[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4913-S4932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will now resume consideration of the Murray
amendment No. 378. There are 5 minutes equally divided before the vote.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in a minute we are going to be voting on
a
[[Page S4914]]
very important amendment which reduces class size in first, second, and
third grades and continue the commitment this Congress has made in the
last three years.
Frankly, I cannot believe the Senate just spent 2 hours debating
whether or not smaller class size makes a difference. We know it makes
a difference. Any teacher, parent, or student will tell you that, and
we have the research that proves it.
This vote is our opportunity to support the progress being made in
schools across the country and to show that we are willing to invest in
the things that work. If our colleagues vote against this amendment, in
September when parents find their kids back in overcrowded classrooms,
they are going to be upset. They are going to want to know why you
voted against smaller classes. You can tell them about flexibility,
choice, and funding pools, but the truth is, none of those buzzwords
will help their kids learn to read when they are fighting just to get a
teacher's attention. The choice we make today will demonstrate whether
``no child left behind'' is just a catchy campaign slogan or a national
commitment. I hope it is the latter. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment, and I yield back the remaining time on our side.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Murray
amendment. The bill before us clearly states that Federal funds must be
used for activities that will improve teaching and learning in the
classroom, including the hiring of highly qualified teachers, if that
hiring will improve student performance. The decision as to how Federal
money is to be used is up to the local school district.
Although there are teacher shortages in States and localities, there
are also areas where teacher shortages are not prevalent. As you can
see from this chart, which illustrates class size over the last 40
years, the recent trend in the mid to late 1990s indicates that class
size is averaging around 17 students per teacher.
I oppose the class size reduction amendment because I believe local
schools are in a better position than we are to determine how best to
distribute funding in regard to professional development and hiring
practices. S. 1 gives local school districts the opportunity to make
their own decisions about the expenditure of dollars for the purpose of
improving their teacher corps, which, in turn, will hopefully lead to
gains in overall student performance. I urge my colleagues to oppose
this class size amendment.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MILLER (after having voted in the negative). Mr. President, on
this vote, I have a live pair with the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka.
If he were present and voting, he would vote ``yea.'' If I were
permitted to vote, I would vote ``nay.'' I, therefore, withdraw my
vote.
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 50, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--50
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED--1
Miller, against
NOT VOTING--1
Akaka
The amendment (No. 378) was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The Senator from Kansas.
Amendment No. 413 to Amendment No. 358
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment I call up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for himself and
Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment numbered 413.
Mr. BROWNBACK. 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 provide for a study regarding the effects on children of
exposure to violent enterainment, and to require the National
Assessment of Educational Progress to gather information regarding how
much time children spend on various forms of entertainment)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. 902. STUDY AND INFORMATION.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institutes of
Health and the Secretary of Education jointly shall--
(A) conduct a study regarding how exposure to violent
entertainment (such as movies, music, television, Internet
content, video games, and arcade games) affects children's
cognitive development and educational achievement; and
(B) submit a final report to Congress regarding the study.
(2) Plan.--The Director and the Secretary jointly shall
submit to Congress, not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, a plan for the conduct of the study.
(3) Interim reports.--The Director and the Secretary
jointly shall submit to Congress annual interim reports
regarding the study until the final report is submitted under
paragraph (1)(B).
(b) Information.--Section 411(b)(3) of the National
Education Statistics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9010(b)(3) et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in carrying out the
National Assessment the Commissioner shall gather data
regarding how much time children spend on various forms of
entertainment, such as movies, music, television, Internet
content, video games, and arcade games.''.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to urge the adoption of
this amendment to S. 1. I am delighted to be joined in this effort by
my friend and colleague, Senator Kohl from Wisconsin. I would also like
to thank the chairman of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions for his work in securing the passage of this amendment. I
think this is a noncontroversial amendment so I am going to summarize
the point.
Over the past several years, we have had a number of hearings by this
Congress about the impact of entertainment, particularly violent
entertainment, on children, and the accessibility of such entertainment
to children. This last summer we had the six major health organizations
in the country--the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric
Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and others--sign a
statement which said that exposing children to violent entertainment
can actually cause increases in aggression and hostility and decreases
in empathy.
Since then, there have also been reports of studies focusing on how
violent entertainment affects a child's brain activity. Less than a
month ago, USA Today reported on one study conducted by Professor John
Murray of Kansas State University. It showed the results of MRIs taken
of children who were watching violent film clips. The reporter
concluded: ``The scans showed that violent film clips activate
children's brains in a distinctive, potentially violence-producing
pattern. Although children may consciously know
[[Page S4915]]
that violence on the screen isn't real, their brains are treating it as
gospel truth.''
We know that a young child's mind goes through extraordinary
development, particularly before the age of 7. We know the influences
on their early life can profoundly affect both what they think about
and how they think. New research has provided interesting insights into
how parents can create the best learning environment and most
encouraging learning environment for their children--what influences
and factors will encourage the healthiest development of a child's
intellect and cognition and enhance their abilities as they develop and
move forward in life.
Despite these studies and their implications for the way a young
child's mind grows and develops, as well as how they perform in school,
there has been very little study on how exposure to entertainment,
particularly violent entertainment, affects their cognitive
development. This is not a data gap; it is a chasm. And it needs to be
filled.
It is in the public interest to find out what the impact of exposing
children to violent entertainment has on their cognitive development.
It is also in the parent's best interests, as well as in the best
interests of children, and, obviously, it is in the best interests of
this country. Therefore, the amendment I am proposing, along with my
colleague, Senator Kohl, would be a first step in addressing this data
chasm.
It calls for a study on how children's cognitive and academic
achievement are affected by exposure to violent entertainment. It calls
on the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education to
jointly work out a plan for conducting this study, subject to
congressional approval, and to report its findings.
The more we know about how our children's young minds are formed and
cultivated, the better we can educate, nurture, and care for them. This
amendment is an important step towards realizing that goal.
In conclusion, let me say this: We know that currently children in
America spend more time in front of a television, a computer screen, or
a play station than they do in school. They certainly spend more time
in front of one of those screens than they do talking with their
parents. We know children spend a large portion of their waking hours
focused on entertainment, and we can assume that it has some impact on
their thoughts, attitudes, and even abilities. But what we do not know
yet is what exposure to violent entertainment does to a child's
cognitive abilities. Some of the early studies seem to be very
troubling about what it is doing to a child's brain. That is why we are
asking for this study, so we can learn about this much better.
Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Jeffords, the manager of the bill
would be willing to engage me in a short colloquy concerning the
pending Brownback-Kohl amendment.
I thank the managers of the bill for their willingness to include our
amendment in the education bill. We think this is an important addition
to the legislation because it will give Congress and the Department of
Education a tool for evaluating the effect of violent entertainment on
the cognitive development and educational achievement of our children.
It is the Senator's intention when we go to conference in the House
to make every effort to assure that the Brownback-Kohl amendment is
included in the final version of the bill?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both
sides of the aisle. We all agree that the Brownback-Kohl amendment,
which would gather data on the use of violent entertainment by children
through the National Assessment of Educational Attainment and require a
joint National Institutes of Health-Department of Education study on
the issue, is highly relevant to improving the educational performance
of our children. It is my intention to keep this provision in the final
version of the education reform package when it comes out of conference
with the House of Representatives.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I just want to add that there have been no
objections from our side of the aisle to including the Brownback-Kohl
amendment in the bill. I appreciate Senator Jeffords' cooperation with
me, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Brownback to get this amendment
included in the bill. I also appreciate his assurance that he will do
everything he can to make sure our proposal is included in the final
education reform bill.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I do not know of anybody who is
opposing this amendment. I ask for its adoption. There may be other
Members who would like to comment on this amendment. I believe it is
possible we may be able to proceed to a voice vote on this amendment
while we are still on the amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is entirely appropriate that we study
the impact of violence in the media on young people. The increasing
incidence of violent behavior is alarming and we should carefully
scrutinize the causes of that violence.
It will be very helpful to learn which types of imaging and
broadcasting have causal links to violent behavior. A great deal of
research has already been conducted in this area. For example,
researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have studied
the impact of violent images in movies, television and video games and
have expressed caution against a presumption that there is an isolated
cause and effect between violent images and violent action.
I also believe that access to guns is indisputably part of this
critical problem. There is no one individual cause of this disturbing
social pattern and we should avoid simplifying either this problem or
our solution to it.
However, many young people spend a great deal of time watching
television and movies and we should explore incentives to the industry
to provide entertaining material that is nonviolent.
Industry leaders have expressed a willingness to incorporate improved
warnings for parents to monitor the programming that their children do
watch, and we should do all that we can to make these worthwhile tools
accessible and understandable.
We should be ready also to acknowledge that the entertainment
industry is not solely responsible for increasing violent behavior in
our youngest citizens.
The Senate should also improve a broad range of opportunities for
children to help them achieve to their fullest expectations and dreams.
We can increase funding for Early Start and Head Start. We can improve
the learning experience of children once they enter school, including
reducing class size and teacher quality.
I have sponsored--and I have worked very closely with the Senator
from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran--on our Ready to Learn legislation to
ensure that time spent watching television by young preschool children
will be entertaining and educational. With a modest $15 million Federal
appropriation, public broadcasting has created effective educational
programming that develops skills necessary for success when a child
enters a classroom for the first time.
Accompanying material is provided for parents, caregivers and other
family members to encourage reading in the child's home environment. We
should be tripling funding for this program, but instead, this bill
seeks to eliminate it.
The number of awards that those programs for children have been
nominated for has been truly amazing. There have been over 40 Emmys for
all the ready-to-learn programs. ``Between the Lions'' has really been
an extraordinary success. It and its Web site have won several awards.
The series won the Parents' Choice Gold Award for best show for kids
aged 4 to 7. It was recently named the Best Children's Show in the
country by the Television Critics Association. It has just been
nominated for several Academy Awards. And the Web site won two awards
in the fall of 2000: Best Children's Entertainment Site from the
Massachusetts Interactive Media Council and Best Kids Web Entertainment
from NewsMedia.com's Invision Awards.
We welcome the Senator's amendment and think it is an entirely
appropriate one. We also recognize there are important additional
matters to which we should give focus.
I support a serious examination of the impact that violence in the
media
[[Page S4916]]
has on young children. I am, as well, hopeful we can also improve the
educational components of our media.
As I know the Senator is aware, we attempted, for a number of years,
to make that as a condition for the relicensing. What happened, of
course, is that it never worked because we would find that with the
application the broadcasting industry would just label programs as
children's programs, and they never really carried forward the effect
of that.
We have been remarkably unsuccessful in monitoring and affecting the
kind of violence there is on television. But when we provided a very
limited amount of incentives for the development of children's
programs, and worked those through public broadcasting, we have had
some amazing success.
I look forward to working with the Senator in terms of getting this
study, this review, and also working with him to try to see what can be
developed to attract families, and particularly parents with their
children, to watch the programs on television that can be useful,
positive, constructive, and, hopefully, educational and helpful to the
children as well.
I urge acceptance of the Senator's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not believe there is any objection
to the amendment.
I yield to the Senator on his amendment.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I believe we are ready to proceed to a
voice vote on the amendment. Unless the Senator from North Carolina
would care to address the amendment, I think it would be appropriate
for us to proceed to a voice vote. I call for a voice vote at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 413.
The amendment (No. 413) was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 462 To Amendment No. 358
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Voinovich amendment No. 443 is the pending
business.
Mr. EDWARDS. I ask unanimous consent to lay that amendment aside, and
I call up amendment No. 462.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Edwards] proposes an
amendment numbered 462 to amendment No. 358.
Mr. EDWARDS. 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 for an independent analysis to measure school
district achievement)
On page 679, after line 25, add the following:
``(6) support for arrangements that provide for independent
analysis to measure and report on school district
achievement.''.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple and
straightforward. It deals with the issue of testing.
Much of our education bill we have been discussing for the last
several days and much of the administration's proposal is modeled after
what has been done in North Carolina. In North Carolina, we have had in
place for a number of years a very vigorous measurement and testing
regime. In fact, we already have annual testing in reading and math in
grades 3 through 8, which is precisely what is being proposed by the
administration and is incorporated into this bill.
This testing process has played a very important role in allowing us
to measure student performance in North Carolina and also to identify
low-performing schools so we can make an intense effort to turn those
schools around.
What I have learned from visiting our schools and talking with
students and teachers is that testing in and of itself is not an end.
It is a means. From talking to students and teachers and at town hall
meetings talking to parents about this testing procedure that has been
used in North Carolina, I have learned that there is a great deal of
concern that students are spending too much time preparing for tests
and teachers are spending too much time in the classroom teaching to
the test.
It has gotten to the point where some students and some teachers
believe the tests dominate the classroom. And because of the way the
tests are given and administered and the kinds of tests that are given,
it can sometimes be counterproductive to the learning process.
What we are doing in this amendment is providing that States can go
to private outside firms to evaluate the testing in a particular school
district to determine whether it is working, how effective it is, and
also to make comparisons with the testing being used in that school
district as compared to the testing being used in another school
district someplace else in the country.
The basic theory is these private outside firms can identify school
districts where the testing is working, where it is effective, where it
has as little impact as possible on the learning process inside the
classroom so the teachers, the students, and the parents feel the
testing process is working. It allows them to measure but, at the same
time, it doesn't interfere with the substantive learning process of the
students, for the students and the teacher.
The basic idea is the State is allowed to contract with these outside
firms which can evaluate the testing programs and compare them with
testing programs in other places across the country.
The amendment does not authorize any new money. It simply allows
States to conduct this type of analysis. The purpose of this amendment
and its thrust is to focus on the issue of testing, allow States to
identify testing methods and procedures that are, in fact, working. It
is a specific effort to address a concern I have heard expressed over
and over from students, from teachers, and from parents; that is, to
have a testing system and a measurement system that provides us with
the information we need but at the same time does as little as possible
to interfere with the teaching process and with the learning process.
I thank my colleagues for their support and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina has given
additional focus on a very key element in this legislation; that is,
the information made available to parents. His amendment will add an
additional dimension in terms of the possible accuracy and types of
information so it can be easily understood and utilized by parents and
so they can understand what is happening in the schools their children
are attending.
In the existing legislation, there is the requirement that the States
will provide information to the parents. What the amendment of the
Senator from North Carolina does is provide the ability for the States
themselves to get, through this contracting arrangement, the up-to-
date, most advanced, most recent, comprehensive information that can
possibly be developed. It gives that option to the State to provide it
to the parents. It is incredibly important.
This is one of the underlying concepts of the legislation; that is,
that the parents become involved. We want them to be involved, and
there are ample provisions in the legislation to have them involved. We
want to get the parents involved. Part of a very powerful tool to get
them involved is giving them information about what is happening in the
school and what the condition of the school is.
We have provided in the legislation a range of different information
that will be available in the report card. The Senator from North
Carolina, with this additional amendment, can give the assurance that
if the State wants to work through a contracting arrangement, the
information may very well be much more available and usable and current
for the parent. That is very important
[[Page S4917]]
and completely consistent with the direction of the legislation and
very desirable to have.
I thank him for this idea, as well as bringing to the basic
legislation the experience that has taken place in turning around low-
performing schools in North Carolina, and the way it has changed
through the development of some enormously interesting and very
successful models that will be available in this legislation to
communities all over this country is really a major strengthening of
and improvement in the legislation itself. That is one of the things
that makes this legislation so hopeful.
If we are able to get the resources to be able to give all these
provisions some life and meaning, we are going to be in an even
stronger position. As the Senator from North Carolina and others have
pointed out, we have a blueprint here which is both supportable and
commendable and can make a difference, but we need the resources to
make sure these provisions are going to do what, in this instance,
parents need and should have and also what schoolchildren should have
in the provisions which have been included in the bill that are
patterned after the very important, successful initiatives in North
Carolina.
I thank the Senator for his initiative. I hope we will accept it.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to join in the accolades for the
Senator's amendment. What we are doing in this bill is not something
that is easily understood when you try to analyze the facts. But it is
incredibly important that parents understand how their child is doing.
The amendment that we have here will be very helpful in letting us
understand what is an incredibly important move forward in making sure
that we get changes and improvements in the system, but it does it in a
way that we can fully understand how each child is doing. I thank the
Senator for his excellent amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Senator. I ask for a voice vote at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.
The amendment (No. 462) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Voinovich
amendment.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 622, As Modified, to Amendment No. 358
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 622, and I ask
unanimous consent to modify my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton], for himself, Mr.
Corzine, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered
622, as modified.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I may have to object. We haven't seen a
copy of it yet.
Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry. The Senator is permitted to
modify his amendment. We haven't asked for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DAYTON. I will make it a second degree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a filing deadline for first-degree
amendments. That does constitute Senate action which would then require
that the Senator does need consent to modify.
Mr. JEFFORDS. 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, we have no objection to the amendment,
as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 622), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to
fully fund 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for programs
under part B of such Act)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. ____. AMENDMENT TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT.
Notwithstanding any other amendment made by this Act to
section 611(j) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1411(j)), subsection (j) of such Act is
amended to read as follows:
``(j) Funding.--For the purpose of carrying out this part,
other than section 619, there are authorized to be
appropriated, and there are appropriated--
``(1) $12,347,001,000 for fiscal year 2002;
``(2) not more than $18,370,317,000, or the sum of the
maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection
(a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2003;
``(3) not more than $19,048,787,000, or the sum of the
maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection
(a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2004;
``(4) not more than $19,719,918,000, or the sum of the
maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection
(a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2005;
``(5) not more than $20,393,202,000, or the sum of the
maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection
(a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2006;
``(6) not more than $21,067,600,000, or the sum of the
maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection
(a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2007;
``(7) not more than $21,742,019,000, or the sum of the
maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection
(a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2008;
``(8) not more than $22,423,068,000, or the sum of the
maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection
(a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2009;
``(9) not more than $23,095,622,000, or the sum of the
maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection
(a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2010; and
``(10) not more than $23,751,456,000, or the sum of the
maximum amount that all States may receive under subsection
(a)(2), whichever is lower, for fiscal year 2011.''.
SEC. . MAINTAINING FUNDING FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
Section 611 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act is amended to add the following new subsection:
``(k) Continuation of Authorization.--For fiscal year 2012
and each fiscal year thereafter, there are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for purpose of
carrying out this part, other than section 619.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment,
which is also sponsored by Senators Corzine and Wellstone.
This amendment would bring the Federal share of funding for special
education up to its long-promised 40 percent level in 2 years.
I greatly admire the efforts of my senior colleagues, the authors of
this legislation, who have negotiated the previous agreement which is
now contained in the legislation. I applaud their efforts and I support
their work.
However, I would like to see their timetable for funding 40 percent
of the costs of special education accelerated. That is the promise I
made to Minnesota educators, parents, and students.
The failure of the Federal Government to pay for 40 percent of the
cost of special education is a broken promise which now extends for 25
years. This unfunded Federal mandate is having devastating consequences
for schools all across Minnesota.
Federal law requires these important services to students with
disabilities and special needs, but it does not provide the funds
necessary for them. There is no question that school districts must
provide them and should provide them. But without the necessary and
long-promised funding from the Federal Government, Minnesota school
districts must take money away from other students and from other
education programs. In Minnesota, that means local property taxes must
be increased to make up the shortfall. Yet even then there is still not
enough money available to do justice to all students.
Then schools are blamed, teachers are blamed, and even students are
blamed. Yet the failure is ours. The failure is our unwillingness to
provide the funding necessary to allow schools to succeed, teachers to
succeed, and students to succeed.
Without my amendment, we are saying: Yes, we recognize our
responsibility. We intend to finally keep our
[[Page S4918]]
promise, but we need 6 more years to do so. That is too much
procrastination.
The recently passed budget resolution said that Congress can afford
huge tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. However, we cannot
afford to keep our promises to the schoolchildren of America,
especially those who have the greatest needs.
That is just plain wrong.
It is time to put our money where our mouths are. We can no longer
hide behind the claim that we don't have the funds to do what is right.
We have the money. The question is, Do we have the will to spend some
of it on behalf of better education for all of America's children? That
is the decision we must make today on this amendment.
My amendment would increase education funding by $12 billion in
fiscal year 2002 and by $18 billion in fiscal year 2003. That is a lot
of money, no doubt about it. But it is less than one-fifth the cost of
the proposed tax cuts for 2002, and less than one-third of the tax cuts
proposed for 2003. We could still have major tax reduction for middle-
income working Americans, and even for upper income Americans, and
still keep our promise to fund 40 percent of America's special
education costs.
That is the decision before us today. That is the question which my
amendment addresses.
On behalf of Minnesota's schoolchildren and educators, I urge the
Senate to adopt this amendment. Its benefits will accrue to every
classroom, in every school, in every school district throughout
America. It will help take the President's words: ``leave no child
behind'' and make them a living reality for millions of schoolchildren
throughout our country.
I am reminded of the title of the old television show, ``Truth or
Consequences.'' Either we tell the truth or we face the consequences.
The truth is that we are not meeting our financial commitment to public
education throughout America. The truth is that the Federal Government
has mandated important special services to children with special needs
for the last 25 years but has not provided its promised funding
necessary to fulfill this pledge.
The consequences of our failures are children throughout America who
are not receiving the special education they need and deserve. The
consequences are lost hopes, lost dreams, and lost lives.
It is time to tell the truth. This amendment will restore the truth
to a 25-year unfunded mandate.
Mr. President, I urge the Senate's passage of this amendment.
I yield back my time.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DAYTON. 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. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak for and offer my strong
support to my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton. My
understanding is I am an original cosponsor, along with Senator
Corzine. I will not take much time. There are other colleagues who are
on the floor.
This amendment fully funds the IDEA program within 2 years, and the
spending will be mandatory. Because of the special rules regarding
mandatory spending, my understanding is this amendment will require 60
votes for it to be adopted.
To give some sense of the impact IDEA full funding will have on some
school districts in Minnesota, Minneapolis will receive around $16
million; St. Paul, $15 million; Duluth will receive around $4.5
million; Blue Earth area public schools will receive around $550,000;
Deer River will receive $419,000; and Walnut Grove will receive
$54,000.
For those who do not know each of these towns, they probably know
Minneapolis and St. Paul. I am also giving some greater Minnesota
examples so no one will labor under the misunderstanding that this
amendment only applies to urban or metropolitan areas. It is terribly
important to rural areas as well.
We have had some other important amendments dealing with IDEA, and,
in particular, there was the Harkin-Hagel amendment which passed last
week. That was to fully fund IDEA and also to make it mandatory. That
was to provide full funding over a 6-year period.
I commend the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nebraska for
their work. I also want to say this about the Senator from Iowa. I do
not think there is another Senator--one has to be careful when one says
this because one doesn't want to slight anyone, but I do not believe
there has been anybody in the Senate who has been, if you will, more
there for children and adults with disabilities than Senator Harkin.
The IDEA program in some ways is Tom Harkin's idea. This is who he is.
The amendment that was adopted is terribly important, and Senator
Hagel's support was critical as well. We also have done some other work
on this education bill that is critically important.
The real importance of this amendment and what Senator Dayton is
saying and the reason this is a joint effort by both Senators from
Minnesota--I worry a lot about what we are doing on this education
bill. I worry about what we are doing for a couple of different
reasons. I will try to make a couple quick points, I say to the Senator
from Missouri and also to my friend from Arkansas.
I have not even had a chance to read this article yet today, but I
was skim reading a piece where I saw--and this is really important--a
reference to a letter or a statement that has been put out by Dr.
Robert Coles and Dr. Albert Poussant who are two child psychologists
or, in the case of Coles, a psychiatrist, and maybe Dr. Poussant is a
psychiatrist as well. They have done the best work with children in the
country. Robert Coles has written 46 books on children. I remember
assigning one of his books to my students called ``Children in
Crisis.''
I say to the Senator from Vermont, their letter is a plea to the
Senate not to rush to these tests.
What they are saying is--these are now my words--you are taking the
childhood away from children. They are finding 8-year-olds and 9-year-
olds who are under tremendous stress and showing signs of being under
tremendous stress because of all these tests they are now taking.
We have to think this through. Some of the amendments I have--and I
hope to have as many of them adopted as possible, and I appreciate the
support from other colleagues--are to make sure we do this the best
possible way.
In my own mind, I raise the philosophical question again: Should the
Federal Government be telling every school district in every State to
test every child starting at age 8 all the way every year to age 13? I
do not know whether we should even be doing this. Should we be doing
this to these little children? I am not sure we should. That is a
philosophical question, and I will now put it aside.
The second problem is whether the resources are going to be there. I
want to again put my colleagues on notice, not in a confrontational
way, but I want them to know there are a couple of amendments I have
prepared that I look forward to offering which basically say: When we
adopt these amendments that authorize money, that does not mean it will
ever happen, so we have to make sure that if we are going to do this
testing, not only do we do it the right way, but that the funding will
be available, be it the IDEA program--
[[Page S4919]]
that is what is so important about Senator Dayton's amendment--for
children with special needs, be it title I for children who come from
economically disadvantaged families so that there is more help for
reading, more help for afterschool programs, more help for good
teachers and teaching assistants, you name it--which will be another
amendment which I, frankly, think is just as important, especially if
we are going to start testing 8-year-olds, third graders. I will argue
forever that far more important in determining how that child is going
to do--maybe not at age 13, but at age 8--far more important than the
teacher, although good teachers are always critically important, and
far more important than reduced class size, far more important than
whether the school is inviting and a good facility is whether or not
that child came to kindergarten ready to learn. So the issue is, if we
are going to start testing 8-year-olds, then we do that when we make
the commitment to fully fund the Head Start Program, and that includes
Early Head Start.
I am convinced, the more I think about this moving beyond Head Start,
that we have to get to the point where, for 4-year-olds, if not 3-year-
olds--and it could be optional--you need to pay teachers who do this
work decent salaries. The Head Start Program is optional for families,
but every family has that opportunity, and we fund it within our
overall goal of public education. We really need to get real about it.
I think the context for Senator Dayton's amendment is twofold. No. 1,
for Minnesota, let me repeat these figures: Minneapolis, an additional
$16 million; St. Paul, $15 million; Duluth, $4.5 million; Blue Earth
Area Public School, $550,000; Deer River, $419,000; Walnut Grove,
$54,000. It would be hugely important for us to make this commitment.
That is why I join my colleague, Senator Dayton, in this effort.
Final point: I really think the work that is being done for the IDEA
program, that deals with children with special needs, is, as my good
friend from Iowa likes to say, a constitutional mandate. We believe
these children with special needs should have every right to be in
school with other children and to get the best possible education.
But we are nowhere near our 40-percent funding to which we made a
commitment. We are at about 14 percent. What Senator Dayton is saying
in this amendment is: Why 7 years? Why 10 years? If it is the right
thing to do and we have this huge surplus now, then let's do the right
thing over the next 2 years. The sooner we do it, the sooner we get the
assistance to the local school districts, the sooner we get the
assistance to the children, the sooner we get the assistance to our
teachers, the sooner we get the assistance to our States. Therefore, if
it is a great idea and a compelling idea and the right thing to do, it
is the right thing to do now. Make it mandatory and fully fund it over
a 2-year period of time.
I strongly support this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will vote
for it.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 555
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
business and call up amendment No. 555.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an
amendment numbered 555.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001, under
``Amendments Submitted and Proposed.'')
Amendment No. 555, as Modified
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask that the modifications to
amendment No. 555 that are at the desk be accepted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 555), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding access to
secondary schools for military recruiting purposes)
At the end of title IX, add the following:
``SEC. 902. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION PROGRAM TO PROMOTE ACCESS OF ARMED
FORCES RECRUITERS TO STUDENT DIRECTORY
INFORMATION.
``(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
``(1) Service in the Armed Forces of the United States is
voluntary.
``(2) Recruiting quality persons in the numbers necessary
to maintain the strengths of the Armed Forces authorized by
Congress is vital to the United States national defense.
``(3) Recruiting quality servicemembers is very
challenging, and as a result, Armed Forces recruiters must
devote extraordinary time and effort to their work in order
to fill monthly requirements for immediate accessions.
``(4) In meeting goals for recruiting high quality men and
women, each of the Armed Forces faces intense competition
from the other Armed Forces, from the private sector, and
from institutions offering postsecondary education.
``(5) Despite a variety of innovative approaches taken by
recruiters, and the extensive benefits that are available to
those who join the Armed Forces, it is becoming increasingly
difficult for the Armed Forces to meet recruiting goals.
``(6) A number of high schools have denied recruiters
access to students or to student directory information.
``(7) In 1999, the Army was denied access to students or
student directory information on 4,515 occasions, the Navy
was denied access to students or student directory
information on 4,364 occasions, the Marine Corps was denied
access to students or student directory information on 4,884
occasions, and the Air Force was denied access to students or
student directory information on 5,465 occasions.
``(8) As of the beginning of 2000, nearly 25 percent of all
high schools in the United States did not release student
directory information requested by Armed Forces recruiters.
``(9) In testimony presented to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate, recruiters stated that the single
biggest obstacle to carrying out the recruiting mission was
denial of access to student directory information, as the
student directory is the basic tool of the recruiter.
``(10) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to
student directory information unfairly hurts the youth of the
United States, as it prevents students from receiving
important information on the education and training benefits
offered by the Armed Forces and impairs students'
decisionmaking on careers by limiting the information on the
options available to them.
``(11) Denying recruiters direct access to students and to
student directory information undermines United States
national defense by making it more difficult to recruit high
quality young Americans in numbers sufficient to maintain the
readiness of the Armed Forces and to provide for the national
defense.
``(12) Section 503 of title 10, United States Code,
requires local educational agencies, as of July 1, 2002, to
provide recruiters access to secondary schools on the same
basis that those agencies provide access to representatives
of colleges, universities, and private sector employers.
``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, should, not later than July 2, 2001,
establish a year-long campaign to educate principals, school
administrators, and other educators regarding career
opportunities in the Armed Forces, and the access standard
required under section 503 of title 10, United States Code.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Since I became chairman of the Armed Services
Personnel Subcommittee last year, the subcommittee has conducted two
hearings on recruiting. This has been a real eye opener to me, to
listen to these front-line military recruiters about the obstacles they
face in doing a very important job for the U.S. military.
At both hearings, uniformed recruiters complained that denial of
access to high school students or student directory information was the
No. 1 obstacle they face in their efforts to recruit high-quality men
and women needed to man today's military. It is a bigger problem than
the health care of the military, a bigger problem than educational
benefits, a bigger problem than image. Bigger than anything else was
the problem of actually getting access to the students to be able to
tell their story about the career opportunities they might have serving
in the U.S. military.
I was stunned to discover that more than 4,000 high schools across
the Nation, which routinely allow colleges, employers, and class ring
companies access to students, are denying access to recruiters from one
or more of our military services.
In 1999, the last year in which accurate figures are available, the
Army was denied access by 4,515 schools; the Navy was denied access by
4,364 schools; the Marine Corps was denied
[[Page S4920]]
access by 4,884 schools; and the Air Force was denied access by 5,465
high schools in the United States.
This, I suggest, is a national disgrace. Our Armed Forces protect
America's freedoms, and uniformed recruiters should not be denied
access to almost a quarter of America's young people because, many
times, of the arbitrary decision of a high school principal or a high
school superintendent.
Denial of access undermines our national defense by making it even
more difficult to recruit high-quality young Americans in numbers
sufficient to maintain the readiness of our All-Volunteer Force.
Denying recruiters direct access to students and student directory
information also unfairly hurts America's youth. It prevents students
from receiving important information on the educational and training
benefits offered by the Armed Forces and impairs students'
decisionmaking by hiding the career opportunities available to them.
When I became aware, that our recruiters whom we ask to do one of the
most difficult jobs in the military, to go out and recruit young men
and women to go into our military at pay that is disparate from what
they could get in the private sector, in an almost full-employment
economy, we were asking them to do that with one hand tied behind their
backs because they weren't given access to almost one-quarter of the
students, I offered a provision in last year's defense authorization
bill which would, effective July 1, 2001, require high schools to
provide recruiters for the armed services both physical and directory
access equal to that provided to colleges and prospective employers.
If the high school wants to have an across-the-board policy of no
access to their students--no employers, no colleges--then certainly
they could apply that to military recruiters. But if they are going to
say class ring companies can come on, colleges and institutions of
higher learning can come on to the campus and recruit, industries can
come on and recruit for careers, then we said that military recruiters
should have access on the same basis.
If such access is not granted, a recruiter must report the denial to
his or her respective service. This report will trigger, then, a series
of visits and written notifications by the Department of Defense
personnel culminating in the Secretary of Defense contacting the
relevant Governor and asking for help in restoring access to the
offending high school.
Any school district in America would have the opportunity to opt out
of the law if the local school board voted publicly to discriminate
against recruiters from the Armed Forces. But no more simply shall a
superintendent or a principal making a determination on their own for
whatever reason, because of a bad experience or whatever they might
have had, that might motivate them to prevent these recruiters from
access. It would have to go to a public vote of the elected
representatives, elected school board, before they could opt out of the
law. Any high school that continued to discriminate against recruiters
from the Armed Forces without the support of such a vote would open
itself to lawsuits in Federal court.
We are rapidly approaching July 1, 2001, which will mark 1 year until
the new law becomes effective. We have already heard from many
recruiters that they are finding that high schools are not aware of the
public law that changed Federal policy and the fact it is going to go
into effect in just a little over a year. So as thousands of high
schools, yet ignorant of the pending change in the law, continue to
discriminate against uniformed recruiters, I think now is the time for
a national wake-up call concerning this denial of access that continues
to this day.
My amendment states that:
It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of
Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense,
should. . .establish a year-long campaign to educate
principals, school administrators, and other educators
regarding career opportunities in the Armed Forces and the
access standard [that is required under this new law].
I think it is very important that recruiters as they go across this
country have the support of the Congress in the sense that these
principals, these superintendents, and school administrators are aware
that we have changed the public policy. There will be a new law in
effect.
There will be a new law in effect, and the only way they can deny
that access is when they go before the elected school board members and
have a public vote to that effect.
I hope my colleagues will unanimously support a very commonsense and
patriotic amendment.
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. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Amendment No. 374, withdrawn
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order on
amendment No. 274, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 448, As Modified
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 448, and I ask
unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mrs. Carnahan] proposes an
amendment numbered 448, as modified.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. 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 improve the quality of education in our Nation's
classrooms)
On page 319, line 4, insert ``, including teaching
specialists in core academic subjects'' after ``principals''.
On page 326, line 1, insert ``, including strategies to
implement a year-round school schedule that will allow the
local educational agency to increase pay for veteran
teachers'' after ``performance''.
On page 327, line 2, insert ``as well as teaching
specialists in core academic subjects who will provide
increased individualized instruction to students served by
the local educational agency participating in the eligible
partnership'' after ``qualified''.
On page 517, line 18, strike ``and''.
On page 517, line 20, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 517, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
``(I) alternative programs for the education and discipline
of chronically violent and disruptive students as it relates
to drug and violence prevention.
On page 528, line 11, strike ``and''.
On page 528, line 14, strike the period and insert ``;
and''.
On page 528, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
``(16) alternative programs for the education and
discipline of chronically violent and disruptive students as
it relates to drug and violence prevention.
On page 539, line 10, strike ``and''.
On page 539, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
``(E) alternative programs for the education and discipline
of chronically violent and disruptive students as it relates
to drug and violence prevention; and''.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, the quality classrooms amendment
provides flexibility for our schools. I am delighted that the Senate
has recognized the need to provide our schools with more choices, not
more mandates. The amendment allows for the hiring of teaching
specialists, the development of alternative educational programs, and
year-round school schedules. It will recognize, reward, and encourage
promising reform efforts.
I thank the managers for their assistance with the quality classrooms
amendment. I greatly appreciate the suggestions that Senator Jeffords
and his staff have offered. I am also grateful to Senator Kennedy and
his staff for their assistance and for their hard work throughout the
education debate. I am proud to be a part of this debate.
I am confident that our efforts in behalf of public education will
bring greater opportunity to our Nation's children.
I understand that the managers have agreed to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 448), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
[[Page S4921]]
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative 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.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the pending question before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Hutchinson
amendment No. 555.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside temporarily so that I might call up an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Amendment No. 564 To Amendment No. 358
(Purpose: To encourage States to require each expelled or suspended
student to perform community service for the period of the expulsion or
suspension)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 564.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an
amendment numbered 564 to amendment No. 358.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001
under ``Amendments Submitted and Proposed.'')
Amendment No. 564, As Modified
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to the
amendment. Do I need to ask unanimous consent?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. I do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 564), as modified, is as follows:
On page 571, strike line 13, and insert the following:
ance with this section.
``Subpart 4--State Grants To Encourage Community Service by Expelled
and Suspended Students
``SEC. 4141. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``In addition to amounts authorized to be appropriated
under section 4004, there are authorized to be appropriated
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for State grants to
encourage States to carry out programs under which students
expelled or suspended from schools in the States are required
to perform community service.
``SEC. 4142. ALLOTMENTS.
``(a) In General.--From the amount made available under
section 4141, the Secretary shall allocate among the States--
``(1) one-half according to the ratio between the school-
aged population of each State and the school-aged population
of all the States; and
``(2) one-half according to the ratio between the amount
each State received under section 1124A for the preceding
year and the sum of such amounts received by all the States.
``(b) Minimum.--For any fiscal year, no State shall be
allotted under this section an amount that is less than one-
half of 1 percent of the total amount allotted to all the
States under this section.
``(c) Reallotment.--The Secretary may reallot any amount of
any allotment to a State if the Secretary determines that the
State will be unable to use such amount within 2 years of
such allotment. Such reallotments shall be made on the same
basis as allotments are made under subsection (a).
``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `State' means
each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.''.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, many young people in our schools today are
suspended for bad behavior, somewhat unlike the days when I was in high
school. They took care of the bad ones right there on the spot when I
was there. But today a lot of them are suspended. A number of children
in our schools are expelled for violent or dangerous behavior. And I am
all for that. I am all for suspensions and expulsions where warranted,
but what then? In today's home, all to often, both parents work. The
suspended or expelled student may be left to his or her own devices.
Many counties send expelled students to alternative schools, but
alternative schools do not always follow the same procedure, the same
schedule as regular public schools, again leaving children on their own
for portions of the school day. And an idle mind is the devil's
workshop.
An idle young person with no supervision is a child who can easily
get into trouble. A violent young person expelled for serious breaches
of behavior could even be a menace to the community at large. Some
children actually misbehave in school, I am told, in the hopes of being
suspended or expelled with the notion that they will be able to enjoy a
brief respite from their school classes.
The amendment which I have offered and which has now been modified
would encourage States to create a program that enrolls suspended and
expelled youth in community service programs. You see, put them to work
at something that encourages them to become builders, not wreckers, of
buildings. The purpose of this amendment then is twofold.
First, it would occupy young people who have been suspended or
expelled. It would put those idle hands to work. Instead of hanging
around on street corners or roaming around the shopping malls, these
youths would participate in community service activities that give them
structure, that promote a work ethic, and send the message that being
suspended from school is not a vacation.
Second, this program would give back to the community. Too often the
young people of the ``me'' generation--the ``me" generation--do not
consider that we are a society, and that each member of that society
has a responsibility to the other people in that society. By performing
community service, these young people would be making a contribution to
their neighbors which would give them a sense of doing for others,
perhaps even opening their eyes to the problems of those around them.
My amendment would provide $50 million to allow States to coordinate
and run a program which puts suspended and expelled students to work.
Whether it is picking up litter, whacking weeds, painting fences, or
mowing the grass, participating in public service activities will
provide these young people with an alternative activity that helps to
better their communities, and to better their lives.
Wordsworth wrote, ``Small service is true service while it lasts.'' I
urge my colleagues to support my amendment which authorizes this amount
of money and helps to point troubled students toward true service to
their communities, their country, and help them to become good,
productive citizens.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, if I may be recognized again.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from
Nevada, the Democratic whip, be made a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I am very happy to have a voice vote if Senators are so
inclined.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as I understand it, we are ready to vote
on the Byrd amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask for the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to amendment No. 564, as modified.
The amendment (No. 564), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Vermont who is the majority manager of the bill. He is very gracious to
accept the amendment. I also thank Mr. Kennedy who likewise was
supportive of the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 477 To Amendment No. 358
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
[[Page S4922]]
amendment be laid aside to call up amendment No. 477, which was
previously filed. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 477 to amendment No. 358.
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that S. 27, the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2001, as passed by the Senate on April 2d should
be engrossed and transmitted to the House of Representatives without
further delay)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TRANSMITTAL OF S. 27
TO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) on April 2, 2001, the Senate of the United States
passed S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, by
a vote of 59 to 41;
(2) it has been over 30 days since the Senate moved to
third reading and final passage of S. 27;
(3) it was then in order for the bill to be engrossed and
officially delivered to the House of Representatives of the
United States;
(4) the precedents and traditions of the Senate dictate
that bills passed by the Senate are routinely sent in a
timely manner to the House of Representatives;
(5) the will of the majority of the Senate, having voted in
favor of campaign finance reform is being unduly thwarted;
(6) the American people are taught that when a bill passes
one body of Congress, it is routinely sent to the other body
for consideration; and
(7) the delay in sending S. 27 to the House of
Representatives appears to be an arbitrary action taken to
deliberately thwart the will of the majority of the Senate.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Secretary of the Senate should properly engross and
deliver S. 27 to the House of Representatives without any
intervening delay.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It
instructs the Secretary of the Senate to properly engross and deliver
S. 27, the campaign finance legislation that was passed 43 days ago by
this Senate, to the House of Representatives without any intervening
delay.
I am sure that few people in this body knew that the bill they voted
for--or against, for that matter--was never sent to the other body. Why
is this so? Unfortunately, I don't have an answer. I do know that it is
not what we teach our children.
We give out a book here, a very interesting book, one that
schoolchildren all over America, I hope, know. Some do, but I wish all
of them did. In that book, on page 41, it says: When a bill originates
in the Senate, this process is reversed.
When the Senate passes a bill that originated in the
Senate, it is sent to the House for consideration.
There is another booklet, ``Our American Government,'' the 2000
edition. ``What are the stages of a bill in Congress?'' It goes through
the various stages:
(6) Passage by the House after votes to confirm the
amendments that were adopted in Committee of the Whole; (7)
Transmittal to the Senate, by message; (8) Consideration and
passage by the Senate--usually after referral to and
reporting from a Senate committee--and after a debate and
amendment on the Senate floor; (9) Transmission from the
Senate back to the House, with or without Senate amendments
to the bill.
Those are documents that indicate it is the normal procedure. I note
that this is not business as usual. In fact, arbitrarily holding this
bill in the Senate after being passed is not the usual practice. I will
read from a chart prepared by my staff which shows that the normal
expected practice is to send legislation to the other body in a much
more timely fashion.
Thirteen bills originating in the Senate have passed the Senate
during the 107th Congress. Of those bills, 11 were sent in an average
of 5.18 days. The two remaining bills, S. 27, the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act of 2001, and S. 143, Competitive Market Supervision Act of
2001, were passed on April 5, 2001, and March 22, 2001, respectively.
Neither has been referred to the House of Representatives.
The holding of this bill is arbitrary and unfair. A sound majority of
Senators has passed the campaign finance reform bill. This is not only
bad for the Senate but bad for this great country.
The minority in this body has a great deal of rights. But the Senate
also recognizes in its rule that once a majority reaches a certain
threshold, it can prevail and move forward. What we are seeing here is
a minority of one stopping the will of this body.
As I said, there is no good rationale for this action. The staff of
this body, including the Secretary of the Senate, serve the entire
Senate. I repeat: The Secretary of the Senate serves the entire Senate,
not just one Senator. They are not tools of one individual. They serve
all 100 duly elected Senators. These good people should be allowed to
perform their duties with due process.
This amendment should not require much discussion or debate. It
should be adopted and the Secretary of the Senate should immediately
take the actions the resolutions direct. That is what is right, and
that is what is fair.
I urge my colleagues, those who support campaign finance reform and
those who do not, to join me in seeing that the will of the majority
and basic fairness prevail.
I want to talk for a second about this practice being allowed to
continue. I speak, I hope, for Members on both sides of the aisle. If
the majority prevails in the Senate on a piece of legislation and that
legislation is not sent over to the other body, then this could lead to
a very, very, very unsound and unfair process that could deprive the
majority of the Senate of their rights. A bill passed in the other body
is sent over here for our consideration and placed on the calendar.
Then it is up to the majority leader and/or the minority leader,
depending on who has the votes, as to whether to consider that
legislation.
The same thing is true of legislation that originates in the Senate.
As I say, I could go back many years. It is roughly an average of 4
days between the passage of legislation through this body and its
transmittal to the other body. We have now gone 43 days, and the
majority leader of the Senate has stated publicly that he has no
intention at any time of sending the legislation to the other body for
their consideration.
One can speculate--and I will not--on the reasons why this
legislation is not being transmitted to the other body as is our
custom. I say to my colleagues in all seriousness, if this practice is
condoned, watch out if you prevail and it is against the majority
leader's wishes for that bill to be sent over to the other body. By not
sending this and every piece of legislation passed by the Senate over
to the other body, we may be beginning a very dangerous precedent.
I am very aware that this amendment is not relevant to the education
bill, although obviously, as I mentioned, we educate our children in
ways that we may have to at least amend in this book. I hope we don't
have to. But I want to assure my colleagues, as soon as this bill is
transmitted to the other body, I will be the first to stand up and ask
unanimous consent to withdraw this from the legislation because I don't
want to encumber the education bill with this issue. But when I see,
after the long, hard struggle that I have been through, along now with
a majority of the Senate, to achieve a legislative result and see that
legislative result stymied at least temporarily in a procedural
fashion, as far as I can see an unprecedented fashion, then I have to
seek whatever vehicle I can to express what I hope is the majority will
of the Senate.
I hope we can get this issue behind us. I strongly believe it has
more importance than even the campaign finance reform bill itself, if
this practice is allowed to become a precedent, what is being done with
this legislation.
I might add, it was about 3 weeks ago that by accident I found out
that it was not going to be sent over to the other body. I was not even
notified that this legislation was not going to be sent over.
Once we did discover it, then I went to the majority leader. I asked
on numerous occasions if he would send this bill over. The majority
leader, yesterday morning, stated that under no circumstances would he
do so.
I have no alternative than to move to get the sense of the Senate on
this issue and then, if that doesn't succeed, then we will have to
obviously use what other parliamentary options we have.
[[Page S4923]]
After a long and fair and, in many ways, illuminating and elevating
debate on this issue and having a result achieved, and then to have it
not even sent over to the other body, is a great disservice. I hope it
will be rectified as soon as possible.
I ask for the yeas and nays at a time determined by the leaders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am happy to join with the Senator from
Arizona in offering this amendment. Actually, that is not true. I am
not really happy we are offering the amendment; I am disappointed and
puzzled. Because this amendment should be totally unnecessary. It is
unnecessary because by instructing the enrolling clerk not to transmit
S. 27 to the House, the majority leader is frustrating the will of the
Senate and of the American people for no apparent reason.
I was pleased with the debate we had on campaign finance reform back
in late March. Not only because we finally were able to have a real
debate, vote on amendments, and ultimately pass a good bill, but also
because I thought the Senate acquitted itself extremely well under
difficult circumstances. Both sides played fair in that debate. The
majority leader kept his word not to filibuster the bill.
The opponents fought hard but did not drag out the proceedings
unnecessarily. I think we kept our word as well, even though there were
amendments added that we did not necessarily approve of or like a great
deal. We did not offer a cleanup amendment before the end of the debate
to wipe out all the work of other Members of the Senate; we let the
chips fall as the Senate wished. The result was a bill of which the
Senate and the public could be proud.
As we know, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 59-41 on April 2,
2001. There was a technical amendment right before final passage, and
it could normally be expected with such a complex piece of legislation
that it might take a few days for the bill to be engrossed and
officially delivered to the House. That is the way the legislative
process legitimately works. The House passes a bill, and it goes to the
Senate; the Senate passes a bill, and it goes to the House. But it has
been a month and a half.
The McCain-Feingold bill passed by the Senate still has not been sent
over to the House. There is not a question at all that it is ready to
go, but apparently an instruction was received by the enrolling clerk
not to follow the standard procedure when the Senate passes a bill.
That instruction clearly originated with the majority leader of this
body.
This is actually an embarrassment to the Senate. I think it would
also be an embarrassment to the majority leader. I thought we were
beyond petty game playing in this body. These kinds of tactics
discredit the institution, and they also completely undercut the good
feeling many of us gained during that extraordinary 2 weeks of open
debate. As a result, this action by the majority leader could be
indicative of the lengths to which the opponents of reform will go to
stop the bill even when they have lost in the Senate fair and square.
Will they stop at nothing? Is there no legislative or parliamentary
tactic too obscure to be invoked in the name of stopping reform, to be
invoked in the name of protecting this big money system?
In the end, we will enact a reform bill for the American people in
this Congress, and the President will sign it, no matter how the
opponents complain or what tricks they try to stop it. I agree with the
Senator from Arizona that we need to resolve this. The regular business
needs to go forward, but that has to happen after this message is sent
clearly by the Senate that it is long overdue for this bill to be sent
over to the House.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my good friend from Arizona and the
Senator from Wisconsin have pointed out the focus on this legislation,
and Senator McCain indicated that once the papers go over to the House,
they will ask to withdraw this amendment.
I must say, on a broader issue, I congratulate the Senators from
Arizona and Wisconsin for bringing this to light on the Senate floor. I
think all of us are very mindful in this institution that this is where
these issues ought to be debated and discussed and also examined. When
we do have that opportunity, as we saw during the debate on campaign
financing--the fact that there are a lot of discussions in the back
rooms and in the corridors and behind closed doors--when they finally
get it into the openness of the floor of the Senate, you get a
different reaction.
I daresay we will have a very encouraging reaction when we vote on
this measure this afternoon, and we should have. I think it is very
regrettable that we have the use of the Senate rules to deny a clear
process in this legislative undertaking, where this legislation had
passed and still there has not been the passing of the papers. We have
seen other actions such as that in denying this body the opportunity to
address key issues even currently. For example, on the increase in the
minimum wage, we were denied the opportunity of getting a fair vote.
Even though a majority of this body is committed to a Patients' Bill of
Rights, we have seen this.
On this measure, which is of such importance to our good leaders
here, Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, they deserve credit and
support. I join in congratulating them.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts, have we determined a time yet as to when this vote will
take place?
Mr. KENNEDY. I do not. As far as the floor managers are concerned,
the earlier the better. I don't know about what the timing is on the
other side. The leader on our side is familiar with it, and I hope we
will do it at an early time.
Mr. McCAIN. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 884
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 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. 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, we are awaiting Senators who desire to
offer their amendments. I believe Senator Boxer will be here shortly,
and also Senator Harkin, perhaps just after that, depending on the
desire of the other side.
While I have a moment and prior to the time they come, I want to
review where we are on a very important aspect of this debate, and that
is the funding for this legislation.
As I mentioned on a number of occasions, and I am going to continue
to mention it, we cannot expect to educate our children on a tin cup
budget. It cannot be done on the cheap. Money is not the answer to
everything, but it is a very clear indication of a nation's priorities.
In this legislation, we are looking for investments in America's
future. When we are talking about America's future, we are talking
about America's children. We believe we have an effective blueprint
that can make an important difference in the quality of education for
children in this country.
As I have said on a number of occasions, it is not going to be this
legislation in and of itself. It is going to be the cumulative efforts
of parents, teachers, communities, principals, school administrators,
and school boards all working together. It is also going to be the
support we provide in the early learning programs that will
[[Page S4924]]
reach children of the 0-to-3 age. It is important we invest in these
efforts. It is a biological fact that development of a child's brain
reaches its maximum at the age of 5. All the development takes place
prior to that time. It is enormously important the child have, up to
that time, as many positive influences as possible.
We are going to battle the issues of funding for early intervention
of children--the Early Start Program--the Head Start Program, which are
only funded at about 40 percent, and the child care programs as well.
We have had a good debate on funding IDEA, and we had a very powerful
bipartisan vote in the Senate that put us clearly on record that we
want to meet our responsibilities to the families and local communities
by funding 40 percent of the education of the children.
I want to review where we are on the question of funding this
legislation and what we understand will be the administration's
position on funding the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This
includes not only title I but professional development programs,
technology programs, the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act, afterschool
programs, and related programs that are part of the whole Elementary
and Secondary Education Act.
I pointed out at the time we had the last debate in the Senate last
week what was going to be in the budget for this country, what was
going to be available for funding. We have seen now that the Republican
leadership, with the support of the administration, has effectively
sucked up all of the available resources that can be used for education
with the $1.25 trillion tax reduction.
As a result of that, as a result of the document that we had, when it
came back from the conference, there was virtually no guarantee or
assurance for funding for the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010. In fact, a careful reading of that legislation would mean
there would actually be a reduction in the funding from current
services during that period of time. That is a matter of enormous
concern--and it should be--to the families of this country.
I expect the families in this Nation would say if we are going to
have a tax cut, you ought to be able to get--as a matter of fact, I am
stating what about 75 percent of the American families say. They say:
If we are going to have a tax cut we are going to have a tax cut, but
first let's fund education, investing in the children of this country.
What we have seen under the administration's program is they have
reached a different conclusion. Under that proposal, as I pointed out
when we had that debate, the measure was very clear and precise in the
instructions to the Finance Committee about what they ought to come
back with, within what period of time. Even though we passed that bill
last week, as I understand it, we may very well be considering the
budget tomorrow. Can you imagine that? We passed it last week. It will
be out of the Finance Committee and we may be considering it tomorrow.
We can see what happens when the majority, in this case the Republican
majority, and in this case the President, want to get something done.
They can get it done virtually overnight; over $1 trillion that will go
into effect in terms of tax reductions for wealthy individuals. They
can get it done overnight.
But what was included in this proposal? Over the period of the life
of this legislation, the 10-years, up to $6 billion may be used for
education. I think everybody understands there were very precise
instructions on tax reduction, very precise instructions on defense,
very precise instructions on agriculture, and virtually no instructions
with regard to education. That is the fact. That is indisputable. Now
we are going to see what the result of that will be.
I think it is instructive to look at what this increase would mean in
terms of past years: proposed ESEA budget increases, Clinton versus
Bush administration.
We heard the President wants this to be the first priority. As I say,
if we compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges, grapefruits to
grapefruits, Clinton to Bush, over recent years, in terms of elementary
and secondary education budget increases, this chart indicates from
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and what the Clinton
average was over that period.
The Clinton average over that period from 1994 to this last year was
8.67 percent. Under President Bush, it is 3.6 percent. There it is, the
Clinton average--2001, 22 percent; 2000, 4.7 percent; 15.7 percent in
1999; 6.8 percent in 1998; 9.4 percent in 1997; 6.4 percent in 1996; 19
percent in 1995; 4.5 percent in 1994. Average: 8.67.
There is the 3.6 percent. We want to point out that is without the
changes and without the reforms. We have done a lot of giving and
taking. There has been chiding on both sides about whether the
administration, the President, gave up too much, whether others gave up
too much. That is what compromise is all about. This is not the bill I
would have written and this is not the bill President Bush would have
written, but it represents a legitimate compromise and I am satisfied.
I believe the great majority of our Members are satisfied. If this bill
had full funding, we would have virtually every vote on our side. We
may not, if it is not funded, and that is what we are saying.
If we are talking about the future of this country and talking about
the importance of investing in children, and we have seen the changes
which have been brought back as a matter of additional accountability
and how this legislation has been put together, the consolidations of
various programming, holding schools accountable, holding the children
accountable as well, the changes that have been made in holding
schoolteachers accountable and strengthening the assurance we have
well-qualified teachers, that we have a professional mentoring program,
professional development over the years, none of that was out there. We
had some accountability in the previous bill. We had some
reconstitution, actually, of schools under the last elementary and
secondary education bill.
But this goes further and is more comprehensive as a package,
bringing together the funding of IDEA, bringing together the additional
resources for professional development and the way they are structured,
bringing together the outreach for good quality teachers, bringing
together consolidation of the technology component, and with a strong
emphasis that we are going to get curriculum reform, well-trained
teachers, and a more thoughtful process in examining children to find
out what they don't know. We do that so we can provide the
supplementary services, reaching out to the communities in a much wider
way than we have before to use the resources within the communities to
help and assist children who might need that extra help with
supplementary services in a very expansive way that we had not done
before--and to recognize we are only reaching a third of the children.
How are we going to achieve what this legislation effectively states,
and that is that we will bring every needy child in this country up to
proficiency within 10 years, if we are only reaching a third of them
now? It is going to be difficult enough--if we were reaching all of
them--to try to help with the additional resources in bilingual
education, for example. The number of children who need those services
has virtually doubled in our school-age population.
As I mentioned on other occasions, but it bears repeating, the
challenges that schools are dealing with are much more complex today.
We have many more families divided so children are growing up in
divided homes. We see what has happened in terms of violence in many of
the homes, in inner cities as well as in rural communities, the
problems with substance abuse and physical abuse. All that has taken
place. Plus, we have seen an increasing number of children who are
homeless--more than 800,000 homeless children, 800,000 migrant
children, sweeping from California all the way to Washington in the
west and from Florida to the State of Maine in the east. We have about
1.5 million children.
Then we have about 700,000 immigrant children who are going to be
citizens of the United States who need help and assistance as they move
along. They are going to be American citizens. They are on the way to
being American citizens. We want to invest in those children.
These are the kinds of challenges we were not facing 20 years ago,
for the
[[Page S4925]]
most part. So we have a more complex situation at the grassroots level.
We have parents, teachers, and schools attempting to cope with this
under extraordinary circumstances. They need help, they want help, and
they are counting on us to help.
The way that we can do that is to make sure with this legislation and
with the accountability that we are going to invest in children who
need the help. That is for what we are fighting.
When you look at this chart, the comparison with what this
administration is requesting, 3.6 percent this year versus the 8.6
percent average over the previous 8 years and understand that of that
3.6 percent, money is taken from other pots--that is not new money.
Half of that is in job training. Two-hundred million dollars of that is
from the National Science Foundation. Another couple hundred million
dollars is from the EPA.
Look at this: $54.1 million from job training; $20 million from the
early learning opportunities--that is the program that reaches the
children in the 0-to-3 programs; pediatric graduate medical education
to try to assure that we are going to have the best in terms of
pediatric training for children. They have taken $30 million out of
that; clean water State fund, $497 million. That is a vital resource in
terms of many of the States, including my State of Massachusetts where
you have so many of the communities under court order to clean up their
water systems in what which are basically blue-collar, working-class
communities.
They have high taxes as it is. They don't have the resources to be
able to draw on a State fund. To help them is absolutely essential. We
are cutting that program.
As to the renewable energy programs, we have the great debate and
discussion about these energy programs. The administration takes out
$156 million; NASA and National Science Foundation, $200 million; FEMA
disaster relief, $270 million; and community policing, one of the most
successful programs, they cut.
What we see is a difficult situation over the period of the next 5
years out I fear for the outyears, the fifth year to the tenth year,
because we know what is going to be in this tax package which is going
to be heavily weighted, or backloaded. That is the word which is used.
As we all understand around here, the reason it is backloaded is
because it conceals its purpose.
Make no mistake about it; if it was frontloaded, there would be a
clear indication of the amounts we could evaluate for the first 5
years; that is, the Joint Tax Program, the Congressional Budget Office,
and the OMB estimates the first 5 years--not the back 5 years.
As a result, we find the backloaded tax bill. That is going to mean
that education resources will remain scarce--not just for the next
decade covered by the budget resolution but for the next decade as well
when the enrollments are expected to expand dramatically.
I think this is a clear indication if you look at the broader issue.
You say, OK, that is ESEA, but maybe much more will be done in the
other areas of education; that is, in the Pell grants or other kinds of
help and assistance in higher education, such as the Department of
Education, or maybe we are looking at research to find out what really
works out there so we can help.
But we have the same story. This administration fails in the
education budget in investments in education. If we look on the chart,
the total increase for the title I program was $669 million, 3.5
percent, even though if you look through the book that has the budget
figures, that is effectively where it comes out. There was a great
hoopla about how it was going to be 11.9 percent. It is $669 million,
and the appropriation for the year 2001 was $3.6 billion.
If you look at the total Department of Education, 6.5 percent
appropriations last year; the total for the Department of Education is
$2.5 billion.
This is not only elementary and secondary education, but it is in the
higher education as well.
I know many of our colleagues have the opportunity to go back as I do
and talk with people in our States. If I go back to Massachusetts and
have a town meeting, I ask people in that hall, say you have $1 that
represents the Federal budget. Let's think through about how that ought
to be spent. You ask people for a show of hands. They want national
security. They want defense. They understand the importance of national
security. They want to make sure whatever is necessary is there, and
that is something certainly that we ought to support.
While we are talking about national security, is there anyone in this
body who doubts that within the next 3 or 4 weeks after we pass their
tax cut on tomorrow, or the next few days, that within a 4-week period
we will have the requests from the Department of Defense as a result of
Secretary Rumsfeld's total Bottom-Up Review, and the best estimate is
anywhere from $100 billion to $200 billion over the next 5 years. That
is going to be on track. We are not hearing about it now. We are not
talking about it. But does anybody really doubt that? Does anybody in
the defense community really question that? Not that I have heard. We
are just not going to be able to do this.
As I say, if you are in that room and asking people what they think,
they say: Oh, yes. We need Social Security and we need to have
Medicare. They understand that. Maybe some will say we will start
talking about it.
What about education? What about prescription drugs? Where do they
fit? Some will mention that we have to pay an interest on the debt.
Then you ask them: What do you think we are spending on education?
First of all, what do you think we should spend? After they begin to
understand that it is maybe 5 cents in terms of the defense and maybe a
little less than that on the interest on the debt, you get probably 2.4
or 2.5 in terms of the Medicare programs. You include Medicaid in
there, and you have Social Security. That is figured in the budget.
They see that going up.
But at the end of the day when you start talking about education, 80
percent of Senators will say that we ought to at the minimum spend 10
cents or 8 cents out of that dollar on education. Ninety percent will
say certainly 5. Would you believe that it is less than 2? And under
this administration, it will be less than 1 cent. Does that reflect the
American families' priorities in terms of education?
We understand it is a local responsibility and a State
responsibility, and the Federal participation has been focused
primarily on the higher education. But I think most families would say
we want a partnership with local, State, and Federal. We want a
partnership because we recognize that we need the resources.
In many different communities where they have the greatest kind of
pressure, particularly in the poorest of the poor, they do not have the
resources to be able to sort of deal with this.
We made a decision in the early 1960s that we were going to reach out
to try to provide resources and recognize as a matter of national
commitment that we were going to deal with the neediest students in
this country.
That is what this title I program is really all about. It provides
resources for those communities--not a great deal of resources. We have
had some successes and failures. But we are in a new day and period.
But the idea that we are providing a penny out of that dollar in
terms of education, which is really another word for talking about our
future--children are our future. Investing in our children is investing
in our future. Is there anyone who doubts that if you have an eighth
grade class and the children don't learn algebra that those children
are not going to college? It is simple, plain, finished, conversation
ended. You have to make sure you have people in there who are going to
be able to teach them. That is going to take upgrading.
We don't expect to solve all the problems, but we have made a
commitment at least in this bill that the teachers who are going to
teach the children--better than 50 percent of the title I children who
are going to be educated within 4 years--will be well qualified. We
have made our commitment. We have to have the resources to be able to
do it.
So this is about our future. This is about our priority. It is about
the key element in terms of a nation and our fundamental values. Are
they going to be in terms of the future, which is our
[[Page S4926]]
children, or are we going to be presented with a future tax reduction
for the wealthy individuals in this country? I think that is how it is
going to be.
Let me make it clear that I have every intention of offering
amendments to let the American people understand how this body wants to
vote in terms of a reduction in the top rates for the wealthiest
individuals, or fund education.
This body will have a chance to make a judgment decision on that. Are
we going to go from the 39.6 down to 36, and then further reductions in
many other areas or are we going to fund our children's education in
the future? What is in the national interest? What is in the interest
of these children? Do we want this Nation to invest in our children or
do we want to find out that we are going to provide additional benefits
to people who have done very well in the last few years?
What we have seen in the most recent times has been this
extraordinary kind of dichotomy where the wealthier have grown so much
wealthier and the poor have grown so much poorer. I remember those
charts. I do not have them here. But if you look at what has happened
in terms of American income, broken into fifths, from the time of the
war to 1972, you will find each group went up; they grew together.
Virtually all of them grew together. Not now. You now find the bottom
fifth is going down--yes, going down. The second fifth is going down
just a little bit. And the top fifth has gone up through the ceiling.
We have these enormous disparities. By failing to invest in the
children, that is going to continue, as sure as we are standing here.
So we will have the chance to come back and visit this as soon as the
Finance Committee reports out its bill. We will welcome the opportunity
to have the Members of this body vote on these measures.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 tonight the Senate
proceed to vote in relation to the McCain amendment No. 477. I further
ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the amendment
prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 525 To Amendment No. 358
(Purpose: To provide grants for the renovation of schools)
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside, and I call up amendment No. 525.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. Kerry,
Mr. Levin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Biden, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Johnson,
proposes an amendment numbered 525 to amendment No. 358.
Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 9, 2001,
under ``Amendments Submitted and Proposed.'')
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know there is a unanimous consent
agreement pending for a vote to occur at 5:30, so my statement on the
amendment will be interrupted at 5:30--if I go on that long--for the
vote at that time.
Mr. President, our children deserve the best when it comes to
education--all children; not just a few but all. It is not right that
some kids get the best in schooling and the best of teachers and the
best of school buildings and other kids are put into rundown,
dilapidated, old buildings that are not even safe as far as fire and
safety codes go.
Children deserve modern school buildings with access to technology.
They deserve small classes so they can get the teacher's attention when
they need extra help. It is not just our kids who deserve this, it is
the future of our country that deserves this, cries out for it, demands
it.
As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. This is
a picture of a modern elementary school classroom. This is Cleveland
Elementary in Elkhart, IN. If I am not mistaken, there are 17 or 18
kids in this well-lit, well-appointed, roomy classroom. That is what a
modern school ought to look like. That is sort of what we think about
as an elementary school in all of our minds. This is what we conjure
up. We conjure up a nice, well-ordered classroom with a class small
enough for the teacher to pay attention.
Or how about this? This is South Lawrence East School in Lawrence,
MA. There are 12, maybe 13 kids here. This is the library and media
center. Now how about that as the kind of an ideal library and media
center for all of our elementary schools around the country?
I ask any parent: Wouldn't you like to have your child go to this
school? Wouldn't that be wonderful, to think that your kid was in a
school like this every day with the latest technology, all hooked up to
the Internet? That would be nice.
I am afraid most schools look like this. That is not bad. That is not
a dilapidated school. The average school building in the United States
is 42 years old. This is where most of our kids go to elementary
schools. They are over 50 years old. They have air-conditioners
sticking out of the windows. This was added later because the schools
were not air-conditioned in those days. Many of them have roofs that
leak and are kind of rundown schools.
It is a national disgrace that the nicest places our children see are
shopping malls, sports arenas, and movie theaters, and the most rundown
place they see is the public school. What kind of a signal are we
sending them about the value we place on them and their education and
their future? How can we prepare kids for the 21st century in schools
that don't even make the grade in the 20th century?
The American Society of Civil Engineers recently issued a report card
for America's infrastructure. This is their report card. As we can see,
the condition of our national infrastructure is poor. All of them are
poor: energy, waterways, solid waste, wastewater, drinking water,
airports, bridges, roads--all in pretty bad shape. This is the second
time they put out this report. The lowest grade of all goes, once again
to public schools.
Seventy-five percent of our Nation's school buildings are inadequate.
The average cost of capital investments needed to upgrade and replace
our schools is $3,800 per student. Since 1998, the total need has
increased from $112 billion to $127 billion. That is just to bring the
existing public schools, elementary and secondary schools we have in
America, up to fire and safety code and to upgrade them in terms of the
latest technology.
It does not refer to the amount of money we are going to need to
build the new school buildings. That is going to require a lot more
money in the future. Right now we have an all-time high of $53.2
million. This will grow. Over the next 10 years, it is going to be
necessary to build an additional 6,000 schools. That number is not even
reflected here. This $127 billion is needed now to repair and modernize
existing schools.
I have been advocating this for about a decade now, starting back in
1991, that the Federal Government begin to meet some of its
responsibilities. All one has to do is read Jonathan Kozol's book
``Savage Inequalities'' to understand why it is necessary for the
Federal Government to be involved.
A little history may be in order. I always ask the question: Where
does it say in the Constitution of the United
[[Page S4927]]
States that our public school system in America has to be based on
property taxes? You will look in vain, and you won't find it anywhere
in the Constitution. Why is that the basis of funding for our public
schools?
The reason is, in the early days of the founding of our Republic, it
was decided we would have free public education for everyone. At that
time it was free public education for white males, but with the
adoption of the Bill of Rights and with the ensuing concept that we are
all one Nation, we broadened that to women and minorities and everyone
else.
Really, we have ingrained this idea of free public education for all.
But at that time we didn't have income taxes. We didn't have corporate
taxes. We didn't have all these kinds of taxes. All we had were
property taxes and excise taxes. So to fund the public schools, the
only tax base they had to go to was the property taxes people paid.
Thus the whole system sort of built up over the centuries that way.
It literally was not until 1865, under Republican President Abraham
Lincoln, that the Federal Government got involved in public education.
That was with the passage of the Morell Act that set up the land grant
colleges of the United States. That was the first time the Federal
Government really got involved at all in public education.
Then for about 100 years, the Federal Government was involved only on
that level, through land grant colleges, through some research, and
with the adoption of the GI bill after World War II, mostly focused at
higher education from the Federal Government standpoint.
Then, with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, the progeny of which we are now debating, the Federal
Government got involved with trying to equalize a little bit the great
disparities in education to meet the needs of lower income students,
special needs students, and to help the States and local governments
meet their constitutional requirement that if they did indeed provide a
free public education, they couldn't discriminate.
Again, no State in this Union has to provide a free public education
to the kids in the State. But if they do, if a State decides to provide
a free public education, then the Constitution kicks in and says: You
can't have a free public education for whites but not for African
Americans, for men but not for women, for Catholics but not Jews,
Protestants but not Catholics. It has to be free for everyone.
Of course, as my dear friend and colleague from Vermont knows, this
was later expanded under a couple of court cases in the early 1970s to
also say that you can't discriminate on the basis of disability. Kids
with disabilities under our Constitution also must receive a free,
appropriate public education.
Since 1965, the Federal Government has been providing support and
funds for elementary and secondary education. Thus, that is the bill we
are debating.
As we have looked at the concept of what the Federal Government ought
to do in terms of helping elementary and secondary education, we have
title I programs.
We had the Eisenhower math and science programs and a variety of
different efforts where we have come in and targeted the funds to
address a national need, whether it was a lack of science or math,
under the Eisenhower math and science program, to try to help needy
students who perhaps did not have any early childhood education or
support, and title I programs, remedial math programs, to get these
kids to catch up, get ready to learn. That is what these were all
designed to do.
I forgot to mention one other aspect of our involvement in elementary
and secondary education, and that was the free school lunch program,
and later, the school breakfast program; both targeted not only
nutritional needs but were to help kids learn better in school. I have
been advocating for a long time--at least since I read Jonathan Kozol's
book ``Savage Inequality''--that the Federal Government needs to be
involved in helping to rebuild and modernize our public schools. Why?
In many areas you have poor schools, and the property-tax payers are
overburdened as it is. We need to help them build these schools. It is
a national problem, not just local.
So I believe this is a proper role for the Federal Government. As I
said, I have been advocating this for over a decade. In fiscal year
1995, I did secure $100 million in the appropriations bill as sort of a
downpayment to get us started on this. I was disappointed when those
funds were later rescinded. But, then, as the years went by, we made
real progress, and last year we passed a $1.2 billion initiative to
make emergency repairs to our schools. This was a bipartisan agreement,
hammered out with Congressmen Goodling, Porter, and Obey on the House
side, and Senators Jeffords, Specter, myself, and the White House, who
all got involved in that and we hammered out this agreement. That was
passed last year. That money is now going out to the States.
In about 2 months, that $1.2 billion will be made available to the
States on the basis of the incidence of poverty, basically following
the title I program. So those States with a high incidence of poverty
tend to get more of the money. This is a busy chart, but it shows you
the distribution on July 1 for school renovation grants. It goes from
California, with $138 million; New York gets $105 million; North
Carolina gets $21 million; North Dakota gets $5 million; Ohio gets $37
million; Pennsylvania, also another big player in this, gets $44
million; Texas gets $94.9 million to help modernize and rebuild its
schools; Louisiana gets $24.9 million; Vermont gets $5.4 million, about
the same as Iowa, which gets $6.4 million. So this money is all
contributed on the basis of the incidence of poverty as to the
population in those States.
We can't solve the whole problem in one year. This will make a
difference, but the bill before us eliminates this program at a
critical time, just when it is getting off the ground, the first year.
We will get the money out to the States; they will be able to use some
of this to get up to fire and safety code in some schools and modernize
some schools, and this bill will pull the rug out from underneath them.
We must continue this program to repair and renovate our Nation's
public schools. That is why I am proposing this amendment on behalf of
myself and Senators Kerry, Levin, Reid of Nevada, Biden, Corzine,
Johnson, Cantwell, Torricelli, Bingaman, Clinton, and Dodd. They are
the cosponsors.
This amendment reauthorizes the school renovation program that we
created last year and increases the authorization level from $1.2
billion to $1.6 billion. The amendment continues to split between
school modernization and the needs of kids with disabilities under
IDEA, which we negotiated in last year's bill. Seventy-five percent of
the funds will finance urgent repairs, such as fixing a leaky roof,
replacing faulty wiring, or making repairs to bring schools up to local
safety and fire codes. That is 75 percent of the $1.6 billion. The
remaining funding will support activities related to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, part B, or for technology activities
related to school construction.
The need to help schools make these repairs is clear. The Healthy
Schools Network has reported many problems around the Nation.
Several parents complain that their children were getting sick at a
large city school near Albany, NY. The county inspected the school and
found unsafe levels of lead and mold in the school. The school has not
been able to correct the problem, citing a lack of funding for repairs.
But the children continue to go to that school.
A child in North Carolina missed several days of school suffering
from headaches and stomach aches. During summer break, the child's
illness abated. But when school started and they came back, he got sick
again. The child attends class in an old trailer that has poor
ventilation and bad odor problems.
In Southern California, a teacher was forced to quit teaching after
she suffered hearing and voice loss from, again, lack of proper
ventilation and mold in her fourth grade classroom.
A Virginia parent said her son felt sick at school and was doing very
poorly. An inspection of the classroom found nonfunctioning
ventilators, water stains, mold in the ceiling tiles. Leaky roofs,
peeling lead paint, poor plumbing, not meeting fire and safety codes
aren't just an inconvenience, they are a hazard to our children.
[[Page S4928]]
In my State of Iowa, the State fire marshal reported that fires in
Iowa schools have increased fivefold over the past several years, from
an average of 20 per year in the previous decades to over 100 per year
in just the last decade. I asked why that was. Well, the schools are
getting older, the wiring is in disrepair, and thus the fires are
started. What happens is they don't have proper wiring, and maybe they
put more things in the classroom, and they expand the number of plugs
going in the sockets, and they overload the circuits and fires start.
So there is a clear need to help school districts improve the
condition of their schools to ensure the health and safety and
education of our children.
States and local communities are struggling to renovate existing
schools and build new ones to alleviate overcrowding. School
construction modernization is necessary to equip classrooms for the
21st century and improve learning conditions, end overcrowding, and
make smaller classes possible.
Our school buildings are wearing out. Nearly three-quarters of all
public schools in America were built before 1970; 74 percent were built
before 1970. In fact, almost 1 out of every 3 schools in America was
built before World War II, in the last century.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, when a
school is between 20 and 30 years old, frequent replacement of
equipment is necessary. When a school is between 30 and 40 years old,
all of the original equipment should have been replaced, including the
roof and the electrical system. After 40 years of age, a school
building begins to deteriorate rapidly, and most schools are abandoned
after 60 years. Yet before World War II, over 60 years ago--and 1 out
of 3 schools functioning today were built over 60 years ago--the
average school building was 42 years old, as I noted.
Technology is placing new demands on schools. As a result of the
increased use of technology, many schools must install new wiring, new
telephone wires, new electrical systems, and the demand for the
Internet is at an all-time high. But in the Nation's poorest schools,
only about a third have Internet access.
The need to modernize our Nation's public schools is clear, and yet
the Federal Government lags in helping our local school districts
address this critical problem. Because of increasing enrollments and
aging buildings, local and State expenditures for school construction
have increased dramatically--by 39 percent from 1990 to 1997. Let me
repeat that. Local and State expenditures for school construction has
gone up 39 percent from 1990 to 1997. However, this still has not been
sufficient to address the need.
Those taxes come from property-tax payers which--not in every case
but in most cases--is one of the most unfair, unsound ways of taxing to
raise money for our public schools. Again, if you live in an area where
there is high income and pay high property taxes, you have good
schools. If you live in an area that is low income with low property
taxes, you have poorer schools.
Is that any way to run the educational system of America based upon
property taxes or where you live? If you are lucky and are born in
suburban Northern Virginia, you have great public schools, but if you
are born in southern Maryland or maybe even in the southern part of
Iowa--I can speak about my own State--where we have low property
values, a lack of a good property tax base, you simply do not have the
good schools that you need.
This amendment will help school districts make the urgent repairs
needed to make schools safer for our children, but we have to do more.
Some buildings have simply outlived their usefulness. As I mentioned,
we have to build an additional 6,000 schools in the next decade. We are
not even talking about that here.
In the near future, the Senate will act on a tax bill. I will be
working with my colleagues, Senator Kerry and others, to provide school
modernization tax credits to help underwrite the nearly $25 billion of
new school facilities that are needed.
Mr. President, you might ask: Will this approach work? It will work.
We have had an experiment going on in Iowa. We are in the third year of
a school modernization demonstration project. Over the past 3 years,
$28 million in Federal funds have gone to my State of Iowa to rebuild
and modernize schools to bring our schools up to safety and fire codes,
to make sure these schools are meeting the needs of the 21st century.
Twenty-eight million dollars have gone to Iowa, but it has leveraged
$311 million in repair and new construction projects. For every dollar
the Federal Government has invested in Iowa, it has leveraged over $10
of State spending to help repair our schools.
The Iowa construction grant program shows what can happen if we put
this money out nationally. If we put this money out nationally, the
$1.2 billion that we did last year, I guarantee it is going to leverage
money all over this country to rebuild and modernize our schools. That
is why with $1.2 billion, I would be shocked if we come in at less than
$7 billion or $8 billion of additional money leveraged in the States to
meet this requirement. That is what this amendment is all about.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it my understanding that we will be
voting at 5:30 p.m.; am I correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank the Senator from
Iowa for bringing up this amendment. We will have an opportunity to
address this issue perhaps later this evening and tomorrow.
As we have worked on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
there have been five major components. A well-trained teacher in every
classroom is enormously important. Smaller class sizes for the early
grades are enormously important. Afterschool supplementary services are
enormously important. Having newer computers and technologies to avoid
a digital divide are enormously important. But to have a schoolroom
that is going to be safe and secure and free from the conditions which
the Senator described is absolutely essential as well.
I thank him very much. I will have more to say about this when the
time comes. We are going to be voting in a few moments.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the amendment that
the Senator from Iowa and I, and others, have offered to deal with the
oft-discussed issue of overcrowded and dilapidated schools.
As many of my colleagues know, for this is an issue that we have
talked about before and even addressed in a bipartisan fashion last
year, the need for school construction assistance is great. Three-
quarters of the public schools are in need of repairs, renovation, or
modernization. More than one-third of schools rely on portable
classrooms, such as trailers, many of which lack heat or air
conditioning. Twenty percent of public schools report unsafe
conditions, such as failing fire alarms or electric problems.
At the same time the schools are getting older, the number of
students is growing, up 9 percent since 1990. The Department of
Education estimates that 2,400 new schools will be needed by 2003 and
public elementary and secondary enrollment is expected to increase
another million between 1999 and 2006, reaching an all-time high of
44.4 million and increasing demand on schools.
I have come to the floor on more than a few occasions and made clear
my feeling that Democrats need to acknowledge that bricks and mortar
alone are not the answer for our public schools; I think the reforms on
accountability, local control, and tough standards that our party has
embraced make clear that we have heard that message, but it does not
for a minute dilute the fact that it's increasingly difficult to have
meaningful reform in schools that are falling apart at the seams.
Research does show that student and teacher achievement lags in shabby
school buildings, those with no science labs, inadequate ventilation,
and faulty heating systems. Older schools are also less likely to be
connected to the Internet than recently built or renovated schools.
Facilities are vital to implementation of research-based school reform
efforts. We know, for example, that students learn more effectively in
small classes, but school districts cannot create smaller classes or
hire more teachers unless there is a place to put them.
[[Page S4929]]
Many schools are trying to offer more robust curricula, including
music, physical education and classes in the arts, but their ability to
provide these programs is hampered if there is no space to house them.
Almost every State in the Nation has implemented curriculum
standards, calling for advanced work in science and technologies, but
some schools are so old that their electrical wiring cannot support
enough computers for the students and their science facilities are so
antiquated that students cannot perform the experiments required to
learn the State's curriculum.
Some school districts are looking to implement universal preschool--a
service that we know enhances children's school preparedness and which
a study published in last week's Journal of the American Medical
Association confirmed makes children more likely to complete high
school, less likely to need special education or grade retention
services while in school, and more likely to avoid arrest as young
adults--but the lack of available facilities is often prohibitive. If
we are serious about encouraging research-based, meaningful, effective
education reforms--and if we are serious about doing our part to help
local districts run safe schools--a commensurate investment in school
facilities is imperative.
I have listened to the debate today and have heard some of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about the Federal
Government overstepping its bounds into what is a State and local
issue. I agree with their sentiment that the Federal Government should
not go into local communities and decide what to build or decide what
to repair. I also agree, to a certain extent, that the burden of
building and renovating schools should be borne by localities.
But what we have seen very clearly over the past several years is
that States and local school districts are investing in school
construction, but they still need our help. Annual construction
expenditures for elementary and secondary schools have been growing.
But local and State budgets have not been able to keep up with demand
for new schools and the repair of aging ones. Unless school leaders can
persuade their wary voters to pass such bond referendums or raise local
taxes, though, there's often little hope of change. Until the last few
years, the plight of State and local leaders had not received much
attention from Washington. Last year we came together to respond to
their call by funding a $1.2 billion grant program and this year we
should come together again and pass legislation that continues our
commitment to help local districts with their repair and renovation
needs.
The amendment that we are offering will provide $1.6 billion in
grants to local education agencies to help them make urgently needed
repairs and to pay for special education and construction expenses
related to upgrading technology. And this amendment builds upon the
bipartisan emergency school modernization initiative that passed into
law as part of the fiscal year 2001 Labor-HHS-Education bill.
Under this amendment, States will distribute 75 percent of the funds
on a competitive basis to local school districts to make emergency
repairs such as fixing fire code violation, repairing the roof or
installing new plumbing. The remaining 25 percent will be distributed
by State competitively to local school districts to use for technology
activities related to school renovation or for activities authorized
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
I know that my friend from Iowa has seen this school modernization
program work. Earlier he talked about the demonstration program in his
State, which leveraged $10.33 for each federal dollar invested in the
demonstration program. This amendment is a partnership between the
Federal Government and districts and it does constitute a legitimate
role of the Federal Government.
It is a tragedy that so many of our Nation's students attend schools
in crumbling and unsafe facilities. According to the American Institute
of Architects, one in every three public schools in America needs major
repair. The American Society of Civil Engineers found school facilities
to be in worse condition than any other part of our Nation's
infrastructure.
The problem is particularly acute in some high-poverty schools, where
inadequate roofs, electrical systems, and plumbing place students and
school employees at risk. Last month I visited the Westford Public
School District in Massachusetts. School facilities were a big concern
for this semi-rural town which has seen its student population sky
rocket in recent years, but has not experienced comparable property tax
revenues. In order to meet the fiscal demands of new school
construction, the town is foregoing replacement of large, drafty
windows from the early 1950s and is relying on pre-fab trailers to
serve as an elementary school.
The Wilson Middle School in Natick, MA, was built for approximately
500 students and currently houses 625. The school has no technical
infrastructure, it has no electrical wiring to allow the integration of
computers in the classroom. The classrooms are 75 percent of the size
of contemporary classrooms and were built with chairs and desks fixed
to floor. Classrooms like these make it near-impossible for teachers to
use modern-day teaching methods which rely heavily on student
collaboration and interaction. The school also lacks science
laboratories, making it impossible for students to do hands-on work and
experiments.
Natick High School, like many aging school buildings around the
Commonwealth, needs to have its basic infrastructure updated:
electrical wiring, heating, plumbing and intercom systems are among the
many components of the school in need of modernization. Also, the
science labs are presently unable to meet the demands of updated State
curricula. Natick put in place a prototype lab, and saw remarkable
changes in students' interest and ability to experiment in science.
The urgent repair funding that passed the Congress last year provided
$1.2 billion for repairs in high-need schools. In fiscal year 2001,
this important program will help repair some 3,500 schools across the
country and Massachusetts is slated to receive $19.5 million. But that
will be the only money that my State receives unless we pass this
important amendment and ensure that every student has a safe learning
environment.
The ESEA bill that we have been debating for the past several weeks
represents a true coming together of the parties. This body worked
tirelessly to hammer out an agreement on the outstanding issues that
have separated us in the past and which prevented us from completing
work on this reauthorization during the last Congress. It is my sincere
hope that we can come together again on the issue of school
construction and pass legislation that addresses this nation's critical
need for school repairs and renovation, and that we can do it as a part
of a broader package of honest and tough reforms which focus, above all
else, on the goal of empowering our schools to raise student
achievement.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Harkin's
amendment to the Better Education for Students and Teachers (BEST) Act,
S. 1, that would restore the critical school repair program. I commend
Senator Harkin for his leadership on this issue, and I thank Senators
Kennedy and Jeffords for the work that they have done on the overall
elementary and secondary education reauthorization bill before us
today.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. Communities across
the country like many in my home State of South Dakota are struggling
to address critical needs to build new schools and renovate existing
ones. School construction and modernization are necessary to address
urgent safety and facility needs, to accommodate rising student
enrollments, to help reduce class sizes, and to make sure schools are
accessible to all students and well-equipped for the 21st century.
In South Dakota, it has become increasingly difficult to pass school
bond issues, given the fact that real estate taxes are already too high
and our State's agricultural economy has been struggling. The result is
an enormous backlog of school construction needs, and the costs of
repair and replacement only increase with each passing year. A report
by the General Accounting Office found that in my home State of South
Dakota, 25 percent of schools
[[Page S4930]]
have inadequate plumbing, 21 percent of schools have roof problems, 29
percent have ventilation problems, and 21 percent of schools are not
meeting safety codes.
Crumbling schools are not just an urban problem. They are a
nationwide problem, and rural areas are no exception. In fact, 30
percent of schools in rural areas report at least one inadequate
building feature. Nationwide, the statistics are similarly ominous.
The findings surrounding the condition of our Nation's schools is
down-right frightening. Fourteen million children attend classes in
buildings that are unsafe or inadequate. Nearly three-quarters of our
Nation's schools are over 30 years old with 74 percent of schools built
before 1970.
According to the American Institute of Architects, one in every three
public schools in America needs major repair. The American Society of
Civil Engineers found school facilities to be in worse condition than
any other part of our Nation's infrastructure.
South Dakota's tribal schools also face very serious facilities
problems and major construction backlogs. There are nine federally
recognized tribes in South Dakota. At the same time, my State has 3 of
the 10 poorest counties in the Nation, all of which are within
reservation boundaries.
With 56 percent of its people under the age of 24, the Native
American population in this country is disproportionately young when
compared the American population overall. This population strains
existing school facilities. The BIA estimates that there is a
construction backlog of $680 million in its 185 elementary, secondary
and boarding schools serving Indian children on 63 reservations in 23
States.
However, after several years of debate on this issue, Congress made
substantial progress last year on the fiscal year 2001 appropriations
bill by including a bipartisan agreement to provide $1.2 billion for a
new school urgent repair and renovation program. This important program
will help repair some 3,500 schools across the country this year and
assist schools with approximately $5.4 million in repair needs
throughout the State of South Dakota.
Under this program, funds are allocated to the States based on title
I and States are to make competitive grants to Local Education
Agencies, LEAs. 75 percent of the funds are to be distributed to LEAs
to make urgent repairs such as fixing a leaky roof, replacing faulty
wiring or making repairs to bring schools up to local safety and fire
codes. The remaining 25 percent of the funds are to be distributed to
LEAs for activities related to Part B of IDEA or for technology
activities related to school renovation. $75 million is reserved for
school districts with more than 50 percent of their students residing
on Indian lands.
Senator Harkin's amendment reauthorizes this critically important
program and increases the authorization to $1.6 billion, continuing the
split between school modernization and IDEA negotiated in last year's
bill.
It is no secret that crumbling schools are a problem of enormous
magnitude. It is nearly impossible to measure the impact that these
conditions have on students' ability to learn, but there is no doubt
that the impact is severe.
The school repair program is a key component in a dual strategy to
modernize our Nation's schools. Some schools have simply outlived their
usefulness and need to be replaced. In addition, the record enrollment
in our Nation's public schools have caused overcrowding that can only
be remedied by building new schools. Estimates are that we will need to
build 6,000 new schools by the year 2006 if we want to keep class sizes
the same as they are presently. That is why we also need to pass
legislation to provide school modernization bonds that will finance at
least $25 billion in new construction through a Federal-State-local
partnership. South Dakota has a great many school districts which are
not completely impoverished, but yet find it almost impossible to pass
a bond issue and otherwise adequately fund their education programs. I
strongly believe that there is a legitimate federal role in helping fix
our Nation's crumbling schools, and we can do so without undermining
local control of education.
I applaud and support these efforts to invest a small portion of our
Nation's wealth in improved educational opportunities and facilities
for all--this investment now, will result in improved academic
performance, better citizenship and a stronger economy for generations
to come. I urge the Senate to pass Senator Harkin's amendment and
invest in the health and well-being of our Nation's school children.
Amendment No. 477
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to state for the record that I
will vote in opposition to the McCain position. I expect it will be an
up-or-down vote. If not, I will vote to table. He is entitled to an up-
or-down vote. I want to explain my position.
I indicated to colleagues that on this legislation I was going to
resist nongermane amendments. I do not think the majority leader has
the right to a pocket veto. Although it is a position which I strongly
support, we have to be consistent if we are going to take the position
that we are not going to support nongermane amendments. We cannot pick
and choose with which ones we agree and differ.
Even though I agree with this amendment, I indicated to colleagues
that I would oppose nongermane amendments. Therefore, I feel compelled
to oppose this amendment.
Should there be an expression of overwhelming support for this, then,
obviously, I will at that time interpret my vote perhaps in a different
way. I have every intention now to vote in opposition to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I follow my good friend from
Massachusetts in explaining that I, too, certainly agree with Senator
McCain on the merits of his proposal and that we should send that very
fine bill to the House, but I also made a commitment to oppose all
nonrelevant amendments to the bill. Thus, I will vote against the
McCain amendment, but I certainly support the advancement of campaign
finance reform and was one of the principal sponsors and participants
of that legislation of which I am very proud. I have made this
commitment, and I will stick by it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. We are almost at the point of
voting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The 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.
Under the previous order, the amendment under discussion is laid
aside. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 477. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Gregg) is necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 36, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]
YEAS--61
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Thompson
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--36
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
[[Page S4931]]
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kennedy
Lott
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich
NOT VOTING--3
Akaka
Gregg
Kohl
The amendment (No. 477) was agreed to.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, one reason I made campaign finance
reform a centerpiece of my campaign and joined by colleagues Senators
McCain and Feingold in working hard to pass campaign finance
legislation, is because our current campaign finance system contributes
to Americans' growing cynicism about government. And who can blame them
for being cynical and believing that government really does not
represent their interests, when procedural maneuvering causes a
bipartisan bill passed by a wide majority to fail to be transmitted
from the Senate to the House?
The McCain-Feingold bill passed this body with 59 votes. Similar
legislation has twice passed the House with 252 votes. The majority of
both bodies clearly support campaign finance reform, and so do a
majority of the American people. Yet leaders in both Houses are
apparently determined to use every tool at their disposal to force this
broadly supported bill into a divisive conference committee composed of
the most vocal opponents of reform.
The day we passed this bill in the Senate, I spoke on the floor about
what an amazing feeling it was to have accomplished one of my primary
legislative goals within 90 days of arriving in the Senate. While I
never thought that day would be the end of the battle to pass this
bill, I must admit that I certainly did not expect to be back on this
floor because the bill, despite its comfortable margin of passage six
weeks ago, continues to gather dust here in the Senate because the
Republican leadership cannot reconcile itself to the most significant
campaign finance reform in a quarter century. In an information age, we
owe our citizens a government free of special interest influence. Not a
system of expedient, special-interest based, decision making, and not a
system that engages in byzantine maneuvering to delay and thwart the
will of the majority.
I hope that the leadership of both the House and the Senate will stop
attempting to devise new ways to stonewall this bill and allow the
Senate-passed version of this legislation to be debated and voted on in
the House without further delay.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to note that due to the
need to fulfill a long-scheduled speaking engagement at a university
made in the expectation there would not be votes, I unfortunately was
not able to be here in the Senate last night to vote on two amendments
to the education bill, S. 1. I would like to say for the record that I
would have voted for both amendments and am pleased that they both
passed with broad bipartisan approval.
I support Senator Reid's amendment, #460 to expand the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers to include projects with emphasis on
language and life skills programs for limited English proficient
students. We know that assisting students to acquire English
proficiency is becoming increasingly important as many of our
communities are receiving immigrant children from many different
countries. Limited English proficient students are at greatest risk for
dropping out of school and are among some of our lowest performing
subgroups of students. I have long been an advocate for investing
increased Federal resources and greater attention on limited English
proficient students. My own ESEA reauthorization bill, S. 303, calls
for $1 billion in formula funds focused on increasing the English
proficiency and raising the academic performance in all core subjects
of our immigrant children. One of the primary risk factors for low
academic performance and dropping out of school among immigrant
students is their lack of English proficiency. Students that are
proficient in English have a much greater chance to reach higher levels
of academic achievement and fully participate in our society. The Reid
amendment would help many immigrant children receive the extra help
they need for English language acquisition through after-school
programs. The Senate clearly recognized the value of this amendment by
approving it 96 to 0.
I also support Senator Cleland's amendment, #376 on school safety. It
makes funds available to establish a center to offer emergency
assistance to schools and local communities by providing information
and best practices on how to respond to school safety crises, including
counseling for victims, advice on how to enhance school safety and
would operate a toll-free nationwide hotline for students to report
criminal activity, threats of criminal activity and other high-risk
behaviors. It also would provide grants to help communities develop
community-wide safety programs involving students, parents, educators,
and civic leaders. This amendment would further help to forge a crucial
partnership between the Department of Education and the Attorney
General so that these two departments may work together to ensure that
our schools have the resources and tools they need to create safe
learning environments for our nation's youth. In addition, the
amendment would provide flexible funding, something that I have long
fought for, to enable localities to design school safety programs that
best meet their specific needs. For all of these reasons, I would have
voted for the Cleland amendment and am pleased it passed by a strong
vote of 74 to 23.
(The original statement of Senator Feinstein which was delivered on
Monday, May 14, but omitted is as follows:)
Amendment No. 443
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to co-sponsor this
amendment with Senators Voinovich, Baucus, Cochran, Landrieu, Murray,
and Corzine.
Under current law, elementary and secondary teachers can receive up
to $5,000 of their student loans forgiven in exchange for 5 years of
teaching. Head Start teachers are not currently included in the federal
loan forgiveness program. By offering Head Start teachers the same loan
forgiveness benefit as that afforded to elementary and secondary school
teachers, I believe, we will encourage more college graduates to enter
the field.
Many Head Start programs in California are losing qualified teachers
to local school districts in part because the pay is better--
nationally, the average Head Start teacher made $20,700 in 2000
compared to $40,575 for an elementary and secondary school teacher.
Head Start teachers are making half of what elementary and secondary
teachers are paid on average.
Low pay, combined with mounting student loan debt, is a real
deterrent to getting college graduates to become Head Start teachers.
Today, there are no educational requirements for a Head Start teacher
other than a child development associate (CDA) credential, requiring 24
early child education credits and 16 general education credits. By
2003, 50 percent of Head Start teachers will be required to have at
minimum an associate or 2-year degree.
Under this amendment, a Head Start teacher who has completed at
minimum a bachelor's degree could receive up to $5,000 of their federal
student loan forgiven provided they agree to teach for at least 5 years
in a Head Start program.
Clearly, we should recruit qualified teachers to the Head Start field
who have demonstrated knowledge and teaching skills in reading,
writing, early childhood development, and other areas of the preschool
curriculum with a particular focus on cognitive learning. Obtaining and
maintaining teachers with such educational backgrounds will, I believe,
improve the cognitive learning portion of the Head Start program so
that our youngsters can start elementary school ready to learn.
Several recent studies confirm the importance of investing in the
education and training of those who work with preschoolers.
The National Research Council has recommended that:
. . . children in an early childhood education and care
program should be assigned a teacher who has a bachelor's
degree with specialized education related to early childhood.
. . . Progress toward a high-quality teaching force will
require substantial public and private support and incentive
programs, including innovative education programs,
scholarship and loan programs, and compensation commensurate
with the expectations of college graduates.
[[Page S4932]]
Last year, the Head Start 2010 National Advisory Panel held fifteen
national hearings and open forums. The panel found:
. . . that despite increases resulting from Federal quality
set-aside funding, relatively low salaries and poor or non-
existent benefits make it difficult to attract and retain
qualified staff over the long term. . . . the quality of the
program is tied directly to the quality of the staff.
Head Start is one of the most important federal programs because it
has the potential to reach children early in their formative years when
their cognitive skills are just developing. Many of our Nation's
youngsters, however, enter elementary school without the basic skills
necessary to succeed. Often these children lag behind their peers
throughout their academic career.
I believe we must continue to improve the cognitive learning aspects
of the Head Start program so that children leave the program able to
count to ten, to recognize sizes and colors, and to recite the
alphabet. To ensure cognitive learning, we must continue to raise the
standards for Head Start teachers. Offering Head Start teachers similar
compensation for their educational achievements and expenses afforded
to other teachers is one step to encouraging college graduates to
become Head Start teachers.
____________________