[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1898-S1911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 460. A bill to provide for fairness and accuracy in high stakes
educational decisions for students; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill I
introduced last year that addresses high stakes testing: the practice
of using a test as the sole determinant of whether a student will be
graduated, promoted or placed in different ability groupings. I am
increasingly concerned that high stakes tests are being grossly abused
in the name of greater accountability, and almost always to the serious
detriment of our children.
Testing is necessary and beneficial. We should require it. But,
allowing the continued misuse of high-stakes tests is, in itself, a
gross failure of imagination, a failure both of educators and of
policymakers, who persistently refuse to provide the educational
resources necessary to guarantee an equally rich educational experience
for all our children. That all citizens will be given an equal start
through a sound education is one of the most basic, promised rights of
our democracy. Our chronic refusal as a nation to guarantee that right
for all children, including poor children, is a national disgrace.
This legislation would stem the growing trend of misusing high stakes
tests. The legislation would require that states and districts use
multiple indicators of student achievement in addition to standardized
tests if they are going to use tests as part of a high stakes decision.
The legislation would also require that if tests are used, they must be
valid and reliable for the purposes for which they are used; must
measure what the student was taught; and must provide appropriate
accommodations for students with limited English proficiency and
disabilities.
It is important to note that the American Psychological Association,
the group entrusted with developing the standards for educational
testing, has endorsed this legislation. Like many Americans who care
deeply that our students are assessed appropriately, they feel that it
is crucial for us to stem a tide that it becoming increasingly
problematic.
I would like to explain exactly why this bill would be so important
and why I seek your support for it. I am struck by National Education
Association President Bob Chase's comparison of this trend toward high
stakes testing to the movie, ``Field of Dreams.'' In my view, it is as
though people are saying, ``If we test them, they will perform.'' In
too many places, testing, which is a critical part of systemic
educational accountability, has ceased its purpose of measuring
educational and school improvement and has become synonymous with it.
Making students accountable for test scores works well on a bumper
sticker, and it allows many politicians to look good by saying that
they will not tolerate failure. But it represents a hollow promise. Far
from improving education, high stakes testing marks a major retreat
from fairness, from accuracy, from quality and from equity.
When used correctly, standardized tests are critical for diagnosing
inequality and for identifying where we need improvement. They enable
us to measure achievement across groups of students so that we can help
ensure that states and districts are held accountable for improving the
achievement of all students regardless of race, income, gender, limited
English proficiency or disability. Tests are a critical tool, but they
are not a panacea.
The abuse of tests for high stakes purposes has subverted the
benefits tests can bring. Using a single standardized test as the sole
determinant for promotion, tracking, ability grouping and graduation is
not fair and has not fostered greater equality or opportunity for
students. First, standardized tests can not sufficiently validly or
reliably assess what students know to make high stakes decisions about
them.
The 1999 National Research Council report, ``High Stakes,'' concludes
that
[[Page S1899]]
``no single test score can be considered a definitive measure of a
student's knowledge,'' and that ``an educational decision that will
have a major impact on a test taker should not be made solely or
automatically on the basis of a single test score.''
The ``Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing,'' 1999
Edition, which has served as the standard for test developers and users
for decades, asserts that: ``In educational settings, a decision or a
characterization that will have a major impact on a student should not
be made on the basis of a single test score.''
Even test publishers, including Harcourt Brace, CTB McGraw Hill,
Riverside and ETS, consistently warn against this practice. For
example, Riverside Publishing asserts in the ``Interpretive Guide for
School Administrators'' for the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, ``Many of
the common misuses, of standardized tests, stem from depending on a
single test score to make a decision about a student or class of
students.''
CTB McGraw Hill writes that ``A variety of tests, or multiple
measures, is necessary to tell educators what students know and can do
. . . the multiple measures approach to assessment is the keystone to
valid, reliable, fair information about student achievement.''
There are many reasons tests cannot be relied upon as the sole
determinant in making high stakes decisions about students. The
National Research Council describes how these tests can be unreliable.
The Council concludes that ``a student's test score can be expected to
vary across different versions of a test, . . . as a function of the
particular sample questions asked and/or transitory factors, such as
the student's health on the day of the test. Thus, no single test score
can be considered a definitive measure of a student's knowledge.''
The research of David Rogosa at Stanford University shows how test
scores are not valid, in isolation, to make judgements about individual
achievement. His study of California's Stanford 9 National Percentile
Rank Scores for individual students showed that the chances that a
student whose true score is in the 50th percentile will receive a
reported score that is within 5 percentage points of his true score are
only 30 percent in reading and 42 percent on ninth grade math tests.
Rogosa also showed that on the Stanford 9 test ``the chances, . . .
that two students with identical ``real achievement'' will score more
than 10 percentile points apart on the same test'' is 57 percent for
9th graders and 42 percent on the fourth grade reading test. This
margin of error shows why it would not be fair to use a cut-score in
making a high stakes decision about a child.
Robert Rayborn, who directs Harcourt's Stanford 9 program in
California reenforced these findings when asked about the Stanford 9.
He said, ``They should never make high-stakes individual decisions with
a single measure of any kind,'' including the Stanford 9.
Politicians and policy makers who continue to push for high stakes
tests and educators who continue to use them in the face of this
knowledge have closed their eyes to clearly set professional and
scientific standards. They demand responsibility and high standards of
students and schools while they let themselves get away with defying
the most basic standards of the education profession.
It would be irresponsible if a parent or a teacher used a
manufactured product on children in a way that the manufacturer says is
unsafe. Why do we then honor and declare ``accountable" policy makers
and politicians who use tests on children in a way that the test
manufacturers have said is effectively unsafe?
Many of my colleagues will remember how 8,600 students in New York
City were mistakenly held in summer school because their tests were
graded incorrectly or how 54 students in Minnesota were denied their
diplomas because of a test scoring error.
When we talk about responsibility, what could be more irresponsible
than using an invalid or unreliable measure as the sole determinant of
something so important as high school graduation or in-school
promotion?
It has been clearly established through research that high stakes
tests for individual students, when used in isolation, are fatally
flawed. I would, however, also like to address a general issue that
this bill does not address directly, but that I think is really what
all of this is about in the end. The trend towards high stakes testing
represents a harsh agenda that holds children responsible for our own
failure to invest in their future and in their achievement. I firmly
believe that it is grossly unfair, for example, to hold back a student
based on a standardized test if that student has not had the tools
required to learn the material covered on the test. When we impose high
stakes tests on an educational system where there are, as Jonathan
Kozol says, ``savage inequalities,'' and then we do nothing to address
the underlying causes of those inequalities, we set up children to
fail.
People talk about using tests to motivate students to do well and
using tests to ensure that we close the achievement gap. This kind of
talk is unfair because it tells only part of the story. We cannot close
the achievement gap until we close the gap in investment between poor
and rich schools no matter how ``motivated'' some students are. We know
what these key investments are: quality teaching, parental involvement,
and early childhood education, to name just a few.
But instead of doing what we know will work, and instead of taking
responsibility as policy makers to invest in improving students' lives,
we place the responsibility squarely on children. It is simply
negligent to force children to pass a test and expect that the poorest
children, who face every disadvantage, will be able to do as well as
those who have every advantage.
When we do this, we hold children responsible for our own inaction
and unwillingness to live up to our own promises and our own
obligations. We confuse their failure with our own. This is a harsh
agenda indeed, for America's children.
All of us in politics like to get our picture taken with children. We
never miss a ``photo op.'' We all like to say that ``children are our
future.'' We are all for children until it comes time to make the
investment. Too often, despite the talk, when it comes to making the
investment in the lives of our children, we come up a dollar short.
Noted civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer used to say, ``I'm sick
and tired of being sick and tired.'' Well I'm sick and tired of
symbolic politics. When we say we are for children, we ought to be
committed to invest in the health, skills and intellect of our
children. We are not going to achieve our goals on a tin cup budget.
Unless we make a real commitment and fully fund key programs like Head
Start, Title I and IDEA, and unless we put our money where our mouth
is, children will continue to fail.
We must never stop demanding that children do their best. We must
never stop holding schools accountable. Measures of student performance
can include standardized tests, but only when coupled with other
measures of achievement, more substantive education reforms and a much
fuller, sustained investment in schools.
______
By Mr. FRIST:
S. 461. A bill to support educational partnerships, focusing on
mathematics, science, and technology, between institutions of higher
education and elementary schools and secondary schools, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Math and
Science Education Partnership Act. This bill will encourage States,
institutions of higher education, elementary schools and secondary
schools to work together to improve the math and science teaching as a
profession.
The purpose of this act is many fold. Through partnering schools with
higher education institutions, the bill proposes to encourage
institutions of higher education to assume greater responsibility for
improving math and science teacher education through the establishment
of a comprehensive, integrated system of recruiting and advising such
teachers. Such partnerships will bring together math and science
teachers in elementary schools and secondary schools with scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers to increase
[[Page S1900]]
teacher content knowledge and improve teaching skills through the use
of more sophisticated laboratory space and equipment, computing
facilities, libraries and other resources that colleges and
universities are more able to provide.
The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Education to
award competitive grants to eligible partnerships for a period of 5
years. The partnerships will include a state, a math or science
department of an institution of higher education, and a local school
district. A priority will be given to those districts with a high
poverty rate and a high number of teachers teaching out of their
subject area.
A partnership may use the grant funds to develop more rigorous
mathematics and science curricula based on standards, to recruit math
and science majors to teaching through bonuses, stipends for
alternative certification and scholarships, and to establish math and
science summer workshops for teachers. Each eligible partnership
receiving a grant under this Act must develop an evaluation and
accountability plan that includes the following objectives and
measures: improved student performance on state math and science
assessments or on the Third International Math and Science Study
assessment; increased participation by students in advanced courses in
math and science; increased percentages of secondary school classes in
math and science taught by teachers with majors in math and science;
increased numbers of math and science teachers who participate in
content-based professional development activities; and passing rates of
students in advanced courses in math and science.
Each partnership will be required to report the progress made toward
these objectives to the Secretary annually. The Secretary will then
determine whether or not the partnership is making substantial progress
in meeting its goals. I urge my fellow colleagues to cosponsor the Math
and Science Education Partnership Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 461
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Mathematics and Science
Education Partnership and Teacher Recruitment Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to encourage States,
institutions of higher education, elementary schools, and
secondary schools to participate in programs that--
(1) upgrade the status and stature of math and science
teaching as a profession by encouraging institutions of
higher education to assume greater responsibility for
improving math and science teacher education through the
establishment of a comprehensive, integrated system of
recruiting and advising such teachers;
(2) focus on education of math and science teachers as a
career-long process that should continuously stimulate
teachers' intellectual growth and upgrade teachers' knowledge
and skills;
(3) bring together elementary school and secondary school
math and science teachers with scientists, mathematicians,
and engineers to increase teacher content knowledge and
improve teaching skills through the use of more sophisticated
laboratory space and equipment, computing facilities,
libraries, and other resources that colleges and universities
are more able to provide; and
(4) develop more rigorous mathematics and science curricula
that are aligned and intended to prepare students for
postsecondary study in mathematics and science.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Incorporation of General Definitions.--The provisions
of section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801) shall apply for purposes of this
Act in the same manner as they apply for purposes of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
(b) Other Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Eligible partnership.--The term ``eligible
partnership'' means a partnership that--
(A) shall include--
(i) a State educational agency;
(ii) a mathematics or science department of an institution
of higher education; and
(iii) a local educational agency; and
(B) may include--
(i) another institution of higher education or the teacher
training department of such institution;
(ii) another local educational agency, or an elementary
school or secondary school;
(iii) a business; or
(iv) a nonprofit organization of demonstrated
effectiveness, including a museum.
(2) High need local educational agency.--The term ``high
need local educational agency'' has the meaning given the
term in section 201(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1021(b)).
(3) Summer workshop or institute.--The term ``summer
workshop or institute'' means a workshop or institute
conducted outside of the academic year that--
(A) is conducted during a period of a minimum of 2 weeks;
(B) provides for direct interaction between students and
faculty; and
(C) provides for followup training in the classroom during
the academic year for a period of a minimum of 3 days, which
shall not be required to be consecutive, except that--
(i) if the program at the summer workshop or institute is
for a period of only 2 weeks, the followup training shall be
for a period of more than 3 days; and
(ii) for teachers in rural school districts, followup
training through the Internet may be used.
SEC. 4. GRANTS AUTHORIZED.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award
grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible partnerships to
enable the eligible partnerships to pay the Federal share of
the costs of carrying out the authorized activities described
in section 6.
(b) Duration.--The Secretary shall award grants under this
section for periods of 5 years.
(c) Federal Share.--
(1) In general.--The Federal share of the costs of the
activities assisted under this Act shall be--
(A) 75 percent of the costs for the first year an eligible
partnership receives a grant payment under this Act;
(B) 65 percent of the costs for the second such year; and
(C) 50 percent of the costs for each of the third, fourth,
and fifth such years.
(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the costs
of activities assisted under this Act may be provided in cash
or in kind, fairly evaluated.
SEC. 5. APPLICATION.
(a) In General.--Each eligible partnership desiring a grant
under this Act shall submit an application to the Secretary
at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may require.
(b) Contents.--Each such application shall include--
(1) an assessment of the teacher quality and professional
development needs of all the entities participating in the
eligible partnership with respect to the teaching and
learning of mathematics and science, including a statement as
to whether the eligible partnership includes a high need
local educational agency;
(2) a description of how the activities to be carried out
by the eligible partnership will be aligned with State and
local standards and with other educational reform activities
that promote student achievement in mathematics and science;
(3) a description of how the activities to be carried out
by the eligible partnership will be based on a review of
relevant research, and an explanation of why the activities
are expected to improve student performance and to strengthen
the quality of mathematics and science instruction; and
(4) a description of--
(A) how the eligible partnership will carry out the
authorized activities described in section 6; and
(B) the eligible partnership's evaluation and
accountability plan described in section 7.
(c) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority to any
application submitted by an eligible partnership that
includes a high need local educational agency.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.
An eligible partnership shall use the grant funds provided
under this Act for 1 or more of the following activities
related to elementary schools or secondary schools:
(1) Developing or redesigning more rigorous mathematics and
science curricula that are aligned and intended to foster
college placement and preparation for postsecondary study in
mathematics and science.
(2) Creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing
professional development that improves the academic content
knowledge of mathematics and science teachers.
(3) Recruiting mathematics and science majors to the
teaching profession through the use of--
(A) signing bonuses and performance bonuses for mathematics
and science teachers;
(B) stipends for mathematics teachers and science teachers
for certification through alternative routes;
(C) scholarships for teachers to pursue advanced course
work in mathematics and science;
(D) scholarships for students with academic majors in
mathematics and science; and
(E) carrying out any other program that the State believes
to be effective in recruiting individuals with strong
mathematics or science backgrounds into the teaching
profession.
(4) Promoting strong teaching skills for mathematics and
science teachers and teacher educators, including integrating
reliable research-based teaching methods into the curriculum.
[[Page S1901]]
(5) Establishing mathematics and science summer workshops
or institutes and followup training for teachers, using
curricula that are experiment-oriented, content-based, and
grounded in current research.
(6) Establishing web-based instructional materials for
mathematics and science teachers using curricula that are,
experiment-oriented, content-based, and grounded in current
research.
(7) Designing programs to prepare a teacher to provide
professional development instruction to other teachers within
the participating teacher's school.
(8) Designing programs to bring teachers into contact with
working scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to increase
teachers' content knowledge and enhance teachers'
instructional techniques.
(9) Designing programs focusing on changing behaviors and
practices of teachers to assist novice teachers in developing
confidence in their skills to increase the likelihood that
such novice teachers will continue in the teaching
profession, and to generally improve the quality of teaching.
SEC. 7. EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY PLAN.
Each eligible partnership receiving a grant under this Act
shall develop an evaluation and accountability plan for
activities assisted under this Act that includes strong
performance objectives. The plan shall include objectives and
measures for--
(1) improved student performance on State mathematics and
science assessments or on the Third International Math and
Science Study assessment;
(2) increased participation by students in advanced courses
in mathematics and science;
(3) increased percentages of secondary school classes in
mathematics and science taught by teachers with academic
majors in mathematics and science, respectively;
(4) increased numbers of mathematics and science teachers
who participate in content-based professional development
activities; and
(5) increased passing rates of students in advanced courses
in mathematics and science.
SEC. 8. REPORT; REVOCATION OF GRANT.
(a) Report.--Each eligible partnership receiving a grant
under this Act shall report annually to the Secretary
regarding the eligible partnership's progress in meeting the
performance objectives described in section 7.
(b) Revocation.--If the Secretary determines that an
eligible partnership is not making substantial progress in
meeting the performance objectives described in section 7 by
the end of the third year of a grant under this Act, then the
grant payments shall not be made for the fourth and fifth
year of the grant.
SEC. 9. CONSULTATION WITH NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.
In carrying out the activities authorized by this Act, the
Secretary shall consult and coordinate with the Director of
the National Science Foundation, particularly with respect to
the appropriate roles for the Department and the Foundation
in the conduct of summer workshops or institutes provided by
the mathematics and science partnerships to improve
mathematics and science teaching in the elementary schools
and secondary schools.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act, $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may
be necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.
______
By Mr. KYL:
S. 462. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit against income tax for contributions to charitable organizations
which provide scholarships for children to attend elementary and
secondary schools; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
will provide new educational options to the students who need those
options the most.
While many Americans are satisfied with the public schools available
to their children, we know that there are also many who are not, and
with good reason.
In large urban school districts, a majority of students drop out
before high school graduation. Nearly 70 percent are unable to read at
the so-called ``basic'' level. And all too frequently, violence and
entrenched mediocrity create a climate where learning is actually
discouraged.
No wonder caring parents in such circumstances want alternatives.
We have seen compelling evidence of the pent-up demand for different
options when private organizations have invited low-income parents to
apply for partial scholarships that could be used at a non-public
school.
Usually, these private scholarship programs are structured in such a
way that, to be eligible for an award, a low-income family must agree
to contribute a significant portion of the total tuition bill.
The results are striking: In 1997, two distinguished business
leaders, Ted Forstmann and John Walton invited applications for one
thousand partial tuition scholarships from families here in the
District of Columbia. Nearly eight thousand applications were received.
In 1998, they formed an organization called the Children's
Scholarship Fund to apply the idea on a national basis. They planned to
offer 40,000 scholarships. 1.25 million applications were received.
No less impressive than the numbers are the testimonials offered by
parents who have been pleading for better options.
One mother said the following about her experience: ``We would not be
able to afford this without your help. Our daughter is really excited
to be learning spelling and grammar, which was not being taught in
public school. She's an aspiring writer and thinks this is great. My
son has autism, and his new school had more services in place for him
on the first day of school, without me even asking, than we've been
able to pull out of the public school in six years! They both love
their new schools and are doing well.''
Here's another mother's testimony: I am so excited that my son has
been chosen to receive a scholarship . . . One evening I sat on my bed
and cried because I really wanted him to attend a private school but I
know that I cannot afford all of the tuition. Therefore your
scholarship fund was my only hope.''
Yet another mother wrote, ``I cannot begin to tell you how grateful I
am for this opportunity to send my children to a private school. As a
low-income mother of four wonderful children with great potential, I
would not be able to provide this chance for them without your help.
This particular mother goes on to say, ``I have chosen,'' I cannot
put enough stress on that word, ``chosen a school that will help
nurture the seeds of greatness in them. I am sure that with this
opportunity to succeed, my children will be successful and contribute
greatly to society in the future.''
Mr. President, in 1997, leaders in my state settled on a plan to help
the private sector to satisfy that vast unmet demand for options. They
instituted a state tax credit that allows Arizona residents to claim a
dollar-for-dollar income tax credit for donations to school tuition
organizations, like the Children's Scholarship Fund.
Thanks to that program, 4,000 Arizona students, nearly all of them
from disadvantaged backgrounds, have received scholarship assistance
that has made it possible for them to enroll in a school of their
choice. The number of school tuition organizations operating in the
state has shot up from 2 to 33.
The legislation I am introducing today would extend this Arizona idea
nation-wide, and I am pleased that my Arizona colleague, Congressman
John Shadegg, will introduce this legislation this week in the House of
Representatives.
By way of tribute to President Bush's more comprehensive education
proposal, I have given this bill the title, ``The Leave No Child Behind
Tax Credit Act of 2001.''
The Leave No Child Behind Tax Credit Act would allow a family or
business to claim a $250 tax credit for donations to qualified school
tuition organizations. To qualify for that designation, an organization
would have to devote at least 90 percent of its annual income to
offering grants and scholarships for parents to use to send their
children to the school of their choice.
Scholarships awarded by such organizations could be used to offset
tuition costs at a private school, or to pay the tuition costs families
in most states must pay to enroll a child in a public school across
district boundaries.
This measure would move us toward an education policy that recognizes
the vital importance of parental choice.
It also recognizes and encourages the efforts that have been
undertaken by public-spirited private citizens to find non-governmental
solutions to the serious challenge of improving education in our
country. These activists embody the vision set forth by President Bush
in his inaugural address, the vision of responsible citizens building
communities of service and a nation of character.
[[Page S1902]]
Moreover, when parents are able to decide for themselves how to go
about securing one of life's most vital goods, namely, education for
their children, rather than having such decisions made for them by a
bureaucracy, they become, in President Bush's memorable terms,
citizens, not subjects.
I believe that this legislation will help them to do that, and I am
very pleased to introduce it today.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 462
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Leave No Child Behind Tax
Credit Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
WHICH PROVIDE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR STUDENTS
ATTENDING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 30B. CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS WHICH PROVIDE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR
STUDENTS ATTENDING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOLS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year an amount equal to the qualified charitable
contributions of the taxpayer for the taxable year.
``(b) Maximum Credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed $250 ($500, in the case
of a joint return).
``(c) Qualified Charitable Contribution.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified charitable
contribution' means, with respect to any taxable year, the
amount allowable as a deduction under section 170 (determined
without regard to subsection (d)(1)) for cash contributions
to a school tuition organization.
``(2) School tuition organization.--
``(A) In general.--The term `school tuition organization'
means any organization described in section 170(c)(2) if the
annual disbursements of the organization for elementary and
secondary school scholarships are normally not less than 90
percent of the sum of such organization's annual gross income
and contributions and gifts.
``(B) Elementary and secondary school scholarship.--The
term `elementary and secondary school scholarship' means any
scholarship excludable from gross income under section 117
for expenses related to education at or below the 12th grade.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this chapter for any contribution 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.
``(3) Controlled groups.--All persons who are treated as
one employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 shall
be treated as 1 taxpayer for purposes of this section.
``(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 of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 30B. Credit for contributions to charitable organizations which
provide scholarships for students attending elementary
and secondary schools.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 463. A bill to provide for increased access to HIV/AIDS-related
treatments and services in developing foreign countries; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, since the beginning of the AIDS
epidemic, more than 17 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, one half
the population of California, have died from AIDS.
To begin to address this catastrophe, Senator Feingold and I
introduced an Amendment to the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act that
would have helped ensure access to generic AIDS drugs for nations in
sub-Saharan Africa ravaged by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Despite the fact that this amendment was approved by the Senate, it
was stricken from the final Africa Trade Conference Report.
Subsequently, the Clinton Administration issued an Executive Order
that ensured that the countries of sub-Saharan Africa could provide
their people with affordable HIV/AIDS drugs.
And, two weeks ago, I am pleased to note, the Bush Administration
indicated that it would not seek to overturn this Executive Order.
Now, Senator Feingold and I have developed the ``Global Access to
AIDS Treatment Act of 2001'' which, among other provisions: Codifies
the Executive Order into law; Directs that the law must apply to the 48
nations of sub-Saharan Africa; and Expands the scope of the law to
cover all developing nations facing a catastrophic AIDS crisis.
Unless the United States takes a leadership role in recognizing, as
does the WTO TRIPS agreement, that there is a moral obligation to put
people over profits, the human devastation and social instability that
has already begun in countries facing an AIDS crisis will grow to
unfathomable levels.
Until recently, many people have been unaware of the depth of the
global loss being caused by this epidemic.
The HIV virus has infected over 36 million people worldwide, with
over 95 percent of those infected living outside of the United States.
Over 21.8 million people have died from HIV/AIDS world-wide since the
beginning of the epidemic, 3 million in 2000 alone.
In sub-Saharan Africa, where 70 percent of all deaths from HIV/AIDS
have occurred, 17 million people, as I said before, have died from HIV/
AIDS since the epidemic began, and 2.4 million in the year 2000.
To address this pandemic, Senator Feingold and I have developed
legislation to address the crisis. This legislation does the following:
First, this legislation directs the U.S. Government to refrain from
seeking the revision of any law, imposed by a government of a
developing nation facing an AIDS crisis, that promotes access to HIV/
AIDS pharmaceuticals and medical technologies.
This will ensure that HIV/AIDS drugs are more affordable and more
available to those most in need.
Second, this legislation authorizes $25 million a year for programs
to develop and strengthen health care infrastructure in developing
countries.
Third, the legislation calls upon the World Health Organization and
UNAIDS to take the lead in organizing efficient procurement of
compulsory licences of pharmaceutical patents, active ingredients of
drugs, and finished medications for countries that require this
assistance.
Fourth, this legislation calls on the National Institutes of Health,
NIH, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, to work
with developing countries and international service providers to
develop best practices for delivering pharmaceuticals to those who need
them.
Fifth, this legislation requires the Food and Drug Administration,
FDA, and NIH to develop and maintain a database for information on
drugs, patent status, and treatment protocols to assist health-care
providers from around the globe in providing the best care possible to
all patients.
And finally, this legislation provides $1 million a year to encourage
American physicians, nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners,
public health workers, pharmacists, and other health professionals to
provide HIV/AIDS care and treatment in developing countries.
This legislation will allow countries facing an HIV/AIDS crisis to
better determine the availability of HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals in their
countries, and provide their people with affordable HIV/AIDS drugs.
It is clearly in the national interest of the United States to
prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS, and I believe that this
legislation is necessary to continue to assist the countries of the
developing world to bring this deadly disease under control.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S1903]]
S. 463
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Global Access to AIDS
Treatment Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Since the HIV/AIDS pandemic began, it has claimed
21,800,000 lives.
(2) Over 17,000,000 men, women, and children, have died due
to AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa alone.
(3) Over 36,000,000 people are infected with the HIV virus
today. Over 25,000,000 live in sub-Saharan Africa.
(4) By 2010, approximately 40,000,000 children worldwide
will have lost one or both of their parents to HIV/AIDS.
(5) Access to effective treatment for HIV/AIDS is
determined by issues of price, health system infrastructure,
and sustainable financing.
(6) In January 2000, the National Intelligence Council
released an intelligence estimate that framed the HIV/AIDS
pandemic as a security threat, noting the relationship
between the disease and political and economic instability.
(7) The overriding priority for responding to the HIV/AIDS
crisis should be to emphasize and encourage prevention.
(8) An effective response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic must
also involve assistance to stimulate the development of
health service delivery infrastructure in affected States.
(9) An effective United States response to the HIV/AIDS
crisis must also focus on the development of HIV/AIDS
vaccines to prevent the spread of the disease.
(10) The innovative capacity of the United States in the
commercial and public pharmaceutical research sectors is
unmatched in the world, and the participation of both these
sectors will be a critical element in any successful strategy
to respond to the global HIV/AIDS crisis.
(b) Declaration of Policy.--Congress declares that it is
the policy of the United States that the United States will
not seek, through negotiation or otherwise, the revocation or
revision of intellectual property or competition laws or
policies that regulate pharmaceuticals or medical
technologies used to treat HIV/AIDS or the most common
opportunistic infections that accompany HIV/AIDS in any
foreign country undergoing an HIV/AIDS-related public health
crisis if the laws or policies of that foreign country--
(1) promote access to the pharmaceuticals or medical
technologies for affected populations; and
(2) provide intellectual property protection consistent
with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights referred to in paragraph (15) of section
101(d) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C.
3511(d)(15)).
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) to encourage the World Health Organization and the
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) to carry
out HIV/AIDS activities in foreign countries that are
undergoing an HIV/AIDS-related public health crisis,
including activities that are consistent with the policy
described in section 2(b); and
(2) that the World Health Organization and the Joint United
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) should lead the
international organization of the manufacture and
distribution of pharmaceuticals or medical technologies for
HIV/AIDS, including the global registration of products and
the organization of the efficient procurement of compulsory
licenses, active ingredients, and finished products for
foreign countries that require such assistance.
SEC. 4. PARALLEL IMPORTING AND COMPULSORY LICENSING.
Section 182(d)(4) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C.
2242(d)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A foreign'' and inserting ``(A) Except as
provided in subparagraph (A), a foreign''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B)(i) With respect to a foreign country that is
undergoing an HIV/AIDS-related public health crisis and that
is propounding or implementing laws or policies that regulate
pharmaceuticals or medical technologies used to treat HIV/
AIDS, or the most common opportunistic infections that
accompany HIV/AIDS, subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such
country with respect to such pharmaceuticals and
technologies.
``(ii) With respect to a foreign country described in
clause (i), if the laws or policies of that country promote
access to the pharmaceuticals or medical technologies
described in such clause for affected populations within the
country or within other countries undergoing an HIV/AIDS-
related public health crisis, compliance with the specific
obligations of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights referred to in section
101(d)(15) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act shall be
construed to provide adequate and effective protection of
intellectual property rights for the purposes of this Act,
and the President shall instruct the United States Trade
Representative not to seek, through negotiation or otherwise,
the revocation or revision of such laws or policies.''; and
``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `foreign
country that is undergoing an HIV/AIDS-related public health
crisis' means any of the 48 foreign countries of sub-Saharan
Africa, and any additional country determined to be
undergoing such a crisis by the President.''.
SEC. 5. DEVELOPMENT OF TREATMENT PROTOCOLS.
(a) In General.--The Director of the National Institutes of
Health and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention shall, in collaboration with the entities
described in subsection (b), conduct a needs-assessment and
develop and implement simplified and adapted protocols for
the delivery of HIV/AIDS treatments in the resource poor
settings of the developing world.
(b) Collaborative Entities.--The entities described in this
subsection are--
(1) the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development;
(2) developing foreign countries that face HIV/AIDS health
care crises; and
(3) appropriate international organizations.
SEC. 6. HEALTH CARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Administrator of the United
States Agency for International Development, shall--
(1) develop and implement programs to strengthen and
broaden health care systems infrastructure, and the capacity
of health care systems in developing foreign countries to
deliver HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals;
(2) provide assistance to foreign countries that the
Administrator determines are ready to implement anti-retro
viral treatment programs with respect to HIV/AIDS; and
(3) provide assistance to improve access to medical
education, including nursing education, in foreign countries
that are severely affected by the HIV/AIDS virus.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $25,000,000 for
each fiscal year.
SEC. 7. INTERNATIONAL DATABASE OF HIV/AIDS PHARMACEUTICALS.
The Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in consultation with
the Director of the National Institutes of Health, shall
develop and maintain a database of HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals.
Such database shall include information about patent status,
recommended protocols, price, and quality.
SEC. 8. LOAN FORGIVENESS PROGRAM FOR INTERNATIONAL HIV/
PHARMACEUTICAL WORK.
Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300ff-11 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``PART G--INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
``SEC. 2695. FOREIGN HIV/AIDS ASSISTANCE LOAN REPAYMENT
PROGRAM.
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
program to be known as the Foreign HIV/AIDS Assistance Loan
Repayment Program to encourage physicians, nurses, physician
assistants, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, others trained
in the field of public health, and other health professionals
determined appropriate by the Secretary to provide HIV/AIDS
treatment and care in developing foreign countries.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in the
Loan Repayment Program, an individual must--
``(1) have a degree in medicine, osteopathic medicine, or
other health profession, or be registered or certified as a
nurse or physician assistant; and
``(2) submit to the Secretary an application for a contract
described in subsection (f) (relating to the payment by the
Secretary of the educational loans of the individual in
consideration of the individual serving for a period of
obligated service).
``(c) Application, Contract, and Information
Requirements.--
``(1) Summary and information.--In disseminating
application forms and contract forms to individuals desiring
to participate in the Loan Repayment Program, the Secretary
shall include with such forms--
``(A) a fair summary of the rights and liabilities of an
individual whose application is approved (and whose contract
is accepted) by the Secretary, including in the summary a
clear explanation of the damages to which the United States
is entitled in the case of the individual's breach of the
contract; and
``(B) information respecting meeting a service obligation
through private practice under an agreement under subsection
(f) and such other information as may be necessary for the
individual to understand the individual's prospective
participation in the Loan Repayment Program.
``(2) Understandability.--The application form, contract
form, and all other information furnished by the Secretary
under this section shall be written in a manner calculated to
be understood by the average individual applying to
participate in the Loan Repayment Program.
``(3) Availability.--The Secretary shall make such
application forms, contract forms, and other information
available to individuals desiring to participate in the Loan
Repayment Program on a date sufficiently early to ensure that
such individuals have adequate time to carefully review and
evaluate such forms and information.
``(4) Recruitment and retention.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall distribute to health
professions schools materials providing information on the
Loan Repayment Program and shall encourage the schools to
disseminate the materials to the students of the schools.
[[Page S1904]]
``(B) Retention.--In the case of any health professional
whose period of obligated service under the Loan Repayment
Program is nearing completion, the Secretary shall encourage
the individual to remain in a developing foreign country and
to continue providing HIV/AIDS-related services.
``(d) Considerations with Respect to Contracts.--
``(1) In general.--In providing contracts under the Loan
Repayment Program--
``(A) the Secretary shall consider the extent of the
demonstrated interest of the applicants for the contracts in
providing HIV/AIDS-related services; and
``(B) may consider such other factors regarding the
applicants as the Secretary determines to be relevant to
selecting qualified individuals to participate in such
Program, such as relevant HIV/AIDS-related or international
health work or volunteer experiences.
``(2) Priority.--In providing contracts under the Loan
Repayment Program, the Secretary shall give priority--
``(A) to any application for such a contract submitted by
an individual whose training is in a health profession or
specialty determined by the Secretary to be needed; and
``(B) to any application for such a contract submitted by
an individual who has (and whose spouse, if any, has)
characteristics that increase the probability that the
individual will continue to serve in a developing foreign
country after the period of obligated service pursuant to
subsection (f) is completed.
``(e) Approval Required for Participation.--An individual
becomes a participant in the Loan Repayment Program only upon
the Secretary and the individual entering into a written
contract described in subsection (f).
``(f) Contents of Contracts.--The written contract between
the Secretary and an individual shall contain--
``(1) an agreement that--
``(A) subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary agrees to pay
on behalf of the individual loans in accordance with
subsection (g) or to defer payment on such loans; and
``(B) subject to paragraph (3), the individual agrees--
``(i) to accept loan payments on behalf of the individual
or a deferment in payments; and
``(ii) to serve for a time period (hereinafter in this
subpart referred to as the `period of obligated service')
equal to 2 years or such longer period as the individual may
agree to, as a provider of HIV/AIDS-related health services
in a developing foreign country;
``(2) a provision permitting the Secretary to extend for
such longer additional periods, as the individual may agree
to, the period of obligated service agreed to by the
individual;
``(3) a provision that any financial obligation of the
United States arising out of a contract entered into under
this section and any obligation of the individual that is
conditioned thereon, is contingent on funds being
appropriated for loan repayments or deferments under this
section;
``(4) a statement of the damages to which the United States
is entitled for the individual's breach of the contract; and
``(5) such other statements of the rights and liabilities
of the Secretary and of the individual, not inconsistent with
this section.
``(g) Payments or Deferments.--
``(1) In general.--A loan repayment provided for an
individual under a written contract under the Loan Repayment
Program shall consist of payment, in accordance with
paragraph (2), on behalf of the individual of the principal,
interest, and related expenses on government and commercial
loans received by the individual regarding the graduate
education of the individual, or the deferment of repayments
on such loans, which loans were made for--
``(A) tuition expenses;
``(B) all other reasonable educational expenses, including
fees, books, and laboratory expenses, incurred by the
individual; or
``(C) reasonable living expenses as determined by the
Secretary.
``(2) Payments for years served.--
``(A) In general.--For each year of obligated service that
an individual contracts to serve under subsection (f) the
Secretary may pay or defer up to $5,000 on behalf of the
individual for loans described in paragraph (1). In making a
determination of the amount to pay or defer for a year of
such service by an individual, the Secretary shall consider
the extent to which each such determination--
``(i) affects the ability of the Secretary to maximize the
number of contracts that can be provided under the Loan
Repayment Program from the amounts appropriated for such
contracts;
``(ii) provides an incentive to serve in a developing
foreign country with the greatest such shortages; and
``(iii) provides an incentive with respect to the health
professional involved remaining in a developing foreign
country, and continuing to provide HIV/AIDS-related services,
after the completion of the period of obligated service under
the Loan Repayment Program.
``(B) Repayment schedule.--Any arrangement made by the
Secretary for the making of loan repayments in accordance
with this subsection shall provide that any repayments for a
year of obligated service shall be made no later than the end
of the fiscal year in which the individual completes such
year of service.
``(3) Tax liability.--For the purpose of providing
reimbursements for tax liability resulting from payments or
deferments under this subsection on behalf of an individual--
``(A) the Secretary shall, in addition to such payments,
make payments to the individual in an amount equal to 39
percent of the total amount of loan repayments made for the
taxable year involved; and
``(B) may make such additional payments as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate with respect to such purpose.
``(4) Payment schedule.--The Secretary may enter into an
agreement with the holder of any loan for which payments are
made under the Loan Repayment Program to establish a schedule
for the making of such payments or deferments.
``(h) Reports.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report providing,
with respect to the preceding fiscal year--
``(1) the total amount of loan payments or deferments made
under the Loan Repayment Program;
``(2) the number of applications filed under this section;
``(3) the number, and type of health profession training,
of individuals receiving loan repayments or deferments under
such Program;
``(4) the educational institution at which such individuals
received their training;
``(5) the total amount of the indebtedness of such
individuals for educational loans as of the date on which the
individuals become participants in such Program;
``(6) the number of years of obligated service specified
for such individuals in the initial contracts under
subsection (f), and, in the case of individuals whose period
of such service has been completed, the total number of years
for which the individuals provided HIV/AIDS-related services
in a developing foreign country (including any extensions
made for purposes of paragraph (2) of such subsection);
``(7)(A) the number, and type of health professions
training, of such individuals who have breached the contract
under subsection (f); and
``(B) with respect to such individuals--
``(i) the educational institutions with respect to which
payments or deferments have been made or were to be made
under the contract;
``(ii) the amounts for which the individuals are liable to
the United States;
``(iii) the extent of payment by the individuals of such
amounts; and
``(iv) if known, the basis for the decision of the
individuals to breach the contract under subsection (f); and
``(8) the effectiveness of the Secretary in recruiting
health professionals to participate in the Loan Repayment
Program, and in encouraging and assisting such professionals
with respect to providing HIV/AIDS-related services in
developing foreign countries after the completion of the
period of obligated service under such Program.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
$1,000,000 for each fiscal year.''.
______
By Mr. BAYH (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 464. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
tax credit for long-term care givers; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, we have spent the last week discussing the
importance of tax cuts for all Americans. While we discuss fiscally
responsible means to provide financial benefits to all Americans we
need to remember there are millions of Americans that are taking on
extra financial burdens by taking care of a loved one at home. These
caregivers deserve financial assistance.
America is aging, we are all living longer and generally healthier
and more productive lives. In the next 30 years, the number of
Americans over the age of 65 will double. For most Americans this is
good news. However, for some families aging comes with unique financial
obstacles. More and more middle income families are forced to choose
between providing educational expenses for their children, saving for
their own retirement, and providing medical care for their parents and
grandparents. When a loved one becomes ill and needs to be cared for,
nothing is more challenging then deciding how the care they need should
be provided. Today, I rise again to make that decision easier and to
strengthen one option for long-term care caring for a loved one at
home.
The bill I am reintroducing today, the Care Assistance and Resource
Enhancement Tax Credit, will provide caregivers with a $3,000 tax
credit for the services they provide. I am reintroducing this bill in
order to encourage families to take care of their loved ones, by making
it more affordable for seniors to stay at home and receive the care
they need, while saving the government billions of dollars currently
spent on institutional care. Through
[[Page S1905]]
this tax credit, we accomplish all that while emphasizing family
values.
There are over 22 million people providing unpaid help with personal
needs or household chores to a relative or friend who is at least 50
years old. In Indiana alone, there are 568,300 caregivers. They do this
work without any compensation. They do not send the government a bill
for their services or get reimbursed for their expenses by a private
company. They do it because they care. As a result of their compassion,
the government saves billions of dollars. For example, the average cost
of a nursing home is $46,000 a year. The government spent approximately
$32 billion in formal home health care costs and $83 billion in nursing
home costs. If you add up all the private sector and government
spending on long-term care it is dwarfed by the amount families spend
caring for loved ones in their homes. As a study published by the
Alzheimers Association indicated, caregivers provide $196 billion worth
of care a year.
I held a field hearing in my state, Indiana, in August of 1999 to
discuss ways to make long-term care more affordable. At this hearing, I
heard from three caregivers who are providing care for a family member.
Mrs. Linda McKinstry takes care of her husband who had been diagnosed
with Alzheimers two years ago. Mr. and Mrs. Cahee are caregivers for
Mr. Cahee's mother who also has Alzheimers. They all echoed the need
for financial relief and support services. They spoke of the financial
and emotional stress associated with taking care of a loved one. After
hearing their stories, it became clear that their efforts are truly
heroic and we should be doing all that we can at the federal level to
provide what they need to keep their families together.
At a time when people are becoming skeptical of the government,
Congress needs to help people meet the challenges they face in their
daily lives. This tax credit does that. It will serve 1.2 million older
Americans, over 500,000 non-elderly adults, and approximately 250,000
children a year. I am encouraged by the inclusion of this tax credit in
Senator Daschle's targeted tax package. I urge my colleagues to take
notice of the work done by caregivers and join me in supporting this
legislation and giving caregivers the gratitude they deserve.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 465. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit for residential solar energy property; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President. I am honored today to introduce the
Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit Act of 2001 which provides a 15
percent residential tax credit for consumers who purchase solar
electric, photovoltaics, and solar thermal products. This bill is
similar to one I introduced in the last Congress. I believe we have a
wonderful opportunity to address this important energy issue and pass
this bill.
The legislation is an important step in preserving U.S. global
leadership in the solar industry where we now export over 70 percent of
our products. In recent years, over ten U.S. solar manufacturing
facilities have been built or expanded making the U.S. the world's
largest manufacturer of solar products. The expansion of the U.S.
domestic market is essential to sustain U.S. global market dominance.
Other countries, notably Japan and Germany, have instituted very
large-scale market incentives for the use of solar energy on buildings,
spending far more by their governments to build their respective
domestic solar industries. Passage of this bill will insure the U.S.
stays the global solar market leader into the next millennium.
Recent tax legislation passed by this body, has included necessary
support of the independent domestic oil producers, overseas oil
refiners, nuclear industry decommissioning, and wind energy, all
worthy. This small proposal not only adds to these but provides an
incentive to the individual homeowner to generate their own energy. In
fact, 28 states have passed laws in the last two years to provide a
technical standard for interconnecting solar systems to the electric
grid, provide consumer friendly contracts, and provide rates for the
excess power generated. These efforts at regulatory reform at the state
level combined with a limited incentive as proposed in this bill, will
drive the use of solar energy.
Contrary to popular belief, solar energy is manufactured and used
evenly throughout the United States. Solar manufacturers are in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. In
addition, solar assembly and distribution companies are in: Alaska,
Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Tennessee, Vermont, as well as Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Guam. In addition to these states, solar component and
research companies are in Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia.
More than 90 U.S. electric utilities including municipals,
cooperatives and independents--which represent more than half of U.S.
power generation--are active in solar energy. Aside from new, automated
solar manufacturing facilities, a wide range of new uses of solar has
occurred in the last two years, such as: an array of facilities
installed in June at the Pentagon power block to provide mid-day peak
power; installation of solar on the first U.S. skyscraper in Times
Square in New York City; and development of a solar mini-manufacturing
facility at a brown field in Chicago which will provide solar products
for roadway lighting and for area schools.
This small sampling of American ingenuity is just the beginning of
the U.S. solar industry's maturity. Adoption of solar power by
individual American consumers will create economies-of-scale of
production that will, over time, dramatically lower costs and increase
availability of solar power.
The bill I have introduced costs much less than previous proposals
and provides consumer safeguards. This bill represents a pragmatic
approach in utilizing the marketplace as a driver of technology. The
benefits to our country are profound. The U.S. solar industry believes
the incentives will create 20,000 new high technology manufacturing
jobs, offset pollution of more than 2 million vehicles, cut U.S. solar
energy unit imports which are already over 50 percent, and leverage
U.S. industry even further into the global export markets.
The Residential Solar Energy Tax Credit Act of 2001 is sound energy
policy, sound environmental policy, promotes our national security, and
enhances our economic strength at home and abroad. I ask my colleagues
to include this initiative in any upcoming tax and/or energy
deliberations. American consumers will thank us, and our children will
thank us for the future benefits we have preserved for them.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 465
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Residential Solar Energy Tax
Credit Act''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25A the following new section:
``SEC. 25B. RESIDENTIAL SOLAR ENERGY PROPERTY.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the sum
of--
``(1) 15 percent of the qualified photovoltaic property
expenditures made by the taxpayer during such year, and
``(2) 15 percent of the qualified solar water heating
property expenditures made by the taxpayer during the taxable
year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed under subsection
(a)(2) shall not exceed $2,000 for each system of solar
energy property.
``(2) Type of property.--No expenditure may be taken into
account under this section unless such expenditure is made by
the taxpayer for property installed on or in connection with
a dwelling unit which is located
[[Page S1906]]
in the United States and which is used as a residence.
``(3) Safety certifications.--No credit shall be allowed
under this section for an item of property unless--
``(A) in the case of solar water heating equipment, such
equipment is certified for performance and safety by the non-
profit Solar Rating Certification Corporation or a comparable
entity endorsed by the government of the State in which such
property is installed, and
``(B) in the case of a photovoltaic system, such system
meets appropriate fire and electric code requirements.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified solar water heating property expenditure.--
The term `qualified solar water heating property expenditure'
means an expenditure for property that uses solar energy to
heat water for use in a dwelling unit with respect to which a
majority of the energy is derived from the sun.
``(2) Qualified photovoltaic property expenditure.--The
term `qualified photovoltaic property expenditure' means an
expenditure for property that uses solar energy to generate
electricity for use in a dwelling unit.
``(3) Solar panels.--No expenditure relating to a solar
panel or other property installed as a roof (or portion
thereof) shall fail to be treated as property described in
paragraph (1) or (2) solely because it constitutes a
structural component of the structure on which it is
installed.
``(4) Labor costs.--Expenditures for labor costs properly
allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original
installation of the property described in paragraph (1) or
(2) and for piping or wiring to interconnect such property to
the dwelling unit shall be taken into account for purposes of
this section.
``(5) Swimming pools, etc., used as storage medium.--
Expenditures which are properly allocable to a swimming pool,
hot tub, or any other energy storage medium which has a
function other than the function of such storage shall not be
taken into account for purposes of this section.
``(d) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Dollar amounts in case of joint occupancy.--In the
case of any dwelling unit which is jointly occupied and used
during any calendar year as a residence by 2 or more
individuals the following shall apply:
``(A) The amount of the credit allowable under subsection
(a) by reason of expenditures (as the case may be) made
during such calendar year by any of such individuals with
respect to such dwelling unit shall be determined by treating
all of such individuals as 1 taxpayer whose taxable year is
such calendar year.
``(B) There shall be allowable with respect to such
expenditures to each of such individuals, a credit under
subsection (a) for the taxable year in which such calendar
year ends in an amount which bears the same ratio to the
amount determined under subparagraph (A) as the amount of
such expenditures made by such individual during such
calendar year bears to the aggregate of such expenditures
made by all of such individuals during such calendar year.
``(2) Tenant-stockholder in cooperative housing
corporation.--In the case of an individual who is a tenant-
stockholder (as defined in section 216) in a cooperative
housing corporation (as defined in such section), such
individual shall be treated as having made his tenant-
stockholder's proportionate share (as defined in section
216(b)(3)) of any expenditures of such corporation.
``(3) Condominiums.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is a
member of a condominium management association with respect
to a condominium which he owns, such individual shall be
treated as having made his proportionate share of any
expenditures of such association.
``(B) Condominium management association.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `condominium management association'
means an organization which meets the requirements of
paragraph (1) of section 528(c) (other than subparagraph (E)
thereof) with respect to a condominium project substantially
all of the units of which are used as residences.
``(4) Joint ownership of items of solar energy property.--
``(A) In general.--Any expenditure otherwise qualifying as
an expenditure described in paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (c) shall not be treated as failing to so qualify
merely because such expenditure was made with respect to 2 or
more dwelling units.
``(B) Limits applied separately.--In the case of any
expenditure described in subparagraph (A), the amount of the
credit allowable under subsection (a) shall (subject to
paragraph (1)) be computed separately with respect to the
amount of the expenditure made for each dwelling unit.
``(5) Allocation in certain cases.--If less than 80 percent
of the use of an item is for nonbusiness residential
purposes, only that portion of the expenditures for such item
which is properly allocable to use for nonbusiness
residential purposes shall be taken into account. For
purposes of this paragraph, use for a swimming pool shall be
treated as use which is not for residential purposes.
``(6) When expenditure made; amount of expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an expenditure with respect to an item shall be treated as
made when the original installation of the item is completed.
``(B) Expenditures part of building construction.--In the
case of an expenditure in connection with the construction or
reconstruction of a structure, such expenditure shall be
treated as made when the original use of the constructed or
reconstructed structure by the taxpayer begins.
``(C) Amount.--The amount of any expenditure shall be the
cost thereof.
``(e) Basis Adjustments.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure
with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of
such property which would (but for this subsection) result
from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the
credit so allowed.
``(f) Termination.--The credit allowed under this section
shall not apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2006.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (a) of section 1016 of such Code is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (27) and inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(28) to the extent provided in section 25B(e), in the
case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been
allowed under section 25B.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 25A the
following new item:
``Sec. 25B. Residential solar energy property.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2001.
______
By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd,
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Snowe,
and Mr. Reed):
S. 466. A bill to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act to fully fund 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for
programs under part B of such Act; to the Committee on Health
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join with nine of my colleagues today in
introducing the ``Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.'' I am pleased that
Senators Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, Pat Roberts, Chris Dodd, Susan
Collins, Tom Harkin, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murray, and Jack Reed have
agreed to serve as original co-sponsors of this important legislation.
This bill will have the Federal government fully meet its funding
responsibilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
IDEA, for the first time since it was enacted in 1975. When Congress
passed the IDEA a quarter of a century ago, it agreed that the Federal
government would pay 40 percent of the cost of ensuring that all
children, including those with disabilities, receive a free,
appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. That
is the laudable goal of the legislation, one we all share. Sadly,
however, we have never in all these years met our funding commitment.
Despite substantial progress over the last five years, Congress has
never appropriated more than 15 percent of the cost of IDEA. The bill
we introduce today will finally make good on Congress's commitment to
fund 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities. In
so doing, it will strengthen the ability of States and local school
districts in implementing IDEA and serve the children with disabilities
who are covered by its provisions.
Our IDEA full funding legislation is very simple. It would obligate
Federal funds to increase funding under Part B of the IDEA program by
annual increments of $2.5 billion until the full 40 percent share of
funding is reached in fiscal year 2007. Last year, fiscal year 2001,
Congress appropriated $6.3 billion for Part B. With these annual
increments, the legislation would obligate an additional $37.5 billion
over five years, or $52.4 billion over six years.
Let me note that this legislation does not establish a new Federal
mandate or entitlement, State and Federal courts and IDEA have already
firmly established the right of a child with a disability to a free,
appropriate education. The Federal government's failure for 25 years to
contribute its share of these costs has simply shifted this Federal
share onto State and local education agencies. Our bill will redress
this failure: Federal funds will finally be provided to meet the
Federal share.
[[Page S1907]]
IDEA has been a great success. Prior to its enactment, only 50
percent of students with disabilities were receiving an appropriate
education, 30 percent were receiving inappropriate education services,
and 20 percent were receiving no education services at all. Today the
majority of children with disabilities are receiving an education in
their neighborhood schools in regular classrooms with their non-
disabled peers. High school graduation rates have increased
dramatically among students with disabilities, a 14 percent increase
from 1984 to 1997. More students with disabilities are attending
colleges and universities. And students who have been served by IDEA
are employed at twice the rate of older adults who were not served by
IDEA. IDEA has played a very important role in raising our nation's
awareness about the abilities and capabilities of children with
disabilities.
Last November we celebrated IDEA's 25th anniversary. It is time to
make good on our promise to fully fund this very worthwhile program,
which is making such an important difference in the lives of so very
many of our nation's children.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues
Senators Chuck Hagel and Jim Jeffords in introducing the Helping
Children Succeed by Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA--the hallmark of which is to put real dollars
behind the goal of fully funding the IDEA.
Congress owes the children and families across the country the most
effective possible implementation of this legislation, and the federal
funding support necessary to make it happen. For 25 years, IDEA has
sent a clear message to young people with disabilities--that they can
learn, and that their learning will enable them to become independent
and productive citizens, and live fulfilling lives.
Prior to 1975, 4 million disabled children did not receive the help
they needed to be successful in school. Few disabled preschoolers
received services, and 1 million disabled children were excluded from
public schools. Now IDEA serves almost 6 million disabled children from
birth through age 21, and every State in the Nation offers public
education and early intervention services to disabled children. The
record of success is astonishing.
The drop out rate for these students has decreased, while the
graduation rate has increased. The number of young adults with
disabilities enrolling in college has more than tripled, and now more
than ever disabled students are communicating and exploring the world
through new technologies.
These accomplishments do not come without financial costs, and it is
time for Congress to meet its financial commitment to help schools
provide the services and supports that give children with special needs
the educational opportunities to pursue their dreams.
Today we are introducing legislation to address that need and assist
our schools to meet their responsibility to provide an equal and
appropriate educational opportunity for children with disabilities. In
my State of Massachusetts alone, this increase will provide $409
million over the next 6 years to help meet that goal.
Just as we are committed to increase funding for IDEA, we must be
equally committed to the making sure that this law is implemented and
vigorously enforced.
Far too many students with disabilities are still not getting the
educational services they are entitled to receive under the IDEA. We
must never go back to the days when large numbers of disabled children
were left out and left behind.
I look forward to working with the Administration and all Members of
Congress to enact this legislation. Fully funding IDEA moves us closer
to ensuring the success of every child by supporting the great goal of
public education--to give all children the opportunity to pursue their
dreams.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope that this effort will be the
culmination of our long-term efforts to fully fund the Federal share of
the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
Last Congress, Senator Jeffords and I twice offered budget amendments
to fully fund IDEA, and I have offered many measures over the years to
increase funding for IDEA. Of course, I also have worked closely with
Senators Kennedy and Harkin on this issue, and I am thrilled to be
joining today with the many other cosponsors of this bill, Senators
Murray, Reed, Hagel, Roberts, Collins, and Snowe.
The Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding IDEA Act offers
Congress the opportunity to fulfill our goal of funding 40 percent of
the cost of educating children with disabilities and to strengthen our
support for children, parents, and local schools. This act is quite
simple, it directs the appropriation of funds for IDEA so that we will
fully fund IDEA by 2007.
When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, we set a goal of helping States
meet their constitutional obligation to provide children with
disabilities a free, appropriate education by paying for 40 percent of
those costs. We have made great strides toward that goal in the last
few years, having doubled Federal funding over the past 5 years.
Nevertheless, we still only provide 15 percent of IDEA costs.
In my own State of Connecticut, in spite of spending hundreds of
millions of dollars to fund special education programs, we are facing a
funding shortfall. In our towns, the situation is even more difficult.
Too often, our local school districts are struggling to meet the needs
of their students with disabilities.
The costs being borne by local communities and school districts are
rising dramatically. From 1992 through 1997, for example, special
education costs in Connecticut rose half again as much as did regular
education costs. Our schools need our help.
Of course, no one in Connecticut, or in any State or community in our
country would question the value of ensuring every child the equal
access to education that he or she is guaranteed by our Constitution.
The only question is how best to do that, and a large part of the
answer is in this legislation. This legislation demonstrates that our
commitment to universal access is matched by our commitment to doing
everything we can to helping States and schools provide that access.
And this amendment will help not only our children and schools, it
will help entire communities, by easing their tax burden. By our
failure to meet our goal of fully funding IDEA, we force local
taxpayers--homeowners and small businesspeople--to pay the higher taxes
that these services require. That is especially a problem in
Connecticut, where so much of education is paid for through local
property taxes.
If we are going to talk about the importance of tax relief for
average Americans, there are few more important steps we can take than
passing this legislation. It will go far to alleviate the tax burden
that these people and businesses bear today.
Last year, the National Governors' Association wrote me that
``Governors believe the single most effective step Congress could take
to help address education needs and priorities, in the context of new
budget constraints, would be to meet its commitment to fully fund the
federal portion of IDEA.''
Over the next 10 years, we're looking at a $2.7 trillion non-Social
Security, non-Medicare surplus. I think that fully funding IDEA is one
of the most productive ways that we can use a small part of that
surplus.
I ask that my colleagues seize this opportunity and support this
amendment and choose to help our schools better serve children with
disabilities, because I am tired of the false dichotomy that many
people perceive between parents of children without disabilities and
parents of children with disabilities.
By fully funding the Federal share of IDEA, and easing the financial
burden on states and schools, we can stop talking about ``children with
disabilities'' and ``children without disabilities,'' and start talking
instead about all children, period.
______
By Mr. ROBERTS:
S. 467. A bill to provide grants for States to adopt the Federal
write-in absentee ballot and to amend the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act to require uniform treatment by States of
Federal write-in absentee ballots; to the Committee on Rules and
Administation.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
[[Page S1908]]
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 467
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Grant Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense, through
the Federal Voting Assistance Program, is authorized to award
grants to States to enable States to adopt and use--
(1) the Federal write-in absentee ballot under section 103
of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
(42 U.S.C. 1973ff-2); and
(2) the absentee ballot mailing envelopes prescribed under
section 101 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff);
in lieu of any State absentee ballot or envelope with respect
to ballots of overseas voters for a primary or general
election for Federal office.
(b) Application.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State, or any other State
official responsible for implementing and monitoring
elections, of each State desiring a grant under this section
shall submit an application to the Secretary of Defense at
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary of Defense by regulation may
reasonably require.
(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) describe the activities for which assistance under this
section is sought; and
(B) provide such additional assurances as the Secretary of
Defense determines to be essential to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this section and section 103 of the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42
U.S.C. 1973ff-2).
(c) Amount of Grant.--The Secretary of Defense shall
determine the amount of any grant to be provided under this
section in such a manner to ensure that all costs for the
purposes for which the grant is awarded will be reimbursed.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of this section.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF FEDERAL WRITE-IN ABSENTEE BALLOT.
Section 103 of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff-2) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(g) Requirements for States Receiving Certain Grants.--If
a State receives a grant amount with respect to use of
Federal write-in absentee ballots under the program
administered by the Federal Voting Assistance Program within
the Department of Defense, the State shall, in addition to
the other requirements of this section--
``(1) treat any otherwise valid Federal write-in absentee
ballot, that meets the uniform requirements promulgated by
the Presidential designee under this title for such ballot,
as meeting applicable State law regarding acceptance of
absentee ballots; and
``(2) accept and count any otherwise valid Federal write-in
absentee ballot received by the appropriate State election
official on a date that is not later than 10 days after the
date of the election to which the ballot refers.
``(h) Regulations.--The Presidential designee shall
promulgate a regulation--
``(1) stating uniform requirements for treatment and
acceptance of Federal write-in absentee ballots; and
``(2) to provide that the design of any absentee ballot or
envelope under this title--
``(A) has a marking to distinguish the ballot and envelope
as belonging to an overseas voter; and
``(B) allows the voter to attest on the ballot that the
ballot is cast prior to the date of the election to which the
ballot refers.''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 468. A bill to designate the Federal building located at 6230 Van
Nuys Boulevard in Van Nuys, California, as the ``James C. Corman
Federal Building''; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to honor the hard work and dedication of the late James C. Corman, an
esteemed Member of the House of Representatives from California for 20
years.
Jim Corman was born in Kansas, and moved to California with his
mother shortly after his father's death. He served in the Marines
during World War II. After the war, Jim worked his way through the
University of California at Los Angeles and the University of Southern
California Law School. He first held public office in 1957, when he was
elected to the Los Angeles City Council.
Jim was first elected to the House in 1960. In 1963, he began serving
on the Judiciary Committee, which he felt handled the issues that were
among the most important and relevant to Americans. As a member of the
Judiciary Committee, he was an influential voice in drafting and
passing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jim always considered
this as the greatest accomplishment of his life.
In 1968, Jim became a member of the Ways and Means Committee, where
he devoted his energy to Social Security, tax, and welfare reform. He
became a crusader for the welfare of senior citizens and the
disadvantaged members of our society.
Recognizing that his constituents would have better access to federal
services if there were a federal building in the San Fernando Valley,
Jim was responsible for securing funds for its construction. It is only
fitting that this building be named after the man who considered
constituent service to be one of his top priorities.
Mr. President, James C. Corman was a well-respected Member of the
House. I am pleased to honor his memory by introducing a bill to
designate the federal building in Van Nuys as the James C. Corman
Federal Building.
______
By Mr. EDWARDS:
S. 469. A bill to provide assistance to States for the purpose of
improving schools through the use of Assistance Teams; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the School Support
and Improvement Act of 2001, a bill designed to help ensure that every
child in America has access to a quality public school, with good
teachers, adequate facilities and a safe environment to learn.
Mr. President, every child deserves and every parent has the right to
expect a top-notch, quality education. For example:
Every child should enter 1st grade healthy and prepared to succeed;
Every child should attend a school that is well-built, well-lit,
well-equipped and well-connected to our modern world; and
Every child should be instructed by a well-trained, well-paid and
qualified teacher.
But some public schools in America do not meet that standard today.
Some of our public schools are failing our children and shortchanging
their future. We need to refocus our energy on turning these schools
around and getting them back on track. This must be the nation's number
one priority.
A quality public school is not a partisan goal; it's not a
conservative or liberal goal; it's not a big city or rural goal; it's
not a goal which separates rich from poor.
It's a simple, common-sense goal we can all agree upon. And if we can
agree, then we should be able to do something about it.
The School Support and Improvement Act is one step in achieving this
common sense goal. The legislation is based on a very important lesson
we have learned in my home state of North Carolina.
As many of you know, North Carolina has been at the forefront of the
effort to reform public education for many years. In fact, President
Bush's new Education Secretary, Rod Paige, called North Carolina's
education system ``a model for the Nation.'' The School Support and
Improvement Act is designed to translate one of the lessons we learned
in North Carolina to the nationwide education reform effort.
At the heart of the North Carolina school reform program is a very
simple idea: immediately after we identify a school that is in trouble,
we assign a special team of experienced, specially trained educators,
principals and administrators to go to the school and help them devise
a plan to turn that school around.
The team begins with an intensive evaluation of teachers,
administration and curriculum. Teachers and local school district
officials work with the Assistance Team to develop a plan tailored to
the school's needs and designed to improve student performance.
Assistance Teams have been remarkably successful in North Carolina.
Since the program started in 1997, Assistance Teams have been assigned
to 33 schools across North Carolina. Of those 33 schools, 29 have
improved significantly and are no longer considered low-performing. The
overall percentage of low-performing schools has also decreased, from
7.5 percent in the 1996-97 school year to 2.1 percent in the 1999-2000
school year.
In short, Assistance Teams are a proven method to get low-performing
[[Page S1909]]
schools back on the path of providing quality education.
Our bill would accomplish two things: First, it would make the North
Carolina model of sending Assistance Teams into low performing schools
a priority throughout the country. Second, it would require that the
utilization of Assistance Teams be a priority in every States' efforts
to turn around low performing schools. In order to carry out this task,
the bill provides additional resources to the States.
Mr. President, with the right tools, and adequate resources, we can
begin to put low-performing schools back on the right track. Our
legislation utilizes a proven model and provides the necessary
resources while still ensuring flexibility for the state and local
educational agencies.
I hope that this legislation will allow other states to benefit from
the sucessful model we have implemented in North Carolina.
When the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee considers
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the coming days, I intend
to offer this proposal as part of that effort. I ask all of my
colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Thank
you.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 469
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``School Support and
Improvement Act of 2001.''
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds--
(1) The percent of low-performing schools in this country
is cause for national concern.
(2) Low-performing schools may not be in a position, or
their own, to make the kinds of changes necessary to turn
themselves around and improve student achievement.
(3) The federal government, States, and school districts
must collaborate with schools to help them improve to meet
the needs of their students.
(4) Schools must be held accountable for their performance
and improvement, but must also be given the tools and
resources they need to succeed.
SEC. 3. FUNDING FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.
Each State educational agency shall reserve 5 percent of
the amount the State educational agency receives under
subpart 2 of part A for fiscal years 2002 through 2008, to
carry out the State agency's responsibilities under sections
1116 and 1117 (20 USC 6318), including carrying out the State
educational agency's statewide assistance and support for
local educational agencies, provided that an adequate
percentage of that reservation is passed to local educational
agencies.
SEC. 4. PRIORITY FOR SCHOOL ASSISTANCE TEAMS.
Sec. 1117 (20 USC 6318) is amended--
(1) in section (a) by adding at the end the following--
(3) Priority.--In assigning and placing school assistance
teams and providing additional support and technical
assistance as described in subsection 1117 (c)(1)(B), a State
educational agency shall give priority in assigning the State
assistance teams under this paragraph to school in which the
educational performance of the students is farthest from
meeting the State standards as determined by the State--
(A) first, to schools subject to corrective action under
section 1116(c)(5);
(B) second, to schools identified for school improvement
under section 1116(c); and
(C) third, to schools that have failed to make adequate
yearly progress under section 1111 for 1 year and where
placement of a State assistance team is appropriate and
requested by the local education agency or the school.
(2) section 1117(c) is amended to read as follows--
(c) School Assistance Teams.--In order to achieve the
purpose described in subsection (a), each State--
(A) shall give priority in its use of program improvement
funds for the establishment of schools assistance teams for
assignment to and placement in schools in the State in
accordance with 1117(a)(3) and for providing such support as
the State educational agency determines to be necessary and
available to assure the effectiveness of such teams.
(i) Composition.--Each school assistance teams shall be
composed of persons knowledgeable about successful schoolwide
projects, school reform, and improving educational
opportunities for low-achieving students including--
(a) teachers;
(b) pupil services personnel;
(c) parents;
(d) distinguished teachers or principals;
(e) representatives of institutions of higher education;
(f) regional educational laboratories or research centers;
(g) outside consultant groups; or
(h) other individuals as the state educational agency, in
consultation with the local educational agency, may deem
appropriate.
(ii) Functions.--Each school assistance team assigned to a
school under this Act shall--
(a) review and analyze all facets of the school's
operation, including the design and operation of the
instructional program, and assist the school in developing
recommendations for improving student performance in that
school;
(b) collaborate with school staff and the local educational
agency serving the school in the design, implementation, and
monitoring of a plan that, if fully implemented, can
reasonably be expected to provide student performance and
help the school meet its goals for improvement, including
adequate yearly progress under section 111(b)(2)(B) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(2)(B));
(c) evaluate, at least semiannually, the effectiveness of
school personnel assigned to the school, including
identifying outstanding teachers and principals, and make
findings and recommendations (including the need for
additional resources, professional development or
compensation) to the school, the local educational agency,
and where appropriate, the State educational agency; and
(d) make additional recommendations as the school
implements the plan described in paragraph (b) to the local
educational agency and the State educational agency
concerning additional assistance and resources that are
needed by the school or the assistance teams.
(iii) Continuation of assistance.--After 1 school year, the
school assistance team may recommend that the school support
team continue to provide assistance or that the local
educational agency or the state educational agency, as
appropriate, take alternative actions with regard to the
school.
(B) may provide additional technical assistance and support
through such approaches as--
(i) the designation and use of distinguished teachers and
principals, chosen from schools served under this part that
have been especially successful in improving academic
achievement;
(ii) providing assistance to the local educational agency
or school in the implementation of research-based
comprehensive school reform models; and
(iii) a review process designed to increase the capacity of
local educational agencies and schools to develop high-
quality school improvement plan; and
(iv) other approaches as the state educational agency may
deem appropriate.
______
By Mr. BOND:
S. 470. A bill to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act, the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 to
ensure that each vote cast by such voter is duly counted, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Support to
Absentee Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Voters Act of 2001. This bill
ensures that Americans serving overseas, be they the men and women of
the military who stand guard on foreign shares, or equally deserving
citizens who serve our country in other venues, will have their vote
counted. American citizens should not loose their right to vote under
arbitrary or unfair standards. It is therefore incumbent upon lawmakers
to ensure their rights are protected.
Although overseas mail is technically supposed to carry a postmark,
the reality of the situation is that circumstances in foreign
countries, or at sea aboard u.S. Navy ships, can result in mail being
sent without a postmark. Currently several states require a postmark
for an absentee ballot to be counted and without such a postmark
citizens are denied their vote through absolutely no fault of their
own. We saw the damaging affects of this standard in our most recent
Presidential election.
My bill provides that states may not refuse to count a ballot
submitted in an election for a Federal office by an absentee uniformed
services member or overseas citizen voter on the grounds that the
ballot was improperly or fraudulently cast ``unless the State finds
clear and convincing evidence'' of fraud in the preparation or casting
of the ballot by the voter. Specifically, the bill states under a
``Clear and Convincing Evidence'' standard, the lack of a witness
signature, address, postmark, or other identifying information may not
be considered clear and convincing evidence of fraud, absent any other
information or evidence. Consequently the mere absence of a postmark
will not disqualify an overseas citizen from casting his or her vote.
Mr. President, our most recent election illustrates the clear need
for
[[Page S1910]]
change in our voting procedures. Reform is needed. By making certain
that American's stationed overseas will have their votes counted, this
bill is one crucial step in that direction. There is need for more
reform however and I am working on a comprehensive election reform bill
targeting abusive practices at home. I look forward to introducing that
legislation next week and working with my colleagues towards adoption
of all these measures.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Wellstone, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 471. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 to provide grants for the renovation of schools; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today we will be introducing the Public
School Repair and Renovation Act. This legislation will provide grants
to local schools so they can make the repairs to ensure the safety of
their students. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bingaman,
Kennedy, Wellsone, Dodd, and Clinton on this legislation.
In 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers issued a Report Card
for America's Infrastructure which reported serious problems with the
physical infrastructure in our nation. However, the most alarming
finding is the failing grade to schools in the United States--the only
area to receive a failing grade.
It is a national disgrace that the nicest places our kids see are
shopping malls, sports arenas, and movie theaters, and the most rundown
place they see is their school. What signal are we sending them about
the value we place on them, their education and future?
Modernizing and repairing our nation's schools is something I've been
advocating for over a decade now. I secured $100 million in the fiscal
year 1995 appropriations bill as a down payment on a school
modernization program and was disappointed when those funds were
rescinded.
But we made real progress last year with the passage of a $1.2
billion initiative to make emergency repairs. That was a bipartisan
agreement hammered out by Senator Specter and me in negotiations on the
fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill with Congressman Goodling and the
White House.
This was a 1 year authorization and the School Repair and Renovation
Act will reauthorize this bipartisan plan for 5 years. This program
provides grants to Local Education Agencies to help them make urgently
needed repairs and to pay for special education and construction
related technology expenses.
Funds will be distributed to the States. States will then distribute
75 percent of the funds on a competitive basis to local school
districts to make emergency repairs such as fixing fire code violation,
repairing the roof or installing new plumbing. The remaining 25 percent
will be distributed competitively to local school districts to use for
technology activities related to school renovation or for activities
authorized under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act.
The School Repair and Renovation Act is a key component in a two-
prong strategy to modernize our nation's schools.
In the near future I will join forces with Representatives Johnson
and Rangel and introduce the America's Better Classrooms Act in the
Senate to provide tax credits for school construction projects. This
bipartisan legislation would leverage $1.7 billion in tax credits over
5 years to pay the interest on $25 billion in school modernization
bonds.
I know this approach will work because it mirrors a successful school
construction demonstration program I started in Iowa in 1997. The Iowa
demonstration is a two-prong response to our school modernization
needs. First, we provide grants to local school districts to make
urgent repairs to remedy fire code violations. Second, grants are made
to local school districts to subsidize a portion of the cost for a new
construction project.
The program has been a big success. During the first 2 years of the
demonstration, federal funds of $14.7 million supported projects
totaling $142 million--each federal dollar leveraged $10.33.
There is a legitimate federal role in helping fix our nation's
crumbling schools, and we can do so without undermining local control
of education. This federal role is recognized by President Bush who is
recommending an expanded use of private activity bonds for school
construction projects.
Over the past few years we have had several partisan skirmishes
related to school construction. This is a new year, a new Congress, and
a new administration. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
enact the School Repair and Renovation Act of 2001. I ask unanimous
consent that a copy of the report card to which I referred be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
1998 REPORT CARD FOR AMERICA's INFRASTRUCTURE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject Grade Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roads.................. D- More than half (59 percent) of our
roadways are in poor, mediocre or
fair condition. More than 70 percent
of peak-hour traffic occurs in
congested conditions. It will cost
$263 billion to eliminate the
backlog of needs and maintain repair
levels. Another $94 billion is
needed for modest improvement--a
$357 billion total.
Bridges................ C- Nearly one of every three bridges
(31.4 percent) is rated structurally
deficient or functionally obsolete.
It will require $80 billion to
eliminate the current backlog of
bridge deficiencies and maintain
repair levels.
Mass Transit........... C Twenty percent of buses, 23 percent
of rail vehicles, and 38 percent of
rural and specialized vehicles are
in deficient condition. Twenty-one
percent of rail track requires
improvement. Forty-eight percent of
rail maintenance buildings, 65
percent of all rail yards and 46
percent of signals and communication
equipment are in fair or poor
condition. The investment needed to
maintain conditions is $39 billion.
It would take up to $72 billion to
improve conditions.
Aviation............... C- There are 22 airports that are
seriously congested. Passenger
enplanements are expected to climb
3.9 percent annually to 827.1
million in 2008. At current
capacity, this growth will lead to
gridlock by 2004 or 2005. Estimates
for capital investment needs range
from $40-60 billion in the next five
years to meet design requirements
and expand capacity to meet demand.
Schools................ F One-third of all schools need
extensive repair or replacement.
Nearly 60 percent of schools have at
least one major building problem,
and more than half have inadequate
environmental conditions. Forty-six
percent lack basic wiring to support
computer systems. It will cost about
$112 billion to repair, renovate and
modernize our schools Another $60
billion in new construction is
needed to accommodate the 3 million
new students expected in the next
decade.
Drinking Water......... D More than 16,000 community water
systems (29 percent) did not comply
with the Safe Drinking Water Act
standards in 1993. The total
infrastructure need remains large--
$138.4 billion. More than $76.8
billion of that is needed right now
to protect public health.
Wastewater............. D+ Today, 60 percent of our rivers and
lakes are fishable and swimmable.
There remain an estimated 300,000 to
400.000 contaminated groundwater
sites. America needs to invest
roughly $140 billion over the next
20 years in its wastewater treatment
systems. An additional 2,000 plants
may be necessary by the year 2016.
Dams................... D There are 2,100 regulated dams that
are considered unsafe. Every state
has at least one high-hazard dam,
which upon failure would cause
significant loss of life and
property. There were more than 200
documented dam failures across the
nation in the past few years. It
would cost about $1 billion to
rehabilitate documented unsafe dams.
Solid Waste............ C- Totals non-hazardous municipal solid
waste will increase from 208 to 218
million tons annually by the year
2000, even though the per capita
waste generation rate will decrease
from 1,606 to 1,570 pounds per
person per year. Total expenditures
for managing non-hazardous municipal
solid waste in 1991 were $18 billion
and are expected to reach $75
billion by the year 2000.
Hazardous Waste........ D- More than 530 million tons of
municipal and industrial hazardous
waste is generated in the U.S. each
year. Since 1980, only 423 (32
percent) of the 1,200 Superfund
sites on the National Priorities
List have been cleaned up. The NPL
is expected to grow to 2,000 in the
next several years. The price tag
for Superfund and related clean up
programs is an estimated $750
billion and could rise to $1
trillion over the next 30 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
America's Infrastructure G.P.A. = D. Total Investment Needs = $1.3
Trillion
A = Exception
B = Good
C = Mediocre
D = Poor
F = Indequate
Each category was evaluated on the basis of condition and performance,
capacity vs. need, and funding vs. need.
[[Page S1911]]
____________________