quite different from
adults. They are growing; they are changing; and certain exposures are
much more harmful to them than they would be for us.
My amendment does two things. It gives parents notification before
toxic pesticides are applied in their children's schools. It also
requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
distribute to schools its guide on the establishment of a least-toxic-
pesticide policy. In other words, we have already got the work done.
Here it is. It talks about how we can lessen the bad impact on our
children by using the kinds of products that will harm them the least.
Right now, the EPA does send this out, but it is a spotty situation;
they don't send it to all of the schools.
What we are asking for is a 48-hour notice so parents know that these
substances are being sprayed, if they are, in fact, toxic, and if they
are, in fact, a product that could harm the children.
Of course, what we really want to do is lower the use of toxic
pesticides. That would be the very best thing we could do. That is our
ultimate hope. That is why we are encouraging the Environmental
Protection Agency to work with our schools. But, unfortunately, we have
very toxic products being sprayed on our schools today.
Why is it important that parents know this is occurring? Because
pesticides, by definition, are meant to kill living things. Exposure to
pesticides has been linked to cancer, neurological disorders, and
learning disabilities. A common insecticide schools currently spray on
baseboards and floors to kill cockroaches and ants--it has an active
ingredient called chlorpyrifos--is classified by the EPA as a nerve
toxin. Since we know some of these common pesticides contain a nerve
toxin, we have to ask what are the effects of our children's exposure
to nerve toxin.
The acute effects of this type of toxin include headaches, dizziness,
mental confusion, and vomiting. We know potential effects include
decreased neurological performance. We know that because there have
been some studies about which I will discuss.
These risks are much more prevalent in children than adults because,
again, children are not little adults; they are different. A 1993
National Academy of Sciences report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants
and Children, documented what has long been known by children's health
professionals: Children are at greater risk to experience the harmful
effects of pesticide exposure than adults. The National Academy
explained that children face greater exposure to pesticides because,
pound for pound of body weight, they eat more food and drink more water
and breathe more air than adults. In other words, they are smaller and
therefore their intake is greater as a proportion of their body weight.
Children are rapidly growing, and their developing systems are more
vulnerable to harmful effects of pesticides. I referred to a study. A
study conducted in Mexico had children exposed to these very harmful
pesticides make a drawing of a stick figure. I have that in the
cloakroom, if anyone is interested in looking. The children who were
exposed to the pesticides could not put together a stick figure. The
ones who had no exposure were able to do it as a normal child would.
That study certainly helps demonstrate why we should encourage schools
to adopt the least toxic pesticide program.
I will close with this: My amendment is not some new idea, because
many schools in my home State go beyond what is provided for in this
amendment. For example, in the San Francisco, Los Angeles, Mendocino,
and Arcata school districts in California, they have all adopted
policies to prohibit the use of these toxic pesticides. I am not even
going that far. My amendment merely requires, if we are going to use
them, let the families know in advance.
We should try to help schools get off of these products. My amendment
takes the first step toward reducing the use of toxic pesticides in
schools nationwide by encouraging schools to adopt similar policies to
those I have cited in my home State.
I think it is important, since we look to parents to protect their
children, that those parents have the information and can decide how to
proceed. Maybe if they find out there is toxic spraying going on, they
will get together and try to come forward with a different brand of
pesticide. All in all, I think we are giving parents more tools to be
able to control the lives of their children and what their children are
exposed to.
I am very hopeful that the Republican side of the aisle will reach
across the aisle and accept this amendment. If they do so, I will not
require a recorded vote; a voice vote will do just fine.
I ask my friend from Georgia does he have any information as to
whether this amendment will be able to be accepted and disposed of by a
voice vote at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, if I might respond to the Senator from
California, I am not 100 percent certain. As I told her when she came
to the floor, it appears that that will be acceptable; in which case,
we will do a voice vote. But I am not totally certain
[[Page S1090]]
yet. I am sure I will be by the time we start voting.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend very much because I think we could all
be proud of this amendment. It is quite simple. Again, we are giving
parents information they should have, and we are essentially telling
the Environmental Protection Agency to do a better job of getting this
booklet out to all the school districts.
I thank my friends for their indulgence and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer
amendment be set aside and Senator Landrieu be allowed to speak for 30
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Amendment No. 2867
(Purpose: To promote teacher and principal quality and professional
development)
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Bayh.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself, Mr.
Lieberman, and Mr. Bayh, proposes an amendment numbered 2867.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of
Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and myself. Others may be joining.
The amendment has to do with improving the quality of teaching in our
public schools, to provide resources to our States and our local
communities to help teachers gain additional professional skills to
help them do a better job in the classroom.
The amendment will provide an additional $1 billion to States and
local governments. It will encourage States to design their own
initiatives. Many States are well on their way in this regard and are
seeing great progress. Other States and other communities have a long
way to go.
I am not going to spend my time right now relaying all the statistics
in this regard, only to say that a large percentage--by some estimates,
40 percent; in some communities, 50 percent--of the teachers teaching
in public elementary and high schools are not certified and, by the
standards set by their own local communities and States, not qualified
to teach a particular subject matter.
In particular, we have had a shortage of teachers in the math and
science areas. Although we have made great progress in that particular
area in the last couple of years, we have a way to go.
On the general issue of education, I thank my colleague from Georgia
for his handling of this issue. I say to both of the leaders and to my
colleagues, I hope we will stay on the issue of education. It is the
most important issue to the American public. Whether our children are
in public school or not, as taxpayers, as parents, as grandparents, as
young people, this issue is weighing heavily on the American people
today. They want the proper and appropriate response from Washington.
They want us to discuss it, but, more importantly, they want us to act.
Whether we agree to pass this bill or not, one thing is clear in our
minds: We all agree that elementary and secondary education in America
is in need of reform. We must accelerate the progress and the reforms
that are underway.
It is simply taking too long. We are not making enough progress in
the areas where we need to, satisfied with the status quo. It is not
because public schools aren't working, it is that they are just not
working well enough for the children and families who need them the
most and depend on them the most. And we have reams and reams and reams
of material to back up this statement. We all agree that the current
rate of student achievement is simply not satisfactory for a large
number of our students.
Again, there are many public schools that are working well. There are
many classrooms--hundreds and thousands--that are functioning
beautifully. Yet, under the status quo, many students are being left
behind, many districts left out, many States not meeting the goals.
We must begin in this year, the year 2000, to consider new ways to
help increase the quality of learning for our youth. We are not alone
in this sentiment in the Senate or in the House. Pick up any newspaper
or magazine daily and you will see articles on the need for reform and
the need for new testing results and smaller class size. School
construction has been in the daily headlines for months--in fact,
years. Speak to any parent and they will tell us about the need for
change. Talk with teachers who are in the classrooms.
Of the eight goals set by the National Goals Panel in 1992, which
many of us and many Governors and grassroots leaders worked on, not one
has been satisfactorily accomplished to date.
Admittedly, some of the goals were quite lofty--if you will, reaching
for the stars. Nonetheless, in the 6 years after a tremendous amount of
work, a tremendous amount of money, we are not making significant
progress. Up to 28 categories were chosen to monitor these 8 goals in
the United States as a whole, and we have improved in only 12 of those
categories. We have made no progress in 11, and we have actually
declined in 5.
Here is the National Education Goals Report which contains all of
these details. They are discouraging, in my opinion. I am happy to see
that we have made significant progress in increasing our math and
science scores. But we have gone down in some very important areas--in
teacher certification; reading scores at the 4th grade, 8th grade, and
12th grade levels have not appreciably improved. According to the
National Commission on Teaching in America, fewer than 75 percent of
all teachers have been licensed specifically in their area.
This is not the kind of reform--or at least the pace of reform--we
should accept, or we need to accept, or we need to embrace. We need to
say, yes, while we are doing some things very well, we have to
accelerate the pace of reform and make some fundamental changes.
My husband and I are building a house here on Capitol Hill, and it
has been a wonderful experience--if we can get through this without
fighting too much and all of the things that go along with building a
house. It sort of reminds me of this debate. We spend a lot of time in
the Senate and House floor giving speeches about specific areas. We
talk about school construction, early childhood education, teacher
quality, or new reading programs, which are all good. It is like
talking about redesigning a window or redesigning a kitchen or redoing
a living room. I am talking about something many of us feel strongly
about--a new foundation.
We need to build a ``bigger house'' so that all the children can find
a place in this house. We need to build a much better house. You can't
do it by arguing about the size of windows, or the color of the carpet,
or the decor of the living room, which is how we are spending a lot of
our time here. We need to talk about fundamental, foundational change
in the way the Federal Government helps to reform and accelerate the
pace of reform in America today.
Let me outline a few principles that I think are very important.
No. 1, in my opinion, we can't do this in the piecemeal manner in
which we have been approaching it--whether it is a great idea for a new
tax gimmick or scheme, or a good tax policy, depending on how you look
at what we have debated, whether it is about a specific amendment, or
school construction, or a new bond issue that will give us interest-
free loans for our local governments or even extend the debt.
We need to accept the fact that comprehensive reform is necessary. We
have that opportunity in this Congress. As we go to the reauthorization
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is now in
committee and being debated in our Education Committee, it is my great
hope that out of that committee and to this floor will come not a
piecemeal approach, but a fundamental, foundational approach that would
have a couple of components: One, that we would trust our
[[Page S1091]]
local government and our Governors and our mayors and our legislators,
and that it would be a bipartisan trust, and say that many Governors--
not all--have been making considerable headway in their States with new
accountability standards, new innovation, pressing hard to make sure
the resources get to the classroom.
One of the great changes we need to make in a comprehensive way is
saying that we don't have all the answers, and we don't want to
micromanage, that we want to trust our local government officials and
give them the flexibility they need toward this accelerated reform
about which I am speaking. We need to reward them for their
performance, reward them for being successful. Stop rewarding failure.
Stop giving more money to the schools that have poor results, and start
encouraging our local officials through the way we fund elementary and
secondary education, and base our funding on the rate of improvement so
each school area competes against its own standards; and when a school
fails, encourage the local system, when there is a failing, to take
real measures. Don't leave the children in a school that is not
working. They have already been punished enough.
Let us create a comprehensive system of reform that rewards
innovation, that expects excellence, and that stops being satisfied
with failure, and trust our local officials to do that.
I feel very strongly about the word ``accountability,'' but we toss
it around so much. I am not sure we all agree on what it means. I don't
want them accounting for the number of pencils purchased or the numbers
of textbooks. I don't want them accounting for the number of computers.
I want to have the locals account for the improvement of test scores of
their students. How are the teachers improving? Is there greater
parental involvement? These are the measures of accountability on
whether a school is working or not. And I will also go so far as to say
it is not only test scores, although that is clearly important, and we
need to have national standards set perhaps at local levels, but
national measurements of achievement. But also the morale of the
school, the enthusiasm of parents, and the spirit of the teachers and
the principals all should be considered in terms of the way we fund
schools and what we expect.
I can walk into a school--and I have walked into hundreds of them, as
you have, Mr. President, and as many of our colleagues have--and tell
from the minute I walk in the door whether the school is working or
not, and whether there is learning going on. It doesn't matter if the
place is shiny and painted, although that helps and lifts your spirit.
But it is also about the brightness in the eyes of the students, and
the brightness in the eyes of the teachers and the principals, that
they are a team, that they are working together and accomplishing great
things.
Some of the schools I have visited in very poor areas with very poor
children are doing a beautiful job. In some places, it seems everything
should be going well because on the outside it all looks good, but
there is not a lively spirit.
It is hard to legislate along these lines. But I think it is a real
goal we should strive for to determine our funding in a way that
encourages that kind of light and commitment at the local level and to
join with our Governors and with our legislators and not against them
in this effort.
It is my great hope we will continue this debate. I know we are going
to vote on this particular bill tonight. But, again, this is like
discussing a particular window dressing. It might help the overall look
of the house and actually make the house be part of a great looking
building, but we need to be talking about the great foundation. I hope
this Congress will stay on education week after week this year, and
next year if necessary, until we get the new foundation laid for the
way the Federal Government should work with our local governments so
that we can have accelerated, positive reform in public schools.
I know people are frustrated. The answer is not to abandon the public
school system. It is not to walk away through vouchers or other
systems. It is to stand steady and redo the foundation in a
comprehensive reform at the national level, which is only 7 to 9
percent of the budget, but an important 7 to 9 percent of the total
education budget, and stand steady and produce comprehensive Federal
legislative reform from this level to ensure every school is working in
every community for every child. I believe we most certainly can meet
that test.
One of my colleagues, Senator Herb Kohl from Wisconsin, is also
supportive of this amendment and wanted to associate himself with the
statement. I certainly appreciate his help and his support.
Let me close by saying, again, I thank the leaders who have been
helping us with this particular debate and thank all of my colleagues
who have spent their time coming down to the floor and talking about
very important and significant issues. But, again, I believe the time
is now, since this report was issued in 1999, to recognize that while
some good things are happening, they are not happening fast enough. We
cannot be satisfied with the status quo. We cannot continue to be
piecemeal in our efforts. A comprehensive overhaul of the way the
Federal Government funds education, trusting our local officials,
granting flexibility, focusing on accountability, and, yes, increasing
resources.
I am one of the Members of this body who has agreed on a tax cut that
can be reasonable and responsible. I also agree it is a great time to
make some strategic investments. I, for one, would be willing to make a
huge investment in education but not unless structural reform is in
place. We cannot continue to throw more money at an old problem and be
satisfied with a rate of result which is not good enough and is leaving
too many of our students behind.
I believe the budget is at least poised to make some significant
investment in education. Let us do it with comprehensive reform and a
new direction of Federal support that will result in greater
performance of our schools at the local level. I think we are up to the
task. I know we can do it in a bipartisan way.
I thank the Senators who have joined me in this particular amendment.
I may or may not ask for a vote on this particular amendment before we
finish this debate.
But I also wanted to mention Senators Lincoln and Breaux. I mentioned
Senator Bayh. Senator Lieberman is supportive of this particular
amendment. We may or may not ask for a specific vote on it, but, again,
I want to reiterate how important comprehensive reform us and to take
the time this year to get it done.
I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of both the pending
amendment and the underlying Education Savings Account bill. Education
Savings Accounts will clearly help some families save money for their
children's education, but they are only part of the solution to
improving education in our country.
The amendment proposed by the Senator from Louisiana is another part.
It represents the work of several Senators who are trying to take a
realistic, effective approach to improving public education. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a serious look at our
bill, the Public Education Reinvestment, Reinvention, and
Responsibility Act--better known as ``Three R's''.
We have made great strides in the past six years toward improving
public education. Nearly all States now have academic standards in
place. More students are taking more challenging courses. Test scores
have risen slightly. Dropout rates have decreased. But there are still
significant improvements to be made. A recent study of students from 41
different countries found that American students still score far behind
those in other countries.
Addressing this sort of fundamental failure is going to take more
than cosmetic reform. We are going to have to take a fresh look at the
structure of Federal education programs. We need to let go of the tired
partisan fighting over more spending versus block grants and take a
middle ground approach that will truly help our States, school
districts--and most importantly, our students.
Our ``Three R's'' bill does just that. It makes raising student
achievement for all students--and eliminating the achievement gap
between low-income and more affluent students--our top priorities. To
accomplish this, our bill centers around three principles.
[[Page S1092]]
First, we believe that we must continue to invest in education, and
invest wisely, targeting funds where they are needed the most. Second,
we believe that States and local school districts are in the best
position to know what their educational needs are. They should be given
more flexibility to determine how they will use Federal dollars to meet
those needs. And third, and most importantly, in exchange for increased
flexibility, public schools must be accountable for results. These
principles are a pyramid, with accountability being the base that
supports the federal government's grant of flexibility and funds.
For too long, we have seen a steady stream of Federal dollars flow to
States and school districts--regardless of how well they educate their
students. This has to stop. We need to reward schools that do a good
job. We need to provide assistance and support to schools that are
struggling to do a better job. And we need to stop subsidizing failure.
The amendment before us now is the Teacher Quality and Professional
Development section of the ``Three R's'' bill. It would increase
funding for teacher quality and professional development to $2 billion,
and target those funds to the neediest school districts. It gives
States and school districts more flexibility to design teacher
recruitment, mentoring, and professional development programs. And it
requires States and school districts to ensure that every student will
be taught by a fully qualified teacher--and holds them accountable for
making sure that happens.
Mr. President, the amendment before us today is just one part of the
``Three R's'' bill. It focuses on one of the most important parts of
improving education--improving teaching. It is an example of how, by
using the concepts of increased funding, targeting, flexibility--and
most importantly, accountability--we can work with our State and local
partners to make sure every child is taught by a qualified teacher. I
look forward to continuing to work on these issues when the Senate
considers ESEA.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
of the Senator from Louisiana be set aside, and the Senator from New
York be recognized for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Amendment No. 2868
(Purpose: To put teachers first by providing grants for master teacher
programs)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] for himself, and
Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 2868.
Mr. SCHUMER. 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 appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE ____--21ST CENTURY MASTER TEACHER PROGRAMS
SEC. ____01. MASTER TEACHER PROGRAMS.
Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating part E as part F; and
(2) by inserting after part D the following new part:
``PART E--MASTER TEACHER PROGRAMS
``SEC. 2351. MASTER TEACHER PROGRAMS.
``(a) Definitions.--In this part:
``(1) Board certified.--The term `board certified' means
successful completion of all requirements to be certified by
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
``(2) Master teacher.--The term `master teacher' means a
teacher who is certified by the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards and has been teaching for not
less than 3 years.
``(3) Novice teacher.--The term `novice teacher' means a
teacher who has been teaching for not more than 3 years at a
public elementary school or secondary school.
``(b) Program Authorized.--
``(1) Authority.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants on a competitive basis to local educational agencies
to establish master teacher programs as described in
paragraph (4).
``(B) Distribution.--To the maximum extent practicable, the
Secretary shall award grants under subparagraph (A) so that
such grants are distributed among the school districts with
the highest concentration of teachers who are not certified
or licensed or are provisionally certified or licensed.
``(2) Duration.--A grant under paragraph (1) shall be
awarded for a period of 5 years.
``(3) Amount.--The amount of a grant awarded under
paragraph (1) shall be determined based on--
``(A) the total amount appropriated for a fiscal year under
subsection (h); and
``(B) the extent of the concentration of teachers who are
not certified or licensed or are provisionally certified or
licensed in the school district involved.
``(4) Authorized activities.--The master teacher programs
described in paragraph (1) shall provide funding assistance
to teachers to become board certified, including the
provision of the board certification fee.
``(c) Applications.--
``(1) In general.--A local educational agency desiring a
grant under subsection (b) shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
``(2) Approval of application.--The Secretary shall make a
determination regarding an application submitted under
paragraph (1) based on a recommendation of a peer review
panel, as established by the Secretary, and any other
criteria that the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(d) Payments.--
``(1) In general.--Grant payments shall be made under this
section on an annual basis.
``(2) Administrative costs.--Each local educational agency
that receives a grant under subsection (b) shall use not more
than 2 percent of the amount awarded under the grant for
administrative costs.
``(3) Denial of grant.--If the Secretary determines that a
local educational agency has failed to make substantial
progress during a fiscal year in increasing the percentage of
teachers who are board certified, or in improving student
achievement, such an agency shall not be eligible for a grant
payment under this section in the next succeeding year.
``(e) Reports.--Not later than March 31, 2004, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives a report of program activities funded under
this section.
``(f) Matching Requirement.--The Secretary may not award a
grant to a local educational agency under subsection (b)
unless the local educational agency agrees that, with respect
to costs to be incurred by the agency in carrying out
activities for which the grant was awarded, the agency shall
provide (directly or through donations from public or private
entities) non-Federal contributions in an amount equal to 25
percent of the amount of the grant awarded to the agency.
``(g) Repayment of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any program under this
section in which assistance is provided to a teacher to pay
the National Board for Professional Teaching Standard board
certification fee to become board certified, assistance may
only be provided if the teacher makes agreements as follows:
``(A) The teacher will enter and complete the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards board certification
program to become board certified.
``(B) Upon becoming board certified, the teacher will teach
in the public school system for a period of not less than 2
years.
``(2) Breach of agreements.--A teacher receiving assistance
described in paragraph (1) is liable to the local educational
agency that provides such assistance for the amount of the
certification fee described in paragraph (1) if such
teacher--
``(A) voluntarily withdraws or terminates the certification
program before taking the examination for board
certification; or
``(B) is dismissed from the certification program before
becoming board certified.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $50,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to offer my amendment, the
Teachers First Act, to the education bill we are currently considering.
If you had listened to the debate over the last 2 days on this bill
as I have, there is not a single Senator who is satisfied with the
quality of education in our public schools. We have different
prescriptions, but we are unanimous in our belief that U.S. schools
must do better in this globally competitive and idea-based world.
In my own State, at the end of the last fiscal year, New Yorkers were
shocked to learn that half of the State's fourth grade students could
barely handle written and oral work. Over the past 8 years, the number
of New York schools cited for poor performance has more than doubled.
This is simply unacceptable.
I am concerned, of course, as a Senator from New York, but I am even
[[Page S1093]]
more concerned as a parent because my two daughters attend public
schools in New York City.
For me, if we could accomplish only one thing, if we could make only
one change to our schools to raise the quality of education for all
kids, it must be to improve the quality of our teachers and make the
teaching profession more attractive to young people.
In the past, America was able to attract high-quality young people to
teach--top-quality women who were locked out of other professional
fields, talented men because of the promise of stable employment, or as
an alternative to the Vietnam war draft. Today, very unfortunately for
our country, to choose to teach is to choose financial sacrifice. And
quality has become less important than filling vacant teacher slots.
This has to change for a whole bunch of reasons.
First, today's economy depends more on the quality of the minds we
provide in our schools than the minerals we dig in the soil or the
wealth of the fields.
Two, we have an enormous teacher shortage on the horizon.
Three, studies tell us that teacher qualifications account for more
than 90 percent of the differences of students' reading and math
scores.
Let me repeat that because it is an astounding fact.
Studies tell us that teacher qualifications account for more than 90
percent of the differences in students' reading and math scores. So
quality and training count.
The bad news is that more than 12 percent of all newly hired teachers
enter the workforce with no training at all, and 37 percent of all new
teachers nationwide lack full certification.
I was at a reception of the North Carolina Community Bankers. I had
not had lunch and I wanted to smell the crab cakes. I told them about
the amendment I was submitting because much of the idea of this
amendment came from the work of Gov. Jim Hunt of North Carolina. One of
the bankers said: Why should we have any teachers who are not
certified? I said: We shouldn't. He said: Why do we let them teach?
The answer is very simple. We do not have enough qualified teachers
applying for the jobs at existing salary levels. Given the working
conditions of a teacher, given that the starting salary of a teacher in
America is $24,000 a year, schools--particularly in rural and inner-
city areas, but now in other places, too--are facing a Hobson's choice:
no teacher or an unqualified teacher, an uncertified teacher.
There is no other choice. The number of people who are certified
doesn't fill the need for the number of teachers.
I think it should be a given in this great democracy of ours that
every American child deserves to be taught by a highly qualified and
motivated teacher. Scarce Federal dollars should be used to support and
help replicate successful programs to recruit and retain high-quality
teachers. And we should have standards in accountability to ensure that
we are doing right by our children.
I am proud to have worked with Senator Kennedy, and I compliment
Senator Kennedy's tremendous leadership on his qualified-teacher-in-
every-classroom amendment. This effort, unfortunately, failed this
afternoon. It would have included mentoring and professional
development programs, provided resources and ongoing support to
teachers, particularly in the subject areas of math and science where
they are desperately needed. The number of teachers, by the way, in
math and science who are qualified and certified overall is very low
for the simple reason those individuals can make virtually double in
the private sector with a background in math and science.
Second, that accountability measures for States and local districts
to improve teacher quality be real.
Third, that recruitment efforts to attract the best and brightest
continue.
As a complement to the fine work of Senators Kennedy, Bingaman,
Wellstone, Murray, Reed, and others, I am introducing an amendment that
will provide funding for teachers to complete a 1-year intensive
program to become board certified. The National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards is the gold seal of certification. We want doctors,
accountants, and architects to obtain board certification. We must have
the same for teachers.
I am one who believes strongly in standards and accountability in the
educational system. I do not believe we should be lowering the bar for
teachers or for students. To lower the bar is the end of a great
American tradition of meritocracy; that is, no matter who you are or
where you come from, if you meet certain standards, you get the job.
On the other hand, if we are not going to lower the bar--and we
certainly shouldn't, and I support many of my colleagues in that
viewpoint on both sides of the aisle--we then have to make sure people
can get over the bar.
If there are too few teachers right now who meet certification, we
can have uncertified teachers in the classroom or we can help more
teachers become certified. That is the nub of this program.
Board certification requires teachers to undergo a rigorous regime of
testing and assessments based on actual classroom teaching, lesson
plans, and student work samples. This is not some abstract test that
one takes. This is real on-the-job training. Teachers seeking board
certification are also required to pass written exams designed to test
subject matter knowledge, curriculum design, and student assessment
techniques. The process takes nearly a year and costs $2,000.
My proposal provides $50 million a year in grants for 5 years to
cover 75 percent of the costs of certification in those districts with
the highest concentration of teachers who are not certified or
licensed. The local district would match the remaining 25 percent and
teachers would agree to remain within the school district as master
teachers for at least 2 years after certification.
Why don't we just simply allow localities to do this on their own?
Because they don't. They are strapped for funds, they have day-to-day
needs and concerns, and they will take an uncertified teacher and put
them in the classroom because they are faced with the choice of no
teacher.
This is just the type of program the Federal Government should
initiate. We shouldn't mandate a program on the school districts. No
school district has to participate in this. Rather, we ought to focus
on the pressure points and pinpoint where a little financial incentive
will encourage school districts to do things that we think we need.
As my colleague, Senator Dodd, said in a private conversation the
other day, we do have national values. To give money to local school
districts and say, do whatever you want with it, ensures the same old
situation with which we are not happy. If we agree that we should raise
the bar for who should be teachers, what better method than to give
dollars to local school districts that wish to help certify more
teachers? Not all dollars; they have to match it 25 percent so it means
something to them, but it gives them help.
The bottom line is that we have to make teaching an exalted
profession in the 21st century as the professions of law and medicine
have been in the 20th century. My amendment is a step in the right
direction.
Today, only nine States have over 90 percent of their teachers who
are nationally board certified. My own State has 61 board certified
teachers; 61 out of 205,000 teachers in New York State. That ratio is
abysmal. It is time to make a change. I urge my colleagues to join me
in supporting this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6:45
the votes commence, with the first vote limited to 15 minutes and all
successive votes be limited to 10 minutes. There will be 2 minutes for
explanations prior to each vote. I also ask any amendment agreed to by
the Senate be modified to conform to the earlier-passed Roth amendment.
Let me announce the sequence of the votes: Coverdell, Boxer,
Bingaman, Wellstone, Feinstein-Sessions, Durbin, Kerry, Boxer, Schumer,
and final passage.
The leader has advised both managers that the time limits on the
votes will be strictly adhered to. We had a lot of trouble earlier this
afternoon. He is insistent that we follow this schedule. Some of these
votes may be by voice vote. We are still working on that.
[[Page S1094]]
This is the general outline of where we are going in the next 15
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be added to the
agreement that Senators Torricelli and Lieberman have the remaining
time until 6:45 to speak. Senator Lieberman wants to speak to the
Landrieu amendment and Senator Torricelli wants to speak on the bill
itself.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I didn't hear the rest of
it. We had an arrangement to speak for 5 minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. At 6:45.
Mrs. BOXER. I should be here at 6:45.
Mr. COVERDELL. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
I rise to speak both in favor of the underlying proposal offered by
the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from New Jersey, which I am
pleased to be a cosponsor of, but also to speak on behalf of an
amendment that has been introduced by the Senator from Louisiana, Ms.
Landrieu, on behalf of herself, Senator Bayh, and myself.
Let me say briefly, on the underlying proposal, it is a modest but
important proposal which encourages parents and enables parents through
the tax benefits provided to set aside some money for their children's
future, and to use it for a variety of educational purposes that have
been well outlined here. This proposal, as has been said over and over
again, is no different than existing legislation for use at the college
level. I support it enthusiastically and think it is a step forward. It
will be of particular help to struggling middle-class families who want
the best for their children's education and often find it hard to pay
the way. This will help them just a little bit.
Second, speaking about the amendment offered by Senator Landrieu and
Senator Bayh and myself, as I have followed the debate on the
Coverdell-Torricelli proposal, I have been troubled, again, to see the
Senate divided largely along partisan lines. The lines are familiar,
the arguments have been heard before, but they do not get us anywhere,
and they particularly do not respond to the message that I get clearly
when I go home and speak to people in Connecticut and that I guess my
colleagues here get when they go to their respective States. It is that
there is nothing that matters more to the people of America today than
to improve our system of education, particularly public education, but
all education, private, faith-based as well.
If we respond to that clear plea, that priority of our constituents,
with partisanship and posturing that produces nothing but a
continuation of the status quo, then shame on us. So in hopes of
reaching a realistic consensus in the weeks ahead, this debate in some
ways has been a warm-up. But it is an important one that has substance
attached to it for the broader debate on the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
The amendment Senator Landrieu has put forward is a piece of a
broader proposal that she and I and Senator Bayh, Senator Lincoln, and
others are developing as a total reform of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. It is building on good news in a number of our States
which are moving in the direction, not of a fixation with rules and
regulations or bureaucracies but concentrating instead on results: How
can we improve the educational performance of our children?
In the States that are succeeding, they are doing three things.
First, they are infusing new resources into their public education
systems. We are going to have to invest more. Second, they are giving
local districts more flexibility in how they meet those higher
standards as they determine the needs of their children and local
school systems. Third, they are demanding new measures and mechanisms
of accountability to increase the chance that these investments will
yield the intended return, which is higher academic achievement by all
of our students. Those are the goals of the bill that Senators
Landrieu, Bayh, Lincoln, I and several others are drafting.
It calls for revamping the framework of our Federal education
programs and engaging the States in a new performance-based
partnership, where we would significantly increase Federal funding to
help our schools meet these new expectations, to target these new
dollars to the communities and children who are disadvantaged, who need
them most, and to provide State and local officials with broad latitude
in allocating these resources to meet their specific priorities. We
then hold the States responsible for showing progress in meeting those
goals, to reward those who do and, yes, to punish those who do not
better educate our children.
In this approach, we believe and hope, are the seeds of a bipartisan
solution. It brings together what is best on both sides of the favored
educational reform. For those who call for more resources and more
targeting to poor urban and rural districts, we are proposing
increasing our investment in ESEA by $25 billion over the next 5 years,
80 percent of which would be put into title I.
For those who call for more flexibility of local control, we propose
consolidating the mass of Federal categorical grant programs, a kind of
Washington-knows-best attitude, into five performance-based partnership
grants, all of which are tied to the overarching goal of raising our
children's academic achievement. And for everyone, the parent in
particular, who is concerned about the bottom line--and the bottom line
here is how well are my children being educated--we propose making
accountability our new education linchpin by rewarding States that
exceed their own performance goals and punishing those who routinely
fail to show such progress.
We plan to introduce this bill next week and hope to have it
considered on the floor during the ESEA debate. In the meantime, I
appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a hard look
at that proposal and the ideas behind it.
I recognize nothing we do at the Federal level can, by itself, solve
the problems of education in our country. But we can create incentives
for change and innovation. We can identify the way and build the will
to get there, which is our goal, as is, may I say, the goal of the
underlying bill before the Senate today.
I support the Landrieu amendment. I am proud also to state my support
for the Coverdell-Torricelli bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I think by previous accord, not
necessarily by unanimous consent, Senator Torricelli will have the time
remaining until the voting occurs.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I first express my admiration and,
indeed, thanks to Senator Coverdell who, through these many days and
many years, has both written this measure and brought it to this moment
of judgment. I have been proud to be his partner in this process,
though admittedly he has shouldered far more than half of this load,
bringing us to this moment of judgment. I am genuinely grateful and
proud to have worked with him.
Mr. COVERDELL. I think the Senator knows the compliments are mutually
shared.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank my colleague.
At this point I think every argument has been made and almost
everybody has made them. This Senate has now looked at the question of
education savings accounts from every possible perspective. I know
these arguments, both for and against the legislation, have been
sincerely made. But, indeed, I fear that what is the beginning of a
long and detailed analysis of the problems of American education has
been plagued by a perennial senatorial problem, and that is making the
perfect the enemy of the good.
Neither Senator Coverdell nor I have ever argued that offering these
private savings accounts would solve every education problem in
America. They will not. No Senator could come to this floor with any
proposal solving every problem. But they are the opening shot in a
revolution in American education, a revolution that, if we are wise
enough, will at some point include the construction of new schools, the
raising of teacher salaries, the increasing of accountability, and new
standards. But on this day, if we succeed, it changes the battle lines
in American education by bringing private resources and the private
community into the process of education.
Throughout the history of our country, we have allowed American
education to be simply a question of what
[[Page S1095]]
local governments, sometimes with Federal resources, can do through the
instruments of Government to educate children. That formula will always
dominate American education. We seek to change it if only in this
marginal degree. By the use of these private savings accounts, we
estimate that $12 billion of family resources will be used to help
educate children from kindergarten through high school. That is not a
substitute for public resources. It does not divert public resources.
Indeed, not a dollar of public money is diverted from the public
schools to any other institution. It does allow the community, a family
at the birth of a child, to establish these savings accounts and then
call upon grandparents, parents, cousins, churches, synagogues, labor
unions, and corporations to contribute moneys into these funds.
That cannot be bad. Mr. President, $12 billion will be spent on
education tomorrow that is not spent today. We may divide on other
issues of education, but no one can sincerely argue in this Chamber
those resources are not needed or that it is not a good thing parents
or churches or grandparents have a vehicle to participate in that
child's education.
I know my colleagues, particularly my Democratic colleagues, are
sincere when they express concern, but this legislation will not help
every child. I cannot argue that point. There are some families so
wealthy they may not qualify, and there are some families so poor they
may not be able to contribute or find sponsors who will. For them,
there are other days, other legislation, and other proposals which this
Senate has an obligation to consider. But on this day, on this vote,
for millions of American families, working-class families, people who
work hard every day, middle-income families who can save $50, $100,
$1,000 for their child, this is a vehicle.
Under what possible reason would the Federal Government be taxing the
interest of an account where a family saves for the education of their
child? Not only should we not be taxing it, we should be doing
everything possible to encourage that family to save that money. It
will help most families.
Yet many of my colleagues still argue: But the money will be diverted
from public schools. No, I say to my colleagues, not a dollar. Indeed,
the CBO has estimated that 70 percent of this money will actually be
spent by public school students.
The other day, in this Chamber, my friend and my colleague, whom I
admire greatly, Senator Dodd, said: But the public schools are free.
No, I say to my colleagues, public schools are not free. Afterschool
activities cost money, tutors cost money, transportation costs money,
books cost money, computers cost money.
Some of the greatest champions in the Senate of public schools in
America have argued against this legislation in the belief they are
defending public schools. Most of this $12 billion will go to the
public schools so middle-class families and working families will be
able to use these funds to help pay for public school activities. Yet
some of this money will also go to help pay the tuition of private
school students, and that is a good thing, too.
I say to my colleagues, this has been a good debate. This is a sound
proposal. I hope and I trust on a bipartisan basis we will send a
signal that this Congress is finally serious about genuine education
reform; that we will return on another day to deal with the problem of
teacher salaries, construction, and standards, but that on this day, we
will marshal private resources to deal with the public and private
school problems of America.
This is good, and it is sound legislation. It passed the House of
Representatives on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. Almost every
Member of this Senate voted for the identical proposal to fund higher
education. Now we offer the same bill with the identical language to
deal with K through 12. Senator Coverdell, I believe, has made a great
contribution by this legislation. I am very proud to join with him in
offering it and very proud that it has become a genuinely bipartisan
proposal.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 6:45 p.m. having arrived, under
the previous order, the Senate will proceed to vote.
The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New Jersey
for his dedication and courage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Amendment No. 2867, Withdrawn
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Landrieu
amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I further ask for the yeas and nays on the
Durbin amendment and on the Boxer amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it shall be in order to
order the yeas and nays.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 2880, As Modified
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Boxer
amendment No. 2880 on pesticides be modified with the changes that are
at the desk and that we proceed to a voice vote. Under the procedures
of voting, the Senator will have 1 minute of explanation, and then we
will proceed to a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the end, add the following:
SEC. ______. PESTICIDE APPLICATION IN SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--Each school that receives Federal funding
shall--
(1) take steps to reduce the exposure of children to
pesticides on school grounds, both indoors and outdoors; and
(2) provide parents and guardians of children that attend
the school with advance notification of certain pesticide
applications on school grounds in accordance with subsections
(b) and (c).
(b) EPA List of Toxic Pesticides.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall distribute to each school that
receives Federal funding the current manual of the
Environmental Protection Agency that guides schools in the
establishment of a least toxic pesticide policy.
(2) List.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall provide each school that receives
Federal funding with a list of pesticides that contain a
substance that the Administrator has identified as a known
carcinogen, a developmental or reproductive toxin, or a
category I or II acute nerve toxin.
(c) Parental Notification of Toxic Pesticide Applications
in Schools.--
(1) In general.--On or after the date that is 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, any school that
receives Federal funding shall not apply any pesticide
described in paragraph (b)(2) on school grounds, either
indoors or outdoors, unless an administrative official of the
school provides notice of the planned application to parents
and guardians of children that attend the school not later
than 48 hours before the application of the pesticide.
(2) Notice.--The notice described in paragraph (1)--
(A) shall include--
(i) a description of the intended area of application; and
(ii) the name of each pesticide to be applied; and
(B) shall indicate whether the pesticide is a known
carcinogen, a developmental or reproductive toxin, or a
category I or II acute nerve toxin.
(3) Incorporation of notice.--The notice described in
paragraph (1) may be incorporated in any notice that is being
sent to parents and guardians at the time at which the
pesticide notice is required to be sent.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Nevada would
like to speak for 1 minute, in addition to my 5 minutes; is that all
right? Are we discussing the pesticide amendment or the gun amendment?
Mr. COVERDELL. Pesticide.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding the Senator
from California had 1 minute.
Mr. COVERDELL. That is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, that is fine with the Senator from
California. I thank my friend from Georgia. We made a small change in
my amendment. Essentially, what we are telling parents now is that if
the schools their kids go to are going to be sprayed with dangerous
pesticides that are known carcinogens, that could cause nerve damage,
they will be notified 48 hours in advance of the spraying that will be
taking place.
In addition, what we do is we instruct the Environmental Protection
Agency to take the booklet they have already
[[Page S1096]]
produced on how to get away from using these very strong and toxic
pesticides and send it to every school district in America.
I am very pleased this is being done. I have a larger bill, the
Children's Environmental Protection Act, on which I invite everyone to
join me. Children are not little adults. I am a little adult, but
children are growing and changing. Their bodies are changing, their
hormones are changing, and they are absolutely more adversely impacted
by these toxins.
I thank my colleague very much. I hope we can have a voice vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield back the 1 minute. I thank the
Senator from California for her cooperation. I call for a voice vote on
her amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2880, as modified.
The amendment (No. 2880), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2881
(Purpose: To provide for a Manager's amendment to the bill as amended
by Senate Amendment number 2869)
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I have a manager's amendment. It has
been cleared on both sides. I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], for Mr. Roth,
proposes an amendment numbered 2881.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments
Submitted.''
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I call for the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been told by staff that this has been
cleared by the minority on the Finance Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2881) was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to address one provision in the
managers' amendment that has been adopted.
The provision to which I am referring deals with the authority of the
Federal Housing Finance Board to allocate authority to Federal Home
Loan Banks to guarantee school construction bonds. The provision
contemplates legislation that ``expressly'' authorizes the Federal
Housing Finance Board to allocate such authority to the Federal Home
Loan Banks. No inference should be drawn from this provision with
respect to the Federal Housing Finance Board's current authority.
I note that the general counsel of the Board has issued a legal
opinion arguing that the Board has the implicit legal authority to
allocate authority to Federal Home Loan Banks to guarantee school
construction bonds.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from Deborah
Silberman, General Counsel, Federal Housing Finance Board, dated March
3, 1999, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Federal Housing Finance Board,
Washington, DC, March 3, 1999.
Mr. Paul S. Friend,
Vice President and General Counsel, Federal Home Loan Bank of
New York, New York, NY.
Regulatory Interpretation: FHLBank of New York Request for
Regulatory Interpretation Regarding FHLBank Authority to
Issue Standby Letters of Credit In Conjunction With Tax-
Exempt Bonds or Notes, Including School Construction
Bonds (99-RI-7).
Dear Mr. Friend: This is in response to your February 10,
1999 letter on behalf of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New
York (FHLBank), as supplemented by a February 18, 1999
letter, requesting a Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance
Board) Regulatory Interpretation regarding the FHLBank's
authority, under recently promulgated Finance Board
regulations, to issue standby letters of credit (SLOCs) in
conjunction with tax-exempt bonds or notes.
Specifically, the FHLBank has requested confirmation that
under the recently adopted Finance Board Regulation on SLOCs,
the FHLBank would have authority to issue SLOCs in
conjunction with tax-exempt bonds or notes ``when the issues
are designed to promote housing or the financing of
commercial and economic development activities that benefit
low- and moderate-income families, or that are located in
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.'' In addition, the
FHLBank requests confirmation that the FHLBank could issue a
``confirming'' letter of credit on behalf of a member that
provides a letter of credit for the benefit of bondholders in
conjunction with a tax-exempt school construction bond
issuance. Your February 18, 1999 letter indicates that the
FHLBank's issuance of the confirming letter of credit would
enable bond rating agencies to issue a triple ``A'' rating on
the bond, as well as provide an additional guarantee of
payment to the boundholders.
The Finance Board's former Interim Policy Guidelines For
FHLBank Standby Letters Of Credit (SLOC Guidelines), Finance
Board Resolution No. 93-63 (July 28, 1993), provided that the
FHLBanks could issue or confirm SLOCs, on behalf of member
institutions, ``in conjunction with tax-exempt bonds or
notes, only when the issues are designed to promote housing
or the financing of commercial and economic development
activities that benefit low- and moderate-income families, or
that are located in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.''
That is, the purpose of the tax-exempt bonds or notes had to
be the financing of housing or commercial and economic
development activities eligible for funding under the
Bank's Community Investment Program (CIP), see 12 U.S.C.
Sec. 1430(i).
On November 23, 1998, the Finance Board adopted a final
regulation (SLOC Regulation), which codified and amended the
SLOC Guidelines to allow for broader use of SLOCs by members
and eligible nonmember mortgagees and eliminated or modified
some of the restrictions that had been imposed on the SLOC's
issued or confirmed by the FHLBanks. See 68 Fed. Reg. 65693
(Nov. 30, 1998). The SLOC Guidelines were rescinded by the
Finance Board after the SLOC Regulation was adopted. See
Finance Board Resolution No. 98-50 (Nov. 23, 1998).
Section 938.2(a) of the SLOC Regulation provides that:
Each [FHL] Bank is authorized to issue or confirm on behalf
of members standby letters of credit that comply with the
requirements of this part, for any of the following purposes:
(1) To assist members in facilitating residential housing
finance;
(2) To assist members in facilitating community lending
that is eligible for any of the [FHL] Banks' CICA programs
under part 970 of this chapter;
(3) To assist members with asset/liability management; or
(4) To provide members with liquidity or other funding.
See 63 Fed. Reg. 65693, 65699-65700 (to be codified at 12
C.F.R. Sec. 938.2(a)).
Where a member issues an SLOC to support a tax-exempt bond
or note issuance, a FILBank's issuance on behalf of the
member of a confirming SLOC enables the transaction to
receive a triple ``A'' rating from the bond rating agencies,
lowering the interest rate paid on the bonds or notes and
reducing the cost of the bond issuance. Therefore, the
FHLBank's issuance of a confirming SLOC assists the member in
facilitating the financing purpose for which the bond or note
was issued. Moreover, the Preamble to the SLOC Regulation
states that ``a [FHLBank] LOC may be issued to support the
issuance of bonds.'' See id. at 65696. Accordingly, under
section 938.2(a)(1) and (2), a FHLBank may issue a confirming
SLOC on behalf of members in conjunction with tax-exempt
bonds or notes, provided the bonds or notes are issued for
the purpose of ``residential housing finance'' or ``community
lending.''
The Community Investment Cash Advance Programs Regulation
(CICA Regulation) provides the FHLBanks with an array of
specific standards for projects, targeted beneficiaries, and
targeted income levels that the Finance Board has determined
support ``community lending'' under all CICA programs,
including the CIP. See 63 Fed. Reg. 65536 (Nov. 27, 1998).
Specifically, section 970.3 of the CICA Regulation defines
``community lending'' to mean ``providing financing for
economic development projects for targeted beneficiaries.''
See id. at 65546. ``Economic development projects'' are
defined in section 970.3 as:
(1) Commercial, industrial, manufacturing, social service,
and public facility projects and activities; and
(2) Public or private infrastructure projects, such as
roads, utilities, and sewers.
See id. ``Targeted beneficiaries'' are defined in section
970.3 as beneficiaries determined by the geographical area in
which a project is located, by the individuals who benefit
from a project as employees or service recipients, or by the
nature of the project itself, as further set forth in the
CICA Regulations, See id. at 65547.
Thus, economic development activities that are financed by
tax-exempt bonds or notes and that benefit low- or moderate-
income families would have to be one of the types of eligible
``targeted beneficiaries'' set forth in section 970.3 of the
CICA Regulation in order to qualify as ``community lending''
for the purposes of the SLOC Regulation.
[[Page S1097]]
Economic development activities located in low- and moderate-
income neighborhoods (i.e., neighborhoods with an area median
income of 80 percent or less) would be targeted beneficiaries
for purposes of the CICA Regulation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under section 970.3 of the CICA Regulation, a ``targeted
beneficiary'' includes projects ``located in a neighborhood
with a median income at or below the targeted income level,''
and ``targeted income level'' is defined to include
neighborhoods with an area median income of 80 percent or
less. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
School construction would qualify as an ``economic
development project'' under section 970.3 of the CICA
Regulations since it is a public facility project. Therefore,
if the school construction project being financed by the tax-
exempt bond qualifies as a ``targeted beneficiary'' for
purposes of the CICA Regulation as discussed above, it would
qualify as ``community lending'' for purpose of the SLOC
Regulation. Accordingly, the FHLBank would have the
authority, under the Finance Board's regulations, to issue,
on behalf of a member, a confirming SLOC in conjunction with
a tax-exempt bond financing such school construction.
Finally, please be advised that the Finance Board recently
has adopted Procedures governing requests by the FHLBanks for
regulatory interpretations. See Porcedures for Requests and
Applications, Resolution No. 98-51 (October 28, 1998). All
future requests from the FHLBank for regulatory
interpretations shall be required to conform to the
requirements set forth in the Procedures.
If you have any further questions, please call the
undersigned at (202) 408-2570.
Sincerely,
Deborah F. Silberman,
General Counsel.
This is a Finance Board regulatory interpretation within
the meaning of the Procedures for Requests and Applications
adopted by the Board of Directors of the Finance Board
pursuant to Resolution No. 98-51 (October 28, 1998). The
regulatory guidance set forth herein may be relied upon by
the recipient subject to modification or rescission by action
of the Board of Directors of the Finance Board.
I concur: William W. Ginsberg,
Managing Director
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in supporting this amendment, Senators do
not necessarily agree or disagree with this legal opinion. What the
Senate is stating is that if a bond issuer is to receive both the
benefit of tax-exempt interest and a Federal Home Loan Bank guarantee,
it can happen only if there is an express subsequent authorization
enacted.
Amendment No. 2874, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next amendment
is the Coverdell amendment.
Mr. COVERDELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. I will speak for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, earlier in the day, the Senator from
California sent an amendment to the desk dealing with, I will say in
shorthand, guns, but more particularly the shooting that occurred
earlier this week in Michigan for which we are all deeply grievous.
I have offered a substitute that I think embraces the spirit of the
amendment of the Senator from California. Earlier in the day she
indicated she might vote for this one as well. I guess we will see.
The main differences are three. It is a little broader in scope. It
acknowledges the problem of weapons in schools. It deals with drugs and
culture, as well. It does not point the finger at the Congress or
impugn in any way what the motives are of various people who have
strong beliefs with regard to issues relating to guns.
It does not set an artificial deadline which is in the amendment that
was offered by the Senator from California. The spirit of the amendment
is very similar. I think it will receive very broad support. As I said,
the amendment does not set an arbitrary date. It does not point the
finger at anybody's motives. Also, it is broader.
It is an amendment that appreciates what is happening here. It
involves many aspects of our lives. Witness the situation in Michigan,
where we are now reading about the environment in which this child
lived who is alleged to have perpetrated the crime that occurred. As
Senator Kerry of Massachusetts said a little earlier, it is kind of
hard to believe how that child was living.
That is the scope of the Coverdell amendment.
Mr. President, if there is any time remaining of my 5 minutes, I
yield it back.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I wonder, since the Senator yielded back his time, if we
can have an extra 2 minutes for Senator Reid on my side?
Mr. COVERDELL. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President--and I do not
intend to object--I just want to determine how much time is left on
this amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Five minutes for me.
Mr. COVERDELL. Plus the 2 minutes I gave to Senator Reid.
Mr. LOTT. Under my reservation, let me emphasize this, if I could. I
believe after that we will be prepared to start voting. I know Senator
Reid has been working aggressively to try to reduce the number of
amendments. I know the same is true with Senator Coverdell. But as I
now understand it, we still have eight amendments that could require
votes. Hopefully, that can be reduced with some voice votes. Then there
is final passage. So we could have as many as nine votes.
I emphasize to Senators, and to their staffs who are here or who are
listening, we have already gotten an agreement that the first vote will
be 15 minutes, and then there will be 2 minutes, a minute on each side,
before each vote after that so people will have time to know what is in
the amendments, and those will each be 10-minute votes. I am going to
stay on the floor to enforce the time. We will end the first vote after
15 minutes, and we will end each vote after that after 10 minutes.
So staffs should notify Members to start coming to the floor and to
be prepared to stay on the floor; don't go get something to eat. We can
save as much as an hour of time if Members will cooperate. So I am
going to enforce the voting time. I think Senator Daschle will support
that and the sponsors, too.
With that, I do not object.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Amendment No. 2874, As Modified
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Coverdell has offered an amendment
that expresses the sense of the Senate that the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program should target the elimination of illegal drugs and
violence in our schools.
Those on this side of the aisle agree with his sentiment and,
accordingly, I expect this amendment will receive nearly unanimous
support.
What we want to make clear, however, is that we do not agree with his
one-sided attack in this resolution about the administration's gun
prosecutions record.
What this amendment fails to recognize is that, in fact, firearms
convictions are up dramatically. In 1996, 22 percent more criminals
were incarcerated for either State or Federal weapons offenses than in
1992. I am sure we could go forward with the statistics--that we do not
have--for 1997, 1998, and 1999 that would show it would be up even
more.
The proof is in the pudding. The Nation's rate of violent crimes
committed with guns has dropped by 35 percent since 1993. Something
this administration is doing must be working. For instance, it could be
the passage of the Brady bill, which has stopped more than 400,000
felons and fugitives from receiving firearms, preventing untold crimes
and violence.
Finally, let's be serious. It will be a lot easier to prosecute gun
crimes once we close the loopholes that riddle our code. So while
Democrats support Senator Coverdell's conclusion, we cannot and do not
support these one-sided findings in the amendment.
Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Nevada.
I tell the Senator from Georgia, I have no problem voting on his
amendment that deals with getting drugs out of the schools. But let's
be clear, friends; this Coverdell amendment has nothing to do with the
Boxer amendment. So don't think, if you vote for
[[Page S1098]]
Coverdell, it somehow is a version of the Boxer amendment. They are two
different things. The Boxer amendment calls on the Senate to act
responsibly to pass reasonable, sensible gun laws.
We call on the Congress to do so not on an arbitrary date but on the
anniversary of the Columbine tragedy. The Boxer amendment is not about
the incident in Michigan. It references it in a string of incidents of
school violence.
This Senate should be commended for acting 8 months ago to pass five
very reasonable, very responsible gun control amendments. But this
Senate should be chastised for not doing anything about it at all since
that time. What we do in this very simple sense of the Senate is call
on the Congress to bring those amendments back here so we can send a
bill to the President for his signature.
I want to tell you we are dealing with a harsh reality in America.
I am going to show you just two charts. The first one shows you how
many of our men and women tragically perished in 11 years of the
Vietnam war: 58,168 tragic losses for our Nation, and those families
have been hurting and suffering ever since. No matter on what side of
this conflict you find yourselves this is the tragic reality of
Vietnam.
In the last 11 years, the same amount of time as the Vietnam war, we
have seen over 396,000 deaths on our streets, in our schools. This is
just handgun violence.
That is the tragic reality we are talking about in the Boxer
amendment.
Here is another tragic reality: How about this for an ad in a gun
magazine. It says: ``Start 'Em Young! There's no time like the
present.'' Here is a young teenager with a handgun in his hand: ``Start
`Em Young!'' We know about starting them young. All you have to do is
look at what happened in Michigan. How young do they want them to
start?
I could not understand why we could not walk, hand in hand, down the
Senate aisle and vote for the Boxer amendment.
But when I got back to my office, I found out why because there
waiting for me was a letter from the Gun Owners of America attacking my
amendment, saying, essentially, that I was taking political advantage
of a horrible tragedy in Michigan, when, in fact, my resolution isn't
about that. It is about the tragic realities we face in this Nation and
calling on the Congress to act.
The Gun Owners of America has every right to take this position. They
have every right to do it. We should look at what their logo says:
``Gun Owners of America, 25 Years of No Compromise.'' That is their
slogan. That is their logo: ``25 Years of No Compromise.''
My friends, when we voted out those sensible gun control amendments 8
months ago, we did compromise. We compromised between the right of law-
abiding citizens to have guns versus the right of children to have
guns, mentally disturbed people, people with criminal records; and we
found a balance there. We did it in a bipartisan way.
All this Boxer amendment is saying is it is time to bring those
sensible gun control measures--those compromises that withstood the
division in this body and passed this body--back for a vote.
We have a very harsh reality in this Nation. Fifty percent of
children ages 9 through 17 are worried about dying young; 31 percent of
children ages 12 through 17 know someone their age who carries a gun. I
do not understand why on earth there would be opposition to simply
saying, we are proud of what we did 8 months ago. Let's bring those
sensible gun laws back here. Let's act before the Columbine tragedy
anniversary is upon us. Let's do the right thing.
I support this amendment. I hope my colleagues will as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 2874, as modified. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and
the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Thompson
NOT VOTING--3
Inouye
McCain
Mikulski
The amendment (No. 2874), as modified, was agreed to.
vote on amendment no. 2873
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 2873. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--49
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
McCain
The amendment (No. 2873) was announced as agreed to.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2875
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes of debate on the Bingaman
amendment, equally divided.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I desire to speak for 1 minute on the
Bingaman-Kennedy amendment.
This amendment Senator Bingaman and I offer is a very simple
amendment. It basically takes the amount that is being appropriated,
identified here under the Coverdell amendment, and rather than using it
in creating the Coverdell approach on the education, it uses it to help
and assist the Pell grants. It effectively increases the Pell grant by
some $250. The Pell grants, then, would be available to those who are
eligible under the Pell Grant Program.
[[Page S1099]]
It seems to me that program is targeted toward well-qualified, needy
students attempting to continue their education. I think that is a
preferable way of allocating the resources that are included in the
Coverdell amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the results of the
last vote so there will be no misunderstanding. I have the impression
that the vote was defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announced that the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe that announcement may have been
incorrect.
Mr. DASCHLE. We already voted to reconsider and to lay it on the
table.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, what would be the rule when an incorrect
count was announced by the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I say to the distinguished majority leader, we
will consult with the Parliamentarian.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. LOTT. I didn't get a clarification on the rule. I believe a
simple clerical error--perhaps there is no precedent for that. If that
is the case, then I think it would be appropriate to correct that or
reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
Mr. LOTT. I yield to the distinguished minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. This appears to be an understandable clerical error, and
I don't think we ought to challenge the calculation or the ultimate
outcome of that particular vote, but under the rules, I think the
author of the amendment might have been entitled to another vote under
consideration, and I suggest that as a way to resolve the matter.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have been pushing to try to get the votes
completed in 10 minutes, and it does put additional pressure on the
staff to tabulate the results. I think that contributed to the clerical
error. I, therefore, move that the previous vote be reconsidered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, to make things more orderly, will Senators
sit in their seats. We have a series of votes. It is impossible for the
staff to do its job. People are up there talking to them, asking them
to repeat votes. Could we ask that everyone sit in their seats as they
are supposed to do and vote from their seats.
Mr. LOTT. That is an important point, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer is advised by the
Parliamentarian that under the precedent of the Senate, when a clerical
error has occurred, it is the duty of the Chair to announce the correct
vote.
The correct vote having been presented to the Chair, it is now
announced there are 49 yeas, 49 nays, and the amendment is not agreed
to.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask consent the motion to reconsider be
deemed to have been tabled and the vote now occur on the Boxer
amendment, which would be the same vote that occurred earlier. That
way, we will have a definite clarification of what the vote was and is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote On Amendment No. 2873
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2873. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. Nickles. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. Reid. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced, yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 28 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Abraham
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--49
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
McCain
The amendment (No. 2873) was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. 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 Georgia.
Amendment No. 2875
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I believe we are on Bingaman amendment
No. 2875. He has already used his minute. Senator Kennedy did.
I reiterate that earlier today, I had a chart showing what the
Republican majority has done for Pell grants, and it is straight up.
The second thing I want to point out is this is the fifth time the
other side of the aisle has tried to make moot the underlying premise
of this bill we have been debating now for 2 weeks, the education
savings account. It blows away 14 million families, it blows away 20
million children, and it blows away $12 billion that would be
volunteered to help education in every quadrant, from kindergarten to
college. As with all these other amendments, its objective is to
destroy the education savings account for millions of American
families. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2875 offered
by the Senator from New Mexico and, I believe, the Senator from
Massachusetts increases mandatory spending by $1.2 billion. If adopted,
it will cause the underlying bill to exceed the committee's section
302(a) allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the
amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant section of
the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in
relation to amendment No. 2875. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
is necesarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is
necesarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Collins
[[Page S1100]]
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--57
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
McCain
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). On this vote, the yeas are 41,
the nays are 57. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of
order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Amendment No. 2878
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes, equally divided, on
the Wellstone amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Sessions-Feinstein amendment says
even if States decide, given the evidence, that retention and holding
kids back does not work, States would have to do that. The Federal
Government tells the States what to do and will cut off funds if they
don't do it.
My amendment makes a difference. It says at least let's make sure
every child has an opportunity to do well and to achieve on these
tests, that there are certified teachers, that there is English as a
second language, that there is high-quality educational materials, and
that we provide support for kids.
If we do not do this, in the name of being tough, the only thing we
are doing is punishing kids. Let's at least make the commitment that
every child has the same opportunity to do well.
I am going to send to each colleague an NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund letter which brings together all the evidence and
makes this compelling argument.
I hope my colleagues will vote for this equal opportunity to learn
amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the time has come to end social
promotion. The Feinstein-Sessions amendment does that. It does it in a
way that allows the States to set the standards they believe are
appropriate for each level of achievement.
We are pouring more and more money every year into education. If we
care about those children, if we really are concerned about children,
we will find out if they are meeting at least minimum academic
standards. If they are not, we will be intervening, in a failing
system, and will force the system to deal with them and help them
through the process. It gives the States complete freedom to set these
standards.
President Clinton supported this in the State of the Union message.
The people of this country overwhelmingly support it. Over 10 States
have already gone to it. My State of Alabama is in the process of going
to it. The Republican Party has favored it. Senators Feinstein,
Lieberman and Byrd are cosponsors of this amendment. It is time for us
to pass it.
But we must not pass the Wellstone amendment. It will eliminate the
ability to make this system work effectively.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2878. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 69, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]
YEAS--29
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
NAYS--69
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
McCain
The amendment (No. 2878) was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2876
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, are we ready for debate time on the next
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I believe we are. There is now 1 minute to a
side on Senator Feinstein's amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I think it has been pretty clear, at
least to me and certainly to the State of California, the city of
Chicago, the city of Los Angeles, the city of San Diego, and other
cities around this country, that either an implicit or explicit policy
or practice of promoting children when they are failing or when they
don't even show up in school is probably the leading cause for many of
us for the decline of quality public education across this great
country.
It isn't politically correct to say we will no longer permit social
promotion, but it can make a huge difference in where this Nation goes.
This amendment is very carefully crafted to say that Federal education
dollars will not be available to a jurisdiction if the State does not
have a policy to prohibit the practice of social promotion. If we leave
the details to the State and local communities, it does not tell them
how, when, or where to do it. It simply says that Federal moneys are
contingent upon the abolition of that practice. The fact is that the
States are moving in this direction. The fact is that there is still no
accountable standards.
I wish to stress that it does allow for remedial education; it does
allow for Federal dollars to be used for remedial education.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if colleagues will listen for a second,
I have two points. First of all, the evidence is overwhelming. I went
over evidence this afternoon. There was no rebuttal. Holding kids back
doesn't work. That is not the real point. If your State decides that it
doesn't want to hold kids back, this amendment says it doesn't make any
difference; the Federal Government is going to cut off Federal funding.
We are telling States what to do, to hold kids back no matter what you
decide or we will cut Federal funding.
That is wrong. I hope there will be an overwhelming vote against this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from California.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain),
is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), is
necessarily absent.
[[Page S1101]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 68, as follows:--
[Rollcall Vote No. 31 Leg.]
YEAS--30
Baucus
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Coverdell
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Hagel
Hutchinson
Kohl
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Moynihan
Robb
Rockefeller
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Torricelli
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--68
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Mack
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
McCain
The amendment (No. 2876) was rejected.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have remaining four votes counting final
passage. Senator Kerry and Senator Schumer have requested, through me,
to ask unanimous consent they be allowed to speak for their amendments
for up to 1 minute at the present time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Amendment No. 2866 Withdrawn
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is a serious
effort to try to attract qualified teachers in an era when the private
sector is making it nearly impossible to draw people out of college and
teaching because of the salaries. We really need a special incentive.
We have already created an incentive. We have a $5,000 paydown on
loans. It is not enough to attract people.
I have offered an amendment that would raise the incentive and
provide, in essence, a GI bill for teachers. I think it is worthwhile.
I will not ask my colleagues to vote on it tonight because we are on
automatic pilot. I think it is an idea that deserves better
consideration than it will receive under that kind of approach. I don't
want it prejudiced in the future by a vote that is on automatic pilot.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment with hopes we get
the ESEA on the floor and we will have an opportunity to consider this
in a better, bipartisan, and perhaps more thoughtful mode.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2866) was withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Amendment No. 2868 Withdrawn
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am going to withdraw this amendment in
the interest of time. It is a very simple amendment. We have a real
shortage in America of certified teachers. I was visiting with the
Community Bankers of North Carolina looking for a few crabcakes. One of
the fellows came over and asked why we would have a teacher who was not
certified. The answer is very simple. Because many school districts--
particularly poor, inner-city districts and rural districts--have a
choice: Uncertified teacher or no teacher, because there are not enough
qualified teachers, given salary levels, working conditions, et cetera,
who will go into the classroom.
This amendment helps certify teachers. We would pay 75 percent of the
cost of training them. It is $50 million a year. It is a very good
amendment to help raise the quality of teachers. I have always believed
we should not lower the bar but help people get over it. That is what
this amendment does. I hope my colleagues will support it at some
point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 2868) was withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2879
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes to be equally divided
on the Durbin amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the headlines in the morning paper tell
the story: America is facing a national gun crisis. Firearms are easy
to come by for 6-year-olds and psychotics.
The violence is not confined to just the main streets. It is in our
homes, our fast-food restaurants, and in our schools.
This amendment gives to school districts across America an
opportunity to apply for help from the Department of Education for
grants so they can educate the children in the school, and their
parents, about how dangerous guns can be and how they should be stored
safely.
It provides money for public service announcements so we can try to
reduce the gun violence we read about, sadly, every single day. We
know, as sure as we are here this evening, there will be another story
in the newspaper in the not-too-distant future of more gun violence in
schools. With the Durbin amendment, we at least start to move forward
toward reducing that violence by helping schools.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois and I have
been discussing this amendment during the course of the day. We would
have voiced it, but the Senator from Illinois, as is his right, asked
for a rollcall.
My intention is to support the amendment. I do not think it is
inconsistent with beliefs on my side of the aisle.
I yield back whatever time remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
2879. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 7, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 32 Leg.]
YEAS--91
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--7
Gregg
Helms
Inhofe
Nickles
Smith (NH)
Thompson
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
McCain
The amendment (No. 2879) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided. May we
have order in the Chamber. There are 2 minutes equally divided.
[[Page S1102]]
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. LOTT. Has the motion to reconsider been tabled?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I strongly support and urge Congress to
pass and President Clinton to sign the Affordable Education Act now
pending before the Senate. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this
legislation.
Children presently are 25 percent of our population and 100 percent
of the future. It is my fundamental belief that Congress should invest
in the future by improving educational opportunities for students. This
bill is part of a comprehensive strategy to give parents and local
schools the resources needed to make the 21st century, the era in which
educational excellence for all students is achieved.
For the past three years, Congress has passed legislation that
provides tax incentives to help parents pay for the education of their
children. But President Clinton has twice vetoed legislation that
provided these incentives. Parents across America hope and trust that
this time these tax incentives will be enacted into law.
A major feature of this bill is that it creates Educational Savings
Accounts for K through 12 expenses. These ESAs allow parents to
contribute up to $2,000 annually to an Educational Savings Account. The
build-up of earnings within the account is tax-free if used for
educational expenses, such as tuition, fees, tutoring, special needs
services, books, computers, etc. The premise behind ESAs is that
parents should have greater control over the education of their
children. After all, who is in a better position to know what each
child needs--a bureaucratic Washington government or the parents and
teachers who see that child every day?
This bill does more than just create Educational Savings Accounts.
Included in this bill are other provisions that I have either supported
or co-sponsored that:
Provide tax incentives to help pay for college tuition;
Provide tax exclusions for education assistance programs provided by
employers;
Revise the tax treatment of qualified state tuition programs to
exclude from gross income any distributions used for higher education
expenses;
Allow a tax deduction of up to $2,500 per year of interest on
education loans;
Allow a limited tax credit for the donation of computers to schools,
and extends from two to three years the age of computers that may be
donated to schools; and
Reduce the complexity of the arbitrage rules that currently govern
the issuance of school bonds.
This bill provides more than $4.3 billion of education tax incentives
for the next five years, and it gives more educational control to
parents. Parents will be able to save more for the future education of
their children.
This bill is just one part of an overall strategy to increase
educational resources. Over the past five years Congress has increased
overall educational spending by 40 percent, and Congress last year
approved a budget that projects yet another 36 percent increase over
the next four years. In the next few weeks Congress will take up
legislation to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I will be offering amendments to that bill that will:
Channel federal aid in failing school districts to teaching the
academic basics in order to raise student achievement levels;
Provide funds for failing school districts to use in attracting and
retaining highly qualified teachers; and
Double the amount of federal aid for college costs for high achieving
students in failing school districts.
For now, however, Congress should take the first step in expressing
its commitment to improving education by passing the pending Affordable
Education Act. I urge Senators to support this legislation.
Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this week the Senate has debated
legislation which is designed, in part, to encourage families to invest
in tax exempt savings accounts. Funds from these ``education savings
accounts'' could be used for a variety of activities related to the
education of children, including for tuition and fees at private and
religious schools. I opposed this bill because I do not believe that
the federal government should divert funds, in this case more than 2
billion dollars, to private and parochial education.
Such a move would be a fundamental change in the federal role in
education, a change I believe is misguided. Ninety percent of American
children attend public schools. Rather than divert federal dollars to
private and parochial schools, I believe the federal government has a
responsibility to assist states and local school districts work to
improve education for all children, especially children in poverty and
children with disabilities.
During this debate, a variety of amendments were offered. Senator
Dodd proposed an amendment that would eliminate the proposed
``education saving accounts'' and target its funds to increasing
federal funding for special education. I commend my Republican
colleagues for increasing IDEA--Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act--funding in fiscal year 2000 by 25 percent over fiscal year 1998
and 13 percent over fiscal year 1999. Nevertheless, the federal
commitment to special education falls far short of what local districts
need.
Senator Robb offered an amendment that would have made the funds
available for school construction bonds. I agree wholeheartedly with
Senator Robb about the need to assist states and local school districts
as they attempt to repair, modernize, and construct school facilities.
However, I believe that there is a far better way to accomplish this
goal. At the end of the last session, Senator Snowe introduced S.1992,
the Building, Renovating, and Constructing Kids' Schools, BRICKS, Act.
BRICKS would provide states with low interest loans to help defray the
enormous costs associated with modernizing school facilities. I urge my
colleagues to look closely at Senator Snowe's excellent proposal.
Finally, there have been a number of worthwhile amendments designed
to improve public education. Ironically, as the Senate has been
debating the Affordable Education Act, the Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee has been attempting to mark-up legislation to
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I voted against many of these amendments simply because I believe
they should be considered in the context of the ESEA rather than in a
piecemeal fashion on a bill the President is certain to veto.
Improving and supporting education is the issue of greatest interest
to most Americans. I look forward to working with Chairman Jeffords on
a strong ESEA reauthorization bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against the so-called
Affordable Education Act, S. 1134, because it is not a wise use of
Federal dollars. It does not address our national education priorities.
And, it will not help those who are most in need.
I would like to take a moment to talk about exactly who will benefit
from this IRA expansion for elementary and secondary education
expenses. According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, 70 percent
of the proposed IRA tax benefit would go to the top 20 percent of all
taxpayers. These higher income families, many of whom already send
their children to private schools, would gain most of the benefits.
Families unable to save, including most families earning less than
$55,000 a year, would receive very little, if any benefit at all.
Additionally, this IRA tax benefit would be minimal. According to the
Joint Committee on Taxation, the average annual benefit for families
with children attending private schools would be limited to
approximately $37; and for families with children in public schools,
the average annual benefit would be $7.
Mr. President, 90 percent of the children in America attend public
schools. Instead of investing in proven initiatives to raise academic
standards for all children, the bill before the Senate emphasizes the
wrong priority. It fails to reduce class size, enhance teacher training
in technology, modernize school buildings, expand after-school programs
or improve special education.
[[Page S1103]]
According to the National Council on Education Statistics, nearly 53
million children are currently enrolled in public schools and the
number is expected to increase to 54.3 million by 2008. It is estimated
that approximately 2,400 new school facilities will be needed to
accommodate this increase. As is well documented, the condition of
school facilities and the student-teacher ratio are linked to student
achievement. Therefore, it is clear where our federal education
resources should be directed.
We must not lose sight of the fact that school modernization is a
critical component to the success of our school children. It simply
must be one of our national educational priorities. Local school
communities cannot shoulder all of the costs associated with school
building modernization and technology infrastructure improvements.
Young people today are in the midst of a technology explosion that
has opened up limitless possibilities in the classroom. In order for
students to tap into this potential and be prepared for the 21st
century, they must learn how to use new technologies. But all too
often, teachers are expected to incorporate technology into their
instruction without being given the training to do so.
Too often students are left to teach teachers in the rapidly
expanding area of technology. It is not enough for a teacher to be able
to email, they must use this education technology to advance their
curriculum and guide their students along the information highway. Just
two years ago, it was reported that a mere 10 percent of new teachers
reported that they felt prepared to use technology in their classrooms,
while only 13 percent of all public schools reported that technology-
related training for teachers was mandated by the school, district, or
teacher certification agencies. Currently, only 18 states require pre-
service technology training. I am disappointed that the legislation
before us does not adequately address the large-scale needs of our
teachers in the use of technology in the classroom.
In my own state of Michigan I often talk with teachers when I visit
schools and I find them straight-forward about what they don't know and
eager to develop new technology skills. In fact, the only reason that
we are not further behind in this area is that teachers have used their
own time and often their own money to learn the technology skills to
better teach their courses.
Almost 2 years ago, I brought together about 400 leaders in
education, business, philanthropy and government for a Michigan summit
meeting focusing on the need for a greater commitment to professional
development in technology. My message at that gathering and my message
now is that we've got to match our teacher's commitment to our children
with our own commitment to their professional development in the use of
technology in classroom instruction. I am currently involved with
several initiatives that are an attempt to accomplish this.
Mr. President, for all these reasons, I cannot support this
legislation.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today I voted for both the Coverdell and
Boxer sense of the Senate amendments relating to school safety. I voted
for both amendments because I believe that Congress can and should
enact legislation to provide for safer schools and a secure learning
environment. The language of Senator Boxer's Sense of the Senate stated
that ``Congress shall make schools safe for learning by implementing
policies that will reduce the threat of gun violence in schools''; I
rise now to briefly explain a few of the wholly-attainable measures
that I believe would truly make a difference.
During the Juvenile Justice debate I offered a commonsense amendment
that would allow local school districts to access existing funds
available under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act to conduct locker
searches for guns, explosives, other weapons, or drugs. Mr. President,
no one involved opposes cleansing our schools of these elements, other
than those criminals who possess them; and to those few, I have no
sympathy for any inconvenience these searches may cause. I am pleased
that my colleagues supported my amendment, which was accepted by voice
vote.
I also suggest that Congress should build upon a current tax
deduction and reward businesses that donate school safety devices to K-
12 schools. Qualified security equipment and technologies should
include metal detectors, electronic locks and surveillance cameras.
Along with these security improvements, I believe it is important to
provide training for school personnel and parents on how to recognize a
troubled young person before tragedy strikes. And in the event of an
attack, our school officials, security personnel, parents and
communities must be trained for emergency preparedness and crisis
response.
In that vein, I argue to my colleagues that we should allow ESEA
funding available under the Safe & Drug Free Schools and Communities
program and the Innovative Education Program to be used for innovative
approaches to reducing violence in schools and improving the classroom
environment. Among other uses of such funding could be the testing of
students for illegal drug use, at the request or consent of a parent or
legal guardian; comprehensive school security assessments; purchase of
school security equipment and technologies; implementation of a school
uniform policy; and collaborative efforts with groups demonstrating
expertise in providing research-based violence prevention and
intervention programs.
But the most important quality of these initiatives is that they
would be initiated at the local level by those with the most knowledge
of the community, not by some nameless Washington bureaucrat wielding a
``one-size-fits-all'' solution.
Finally, I was pleased to have the opportunity to vote for Senator
Durbin's amendment, which harkens back to a day when this country
discussed issues of responsibility and society in a constructive
manner, not in one based in fear or fantasy. Without question, we
should educate our young people on right and wrong, and we must
encourage constructive adult involvement in the lives of our young
people, not only by parents and teachers, but also by community-based
organizations, faith-based organizations, and local law enforcement
personnel. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Briefly, for the information of all Senators with regard to
the schedule for the balance of the week and the first of next week, in
just a moment we will have the final 2 minutes, equally divided, to
make comments before final passage. That will be it for the night and
for the week. I commend Senator Reid, Senator Coverdell, and others for
the good work they have done in getting us to this point.
Because we have been able to finish all the amendments and go to
final passage, we will not be in session tomorrow. We will be in
session on Monday and Tuesday, but the next recorded vote will not
occur until approximately 5 o'clock Tuesday afternoon because of the 13
primaries that are occurring across the country between the two
parties. We will be in session Tuesday. We will be in session on
Wednesday and Thursday with votes likely into the night, and we may
have votes on Friday. So do not be scheduling departure on Thursday
night. We have to finish a couple of very important issues next week
and have some votes on the Executive Calendar.
I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, everybody has heard just about
everything they need to on this measure. I thank my colleagues for
their courtesy and comity. It has been somewhat of a long journey, and
I am glad we have finally arrived at final passage. The legislation
does represent substance in education reform. I thank my comanager,
Senator Reid of Nevada. I yield back whatever time remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend those involved in this bill. Those
of us who oppose this bill think the first order of business is
education, and yet
[[Page S1104]]
we have done nothing about the quality of public education with this
legislation. Fifty percent of the benefits of this bill go to private
schools, yet 90 percent of the children in America go to a public
school.
This bill does nothing about class size, nothing about the quantities
of teachers in our schools, nothing about trying to improve the safety
of our schools in this country. We believe we need to do a far better
job on improving the quality of public education. Unfortunately, this
education bill does nothing to address those issues. For those reasons,
we will oppose this legislation.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the able Senator from Georgia
for the fine job in handling this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is
necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 33 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Biden
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kerrey
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--37
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Bryan
Chafee, L.
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Inouye
McCain
The bill (S. 1134), as amended, was passed, as follows:
S. 1134
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Affordable
Education Act of 2000''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; amendment of 1986 Code; table of contents.
TITLE I--EDUCATION SAVINGS INCENTIVES
Sec. 101. Modifications to education individual retirement accounts.
Sec. 102. Modifications to qualified tuition programs.
TITLE II--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Sec. 201. Permanent extension of exclusion for employer-provided
educational assistance.
Sec. 202. Elimination of 60-month limit on student loan interest
deduction.
Sec. 203. Exclusion of certain amounts received under the National
Health Service Corps Scholarship Program and the F.
Edward Hebert Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship
and Financial Assistance Program.
Sec. 204. 2-percent floor on miscellaneous itemized deductions not to
apply to qualified professional development expenses of
elementary and secondary school teachers.
Sec. 205. Credit to elementary and secondary school teachers who
provide classroom materials.
Sec. 206. Exclusion of national service educational awards.
Sec. 207. Elimination of marriage penalty in phaseout of education loan
interest deduction.
TITLE III--LIBERALIZATION OF TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING RULES FOR PUBLIC
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Sec. 301. Additional increase in arbitrage rebate exception for
governmental bonds used to finance educational
facilities.
Sec. 302. Treatment of qualified public educational facility bonds as
exempt facility bonds.
Sec. 303. Federal guarantee of school construction bonds by Federal
Housing Finance Board.
Sec. 304. Disclosure of fire safety standards and measures with respect
to campus buildings.
TITLE IV--TRANSITION TO TEACHING
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Findings.
Sec. 403. Purpose.
Sec. 404. Program authorized.
Sec. 405. Application.
Sec. 406. Uses of funds and period of service.
Sec. 407. Equitable distribution.
Sec. 408. Definitions.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Expansion of deduction for computer donations to schools.
Sec. 502. Credit for computer donations to schools and senior centers.
Sec. 503. Report to Congress regarding extent and severity of child
poverty.
Sec. 504. Careers to classrooms.
Sec. 505. Pesticide application in schools.
Sec. 506. Sense of the Senate regarding a safe learning environment.
Sec. 507. Reduction in school violence.
TITLE I--EDUCATION SAVINGS INCENTIVES
SEC. 101. MODIFICATIONS TO EDUCATION INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT
ACCOUNTS.
(a) Maximum Annual Contributions.--
(1) In general.--Section 530(b)(1)(A)(iii) (defining
education individual retirement account) is amended by
striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$2,000''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 4973(e)(1)(A) is amended
by striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$2,000''.
(3) Elimination of the marriage penalty in the reduction in
permitted contributions.--Section 530(c)(1) (relating to
reduction in permitted contributions based on adjusted gross
income) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$150,000'' in subparagraph (A)(ii) and
inserting ``$190,000'', and
(B) by striking ``$10,000'' in subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``$30,000''.
(b) Tax-Free Expenditures for Elementary and Secondary
School Expenses.--
(1) In general.--Section 530(b)(2) (defining qualified
higher education expenses) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Qualified education expenses.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified education expenses'
means--
``(i) qualified higher education expenses (as defined in
section 529(e)(3)), and
``(ii) qualified elementary and secondary education
expenses (as defined in paragraph (4)).
``(B) Qualified state tuition programs.--Such term shall
include any contribution to a qualified State tuition program
(as defined in section 529(b)) on behalf of the designated
beneficiary (as defined in section 529(e)(1)); but there
shall be no increase in the investment in the contract for
purposes of applying section 72 by reason of any portion of
such contribution which is not includible in gross income by
reason of subsection (d)(2).''.
(2) Qualified elementary and secondary education
expenses.--Section 530(b) (relating to definitions and
special rules) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) Qualified elementary and secondary education
expenses.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified elementary and
secondary education expenses' means--
``(i) expenses for tuition, fees, academic tutoring,
special needs services, books, supplies, computer equipment
(including related software and services), and other
equipment which are incurred in connection with the
enrollment or attendance of the designated beneficiary of the
trust as an elementary or secondary school student at a
public, private, or religious school, and
``(ii) expenses for room and board, uniforms,
transportation, and supplementary items and services
(including extended day programs) which are required or
provided by a public, private, or religious school in
connection with such enrollment or attendance.
``(B) Special rule for homeschooling.--Such term shall
include expenses described in subparagraph (A)(i) in
connection with education provided by homeschooling if the
homeschool operates as a private school or a homeschool under
State law.
``(C) School.--The term `school' means any school which
provides elementary education or secondary education
(kindergarten through grade 12), as determined under State
law.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--Section 530 is amended--
(A) by striking ``higher'' each place it appears in
subsections (b)(1) and (d)(2), and
[[Page S1105]]
(B) by striking ``higher'' in the heading for subsection
(d)(2).
(c) Waiver of Age Limitations for Children With Special
Needs.--Section 530(b)(1) (defining education individual
retirement account) is amended by adding at the end the
following flush sentence:
``The age limitations in subparagraphs (A)(ii) and (E) and
paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection (d) shall not apply to
any designated beneficiary with special needs (as determined
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary).''.
(d) Entities Permitted To Contribute to Accounts.--Section
530(c)(1) (relating to reduction in permitted contributions
based on adjusted gross income) is amended by striking ``The
maximum amount which a contributor'' and inserting ``In the
case of a contributor who is an individual, the maximum
amount the contributor''.
(e) Time When Contributions Deemed Made.--
(1) In general.--Section 530(b) (relating to definitions
and special rules), as amended by subsection (b)(2), is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Time when contributions deemed made.--An individual
shall be deemed to have made a contribution to an education
individual retirement account on the last day of the
preceding taxable year if the contribution is made on account
of such taxable year and is made not later than the time
prescribed by law for filing the return for such taxable year
(not including extensions thereof).''.
(2) Extension of time to return excess contributions.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 530(d)(4) (relating to additional
tax for distributions not used for educational expenses) is
amended--
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following new
clause:
``(i) such distribution is made before the 1st day of the
6th month of the taxable year following the taxable year,
and'', and
(B) by striking ``due date of return'' in the heading and
inserting ``certain date''.
(f) Coordination With Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits
and Qualified Tuition Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 530(d)(2)(C) is amended to read as
follows:
``(C) Coordination with hope and lifetime learning credits
and qualified tuition programs.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A).
``(i) Credit coordination.--The total amount of qualified
higher education expenses with respect to an individual for
the taxable year shall be reduced--
``(I) as provided in section 25A(g)(2), and
``(II) by the amount of such expenses which were taken into
account in determining the credit allowed to the taxpayer or
any other person under section 25A.
``(ii) Coordination with qualified tuition programs.--If,
with respect to an individual for any taxable year--
``(I) the aggregate distributions during such year to which
subparagraph (A) and section 529(c)(3)(B) apply, exceed
``(II) the total amount of qualified higher education
expenses (after the application of clause (i)) for such year,
the taxpayer shall allocate such expenses among such
distributions for purposes of determining the amount of the
exclusion under subparagraph (A) and section 529(c)(3)(B).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsection (e) of section 25A is amended to read as
follows:
``(e) Election Not To Have Section Apply.--A taxpayer may
elect not to have this section apply with respect to the
qualified tuition and related expenses of an individual for
any taxable year.''.
(B) Section 135(d)(2)(A) is amended by striking
``allowable'' and inserting ``allowed''.
(C) Section 530(d)(2)(D) is amended--
(i) by striking ``or credit'', and
(ii) by striking ``credit or'' in the heading.
(D) Section 4973(e)(1) is amended by adding ``and'' at the
end of subparagraph (A), by striking subparagraph (B), and by
redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
(g) Renaming Education Individual Retirement Accounts as
Education Savings Accounts.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Section 530 (as amended by the preceding provisions of
this section) is amended by striking ``education individual
retirement account'' each place it appears and inserting
``education savings account''.
(B) The heading for paragraph (1) of section 530(b) is
amended by striking ``Education individual retirement
account'' and inserting ``Education savings account''.
(C) The heading for section 530 is amended to read as
follows:
``SEC. 530. EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.''.
(D) The item in the table of contents for part VII of
subchapter F of chapter 1 relating to section 530 is amended
to read as follows:
``Sec. 530. Education savings accounts.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The following provisions are each amended by striking
``education individual retirement'' each place it appears and
inserting ``education savings'':
(i) Section 25A(e)(2).
(ii) Section 26(b)(2)(E).
(iii) Section 72(e)(9).
(iv) Section 135(c)(2)(C).
(v) Subsections (a) and (e) of section 4973.
(vi) Subsections (c) and (e) of section 4975.
(vii) Section 6693(a)(2)(D).
(B) The headings for each of the following provisions are
amended by striking ``education individual retirement
accounts'' each place it appears and inserting ``education
savings accounts''.
(i) Section 72(e)(9).
(ii) Section 135(c)(2)(C).
(iii) Section 4973(e).
(iv) Section 4975(c)(5).
(h) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2000.
(2) Subsection (g).--The amendments made by subsection (g)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 102. MODIFICATIONS TO QUALIFIED TUITION PROGRAMS.
(a) Eligible Educational Institutions Permitted To Maintain
Qualified Tuition Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 529(b)(1) (defining qualified
State tuition program) is amended by inserting ``or by 1 or
more eligible educational institutions'' after ``maintained
by a State or agency or instrumentality thereof''.
(2) Private qualified tuition programs limited to benefit
plans.--Clause (ii) of section 529(b)(1)(A) is amended by
inserting ``in the case of a program established and
maintained by a State or agency or instrumentality thereof,''
before ``may make''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Sections 72(e)(9), 135(c)(2)(C), 135(d)(1)(D), 529,
530(b)(2)(B), 4973(e), and 6693(a)(2)(C) are each amended by
striking ``qualified State tuition'' each place it appears
and inserting ``qualified tuition''.
(B) The headings for sections 72(e)(9) and 135(c)(2)(C) are
each amended by striking ``qualified state tuition'' and
inserting ``qualified tuition''.
(C) The headings for sections 529(b) and 530(b)(2)(B) are
each amended by striking ``Qualified state tuition'' and
inserting ``Qualified tuition''.
(D) The heading for section 529 is amended by striking
``state''.
(E) The item relating to section 529 in the table of
sections for part VIII of subchapter F of chapter 1 is
amended by striking ``State''.
(b) Exclusion From Gross Income of Education Distributions
From Qualified Tuition Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 529(c)(3)(B) (relating to
distributions) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Distributions for qualified higher education
expenses.--For purposes of this paragraph--
``(i) In-kind distributions.--No amount shall be includible
in gross income under subparagraph (A) by reason of a
distribution which consists of providing a benefit to the
distributee which, if paid for by the distributee, would
constitute payment of a qualified higher education expense.
``(ii) Cash distributions.--In the case of distributions
not described in clause (i), if--
``(I) such distributions do not exceed the qualified higher
education expenses (reduced by expenses described in clause
(i)), no amount shall be includible in gross income, and
``(II) in any other case, the amount otherwise includible
in gross income shall be reduced by an amount which bears the
same ratio to such amount as such expenses bear to such
distributions.
``(iii) Exception for institutional programs.--In the case
of any taxable year beginning before January 1, 2004, clauses
(i) and (ii) shall not apply with respect to any distribution
during such taxable year under a qualified tuition program
established and maintained by 1 or more eligible educational
institutions.
``(iv) Treatment as distributions.--Any benefit furnished
to a designated beneficiary under a qualified tuition program
shall be treated as a distribution to the beneficiary for
purposes of this paragraph.
``(v) Coordination with hope and lifetime learning
credits.--The total amount of qualified higher education
expenses with respect to an individual for the taxable year
shall be reduced--
``(I) as provided in section 25A(g)(2), and
``(II) by the amount of such expenses which were taken into
account in determining the credit allowed to the taxpayer or
any other person under section 25A.
``(vi) Coordination with education savings accounts.--If,
with respect to an individual for any taxable year--
``(I) the aggregate distributions to which clauses (i) and
(ii) and section 530(d)(2)(A) apply, exceed
``(II) the total amount of qualified higher education
expenses otherwise taken into account under clauses (i) and
(ii) (after the application of clause (iv)) for such year,
the taxpayer shall allocate such expenses among such
distributions for purposes of determining the amount of the
exclusion under clauses (i) and (ii) and section
530(d)(2)(A).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 135(d)(2)(B) is amended by striking ``section
530(d)(2)'' and inserting ``sections 529(c)(3)(B)(i) and
530(d)(2)''.
(B) Section 221(e)(2)(A) is amended by inserting ``529,''
after ``135,''.
(c) Rollover to Different Program for Benefit of Same
Designated Beneficiary.--Section 529(c)(3)(C) (relating to
change in beneficiaries) is amended--
(1) by striking ``transferred to the credit'' in clause (i)
and inserting ``transferred--
[[Page S1106]]
``(I) to another qualified tuition program for the benefit
of the designated beneficiary, or
``(II) to the credit'',
(2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Limitation on certain rollovers.--Clause (i)(I)
shall only apply to the first 3 transfers with respect to a
designated beneficiary.'', and
(3) by inserting ``or programs'' after ``beneficiaries'' in
the heading.
(d) Member of Family Includes First Cousin.--Section
529(e)(2) (defining member of family) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (C) and by inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) any first cousin of such beneficiary.''.
(e) Definition of Qualified Higher Education Expenses.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 529(e)(3) (relating to definition
of qualified higher education expenses) is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified higher education
expenses' means--
``(i) tuition and fees required for the enrollment or
attendance of a designated beneficiary at an eligible
educational institution for courses of instruction of such
beneficiary at such institution, and
``(ii) expenses for books, supplies, and equipment which
are incurred in connection with such enrollment or
attendance, but not to exceed the allowance for books and
supplies included in the cost of attendance (as defined in
section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1087ll), as in effect on the date of the enactment of the
Affordable Education Act of 2000) as determined by the
eligible educational institution.''.
(f) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(2) Qualified higher education expenses.--The amendments
made by subsection (e) shall apply to amounts paid for
courses beginning after December 31, 2000.
TITLE II--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
SEC. 201. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-
PROVIDED EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--Section 127 (relating to exclusion for
educational assistance programs) is amended by striking
subsection (d).
(b) Repeal of Limitation on Graduate Education.--
(1) In general.--The last sentence of section 127(c)(1) is
amended by striking ``, and such term also does not include
any payment for, or the provision of any benefits with
respect to, any graduate level course of a kind normally
taken by an individual pursuing a program leading to a law,
business, medical, or other advanced academic or professional
degree''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to expenses relating to courses
beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 202. ELIMINATION OF 60-MONTH LIMIT ON STUDENT LOAN
INTEREST DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Section 221 (relating to interest on
education loans) is amended by striking subsection (d) and by
redesignating subsections (e), (f), and (g) as subsections
(d), (e), and (f), respectively.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 6050S(e) is amended by
striking ``section 221(e)(1)'' and inserting ``section
221(d)(1)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to any loan interest paid after
December 31, 2000.
SEC. 203. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER THE
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CORPS SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM AND THE F. EDWARD HEBERT ARMED FORCES
HEALTH PROFESSIONS SCHOLARSHIP AND FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 117(c) (relating to the exclusion
from gross income amounts received as a qualified
scholarship) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Subsections (a)'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
subsections (a)'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
amount received by an individual under--
``(A) the National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program
under section 338A(g)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act,
or
``(B) the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and
Financial Assistance program under subchapter I of chapter
105 of title 10, United States Code.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply to amounts received in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1993.
SEC. 204. 2-PERCENT FLOOR ON MISCELLANEOUS ITEMIZED
DEDUCTIONS NOT TO APPLY TO QUALIFIED
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF ELEMENTARY
AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Section 67(b) (defining miscellaneous
itemized deductions) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (12) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(13) any deduction allowable for the qualified
professional development expenses paid or incurred by an
eligible teacher.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 67 (relating to 2-percent floor
on miscellaneous itemized deductions) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Qualified Professional Development Expenses of
Eligible Teachers.--For purposes of subsection (b)(13)--
``(1) Qualified professional development expenses.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified professional
development expenses' means expenses--
``(i) for tuition, fees, books, supplies, equipment, and
transportation required for the enrollment or attendance of
an individual in a qualified course of instruction, and
``(ii) with respect to which a deduction is allowable under
section 162 (determined without regard to this section).
``(B) Qualified course of instruction.--The term `qualified
course of instruction' means a course of instruction which--
``(i) is--
``(I) directly related to the curriculum and academic
subjects in which an eligible teacher provides instruction,
or
``(II) designed to enhance the ability of an eligible
teacher to understand and use State standards for the
academic subjects in which such teacher provides instruction,
``(ii) may--
``(I) provide instruction in how to teach children with
different learning styles, particularly children with
disabilities and children with special learning needs
(including children who are gifted and talented), or
``(II) provide instruction in how best to discipline
children in the classroom and identify early and appropriate
interventions to help children described in subclause (I) to
learn,
``(iii) is tied to challenging State or local content
standards and student performance standards,
``(iv) is tied to strategies and programs that demonstrate
effectiveness in increasing student academic achievement and
student performance, or substantially increasing the
knowledge and teaching skills of an eligible teacher,
``(v) is of sufficient intensity and duration to have a
positive and lasting impact on the performance of an eligible
teacher in the classroom (which shall not include 1-day or
short-term workshops and conferences), except that this
clause shall not apply to an activity if such activity is 1
component described in a long-term comprehensive professional
development plan established by an eligible teacher and the
teacher's supervisor based upon an assessment of the needs of
the teacher, the students of the teacher, and the local
educational agency involved, and
``(vi) is part of a program of professional development
which is approved and certified by the appropriate local
educational agency as furthering the goals of the preceding
clauses.
``(C) Local educational agency.--The term `local
educational agency' has the meaning given such term by
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(2) Eligible teacher.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible teacher' means an
individual who is a kindergarten through grade 12 classroom
teacher in an elementary or secondary school.
``(B) Elementary or secondary school.--The terms
`elementary school' and `secondary school' have the meanings
given such terms by section 14101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801), as so in
effect.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 205. CREDIT TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS
WHO PROVIDE CLASSROOM MATERIALS.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 30B. CREDIT TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL
TEACHERS WHO PROVIDE CLASSROOM MATERIALS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible
teacher, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax
imposed by this chapter for such taxable year an amount equal
to the qualified elementary and secondary education expenses
which are paid or incurred by the taxpayer during such
taxable year.
``(b) Maximum Credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed $100.
``(c) Definitions.--
``(1) Eligible teacher.--The term `eligible teacher' means
an individual who is a kindergarten through grade 12
classroom teacher, instructor, counselor, aide, or principal
in an elementary or secondary school on a full-time basis for
an academic year ending during a taxable year.
``(2) Qualified elementary and secondary education
expenses.--The term `qualified elementary and secondary
education expenses' means expenses for books, supplies (other
than nonathletic supplies for courses of instruction in
health or physical education), computer equipment (including
related software and services) and other equipment, and
supplementary materials used by an eligible teacher in the
classroom.
``(3) Elementary or secondary school.--The term `elementary
or secondary school'
[[Page S1107]]
means any school which provides elementary education or
secondary education (through grade 12), as determined under
State law.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this chapter for any expense for which credit
is allowed under this section.
``(2) Application with other credits.--The credit allowable
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the regular tax for the taxable year, reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and the
preceding sections of this subpart, over
``(B) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
``(e) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--A taxpayer may
elect to have this section not apply for any taxable year.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 30B. Credit to elementary and secondary school teachers who
provide classroom materials.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 206. EXCLUSION OF NATIONAL SERVICE EDUCATIONAL AWARDS.
(a) In General.--Section 117 (relating to qualified
scholarships) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Qualified National Service Educational Awards.--
``(1) In general.--Gross income for any taxable year shall
not include any qualified national service educational award.
``(2) Qualified national service educational award.--For
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified national service
educational award' means any amount received by an individual
in a taxable year as a national service educational award or
other amount under section 148 of the National and Community
Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12604) to the extent such
amount does not exceed the qualified tuition and related
expenses (as defined in subsection (b)(2)) of the individual
for such taxable year.
``(B) Limitation.--The total amount of the qualified
tuition and related expenses (as so defined) which may be
taken into account under subparagraph (A) with respect to an
individual for the taxable year shall be reduced (after the
application of the reduction provided in section 25A(g)(2))
by the amount of such expenses which were taken into account
in determining the credit allowed to the taxpayer or any
other person under section 25A with respect to such
expenses.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts received in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1999.
SEC. 207. ELIMINATION OF MARRIAGE PENALTY IN PHASEOUT OF
EDUCATION LOAN INTEREST DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 221(b)(2)
(relating to limitation based on modified adjusted gross
income) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$60,000'' in clause (i)(II) and inserting
``$80,000'', and
(2) by inserting ``($30,000 in the case of a joint
return)'' after ``$15,000'' in clause (ii).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
TITLE III--LIBERALIZATION OF TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING RULES FOR PUBLIC
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 301. ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN ARBITRAGE REBATE EXCEPTION
FOR GOVERNMENTAL BONDS USED TO FINANCE
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 148(f)(4)(D)(vii) (relating to
increase in exception for bonds financing public school
capital expenditures) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000''
the second place it appears and inserting ``$10,000,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to obligations issued in calendar years beginning
after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL FACILITY
BONDS AS EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS.
(a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of
section 142 (relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by
striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, or'',
and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) qualified public educational facilities.''.
(b) Qualified Public Educational Facilities.--Section 142
(relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(k) Qualified Public Educational Facilities.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(13), the
term `qualified public educational facility' means any school
facility which is--
``(A) part of a public elementary school or a public
secondary school, and
``(B) owned by a private, for-profit corporation pursuant
to a public-private partnership agreement with a State or
local educational agency described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Public-private partnership agreement described.--A
public-private partnership agreement is described in this
paragraph if it is an agreement--
``(A) under which the corporation agrees--
``(i) to do 1 or more of the following: construct,
rehabilitate, refurbish, or equip a school facility, and
``(ii) at the end of the term of the agreement, to transfer
the school facility to such agency for no additional
consideration, and
``(B) the term of which does not exceed the term of the
issue to be used to provide the school facility.
``(3) School facility.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `school facility' means--
``(A) school buildings,
``(B) functionally related and subordinate facilities and
land with respect to such buildings, including any stadium or
other facility primarily used for school events, and
``(C) any property, to which section 168 applies (or would
apply but for section 179), for use in the facility.
``(4) Public schools.--For purposes of this subsection, the
terms `elementary school' and `secondary school' have the
meanings given such terms by section 14101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801), as in
effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
``(5) Annual aggregate face amount of tax-exempt
financing.--
``(A) In general.--An issue shall not be treated as an
issue described in subsection (a)(13) if the aggregate face
amount of bonds issued by the State pursuant thereto (when
added to the aggregate face amount of bonds previously so
issued during the calendar year) exceeds an amount equal to
the greater of--
``(i) $10 multiplied by the State population, or
``(ii) $5,000,000.
``(B) Allocation rules.--
``(i) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subparagraph, the State may allocate the amount described in
subparagraph (A) for any calendar year in such manner as the
State determines appropriate.
``(ii) Rules for carryforward of unused limitation.--A
State may elect to carry forward an unused limitation for any
calendar year for 3 calendar years following the calendar
year in which the unused limitation arose under rules similar
to the rules of section 146(f), except that the only purpose
for which the carryforward may be elected is the issuance of
exempt facility bonds described in subsection (a)(13).''.
(c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph
(3) of section 146(g) (relating to exception for certain
bonds) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or (12)'' and inserting ``(12), or
(13)'', and
(2) by striking ``and environmental enhancements of
hydroelectric generating facilities'' and inserting
``environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating
facilities, and qualified public educational facilities''.
(d) Exemption From Limitation on Use for Land
Acquisition.--Section 147(h) (relating to certain rules not
to apply to mortgage revenue bonds, qualified student loan
bonds, and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Exempt facility bonds for qualified public-private
schools.--Subsection (c) shall not apply to any exempt
facility bond issued as part of an issue described in section
142(a)(13) (relating to qualified public educational
facilities).''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 147(h)
is amended by striking ``Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Qualified
Student Loan Bonds, and Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds'' and
inserting ``Certain Bonds''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 303. FEDERAL GUARANTEE OF SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BONDS BY
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD.
(a) In General.--Section 149(b)(3) (relating to exceptions)
is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) Certain guaranteed school construction bonds.--Any
bond issued as part of an issue 95 percent or more of the net
proceeds of which are used for public school construction
shall not be treated as federally guaranteed for any calendar
year by reason of any guarantee by the Federal Housing
Finance Board (through any Federal Home Loan Bank) under the
Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.), as in
effect on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph, to
the extent the face amount of such bond, when added to the
aggregate face amount of such bonds previously so guaranteed
for such year, does not exceed $500,000,000.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subparagraph (E) of section 149(b)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by the
amendment made by subsection (a), shall take effect upon the
enactment, after the date of the enactment of this Act, of
legislation expressly authorizing the Federal Housing Finance
Board to allocate authority to Federal Home Loan Banks to
guarantee any bond described in such subparagraph, but only
if such legislation makes specific reference to such
subparagraph.
[[Page S1108]]
SEC. 304. DISCLOSURE OF FIRE SAFETY STANDARDS AND MEASURES
WITH RESPECT TO CAMPUS BUILDINGS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Campus
Fire Safety Right to Know Act''.
(b) Amendment.--Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (N);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (O)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(P) the fire safety report prepared by the institution
pursuant to subsection (h).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Disclosure of Fire Safety Standards and Measures.--
``(1) Fire safety reports required.--Each eligible
institution participating in any program under this title
shall, beginning in academic year 2001-2002, and each year
thereafter, prepare, publish, and distribute, through
appropriate publications or mailings, to all current students
and employees, and to any applicant for enrollment or
employment upon request, an annual fire safety report
containing at least the following information with respect to
the campus fire safety practices and standards of that
institution:
``(A) A statement that identifies each student housing
facility of the institution, and whether or not each such
facility is equipped with a fire sprinkler system or another
equally protective fire safety system.
``(B) Statistics concerning the occurrence on campus,
during the 2 preceding calendar years for which data are
available, of fires and false fire alarms.
``(C) For each such occurrence, a statement of the human
injuries or deaths and the structural damage caused by the
occurrence.
``(D) Information regarding fire alarms, smoke alarms, the
presence of adequate fire escape planning or protocols (as
defined in local fire codes), rules on portable electrical
appliances, smoking and open flames (such as candles),
regular mandatory supervised fire drills, and planned and
future improvement in fire safety.
``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to require
particular policies, procedures, or practices by institutions
of higher education with respect to fire safety.
``(3) Reports.--Each institution participating in any
program under this title shall make periodic reports to the
campus community on fires and false fire alarms that are
reported to local fire departments in a manner that will aid
in the prevention of similar occurrences.
``(4) Reports to secretary.--On an annual basis, each
institution participating in any program under this title
shall submit to the Secretary a copy of the statistics
required to be made available under paragraph (1)(B). The
Secretary shall--
``(A) review such statistics;
``(B) make copies of the statistics submitted to the
Secretary available to the public; and
``(C) in coordination with representatives of institutions
of higher education, identify exemplary fire safety policies,
procedures, and practices and disseminate information
concerning those policies, procedures, and practices that
have proven effective in the reduction of campus fires.
``(5) Definition of campus.--In this subsection the term
`campus' has the meaning provided in subsection (f)(6).''.
(c) Report to Congress by Secretary of Education.--Not
later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Education shall prepare and submit to the
Congress a report containing--
(1) an analysis of the current status of fire safety
systems in college and university facilities, including
sprinkler systems;
(2) an analysis of the appropriate fire safety standards to
apply to these facilities, which the Secretary shall prepare
after consultation with such fire safety experts,
representatives of institutions of higher education, and
other Federal agencies as the Secretary, in the Secretary's
discretion, considers appropriate;
(3) an estimate of the cost of bringing all nonconforming
dormitories and other campus buildings up to current new
building codes; and
(4) recommendations from the Secretary concerning the best
means of meeting fire safety standards in all college and
university facilities, including recommendations for methods
to fund such cost.
TITLE IV--TRANSITION TO TEACHING
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Transition to Teaching
Act''.
SEC. 402. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) School districts will need to hire more than 2,000,000
teachers in the next decade. The need for teachers in the
areas of mathematics, science, foreign languages, special
education, and bilingual education, and for those able to
teach in high-poverty school districts will be particularly
high. To meet this need, talented Americans of all ages
should be recruited to become successful, qualified teachers.
(2) Nearly 28 percent of teachers of academic subjects have
neither an undergraduate major nor minor in their main
assignment fields. This problem is more acute in high-poverty
schools, where the out-of-field percentage is 39 percent.
(3) The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS)
ranked United States high school seniors last among 16
countries in physics and next to last in mathematics. It is
also evident, mainly from the TIMSS data, that based on
academic scores, a stronger emphasis needs to be placed on
the academic preparation of our children in mathematics and
science.
(4) One-fourth of high-poverty schools find it very
difficult to fill bilingual teaching positions, and nearly
half of public school teachers have students in their
classrooms for whom English is a second language.
(5) Many career-changing professionals with strong content-
area skills are interested in a teaching career, but need
assistance in getting the appropriate pedagogical training
and classroom experience.
(6) The Troops to Teachers model has been highly successful
in linking high-quality teachers to teach in high-poverty
districts.
SEC. 403. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this title is to address the need of high-
poverty school districts for highly qualified teachers in
particular subject areas, such as mathematics, science,
foreign languages, bilingual education, and special
education, needed by those school districts, by recruiting,
preparing, placing, and supporting career-changing
professionals who have knowledge and experience that will
help them become such teachers.
SEC. 404. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary is authorized to use funds
appropriated under subsection (b) for each fiscal year to
award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to
institutions of higher education and public and private
nonprofit agencies or organizations to carry out programs
authorized by this title.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this title, there are authorized to be
appropriated $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001
through 2006.
SEC. 405. APPLICATION.
Each applicant that desires an award under section 404(a)
shall submit an application to the Secretary containing such
information as the Secretary requires, including--
(1) a description of the target group of career-changing
professionals upon which the applicant will focus in carrying
out its program under this title, including a description of
the characteristics of that target group that shows how the
knowledge and experience of its members are relevant to
meeting the purpose of this title;
(2) a description of how the applicant will identify and
recruit program participants;
(3) a description of the training that program participants
will receive and how that training will relate to their
certification as teachers;
(4) a description of how the applicant will ensure that
program participants are placed and teach in high-poverty
local educational agencies;
(5) a description of the teacher induction services (which
may be provided through existing induction programs) the
program participants will receive throughout at least their
first year of teaching;
(6) a description of how the applicant will collaborate, as
needed, with other institutions, agencies, or organizations
to recruit, train, place, and support program participants
under this title, including evidence of the commitment of
those institutions, agencies, or organizations to the
applicant's program;
(7) a description of how the applicant will evaluate the
progress and effectiveness of its program, including--
(A) the program's goals and objectives;
(B) the performance indicators the applicant will use to
measure the program's progress; and
(C) the outcome measures that will be used to determine the
program's effectiveness; and
(8) an assurance that the applicant will provide to the
Secretary such information as the Secretary determines
necessary to determine the overall effectiveness of programs
under this title.
SEC. 406. USES OF FUNDS AND PERIOD OF SERVICE.
(a) Authorized Activities.--Funds under this title may be
used for--
(1) recruiting program participants, including informing
them of opportunities under the program and putting them in
contact with other institutions, agencies, or organizations
that would train, place, and support them;
(2) training stipends and other financial incentives for
program participants, not to exceed $5,000 per participant;
(3) assisting institutions of higher education or other
providers of teacher training to tailor their training to
meet the particular needs of professionals who are changing
their careers to teaching;
(4) placement activities, including identifying high-
poverty local educational agencies with a need for the
particular skills and characteristics of the newly trained
program participants and assisting those participants to
obtain employment in those local educational agencies; and
(5) post-placement induction or support activities for
program participants.
[[Page S1109]]
(b) Period of Service.--A program participant in a program
under this title who completes his or her training shall
serve in a high-poverty local educational agency for at least
3 years.
(c) Repayment.--The Secretary shall establish such
requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate to
ensure that program participants who receive a training
stipend or other financial incentive under subsection (a)(2),
but fail to complete their service obligation under
subsection (b), repay all or a portion of such stipend or
other incentive.
SEC. 407. EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION.
To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall make awards
under this title that support programs in different
geographic regions of the Nation.
SEC. 408. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:
(1) High-poverty local educational agency.--The term
``high-poverty local educational agency'' means a local
educational agency in which the percentage of children, ages
5 through 17, from families below the poverty level is 20
percent or greater, or the number of such children exceeds
10,000.
(2) Program participants.--The term ``program
participants'' means career-changing professionals who--
(A) hold at least a baccalaureate degree;
(B) demonstrate interest in, and commitment to, becoming a
teacher; and
(C) have knowledge and experience that are relevant to
teaching a high-need subject area in a high-need local
educational agency.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. EXPANSION OF DEDUCTION FOR COMPUTER DONATIONS TO
SCHOOLS.
(a) Extension of Age of Eligible Computers.--Section
170(e)(6)(B)(ii) (defining qualified elementary or secondary
educational contribution) is amended by striking ``2 years''
and inserting ``3 years''.
(b) Reacquired Computers Eligible for Donation.--Section
170(e)(6)(B)(iii) (defining qualified elementary or secondary
educational contribution) is amended by inserting ``, the
person from whom the donor reacquires the property,'' after
``the donor''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years ending
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 502. CREDIT FOR COMPUTER DONATIONS TO SCHOOLS AND SENIOR
CENTERS.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 (relating to business related credits) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 45D. CREDIT FOR COMPUTER DONATIONS TO SCHOOLS AND
SENIOR CENTERS.
``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, the
computer donation credit determined under this section is an
amount equal to 30 percent of the qualified computer
contributions made by the taxpayer during the taxable year as
determined after the application of section 170(e)(6)(A).
``(b) Qualified Computer Contribution.--For purposes of
this section, the term `qualified computer contribution' has
the meaning given the term `qualified elementary or secondary
educational contribution' by section 170(e)(6)(B), except
that--
``(1) such term shall include the contribution of a
computer (as defined in section 168(i)(2)(B)(ii)) only if
computer software (as defined in section 197(e)(3)(B)) that
serves as a computer operating system has been lawfully
installed in such computer, and
``(2) notwithstanding clauses (i) and (iv) of section
170(e)(6)(B), such term shall include the contribution of
computer technology or equipment to multipurpose senior
centers (as defined in section 102(35) of the Older Americans
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3002(35)) described in section
501(c)(3) and exempt from tax under section 501(a) to be used
by individuals who have attained 60 years of age to improve
job skills in computers.
``(c) Increased Percentage for Contributions to Entities in
Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Indian
Reservations.--In the case of a qualified computer
contribution to an entity located in an empowerment zone or
enterprise community designated under section 1391 or an
Indian reservation (as defined in section 168(j)(6)),
subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting `50 percent'
for `30 percent'.
``(d) Certain Rules Made Applicable.--For purposes of this
section, rules similar to the rules of paragraphs (1) and (2)
of section 41(f) shall apply.
``(e) Termination.--This section shall not apply to taxable
years beginning on or after the date which is 3 years after
the date of the enactment of the New Millennium Classrooms
Act.''.
(b) Current Year Business Credit Calculation.--Section
38(b) (relating to current year business credit) is amended
by striking ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (11), by
striking the period at the end of paragraph (12) and
inserting ``, plus'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(13) the computer donation credit determined under
section 45D(a).''.
(c) Disallowance of Deduction by Amount of Credit.--Section
280C (relating to certain expenses for which credits are
allowable) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Credit for Computer Donations.--No deduction shall be
allowed for that portion of the qualified computer
contributions (as defined in section 45D(b)) made during the
taxable year that is equal to the amount of credit determined
for the taxable year under section 45D(a). In the case of a
corporation which is a member of a controlled group of
corporations (within the meaning of section 52(a)) or a trade
or business which is treated as being under common control
with other trades or businesses (within the meaning of
section 52(b)), this subsection shall be applied under rules
prescribed by the Secretary similar to the rules applicable
under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52.''.
(d) Limitation on Carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39
(relating to carryback and carryforward of unused credits) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) No carryback of computer donation credit before
effective date.--No amount of unused business credit
available under section 45D may be carried back to a taxable
year beginning on or before the date of the enactment of this
paragraph.''.
(e) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 45C the
following:
``Sec. 45D. Credit for computer donations to schools and senior
centers.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 503. REPORT TO CONGRESS REGARDING EXTENT AND SEVERITY OF
CHILD POVERTY.
(a) In General.--Not later than June 1, 2001 and prior to
any reauthorization of the temporary assistance to needy
families program under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) for any fiscal year
after fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall report to Congress on the extent and severity of child
poverty in the United States. Such report shall, at a
minimum--
(1) determine for the period since the enactment of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 2105)--
(A) whether the rate of child poverty in the United States
has increased;
(B) whether the children who live in poverty in the United
States have gotten poorer; and
(C) how changes in the availability of cash and non-cash
benefits to poor families have affected child poverty in the
United States;
(2) identify alternative methods for defining child poverty
that are based on consideration of factors other than family
income and resources, including consideration of a family's
work-related expenses; and
(3) contain multiple measures of child poverty in the
United States that may include the child poverty gap and the
extreme poverty rate.
(b) Legislative Proposal.--If the Secretary determines that
during the period since the enactment of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-193; 110 Stat. 2105) the extent or
severity of child poverty in the United States has increased
to any extent, the Secretary shall include with the report to
Congress required under subsection (a) a legislative proposal
addressing the factors that led to such increase.
SEC. 504. CAREERS TO CLASSROOMS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) In general.--The terms ``elementary school'', ``local
educational agency'', ``secondary school'', and ``Secretary''
have the meanings given the terms in section 14101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8801).
(2) Alternative certification or licensure requirements.--
The term ``alternative certification or licensure
requirements'' means State or local teacher certification or
licensure requirements that permit a demonstrated competence
in appropriate subject areas gained in careers outside of
education to be substituted for traditional teacher training
course work.
(3) Eligible individual.--The term ``eligible individual''
means an individual who has received--
(A) in the case of an individual applying for assistance
for placement as an elementary school or secondary school
teacher, a baccalaureate or advanced degree from an
institution of higher education; or
(B) in the case of an individual applying for assistance
for placement as a teacher's aide in an elementary school or
secondary school, an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced
degree from an institution of higher education.
(4) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1001)
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia,
American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Republic of Palau, and the United States Virgin Islands.
(b) Placement Program.--The Secretary may establish a
program of awarding grants to States--
(1) to enable the States to assist eligible individuals to
obtain--
(A) certification or licensure as elementary school or
secondary school teachers; or
(B) the credentials necessary to serve as teachers' aides;
and
[[Page S1110]]
(2) to facilitate the employment of the eligible
individuals by local educational agencies identified under
subsection (c)(2) as experiencing a shortage of teachers or
teachers' aides.
(c) States With Alternative Certification Requirements and
Teacher and Teacher's Aide Shortages.--Upon the establishment
of the placement program authorized by subsection (b), the
Secretary shall--
(1) conduct a survey of States to identify those States
that have alternative certification or licensure requirements
for teachers;
(2) periodically request information from States identified
under paragraph (1) to identify in these States those local
educational agencies that--
(A) are receiving grants under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311 et seq.) as a result of having within their
jurisdictions concentrations of children from low-income
families; and
(B) are also experiencing a shortage of qualified teachers,
in particular a shortage of science, mathematics, computer
science, or engineering teachers; and
(3) periodically request information from all States to
identify local educational agencies that--
(A) are receiving grants under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311 et seq.) as a result of having within their
jurisdictions concentrations of children from low-income
families; and
(B) are experiencing a shortage of teachers' aides.
(d) Selection of Eligible Individuals.--
(1) In general.--Selection of eligible individuals to
participate in the placement program authorized by subsection
(b) shall be made on the basis of applications submitted to a
State. An application shall be in such form and contain such
information as the State may require.
(2) Priority.--In selecting eligible individuals to receive
assistance for placement as elementary school or secondary
school teachers, the State shall give priority to eligible
individuals who--
(A) have substantial, demonstrated career experience in
science, mathematics, computer science, or engineering and
agree to seek employment as science, mathematics, computer
science, or engineering teachers in elementary schools or
secondary schools; or
(B) have substantial, demonstrated career experience in
another subject area identified by the State as important for
national educational objectives and agree to seek employment
in that subject area in elementary schools or secondary
schools.
(e) Agreement.--An eligible individual selected to
participate in the placement program authorized by subsection
(b) shall be required to enter into an agreement with the
State, in which the eligible individual agrees--
(1) to obtain, within such time as the State may require,
certification or licensure as an elementary school or
secondary school teacher or the necessary credentials to
serve as a teacher's aide in an elementary school or
secondary school; and
(2) to accept--
(A) in the case of an eligible individual selected for
assistance for placement as a teacher, an offer of full-time
employment as an elementary school or secondary school
teacher for not less than two school years with a local
educational agency identified under subsection (c)(2), to
begin the school year after obtaining that certification or
licensure; or
(B) in the case of an eligible individual selected for
assistance for placement as a teacher's aide, an offer of
full-time employment as a teacher's aide in an elementary
school or secondary school for not less than 2 school years
with a local educational agency identified under subsection
(c)(3), to begin the school year after obtaining the
necessary credentials.
(f) Stipend for Participants.--
(1) In general.--The State shall pay to an eligible
individual participating in the placement program a stipend
in an amount equal to the lesser of--
(A) $5,000; or
(B) the total costs of the type described in paragraphs
(1), (2), (3), (8), and (9) of section 472 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll) incurred by the
eligible individual while obtaining teacher certification or
licensure or the necessary credentials to serve as a
teacher's aide and employment as an elementary school or
secondary school teacher or teacher aide.
(2) Relation to other assistance.--A stipend paid under
paragraph (1) shall be taken into account in determining the
eligibility of the eligible individual for Federal student
financial assistance provided under title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.).
(g) Grants To Facilitate Placement.--
(1) Teachers.--In the case of an eligible individual in the
placement program obtaining teacher certification or
licensure, the State may offer to enter into an agreement
under this subsection with the first local educational agency
identified under subsection (b)(2) that employs the eligible
individual as a full-time elementary school or secondary
school teacher after the eligible individual obtains teacher
certification or licensure.
(2) Teacher's aides.--In the case of an eligible individual
in the program obtaining credentials to serve as a teacher's
aide, the State may offer to enter into an agreement under
this subsection with the first local educational agency
identified under subsection (b)(3) that employs the
participant as a full-time teacher's aide.
(3) Agreements contracts.--Under an agreement referred to
in paragraph (1) or (2)--
(A) the local educational agency shall agree to employ the
eligible individual full time for not less than 2 consecutive
school years (at a basic salary to be certified to the State)
in a school of the local educational agency that--
(i) serves a concentration of children from low-income
families; and
(ii) has an exceptional need for eligible individuals; and
(B) the State shall agree to pay to the local educational
agency for each eligible individual, from amounts provided
under this section, $5,000 per year for a maximum of 2 years.
(h) Reimbursement Under Certain Circumstances.--
(1) In general.--If an eligible individual in the placement
program fails to obtain teacher certification or licensure,
employment as an elementary school or secondary school
teacher, or employment as a teacher's aide as required under
the agreement or voluntarily leaves, or is terminated for
cause, from the employment during the 2 years of required
service, the eligible individual shall be required to
reimburse the State for any stipend paid to the eligible
individual under subsection (f)(1) in an amount that bears
the same ratio to the amount of the stipend as the unserved
portion of required service bears to the 2 years of required
service. A State shall forward the proceeds of any
reimbursement received under this paragraph to the Secretary.
(2) Obligation to reimburse.--The obligation to reimburse
the State under this subsection is, for all purposes, a debt
owing the United States. A discharge in bankruptcy under
title 11 shall not release a participant from the obligation
to reimburse the State. Any amount owed by an eligible
individual under paragraph (1) shall bear interest at the
rate equal to the highest rate being paid by the United
States on the day on which the reimbursement is determined to
be due for securities having maturities of 90 days or less
and shall accrue from the day on which the eligible
individual is first notified of the amount due.
(i) Exceptions to Reimbursement Provisions.--
(1) In general.--An eligible individual in the placement
program shall not be considered to be in violation of an
agreement entered into under subsection (e) during any period
in which the participant--
(A) is pursuing a full-time course of study related to the
field of teaching at an institution of higher education;
(B) is serving on active duty as a member of the Armed
Forces;
(C) is temporarily totally disabled for a period of time
not to exceed 3 years as established by sworn affidavit of a
qualified physician;
(D) is unable to secure employment for a period not to
exceed 12 months by reason of the care required by a spouse
who is disabled;
(E) is seeking and unable to find full-time employment as a
teacher or teacher's aide in an elementary school or
secondary school for a single period not to exceed 27 months;
or
(F) satisfies the provisions of additional reimbursement
exceptions that may be prescribed by the Secretary.
(2) Forgiveness.--An eligible individual shall be excused
from reimbursement under subsection (h) if the eligible
individual becomes permanently totally disabled as
established by sworn affidavit of a qualified physician. The
Secretary may also waive reimbursement in cases of extreme
hardship to the participant, as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 505. PESTICIDE APPLICATION IN SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--Each school that receives Federal funding
shall--
(1) take steps to reduce the exposure of children to
pesticides on school grounds, both indoors and outdoors; and
(2) provide parents and guardians of children that attend
the school with advance notification of certain pesticide
applications on school grounds in accordance with subsections
(b) and (c).
(b) EPA List of Toxic Pesticides.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall distribute to each school that
receives Federal funding the current manual of the
Environmental Protection Agency that guides schools in the
establishment of a least toxic pesticide policy.
(2) List.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall provide each school that receives
Federal funding with a list of pesticides that contain a
substance that the Administrator has identified as a known
carcinogen, a developmental or reproductive toxin, or a
category I or II acute nerve toxin.
(c) Parental Notification of Toxic Pesticide Applications
in Schools.--
(1) In general.--On or after the date that is 18 months
after the date of enactment of this Act, any school that
receives Federal funding shall not apply any pesticide
described in paragraph (b)(2) on school grounds,
[[Page S1111]]
either indoors or outdoors, unless an administrative official
of the school provides notice of the planned application to
parents and guardians of children that attend the school not
later than 48 hours before the application of the pesticide.
(2) Notice.--The notice described in paragraph (1)--
(A) shall include--
(i) a description of the intended area of application; and
(ii) the name of each pesticide to be applied; and
(B) shall indicate whether the pesticide is a known
carcinogen, a developmental or reproductive toxin, or a
category I or II acute nerve toxin.
(3) Incorporation of notice.--The notice described in
paragraph (1) may be incorporated in any notice that is being
sent to parents and guardians at the time at which the
pesticide notice is required to be sent.
SEC. 506. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING A SAFE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that:
(1) Every school child in America should have a safe
learning environment free from violence and illegal drugs.
(2) Violence and illegal drugs in the schools undermine a
safe and secure learning environment.
(3) Any instance of violence or illegal drugs in schools is
unacceptable and undermines the efforts of Congress, State
and local governments and school boards, and parents to
provide American children with the best education possible.
(4) In the last 12 months, there have been at least 50
people killed or injured in school shootings in America.
(5) From 1992 through 1998, the number of referrals made by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for Federal firearms prosecutions
fell 44 percent, which resulted in a 40-percent drop in
prosecutions and a 31-percent decline in convictions,
allowing criminals to remain on the streets preying on our
most vulnerable citizens, including our children.
(6) From 1996 to 1998, the Justice Department only
prosecuted an average of seven persons per year for illegally
transferring a handgun to a juvenile.
(7) Since 1992, the percentage of 8th grade students using
marijuana, cocaine, and heroin in the past 30 days has
increased 162 percent, 86 percent, and 50 percent,
respectively, according to the respected Monitoring the
Future survey.
(8) The February 29, 2000, shooting at Buell Elementary
School in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, is evidence that
gun violence in American schools continues, that the drug
culture contributes to youth violence, and that the breakdown
of the American family has contributed to the increase in
violence among American children.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the reauthorization of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
program that Congress soon will be considering should target
the elimination of illegal drugs and violence in our schools
and should encourage local schools to insist on zero-
tolerance policies towards violence and illegal drug use.
SEC. 507. REDUCTION IN SCHOOL VIOLENCE.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``School
Violence Reduction Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that:
(1) Every school child in America has a right to a safe
learning environment free from guns and violence.
(2) The United States Department of Education report on the
Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act found that 3,930
children were expelled for bringing guns to school during the
1997-98 school year.
(3) Nationwide, 57 percent of the expulsions were high
school students, 33 percent were in junior high and 10
percent were in elementary school.
(c) Grants.--The Secretary of Education shall award grants
to elementary and secondary schools (as such terms are
defined in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801)) to enable such
schools to--
(1) develop and disseminate model programs to reduce
violence in schools,
(2) educate students about the dangers associated with
guns, and
(3) provide violence prevention information (including
information about safe gun storage) to children and their
parents.
(d) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (b), an elementary or secondary school shall
prepare and submit to the Secretary of Education an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require.
(e) Public Service Announcements.--The Secretary of
Education shall provide for the development and dissemination
of public service announcements and other information on ways
to reduce violence in our Nation's schools, including safe
gun storage and other measures.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated funds of up to $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2001
and such sums as may be necessary for each of the four
succeeding fiscal years.
Mr. COVERDELL. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Technical Corrections To Amendment No. 2869
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the clerk
be authorized to make technical conforming corrections to Roth
amendment No. 2869.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________