Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 65 (Monday, May 14, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 65 (Monday, May 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4858-S4880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 1, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1) to extend programs and activities under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Pending:

Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
Kennedy (for Murray) amendment No. 378 (to amendment No.
358), to provide for class size reduction programs.
Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No.
358), to remove the 21st century community learning center
program from the list of programs covered by performance
agreements.
Cleland amendment No. 376 (to amendment No. 358), to
provide for school safety enhancement, including the
establishment of the National Center for School and Youth
Safety.
Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to
establish school-based partnerships between local law
enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing
school resource officers who operate in and around elementary
and secondary schools.
Specter modified amendment No. 388 (to amendment No. 378),
to provide for class size reduction.
Voinovich amendment No. 389 (to amendment No. 358), to
modify provisions relating to State applications and plans
and school improvement to provide for the input of the
Governor of the State involved.
Carnahan amendment No. 374 (to amendment No. 358), to
improve the quality of education in our Nation's classrooms.
Reed amendment No. 425 (to amendment No. 358), to revise
provisions regarding the Reading First Program.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Nevada is recognized to call up his amendment No. 460.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time not
run on this amendment. I will wait until the manager of the bill
arrives. I ask unanimous consent that that be part of the order, and
pending that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 460 To Amendment No. 358

Mr. REID. Mr. President, pursuant to order, I send an amendment to
the desk. It is at the desk. I ask the amendment be read at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) proposes an amendment
numbered 460.

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

(Purpose: To provide assistance to entities that emphasize language and
life skills programs for limited English proficient students)

On page 254, line 21, insert before the period the
following: ``(including organizations and entities that carry
out projects described in section 1609(d))''.
On page 257, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
``(d) After School Services.--Grant funds awarded under
this part may be used by organizations or entities to
implement programs to provide after school services for
limited English proficient students that emphasize language
and life skills.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the State of Nevada in Las Vegas, there
is a very innovative teacher. Her name is Priscilla Rocha. She is a
wonderful woman who has been a friend of mine for many years. She is
also a member of the State board of education. She teaches the fourth
grade, and she has had almost 20 years of experience. She has taught in
Texas. As I indicated, she now teaches in Las Vegas.
About 3 years ago, she started an afterschool program in her
classroom in response to the many struggles she saw with children who
had limited English proficiency. She observed that the parents were not
equipped with English skills or the academic background to help these
children with their homework. Children were going home in some
instances with no supervision because both parents worked. She found
that these children kept falling further and further behind in their
academic work, and she recognized that it was only a matter of time
until the children dropped out of school.
What she calls her homework center operates as follows: Children in
grades 1-5 are referred to the program by teachers and school
counselors. Parents are first notified, and they have to sign a consent
that the children can enter into this afterschool homework program. She
has found it easy to get college students to help by tutoring the
children on a one-to-one basis. She has also found that some children
need to stay in the program only for a matter of weeks. Others need to
spend a matter of years in the program.
Currently, the Las Vegas program is funded through a HUD community
block grant from Clark County and the city of Las Vegas. This is held
in a school classroom, but direct funding does not come from the school
district. The funding goes to a community-based organization that Ms.
Rocha helped found in 1992 called Hispanic Association for Bilingual
Literacy in Education, or HABLE. Ms. Rocha is the Executive Director of
HABLE. This program has been a remarkable success. Starting with six
students in 1993,

[[Page S4859]]

she has worked with about 250 students since then. Most of these
children do not speak and did not speak a single word of English when
they came to Ms. Rocha. Now almost 100 of these kids have graduated
from high school, and a like number, almost another hundred, are on the
way to successfully completing high school in the next few years.
It was hard to find examples that I should bring to the Chamber today
because there are really so many, but I have chosen a few with the help
of Ms. Rocha. For instance, Evilia Gomez was one of the original fourth
graders to start with Ms. Rocha in 1993. While she has always been a
bright girl and had been a good student in Mexico, when she came to
America, she didn't speak a word of English. We find that far too often
students like Evilia simply are put in a special education program.
``They can't read; they must be dumb if they can't read.''
Well, this little girl wasn't dumb. The fact that she couldn't speak
did not mean that she was slow or learning disabled. With the extra
attention she was given, she rapidly learned English and quickly
transitioned to regular classes. She did so much extra course work that
she graduated from Las Vegas High School 2 years early as valedictorian
of the class. Of all the students who graduated from Las Vegas High
School in the class of 1999, a girl who didn't speak a single word of
English 6 years earlier ended up with the highest grade point average
of any student in that very large high school. Not only is this a
special child, this is a special program, and we need to replicate it.
Another girl in Las Vegas, Johanna Rangel, has a similar success
story. She didn't graduate as valedictorian, but she did extremely
well. She is one of the original six who worked with Priscilla when
this program started. When she came to this program, she didn't speak a
single word of English. Now she is President of a Latino students'
organization at Desert Pines High School and is involved in many extra
curricular activities. She will graduate in a month. She did extremely
well in school, and she plans to attend college this fall.
She is quick to point out that her success is due to her being able
to come to the program Priscilla Rocha developed, and she believes the
program is the reason she was able to graduate from high school. In
fact, she said, when she invited Ms. Rocha to her graduation:

This would not have been possible without you. I wouldn't
be graduating without your help.

There are many others. You have to understand that Johanna's parents
didn't speak a word of English when they brought her from Mexico to the
United States. They couldn't help with her homework; no matter how
badly they wanted to help, they couldn't. They didn't speak English.
Her risk of failure and thus dropping out, was dramatic, but this
program turned things around for her.
Children want to learn. They want to be productive. There is a lot
going on in America today about English as an only language. States are
passing, have passed, and are trying to pass laws saying that there
should only be one language.
Mr. President, there is only one language anyway. If you want to
succeed in America, you don't need to pass a law saying English is the
only language. It is the only language. If you want to succeed, you
have to speak English. It used to be if you wanted to be a diplomat,
you had to speak French. Not anymore. The language of diplomacy is
English. If you want to fly an airplane anyplace in the world, the air
traffic controllers' language is English.
So not only did Johanna want to succeed, she wanted to learn to speak
English. She needed help. Her parents could not help in that regard. So
I am excited about this program. We have all kinds of success stories.
Alvaro Rodriguez is a 10-year-old fourth grader who began Ms. Rocha's
program at the start of this school year. He and his family came
straight from Mexico. None of them were able to speak a single word of
English. By the end of this school year, Alvaro will start
transitioning into regular reading and writing programs in English.
Next year, he won't be in a special program. He will be a fifth grader
and he will be mainstreamed.
Carla Rojas, another 10-year-old, is benefitting from this program.
She came to Las Vegas from Mexico in the middle of this school year. It
is hard enough for a 10-year-old to change schools in the middle of the
year, but Carla was put into a school where she didn't understand a
single word of what the teacher or the kids were saying. This program
has helped her so much that by the end of this year it is believed that
she will be adapted so well that she will be able to take classes with
everybody else this coming year.
Priscilla Rocha says of Carla: ``She is a very smart and energetic
girl. All we have to do is give her the little push she needs.''
So these programs work well, as they should work well. The increasing
diversity of our Nation enriches our communities. It also challenges
our public schools to meet both the English language and literacy needs
of our expanding limited English proficient student populations. The
families of these students speak their native languages at home and
often have limited English skills, making it difficult for parents and
family members to help children with their unique academic language
struggles.
Think about it. You go to school and they are speaking one language
there, and you go home and they are speaking a different language. How
do you improve upon what you don't know? It is hard to do.
That is why programs such as the one I have outlined are so
important. To address the need for literacy for these students, my
amendment expands the current 21st century learning centers in this
bill to include programs for limited English proficient students.
I have talked about the Homework Center in Las Vegas. It is vital to
the education of these limited English proficient students who don't
have the resources at home to support them. These programs need to have
the support of the entire education system. Why? Because it means
economic security and quality of life. We can't ignore the fact that
across this country the dropout rate for limited English proficient
youth remains chronically and unacceptably high at almost 45 percent.
Almost half the kids who have trouble with their language skills drop
out of school.
Over half a million students drop out of school every year; 3,000
students drop out of school every day in America. Every child who drops
out is less than they can be. It puts a burden on the criminal justice
system and our welfare system. It is something with which we certainly
need to do better. We have about 5 million Americans who lack a high
school degree and are not in the process of getting one. In our prisons
in America today, line them all up; 82 percent of them have no high
school education. Is there a correlation between education and getting
in trouble? Of course. I didn't speak improperly. I said 82 percent of
the people in our prisons have not graduated from high school. Does
that mean that the 82 percent who haven't graduated are a bunch of
dopes? The answer is no. The vast majority of those students, for one
reason or another, didn't keep up, or could not keep up; they didn't
have the incentives, and many of them have language problems. This
amendment will help with those language problems.

The primary reason children drop out of school is a lack of success
in school. They believe they can be a bigger hit out on the street
beating up on somebody or selling dope. They don't understand the
importance of an education. If they do understand the importance of an
education, they have dropped back so far that they know they can never
catch up. They can catch up, but they think that they can never catch
up.
This is not just a problem of a few kids not getting an education. A
high school dropout rate impacts the economy and quality of life, not
only for the children that drop out, as I have mentioned, but their
families and for each and every one of us.
Every time a child drops out of school, we have failed a little bit.
It hurts us. It hurts us because it doesn't sound right morally, but it
hurts us economically, and it hurts the social fabric of our country.
We need an educated workforce. If this continues, we will have
increased

[[Page S4860]]

unemployment rates and increased prison incarceration, people on
welfare and other Federal programs, and unemployment rates of high
school dropouts are more than twice that of high school graduates.
Remember, we are pushing kids to go beyond high school--maybe not to
college, but the unemployment rates of high school dropouts are more
than twice those of high school graduates.
The probability of falling into poverty is three times higher for
high school dropouts than for those who finish high school. That is 300
percent higher.
The median personal income of high school graduates, during the prime
earning years, ages 25 to 54, is 200 percent that of high school
dropouts.
The median personal income of college graduates is more than three
times that of high school dropouts.
The children, sadly, of high school dropouts have a much greater
chance of dropping out of school. It becomes a pattern.
The problem is worse for America's Hispanics--a growing segment of
our population. Hispanics students have a dropout rate of more than 30
percent--three times compared to the overall rate of 11 percent.
Afterschool programs tailored for limited English proficient students
will go a long way toward helping to keep these fine young people in
school.
There is an increasing need all over America for language services.
Nearly 20 percent of the students in U.S. schools speak a foreign
language at home. According to the National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education, that figure will grow.
In some parts of the country, non-English speakers are referred to
special education, as I have indicated, based solely on their inability
to speak English the way teachers and others believe they should. Some
may think if they don't speak English correctly, they must be dumb. Not
so. Some school systems--and I believe this may be in violation of the
civil rights laws of our country--continue to assign students to
special education programs on the basis of criteria that essentially
measures and evaluates English skills of students.
Currently, students fail to receive the right programs because the
guidance and funding districts receive is inadequate to develop
comprehensive programs for limited English proficiency students.
I say to my friend, the Senator from Vermont, who is managing this
bill, I have always appreciated his forceful advocacy of fully funding
IDEA--programs for those with special needs. The reason I do that is,
it is the right thing to do for the children, and it is the right thing
to do for the school districts because it leaves them money to do
things like this--special programs, such as helping a kid who doesn't
speak English. The way it is now, they are so strapped for money, all
they are able to do is the basics. If we fully fund the IDEA program,
as we should do, it will allow some money for these programs that will
make a difference in kids' lives.
More funding is needed to develop effective special education
programs for diverse students to meet the many challenges that they
face.
Funding would provide schools with the support they need to devise
language programs that fit the needs of the districts.
School districts all over America are scrambling to meet the basics.
Some have more problems than others. Some have problems with crumbling
schools. In Nevada, especially in southern Nevada where 70 percent of
the people live, we have problems with the inability to build enough
new schools.
We need to build one new school in the Clark County school district
every month to keep up with the growth. We hold the record. One year we
dedicated 18 new schools in the Clark County School Districts.
Schools have problems for various reasons. We in southern Nevada have
the problem of not being able to keep up with the growth. We need help
with construction. We need help with class size reduction. I am
speaking today about the need to fully fund IDEA and to also allow this
amendment to be adopted so that we have the ability, within this new
education bill we are going to pass, to fund programs for kids who do
not speak English as well as they would be able to with a little bit of
direction.
I appreciate President Bush focusing on education, but we cannot
educate kids on the cheap. It costs money to educate kids. Most of the
controversy in the school choice debate attached to the President's
proposal is to let low-income parents use Federal aid to apply to
private school alternatives when their children are in public schools
and they believe the schools do not provide services for their
children's needs.
I believe a better approach is to look at something that Priscilla
Rocha has done in Las Vegas. We do not need to take these kids out of
public schools. What we need to do is take care of funding, let people
like Priscilla Rocha be inventive, give her the resources so she, and
other educators like her, can have afterschool programs that are
important and help the limited English proficient student. I believe a
broader approach to the President's parental choice option is
necessary, one that calls for a revamping of a 30-year-old underfunded
policy for limited English proficiency education.
The principles behind properly funding these programs are simple. For
one, the millions of American children with limited proficiency in
English should not be consigned to years of classes that avoid helping
them gain rapid English proficiency. For that, increased funding is
necessary.
If one of these children is put in a special education class, think
what that does to that child. They know they are as smart as the kid
next to them, they just cannot talk, or maybe they do not know they are
as smart as the kid next to them. That is even more sad.
I think of literacy as an empowerment issue. I think that education
empowers us, and that education does not mean you have to be a doctor,
lawyer, or college professor. It means being able to read and write. It
means having an opportunity to go to a technical school to be an
automobile mechanic.
Mr. President, when you and I graduated from high school, if we
wanted to be an automobile mechanic, we got out of high school and
started working on cars. Students cannot do that anymore. They have to
be able to read manuals. They have to attend classes and get a
certificate before anyone will hire them.
Automobile agencies in Las Vegas for a number of years--I did not
realize this--imported people to work on these cars from Utah because
Utah issued certificates. Our community colleges in southern Nevada
offer training and a degree in the automotive field. A student can then
go to Pete Findley Oldsmobile or Fletcher Jones Chevrolet or any of the
automobile dealerships, and they will hire them. It takes an education.

Literacy is an empowerment issue. While these children are in
America, we want them to have the very best, and having the very best
is not an act of generosity on our part. It is an act of doing the
right thing, not only for them but for us. Every child who drops out of
school not only hurts himself or herself and his family, but hurts us.
We have to recognize that making programs available to help these kids
through school is good for all of us.
Look at the practicality of literacy as an empowerment issue. It is
not a question of picking one method or another. It has more to do with
the idea that we have millions of children with limited proficiency in
English. These children should be equipped with the necessary tools to
prosper in America.
The sooner you speak English, the sooner you are a fully functioning
citizen who can participate in society.
I have given the example of Priscilla Rocha's program, but I am sure
there are many others around the country that work. I am familiar with
Ms. Rocha's program because she has been a friend of mine for many
years. I know what a caring individual she is.
I am not advocating a set program. I am advocating that we make sure
this education bill allows us to do what, in my opinion, the country
needs.
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program in this
legislation expands eligibility to include programs that emphasize
language support for limited English proficient students.
There are all kinds of afterschool programs around the country that
work. For example, there is a program in Madison, WI. The city operates
a

[[Page S4861]]

safe haven afterschool program for more than 200 children at three
elementary schools in communities with high crime and poverty rates.
The program activities include homework help, academic enrichment,
arts and crafts, supervised games and physical education, and field
trips. As the program enters its third year, the schools report
improved attendance and reduced conflicts during afterschool hours.
Children in the program also show greater interest in completing their
homework.
Another example can be found in New York City where the YMCA of
Greater New York, in partnership with the New York City Board of
Education, is working to bring extended school services to 10,000
public school children by turning 200 of the city's underserved public
schools into virtual Y's from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. after school each day.
There are all kinds of programs. Second, third, and fourth graders
take part in these programs.
A program in Charleston, WV, helps 60 students who live in a
community plagued by crime and drugs attend a summer camp operated by
Chandler Elementary School.
I have given examples of programs that help 10,000 schoolchildren,
and one that helps 60 schoolchildren. Is one any better than the other?
Probably not, but they both work.
Finally, a program in Waco, TX, the Lighted School Program, has kept
middle schools open after school until 7 p.m. at night Monday through
Thursday for activities and services to approximately 200 students who
attend regularly. Nineteen local organizations provide activities and
services. Baylor University contributes 115 college students as
mentors. Each works with one child for a full school year.
The recreation department of that city leads supervised field trips
and games. Two art centers send instructors to the schools to lead
hands-on activities, and library staff help children read and act out
stories.
Children who participated in the Lighted School Program say they
appreciate having a safe place to go after school, that it keeps them
off the streets and it is more fun, they say, than sitting at home in
front of the television. Several say if the program did not exist, they
would be in big trouble.
There are programs that do help. My afterschool literacy amendment
will not substitute for school-based academic instruction but will
complement it.
My amendment expands the existing 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Program. This program helps fund a variety of valuable
programs. This grant program is directed at inner-city and rural
schools that are working in partnership with community organizations to
provide learning and enrichment programs outside of regular school
hours for children and adults.
A community learning center is an entity within a public elementary,
middle, or secondary school building that provides educational,
recreational, health, and social service programs for residents of all
ages within a local community. It is generally operated by a school
district which is legally responsible within a State for providing the
public education for these students.

There are many examples of afterschool programs including: literacy
programs; senior citizen programs; children's daycare services; summer
and weekend school programs; nutrition and health programs; expanded
library services; telecommunications and technology education programs;
parenting skills; employment counseling, training, and placement; and
services for individuals with disabilities. These are already included
in the bill. I want to make sure there is no confusion, that everyone
understands we need to make sure the 21st Century Community Learning
Center also includes school-based instruction for children who have
limited English skills.
It is important we do that. These programs, I believe, are essential
to decreasing the number of students who dropout of school. Just think,
instead of having 3,000 children dropping out of school, let's say we
have 2,500, if there are 500 kids we can keep in school, I think it
will be well worth it.
I hope we send a message by voting unanimously as a Senate for this
legislation. I hope it has a strong vote. It is something that is
important to the country. I think it is important to this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for his excellent
presentation. He has put his finger on one of the most serious problems
we have in this Nation, and that is the dropout problem.
We have to be very careful when we find somebody is proud of their
record because their averages have improved, because then we find out
the reason they have improved is so many kids dropped out of school
that the ones who are left average a higher percentage of successful
students. So we have to be very careful when we examine these matters.
Also, the Senator did a very excellent job pointing out the group of
students who have the most difficult problems staying in school are
those with language difficulties, Hispanics in particular.
His amendment is an excellent one. I would love to accept it, but I
understand it can further serve another purpose, which, as we are
aware, happens on Mondays. So I ask at some point, when the Senator is
ready, we call for a vote.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield my time if there is any.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield back my time.
Mr. REID. I ask the amendment be set aside for further business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we begin this critical week with debate
on the education bill, I wanted to make some points that I think apply
throughout the debate on education, and I wanted to share with my
colleagues some of my hopes, aspirations, and concerns. I thank the
manager on the minority side for allowing us to do so.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator coming. I know
he has an important message. I look forward to listening to him.
Mr. BOND. I thank the manager.
Mr. President, there have been numerous times that I have come to the
Senate floor to say--and I come, once again, to repeat--that education
is a national priority, but it is an obligation and responsibility of
those at the State and local level. The education of our children has
traditionally been--and ought to be in the future--carried out and
implemented at the local level.
I remember a couple of years ago when we were talking about Federal
control that one of my colleagues, who is now no longer with us, was in
a debate with a representative in the Department of Education. The
Department of Education person said: I care just as much about your
children and their needs and their operations in school and their
success as you do, to which he replied: Well, that's great. Do you know
their names? No. Do you know what their scores are? No. Do you know
what their challenges are? No. Do you know where their schools are? No.
The simple fact is that none of us here in Washington, no matter how
much we are concerned about education in general and children in
general, can know what the problems are and what the challenges are and
how best to meet those challenges for students in each local school
district throughout this Nation.
I think we would all say that each child is different. Each school
district is different. Each school is different. I think for that and
other good reasons the Federal role in education has been a limited
one, and I believe it should be.

[[Page S4862]]

The underlying bill before us--S. 1--recognizes the nature and the
scope of this role. The legislation creates a leadership role for the
Federal Government in encouraging States to adopt commonsense systems
based upon standards, measurements, and accountability. The underlying
bill as reported out of our committee did not attempt to micromanage
the local schools and classrooms.
S. 1 also would give us the opportunity to redefine how we measure
success. For too long, many of my colleagues here have supported
throwing more and more money at education. And the Washington-based
education establishment generally has determined our success in
education programs based on the dollars spent--not on the academic
achievements, not on the progress, and not on what our children are
learning in school to be better prepared for their role in this
increasingly complex and competitive society.
If more money were the answer, we wouldn't be debating this bill
because we wouldn't have the problem. We have poured more and more
Federal money into education, and the academic achievement of our
students has been level or in some cases it has fallen behind.
In pouring more money into public education, we have gone to great
lengths to detail precisely how those teachers--the men and women who
know the names of the child in their classroom, and know what his or
her problems are, more and more they are being told what to do by
Washington.
According to the Education Commission of the States:

In the 1999-2000 budget, the federal government spent
almost $44 billion on elementary and secondary education
programs. This funding was spread across 35 different
education programs in 15 different federal departments.

We did a little research a couple years ago and found out there are
over 760 education programs. It was that proliferation of good ideas
from Washington that led me at the time to propose what we call the
Direct Check For Education, to combine some of those biggest programs,
cut the redtape, send it back to the school districts, and tell the
school districts these are all things we think you ought to consider
but do not require them to dot every i and cross every t, jump through
the hoops, and fill out forms and fill out reports and play ``Mother
May I'' with the Federal Government.
All of these programs that exist today were started with good
intentions, and they have gotten more money. Look at the money. Shown
on this chart are the appropriations for ESEA programs in billions of
dollars. Starting in 1990, it looks as if, oh, around $7 billion was
spent, and now it has gone up to, oh, I would say close to $380
billion.
This shows what has happened in the average national scale math
scores for 9-year-olds. That is measured on the chart with the green
line. It is a flat line. If that were a line on a key chart in a
hospital measuring the heartbeat of the patient, it would say the
patient is dead. All the money has produced no appreciable benefits.
That is the math scores.
Maybe we can look at another chart to see if we got any better
results. How have we done in reading? This chart has the appropriations
for ESEA programs in billions of dollars. It is the same type of chart
as the last one. It shows the national 4th grade reading scores: a flat
line, no life in the patient. We are not getting any better. We are
spending more money to do no better.
I am afraid we are about to hijack S. 1 and turn it into a replay of
the same kind of Federal micromanagement and Federal direction of
education that has managed to use a whole lot of money without getting
any results.
These Federal programs--the Education Commission of the States says
35; I say over 760--have gotten us burdensome regulations, unfunded
mandates, and unwanted meddling. The folks at the local level--whether
they be parents or teachers or school board members or administrators--
say they have less and less control. Jobs of our teachers and
administrators are harder than they should be. We have eroded the
opportunity for creativity and motivation.
I don't know how many of you have taken the opportunity to do what I
have done in Missouri. Over the last 3 years, I have traveled
throughout the State--in the metropolitan areas, the suburban areas,
the rural areas--and I have met with representatives of teachers, of
school board members, of administrators. I have asked: What is the
problem here? And too many of them have come back to say: We are
spending our time as glorified grantsmen, trying to get more money from
the Federal Government, trying to jump through the hoops, trying to do
what the Federal Government wants us to do. We don't have the time to
prepare our lessons and to prepare our students for the education they
need for a lifetime.

This is a serious problem. This is what the teachers, the
administrators, the school board members are telling us throughout my
State. It comes through loud and clear, and it is on a bipartisan
basis. From the most conservative Republicans to the most liberal
Democrats, the people in Missouri, who are involved at the local school
level, tell us there is far too much time, effort, and energy wasted on
complying with Federal dictates, Federal mandates.
Some of our schools say that, although the Federal Government only
provides an average of about 5 percent--I guess in Missouri it is a
little less than the national average of the dollars going to
education--it, in effect, controls about 50 percent of what is done
because these Federal mandates and these Federal dictates--all these
good ideas that went into these programs--tell the local schools how
they ought to handle the programs they would otherwise be doing to
educate their kids. And most of them say, well over 50 percent of the
redtape and the headache and the requirements and the hassle they go
through comes from the Federal Government.
How can we afford to keep spending Federal education dollars in the
same way we have been doing it for years if it is not achieving any
success? I do not think we can. I do not think we should stand for it.
I have talked to too many parents and teachers, school board members,
community and business leaders who say: Our children deserve better.
This country deserves better.
Over the past several years, I have opposed the creation of specific
new programs and their dictates on the style of their education, even
these amendments that have been offered in good faith. These amendments
were good ideas, if we had taken our good ideas and ran for membership
on a school board. I am sure many of my colleagues could make great
contributions if they were on the school board in Mexico, MO, or the R-
6 school district or the St. Louis city school board or the Jefferson
City school board, but we are not.
The problem is, there are different needs and different challenges in
Missouri, in Washington, in Arizona, in Maine, or in Florida. When we
pass a law, when we pass a dictate or a requirement, we do not know how
that is going to impact the kids who are the ones who have to be
taught. We may understand education in general, but there are
educational needs that are specific and direct in each school district
as the individual student involved.
I cannot believe, if my colleagues went back home, spent some time,
saddled up the horses, went out and just rode the circuit, that you
wouldn't hear the same things. I know, first hand. Our State has some
of the best teachers, the best principals, superintendents, and school
board members in the country. They are outstanding people. They are
really concerned.
You think we are concerned about education. Well, we were concerned
about education last week and will be this week, but we have to be
concerned about the budget, we have to be concerned about tax policy,
and we are going to be concerned about energy policy.
These dedicated men and women are spending their lifetime dedicated
to one thing; that is, teaching our children. What do the people who
are actually involved in education have to say?
The superintendent of Springfield, MO, public schools said:

. . . the amount of paperwork that the federal government
causes local school districts to engage in is
often overwhelming. The extra effort and time often
reduces productive classroom time and energy that could

[[Page S4863]]

better be spent working directly with children.

Mr. Berrey of the Wentzville R-IV school said:

Limiting federal intrusion into decisions best left to
local communities is what I believe our founding fathers had
in mind.

From the Neosho, MO, R-5 school district:

The individuals who are working most closely with the
students are indeed the ones who can best decide how this
money can be spent for the benefit of students' education.

The superintendent of the Special School District of St. Louis County
said:

As head of a school district specializing in special
education, I fully understand how my district's financial
needs differ from other school district's needs. In order to
best utilize the limited funds that are at my disposal, I
need maximum flexibility in determining how to put those
funds to the best use.

The president of the board of education of the Blue Springs, MO,
school district said:

Without local control, the focus is taken away from the
needs specific to the children in each school system.

But I think maybe the superintendent of the Taneyville, MO, R-II
school district sums it up well:

I feel that State and Federal government has tied our
school's hands with mandated programs and mandated uses for
the monies we are receiving. The schools are likened to
puppets on a string. Pull this string this way and the school
does this; pull it another way and the school does that.
School systems and communities are as different from one
another as individual people are different. What works for
one will not work for another.

I offer those because that is the kind of information all of us need
as we move forward on any kind of education bill, certainly one as
important as the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. My colleagues haven't been in a position to listen to
those people and ask them questions directly, but I suggest to them, if
they go home and ask questions, they will hear the same, with similar
eloquence and similar heartfelt concern, in their States.
To me the issue is simple: We must give our States and localities the
flexibility to utilize the limited amount of Federal resources as they
see fit and hold them accountable in the form of academic achievement.
We must recognize and reward States and localities that succeed in
improving academic achievement. There also should be consequences for
States and localities that fail.
We have a choice between having Washington, DC, control our schools
and the local level. Who is most likely to waste money? There is no
contest there. Unfortunately, we have demonstrated in Washington
collectively that no matter how good our ideas, how well intentioned
our efforts are to provide direction and counseling and hope for
schools, we may not be doing the right job; we may be causing them more
problem.
A little girl hustling to school--she was late for school--said a
little prayer that she would get to school on time. She went about
another half block and got going too fast and fell down on her face.
She offered up another little prayer: I would like you to help me to
get to school, but don't push so hard. I fell down.
Sometimes we are pushing a little too hard. Sometimes what we try to
do to help the people who are trying to deliver education try to uplift
and empower our children pushes them down on their face. I think it is
time that we consolidate those programs, that we take all these great
revenues and give parents a say. Let school boards determine the
policy, let administrators know how to run their school, and let
teachers who know the names and the problems and the opportunities and
the potential of each child make those educational decisions.
S. 1, the underlying bill, consolidates a myriad of Federal programs
into a set of programs designed to allow States and local school
districts to make decisions on their own, to determine their
priorities, recognizing that education reform will take place in the
classroom, not because of all of the wonderful, great ideas we have in
Washington, DC. The underlying concept of S. 1 is the right way to go.
Amendments on class size are absolutely unnecessary. Class size
reduction is an option in S. 1's larger, more flexible program for
improving the quality of classroom teaching. It should be an option,
not a mandate.
Let me ask this question: Has it been shown that a fifth grade class
must have only so many children in it to be successful? I have talked
to a lot of administrators who say the most important thing for
teaching that fifth grade class and each child in it is to make sure
the quality of the teacher is good. If we can't come up with two
quality teachers, all we do, in splitting up the class, is say to those
children who go with a less qualified teacher that they don't get as
good an education.
What if the school district has already devoted its money to reducing
class size, used its local funds? What they need is better pay to keep
those teachers there.
On classroom funding, are we going to say: You can only use this
money to hire more teachers? What if the principal said: I have some
great teachers, but they are going to go into the private sector if I
don't give them a pay increase? How does that make sense for us to say
to every school district in the Nation: Thou shalt hire more teachers?
It doesn't make sense to me.

Local school districts are best equipped to determine what they need.
Many have already reduced class size where they thought necessary. They
might have done that at the expense of some other things: Teacher pay,
technology, class books. Maybe they need professional development for
the teachers they have. How do we know? I will guarantee you, we don't
know. We can't know for every school district in the Nation. That is
why we ought not be mandating that Federal dollars be spent for a
purpose that may or may not be the top priority need of that district.
Mandating specific resources for class size reduction really takes
money off the table for other schools that have already addressed that
specific issue. As I said earlier, they may have decided that
professional development for their teachers to improve the quality of
teaching is more important to obtain academic success for the students
and schools.
We always deal with limited budgets. There is not going to be an
unlimited source of money going into anything we need. The question is
how best we spend the money we have. All of us agree that a good,
quality education is our top national priority. We can't say we are
going to have all the specific programs and we are going to meet every
need of every school district because State and local funds still cover
at least 90 percent--in most States more--of education funding. We are
not going to replace that. We shouldn't because we didn't run for this
office to be a national school board.
The President and the Secretary of Education are men deeply committed
to education, but they are not good superintendents of schools or
principals or even teachers, in this instance, because they have to
deal with all the schools and they can't know all the kids' names.
The American public is and should be interested in the debate in
Washington because they overwhelmingly believe that good education for
our children is a top priority. But they also know what really matters
is what goes on in the schools and the classrooms around the country.
As much as we like to argue among ourselves, what is said in this
Chamber or even in the other body is not going to drive the education
of a student or make sure that student is better educated. That depends
upon a teacher and the school in which that child studies.
Individuals on one side of this debate believe that the Olympians on
the hill, those of us in Washington with fine titles, those of us with
national responsibilities in the Congress or those in the Education
Department, a group of very concerned individuals, know what is best
for the folks down in the valley.
I happen to be on the side who believe that the great ideas, the
accomplishments, the successes that are going to make our children
better educated for the future, that are going to help them meet the
challenges of this wonderful but challenging century are going to be
made by the folks in the valley, the men and women who staff our
schools, who are the teachers, administrators, superintendents,
principals who run the school boards, and who are the parents who,
above all, are the ones with the greatest stake in the education of
their children.

[[Page S4864]]

I hope this body does not hijack S. 1 and make it into another system
of categorical grants: Jump through this hoop and you will get some
dollars. But then you will have to fill out reports and check in with
Washington to see how you used them, and then you will have to file
more reports, or you can jump through this hoop if you make a
successful application. And if you jump through the right hoops and
somebody in Washington agrees that it is OK, then you have to follow up
with more reports and redtape and forms and tell them what you did. I
don't think that is the way we ought to be going on education.
I urge my colleagues, as we look at these amendments before us, to
ask these basic questions: Is this amendment or provision going to
enable somebody who is teaching children in a school in my State to do
a better job? Is it going to be across the board? Is it going to enable
every teacher in every school district? Or is it only going to affect a
few school districts, where our priority happens to be that school's
priority?
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to rethink how we are going in
terms of setting up too many hoops for schools to jump through. We want
to see better education, but Federal hoops are not the way to get
there.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator for his dedication
to education. He is a very valuable member of my committee. I have
listened carefully to his message, and I thank him.
I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont thanks the Senator
from Vermont for yielding to the Senator from Vermont, and the Senator
from Vermont thanks the Chair for recognizing both Senators from
Vermont.
Someday somebody looking through trivia in the Record will try to
figure out what the heck that was all about.
Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation? Are there
amendments pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are amendments pending. It would take
unanimous consent to set them aside.

Amendment No. 424

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
424 be added to the list of those amendments that are now pending. I
send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for Mr. Hatch, for
himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an
amendment numbered 424.

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

(Purpose: To provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls
Clubs of America)

On page 893, after line 14, add the following:

SEC. ____. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF AMERICA.

Section 401 of the Economic Espionage Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 13751 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by striking ``1,000'' and inserting ``1,200'';
(B) by striking ``2,500'' and inserting ``4,000''; and
(C) by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting
``December 31, 2006, serving not less than 6,000,000 young
people'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
and 2001'' and inserting ``2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and
2006''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``90 days'' and inserting ``30 days'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``1,000'' and
inserting ``1,200''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2,500 Boys and
Girls Clubs of America facilities in operation before January
1, 2000'' and inserting ``4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs of
America facilities in operation before January 1, 2007''; and
(3) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section--
``(A) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(B) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
``(C) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(D) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; and
``(E) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.''.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does this become the 12th amendment, or one
on the list on those now pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is on the list of those that are now
pending.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, I join with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee in offering this amendment. As the Senators know, this
reauthorizes Department of Justice grants for new Boys and Girls Clubs
in each of our 50 States.
This bipartisan amendment authorizes $60 million in Department of
Justice grants for each of the next 5 years to establish 1,200
additional Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation. In fact, this will
bring the number of Boys and Girls Clubs to 4,000. That means they will
serve approximately 6 million young people by January 1, 2007.
I am very impressed with what I see about the Boys and Girls Clubs as
I travel around the country. In 1997, I was very proud to join with
Senator Hatch and others to pass bipartisan legislation to authorize
grants by the Department of Justice to fund 2,500 Boys and Girls Clubs
across the Nation. We got very strong bipartisan support. We increased
the Department of Justice grant funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs
from $20 million in fiscal year 1998 to $60 million in fiscal year
2001. That is why we have now 2,591 Boys and Girls Clubs in all 50
States and 3.3 million children are served. It is a success story.
I hear from parents certainly across my State how valuable it is to
have the Boys and Girls Clubs. I hear it also from police chiefs. In
fact, one police chief told me, rather than giving him a couple more
police officers, fund a Boys and Girls Club in his district; it would
be more beneficial. This long-term Federal commitment has enabled
Vermonters to establish six Boys and Girls Clubs--in Brattleboro,
Burlington, Montpelier, Randolph, Rutland, and Vergennes. In fact, I
believe the Vermont Boys and Girls Clubs have received more than a
million dollars from the Department of Justice grants since 1998.
Last week at a Vermont town meeting on heroin prevention and
treatment, I was honored to present a check for more than $150,000 in
Department of Justice funds to the members of the Burlington club to
continue helping young Vermonters find some constructive alternatives
for both their talents and energies, because we know that in Vermont
and across the Nation Boys and Girls Clubs are proving they are a
growing success at preventing crime and supporting young children.
Parents, educators, law enforcement officers, and others know we need
safe havens where young people can learn and grow up free from the
influence of the drugs and gangs and crime. That is why the Boys and
Girls Clubs are so important to our Nation's children. Indeed, the
success already in Vermont has led to efforts to create nine more clubs
throughout my home State. Continued Federal support would be critical
to these expansion efforts in Vermont and in the other 49 States as
well.
I was disappointed when the President's budget request called for
eliminating funding for Boys and Girls Clubs from the Department of
Justice's programs for State and local law enforcement assistance. I
realize there was an effort to bring down the budget to compensate for
what has been a very large tax cut, but I think this money should have
been left in. I think the administration makes a mistake in cutting out
the money for the Boys and Girls Clubs.
In fact, based on last year's appropriations, the failure of the Bush
administration to request funding for the Department of Justice grants
for Boys and Girls Clubs amounts to a $60 million cut in our Federal
drug and crime prevention efforts. I have written to the
administration. I hope the President will reconsider this decision. I
hope he will realize that the Boys and Girls Clubs is not a Democratic
initiative or a Republican initiative; this is a commonsense initiative
that both parties have endorsed.
Those of us who have children or grandchildren know instinctively how
important it is. If we have any doubt, we can just talk to any of the
parents in the towns or communities where there are Boys and Girls
Clubs; they will tell you how valuable they are. In

[[Page S4865]]

fact, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America are the most successful youth
organization in the country today, according to the Chronicle of
Philanthropy.
I worked together on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Attorney
General Ashcroft, and I applaud him because he is a big booster of the
Boys and Girls Clubs. He spent a lot of his youth at a club in
Missouri, he told me.
I am hopeful that the Attorney General will also support additional
Department of Justice funding for more Boys and Girls Clubs. He was
very helpful to the debate when Senator Harkin and I offered an
amendment to add one-half billion dollars to the Department of Justice
Department in fiscal year 2002 that would fund programs that assist
State and local law enforcement. Our amendment, the Leahy-Harkin law
enforcement budget amendment, passed the Senate unanimously. It does
continue funding for the Boys and Girls Clubs and their Department of
Justice grants.
In fact, the budget resolution conference report retained most of the
funding increases in the Leahy-Harkin law enforcement amendment.
I hope the amendment today to reauthorize the Department of Justice
grants to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America will clear the way for
the administration to endorse Federal funding for this effort. It is
something on which Senator Hatch and I have joined forces. We want to
demonstrate this is not a Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or
Democratic effort. It is a commonsense effort because these clubs make
such a real difference in the lives of millions of America's young
people.
Mr. President, I see others in the Chamber, and I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from North Carolina be recognized and that I follow him after his
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Senator is most gracious, and I
certainly appreciate it. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
for me to present my remarks seated at my desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. What is the pending amendment? Are
there pending amendments, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, there are pending amendments.
Mr. HELMS. I ask unanimous consent that they be laid aside
temporarily so I may offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 574 To Amendment No. 358

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 574 and ask that it
be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 574.

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

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of Federal funds by any State or local
educational agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts
of America in providing equal access to school premises or facilities)

At the appropriate place, add the following:

TITLE ____--EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES

SEC. ____1. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Boy Scouts of America
Equal Access Act''.

SEC. ____2. EQUAL ACCESS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds made available through the Department of
Education shall be provided to any public elementary school,
public secondary school, local educational agency, or State
educational agency, if the school or a school served by the
agency--
(1) has a designated open forum; and
(2) denies equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to,
or discriminates against, any group affiliated with the Boy
Scouts of America or any other youth group that wishes to
conduct a meeting within that designated open forum, on the
basis of the membership or leadership criteria of the Boy
Scouts of America or of the youth group that prohibit the
acceptance of homosexuals, or individuals who reject the Boy
Scouts' or the youth group's oath of allegiance to God and
country, as members or leaders.
(b) Termination of Assistance and Other Action.--
(1) Departmental action.--The Secretary is authorized and
directed to effectuate subsection (a) by issuing, and
securing compliance with, rules or orders with respect to a
public school or agency that receives funds made available
through the Department of Education and that denies equal
access, or a fair opportunity to meet, or discriminates, as
described in subsection (a).
(2) Procedure.--The Secretary shall issue and secure
compliance with the rules or orders, under paragraph (1), in
a manner consistent with the procedure used by a Federal
department or agency under section 602 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1).
(3) Judicial review.--Any action taken by the Secretary
under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the judicial review
described in section 603 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d-2). Any
person aggrieved by the action may obtain that judicial
review in the manner, and to the extent, provided in section
603 of that Act.
(c) Definitions and Rule.--
(1) Definitions.--In this section:
(A) Elementary school; local educational agency; secondary
school; state educational agency.--The terms ``elementary
school'', ``local educational agency'', ``secondary school'',
and ``State educational agency'' have the meanings given the
terms in section 3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965.
(B) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education, acting through the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights of the Department of Education.
(C) Youth group.--The term ``youth group'' means any group
or organization intended to serve young people under the age
of 21.
(2) Rule.--For purposes of this section, an elementary
school or secondary school has a designated open forum
whenever the school involved grants an offering to or
opportunity for 1 or more youth or community groups to meet
on school premises or in school facilities before or after
the hours during which attendance at the school is
compulsory.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 648 To Amendment No. 574

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an
amendment numbered 648 to amendment No. 574.

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

In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:

TITLE ____--EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES

SEC. ____1. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Boy Scouts of America
Equal Access Act''.

SEC. ____2. EQUAL ACCESS.

[[Page S4866]]

(1) Definitions.--In this section:
(A) Elementary school; local educational agency; secondary
school; state educational agency.--The terms ``elementary
school'', ``local educational agency'', ``secondary school'',
and ``State educational agency'' have the meanings given the
terms in section 3 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965.
(B) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education, acting through the Assistant Secretary for
Civil Rights of the Department of Education.
(C) Youth group.--The term ``youth group'' means any group
or organization intended to serve young people under the age
of 21.
(2) Rule.--For purposes of this section, an elementary
school or secondary school has a designated open forum
whenever the school involved grants an offering to or
opportunity for 1 or more youth or community groups to meet
on school premises or in school facilities before or after
the hours during which attendance at the school is
compulsory.

SEC. ____3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment
of this Act.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for years, the Boy Scouts of America
organization has been subjected to malicious assaults by some
homosexuals and some liberal politicians simply because the Boy Scouts
of America organization, and many individual scout groups, have
steadfastly continued to uphold their moral and decent standards for
scouting and the leaders of that great organization.
I have long admired and supported scouting--its leaders, and the Boy
Scouts themselves. (I was one a long time ago, although we will not
discuss how long ago that was.) In any case, it comes as no surprise to
me that the Supreme Court properly upheld in June of last year the
constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America--their rights to
establish their own membership guidelines, which included no obligation
whatsoever to accept homosexuals as Boy Scout members or leaders.
Nor was there any surprise that there came the customary discordant
company of radical militants demanding that this landmark decision of
the U.S. Supreme Court be undermined.
Mr. President, they never miss a beat, not one--those who demand that
everybody else's principles must be laid aside in order to protect the
rights of homosexual conduct, or they go on and on like Tennyson's
Brook. These radical militants are up to the same old tactics when
targeting an honorable and respectable organization, the Boy Scouts of
America.
Where else do you suppose these people are aiming their attacks now?
The answer: the public schools of America. School districts across
America are now being pressured to kick the Boy Scouts of America out
of federally funded public school facilities. Why and how come, you may
ask. I will tell you. It is because the Boy Scouts will not agree to
surrender their first amendment rights, and they will not accept the
agenda of the radical left in this country.
I asked the Congressional Research Service for a report about how
many school districts have already taken hostile actions against the
Boy Scouts of America. The Congressional Research Service reported to
me that at least nine school districts are known to have publicly
attacked the Boy Scouts of America, and in the majority of these cases
they have done so in an outright rejection of the Supreme Court's
ruling protecting Boy Scouts' rights.
One of the more publicized instances occurred in Broward County, FL--
a place which earned some notoriety last fall due to its ballot
confusion during the Presidential election. Obviously, Broward County,
FL, is in another state of confusion: Its school board voted
unanimously to forbid--get this--forbid the Boy Scouts of America to
use the public school facilities for their meetings, as had
historically been the case, unless the Boy Scouts compromised with,
guess who? That is right: the homosexual leaders of Broward County.
Thankfully, the U.S. district court in Florida intervened at that
point, and the court has issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting
Broward County from moving forward in evicting the Boy Scouts from the
school premises.
I am obliged to acknowledge that Broward County is not the only
school district taking such action. In my own State of North Carolina,
members of the Chapel Hill School District have demanded that the Boy
Scouts of America change their policy (which was upheld, Mr. President,
you will remember, by the Supreme Court in June of last year), or the
Chapel Hill School District will send the Boy Scouts packing to find
another meeting place. Either do it their way or get out of the school.
That is what they are saying in Chapel Hill, NC.
Only if they will accept homosexuals as their leaders and fellow
scouts will these Boy Scouts be allowed to continue their meetings on
school property. But those very same meeting places at school remain
open for more than 800 Gay-Straight Alliance clubs. These are
homosexual school clubs that have been formed with the assistance of
the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, which is a radical
group committed to promoting immoral lifestyles in the school systems
of America.
With groups such as these welcomed in our public schools, while the
Boy Scouts are kicked out, schoolchildren need, it seems to me, to have
the Boy Scouts stick around, and that is what I want to do with this
legislation, if I can, and if the Senate will go along with it.
This arrogant discriminatory treatment of Boy Scouts of America must
not be allowed to continue, and that is why I am sitting here this
afternoon offering amendments to reinforce the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision upholding the first amendment rights of the Boy Scouts of
America and not oblige those Boy Scouts to compromise their membership
or leadership guidelines, nor any of their moral principles.
Specifically, the pending first-degree and second-degree amendments
propose that any public school receiving Federal funds from the
Department of Education must provide the Boy Scouts or youth groups
such as the Boy Scouts equal access to school facilities and must not
discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America by requiring scouts or
any other youth groups to accept homosexuals as members or as leaders
or any other individuals who reject the Boy Scouts' oath of allegiance
to God and country. The penalty for such violation, could constitute
the risk of their Federal funding being eliminated.

This amendment provides the Office of Civil Rights within the
Department of Education the statutory authority to investigate any
discriminatory action taken against The Boy Scouts of America based on
their membership or leadership criteria.
In other words, DOE will handle cases of discrimination against the
Boy Scouts, in the same manner that DOE currently handles other cases
of discrimination, which are barred by Federal law and may result in
termination of Federal funds.
For those unfamiliar with the existing process: DOE has given their
Office of Civil Rights oversight responsibility over discrimination
complaints. The Office of Civil Rights typically notifies and warns a
fund recipient--such as a school--to correct its actions or else.
However, it should be noted that according to CRS:

Historically, the fund termination sanction has been
infrequently exercised, and most cases are settled at . . .
the investigative process. . . .

Therefore, it's highly unlikely that any school will in fact ever
have its funding cut-off; unless it adamantly refuses to provide the
Boy Scouts of America equal access to school facilities.
Mr. President, 70 years ago, I remember raising my hand to take the
Scout Oath. I have it written here but I really do not need it. How
many times on Friday night would we stand with our hands up and say:

On my honor as a Scout, I will do my best to do my duty to
God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law. To help other
people at all times, to keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Mr. President. I hope the Senate will, as the U.S. Supreme Court has
already done, uphold the constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of
America to continue to take this oath, meaningfully and sincerely.
I ask unanimous consent that the two memoranda, prepared by the
Congressional Research Service and a legal analysis, which was prepared
by the American Center for Law and Justice in support of my amendment
on the grounds that it is constitutional--I ask

[[Page S4867]]

that all of these documents be printed in the Congressional Record at
the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Memorandum to Hon. Jesse Helms from American Law Division, CRS, Mar. 5,
2001

Federal Civil Rights Enforcement by the Office of Civil Rights of the
U.S. Department of Education and Related Matters

At your request, this memorandum summarizes our recent
discussions relative to enforcement by federal administrative
agencies--in particular, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in
the Department of Education--of Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act and other federal statutes prohibiting
discrimination in state and local programs receiving federal
financial assistance.
OCR is responsible for enforcing federal laws barring
discrimination based on race, sex, national origin,
disability or age in all federal education programs or
activities funded by the federal government at the
elementary, secondary, or higher educational level. It
derives its authority mainly from the following statutory
sources: Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which enacted
a generic ban on race, color, or national origin
discrimination in all federally assisted programs,
educational or otherwise; Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the
basis of sex in education programs or activities that receive
federal financial assistance; Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, banning discrimination because of
handicap in all federally funded activities; and the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975.
Federal agencies were authorized by Title VI to enforce
nondiscrimination ``by issuing rules, regulations, and orders
of general applicability'' and to secure compliance through
imposition of sanctions, which may include the ``termination
or refusal to grant or to continue assistance'' to
recipients, or by ``any other means authorized by law.'' An
early target of Title VI enforcement efforts were segregated
``dual school'' systems in the South, which had resisted the
mandate of Brown v. Board of Education to desegregate with
``all deliberate speed.'' The Civil Rights Act enlisted the
executive branch--in this case, the former Department of
Health Education and Welfare--as an ally of the courts in
effectuating compliance with desegregation requirements by
means of threatened fund cutoffs. With statutory creation of
the Department of Education in 1979, OCR was made the
principal entity responsible for administratively enforcing
the panoply of federal laws barring discrimination in
programs and activities carried on by federally financed
schools, school districts, and higher education institutions.
OCR enforces the noted statutes by conducting
investigations of complaints filed in its ten regional
offices or at national headquarters in Washington, or by
conducting compliance reviews. Compliance reviews are
internally generated and are intended as broad investigations
of overall compliance by recipients of Federal financial
assistance from the Department of Education. Institutions are
targeted for such review by examining information gathered in
surveys by OCR and from other sources. The surveys are
intended to assist the agency in identifying potential areas
of ``system discrimination.'' Upon finding an apparent
violation of Title VI or other applicable law, OCR notifies
the fund recipient, i.e. the state or local education agency,
and must then seek voluntary compliance. If voluntary
compliance cannot be secured, OCR may pursue enforcement
through fund termination proceedings within the agency or
seek compliance by other authorized means. The administrative
fund termination process entails notifying the alleged
discriminatory entity of the opportunity for hearing before a
DOE administrative law judge. Alternatively, and more often
the case, the matter may be referred to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) with recommendation for appropriate legal
action.
Historically, the fund termination sanction has been
infrequently exercised, and most cases are settled at one of
four stages of the investigative process: early complaint
resolution; during negotiations prior to a ``letter of
finding'' by the agency of a violation, or following such a
finding; and at the administrative enforcement stage, when
the institution is given a final opportunity to correct any
violation found by the ALJ. In addition, litigation
instituted by DOJ, on referral from DOE, or by private
parties pursuant to an implied right of action has been an
important avenue for Title VI enforcement. Although much
litigation has concerned public school desegregation, Title
VI judicial remedies have also been invoked for claims of
discrimination in school disciplinary proceedings, failure to
provide bilingual or supplemental instruction for non-English
speaking students, student grades and ability grouping,
financial aid or scholarship programs.

* * * * *

____

[Memorandum to Hon. Jesse Helms from American Law Division, CRS, Mar.
6, 2001]

Actions by Various School Districts Across the Nation to Restrict
Access by Local Scouting Organizations to Public School Facilities

This memorandum responds to your inquiry, and our recent
conversation, relative to the above.
In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled, by a 5 to 4 vote, that the Boy Scouts have a
constitutional right to exclude homosexual members and
leaders. Since then, controversies have arisen in Broward
County, Florida, New York City, and several other
jurisdictions concerning continued local school board support
of scouting programs. In Broward County, school authorities
reportedly ``evicted 57 Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs
from school property in December [2000]'' for violating a
nondiscrimination clause in their agreement for use of the
facilities. The Boy Scouts responded with a federal lawsuit
in Miami district court, apparently still pending, which
challenges the officials' action as unlawful ``viewpoint
discrimination.'' The action claims that the school district
violated the Scouts' right to free expression and equal
access to public facilities. As we discussed, presumably
neither Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act nor Executive
Order 13160, issued by former President Clinton, would
prohibit denial by local educational agencies of school
facilities or services to scouting organizations.
A search of the Westlaw all news database revealed that the
following state or local educational agencies have taken, or
are considering, actions to restrict Boy Scout access to
public school facilities since the Supreme Court decision in
Boy Scouts of America:
Broward County, Fla.: ``Broward County's school board voted
unanimously to keep the Boy Scouts of America from using
public schools to hold meetings and recruitment drives
because of the groups ban on gays.'' 11/16/00 Fla. Today 06,
2000 WL 20222668.
Chapel Hill N.C.: ``The Chapel Hill-Carrboro school board
voted [on January 11, 2001] to give Scouts until June to
either go against the rules of their organization or lose
their sponsorship and meeting places in schools.'' 1/13/01
News & Observer (Raleigh NC) B1, 2001 WL 3447689.
New York City: ``School Chancellor Harold Levy . . . said
the city school system would not enter into any new contracts
with the Boy Scouts of America;'' and that all sponsorships
and special privileges by city schools would be terminated,
but that they ``will be allowed to have access to school
buildings after school hours on the same basis as other
organizations, which means they would have to seek customary
approval first.'' 12/3/00 Star Ledger (Newark N.J.) 028, 2000
WL 29894638.
Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles City Council has ``directed
all of the city's departments to review contracts with the
Boy Scouts and order an audit of those contracts to ensure
they comply with a nondiscrimination clause.'' Id., 2000 WL
29894638.
Madison, Wis.: ``A resolution unanimously passed by the
Madison School Board . . . harshly criticizes the Boy Scouts
of America for its exclusionary policies, but the resolution
does not change district policies towards the group.'' 12/6/
00 Wis. St. J. B3, 2000 WL 24297730.
Seattle Wa.: ``Seattle Public Schools officials could
decide as early as [January 2001] whether to restrict Boy
Scouts of America's access to students and school
buildings.'' 12/19/00 Seattle Post-Intelligencer B2, 2000 WL
5309920. No additional reportage on the current status of
Seattle schools was located.
Minneapolis Mn: Under unanimously-passed Minneapolis School
Board policy, ``[s]couts no longer can pass out recruitment
material in the city's public schools and individual schools
cannot sponsor troops; however, scouting units may still use
school buildings for meetings and other events.'' 10/11/00
Stat. trib. (Minneapolis-St. Paul) 01B, 2000 WL 6992730.
Worchester Ma.: ``Superintendent of Schools Alfred Tutela .
. . banned the Boy Scouts from holding meetings in the
properties of the Wachusett Regional Schools District.'' 9/
15/00 Telegram and Gazette (Worchester) B1, 2000 WL 10219354.
Framingham Ma.: Scouts ``were banned from recruiting in the
district's schools.'' 12/29/00 Nat'l Post A 16, 2000 WL
30654763.
We hope that this is of assistance to you.
____

[Memorandum to Office of Senator Jesse Helms from American Center for
Law & Justice, May 17, 2001]

The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (S. 1) Is Fully
Constitutional

introduction

The American Center for Law and Justice (``ACLJ'') is a
nonprofit, public interest law firm and educational
organization dedicated to protecting religious liberty, human
life, and the family. ACLJ attorneys have successfully argued
constitutional law cases in federal and state courts across
the United States. See, e.g., Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network
of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997); Lamb's Chapel v.
Center Moriches Union Free School District, 113 S.Ct. 2141
(1993); Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 113 S.Ct.
753 (1993); United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990);
Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990);
Frisby v. Shultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988); Board of Airport
Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987). As
reflected by these cases, the ACLJ has a substantial interest
in preserving First Amendment freedoms for groups in various
speech fora.
The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act (S. 1) is
consonant with the Free Speech and Free Association
provisions of the First

[[Page S4868]]

Amendment. The denial of equal access for speech or
association by the Boy Scouts in a forum generally open to
all other types of speech is unconstitutional viewpoint-based
discrimination. See generally, Lamb's Chapel v. Center
Moriches Union Free School Dist., 113 S.Ct. 2141 (1993). And,
as to this issue in particular, a Federal District Court in
Florida has very recently ruled that such discriminatory
exclusion of the Boy Scouts from public school facilities was
unconstitutional, and enjoined the school district from such
further discrimination. See generally, Boy Scouts of America
v. Till, Case No. 00-7776-Civ-Middlebrooks-Bandstra (S.D.
Fla. Mar. 21, 2001). The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access
Act follows in that determination to prevent discrimination
and seeks to insure equal and constitutional treatment of
youth groups, such as the Boy Scouts, without regard to such
organizations oath of allegiance to God and country, or the
acceptance of homosexuality.

* * * * *

The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act is not only
constitutional, the equal access that it seeks to protect is
mandated by the Constitution.

exclusion of the boy scouts from an otherwise open forum would be
regarded with strict scrutiny by the courts

When a school district by policy or practice rents its
facilities to community groups it has clearly created an open
forum and cannot then exclude speech because of its content.
As the Supreme Court has said, ``[w]here the State has opened
a forum for direct citizen involvement, exclusions bear a
heavy burden of justification.'' Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S.
at 268.
When the government excludes speech from an open forum, the
government ``must therefore satisfy the standard of review
appropriate to content-based exclusions. It must show that
its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state
interest, and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that
end.'' Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. at 270. See also, Perry,
460 U.S. at 45; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund, 473 U.S. at 800. When an otherwise available
public facility has erected a content-based prohibition
against religious speech in an open forum, for example, it
must justify that burden by showing that it has a compelling
governmental interest implemented by the least restrictive
means. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. at 270; accord Adams
Outdoor Advertising v. City of Newport News, 373 S.E.2d 917,
923 (Va. 1988). Like the City of Hialeah in Church of Lukumi
v. City of Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993), those that would
target the Boy Scouts for special disabilities misunderstand
that ``the interest given in justification of [such a]
restriction is not compelling.'' Lukumi, 113 S.Ct. at 2234.
If Establishment Clause concerns were not a compelling reason
for the targeted restrictions in Lukumi, then generalized
concerns about the Boy Scouts taking a politically incorrect
stand on the issue of homosexuality is also not compelling.

EVEN IN A NONPUBLIC FORUM SUCH CONTENT-BASED EXCLUSIONS ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Supreme Court has made it clear that even in the
context of a non-public forum, this type of viewpoint-based
exclusion is unconstitutional and discriminatory. As the
Supreme Court explained in Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense
and Educ. Fund. Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 806 (1985), in a non-
public forum ``the government violates the First Amendment
when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the
point of view the espouses on an otherwise includible
topic.''
In Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School
Dist., 113 S.Ct. 2141 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court declared
that a religious speech exclusion (which is parallel to the
moral viewpoint exclusion here) was unconstitutional
viewpoint-based discrimination. The per se exclusion of a
certain moral perspective is viewpoint-discriminatory. To
make this point clear, the Court in Lamb's Chapel used non-
public forum standards to emphasize that even in that context
the Center Moriches School District has engaged in
unconstitutional viewpoint-based discrimination because of
its religious speech exclusion. See e.g., Lamb's Chapel, 113
S.Ct. at 2141.
In Lamb's Chapel, the Center Moriches school district
allowed dozens of groups to engage in a host of First
Amendment expressive activities, but denied a church the
right to rent the facilities after school hours to show a
film series to adults on child-rearing because of its
religious content. Lamb's Chapel, 113 S.Ct. at 2144. In
declaring the religious speech ban to be unconstitutional the
Court stated:
The film involved here no doubt dealt with a subject
otherwise permissible under Rule 10, and its exhibition was
denied solely because the film dealt with the subject from a
religious standpoint. The principle that has emerged from our
cases is that the First Amendment forbids the government to
regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas
at the expense of others.--113 S.Ct. at 2147-48 (emphasis
added, citations and quotation marks omitted).

* * * * *

Like the school district in Lamb's Chapel, public school
districts afford hundreds of thousands of people the
opportunity to express themselves through a myriad assortment
of words and phrases. And, as in Lamb's Chapel, the sole
rationale for the exclusion of the Boy Scouts is a reliance
upon the censorship itself as a justification for such a flat
ban. This circular reasoning cannot withstand the strict
scrutiny which must applied to such censorship. Such ``overt,
viewpoint based discrimination contradicts the Speech Clause
of the First Amendment.'' 113 S.Ct. at 2149, (Kennedy, J.
concurring).
Even if the public school facilities were deemed to be non-
public fora, a policy targeting the Boy Scouts for exclusion
would fail the governing constitutional test. The Supreme
Court has explained that ``[c]ontrol over access to a
nonpublic forum can be based on subject matter and speaker
identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in
light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint-
neutral.'' Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806 (emphasis added). The
Boy Scouts exclusion fails even this deferential standard.
There is simply no reasonable basis for the per se
exclusion of speech by private actors based upon speech
content. Ultimately, some public school districts claim the
sheer power to exclude the private speech of the Boy Scouts
for no better reason than just because the school district
says so. Such an assertion of a stark power to discriminate
against a particular group because of its message is
incompatible with the Constitution under any standard.

* * * * *

CONCLUSION

The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act is fully
constitutional, and properly exercises Congress power of the
purse to insure the constitutionally recognized rights and
privileges of all youth groups, like the Boy Scouts, are
protected and honored. While it may be that exclusion of the
Boy Scouts has become a cause celebre for some since the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,
120 S.Ct. 2446 (200), censorship and discrimination are not
answers to disagreements over stands on moral issues. The
First Amendment specifically permits a variety of viewpoints
to be expressed in the marketplace of ideas, without fear of
censorship or exclusion.
The Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act bill merely
mandates what is constitutionally required. As Boy Scouts of
America v. Till clearly illustrates, however, there is a
clear and present need for such legislation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield for
a question?
Mr. President, I ask consent to be recognized following the remarks
of the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Helms amendment in two degrees.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask the Helms amendment be temporarily
laid aside so I can speak on the bill itself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise to add my thoughts to this important debate
about the proposed annual testing requirements for students in grades
3-8. This bill that we are debating would require states to implement
annual testing in reading and math by the 2005-2006 school year; to
develop standards for science and history by the 2005-2006 school year;
and to implement annual assessments in science for students in grades
3-8 by the 2007-2008 school year.
I commend the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] for his
commitment to ensuring that these tests are high in quality and do not
have an adverse impact on students, teachers, schools, school
districts, and States. I am pleased to be listed as a cosponsor of a
number of his amendments to this bill to improve its testing
provisions.
I actually heard a lot about this proposal for testing from the
people of Wisconsin, and their response has been almost universally
negative. My constituents oppose this proposal for many reasons,
including the cost of developing and implementing additional tests, the
loss of teaching time every year to prepare for and take the tests, the
linking of success on these tests to ESEA administrative funds, and the
pressure that these additional tests will place on students, teachers,
schools, and school districts.
I share my constituents' concerns about this proposed Federal
mandate. I find it interesting that proponents of the BEST Act say that
this bill will return more control to the states and local school
districts. I strongly support local control over our children's day-to-
day classroom experiences. In my view, however, this massive new
federal testing mandate runs counter to the idea of local control.
Many States and local school districts around the country already
have

[[Page S4869]]

testing programs in place. We should leave the means and frequency of
assessment up to the States and local school districts who bear the
responsibility for educating our children. Every State and every school
district is different. A uniform testing policy may, therefore, not be
the best approach.
I am extremely concerned that this new Federal requirement will teach
our children that education is not about preparing for their futures,
but rather about preparing for tests. That education is really about
sharp number two pencils and test sheets; about making sure that little
round bubbles are filled in completely; and--if their school districts
and states have enough money--maybe about exam booklets for short
answer and essay questions.
American students are already tested at many levels--in their
classrooms, in their schools, in their districts, and in their States.
My home state of Wisconsin currently tests students in reading in
grade 3 through the Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test, and in
reading, language, math, science, and social studies in grades 4, 8,
and 10 with the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations.
Wisconsin also will require a high school graduation test beginning in
the 2003-2004 school year. And this is in addition to regular classroom
tests and quizzes and tests given at the district level by many of the
426 school districts in my State. Then, for those students hoping to go
to college, there is the pre-SAT, the SAT, the ACT and on and on.
I know; I have four kids who are just completing all that process, or
have in the last couple of years. It is an awful lot of testing
already.
One of my constituents who is a high school counselor said the high
school students in her district spend so much time taking standardized
tests that the district could award them one-half of a credit for
testing. How much testing is worth one-half of a credit? During their 4
years in high school, the students in this district will spend 84 hours
taking standardized tests--84 hours. This does not even include regular
classroom tests, final exams, or instruction time spent on test
preparation.
According to one teacher who recently contacted me regarding this
legislation:

Already I see that teachers are spending too much time on
test preparation rather than good instruction. The test
administration itself takes valuable time away from
instruction and does not provide new data on individual
children for the well informed teacher. . . . [M]ultiple
choice tests with some short answer [questions] only measure
rudimentary knowledge. They rely on memorizing and
regurgitating isolated facts and most items only allow one
correct answer. Students are being evaluated on one single
test. What if the student has a bad day? Lastly, the truly
scary part is that standardized tests ensure that half of our
students will always be `below average.' How can we meet the
benchmark that everyone will score proficient and advanced
when the tests are designed to never let that happen?. .
.Taking more tests is not going to improve learning.

I have heard from many education professionals such as these in my
state that this new testing requirement is a waste of money and a waste
of time. These people are committed to educating the children of my
state, and they don't oppose testing. I think we can all agree that
testing has its place. What they oppose is the magnitude of testing
that is proposed in this bill.
One of the biggest concerns I have heard about this program is its
cost. In my home state of Wisconsin, where the state imposes limits on
the amount of money school districts can raise and spend annually,
education budgets are already stretched to the breaking point, and
federal funding is absolutely critical. And to add a federally-mandated
testing program with little in the way of resources to implement it
will only compound this problem. I am pleased that the Senate passed an
amendment offered by the Chairman of the HELP Committee, Mr. Jeffords,
to increase funding for this testing program but I remain concerned
this bill still falls far short of authorizing enough funding for this
program.
Under the provisions of the BEST Act, Wisconsin would have to develop
new reading tests for grades 5, 6, and 7 and new math tests for grades
3, 5, 6, and 7. According to the Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction, the estimated cost to add these additional tests would be
between $2 million and $5.3 million annually, depending on the type of
tests chosen by the state. And this is over and above the $1.5 million
the state already spends on testing in grades 3, 4, and 8. And this
figure does not include the cost of the state-mandated Wisconsin
Knowledge and Concepts Examination for grade 10, which also fulfills
the federal requirement to tests students in math and reading at least
once between grade 10 and grade 12. And it does not include the cost of
the Wisconsin High School Graduation Test. And it does not include the
additional cost that the state will have to incur to develop and
implement the additional science tests in grades 3, 5, 6, and 7 that
this bill requires to begin in the 2007-2008 school year.
Teachers in my state are concerned about the amount of time that they
will have to spend preparing their students to take the tests and
administering the tests. They are concerned that these additional tests
will disrupt the flow of education in their classrooms. One teacher
said the preparation for the tests Wisconsin already requires can take
up to a month, and the administration of the test takes another week.
That is five weeks out of the school year. And this bill would require
teachers to take a huge chunk out of each year in grades 3-8. In my
view, and in the view of the people of my state, this time can be
better spent on regular classroom instruction.
In addition to the financial cost and the instruction time lost, my
constituents are concerned about the value of these tests to students,
parents, and teachers. According to one teacher, the existing tests
don't have any meaning to students and have little meaning to classroom
teachers.
The impact of these tests on students varies. Some students have high
test anxiety and, as a result, grow to fear tests. Others simply do not
care about the tests, and fill in random answers on their test sheets.
And for students who are struggling, a low test score on a standardized
test can be demoralizing.
Most students, of course, try their best. But they are confused about
why they are taking these tests, and many students and parents are
confused by the results of these tests.
Many teachers are unsure about how to interpret the test results.
They see statistics that tell them about the numbers of right and wrong
answers and about percentiles, but the test results provide little in
the way of information for teachers and parents to know where students
are having problems. Because so many standardized tests are copyrighted
and are used more than once, students, parents, and teachers do not
have the opportunity to compare the students' answers to the correct
answers. They are unable to determine which concepts the students need
help with, or for which concepts the students have demonstrated
understanding.
Our children are real people, not numbers. Yet the testing program
contained in this bill would judge our students, teachers, schools,
school districts, and states by test scores.
In my view, linking funding sanctions to test performance sends the
wrong signal. As I noted earlier, students respond differently to
tests. To link education funding to a series of high-stakes tests not
only does a disservice to our children, but to our teachers, parents,
schools, school districts, and states.
I also fear that this new annual testing requirement will
disproportionately impact disadvantaged students. As the Senator from
Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, has said so many times on this floor, we must
ensure that all students have an equality of opportunity to be
successful in school. To that end, I am pleased that the Senate adopted
an amendment to this bill offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr.
Dodd, and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, that would authorize
full funding of Title I over the next ten years.
I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of the amendment that
will be offered by the Senator from Minnesota which would modify the
annual testing provisions of the bill to clarify that states will not
be required to implement the annual tests unless Title I is funded at
$24.7 billion by July 1, 2005, which is consistent with the funding
levels in the Dodd-Collins amendment.
Study after study shows that disadvantaged students lag behind their

[[Page S4870]]

peers on standardized tests. We must ensure that schools have the
resources to help these students catch up with their peers before
students are required to take these new annual tests. If we fail to
provide adequate resources to these schools and these students, we run
the risk of setting disadvantaged children up for failure on these
tests--failure which could damage the self-esteem of our most
vulnerable students.
The issue of standards and testing is addressed in the cover story in
the May 2001 issue of Phi Delta Kappan magazine, which is published by
the International Association of Professional Educators of the same
name. In his article, ``Undermining Standards,'' John Merrow discusses
the dangers of high-stakes testing, arguing that ``in many places
testing has gotten ahead of developing and then implementing
standards.'' He also expresses a concern about the impact of testing on
the classroom environment and on classroom teachers: that ``test
preparation is dominating classroom time, stifling creativity and
imagination, and taking the joy out of teaching.''
Merrow also addresses the annual testing program proposed by the
President and included in this bill. He says, ``As I read President
Bush's proposals, it seems to me that . . . about six things can
happen, and five of them are bad. Such high-stakes testing may (1) lead
to an even more arid curriculum, (2) drive away talented teachers, (3)
tempt states to lower the bar in order not to lose federal money, (4)
increase pressure to cheat, and (5) alienate educated parents. That's
not `reform with results,' at least not the results those who support
public education would wish for.''
Merrow continues, ``Of course, the President's plan might actually
work the way he hopes it will. That is if he backs away from making
test scores the be-all and end-all of schooling, his plan might just
scare school systems into putting more energy into learning.''
As my constituents have told me, this proposal does scare them--but
not in the way the President has intended.
I urge all of my colleagues to take a few minutes to read this
article.
I am concerned that the emphasis that is placed on testing as a means
of accountability in this bill could result in a generation of students
who know how to take tests, but who don't have the skills necessary to
become successful adults.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Sessions has asked to be
recognized for 2 minutes, I believe to call up an amendment. It would
be fine with me if I could be recognized by consent following Senator
Sessions' statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator Dorgan. I appreciate his courtesy.
I call up amendment No. 600. This is an amendment I call the ``Crisis
Hot Line Grant.'' It is an amendment for confidential reporting of
individuals suspected of imminent school violence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will
be set aside.
Mr. REID. There is no unanimous consent request made to set it aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has requested to
bring up an amendment that requires unanimous consent.
Mr. REID. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama has the floor. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.

Amendment No. 600 to Amendment No. 358

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a minute and
a half to offer my amendment in relation to crisis hotline grants.
Mr. REID. I have no objection to the pending amendment being set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an
amendment numbered 600 to amendment No. 358.

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

(Purpose: To provide for confidential reporting of individuals
suspected of imminent school violence)

On page 577, line 2, strike the end quotation mark and the
second period.
On page 577, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

``SEC. 4304. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTING OF INDIVIDUALS SUSPECTED
OF IMMINENT SCHOOL VIOLENCE.

``Subject to the provisions of this title and subpart 4 of
part B of title V, funds made available under such titles may
be used to--
``(1) support the independent State development and
operation of confidential, toll-free telephone hotlines that
will operate 7 days per week, 24 hours per day, in order to
provide students, school officials, and other individuals
with the opportunity to report specific threats of imminent
school violence or to report other suspicious or criminal
conduct by juveniles to appropriate State and local law
enforcement entities for investigation;
``(2) ensure proper State training of personnel to answer
and respond to telephone calls to hotlines described in
paragraph (1);
``(3) assist in the acquisition of technology necessary to
enhance the effectiveness of hotlines described in paragraph
(1), including the utilization of Internet web-pages or
resources;
``(4) enhance State efforts to offer appropriate counseling
services to individuals who call hotlines described in
paragraph (1) threatening to do harm to themselves or others;
and
``(5) further State effort to publicize services offered by
the hotlines described in paragraph (1) and to encourage
individuals to utilize those services.''.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I simply ask that this amendment be
considered. Its purpose is to deal with the situation that we have seen
in recent years in which teenagers at school have caused serious
violence or committed criminal acts and in which other people knew
about it and did little to respond. I believe we can improve upon that.
In my State of Alabama, a crisis hotline was set up several years
ago. In just a few weeks, they had 800 calls. For example, parents were
calling in to say they heard that a certain child had a gun or a weapon
or that they were threatening the lives of other people. Having such a
hotline would allow the police and school administrators to know about
those situations and to perhaps intervene and keep this from happening.
I think Senator Cleland has some similar language in his legislation.
Our language goes into more detail and was made part of the juvenile
justice bill that we passed in this Senate but which never became law.
I think it is appropriate that this amendment be made a part of this
legislation involving education. It does not appropriate money. It
provides an authorized use. The moneys can be used for this, but it
does not mandate it on the States. I do believe it is a policy that if
more States followed, it could save lives by simply providing a 1-800
number that would be readily available to everyone in and about the
school, including parents, to have a place to call to express concerns
that something serious may be going on.
Maybe they just want to say: Billy has a gun. Maybe the police could
stop by and knock on Billy's door and see if he has a gun and perhaps
stop a crime.
I thank the Presiding Officer and the Senator from Nevada.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 640 To Amendment No. 358

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so I can call up amendment No. 640.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I call up the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and
Mr. Reid, proposes an

[[Page S4871]]

amendment numbered 640 to amendment No. 358.

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

At the appropriate place, insert the following:
The Senate Finds:
The price of energy has skyrocketed in recent months;
The California consumers have seen a 10-fold increase in
electricity prices in less than 2 years;
Natural gas prices have doubled in some areas, as compared
with a year ago;
Gasoline prices are close to $2.00 per gallon now and are
expected to increase to as much as $3.00 per gallon this
summer;
Energy companies have seen their profits doubled, tripled,
and in some cases even quintupled; and
High energy prices are having a detrimental effect on
families across the country and threaten economic growth:

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE NEED TO ESTABLISH
A JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO INVESTIGATE THE RAPIDLY
INCREASING ENERGY PRICES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND
TO DETERMINE WHAT IS CAUSING THE INCREASES.

It is the sense of the Senate that there should be
established a joint committee of the Senate and House of
Representatives to--
(1) study the dramatic increases in energy prices
(including increases in the prices of gasoline, natural gas,
electricity, and home heating oil);
(2) investigate the cause of the increases;
(3) make findings of fact; and
(4) make such recommendations, including recommendations
for legislation and any administrative or other actions, as
the joint committee determines to be appropriate.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment calling for the creation of the House-Senate select committee
to investigate energy prices.
I would like to speak just for a few minutes about the issue. Energy
prices, as all Americans understand, have been skyrocketing through
price spikes and other devices in recent months. The price of gasoline
in many parts of the country is now over $2 a gallon. Some say it is
going to go much higher.
The price of natural gas has doubled in much of the country over what
it was a year ago. Those who, in the first 2 months of this past
winter, suffered the coldest 2 months on record discovered that the
cost of heating with natural gas put quite a hole in their budget
because natural gas prices were doubled at a time when we had a very
significant cold spell. Natural gas prices are still much higher than
they have been previously.
Electricity prices are up. In some parts of the country they are way
up.
As all of us know, energy is not some option that people have the
ability to decide to take or not take. Every morning virtually ever
American has a requirement to use energy. So this is not some optional
commodity that people can use or not use as they see fit.
Some say, the reason for these price spikes is because that is just
the market system working. It is not the market system working. The
fact is, the market system is broken. In many of these areas, we have
had merger after merger of big oil companies, with oil companies
getting much larger and, therefore, exhibiting much greater control
over markets. We see spot markets developing with a new class of energy
traders. It is a very large enterprise where they are able to trade
back and forth, often at prices that are not disclosed or not
transparent.
Let me, for a minute, discuss what is happening on the West Coast as
part of this price problem. Two years ago, the cost of power in
California was $7 billion. This year it is estimated it will be $70
billion--a tenfold increase. How does all that happen? Well, the price
of natural gas moving into plants that produce electricity goes from an
unregulated market into a regulated market; it goes from one seller to
a trader; then traded on the spot market; and an MCF that cost a
certain amount in the morning could be double or triple or quadruple
that value in the afternoon because it is in someone else's hands, and
now it is being traded again for a second time on the spot market.
So those folks in California who are paying dramatically higher
prices for electricity are being hurt very badly. Some say that is just
the market working. It is not. As I said before, the market is broken.
We are supposed to have, in a circumstance where you have markets with
great concentration of power, a referee of sorts. In this area of
California, power would have been FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. But FERC, for 2 or 3 years, has done its best imitation of
a potted plant. It essentially has been unwilling to take any action in
any set of circumstances.
So we have the opportunity and the possibility--in fact, in my
judgment, the very real circumstance--of market manipulation and price
manipulation in California and on the West Coast.
Gasoline prices, as I indicated, are up, way up. Contrary to the
views of the administration, and some others, these price spikes are
not due to environmental regulations for reformulated gasoline and
more. In fact, reformulated gasoline contributed only 1 to 3 cents of
the cost of making gasoline that we witnessed last summer. Even in
California, environmental regulations are contributing about 5 to 8
cents of gasoline production costs.

A March 2001 Federal Trade Commission investigation shows that
individual refiners made deliberate decisions not to modify or expand
refining capacity so they could tighten market supply and therefore
drive up gasoline prices.
For example, the Federal Trade Commission found that three refiners
only modified facilities to produce reformulated gasoline for their own
branded stations so the independent stations--the mom-and-pop
stations--could not get reformulated gasoline. It created a spot market
which drove up prices. One company even admitted to withholding
supplies of reformulated gasoline at the most critical time to maximize
profits.
All of this is going on, and the American people suffer because of
it. I had once followed a car at an intersection in rural North Dakota
one time. It was a 20-year-old car with a broken back bumper that had a
bumper sticker that said: We fought the gas war, and gas won. That
bumper sticker would fit a lot of cars these days.
Senior citizens, with declining income years, have to pay
substantially higher energy bills. Farmers, trying to buy anhydrous
ammonia these days--80 percent of the cost of which is natural gas--are
discovering a horrible price for anhydrous ammonia. In addition to
that, the price of the fuel they must put in their tractors in order to
do spring's work has been driven up dramatically. Truckers moving
across this country back and forth have discovered they hardly make it
these days with the price of gasoline and diesel fuel. And
manufacturers are struggling with the cost of these increased energy
spikes in price.
So if the market isn't working, what should happen? I think we should
have a select House-Senate committee to investigate energy prices.
Let me hasten to say quickly that there are some legitimate reasons
we have had some price changes. We have had a tightening of supply in a
number of areas. I will explain why.
When the price of oil went to $10 a barrel, people stopped looking
for oil and natural gas because it was not very productive or was not
very rewarding to do so. The price of oil spiked then to $35 a barrel--
from $10 a barrel--and more people were looking for it. So there will
be more supply coming on line. There is that element of price spikes.
And there is that element of supply and prices. And that is very real.
I do not discount that.
But you cannot attribute what is happening with energy prices just to
that circumstance. We now have larger enterprises. We have bigger
economic concentrations in this country that have the ability to
control prices and manipulate supply. And this Congress, in my
judgment, ought to convene an investigative body to evaluate when and
where that is happening.
Congress has been very anxious to investigate almost anything in the
last 10 years or so. It seems to me it ought to be anxious to
investigate, on behalf of the American consumer, what has happened, and
why, with respect to the cost of energy in this country.
A century ago Teddy Roosevelt carried a big stick and said that Mr.
Rockefeller could not control the price of gasoline and took effective
steps to make that happen. It is time for us to do a thorough
investigation with a select House-Senate committee to investigate
energy pricing.

[[Page S4872]]

I know at 4 o'clock the Presiding Officer is to recognize the Senator
from Georgia. Is this an appropriate time to seek the yeas and nays on
my amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator may do that if he
wishes.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Georgia is recognized.

Amendment No. 376, As Modified

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 376 and ask
unanimous consent to modify the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 577, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 404. SCHOOL SAFETY ENHANCEMENT.

Title IV (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:

``PART D--SCHOOL SAFETY ENHANCEMENT

``SEC. 4351. SHORT TITLE.

``This part may be cited as the `School Safety Enhancement
Act of 2001'.

``SEC. 4352. FINDINGS.

``Congress makes the following findings:
``(1) While our Nation's schools are still relatively safe,
it is imperative that schools be provided with adequate
resources to prevent incidents of violence.
``(2) Approximately 10 percent of all public schools
reported at least 1 serious violent crime to a law
enforcement agency over the course of the 1996-1997 school
year.
``(3) In 1996, approximately 225,000 students between the
ages of 12 and 18 were victims of nonfatal violent crime in
schools in the United States.
``(4) From 1992 through 1994, 76 students and 29 non-
students were victims of murders or suicides that were
committed in schools in the United States.
``(5) The school violence incidents in several States
across the Nation in 1998 and 1999 caused enormous damage to
schools, families, and whole communities.
``(6) Because of escalating school violence, the children
of the United States are increasingly afraid that they will
be attacked or harmed at school.
``(7) A report issued by the Department of Education in
August, 1998, entitled `Early Warning, Early Response'
concluded that the reduction and prevention of school
violence is best achieved through safety plans which involve
the entire community, policies which emphasize both
prevention and intervention, training school personnel,
parents, students, and community members to recognize the
early warning signs of potential violent behavior and to
share their concerns or observations with trained personnel,
establishing procedures which allow rapid response and
intervention when early warning signs of violent behavior are
identified, and providing adequate support and access to
services for troubled students.

``SEC. 4353. NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOOL AND YOUTH SAFETY.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Education and the
Attorney General shall jointly establish a National Center
for School and Youth Safety (in this section referred to as
the `Center'). The Secretary of Education and the Attorney
General may establish the Center at an existing facility, if
the facility has a history of performing two or more of the
duties described in subsection (b). The Secretary of
Education and the Attorney General shall jointly appoint a
Director of the Center to oversee the operation of the
Center.
``(b) Duties.--The Center shall carry out emergency
response, anonymous student hotline, consultation, and
information and outreach activities with respect to
elementary and secondary school safety, including the
following:
``(1) Emergency response.--The staff of the Center, and
such temporary contract employees as the Director of the
Center shall determine necessary, shall offer emergency
assistance to local communities to respond to school
safety crises. Such assistance shall include counseling
for victims and the community, assistance to law
enforcement to address short-term security concerns, and
advice on how to enhance school safety, prevent future
incidents, and respond to future incidents.
``(2) Anonymous student hotline.--The Center shall
establish a toll-free telephone number for students to report
criminal activity, threats of criminal activity, and other
high-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, gang or cult
affiliation, depression, or other warning signs of
potentially violent behavior. The Center shall relay the
reports, without attribution, to local law enforcement or
appropriate school hotlines. The Director of the Center shall
work with the Attorney General to establish guidelines for
Center staff to work with law enforcement around the Nation
to relay information reported through the hotline.
``(3) Consultation.--The Center shall establish a toll-free
number for the public to contact staff of the Center for
consultation regarding school safety. The Director of the
Center shall hire administrative staff and individuals with
expertise in enhancing school safety, including individuals
with backgrounds in counseling and psychology, education, law
enforcement and criminal justice, and community development
to assist in the consultation.
``(4) Information and outreach.--The Center shall compile
information about the best practices in school violence
prevention, intervention, and crisis management, and shall
serve as a clearinghouse for model school safety program
information. The staff of the Center shall work to ensure
local governments, school officials, parents, students, and
law enforcement officials and agencies are aware of the
resources, grants, and expertise available to enhance school
safety and prevent school crime. The staff of the Center
shall give special attention to providing outreach to rural
and impoverished communities.
``(c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2005.''.

``SEC. 4354. SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS.

``(a) Grants Authorized.--Using funds made available under
subsection (c), the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, and the Attorney General shall
award grants, on a competitive basis, to help communities
develop community-wide safety programs involving students,
parents, educators, guidance counselors, psychologists, law
enforcement officials or agencies, civic leaders, and other
organizations serving the community.
``(b) Authorized Activities.--Funds provided under this
section may be used for activities that may include efforts
to--
``(1) increase early intervention strategies;
``(2) expand parental involvement;
``(3) increase students' awareness of warning signs of
violent behavior;
``(4) promote students' responsibility to report the
warning signs to appropriate persons;
``(5) promote conflict resolution and peer mediation
programs;
``(6) increase the number of after-school programs;
``(7) expand the use of safety-related equipment and
technology; and
``(8) expand students' access to mental health services.
``(c) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section, $24,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003
through 2005.''.

SEC. 405. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF
1993.

Section 5(10) of the National Child Protection Act of 1993
(42 U.S.C. 5119c(10)) is amended to read as follows:
``(10) the term `qualified entity' means--
``(A) a business or organization, whether public, private,
for-profit, not-for-profit, or voluntary, that provides care
or care placement services, including a business or
organization that licenses or certifies others to provide
care or care placement services; or
``(B) an elementary or secondary school.''.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The modified amendment I offer today reduces funding for the National
Center for School and Youth Safety from $50 million to $25 million, and
it creates separate authorizations for the National Center and the Safe
Communities, Safe Schools grant program.
It has been almost 2 years ago to the day that a 16-year-old boy
brought a .22-caliber rifle and .375 magnum revolver to Heritage High
School in Conyers, GA and opened fire on six students. The shooting
occurred in my hometown of Lithonia, GA, where I grew up. The day was
May 20, 1999, exactly one month after the deadly Columbine High School
massacre, which took the lives of 15 people.
Growing up in my hometown, I was fortunate to have had a great
childhood--with two wonderful parents, supportive teachers in school
and in church, and a community that cared. When I was in school, the
strongest drug around was aspirin, and the most lethal weapon was a
slingshot. The shootings at Heritage High, at Columbine, the school
shootings in Springfield, OR, in Jonesboro, AR, in West Paducah, KY and
other school tragedies around the country underscore in red the crisis
of juvenile violence in America. Our schools were once safe havens in
this country. Today, according to data from the Department of
Education, they are the setting for one-third of the violence involving
teenagers in this Nation. In fact, data from the Departments of Justice
and Education found that in 1998, ``students aged 12 through 18 were
victims of more than 2.7 million total crimes at school . . . and they
were victims of about 253,000 serious violent crimes. . . .''

[[Page S4873]]

These statistics are incredible and they cannot--they must not--be
accepted or tolerated.
The amendment I am offering today is based on legislation developed
in the last Congress by Senator Robb of Virginia, and it is a response
to a seminal 1998 report by the Department of Education, entitled
``Early Warning, Timely Response,'' which concluded that the reduction
and prevention of school violence are best achieved through safety
plans which involve the entire community. Accordingly to that landmark
report, the most effective plans are those which: emphasize both
prevention and intervention; train school personnel, parents, students,
and community members to recognize the early warning signs of potential
violent behavior and to share their concerns or observations with
trained personnel; establish procedures which allow rapid response and
intervention when such signs are identified; and provide adequate
support and access to services for troubled students.
My amendment, The School Safety Enhancement amendment, would
establish a National Center for School and Youth Safety tasked with the
mission of providing schools with adequate resources to prevent
incidents of violence. Under my amendment, the center would offer
emergency assistance to local communities to respond to school safety
crises, including counseling for victims, assistance to law enforcement
to address short-term security concerns, and advice on how to enhance
school safety, prevent future incidents, and respond to incidents once
they occur. My amendment would also establish--and this is important--a
toll-free, nationwide hotline for students to report criminal activity,
threats of criminal activity, and other high-risk behaviors such as
substance abuse, gang or cult affiliation, depression, or other warning
signs of potentially violent behavior. Finally, the National Center for
School and Youth Safety would compile information about the best
practices in school violence prevention, intervention, and crisis
management. Specifically, the center would work to ensure that local
governments, school officials, parents, students and law enforcement
officials and agencies are aware of the resources, grants, and
expertise available to enhance school safety and prevent school crime,
giving special attention to providing outreach to rural and
impoverished communities.

In addition, my amendment would boost coordination among the three
Federal agencies most involved with the crucial issue of school safety
by authorizing a total of $24 million in grants by the secretaries of
Education and Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to
help communities develop community-wide safety programs involving all
its members: students, parents, educators, counselors, psychologists,
law enforcement officials and agencies, and civic leaders. Grant funds
may be used for activities that may include efforts to increase early
intervention strategies; expand parental involvement; increase
students' awareness of warning signs of violent behavior; promote
conflict resolution; increase the number of afterschool programs; and
expand the use of safety-related equipment and technology.
The School Safety Enhancement amendment is endorsed by the National
Education Association, the Children's Defense Fund, the International
Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Georgia Association of Chiefs of
Police. On behalf of America's schoolchildren and safety in our
schools, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time under
the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CLELAND. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. Is
the time evenly divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is equally divided between the
Senator from Georgia and an opponent of the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Georgia would be good
enough to yield on his time, I don't know of opposition. We haven't
been notified of the opposition. I want to take a moment to share with
our colleagues a bit of the background on this amendment. This has been
something that the Senator from Georgia has been interested in and
committed to for some period of time.
During the past weeks and months, he has taken the time to speak to
me on a number of different occasions. He has talked to the members of
the Education Committee about this issue. I am familiar with the fact,
going back over a period of time when the Senate considered the
reauthorization of this legislation previously, over a year ago, that
the Senator from Georgia was very much involved in the developing of
the legislation. He has read closely, obviously, the Department of
Justice and Education study, which came out in 1998. In that study,
this was one of the very important recommendations that they had. But
he has taken a broad recommendation and sharpened it a good deal.
I know he has spent a good deal of time talking to those who had
initially been involved in recommending the study and has prepared this
in a way which I think is enormously important and can be incredibly
helpful. As I was listening to the good Senator and thinking about the
times he has talked to me about it, I hope we are going to have the
sufficient resources to be able to deal with this issue. I am convinced
that if we can get this started and get to do even part of the things
that the good Senator from Georgia has hoped that it would achieve and
accomplish, we can develop the kind of enhanced support for this
program that is necessary.
What the Senator is basically pointing out is the great challenges of
so many of the young people who are in school, going to school, after
school, in a school community, and the kind of violence that is
affecting these young people. It is a form of intimidation, a form of
bullying, and it obviously has very important adverse impact on the
willingness of children to either go to school or their attitude toward
school when violence takes place in the time period after school but in
the proximity of the school. He has framed it in a broad way to
challenge the center itself to draw on all of the community and
community resources, which I think is obviously enormously useful. He
is talking about the entire community, and he is talking about steps
that can be taken in terms of prevention and intervention. He is
talking to the various school personnel so they will have the training
which too many of them don't have now to be able to anticipate these
problems. He is talking about involvement of the students themselves
and community members in these activities.
I can think of a number of different schools in my own city of Boston
where the students themselves have become very much involved in
assuring safe passage, so to speak, for children to be able to go to
the school, while they are at school, and after school. It is a very
important success. This is one of those situations where some guidance,
some training, some information in the community can have an enormous
payoff. I think the result will be a safer climate and an atmosphere in
which the children can learn.
I think this is a very well thought through program. He has done a
great deal of work in the fashioning and shaping of it. The security of
the children in school we try to address to some extent in the safe and
drug-free schools. I can see this as a complement to those efforts as
well. I think as a result of this amendment the children in that
community, as well as teachers and parents, and the whole climate and
atmosphere around schools, which in too many instances, tragically, are
threatened, would be made safer and more secure.

I commend the Senator for his initiative and thank him for his work
in this

[[Page S4874]]

area, and I indicate that I hope, when the Senate does address this
issue, we have very strong and overwhelming support.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to give people notice that there
will be a change in the time of the vote this evening. I ask unanimous
consent that the previously scheduled vote begin at 5:45 today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to
proceed without the time being charged to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 460

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was not here at the time my good
friend, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, offered his amendment about
afterschool literacy programs. This would expand the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers' eligibility to certain organizations to
include projects with an emphasis on language and life skill programs
for limited-English-proficient students.
I wish to add my support for that program. We had an excellent debate
last week when the Senate addressed the issue about increasing support
for the limited-English-speaking programs. We pointed out at the start
of the debate that, under the existing legislation, we were only
reaching about 25 percent of the children who would need these
programs.
Then time was taken by the good Senator from Arkansas, myself, and
others to point out what has been happening in our school systems with
limited-English-speaking students. The number of children has doubled
in the last 10 years.
If one looks at what happened over the next several years, the
numbers went up dramatically. This is true with regard to Hispanics,
but it is also applicable to other children.
I mentioned earlier in the debate my not so recent, several months
ago, visit to Revere High School in Revere, MA, where they have
children speaking 43 languages. The school is involved in 12 to 14
language classes and expects to expand in the next few years. It is an
enormous challenge to schools, but schools are attempting to respond in
an extraordinary way.
Encouraging afterschool programs, encouraging programs in these
afterschool settings makes a good deal of sense to me. There are a
variety of activities in the afterschool programs. In many instances,
there are excellent tutorial services, excellent supplementary
services. In some areas, there are just athletic programs.
There are different programs in each afterschool program. For
example, in one I visited recently, they have an excellent program in
photography and also a second program in graphic arts. A number of the
children were coming to this afterschool program.
The fascination of the children in graphic arts and also in
photography was overwhelming. Because children were interested in those
activities, they were becoming more interested in their school work as
well. It has a symbiotic effect.
Senator Reid's amendment makes sure children will also have an
opportunity for continued training in language in the afterschool
programs. If the local jurisdiction chooses to do so, it can utilize
the assets they have for that type of activity. It makes a great deal
of sense to me. The Senator is to be commended for it.
We have found that where we have these effective programs, the
favorable impact in student achievement has been extraordinary, and
where we do not have these programs, the children have difficulties.
This is a continuum of opportunity for children with limited English
capability, and it is a wise policy decision. I congratulate the
Senator for his initiative and hope the Senate will support the
amendment when we have the opportunity to do so.
I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be charged to the
opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time is in opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes 8 seconds left in
opposition.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend on the floor, the Senator
from Georgia, who is the primary sponsor of this amendment. I now have
the excellent study which was the basis of his amendment, ``Early
Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools.'' I know he is
familiar with this study. One of the conclusions in this excellent
study is that there is valuable information available on recognizing
the warning signs of violent behavior; that in dealing effectively with
a school crisis, one of the tragedies is schools have become the
experts after they face violence that is destructive and harmful to the
children themselves who are attending these schools.
As I understand, one of the principal reasons the Senator is offering
the amendment is so that we will have a central clearinghouse available
to public schools all across the country where the school
administrators, teachers, and others with responsibility for security
within the schools can tap into and draw from the experience of other
schools that have had successful programs.
Is this one of the purposes for the amendment?
Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is absolutely correct.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership role not
only in the area of education and in working with this piece of
legislation, but in the area of school safety.
The Senator is correct; this report from 1998 that the Senator refers
to is, quite frankly, shocking to me in the sense that it has indicated
how broad based the real question of violence in our schools really is.
It indicates to me that we need a broad-based approach.
The facts from this report indicate that a third of the violence
involving teenagers in this Nation occurs in our schools. That is
shocking. It seems to me, then, that the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts is correct that we need this broad-based approach and a
national center, a national clearinghouse to make sure that communities
are in touch with one another.
I can testify that the little community of Conyers, GA, not far from
my hometown of Lithonia, GA, has within it Heritage High School. That
community was in shock, in trauma really, for months after the school
shootings there. The community was wondering what in the world to do,
whether to enhance counseling, whether to improve police protection,
whether to enforce tighter laws or what.
With this center that we are setting up, the National Center for
School and Youth Safety, one call can inform any community that goes
through such a tragedy and such trauma what other communities have done
and what resources are available to assist them. These are not
resources just available to schools; these are resources available to
counselors and law enforcement agencies.
I note that not only are the teachers of America--the National
Education Association--behind this legislation, and those who defend
our children in America--the Children's Defense Fund--but also law
enforcement is behind this piece of legislation--the International
Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Chiefs of Police in my own home
State.
I am thrilled with this kind of support, but, again, the Senator is
correct. It was not my idea. This amendment was really the outgrowth of
a report in 1998, issued by the Department of Education, that found, in
coordination

[[Page S4875]]

with the Department of Justice, this incredibly high number of
incidents of violence. I thought it was incredible that students from
age 12 to 18 were victims of more than 2.7 million crimes at school and
the victims of 253,000 serious violent crimes.
When I was growing up in my home community, this level of violence,
this level of crime, was unheard of, unthinkable. I can remember our
high school principal articulated a principle that is embodied actually
in this legislation, that a school cannot live apart from the
community. So our schools are not just separate oases out there,
monasteries that are separate from the community; they reflect what is
going on in the community. That is why our approach isn't just some
assistance to schools or teachers and counselors; it is assistance to
law enforcement, to community leaders, nonprofit organizations, because
violence is that broad bound, and it is not just located in one
particular place.
The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is correct. It is one
reason why we have incorporated immediate access to this center in the
form of a toll free, nationwide hotline for students to report criminal
activity, threats of criminal activity, high-risk behavior such as
substance abuse, gang or cult affiliation, or other warning signs of
potentially violent behavior.
There is a special emphasis, too, on rural and impoverished
communities. Violence knows no boundaries. Our rural and impoverished
communities are just as susceptible to violence as any others.
I thank the Senator for his willingness to assist me in this
amendment. I thank him and his staff for the courtesies they have
exhibited toward us.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I remind the Senate that the study, which
is the basis for this amendment, is entitled ``Early Warning, Timely
Response: A Guide To Safe Schools.'' The study itself was sent out to
principals of schools across the country, but if teachers or parents
are interested, they can write the Department of Justice or the
Department of Education and get this study. It is also available on
line as well.
I want to mention one quote from Wilmer Cody, Kentucky Commissioner
of Education:

Coordinated school efforts can help. But the solution does
not just rest in the schools. Together we must develop
solutions that are community-wide and coordinated, that
include schools, families, courts, law enforcement, community
agencies, representatives of the faith community, business,
and the broader community.

I think that is what is unique in the Cleland proposal. It isn't just
relying on one aspect of the community; it includes all of those
elements. It is described in this report. I think it will be a center
which will have information of essential importance to every school in
this country. I think every school in the country would be wise to
continue to upgrade their own information because it will be a resource
that will explain what is working, what has been effective, what has
been successful.
Finally, we have to start by recognizing that schools are safe
places. They are safe places for children. We are all mindful of the
tragedies, the tragic killings that have taken place, the shootings
that have brought such enormous tragedy to the families of people who
have been affected by acts of violence.
Parents are constantly concerned about how safe their children are
when they go to school every day. But the essential fact is, children
are safe in their schools. I think people understand that. We
understand that. But we want to make sure they are going to continue to
be safe. There are too many instances of violence. The instances that
have occurred are a real concern to us. We want to reduce them and make
the schools even safer.
That is what the amendment of the Senator from Georgia is all about.
As I mentioned, I hope those who follow this debate--and it is a
difficult debate to follow since we are on this legislation for a few
days and then have intervening matters, but nonetheless, I hope they
will have the chance to review that study and this amendment. We think
this amendment will be an important addition to the bill.
I thank the Senator again.
Mr. CLELAND. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to yield.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Levin be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his
leadership. I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. We will have that chance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

Amendment No. 465 To Amendment No. 358

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two
pending amendments be temporarily laid aside and I call up amendment
No. 465.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and
Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 465 to Amendment
No. 358.

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

(Purpose: To improve the provisions relating to assessment completion
bonuses)

On page 776, strike lines 1 through 5, and insert the
following:
``(b) Assessment Completion Bonuses.--
``(1) In general.--At the end of school year 2006-2007, the
Secretary shall make 1-time bonus payments to States that
develop State assessments as required under section
1111(b)(3)(F) that are of particularly high quality in terms
of assessing the performance of students in grades 3 through
8. The Secretary shall make the awards to States that develop
assessments that involve up-to-date measures of student
performance from multiple sources that assess the range and
depth of student knowledge and proficiency in meeting State
performance standards, in each academic subject in which the
State is required to conduct the assessments.
``(2) Peer review.--In making awards under paragraph (1),
the Secretary shall use a peer review process.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment that I have called up--I
do it now because I am hoping--and I certainly thank the Senator from
Vermont for his focus on policy last week and his support of an
amendment I had on testing. But this amendment is really simple and
straightforward. I thought tonight would be a good time to introduce
it.
Right now, in S. 1, the Secretary can give bonuses to States if they
complete their assessments ahead of the deadline outlined in the law,
which is the 2005-2006 school year.
What we are saying in the amendment is that actually what we ought to
do is to, instead, give bonuses to States for developing and using
high-quality assessments. That is really where any bonus ought to go.
So what this amendment would do is change the bonus grant so the
rewards would go to States if they develop high-quality assessments as
determined by a peer review process that would be set up by the
Secretary--that is done all the time--instead of awarding grants to
States just because their assessments get done quickly.
The point is not whether they are done quickly, the point is to make
sure this is high-quality assessment. To emphasize the thoughtful
development of high-quality assessments, these bonuses would not be
rewarded until the date at which the new annual testing goes into
effect.
So I want to start out by saying to colleagues that this is very
consistent, interestingly enough, with the piece that Secretary Paige
wrote in the Washington Post this weekend. He writes:

A good test, the kind the President and I support, is
aligned with the curriculum so the schools know whether
children are actually learning the material that their States
have decided the child should know.

So I am saying now and what I was saying last week--that I absolutely
agree and, of course, the majority of my colleagues agreed--is let's
make sure we meet the basic criteria that the tests are comprehensive--
you don't just have to take off-the-shelf, single standardized test--
and that the tests

[[Page S4876]]

are coherent, that they are measuring the curriculum being taught, and
they are continuous so we can measure the progress of a child over
time.
Well, I think what Secretary Paige said in his op-ed piece in the
Washington Post is, yes; we want to make sure that this is high-quality
testing. So I was looking at the language in the bill, I say to my
colleagues, and I thought, wait a minute, we don't want to have an
incentive saying that the sooner you do the assessment, the more likely
you are to get a bonus because then the incentive is all in the wrong
direction.
What we really want to say is we do not want people rushing and we do
not want people as a result of that rush--and I have heard Senator
Kennedy talk about this more than once--to use off-the-shelf,
relatively low level tests. We want to reward States and provide
bonuses for doing high-quality testing. That is what this amendment is
about.
I was not here earlier, but I thank my colleague and friend from
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, who is a cosponsor of this amendment. He
came to the Chamber earlier, and I understand he made some very
thoughtful comments on the general issue of high quality and fair
assessments, and he also raised some very legitimate questions and
concerns about the direction in which we are moving.
I could spend a lot of time on this. I do not think I need to draw
from the different reports and studies that have taken place about the
importance of getting it right and making sure this is high-quality
testing.
If we want to get the tests right, then we ought to provide bonuses
for States that do the best job. That is really where the bonuses
should go.
My point is, let us enhance the accountability systems by enhancing
the quality of assessments so that we do not make a mistake, and the
way to do that is to provide incentives for States, bonuses for States
that do a high-quality job with high-quality tests.
That is what I tried to do last week and this week--and I so
appreciate the support of the Senators from Massachusetts and Vermont.
There will come a point in the debate where I am going to raise the
philosophical question--which I do not know I have answered in my own
mind--as to whether the Federal Government ought to be dictating this
to States and local school districts. That is the question. We have
done it before with title I, but this goes way beyond what we have
done.
The part of the op-ed piece Secretary Paige wrote with which I do not
agree is the opening sentence:

Anyone who opposes annual testing of children is an
apologist for a broken system of education that dismisses
certain children and classes of children as unteachable.

My fear is, I say to Senator Jeffords, I thought when we were marking
up this bill we were saying two things. We were saying yes to
accountability and we want to do it the right way, and we were also
saying yes to making sure there were resources for the tools, for the
students and for the teachers to do well.
My concern is, given where we are heading with the budget resolution
and where we are heading with this tax cut, as a matter of fact, we are
not going to have the resources to help students do better. In which
case it seems to me a little disingenuous at best and, I frankly argue,
cruel at worst, to take a fourth grader or a third grader, since we
start at age 8, who has been in a school where there have been two or
three teachers during the school year--that is not uncommon in some of
the inner-city schools, and expect those children to do as well as
students who have had the best teachers and the best opportunities.
Low income children do not have the support necessary to do well,
most particularly in the area of early childhood education. A child who
comes to kindergarten and is way behind other children who had good
nurturing, stimulation, had the best of early childhood development
either from their own family or in a really good childcare center the
parents could afford, has an immeasurable disadvantage. Yet, we will
basically say, without any additional help, that we are going to fail
her.
We already know these children are not going to do well. The thing
Secretary Paige is missing in his piece today is what he testified to
before our committee. He said, yes, we need the resources. I do not see
those resources, and I think this will end up not being a good piece of
legislation if we do not have both.
The two colleagues who are in the Chamber, the Senator from
Massachusetts and the Senator from Vermont, have made the same point:
We need the resources to go with accountability.
I have an amendment--I am ready to do it at a good time--that is a
trigger amendment--linking the new testing to the funding 79 of us
voted for in the Dodd-Collins amendment on fully authorizing title I.
My amendment would ensure that there is additional money for reading
help, quality teachers, preschool and afterschool care.
All that is going to be a key debate. Right now I am in a pragmatic
mood, and I am just trying to make sure the testing is done the best
possible way. Even if I do not end up voting for the bill, I still want
it to be the best possible bill.
I think we ought to provide the bonuses for the high-quality testing.
It seems to me a mistake that the bonuses go only to the States that
develop their assessments as quickly as possible. I hope I get support
from my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for what I hope will
be an accepted amendment. The administration is offering the bonuses to
encourage States to move ahead. The Senator has rightfully put his
finger on the fact that we want to make sure the tests are not going to
be off-the-shelf tests and responding to rote information but are a
reflection of what the children actually learned and how they think.
That is done in a number of States at the present time. The
administration wanted to provide encouragement to States to do it. We
had, the Senator may remember, in the previous elementary and secondary
education title I program, put in a provision encouraging States to do
it, and only 10 or 12 States actually did it. We provided flexibility
for them to do it in the elementary, middle, and then the senior year.
A number of the States did but most did not.
The administration was trying to encourage States to move ahead. I
support that concept, but I absolutely agree with the Senator from
Minnesota: First, we want to have good tests. We had that debate last
week.
The bill is strengthened with the amendment of the Senator from
Minnesota. This is a follow-on that says we want to encourage good
tests and we want to get it done as early as possible.
As I understand, there are 15 States now which have tests between the
third and the eighth grade. The basic reviews, the studies that have
been done on those tests, say of the 15, 7 States have very well
designed tests that are generally recognized to meet this criterion to
test the children's ability to think and comprehend the information and
then be able to respond to challenges using that information in an
effective way in response to questions. We want to encourage that.
It takes time to do tests well. There are a number of steps. We want
good tests. We want a good curriculum. We want well-trained teachers.
That is what we are trying to do, get well-trained teachers, and we
have the provisions in the legislation to do that. We want to get the
curriculum formed, and we have provisions in the legislation to do
that.
We want accountability with tests which we are encouraging, and with
the Wellstone amendment we can do that. With the Wellstone amendment
and the bonuses, this is a very useful and helpful amendment. I am very
hopeful at the appropriate time we will be able to successfully urge
Senators to accept this amendment.
Senator Wellstone has targeted one area of concern to me and I think
to many here, and that is to make sure we are going to get good tests
and not just the off-the-shelf tests which are taught to and really do
not reflect the progress all of us want to see in terms of children
learning.
I thank him very much. We had talked about this concept before, and
he has taken the concept and put it into legislative form. I had not
seen it before. There may be some parts to it--but I cannot spot them--
that may be

[[Page S4877]]

of trouble to some of our colleagues, but I hope at the appropriate
time we can move ahead and accept the amendment.
I thank the Senator for the development of this amendment. This
amendment and the other amendment he had immeasurably strengthen the
legislation.
I don't want to end this part of the discussion without saying I
agree with him about the importance of the resources. I am somewhat
more hopeful than he is that by the end of the day we are going to be
able to get them. Maybe it is a false hope. I do not believe it is. But
I know he will be helping us and doing everything he can to help us get
them whenever we can.
I know the depth of his own feeling. I respect it, although I might
have some difference in the final conclusions he comes to with regard
to the overall legislation.
This is an important amendment. I am hopeful it will be accepted at
an appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his gracious remarks and thank
him for his support of this amendment.

amendment no. 600

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, earlier today I had a followup amendment
600 that I offered to create a crisis hotline so parents and
schoolchildren who see a child carrying a weapon or making a serious
threat can call on that hotline and something would be done about it
because in the most serious high school violent cases we have had in
America those children were sending signals in advance and perhaps
lives have been saved in that regard.
I offered the amendment earlier, and I ask unanimous consent to ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Amendment No. 389

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I call up Senator Voinovich's amendment
No. 389.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the
amendment is now pending.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside
and the regular order be resumed.

Vote on Amendment No. 460

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
The pending amendment by previous order is now the Reid amendment No.
460. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman), and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

YEAS--96

Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--4

Akaka
Harkin
Lieberman
Mikulski
The amendment (No. 460) was agreed to.

aAmendment no. 376

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the
Cleland amendment No. 376. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I yield my time back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Georgia. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 74, nays 23, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

YEAS--74

Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--23

Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Chafee
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Nickles
Santorum
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--3

Akaka
Lieberman
Mikulski
The amendment (No. 376) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 600

Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 600 of Senator Sessions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I believe this amendment is acceptable to both sides. I
ask the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will accept this
amendment. The Senator explained it earlier, and I think it is a useful
addition to the legislation. I hope it will be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 600) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 388, withdrawn

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I sought recognition to withdraw
amendment No. 388, which is a second-degree amendment to the amendment
offered by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. I have done so
because pursuant to some substantial complications

[[Page S4878]]

of the bill and a number of corrections, I believe the underlying bill
accomplishes what I have sought, and that is to allow the States to
have discretion to use funds under this bill for classroom size or
additional teachers if they choose to do so.
There is a long and involved history to this issue which came up on
the appropriations bill which I managed last year in my capacity as
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education. But in any event, the objective
which I have sought will be accomplished by the underlying bill, and it
would simplify the process if I withdraw the amendment, which I hereby
do.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 600

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks on
amendment No. 600, as agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Go ahead.
Mr. KENNEDY. We appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Alabama.
But I think we are not quite prepared to offer a consent agreement on
the procedures for tomorrow. We are awaiting that agreement. We welcome
the Senator's comments on that legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, one of the things we have learned from
the shootings in a number of the schools that have traumatized all of
America is that quite often certain individuals, family, schoolmates,
or others had reasonable cause to believe that a child might be about
to commit some serious act of violence. But in each of those cases, no
real intervention occurred, and the act of violence was carried out.
Back in my hometown of Mobile, AL, we had a problem of children using
guns and bringing them to school. I was a U.S. Attorney, and we had a
big meeting with the district attorney and the sheriff, the juvenile
judge, the juvenile referee, the Colleagues for Drug Free Mobile, and
the Drug Council. We talked about how to deal with it, and we came up
with the idea of a bumper sticker that we called ``Kid With A Gun Call
911.''
The police chief said if they received a call from a parent or a
child who made a serious allegation that another child was carrying a
weapon or maybe about to plan something dangerous, the police would
followup on that call. Bumper stickers were put on the police cars, and
the message got about town.
Later, the State of Alabama adopted a hotline in which they set up
the same kind of thing with a centralized 24-hour-a-day center to
receive those calls from all over the State. Within 2 weeks of the
setting up of that hotline, quite a number of calls were received. I
think there were about 400 calls in that short period of time. Many of
those came from 5 to 9 o'clock at night and came from parents or
grandparents of children who had seen or heard things that troubled
them where the kids went to school.
I believe a hotline of this kind should be given serious
consideration by other States.
This legislation will make clear that the funds already appropriated
can be used for safe schools and violence prevention, and that creating
a hotline of this type would be a permissible use of that money.
A mechanism needs to be set up so that anyone who has a serious cause
for concern would know precisely where they could call. They would not
have to give their name under most circumstances. Then perhaps
something could be done to intervene in the situation.
If, for example, a child comes home and says that down the street in
the vacant lot Billy is playing with a gun, and he says he is going to
shoot somebody, the mother, the grandmother, or somebody at home could
make that call. Somebody would come out and check it out. They are not
going to arrest the person if he doesn't have a gun. They are just
going to ask questions about it.
Perhaps those kinds of immediate responses and immediate
interventions would be effective in reducing the likelihood that a
child would actually go and shoot someone. In fact, we could get a lot
of illegal weapons off the street.
I think this is a good approach. It is legislation that we discussed
in depth when the juvenile justice bill was moving through this Senate
and passed this Senate, but it never became law. I think that this
provision is appropriate for schools. I believe it would be a good
preventive tool for violence.
I thank the Senate and the leaders on both sides for agreeing to
allow this amendment to be approved and made a part of this bill. I
hope and pray that this type of intervention may prevent violence and
possibly save lives.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 443

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 443.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Landrieu, and Mrs.
Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 443.

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

(Purpose: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend loan
forgiveness for certain loans to Head Start teachers)

On page 893, after line 14, add the following:

SEC. ____. LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR HEAD START TEACHERS.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Loan
Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act of 2001''.
(b) Head Start Teachers.--Section 428J of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-10) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as
follows:
``(1)(A) has been employed--
``(i) as a full-time teacher for 5 consecutive complete
school years in a school that qualifies under section
465(a)(2)(A) for loan cancellation for Perkins loan
recipients who teach in such a school; or
``(ii) as a Head Start teacher for 5 consecutive complete
program years under the Head Start Act; and
``(B)(i) if employed as a secondary school teacher, is
teaching a subject area that is relevant to the borrower's
academic major as certified by the chief administrative
officer of the public or nonprofit private secondary school
in which the borrower is employed;
``(ii) if employed as an elementary school teacher, has
demonstrated, as certified by the chief administrative
officer of the public or nonprofit private elementary school
in which the borrower is employed, knowledge and teaching
skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of
the elementary school curriculum; and
``(iii) if employed as a Head Start teacher, has
demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading,
writing, early childhood development, and other areas of a
preschool curriculum, with a focus on cognitive learning;
and'';
(2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Head start.--An individual shall be eligible for loan
forgiveness under this section for service described in
clause (ii) of subsection (b)(1)(A) only if such individual
received a baccalaureate or graduate degree on or after the
date of enactment of the Loan Forgiveness for Head Start
Teachers Act of 2001.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for fiscal year 2007 and succeeding fiscal years to carry out
loan repayment under this section for service described in
clause (ii) of subsection (b)(1)(A).''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 428J of such Act (20
U.S.C. 1078-10) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``or fifth complete
program year'' after ``fifth complete school year of
teaching'';
(2) in subsection (f), by striking ``subsection (b)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)'';
(3) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``subsection
(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)''; and
(4) in subsection (h), by inserting ``except as part of the
term `program year','' before ``where''.
(d) Direct Student Loan Forgiveness.--
(1) In general.--Section 460 of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087j) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by amending subparagraph (A) to
read as follows:
``(A)(i) has been employed--

[[Page S4879]]

``(I) as a full-time teacher for 5 consecutive complete
school years in a school that qualifies under section
465(a)(2)(A) for loan cancellation for Perkins loan
recipients who teach in such a school; or
``(II) as a Head Start teacher for 5 consecutive complete
program years under the Head Start Act; and
``(ii)(I) if employed as a secondary school teacher, is
teaching a subject area that is relevant to the borrower's
academic major as certified by the chief administrative
officer of the public or nonprofit private secondary school
in which the borrower is employed;
``(II) if employed as an elementary school teacher, has
demonstrated, as certified by the chief administrative
officer of the public or nonprofit private elementary school
in which the borrower is employed, knowledge and teaching
skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of
the elementary school curriculum; and
``(III) if employed as a Head Start teacher, has
demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading,
writing, early childhood development, and other areas of a
preschool curriculum, with a focus on cognitive learning;
and'';
(B) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Head start.--An individual shall be eligible for loan
forgiveness under this section for service described in
subclause (II) of subsection (b)(1)(A)(i) only if such
individual received a baccalaureate or graduate degree on or
after the date of enactment of the Loan Forgiveness for Head
Start Teachers Act of 2001.''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary
for fiscal year 2007 and succeeding fiscal years to carry out
loan repayment under this section for service described in
subclause (II) of subsection (b)(1)(A)(i).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 460 of such Act (20
U.S.C. 1087j) is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``or fifth complete
program year'' after ``fifth complete school year of
teaching'';
(B) in subsection (f), by striking ``subsection (b)'' and
inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)(I)'';
(C) in subsection (g)(1)(A), by striking ``subsection
(b)(1)(A)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(A)(i)(I)''; and
(D) in subsection (h), by inserting ``except as part of the
term `program year','' before ``where''.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, this amendment will encourage young
teachers to go into early childhood education, encourage further
learning and credentialing of early learning educators, and lead to
better education for our nation's youngest children.
I am pleased to be joined by Senators Feinstein, Cochran, Baucus,
Landrieu, Murray and Corzine in offering this amendment.
If one asks virtually any scientific expert in human development or
any mother for that matter--and they will tell you that there is no
more important time in a child's life than their earliest years.
In terms of priorities, the experiences and learning that fill a
child's first years have a critical and decisive impact on the
development of the brain and on the nature and extent of their adult
capacities--in other words, who they will become as they grow older.
That window of opportunity can be impacted by things that are within
our control.
To maximize their potential, we must begin to teach our children the
necessary learning skills as early as possible; well before they reach
kindergarten.
There is countless amounts of research and data that shows that by
focusing on these earliest years, we can make the greatest difference
in a child's development and capacity to learn, and I know of few other
programs that provide that kind of focus as does Head Start.
The amendment that I am offering is designed to encourage currently
enrolled and incoming college students working on a bachelor's or a
master's degree to pursue a career as a Head Start teacher.
In exchange for a 5-year teaching commitment in a qualified Head
Start program, a college graduate with a minium of a bachelor's degree
could receive up to $5,000 in forgiveness for their federal Stafford
student loan.
When I was Governor of Ohio, we invested heavily in Head Start,
increasing funding from $18 million in 1990, to $180 million in 1998.
By the time I left office, there was a space available for every
eligible child in Ohio whose parents wanted them in a Head Start or
preschool program, and because of our efforts, Ohio led the Nation in
terms of children served by Head Start. Today, there are 60,000
children in our Head Start programs.
Now that I am in the Senate, I continue to believe that it is
absolutely critical that we do more to help our young people prepare to
begin school ready to learn.
In this regard, I was pleased to work with Senators Jeffords and
Stevens last year to help pass the Early Learning Opportunities Act.
Still, we must now do more to help those teachers who educate our
youngest children.
The results of a survey undertaken by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services in 1999 and 2000 has shown a significant correlation
between the quality of education a child receives and the amount of
education that child's teacher possesses; that is, the more education a
teacher has, the more effectively they teach their students cognitive
skills, the more likely the students are to act upon those skills.
Current Federal law requires that 50 percent of all Head Start
teachers must have an associate, bachelor's, or advanced degree in
early childhood education or a related field with teaching experience
by 2003.
Under Ohio law, by 2007, all Head Start teachers must have at least
an associate's degree. It is hoped that this requirement will encourage
Head Start educators to pursue a bachelor's or even an advanced degree.
After all, the more education our teachers have, the better off our
children will be. Unfortunately, as we all know, education can be
expensive.
In Ohio today, only 11.3 percent--242--of the 2,126 Head Start
teachers employed in the State have a bachelor's degree. Additionally,
less than 1 percent--20--of Ohio's Head Start teachers have a graduate
degree. We must do more to help our teachers afford the education that
will be used to help educate our children.
If we do not intervene at this critical time in a child's life with
programs such as Head Start and the Early Learning Opportunity Act, we
will not likely reach our goal of ``no child left behind.'' One of the
best uses of our Federal education resources is to target them toward
our youngest citizens where they can have the most impact.
Recruiting and retaining Head Start and early childhood teachers
continues to be a challenge for Ohio and other States.
This amendment--which is based on the bill that Senator Feinstein and
I introduced, the Loan Forgiveness for Head Start Teachers Act, S. 123
will help communities, schools and other Head Start providers to meet
the challenge of recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers.
It is one of the best ways that I know of where we can make a real
difference in the lives of our most precious resource--our children.
I am pleased to have been able to work with the National Head Start
Association, the Ohio Head Start Association, and my Senate colleagues
on this legislation. I urge the Members of this Chamber to support this
amendment.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from
California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate passage of
the James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act. This bill is named
after two police officers who were killed in the line of duty by
criminal assailants wearing body armor.
I thank Senator Sessions, Senator Hatch, and Senator Leahy, among
others, for working so diligently with me to craft and pass this
bipartisan legislation.
I would also like to recognize Lee Guelff, brother of James Guelff,
as well as the many other individuals who worked tirelessly on behalf
of this legislation.
I introduced this legislation almost six years ago in response to the
death of San Francisco police officer James Guelff. on November 13,
1994, Officer Guelff responded to a distress call. Upon reaching the
crime scene, he was fired upon by a heavily armed suspect who was
shielded by a kevlar vest and bulletproof helmet. Officer Guelff died
in the ensuing gunfight.

[[Page S4880]]

The James Guelff and Chris McCurley Body Armor Act is designed to
deter criminals from wearing body armor, and to distribute excess
Federal body armor to local police.
Lee Guelff, brother of Officer James Guelff, wrote to me about the
need to revise the laws relating to body armor. He wrote:

It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in
possession of superior firepower . . . But to have to
confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive
protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk
for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to
face the same set of deadly circumstances again.

I strongly agree with Lee.
The legislation has three key provisions. First, it directs the U.S.
Sentencing Commission to provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement
for any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the
defendant used body armor.
Second, it makes it unlawful for a person who has been convicted of a
violent felony to purchase, own, or posses body armor.
It is unconscionable that current laws permit felons to obtain and
wear body armor without restriction when so many of our police lack
comparable protection.
Finally, the bill enables Federal law enforcement agencies to donate
surplus body armor (approximately 10,000 vests) directly to local and
state police departments;
Far too many of our local police officers do not have access to body
armor. The United States Department of Justice estimates that 25% of
State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, approximately
150,000 officers, are not issued body armor.
Getting our police officers more body armor will save lives.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, more than 30% of
the 1,200 officers killed by guns in the line of duty since 1980 could
have survived if they wore body armor.
This bill has the support of organizations representing 500,000 law
enforcement personnel nationwide including: Fraternal Order of Police;
National Association of Police Organizations; National Sheriff's
Association; National Troopers Coalition; International Association of
Police Chiefs; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Assn; Police Executive
Research Forum; International Brotherhood of Police Officers; Major
city Chiefs; and National Assn. Black Law Enforcement Executives.
Once again, I commend the Senate for passing this important and long
overdue legislation.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:30
a.m. on Tuesday the Senate resume consideration of the Murray amendment
No. 378 and there be 120 minutes equally divided in the usual form.
I further ask unanimous consent that at 2:20 on Tuesday the Senate
proceed to a vote in relation to the amendment and no amendments be in
order to the amendment and there be 5 minutes equally divided for
closing remarks prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, with regard to the Sessions amendment, I
ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed to Sessions amendment
No. 600 be modified to be drafted to the pending substitute. This is a
technical change. It does not change any of the amendment's legislative
language.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________