[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 16, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4970-S4999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             BETTER EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of 
the pending business, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 358, in the nature of a substitute.
       Kennedy (for Dodd) amendment No. 382 (to amendment No. 
     358), to remove the 21st century community learning center 
     program from the list of programs covered by performance 
     agreements.
       Biden amendment No. 386 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     establish school-based partnerships between local law 
     enforcement agencies and local school systems, by providing 
     school resource officers who operate in and around elementary 
     and secondary schools.
       Voinovich amendment No. 389 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     modify provisions relating to State applications and plans 
     and school improvement to provide for the input of the 
     Governor of the State involved.
       Reed amendment No. 425 (to amendment No. 358), to revise 
     provisions regarding the Reading First Program.
       Leahy (for Hatch) amendment No. 424 (to amendment No. 358), 
     to provide for the establishment of additional Boys and Girls 
     Clubs of America.
       Helms amendment No. 574 (to amendment No. 358), to prohibit 
     the use of Federal funds by any State or local educational 
     agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of 
     America in providing equal access to school premises or 
     facilities.
       Helms amendment No. 648 (to amendment No. 574), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Dorgan amendment No. 640 (to amendment No. 358), expressing 
     the sense of the Senate that there should be established a 
     joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives to 
     investigate the rapidly increasing energy prices across the 
     country and to determine what is causing the increases.
       Wellstone/Feingold amendment No. 465 (to amendment No. 
     358), to improve the provisions relating to assessment 
     completion bonuses.

[[Page S4971]]

       Voinovich amendment No. 443 (to amendment No. 358), to 
     amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend loan 
     forgiveness for certain loans to Head Start teachers.
       Dayton modified amendment No. 622 (to amendment No. 358), 
     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.
       Hutchinson modified amendment No. 555 (to amendment No. 
     358), to express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
     Department of Education program to promote access of Armed 
     Forces recruiters to student directory information.
       Harkin amendment No. 525 (to amendment No. 358), to provide 
     grants for the renovation of schools.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside; that I be recognized in order to offer 
amendment No. 550; and that there be 15 minutes for me to present this 
amendment; further, following my statement, that my amendment be set 
aside and Senator Boxer be recognized in order to call up amendment No. 
563 and there then be 1 hour equally divided for debate. Further, I ask 
that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to 
a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment, and, finally, that there be 
no amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the manager 
of the bill, who left for a minute, has asked that he be recognized for 
5 minutes prior to the Boxer-Ensign amendment being called up. Will the 
Senator agree with that?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I so amend my unanimous consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 550

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 550.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 550 to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by the amendment No. 358.

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

   (Purpose: To liberalize the tax-exempt financing rules for public 
                          school construction)

       On page 794, after line 7, in the language proposed to be 
     stricken, add the following:

TITLE X--LIBERALIZATION OF TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING RULES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL 
                              CONSTRUCTION

     SEC. 1001. ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN ARBITRAGE REBATE EXCEPTION 
                   FOR GOVERNMENTAL BONDS USED TO FINANCE 
                   EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 148(f)(4)(D)(vii) (relating to 
     increase in exception for bonds financing public school 
     capital expenditures) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' 
     the second place it appears and inserting ``$10,000,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to obligations issued in calendar years beginning 
     after December 31, 2001.

     SEC. 1002. TREATMENT OF QUALIFIED PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL FACILITY 
                   BONDS AS EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS.

       (a) Treatment as Exempt Facility Bond.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 142 (relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the 
     period at the end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, or'', 
     and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) qualified public educational facilities.''.
       (b) Qualified Public Educational Facilities.--Section 142 
     (relating to exempt facility bond) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Qualified Public Educational Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a)(13), the 
     term `qualified public educational facility' means any school 
     facility which is--
       ``(A) part of a public elementary school or a public 
     secondary school, and
       ``(B) owned by a private, for-profit corporation pursuant 
     to a public-private partnership agreement with a State or 
     local educational agency described in paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Public-private partnership agreement described.--A 
     public-private partnership agreement is described in this 
     paragraph if it is an agreement--
       ``(A) under which the corporation agrees--
       ``(i) to do 1 or more of the following: construct, 
     rehabilitate, refurbish, or equip a school facility, and
       ``(ii) at the end of the term of the agreement, to transfer 
     the school facility to such agency for no additional 
     consideration, and
       ``(B) the term of which does not exceed the term of the 
     issue to be used to provide the school facility.
       ``(3) School facility.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `school facility' means--
       ``(A) any school building,
       ``(B) any functionally related and subordinate facility and 
     land with respect to such building, including any stadium or 
     other facility primarily used for school events, and
       ``(C) any property, to which section 168 applies (or would 
     apply but for section 179), for use in a facility described 
     in subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(4) Public schools.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     terms `elementary school' and `secondary school' have the 
     meanings given such terms by section 14101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801), as in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(5) Annual aggregate face amount of tax-exempt 
     financing.--
       ``(A) In general.--An issue shall not be treated as an 
     issue described in subsection (a)(13) if the aggregate face 
     amount of bonds issued by the State pursuant thereto (when 
     added to the aggregate face amount of bonds previously so 
     issued during the calendar year) exceeds an amount equal to 
     the greater of--
       ``(i) $10 multiplied by the State population, or
       ``(ii) $5,000,000.
       ``(B) Allocation rules.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subparagraph, the State may allocate the amount described in 
     subparagraph (A) for any calendar year in such manner as the 
     State determines appropriate.
       ``(ii) Rules for carryforward of unused limitation.--A 
     State may elect to carry forward an unused limitation for any 
     calendar year for 3 calendar years following the calendar 
     year in which the unused limitation arose under rules similar 
     to the rules of section 146(f), except that the only purpose 
     for which the carryforward may be elected is the issuance of 
     exempt facility bonds described in subsection (a)(13).''.
       (c) Exemption From General State Volume Caps.--Paragraph 
     (3) of section 146(g) (relating to exception for certain 
     bonds) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or (12)'' and inserting ``(12), or 
     (13)'', and
       (2) by striking ``and environmental enhancements of 
     hydroelectric generating facilities'' and inserting 
     ``environmental enhancements of hydroelectric generating 
     facilities, and qualified public educational facilities''.
       (d) Exemption From Limitation on Use for Land 
     Acquisition.--Section 147(h) (relating to certain rules not 
     to apply to mortgage revenue bonds, qualified student loan 
     bonds, and qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Exempt facility bonds for qualified public-private 
     schools.--Subsection (c) shall not apply to any exempt 
     facility bond issued as part of an issue described in section 
     142(a)(13) (relating to qualified public educational 
     facilities).''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--The heading for section 147(h) 
     is amended by striking ``Mortgage Revenue Bonds, Qualified 
     Student Loan Bonds, and Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds'' and 
     inserting ``Certain Bonds''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to bonds issued after December 31, 2001.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I know we have had a healthy debate on 
education and on the need for our educational infrastructure around the 
country. What we can all agree on is that many schools in the country 
are in desperate need of repair and improvement. Just because we can 
agree on a problem, however, doesn't mean we agree on the appropriate 
solution. I think the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Iowa 
to create a new school construction program provides an illustration of 
this point. We have a big difference on how we ought to approach the 
solution.
  The bill before us maximizes the impact of limited Federal dollars by 
focusing them on programs for which there is a clear and historical 
Federal role. Creating a new facilities grant program in the Department 
of Education, I believe, will raise false hopes and divert our energy 
away from the urgent task of securing more funding for programs such as 
IDEA for which there is a clear and unequivocal established Federal 
responsibility.
  The Finance Committee earlier--a few weeks ago--agreed to some 
measures to provide relief in the area of school construction in the 
Affordable Education Act. This was bipartisan. This came from the 
Finance Committee with broad support. It addresses this issue of school 
construction in a far more constructive and advantageous way. I want to 
offer, in my amendment, the provisions of that Affordable Education Act 
dealing with school construction to S. 1.

[[Page S4972]]

  The first provision is directed at innovative financing for school 
districts. It expands the tax-exempt bond rules for public-private 
scholarships set up for construction, renovation, or restoration of 
public school facilities in these districts. In general, it allows 
States to issue tax-exempt bonds equal to $10 per State resident.
  Each State would be guaranteed, under this provision, a minimum 
allocation of at least $5 million of these tax-exempt bonds. In total, 
up to $600 million per year in new tax-exempt bonds would be issued for 
these innovative school construction projects. This provision is 
important because it retains State and local flexibility. It does not 
impose a new bureaucracy on the States, and it does not force the 
Federal Government to micromanage school construction.
  I cannot think of a more counterproductive step for us to take than 
for the Federal Government to get into the business of school 
construction and to assume an unprecedented role in that which has been 
historically, traditionally left to States and local governments.
  The provision also is important because it promotes the use of 
public-private partnerships. Many high-growth school districts may be 
too poor or too overwhelmed to take on a school construction project 
themselves. With these bonds, those districts can partner with a 
private entity and still enjoy the benefits of tax-exempt financing.
  It is worth noting that there already is a significant Federal 
subsidy for school construction. Under current law, States and 
localities can issue debt that is exempt from Federal taxation. This 
benefit allows them to finance school construction by issuing long-term 
bonds at a lower cost than they otherwise could. Moreover, the evidence 
shows that States and localities are taking advantage of this 
provision, this benefit, in the current tax law. In the first 6 months 
of 1996, voters approved $13.3 billion in school bonds, an increase of 
more than $4 billion over the first 6 months of 1995.
  The bottom line is that many States and localities are doing their 
homework, passing bonds, building and renovating schools, and enjoying 
favorable treatment under the existing Tax Code. They are doing all 
this without significant Federal involvement.
  I do not have to remind my colleagues that school construction has 
always been the province of State and local governments. It is 
important that we preserve that prerogative. It is important that we 
ensure that the Federal Government not preempt this traditional role of 
State and local government.
  President Clinton stated in 1994, ``The construction and renovation 
of school facilities has traditionally been the responsibility of State 
and local governments financed primarily by local taxpayers.'' In that 
respect, at least, I agree with former President Clinton.
  There is a second bond provision in this bill.
  That provision is designed to simplify the issuance of bonds for 
school construction. Under current law, arbitrage profits earned on 
investments unrelated to the purpose of borrowing must be rebated to 
the Federal Government. However, there is an exception generally 
referred to as the small issuer exception which allows governments to 
issue up to $5 million of bonds without being subject to the arbitrage 
rebate requirement.
  We recently increased this limit to $10 million for governments that 
issue at least $5 million of public school bonds during the year.
  The provision in the Finance Committee bill which I offer now as an 
amendment increases the small issuer exception to $15 million provided 
that at least $10 million of the bonds are issued to finance public 
schools. This measure will assist localities in meeting school 
construction needs by simplifying their use of tax-exempt financing.
  At the same time, it will not create incentives to issue such debt 
earlier or in larger amounts than is necessary. It is a type of 
targeted provision that makes good sense.
  I reaffirm there is consensus that there is a problem in the area of 
dilapidated schools, but there is a huge diversion on how we ought to 
address that problem. There are those who want to start a new 
categorical Federal grant program involving the Federal Government in a 
role that has always been left to State and local governments, a 
program that will, as all Federal programs, mushroom in the years 
ahead, a path we need not nor should we go down.
  The provision I am offering is a better way. It addresses the issue 
of school construction in an appropriate way for the Federal Government 
and a provision that has broad bipartisan support in that it passed the 
Finance Committee on March 13 by a 20-0 vote. This is a better approach 
as we seek to assist local schools and State governments in their 
traditional role of building school facilities.
  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 yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Hutchinson 
amendment. This tax amendment is not appropriate at this time. The 
pending underlying legislation is not a revenue bill.
  If this amendment passes, this important bill will be potentially 
subject to a ``blue slip'' by the House. A ``blue slip'' would in 
effect kill this bill and the Senate would have to start anew.
  Therefore, a tax amendment at this time would unnecessarily 
jeopardize the good work of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  I would note that this provision regarding private activity bonds for 
school construction is contained in the Finance Committee bill passed 
yesterday, and that bill will be taken up tomorrow for consideration.
  I have had a very long history on this matter of encouraging school 
construction, and specifically this very language that is contained in 
the amendment. I am very pleased that I was able to include this school 
construction bond language in the tax bill and look to hopefully having 
it signed into law.
  For these reasons, while I know that the Senator has offered this 
amendment with the best of intentions, unfortunately, I must 
respectfully oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay this 
amendment aside at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator, under the order, is authorized to 
offer her amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair for being such a strong supporter of 
afterschool programs for children. I ask unanimous consent that 
Senators Ensign and Dodd be added as original cosponsors of this 
amendment on afterschool programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Amendment No. 563, As Modified, To Amendment No. 358

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there is a typing error in the amendment 
that deals with the sense-of-the-Senate part that called ``billion'' 
``million.'' I received concurrence that I may ask for that to be 
modified, and I so ask.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is modified, and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mr. 
     Ensign, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 563, as 
     modified, to amendment No. 358.

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

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding, and authorize 
 appropriations for, part F of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
                         Education Act of 1965)

       At the end of title IX, add the following:

     SEC. 902. SENSE OF THE SENATE; AUTHORIZATION OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Congress should continue toward the goal of providing 
     the necessary funding for afterschool programs by 
     appropriating the authorized level of $1,500,000,000 for FY 
     2002

[[Page S4973]]

     to carry out part F title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (2) This funding should be the benchmark for future years 
     in order to reach the goal of providing academically enriched 
     activities during after school hours for the 7,000,000 
     children in need.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out part F of Title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--
       (1) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       (2) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       (3) $3,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       (4) $3,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       (5) $4,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       (6) $4,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased to be offering this amendment which 
deals with afterschool programs in our country. The purpose of this 
amendment is very clear. It is to ensure that every child who needs an 
afterschool program in our Nation will have that opportunity. This 
amendment does that by authorizing sufficient funds over the next 6 
years so that no child has to be a latchkey child.
  What do I mean by a latchkey child? That is a child who comes home 
after school, both parents are working, no one is in the home, and 
they, in some cases, can get into trouble.
  How do we know this? We know this because the FBI tells us that most 
crime occurs among juveniles right after school. One can see on this 
chart that the juvenile crime rate peaks at the hour of 3 p.m. and 
continues and finally starts to go down in the evening hours. We know 
that juvenile crime occurs after school; that latchkey children do get 
into trouble after school. It is very clear. That is why we have so 
many police officers all over this Nation supporting our amendment and 
supporting afterschool programs in general.
  If one looks at this chart, one can see all of the various law 
enforcement organizations that support the amendment of Senator Ensign 
and myself: The National Association of Police Athletic and Activity 
Leagues, Fight Crime, Invest in Kids, National Sheriffs Association, 
Major Cities Police Chiefs, Police Executive Research Forum, National 
District Attorneys Association, California District Attorneys 
Association, Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, Texas Police 
Chiefs Association, Arizona Sheriffs and Prosecutors Association, Maine 
Chiefs and Sheriffs Associations, Rhode Island Police Chiefs' 
Association.
  This is a partial list of police organizations across the country 
that support this amendment. They understand that once a crime is 
committed and they are called in, it is very late in the game. I have 
talked with police officers who look me in the eye and say there used 
to be a divide between the social workers and the police officers when 
it came to juvenile crime. There is no longer a divide.
  The police officers understand, because they are on the street, that 
if kids are kept busy and they are kept happy, we see a lessening of 
the crime rate, and that is why quality afterschool programs are so 
important.
  I am very pleased that with Senator Jeffords' leadership, along with 
Senator Kennedy, we have sufficient funding in this year's bill of $1.5 
billion for the year 2002. If we play that out, which is what we do in 
our legislation, and we continue the increase just to meet the need, we 
will be able to cover 7 million children in afterschool programs by the 
year 2008.
  This bill is about reform, and I am for reform, but clearly if we 
reform our schools during the day, but then kids are left to fend for 
themselves after school, all the benefits of that reform and testing 
could well be lost. That is why it is so important that we add this 
afterschool component, not just for this year as we have in this bill 
but we play it out for the 6-year authorization.
  We need places that are safe for our children, protected places, 
productive places for them to go.
  Let me show a couple pictures because pictures tell a story and are 
worth a thousand words.
  This is a photo from our Sacramento afterschool program where they 
have called in special people. This gentleman is an expert with 
animals. He brought in this crocodile. The kids are so taken with it. 
One can see the look on their faces. These kids are happy, they are 
excited, they are happy to be in school, they are learning about 
nature, and they are not getting into trouble.
  I have another photograph. This one is also from Sacramento. One can 
see the young people are engaged in a board game, and there is an older 
mentor sitting with them. Again, they are productive and happy. It is 
another way of showing what afterschool programs can do.
  It is instructive to hear what the kids themselves say about 
afterschool programs. There is a great program in Los Angeles called 
LA's Best. I have visited it. It is a shining example of what we can do 
right for our children. This is a student at 68th Street Elementary 
School:

       LA's Best is the best place to be after school. I like the 
     games and the work. I like going to the computer lab . . . I 
     like going to the library, but most of all I like the people.

  And then we have another student from Hillcrest Drive Elementary 
School:

       If we didn't have LA's Best, I would probably still be 
     going home to an empty house.

  No child should have to go home to an empty house. No child should 
have to be tempted to get into trouble after school. We can do this.
  I often say that it was Dwight Eisenhower who really started the 
Federal role in education. It is true the States do the majority of it, 
but what he pointed out was that when there is a void, we have an 
obligation to move in to assist the schools--not tell them what to do 
but to offer them the resources.
  That is what this amendment is all about. We are taking your $1.5 
billion, Mr. President, that you have put in this bill and we are 
extending it out so we can make sure every schoolchild in this country 
gets afterschool supervision.
  At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, who is the original cosponsor of my amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of 
the sense of the Senate being offered by the junior Senator from 
California on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program.
  The 21st Century Community Learning Centers provide a safe-haven for 
children during the after-school hours. They provide students in rural 
and inner-city public schools with access to homework centers, tutors, 
mentors, and drug and alcohol prevention counseling, as well as 
cultural and recreational activities. Nationwide, these centers serve 
over 615,000 children per year in over 3,600 public schools.
  There are an estimated 8 million ``latch-key kids'' who go home every 
day to an empty house after school. Approximately 35 percent of 12 
year-olds are regularly left alone while their parents are at work. 
Parents need a viable alternative to leaving their children alone.
  According to the Department of Education, children who regularly 
attend high-quality after-school programs have better peer relations 
and emotional adjustment, better grades and conduct in school, more 
academic and enrichment opportunities, spend less time watching 
television, and have lower incidences of drug-use, violence, and 
pregnancy. This makes sense considering that studies by the FBI have 
found that the peak hours for juvenile crime and victimization are from 
2 p.m. to 8 p.m.
  My home State of Nevada receives four grants from this program, which 
serve numerous elementary, middle, and high schools across the state. 
Recently a news crew was visiting one of the 21st Century Community 
Learning Center sites in Las Vegas and asked the children why they 
liked coming to the program. The children responded more 
enthusiastically than the reporter had anticipated, stating that the 
program had helped them improve their grades from D's and F's to A's 
and B's, and was a safe and fun place for them to go after school.
  I am committed to ensuring that our schools have the assistance they 
need to ensure that our children leave the public education system as 
well-rounded individuals. Children attending public schools should not 
only be proficient in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but should also 
be skillful in music, art, and athletics.
  I hope that my colleagues will support this amendment to prove that 
Congress is willing to provide the 21st Century Community Learning 
Centers

[[Page S4974]]

program with the much-needed support that it deserves.
  Mr. President, on a personal note, when I was growing up with a 
single mother--my mom worked--at times she wasn't home for us latchkey 
kids and we did not have these types of programs after school. I will 
tell you that I was on my road to a life of crime because of the 
situation. I was very fortunate that later in life my mom got remarried 
and was able to quit her job and stay home with us; but a lot of 
parents are not in that kind of a situation. There is no question that 
direct supervision helped me turn away from a life of juvenile 
delinquency into now what, obviously, has become a productive life. At 
least I like to think of it that way.
  I think of many children, though, in the same situation that I was 
in, go home after school with nothing to do. Back then, my friends and 
I would say: What are we going to do today? We would think of numerous 
ways to get in trouble.
  Now, the things that we did back then, which we don't want to mention 
today, were not exactly good things to do but are mild compared to what 
a lot of the kids are into today because of the influences we have in 
our society. So for us to use programs such as this, programs that are 
working to make a difference and giving children positive things to do, 
I think these programs should be applauded and supported. We should 
work to eliminate wasteful Government spending, but when Government 
programs such as this are working, we should all be getting behind them 
and say: Let us fund these programs; let us make sure that they are 
working effectively. Hold them accountable for their results. But as 
long as they are providing the results they have been, I think we 
should continue to support them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank the junior Senator from 
California for allowing me to participate in her amendment.
  (Mr. ENSIGN assumed the Chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues in their offices and 
doing their work heard the remarks of my colleague from Nevada. I think 
he was eloquent because he spoke from the heart and from his own life 
experience. His own life experience underscores the need for this 
amendment and what we are trying to do. You can take the best kid in 
the world, but if they are home alone after school and they are very 
lonely and they do not have guidance, bad things can happen, and bad 
things do happen.
  I want to show, again, the chart by the FBI which underscores exactly 
what my friend was saying as far as when crime occurs. If you look at 
the chart, it is very clear. Juvenile crime starts climbing right after 
school and it peaks right after school, and eventually, as the parents 
come home, the crime rate goes down. So it is not, as we say, rocket 
science to understand that we can do a tremendous amount for our 
children.
  The other point my friend made which I thought was important was that 
he has heard stories from his own State, where they use some of these 
funds, that the academic performance of the children is also improving.
  I have seen programs in Richmond, CA, where the local Police Athletic 
League serves over 400 students and the juvenile crime rate has 
decreased by 36 percent as a result of the afterschool program. It is 
documented. The scores are going up.
  In Hemet, CA, we have, again, the police athletic and activities 
league serving over 2,500 students in that afterschool program. There 
has been a 29-percent decrease in juvenile crime and the scores are 
getting better.
  In Highland Park, MI, the 21st Century Learning Center reports a 40-
percent drop in juvenile crime after the implementation of their 
programs and the scores are getting better.
  In Brooklyn, at the Cyprus Hills Center, it was reported that 72 
percent of the program participants improved their grades by 35 
percentage points in one or more of their classes. This is a proven 
winner.
  In Chatanooga, TN, absentee days dropped from 568 days to 135 days. 
That is an amazing drop. Why is it? Because the children are doing 
their homework after school. They are getting support after school. 
They are getting mentoring after school, and it works.
  In Plainview, AR, the 21st Century Learning Center implemented an 
abstinance program that resulted in no pregnancies in their high school 
graduating class for the first time in years. Before this program, 
there were 16 pregnancies in 1998. I did not mention that. I showed you 
the crime rate. What I did not tell you is the teen pregnancy situation 
is traced back to afterschool hours.
  So, Mr. President, what you said is so, so true. We know it from our 
own experience when we were children growing up. We know it as we watch 
the new afterschool programs take hold.
  I have been in public office for 25 years now and I have worked hard 
in a number of areas, but I have to say one of my proudest moments was 
bringing the first afterschool amendment down to the floor of the 
Senate many years ago where we were then spending $40 million a year on 
afterschool programs. And working together across party lines, and at 
that time working with the President, we were able to see this program 
go up to $800 million and is now serving many children.
  But still, we have 7 million children to go and we will not rest, all 
of us here, across party lines, who care about kids, until we make sure 
that every child has an alternative, every child has an option.
  In closing, I would like to say our children are good kids. 
Unfortunately, we always seem to spotlight the bad kids, the kids who 
get in trouble. I have to say, I believe all children are gifts from 
God and all children deserve to be honored. They all come on this Earth 
and they deserve to be honored. We do not honor our children if we do 
not invest in them.
  These are not huge investments, these are really quite small 
investments. When we invest in a child in a way that is positive, where 
we give that child that Head Start, that Early Start, that Jump Start, 
where we then send them to quality public schools where we then have 
quality afterschool programs, we are going to see the vast majority of 
social problems in our Nation will be resolved. This is what I believe. 
Are you going to miss the boat on a few kids? Of course. Are you going 
to have a kid who simply will not respond? Of course. But that is a 
rarity.
  So I think this amendment, as it was spoken to by Senator Ensign in 
such an eloquent way, where he traced back his childhood, where he 
remembered what it was like to be alone, without supervision, to be 
floundering and perhaps to be steered into a life from which you can 
never really come back--that kind of situation should not be present 
for any of our children in this Nation.
  I hope very much we will have bipartisan support, that we will be 
able to pass this overwhelmingly and send a clear signal to our 
children that they are important before school, during school, and 
after school.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I wonder if the Senator will be good enough to yield me 
5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am delighted to yield Senator Kennedy as much time as 
he may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Boxer and Senator Ensign 
for this amendment. I think this amendment is enormously important. In 
this whole debate on elementary and secondary education we are now 
making a commitment to the families and to the country that we are 
going to have the funding for these reforms which are in this 
legislation, which I support; also, that we are not going to leave 
children who have limited-English-speaking ability behind. We had a 
good debate on that. We are only reaching 25 percent of those children.
  As a result of the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas--we had a 
good debate on this--a decision was made that we were not going to be 
satisfied to leave behind any children who had those challenges.
  Now with this amendment we are saying we are not going to leave 
behind any of the children who need afterschool services. That is what 
this amendment is really all about. We are making our commitment to the 
children in the classroom with supplementary services, with good 
teachers,

[[Page S4975]]

and we have made a commitment to make sure we are going to have good 
teachers. We are making sure we are going to have the bilingual support 
children are going to need. We are not leaving anyone behind. This 
amendment is saying the same with regard to afterschool programs.
  As the Senator from California understands, this program, the 
afterschool program, was the most oversubscribed program of any in the 
Clinton administration, with quality programs. There were not any other 
programs that could come close to it. That is a reflection of the 
demand in the local communities. That is a reflection of what is 
happening out there in communities all across this country.
  As has been pointed out, there are 7 million children going to be 
home alone. Under the existing legislation, we cover a little more than 
a million of them. But the importance of this program is that we are 
moving in a glidepath to reach out to these children, all 7 million. It 
will take some time, but that is the best we can do at this time.
  What we are saying to those children about their afterschool 
situation is, we as a country believe this time for you is important. 
For many of us who have seen these afterschool programs, we know what 
an extraordinary difference they make in enhancing the child's not only 
academic ability but confidence. Also, the children work with other 
children. In many of the centers in Massachusetts you have older 
children working with younger children. That has made a big difference 
in the older children's attitude about the program. It has made a big 
difference in the private sector.
  I can take you to places in Boston where many companies are coming in 
and talking about graphic arts and photography, which are not being 
taught in the schools. It just clicked children's minds open. Children 
who were indifferent in school are tying into photography or graphic 
arts in ways they could not have imagined and are now interested in 
going to school.
  It can also provide pathways for children in sports and athletics, 
with all the lessons in life that come from competing and participating 
in sports.
  This makes sense. It is of key importance. These afterschool 
situations can be enormously important and significant for the 
supplementary services that are necessary and needed for children. We 
have seen that particularly in the Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs in 
Boston, how they are working providing all these supplementary 
services.
  If we are really going to do the job for children in this country, 
which I believe this President wants to do, and we are committed to do 
in this legislation, this amendment is enormously important, far beyond 
the resources that are being talked about here, making a real 
difference in quality education and investment in the children.
  I commend the Senator. I certainly hope this amendment will be 
adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from California 
for what she is doing with this very wonderful program. I introduced 
the original legislation which resulted in this program. It was modeled 
after a school I found in Vermont which had the foresight to understand 
the need to extend the child's time in school, or on the school 
grounds, and to give them constructive things to do, something 
educational during the period of time before they can go home and find 
someone there to greet them.
  Actually, it came further in the past than that. When I had the 
opportunity to visit the former Soviet Union, not too long after the 
end of the Soviet Union in that sense, I visited what were called 
Pioneer Palaces. They were spread throughout the Soviet Union. I 
visited them. I found what they did. From the time school ended, from 3 
in the afternoon until 6 at night, every child was required to do 
something that was constructive and hopefully leading towards some 
occupation or whatever. As you walked around, you found people learning 
how to be cosmonauts, 8- or 9-year-olds. Then as you went further, you 
saw people very intensely working on musical instruments and all sorts 
of things. Every child was required to find something to do that was 
constructive during that period.
  As we know, as the Senator from Nevada pointed out, the studies show 
how important it is, in the time from the midafternoon until 
suppertime, to keep young people fully occupied. Crime, pregnancies--
almost all of that results from behavior during that period of time.
  So I have a certain feeling of thankfulness for the way this program 
has grown. President Clinton grabbed onto a program which had a little 
bit of funding and had the foresight to make it into a really well 
funded program.
  I thank the former President for doing that, but right now it is up 
to us to do all we can to make sure this kind of a program is available 
as far across this land as possible and in such numbers that at least 
every young person ought to have an opportunity to have a fulfilling 
full day rather than just the hours at school.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. Has all my time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold be given 6 
minutes to speak on another topic since no one else is in the Chamber 
to speak against my amendment. We can take the rest of the time or 
whatever the Presiding Officer wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields time?
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. I yield 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator very much for her amendment and for 
her help in getting me time to speak.
  (The remarks of Mr. Feingold are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I, again, thank the ranking member, the 
chairman, and the Senator from California for their generosity in 
giving me this time.
  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 the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, there is a half hour in opposition, 
which is not being used at this time. For the benefit of the 
membership, the time has been established to vote. We are prepared to 
do that. I think the leadership has stated a time for the convenience 
of the Members. If there is no objection, I will talk a little bit 
about what the afterschool programs have meant to children, and as soon 
as any Member comes to speak in opposition to the amendment, I will be 
glad to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will proceed on that basis.
  Mr. President, I will mention some success stories. I regret I missed 
the splendid presentation by the present Presiding Officer earlier 
today, but I look forward to reading it in the Record. I have been told 
by a number of my colleagues what a moving story it was. I thank the 
Senator for sharing that with this body.
  I will mention a few of the individual success stories that we have 
seen in Boston. We have a program called From 2 To 6. It is available 
to all children up to the age of 13 in Boston. Let me mention some of 
the experiences which we have seen in that program.

  There is a young student named Natalia. When Natalia started in the 
Gardner Extended Services School in Allston in the middle of the 1999 
school year, she could not read, write, or perform basic arithmetic. 
They suggested that Natalia enroll in its afterschool program to 
receive extra support in both her academics and her study skills. With 
the help of a certified teacher, a teacher's aide, and several Boston 
College tutors, Natalia showed significant progress.
  Currently, Natalia is in the second grade and is performing at grade 
level

[[Page S4976]]

in all academic areas of the classroom. She is maintaining a solid B 
average. Natalia is also now participating in many extracurricular 
activities, such as the African Dance Club and swimming lessons at the 
YMCA.
  Michael: In 1999, 11-year-old Michael spent afterschool time playing 
Nintendo, and as the end of the school year approached, he began to 
hang around with a group of kids who were affiliated with a local gang. 
His mother grew concerned and enrolled Michael in the summer camp 
program run by the East Boston YMCA Program Center.
  At first Michael was not very responsive. However, as the summer 
progressed, he learned how to swim and became more confident in his 
athletic abilities. By the end of the summer, he made a lot of friends 
and also started to mentor the 5- and 6-year-olds. He also continued to 
attend the afterschool program when school started again. He got sort 
of hooked on it through the course of the summer. Many of his new 
friends were going to the afterschool program, too. Since being 
involved in the program, all of his teachers have commented about the 
progress he has made. He now receives A's and B's on his report card 
And enjoys outdoor activities.
  Edgar from Roxbury first came to the B.E.L.L. Foundation's BASICs 
program at the Jackson/Mann Elementary School in Allston in the fall of 
1998 as a second grader. He was a friendly, outgoing, energetic 
student, but he couldn't read and didn't know the alphabet. Edgar was 
embarrassed to work on academics with other students his age because he 
was well below grade level in literacy. They paired him with a one-on-
one tutor, and he worked hard to improve but became frustrated when he 
didn't see immediate results.
  Seeing that Edgar might need more support, his tutor encouraged him 
to get to know a fifth grader name Jesus. They both had many things in 
common. Both were recent immigrants from Brazil. They loved wrestling, 
making people laugh. One day a tutor overheard Jesus say to Edgar: I 
know you're having a hard time reading. I did, too, when I first came 
here, and I promise you that it will get easier.
  A year later, Edgar is now completing grade level work in school and 
getting good grades. He also helps his peers who are having a hard time 
reading. It was the afterschool program that has made the difference.
  We have example after example of these programs. The 2-6 program, as 
I mentioned, is primarily for children 12 or younger. We know that this 
particular program will reach the children in middle school and high 
school, and that is something which is very much in need and is one of 
the principal reasons we are working now to see its support.
  I mentioned the Institute for Student Achievement in six New York 
school districts which is a school-based afterschool program that 
provides counseling and academic assistance to middle and high school 
students who are struggling in school. The programs, STAR, Success 
Through Academic Readiness, and COMET, Children of Many Educational 
Talents, provide tutoring, academic enrichment activities, and 
computer-assisted instruction. Community service and family involvement 
are also key components of the afterschool programs. Every STAR student 
has graduated from high school, and 96 percent have gone on to college. 
Test scores at Hempstead High School on Long Island have improved 
dramatically since the afterschool program began.

  This is the tie-in between the core program that we are talking about 
in terms of the classroom. What goes on in the classroom is the key: 
obviously, a well-trained teacher, good curriculum, accountability, the 
range of different challenges that exist in the classroom. We see these 
afterschool programs and what has happened. When you have effective 
afterschool programs associated with schools in terms of providing 
those supplementary services, the children improve academically 
significantly.
  I mentioned this excellent series of afterschool programs in six New 
York districts that the students have been attending, and 96 percent 
have gone on to college. The test scores of the Hempstead High School 
on Long Island, which is sort of the major high school in the center of 
these activities, have improved dramatically since the afterschool 
program began. The State removed the school from its list of low-
performing schools 1 year ahead of schedule.
  Here was a school that was in trouble. With the development of the 
afterschool programs and the supplementary services that were provided, 
we see the very positive impact that had on the academic achievement in 
the school. This is the point which has been made by the two sponsors 
of this legislation.
  In Pennsylvania, the Rand Corporation, when evaluating afterschool 
programs supported by Foundations, Inc. in the Philadelphia area, found 
fourth graders in the program outperformed comparison students in 
reading, language arts, and math. The Rand Corporation is a tough, 
independent organization that does evaluations of various programs. 
Their own evaluation of afterschool programs, in this case in 
Philadelphia, which is very much challenged in terms of their school 
systems, has shown some results.
  In Ohio, the University of Cincinnati, when evaluating the Ohio 
Hunger Task Force urban afterschool initiative, found fourth graders in 
the program exceeding the statewide percentage of students meeting 
proficient standards in math, writing, reading, citizenship, and in 
science.
  In Texas, the Lighted Schools Project, in Waco, TX, provides over 650 
middle school students with a safe, supervised environment during after 
hours. The program targets at-risk youth, although all middle school 
students can participate in free activities, including sports, crafts, 
special events, and institutions. Students have access to primary 
health care and programs to enhance self-confidence, violence 
prevention, the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse, conflict resolution, 
and to receive tutoring and homework assistance.
  These programs also have a very positive effect in terms of reducing 
the violence in school and, in this particular case, the dangers of 
alcohol abuse and also the conflict resolution, important initiatives 
which are taking place in schools.
  We have some enormously impressive ones in Massachusetts started by 
the former Attorney General Harshbarger and continued and expanded by 
Attorney General Reilly on conflict resolutions. And we have had as 
well in many of our schools the AmeriCorps students involved with the 
students in what they call Peace Games. It is a rather interesting 
concept where they just do it for an hour once a week. And what it is, 
they take large popcorn cans, jars, and they take extended rubber 
bands. Then they all pick up the popcorn cans and pile them on top of 
each other to make a design.

  The fact is, they all have to work together because if one loosens 
the end of the rubber bands, the popcorn can will fall. And as they 
build it, they will work it out so they will have 10 students working 
together in order to construct it. They play games with it about what 
part of the class can do it. Then they have classes against each other, 
just 1 hour a week. It is supervised by the AmeriCorps children. It has 
had an incredible impact in terms of reducing conflict and violence 
among the students in that school. It is called Peace Games.
  These are the range of activities. These are the kinds of hands-on 
local initiatives that are taking place in these afterschool programs 
that are helping. They have demonstrated a positive impact in terms of 
academic achievement.
  I know time is running out now. I could give the example in the 
reduction in terms of teenage pregnancies. The interesting sad effect 
is about 80 percent of teenage pregnancies happen during the 
afterschool time, between 3 in the afternoon and 7 o'clock at night.
  The fact that we have these afterschool programs has had a positive 
impact in reducing teenage pregnancies, in many instances, more 
effectively than some of the other programs that have been tried. 
Reducing violence, academic achievement, bringing children who may have 
fallen somewhat further behind because of the fact maybe they didn't 
get into the Head Start program, maybe they didn't get the early 
interventions in terms of help in literacy as they were starting

[[Page S4977]]

through school, all these kinds of initiatives have helped.
  This amendment is really an outreach. It is going to bring up all of 
these children that perhaps have fallen through the cracks at one place 
or another and help to bring them on into hopefully the academic 
setting, and then, with the other parts of the legislation working, if 
they are funded--they are not funded, but they have to be funded--can 
really make a difference.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am taken with my colleague's analysis because there are 
very few things we do that have such a beneficial effect in so many 
ways. As my colleague said: We are looking at a program, after school, 
that helps kids improve their scores; that is, the academic 
achievement.
  We are seeing a program that keeps kids out of trouble. That is why 
all the police organizations support after school, and the PAL group 
supports it. We are talking about a reduction in teen pregnancy, which 
is absolutely documented because of these programs. We are talking 
about the ability of kids to learn to work together. There is one other 
thing, I say to my friend, he didn't mention directly, but he hinted at 
it. If there is a child who falls through the cracks who may have an 
emotional problem--and we all looked at this when we looked at the 
Columbine tragedy and other places where kids have acted out in 
horrible ways. It is a chance for a professional to see a child who 
really needs help. It gives a chance for that one-on-one.
  My colleague from Nevada pointed out that there is a chance for kids 
to learn better English, make sure their skills in the language are 
improved. It is very rare that you see a program that does so many 
things. Of course, someone is going to slip through the cracks. But 
this is one that I think is so crucial. I am proud to have the support 
of my colleague from Massachusetts and the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. KENNEDY. One final point. This is the Milwaukee project. Public 
schools, law enforcement, community-based organizations, and residents 
provide safe havens at neighborhood sites for children. There were 
8,400 youth participating. The Milwaukee project provides homework 
tutoring assistance, recreational games, arts and crafts. The program 
helped reduce the crime rate in neighborhoods participating in the 
project by providing youth with alternative activities during 
afterschool hours.
  In the 15 months following the inception of the program, the crime 
rate dropped 21 percent in the neighborhoods that had these afterschool 
programs--law enforcement, teenage pregnancy, substance abuse, 
violence, academic achievement, and accomplishment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. May I interrupt for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the Boxer amendment occur at 11:15 a.m.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say to my 
friend, the manager of the bill for the majority, we have been waiting 
for I don't know how many days to conclude the Harkin amendment. We are 
waiting for a second-degree amendment to be filed by the majority. This 
is one of the most important amendments in this whole legislation. I 
suggest we should move on and just vote on Harkin if a second-degree 
amendment is not going to be offered.
  I will just alert everybody that I hope perhaps after this vote it 
will be ready because each hour we are told it is almost ready. It must 
be a doozy if it is taking this long to prepare.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. My understanding is there will be a second-degree 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. We know that, and we are waiting. We have tried to be 
cooperative. We could have filled the tree ourselves. We want to have 
good feelings on both sides about the way this legislation moves. We 
hope that maybe it can be filed when we finish the vote on the Boxer 
amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will meet with the Senator. I hope we can go forward 
with this vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The question is on agreeing to 
the amendment of the Senator from California.
  The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) 
is absent attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Carnahan
       
  The Amendment (No. 358) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe the manager of the legislation is 
going to offer a unanimous consent request we have worked out that will 
allow us to have some morning business for Senators who wish to speak 
for a brief period of time and for Senator Akaka to offer his amendment 
and also to get to a vote this afternoon on a Reed of Rhode Island 
amendment.
  Let me plead with the Members, though, if we could avoid 
interruptions as much as we could today. Senators Kennedy and Jeffords 
and others working on the legislation are trying very hard to make 
progress on the education bill. When we have interruptions for other 
issues, Senators tend to get away from the floor, and it slows us down. 
We want to try to finish this legislation at a reasonable time next 
week. I thank Senators Jeffords and Kennedy and Reid for trying to make 
that happen.
  At this point, we thought the fair thing was to work out an agreement 
where we could have a brief period of morning business and then return 
to the bill. Senator Jeffords has an agreement we are ready to offer.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I have one which will be here momentarily.
  Mr. LOTT. If I could inquire while we are waiting, is it correct then 
that Senator Akaka will have an amendment right after morning business?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. As I understand, it will take 2 
to 3 minutes for Senator Akaka to raise this amendment, and hopefully 
it will be accepted. If not, we will accept it at a later time. Then we 
put into effect the understanding that the Senator

[[Page S4978]]

from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, would offer his libraries amendment and to 
vote at a quarter of 2. Then we would have the time, as the leader has 
announced, so there would be a brief period for morning business so 
that from three to four Senators would be able to address the Senate.

  Mr. LOTT. Would Senator Reed be ready to go immediately after this 
sequence is lined up?
  Mr. REED. There is a modification of my amendment which is being 
reviewed by your staff and Senator Jeffords' staff. If that is in 
order, then I believe we will have to wait until I get word.
  Mr. LOTT. Does the Senator have a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes, I do.
  Mr. LOTT. Go ahead then.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Akaka now be recognized to call up amendment No. 407 and there be up to 
5 minutes under his control. I further ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be recognized as in morning business for the 
following times: Senator Helms, up to 15 minutes; Senator Kerry, 10 
minutes; Senators Baucus and Jeffords, 5 minutes each. I further ask 
unanimous consent that following the morning business, Senator Reed of 
Rhode Island be recognized to call up and modify his amendment No. 425 
and the time between then and 1:45 be equally divided, with no second-
degree amendments in order, and that the vote occur in relationship to 
the amendment at 1:45 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, the 
modification is critical, whether or not the modification is accepted 
by your side. I wanted to clarify, the modification has been accepted 
in your unanimous consent request?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. It is in the UC.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I regret I 
was not present on the floor when the leader and the chairman and 
ranking member of the committee were proposing a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 407 To Amendment No. 358

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment 
No. 407. I ask that it be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 407.

  Mr. AKAKA. 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 strike the provision requiring recognition by the Governor 
 of Hawaii of certain organizations primarily serving and representing 
                           Native Hawaiians)

       On page 548, lines 2 and 3, strike ``which are recognized 
     by the Governor of the State of Hawaii''.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this amendment makes a technical change to 
section 4118 of S. 1, and would allow organizations that primarily 
serve Native Hawaiians to compete for grants under this section. The 
current language in the bill requires the Governor to recognize the 
Native Hawaiian institution as a condition for consideration for the 
grant. This amendment would remove this requirement, thereby 
streamlining this process and allowing more organizations to apply for 
these grants. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment of 
the Senator from Hawaii?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I don't intend to debate it, but Senator 
Kennedy indicated he would be right back. I don't know if he intends to 
speak. I wanted to protect his right to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 407.
  The amendment (No. 407) was agreed to.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to deliver my remarks seated at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction of S. 894 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, with respect to my previously agreed upon 
amendment No. 407, I ask unanimous consent that the instruction line 
conform to the Jeffords substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Frist pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 895 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')


                     Amendment No. 425, As Modified

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent under 
consideration there will be a vote scheduled on my amendment at 1:45. 
At this time I ask unanimous consent to make a modification to 
amendment No. 425. I send that modification to the desk for immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 425), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 203, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:

     ``SEC. 1228. IMPROVING LITERACY THROUGH SCHOOL LIBRARIES.

       ``(a) In General.--From funds made available under 
     subsection (d) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot 
     to each State educational agency having an application 
     approved under subsection (c)(1) an amount that bears the 
     same relation to the funds as the amount the State 
     educational agency received under part A for the preceding 
     fiscal year bears to the amount all such State educational 
     agencies received under part A for the preceding fiscal year, 
     to increase literacy and reading skills by improving school 
     libraries.
       ``(b) Within-State Allocations.--Each State educational 
     agency receiving an allotment under subsection (a) for a 
     fiscal year--
       ``(1) may reserve not more than 3 percent to provide 
     technical assistance, disseminate information about school 
     library media programs that are effective and based on 
     scientifically based research, and pay administrative costs, 
     related to activities under this section; and
       ``(2) shall allocate the allotted funds that remain after 
     making the reservation under paragraph (1) to each local 
     educational agency in the State having an application 
     approved under subsection (c)(2) (for activities described in 
     subsection (f)) in an amount that bears the same relation to 
     such remainder as the amount the local educational agency 
     received under part A for the fiscal year bears to the amount 
     received by all such local educational agencies in the State 
     for the fiscal year.
       ``(c) Applications.--
       ``(1) State educational agency.--Each State educational 
     agency desiring assistance under this section shall submit to 
     the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary shall 
     require. The application shall contain a description of--
       ``(A) how the State educational agency will assist local 
     educational agencies in meeting the requirements of this 
     section and in using scientifically based research to 
     implement effective school library media programs; and
       ``(B) the standards and techniques the State educational 
     agency will use to evaluate the quality and impact of 
     activities carried out under this section by local 
     educational agencies to determine the need for technical 
     assistance and whether to continue funding the agencies under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Local educational agency.--Each local educational 
     agency desiring assistance under this section shall submit to 
     the State educational agency an application at such time, in 
     such manner, and containing such information as the State 
     educational agency shall require. The application shall 
     contain a description of--
       ``(A) a needs assessment relating to the need for school 
     library media improvement, based on the age and condition of 
     school library media resources, including book collections, 
     access of school library media centers to advanced 
     technology, and the availability of well-trained, 
     professionally certified school library media specialists, in

[[Page S4979]]

     schools served by the local educational agency;
       ``(B) how the local educational agency will extensively 
     involve school library media specialists, teachers, 
     administrators, and parents in the activities assisted under 
     this section, and the manner in which the local educational 
     agency will carry out the activities described in subsection 
     (f) using programs and materials that are grounded in 
     scientifically based research;
       ``(C) the manner in which the local educational agency will 
     effectively coordinate the funds and activities provided 
     under this section with Federal, State, and local funds and 
     activities under this subpart and other literacy, library, 
     technology, and professional development funds and 
     activities; and
       ``(D) the manner in which the local educational agency will 
     collect and analyze data on the quality and impact of 
     activities carried out under this section by schools served 
     by the local educational agency.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 6 succeeding fiscal years.
       ``(e) Within-LEA Distribution.--Each local educational 
     agency receiving funds under this section shall distribute--
       ``(1) 50 percent of the funds to schools served by the 
     local educational agency that are in the top quartile in 
     terms of percentage of students enrolled from families with 
     incomes below the poverty line; and
       ``(2) 50 percent of the funds to schools that have the 
     greatest need for school library media improvement based on 
     the needs assessment described in subsection (c)(2)(A).
       ``(f) Local Activities.--Funds under this section may be 
     used to--
       ``(1) acquire up-to-date school library media resources, 
     including books;
       ``(2) acquire and utilize advanced technology, incorporated 
     into the curricula of the school, to develop and enhance the 
     information literacy, information retrieval, and critical 
     thinking skills of students;
       ``(3) facilitate Internet links and other resource-sharing 
     networks among schools and school library media centers, and 
     public and academic libraries, where possible;
       ``(4) provide professional development described in 
     1222(c)(7)(D) for school library media specialists, and 
     activities that foster increased collaboration between school 
     library media specialists, teachers, and administrators; and
       ``(5) provide students with access to school libraries 
     during nonschool hours, including the hours before and after 
     school, during weekends, and during summer vacation periods.
       ``(g) Accountability and Continuation of Funds.--Each local 
     educational agency that receives funding under this section 
     for a fiscal year shall be eligible to continue to receive 
     the funding for a third or subsequent fiscal year only if the 
     local educational agency demonstrates to the State 
     educational agency that the local educational agency has 
     increased--
       ``(1) the availability of, and the access to, up-to-date 
     school library media resources in the elementary schools and 
     secondary schools served by the local educational agency; and
       ``(2) the number of well-trained, professionally certified 
     school library media specialists in those schools.
       ``(h) Applicability.--The provisions of this subpart (other 
     than this section) shall not apply to this section.
       ``(i) Supplement Not Supplant.--Funds made available under 
     this section shall be used to supplement and not supplant 
     other Federal, State, and local funds expended to carry out 
     activities relating to library, technology, or professional 
     development activities.
       ``(j) National Activities.--From the total amount made 
     available under subsection (d) for each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall reserve not more than 1 percent for annual, 
     independent, national evaluations of the activities assisted 
     under this section. The evaluations shall be conducted not 
     later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Better 
     Education for Students and Teachers Act, and each year 
     thereafter.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this modification deals with my underlying 
amendment which would authorize funding for the acquisition of library 
books and library materials for our school libraries across the 
country. This original amendment I offered on behalf of myself and 
Senator Snowe, Senator Chafee, Senator Kennedy, and others.
  While I was debating the amendment initially, there was some concern 
raised by my colleague and friend, Senator Collins from Maine, that my 
amendment would in some way detract from the President's Reading First 
Initiative. I support that initiative and compliment both him and 
Senator Collins. It is focused on raising the literacy of our children 
across the country. It is an effort that has to be undertaken and I am 
pleased it is being undertaken.
  I want to make it clear that my proposed amendment to restore funding 
for school libraries is a complement to the President's program and not 
a subtraction from that program. The modification to the amendment does 
just that. It clarifies that what I am attempting to do is add to the 
Reading First Initiative and not subtract from it.
  My amendment will complement the President's initiative and Senator 
Collins' correcting amendment that were unanimously adopted last week 
in this Chamber. It will do that by providing an essential part of any 
literacy program, and that is high-quality reading material.
  The President's focus and Senator Collins' focus is improving the 
instruction with respect to reading skills and literacy in this 
country, which is an important goal. But it cannot be fully 
accomplished, the goal of having literate American students, without 
also having high-quality reading material. Most people understand this 
intuitively. It is one thing to teach the techniques of reading; it is 
something else to open up to children a realm of discovery and wonder 
and opportunity by having good, high-quality school libraries--we hope 
in every school in this country.
  I see my proposal as a very important component of the overall 
strategy of the Reading First Initiative. This is a proposal that would 
essentially allow local communities to receive Federal resources to 
acquire library materials: books and the materials necessary for a 
modern, up-to-date school library.
  It would give extraordinary flexibility and discretion to local 
communities because it would allow them to make the choice of what is 
the most appropriate material. It responds to an obvious need 
throughout this country and the need is chronic, and that is to provide 
for good school libraries.
  Unfortunately, if you travel throughout this country, if you go back 
to your home State, and you visit school libraries, most of those 
collections are out of date; most of those collections have not been 
renewed and have not been improved over many years. This is not because 
of the intentions or the wishes of local authorities. The reality is, 
library acquisitions are the type of program that can be put off year 
to year to deal with more pressing needs, and year 1 becomes year 2, 
which becomes year 3, and you find yourself, as we find ourselves in so 
many schools across this country, in a situation where the library is 
deplorable.
  We know that good libraries are connected to good literacy skills 
and, for the purpose of this legislation, good results on tests--both 
standardized tests and nonstandardized tests. The latest results in the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress show that from 1992 to the 
year 2000, reading scores have remained flat for fourth graders. One 
aspect of that finding is the fact that there are too many schools in 
this country where the library books are out of date and inadequate, in 
addition to problems with teaching the mechanics of reading. We have to 
solve both problems if we really want to see test results take off.
  As you find throughout the country, in looking at different studies, 
there is a clear indication that well-stocked, modern, up-to-date 
school libraries contribute directly to success on achievement tests. 
And that seems obvious to most people because libraries are the places 
which will have the information, but are also attractive to young 
people. They will want to go to the library because it is modern, up to 
date, interesting, exciting--all the things we want education to be in 
this country.
  One of the reasons why school libraries are in such poor condition is 
the lack of dedicated funding. In the beginning of our efforts to 
improve elementary and secondary education in 1965, in the confines of 
the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we provided for 
specific funding for school libraries. However, several years later, we 
rolled all of this funding into one block grant, title VI. As a result, 
the commitment to libraries, because of local pressures to spend on 
other endeavors, has resulted in a situation across the country of very 
poor school libraries. We can do better. When we improve school 
libraries, as I indicated before, we improve the performance of 
students.
  It has been found in one study that for every school, in every grade 
level, in which there was a strong school library and strong school 
library services, there were improvements in test

[[Page S4980]]

scores regardless of social and economic factors in the particular 
community. This study was conducted in States such as Colorado, 
Pennsylvania, and Alaska. So it is not a regional effect; it is not an 
urban effect versus a rural effect; it is the effect of good libraries 
in the schools. These findings echo earlier findings which found that 
students in schools with well-equipped libraries and staff performed 
better on achievement tests for reading comprehension and basic 
research skills.
  Interestingly enough, the President has appointed, as his nominee for 
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. 
Department of Education, Dr. Susan Neuman. Dr. Neuman, a professor at 
Temple University, is a nationally renowned expert in early literacy 
development. She has written about the importance of books in 
developing and enhancing the literacy skills of children.

  Dr. Neuman wrote an article in the Reading Research Quarterly 
entitled ``Books Make A Difference: A Study of Access to Literacy.'' 
She talked about a literacy program in Pennsylvania childcare centers 
and concluded that access to books matters and is critical for early 
literacy; children exposed to books outperformed a control group on 
every measure of early literacy abilities.
  That is the distinguished individual who has been nominated by 
President Bush to be the key individual with respect to elementary and 
secondary education. Through her academic research, she has concluded 
that access to high-quality library material--books and other 
materials--is critical to literacy. I think that is a compelling 
argument that my initiative today will complement the President's 
approach to literacy training through our schools in this country.
  As I said, if you go through the school libraries of America today, 
the books are terribly out of date. I could rattle off another litany 
of arcane books that are inaccurate, politically incorrect, 
stereotypical, out of date, that talk about the fact that someday we 
might land on the Moon. But I believe most people at this point 
understand that because you have been in your communities; you have 
looked at your schools; you have been in schools where the library is 
an old closet or it is at the end of a hallway that is not being used. 
You have been in schools where you can take books off the shelves and 
the copyright is 1967. In fact, some of them are still stamped: 
``Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,'' indicating from 
where they originally came.
  So we can do better. We have to particularly do better when it comes 
to disadvantaged students because we know this is one of the particular 
burdens urban school systems and poorer rural school systems bear. That 
is where the resources do not filter down into the library.
  If what we are asking and demanding is that these young, low-income, 
disadvantaged children do well on tests, then we have to give them the 
tools to do that job--not just training in literacy but give them the 
books that will allow them to practice what they have been taught and 
open up worlds of excitement and information and knowledge to them. 
That is what I hope my bill can do.
  We are going to, I hope and believe, train these teachers because of 
the President's initiative. But without the books to complement that 
training, I do not know if in fact we are going to make the progress we 
need to make.
  We also understand this is a burden that is increasingly more 
difficult for local communities to bear. The price of an average school 
library book today is about $16. Yet it has been estimated that across 
the country the average amount of money expended per pupil on library 
material is $6.75 in elementary schools, $7.30 in middle schools, and 
$6.25 in high schools. And that is an average. I think you can 
understand there are some wealthy communities that are spending more, 
but there are a lot of very poor communities. So we can help. It is 
important, I believe, to help.
  We want to go ahead and ensure that our children have excellent 
instruction in literacy but also excellent access to books so that they 
can in fact be literate, not just during the schoolday but throughout 
the day, not just as students but we hope as lifelong learners. My 
amendment will, I hope, do that.

  It would provide $500 million in funding support for school 
libraries. It would not take away any resources from the President's 
Reading First Initiative. It also would target the funding to the 
poorest schools because we know that is the greatest need. We know that 
is where the library budget is usually close to zero. We know there we 
can make a difference--and we should make a difference.
  It would provide great flexibility to these schools. There would be 
no standardized issue of books from Washington or elsewhere. It would 
allow local communities to make decisions about what they purchase. It 
would allow them to use these resources to train library specialists. 
And it would also establish, we hope, or inspire resource-sharing 
initiatives as exist in Ohio and Rhode Island, so that school libraries 
could be linked to academic libraries and to public libraries, to 
broaden the reach of the library program in each school.
  It would also allocate funding on a formula basis to school 
districts, so that all needy districts and schools get the assistance 
they need to improve their libraries.
  I believe it is very important to adopt this amendment in the context 
of this reauthorization. This bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by 
Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Chafee, Bingaman, Wellstone, Murray, Clinton, 
Sarbanes, Johnson, Baucus, Levin, Reid of Nevada, Rockefeller, Durbin, 
Dayton, and Schumer. It is supported by the American Library 
Association, the Association of American Publishers, and a wide array 
of educational organizations. It is a bipartisan amendment.
  Let me again, for the record, reiterate several points.
  My proposal does not create a separate standalone program. It 
incorporates school library acquisition funding as a component of the 
Reading First Program. This approach is as old as the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act reauthorization. In 1965, when we first 
committed ourselves at the national level to help elementary and 
secondary schools, an important part of that commitment was helping 
school libraries directly to acquire books and library material.
  I know there is a desire to consolidate many programs, but we have 
seen, at least in the case of the library program, where this 
consolidation has led to a diminution of resources for school 
libraries. If we are serious about literacy, we have to enhance the 
resources for school libraries.
  So I urge that this amendment be adopted. I urge that we get on with 
the great task before us of ensuring that every child has access to 
excellent instruction in reading and also excellent books to read.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I believe I have time allotted as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is affirmative.
  (The remarks of Mr. Jeffords pertaining to the introduction of S. 897 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. JEFFORDS. 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, if the Senator from Rhode Island will be 
good enough to yield 5 minutes, I would like to rise to express my 
great appreciation to my good friend from Rhode Island for pursuing 
this issue regarding quality libraries in our schools across this 
country.
  Among many other education issues, the Senator from Rhode Island has 
devoted an enormous amount of time, attention, efforts, and energy, to 
the issue of school libraries. Today, he has put before the Senate an 
extremely thoughtful amendment and one that is extraordinarily 
compelling. He has thought a great deal about the state of libraries in 
the nation's schools, and has consulted with many who have

[[Page S4981]]

worked on this issue throughout the course of their lives.
  I was disappointed that, at the time of our markup of this 
legislation, we were unable to embrace Senator Reed's proposal. 
Historically, we have made a major national commitment to reading. We 
have supported outstanding programs that promote literacy in young 
children, such as the Reading Is Fundamental Program, and the Everyone 
Wins Program, which was shepherded by the chairman of our committee, 
Senator Jeffords. Our efforts to promote and increase literacy have 
targeted all ages, from early literacy programs to those that serve 
adults later in life.
  President Bush has also placed a tremendous emphasis on the 
importance of reading. He has furthered our commitment made last year 
in the Reading Excellence Act, through his Reading First and Early 
Reading First proposals in ESEA.
  However, the idea of launching a major national literacy program 
without a commitment to the nation's libraries defies rational thought. 
We all understand the importance of reading, and we all recognize that 
schools--especially low-performing schools--which devote greater 
attention to reading early in the school day, for 60 or 90 minutes, 
will have greater success in ensuring that all students are strong 
readers. Prince George's County in Maryland has increased their results 
on statewide assessments of student performance, and reading was a key 
element of that increase. If we plan to make a commitment in terms of 
reading as a matter of national purpose, that commitment must be 
accompanied by a commitment to the libraries in our children's schools.
  The idea that we do not have an effective, comprehensive library 
program is just missing the most basic, fundamental recognition of the 
relationship between a reading program and libraries. It defies 
understanding and explanation.
  The Senator has reminded us that we have failed in the past to devote 
the proper attention to libraries and their impact on literacy. The 
Senator from Rhode Island now offers an amendment which is a 
responsible one, as well as one that I am very hopeful will be 
accepted.
  I would like to take the opportunity to mention some comments from 
groups that have lent their support to this amendment. The Association 
of American Publishers states:

       It is a national disgrace that we live in the most 
     technologically advanced nation in the world, yet our K-12 
     school libraries are packed with outdated books and 
     materials. For our children to succeed in today's digital 
     world, they first must learn to read and read well, and 
     therefore need access to school libraries containing up-to-
     date information.

  The American Library Association asserts:

       Many of the nation's school libraries have collections that 
     are old, inaccurate, and out of date. How can we encourage 
     children to read, continue their education in college and 
     become life-long learners if the material we have available 
     for them is inadequate?

  We must give adequate attention to reading. Any that fail to support 
this amendment really fail to appreciate the relationship between 
literacy and libraries. This amendment is a very responsible one that 
makes a great deal of sense. I commend the Senator from Rhode Island 
for bringing this amendment forward. We have all been dilatory in 
understanding this very important and major hole in our educational 
system. The good Senator is going to help us to address it with his 
amendment. I am very hopeful that it will have overwhelming support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for those insightful 
words and also for his leadership on this legislation. He, along with 
Chairman Jeffords, has been battling and moving along to try to bring, 
ultimately, a bill that will improve education in the United States.
  I believe, as evidenced by this amendment, that one very pragmatic, 
practical way to do this is to help local communities acquire library 
materials for their schools. In fact, I am always amazed that there is 
any controversy about this issue. It seems to me to be the most obvious 
complement to the President's program for literacy and also one of 
those programs which doesn't raise issues of curriculum, doesn't raise 
issues of local control, doesn't raise issues of any seriousness.
  Frankly, I hope that each of my colleagues will recognize that 
allowing local communities, local school systems to buy books is 
something we should be doing and not rejecting.
  I hope that at 1:45, when the roll is called, we will have the 
strongest possible support. This is a bipartisan initiative, 
cosponsored, along with many Senators, by Senators Snowe and Chafee. I 
hope we can get a good, solid vote for school libraries when this roll 
is called.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, I understand the quorum call is being 
charged to my time. I ask unanimous consent that, pursuant to the 
unanimous consent agreement, it be evenly divided and charged equally 
to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. 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. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
speak for 5 minutes at the conclusion of the quorum call and prior to 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOND. I ask the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 476, As Modified

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 476 and send a 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 476, as modified.

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

             (Purpose: To strengthen parental involvement)

       On page 763, lines 23, insert ``(including statewide 
     nonprofit organizations)'' after ``organizations''.
       On page 764, line 4, strike ``(including parents of 
     preschool age children)'' and insert ``(including parents of 
     children from birth through age 5)''.
       On page 764, line 17, insert ``(including statewide 
     nonprofit organizations)'' before the comma.
       On page 765, line 4, insert ``and Parents as Teachers 
     organizations'' after ``associations''.
       On page 765, line 14, insert ``(including a statewide 
     nonprofit organization)'' before ``or nonprofit''.
       On page 767, line 23, strike ``part of'' and insert ``at 
     least \1/2\ of''.
       On page 768, line 2, insert ``or other early childhood 
     parent education programs'' before ``;''.
       On page 769, line 22, insert ``(such as training related to 
     Parents as Teachers activities)'' before the semicolon.
       On page 770, line 8, strike ``and''.
       On page 770, line 12, strike the period and insert ``; 
     and''.
       On page 770, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       ``(6) to coordinate and integrate early childhood programs 
     with school age programs.

[[Page S4982]]

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand my colleague from Rhode Island 
has requested 5 minutes. I intend to do this briefly. But I think it is 
very important that we consider this issue. I believe the amendment can 
be accepted on both sides to make sure that we deal properly with early 
childhood education.
  I have come to this Chamber many times to state that research has now 
verified what parents have known instinctively for generations, and 
teachers will tell us time after time that the first years of life are 
absolutely crucial development periods for children. How well the 
parent handles that early time with the child will determine how well 
that child performs in school later on. Infant brain development occurs 
very rapidly. The sensations and experiences of this time go a long way 
toward shaping the baby's mind in a way that has long-lasting effects 
on all aspects of the child's life.
  We have learned in Missouri from a program called Parents As Teachers 
that we can assist parents and families to be better in playing this 
role that is key to the child's development. Early positive interaction 
between parents and guardians plays a critical role.
  A child's education and mental development begin very early in life. 
Through this amendment, we seek to ensure the continued support of 
families with the youngest children to find the early childhood parent 
education programs that can help those families and parents provide 
supportive, stimulating environments we know all children need.
  We must focus on the earliest years before formal schooling. We know 
that half of the child's mature intelligence develops in those first 
critical 3 years.
  This amendment provides no new money. All the amendment does is 
clarify that the early childhood and early childhood parent education 
is to be a key focus of title VI, Part A.

  I have talked about the Parents As Teachers Program that really was 
developed in Missouri. I managed to carry it statewide when I was 
Governor. One of the great successes is that it now has over 150,000 
families in Missouri, with 200,000 children benefiting from it. If you 
want to find out whether it is working, I just ask that you go and talk 
to the parents who have been in the program. They are the ones who can 
tell you it works. We have scientific assessments that show it works.
  The PAT, the Parents As Teachers, is an early childhood-parent 
education program that empowers all parents--regardless of income 
level, regardless of social condition--to give their children the best 
possible start in life.
  We have programs now in all 50 States and in 6 foreign countries.
  It provides information to parents on child development from birth to 
age 5. It has voluntary participation. It is tailored to meet the needs 
of each parent, and it is often included as part of Even Start and 
other title I programs. We have found it works very well with Head 
Start.
  The PAT Program benefits the children, but it also helps the parents 
develop the confidence to take an active role in their children's 
education.
  Earlier this year, I received a report from the Missouri Department 
of Elementary and Secondary Education: The School Entry Assessment 
Project. The findings throughout are that the highest performing 
children in schools are the ones whose parents have participated in 
Parents As Teachers. It further shows that special needs children who 
participate in Parents As Teachers in preschool, in addition to an 
early childhood special education, are rated by teachers as being 
similar in preparation to the average child.
  These findings sum it all up. Parents As Teachers works. It works for 
children raised in households of all income levels. It works for 
children who are home schooled. It works for children with special 
needs.
  My amendment makes certain that priority is given to these programs, 
such as Parents As Teachers, HIPPY, and others. For any of my 
colleagues who would like a fuller description of it, I happen to have 
a few pamphlets available. You can contact my office, and I will 
provide you with that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a 2-page summary of the 
evaluation of Parents As Teachers be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Evaluations of Parents as Teachers


                             a partial list

       In 1985, an independent evaluation of the Parents as 
     Teachers (PAT) pilot project was conducted. Evaluators 
     randomly selected 75 project families from a group of 380 
     first-time parents representing Missouri's urban, rural and 
     suburban communities, and, from the same communities, 75 
     comparison families who had not received PAT services. 
     Posttest assessments of children's abilities and parents' 
     knowledge and perceptions showed that PAT children at age 
     three were significantly more advanced in language, problem-
     solving and other intellectual abilities, and social 
     development than comparison children. PAT parents were more 
     knowledgeable about child rearing practices and child 
     development.
       (Pfannenstiel, J., and Seltzer, D. Evaluation report: New 
     Parents as Teachers project. Overland Park, KS: Research & 
     Training Associates, 1985.)

       A follow-up study of the pilot project showed PAT children 
     scored significantly higher on standardized measures of 
     reading and math at the end of first grade than did 
     comparison children. In all behavorial areas assessed by 
     their teachers, the PAT participant children received higher 
     ratings than the comparison group children. A significantly 
     higher proportion of PAT parents initiated contacts with 
     teachers and took an active role in their child's schooling.
       (Pfannenstiel, J. New Parents as Teachers project follow-up 
     study. Overland Park, KS: Research & Training Associates, 
     1989.)

       Results of the 1991 Second Wave evaluation of the PAT 
     program's impact on 400 randomly selected families enrolled 
     in 37 diverse school districts across Missouri indicated both 
     children and parents benefited. At age three, PAT children 
     performed significantly higher than national norms on 
     measures of language and intellectual abilities, despite the 
     fact that the Second Wave sample was over-represented on all 
     traditional characteristics of risk. More than one-half of 
     the children with observed developmental delays overcame them 
     by age three. Parent knowledge of child development and 
     parenting practices significantly increased for all types of 
     families. There were only two documented cases of abuse and 
     neglect among the 400 families over a three-year period.
       (Pfannenstiel, J., and Lambson, T., and Yarnell, V. Second 
     wave study of the parents as teachers program. Overland Park, 
     KS: Research & Training Associates, 1991.)

       A follow-up study of the Second Wave sample was initiated 
     in 1993 to assess the longer-term impacts of program 
     participation. This study focused on the early school 
     experiences and peformance of the PAT children, and their 
     parents' involvement in their children's school and in 
     activities to support learning in the home. PAT children 
     scored high on measures of complex and challenging tasks. 
     Overall, the relative level of achievement children 
     demonstrated at age three on completion of the PAT program 
     was maintained in the first (or in some cases second) grade. 
     This held true despite broad diversity in children's 
     experiences with preschool, child care, kindergarten and 
     primary grades. PAT parents demonstrated high levels of 
     school involvement, which they frequently initiated.
       (Pfannenstiel, J. Follow-up to the second wave study of the 
     Parents as Teachers program. Overland Park, KS: Research & 
     Training Associates, 1995.)

       A series of studies of PAT program participation and school 
     readiness has been carried out in the Binghamton, New York 
     School District. Children enrolled in kindergarten in 
     Binghamton in 1992 were tested in pre-kindergarten and again 
     in kindergarten. PAT children had significantly higher 
     cognitive, language, motor, and social skills than non-
     participants. These advanced skills led to higher grades in 
     kindergarten and lower remedial and special education costs 
     in first grade. PAT families also had substantially reduced 
     welfare dependence and half the number of suspected child 
     abuse and neglect cases compared to comparison groups. When 
     assessed again in second grade, PAT children continued to 
     perform better on standardized tests and required fewer 
     remedial and special education placements.
       (Drazen, S., and Haust, M. Increasing children's readiness 
     for school by a parental education program. Binghamton, NY: 
     Community Resource Center, 1994; Drazen, S. and Haust, M. The 
     effects of the Parents and Children Together (PACT) program 
     on school achievement. Binghamton, NY: Community Resource 
     Center, 1995; Drazen, S., and Haust, M. Lasting academic 
     gains from and home visitations program. Binghamton, NY: 
     community Resource Center, 1996.)

       A study demonstrating the effectiveness of PAT was 
     conducted by the Parkway School District, a large suburban 
     district in St. Louis County. Third graders who had received 
     PAT with screening services from birth to age three scored 
     significantly higher on standardized measures of achievement 
     than non-participating counterparts. PAT children had a 
     national percentile rank of 81, while non-participating 
     students had a rank of 63 on the Stanford Achievement Test, 
     with a significant difference in scores on all subtests. The 
     study also reported PAT graduates were less likely to receive 
     remedial

[[Page S4983]]

     reading assistance or to be held back a grade in school. PAT 
     ``graduates'' continued to significantly outperform non-PAT 
     children on the Standard Achievement test in fourth grade.
       (Coates, D. Early childhood evaluation. Missouri: A report 
     to the Parkway Board of Education, 1994. Coates, D. Memo on 
     one-year update on Stanford scores of students--early 
     childhood evaluation study group. St. Louis County, MO: 
     Parkway School District, Dec. 26, 1996.)

       Researchers in North Carolina have followed 97 families who 
     were involved in the Rutherford County PAT program beginning 
     in 1991. The PAT children were compared to 61 children whose 
     families did not receive PAT services, and another 61 whose 
     families received a quarterly educational newsletter from 
     PAT, but no direct services. Children were assessed upon 
     entry into kindergarten. the PAT children outperformed 
     children from both comparison groups on measures of 
     cognitive, language, motor, and self-help skills, with 
     significant differences on the language and self-help 
     measures. Also, PAT parents talked to their children 
     significantly more often about their daily activities.
       (Coleman, M., Rowland, B., and Hutchins, B. Parents as 
     Teachers: policy implications for early school intervention. 
     Paper presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the National 
     Council on Family Relations, Crystal City, VA: November 9, 
     1997; Parents as Teachers: Kindergarten screening final 
     report. Rutherford County, VA: Rutherford County Schools, 
     May, 1998.)

       A 1999 study of kindergarten readiness involved 3,500 
     kindergartners from randomly selected districts and schools 
     across Missouri. Results showed that children who 
     participated in PAT had significantly higher readiness scores 
     than children who did not, as rated by both kindergarten 
     teachers trained in the evaluation process and by parents. 
     The study also showed that PAT in combination with other 
     kinds of preschool experiences (home child care, center-based 
     child care, preschool, Head Start) resulted in higher 
     kindergarten readiness scores for children.
       (Pfannenstiel, J. and Barr, S. School entry assessment; the 
     power of PAT participation. Paper presented at the Parents as 
     Teachers Annual International Conference. St. Louis, Mo. June 
     1999.)

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, studies and reports have shown that PAT 
children at age 3 are found to be significantly more advanced than 
comparison children in language, problem solving, and social 
development. Often, through participation in PAT, learning problems or 
development delays are identified and treated early.
  PAT parents are more confident in their parenting abilities and 
knowledge. The great thing is, PAT hooks parents early on which means 
that they are more likely to stay involved in their children's 
schooling.
  We all know that we can have all the programs in the world and can 
provide all the funding possible, but one of the main ingredients to a 
child's success in school is the involvement of the child's parents in 
the child's education.
  As I said, earlier this year I received a copy of a report from the 
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The report 
was the ``School Entry Assessment Project''. The summary of findings 
reinforced my interest, support, and commitment to PAT. The findings of 
the report are as follows:

       1. When Parents as Teachers is combined with any other pre-
     kindergarten experience for high-poverty children, the 
     children score above average on all scales when they enter 
     kindergarten.
       2. The highest performing children participate in PAT and 
     preschool or center care. Among children who participate in 
     PAT and attend preschool, both minority and non-minority 
     children score above average. Children in both high-poverty 
     and low-poverty schools who participate in PAT and attend 
     preschool score above average when they enter kindergarten.
       3. Among children whose care and education are sole home-
     based, those whose families participate in PAT score 
     significantly higher.
       4. Special needs children who participate in PAT and 
     preschool in addition to an early childhood special education 
     program are rated by teachers as being similar in preparation 
     to the average child.
       5. Head Start children who also participate in PAT and 
     another preschool score at average or above when they enter 
     kindergarten.

  This findings sum it all up. PAT works. PAT works for children raised 
in household of all income levels. PAT works for children who are home-
schooled. PAT works for our special needs children.
  My amendment makes certain that priority is given to programs such as 
PAT and other early childhood parent education programs.
  With that, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 425, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes of debate remaining under 
the control of the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I will reiterate the importance of this 
amendment and summarize it. But I also understand that the Senator from 
Maine is here, and I am delighted and honored to yield 1 minute to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Rhode Island 
for his work on this issue. He has been a long-time, strong advocate 
for improving libraries in our Nation's schools. I was pleased to work 
with him in refining parts of this amendment to make sure that it did 
not take funds away from the important reading programs.
  I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his efforts and pledge my 
support for the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Maine not only for her gracious 
statement and her support but also for her leadership on the Reading 
First Literacy Program, the President's program. As we all know, last 
week unanimously we adopted her amendment which focused and refined the 
President's proposal. I believe, as Senator Collins believes, that a 
complement to that program is the program that I am supporting today, 
which would allow local communities to acquire library materials for 
their school libraries. I thank her very much for her cooperation, her 
leadership, and her collaboration on this effort.
  Mr. President, let me just emphasize what my amendment, as modified--
working closely with Senator Collins--would do.
  It is designed to complement the President's approach to literacy, to 
improve reading so that those improvements in reading can be translated 
to better academic performance and better performance throughout a 
person's entire life.
  It gives flexibility to the States. It authorizes $500 million. It is 
a targeted program going to the poorest schools because that is where 
the greatest need is. It allows local communities the flexibility to 
decide what library materials they need for their school libraries.
  It is a bipartisan effort. I am so delighted to have been joined at 
this point by Senator Collins, along with Senator Snowe and Senator 
Chafee, and many colleagues.
  It is an amendment that is supported by the American Library 
Association and the Association of American Publishers.
  It is important to note, as was suggested by my colleague, Senator 
Collins, what the amendment does not do. It does not preempt or distort 
the President's program, the Reading First Initiative. It is not a new 
program or a separate program. It is part of America First, and is as 
old as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  In 1965, the first time this Congress spoke out decisively to help 
local schools, a large part of that was direct funding for school 
libraries. In fact, those books, in some cases, are still on the 
shelves today.
  Interestingly, the President has appointed Dr. Susan Neuman as his 
nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary 
Education. Her research shows that books are important. In fact, she 
published an article in ``Reading Research Quarterly,'' the title of 
which is, ``Books Make A Difference: A Study of Access to Literacy.'' 
My amendment could properly be subtitled: ``Books Make A Difference.''
  We have a strong program for reading instruction, for literacy, 
championed by Senator Collins, but books make a difference. We can make 
that difference by supporting the Reed amendment.
  Again, the President has entrusted Dr. Neuman with the implementation 
of this literacy program. I hope that she would echo today my comments 
here and say: Once again, books do make a difference.

[[Page S4984]]

  I hope that when the roll is called in just a few moments we will 
have strong bipartisan support for this amendment which will allow 
local communities to acquire the materials they need so their 
children--every child in this country--can succeed.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve whatever time 
I have.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time having expired, under the previous order, the pending 
amendment is laid aside, and the question occurs on agreeing to Reed 
amendment No. 425, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REED. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) 
is absent attending a funeral. I further announce that, if present and 
voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Dayton). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

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

                                NAYS--30

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Craig
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Carnahan
       
  The Amendment (No. 425), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the adoption of the following amendments, which have been cleared--
Cleland amendment No. 430 and Akaka amendment No. 524--Senator Enzi be 
recognized to offer a first-degree amendment regarding the subject 
matter contained in the Harkin amendment and there be 1 hour of debate 
equally divided on the Enzi amendment, the Harkin amendment No. 525, 
and the Hutchinson amendment No. 550 concurrently, and that votes occur 
on the amendments in the order listed above at the use or yielding back 
of time, with no second-degree amendments in order to any of the 
amendments mentioned above; that Senator Cleland be recognized for 10 
minutes and Senator Akaka be recognized for 5 minutes on their 
amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Hawaii.


                 Amendment No. 524 To Amendment No. 358

       (Purpose: To provide for excellence in economic education)

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for permitting me to 
go before him.
  I ask that my amendment, which is at the desk, amendment No. 524, 
which is cosponsored by my friend from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, be 
called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], for himself and Mr. 
     Corzine, proposes an amendment numbered 524 to amendment No. 
     358.

  Mr. AKAKA. 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 text of the amendment is located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, this amendment is similar to the economic 
education legislation which I introduced during the 106th Congress. 
That legislation received considerable bipartisan support from my 
colleagues, Senators Bayh, Breaux, Cleland, Cochran, Collins, Crapo, 
Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Enzi, Hagel, Johnson, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, 
Landrieu, Lincoln, Lugar, Moynihan, Snowe, and Wellstone.
  With each passing day, the need for increased economic literacy 
becomes more and more apparent. Our nation's economy is undergoing 
enormous changes. When I first introduced economic education 
legislation, we were in the midst of unprecedented economic growth and 
the longest peacetime economic expansion in our nation's history. More 
recently, however, the stock market experienced serious volatility and 
the NASDAQ suffered a sharp downturn. A number of employers, especially 
in the technology sector, have released a substantial number of their 
employees. The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates five times this 
year, the most recent cut occurring yesterday, in an effort to prevent 
our nation from sliding into an economic recession.
  Economic changes such as these highlight the importance of economic 
and financial literacy. I am convinced that increased education about 
basic economic principles such as money management, personal finance, 
interest rates, and inflation will assist all Americans in making 
informed decisions about their financial situations. Beginning this 
education at a young age will better equip future generations to manage 
their financial affairs in our rapidly and constantly fluctuating 
economy. It is critical that today's students learn that there are 
consequences for every fiscal decision they make because the fiscal 
habits they learn now are likely to be the habits that remain as 
adults.
  We must also assist today's students in becoming productive and well-
informed citizens. Studies have shown that a lack of individual 
knowledge about fundamental economic principles can lead to negative 
effects on our national economy. Economic education, or the lack of it, 
has profound long-term effects on us all. In an April 6, 2001, speech, 
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan concurred with this assessment. 
In that speech, Chairman Greenspan articulated his belief that our 
nation's schools need to improve their ability to teach young people 
basic financial education. He also stated that this financial education 
should begin as early as possible.
  I would like to share some of the results of a national test on basic 
economic principles conducted by the National Council on Economic 
Education in 1998 and 1999, which provide further evidence of the need 
for increased economic education. These results are based on responses 
from 1010 adults and 1085 high school students. Both the students and 
adults alike lacked a basic understanding about the fundamental 
concepts of money, inflation, and scarcity of resources. One-half of 
the adults and two-thirds of the students tested did not know that the 
stock market brings people who want to buy stocks together with those 
who want to sell them. Thirty-five percent of the students taking the 
test admitted that they do not know what the effect of an increase in 
interest rates would be. Only a little more than half of the adults and 
less than a quarter of the students tested knew that a budget deficit 
occurs when the Federal Government's expenditures exceed its revenues 
for that year. Amid these disappointing results, the study found that 
96 percent of Americans believe that basic economics should be taught 
in high school. Yet, few States require students to take an economics 
course in order to graduate, or have adopted guidelines for teaching 
economics in their schools, or, alarmingly, even require schools within 
their State to offer a course on economics to be made available.
  This amendment aims to increase student knowledge of, and achievement

[[Page S4985]]

in, finance and economics by strengthening our nation's teachers' 
understanding of, and ability to teach economics. It provides resources 
to incorporate economics into K through 12 curricula. It encourages 
economics-related research and development, dissemination of 
instructional materials, and replication of best practices and 
programs. And it also increases private and public support for economic 
education partnerships between schools and local businesses. The need 
for economic literacy should be no different from, or less important 
than, reading literacy, writing aptitude, or math and science 
comprehension.
  I want to thank my colleague, Senator Corzine, for joining me in this 
effort to improve our nation's financial literacy. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support our amendment and ensure that our nation's youth 
are sufficiently prepared for their financial futures.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think we are ready to accept the 
amendment. We know of no other speakers. I hope we can at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 524) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


               Amendments Nos. 377 And No. 429 Withdrawn

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendments No. 377 and No. 429.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 430 To Amendment No 358

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 430 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 430 to amendment No. 358.

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

(Purpose: To add, for funding under the program of grants for State and 
 local instructional activities for language minority students, other 
   activities that provide enhanced instructional opportunities and 
         related services for such students and their parents)

       On page 480, line 12, strike the period at the end and 
     insert a semicolon and the following:
       ``(6) other instructional services that are designed to 
     assist immigrant students to achieve in elementary and 
     secondary schools in the United States, such as literacy 
     programs, programs of introduction to the educational system, 
     and civics education; and
       ``(7) activities, coordinated with community-based 
     organizations, institutions of higher education, private 
     sector entities, or other entities with expertise in working 
     with immigrants, to assist parents of immigrant students by 
     offering comprehensive community social services, such as 
     English as a second language courses, health care, job 
     training, child care, and transportation services.''.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, let me first say that there was a 
printing error regarding amendment number 430 when it was printed in 
the May 9th Congressional Record. The amendment was correctly printed 
in its entirety in the May 14th Record.
  Mr. President, this amendment addresses the explosion of immigrants 
coming to this country over the past decade. Information from the 2000 
Census shows that the impact from this wave of immigration is 
transforming the nation. The Latino population, for example, is up 60 
percent since 1990 and now, for the first time ever, it is roughly 
equal to the population of African Americans in the U.S. New York's 
population now tops 8 million, a record number which is a direct result 
of its rising numbers of Asians and Hispanics.
  These changes are summed up in one astounding fact from the Census 
Bureau: recently arrived immigrants and refugees will account for 75 
percent of the U.S. population growth over the next 50 years. And let 
me add that these changing demographics are impacting not just 
communities accustomed to large immigrant populations like New York, 
Los Angeles and Miami, but also non-traditional immigrant communities 
in states like Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, 
and the Carolinas.
  Like our communities, our schools are feeling the impact of this new 
wave of immigration. A record number of children with diverse 
linguistic and cultural backgrounds are enrolling in America's 
classrooms. In Wayne County, MI, for example, 34 percent of the student 
population are Arabic-speaking and receive special help. The Waterloo, 
IA school system is being challenged to teach hundreds of Bosnian 
refugee children, who came to America without knowing our language, 
culture or customs. In Dalton, GA, public school enrollment of Hispanic 
students is now 51 percent, up from just 4 percent ten years ago. This 
is an incredible increase--from just 4 percent a decade ago to over 
half of the student body population today.
  This surge in immigration is increasingly challenging U.S. schools 
and communities from Florida to Washington State. We need to provide 
resources to these communities to help ensure that these children--and 
their families--are served appropriately. We know from national studies 
that where quality educational programs are joined with community-based 
services, immigrants have an increased opportunity to become an 
integral part of their community and their children are better prepared 
to achieve success in school.
  This amendment is based on legislation Senator Coverdell and I 
introduced in the last Congress. It would provide support to schools 
and communities experiencing an influx of recently arrived immigrant 
families. Specifically, it would expand the use of funds under the 
Emergency Immigrant Education set-aside to include activities which, 
No. 1, provide enhanced instructional opportunities to assist 
culturally and linguistically diverse children achieve success in 
America's schools; and which, No. 2, allow local educational agencies 
to partner with community-based organizations to provide the families 
of immigrant children access to comprehensive community services, 
including English as a second language courses, health care, child 
care, job training and transportation. This amendment is endorsed by 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association for Bilingual 
Education, the Hispanic Education Coalition, the League of United Latin 
American Citizens, and the National Council of La Raza.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay the 
amendment aside.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, I would like to just say 
a quick word on that amendment. I think we are prepared actually to 
accept it if the Senator wants to press it. I would like to take just 1 
minute on this amendment.
  I thank the Senator for raising this issue.
  Today there are approximately 800,000 migrant children in the nation. 
They are all going to become citizens of our country. By and large, 
they have placed an enormous burden on local communities.
  Years ago, the Federal Government provided help and assistance to 
families when they resettled in a local community for up to 18 months. 
There were resources available to schools. All of that has been cut 
back. We are back to about 4 months now.
  So basically, the Federal Government has abdicated its support for 
local communities. There are a number of people, for example, the 
Cambodians, who came to this country and were settled by religious 
groups in different parts of the country. We found--which was their 
choice--there were major groupings of Cambodians in Lowell, MA.
  We have a higher Cambodian population in Lowell, MA, than in Phnom 
Penh. They placed an enormous initial burden on the school community 
because of the destruction by Pol Pot of all of the information, all of 
the books. They did not have any training. The burden fell on a blue-
collar community to try to respond to the kinds of challenges which, 
for these children, were

[[Page S4986]]

overwhelming. But they did it. And they deserve great credit for it.
  Now, if you look at the various schools up in Lowell, half of the 
valedictorians from the high school will be the sons and daughters of 
these extraordinary, resourceful people. I think the Senator has put 
his finger on an important need.
  Finally, last year, when we were considering the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, there was no additional assistance included in 
that legislation for migrant, homeless, or immigrant students. There is 
additional assistance in this legislation. I would not support this 
bill if it did not provide for these students because they number over 
1.5 million children. It would have been a great mistake not to 
increase support for these students in this bill.
  The Senator has recognized a very important need. He is presenting 
this so there will be local options. Communities will be able to use 
these resources.
  I thank him for raising it. I am very hopeful we can accept the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I join in the accolades by the Senator 
from Massachusetts and say that this amendment is an excellent 
amendment. Even in little old Vermont, we have schools with 20, 22 
students who have English as their second language. There have been 
problems that we never imagined we would have. We believe this bill--
all over this Nation--will be very helpful.
  As far as I am concerned, we can accept the amendment to ensure its 
passage.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont and the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and ask that my amendment be 
adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 430.
  The amendment (No. 430) was agreed to.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would now like to ask unanimous consent 
to call up amendment No. 449 for its immediate consideration and ask 
unanimous consent Senator Jack Reed be added as a cosponsor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Reserving the right to object, we have an order, I 
think in place, an amendment by Senator Enzi. I believe that it would 
be right to take that amendment up first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 649 To Amendment No. 358

    (Purpose: To modify provisions relating to school construction)

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, under the previous agreement, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi] for himself, Ms. Snowe, 
     Mr. Hagel, and Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 649 
     to amendment No. 358.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, 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 located in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted and Proposed.'')
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor today to 
discuss an amendment that deals with the area of school construction 
that Senator Harkin has been talking about. I bring forward a proposal 
along with Senator Snowe, Senator Hagel, and Senator DeWine. I would 
like to take this opportunity to thank them for their hard work, as 
well as the hard work of their staffs.
  I know that we can all agree that there are schools across the Nation 
that are in need of repairs and renovation. Just because we can agree 
on the problem, however, does not mean that we can agree on a solution 
Senator Harkin's proposal to create a new Federal program to fund 
school construction is a good example. While I understand that a need 
exists in many of our Nation's schools, I do not believe there is a 
Federal responsibility to address that need, especially if States and 
local school districts have not made every effort to address the issue 
on their own. I also believe that it is extremely important that we do 
not ignore pre-existing Federal school construction obligations in 
favor of new school construction programs.
  It is for these reasons that I have drafted this amendment, which 
will target all Federal school construction funds toward existing 
obligations to fund the construction and renovation needs of schools on 
Indian reservations and schools impacted by Federal land holdings. This 
amendment would also make construction and maintenance of high-poverty 
schools a priority and create a revolving loan fund that States could 
use to help schools make interest payments on school construction 
bonds.
  I would also like to emphasize the importance of appropriately 
targeting limited resources where they are needed most. That is why my 
amendment requires that any grant funds available after existing 
Federal obligations are met should be highly targeted to the schools 
most in need. In addition to identifying the truly neediest schools, 
the local districts and States must demonstrate that they are already 
doing all they can to meet the needs of those schools.
  I believe that a tier of schools does exist where traditional school 
construction financing is extremely difficult for a local community. 
The capacity of the local tax base, particularly in rural communities, 
is not as flexible or far-reaching as urban or suburban districts. In 
high poverty districts, the bonding capacity may fall dramatically 
short of the cost to renovate or construct a school. In those cases, 
the States should be doing more. And, in providing direct Federal 
support for school construction, we should never extend that reach 
beyond such schools.
  Some of my colleagues have cited several studies that claim that our 
Nation's school construction needs range from $112 billion--according 
to the Government Accounting Office--to $125 billion--according to the 
National Center for Education Statistics. We all view these numbers as 
a national disgrace, but for very different reasons. My colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle would suggest that these numbers indicate 
that the Federal Government has failed to fulfill its duty to fund 
school construction. I, on the other hand, believe that these numbers 
suggest that State and local communities have abandoned their 
responsibilities and allowed our schools to fall into disrepair.
  As a former member of both houses of the Wyoming State Legislature, I 
understand that school construction has always been the responsibility 
of State and local governments. I also understand how hard some States, 
such as Wyoming, are working to make sure that they are fulfilling 
their responsibility to equitably distribute school construction funds.
  I have been troubled to see some of the data that indicates that 
States and local governments have the capacity to do more to fulfill 
their own construction needs. During the last session of Congress, 
members of the Congressional Research Service testified before the 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, that I serve on, that 
between 1990 and 1998 State and local budget surpluses grew from $80.1 
billion $148.7 billion. A December 2000 press release from the National 
Governors' Association revealed that States cut taxes and fees by $5.8 
billion in fiscal year 2001. This is the seventh consecutive year 
States have reduced taxes and fees. That is from a National Governors' 
Association press release from December 12, 2000.

  According to the American School & University's 24th Annual 
Construction Study, school districts allocated 9.4 percent of their net 
current expenditure for maintenance in 1997, a substantial drop from 
the 12.75 percent allocated 10 years earlier. You can see from this 
data that if the current level of expenditures on school construction 
by States and local governments are deemed to be inadequate it is not 
because of a lack of capacity to do more.
  I also think it is important to inform my colleagues who try to 
assert that the Federal Government is doing nothing to deal with the 
issue of the declining quality of our Nation's schools that according 
to the Congressional Research Service the overall estimated

[[Page S4987]]

cost or revenue loss for the total of tax-exempt bonds--that is taxes 
the Federal Government does not get--in 1999 was $25 billion. The most 
recent data for bonds that specifically support school construction 
comes from 1996, with an estimated cost/revenue loss at $3.7 billion. 
In other words, albeit indirect, there is clearly currently Federal 
support of school construction through the tax exemption we provide on 
construction bonds.
  In addition to having very strong reservations about introducing a 
new Federal education responsibility in the face of calls to prioritize 
existing Federal obligations, I am very concerned about creating 
inequities among States. As I have said, I firmly believe that funding 
school construction is a State and local responsibility. To that end, 
there are some States that are making tough decisions and dedicating 
the resources needed to fulfil their obligation to children in public 
schools.
  Wyoming is not alone in having experienced years of legislation and 
litigation in an effort to ensure that all children are provided an 
education in safe, appropriate classrooms. The State will soon dedicate 
significant new resources towards school construction. A lot of time 
and money has already been spent assessing every school in the State to 
determine which communities are the neediest. The State of Ohio has 
undertaken a similar effort.
  For those States that are not as far along in prioritizing school 
construction, why should they get a better deal under a Federal grant 
program? The proponents of the Harkin amendment may argue that there is 
a provision requiring the funds to be a supplement to existing 
resources. However, if a State is not already dedicating meaningful 
resources, and doesn't have a plan or initiative which calls for 
additional resources, it looks to me like they would be eligible for 
funds under this new program. That is simply not fair. If they are not 
doing something, they get money. If they are, they do not. It is not an 
appropriate use of Federal tax dollars. And it forever lets the 
entities responsible for school construction off too easily. That bring 
me to my most important point. The neediest schools are not being 
targeted enough by States. They will not be targeted sufficiently under 
the proposal by the Senator from Iowa.

  It is imperative that any additional Federal support we provide be 
strictly linked to the highest need schools. There will never be enough 
money to address the estimated $127 billion in construction needs, even 
if we did all agree that Federal funds should be expended. In fact, in 
2000, almost $26 billion was spent on public K-12 construction, with 
nearly $27 billion in spending forecast for this year. A similar amount 
is also forecast to be spent each year through 2004.
  All of this data is available through the National Clearinghouse for 
Educational Facilities, which Congress established after the General 
Accounting Office released a series of studies on school construction 
over the last few Congresses.
  In addition to providing basic data on facilities financing, the 
clearinghouse is intended to serve as a resource for schools and public 
officials on how to properly assess their construction needs, how to 
develop a model school construction proposal, and how to meet the 
unique needs of their community. We should not be embarking on a path 
that either displaces this effort or discourages States and locales 
from meeting the school construction needs of their communities.
  This is vitally important in rural communities. Those communities 
face hardships in meeting their construction needs as it is, but we 
cannot set them up with the false hope of erasing their need to pass 
bond initiatives or to pressure the State for more help. There are 
roughly 80,000 public schools in this country. Half are in rural areas 
or small towns.
  As we consider the Enzi-Snowe-Hagel-DeWine amendment and the Harkin 
amendment as a whole, I should like to remind my colleagues that we do 
not serve any of our Nation's children by ignoring the commitments we 
have already made while making new promises that we can't keep. We owe 
our children more than that, and I hope as we move forward with the 
legislation we will keep that in mind.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time 
will be charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from 
Wyoming, are we through with his presentation?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that other Senators 
will be down shortly to make a presentation--the Senator from Iowa and 
the Senator from Colorado.
  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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
charged equally to both sides.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, I listened as best I could to the 
presentation made by my friend from Wyoming on his amendment. Let's 
recap a little bit.
  As I said yesterday, we have been trying for some time to get money 
for school construction and repair to help beleaguered schools around 
the country. We did that last year in an agreement. I ask my friend 
from Wyoming if he knows this. But in last year's appropriations bill, 
there was an agreement hammered out on a bipartisan basis and a 
bicameral basis. It was signed off on the House side. We worked with 
Congressman Goodling, Congressman Porter, Congressman Obey; on the 
Senate side, Senator Specter and I, Senator Jeffords, and Senator 
Kennedy were all involved in the negotiations--and the White House.
  We came up with a program that provided $1.2 billion this year that 
would go out to States under broad guidelines to help them meet the 
needs of their poorest school districts in terms of meeting fire and 
safety code, renovation for technology, and 25 percent of the money was 
set aside to meet the needs of disabled students under IDEA.
  I didn't know this until I just read the Enzi amendment, but the Enzi 
amendment wipes out that $1.2 billion. This is a list of all the States 
that are going to get this money 2 months from now of the $1.2 billion 
that was appropriated for this year. The Enzi amendment is not 
prospective. It takes the $1.2 billion this year and reneges on what 
the Senate, the House, and the White House signed off on last year.
  That is eminently unfair. A lot of these school districts in the 
States already know the amount of money that they have applied for and 
that has been approved. The money hasn't gone out yet. It is going out 
the first of July. But they have applied for it, and they know what 
they are going to get. Now the Enzi amendment just wipes it out. You 
can see how much money some of the States will lose.
  The Enzi amendment will take a lot of this money and put it in the 
Department of Defense. I don't know if that makes any sense at all. 
Then there are all these hurdles that a State has to jump through 
before it can get any of the renovation money. I thought we Democrats 
were the ones always being accused of tying the hands of the States and 
telling them exactly what they had to do. Read the Enzi amendment. 
There are more hoops and more barriers and more hurdles and more 
paperwork the States will have to confront than anything I have seen 
offered in the Senate in a long time.
  For example, he says--just to illustrate how unfair the amendment 
will be--that before a school can qualify, 50 percent of the enrollment 
will have to come from families whose income does not exceed the 
poverty level. That is a public school. He says before a public school 
facility can get any of this construction or renovation money, 50 
percent of the enrollment will have to be

[[Page S4988]]

from families whose income does not exceed the poverty level.
  I ask the Senator from Wyoming how is he going to determine that. 
There is no way to determine that. I ask the Senator from Wyoming to 
please tell us how he is going to determine if a public school has 50 
percent of enrollment from families whose income is below the poverty 
level.
  The only measure we have right now is from a school district and 
schools based upon free and reduced-priced lunches. That is based on 
185 percent of poverty. It is based on school districts. I ask the 
Senator from Wyoming, how is a public school in your State, my State, 
Minnesota, Vermont, or any other State, going to show that 50 percent 
of its enrollment is from families whose income does not exceed the 
poverty level? As you say, ``as determined by annual census data 
published by the Department of Labor.'' The Department of Labor does 
not publish census data by schools.
  So this is a very poorly drafted amendment. I don't know what the 
author was trying to get at. I say to my friend from Wyoming that you 
cannot in any way determine how you are going to have 50-percent 
poverty from a school.
  That is the first hurdle that is impossible. Think of the paperwork. 
Think of what a school would have to go through to find out whether or 
not 50 percent of its enrollment are kids from families who do not 
exceed the poverty level.
  First of all, I think that would be impossible. Secondly--and here is 
something that is unfair--Mr. Enzi says the other hoop is that the 
school has to be located in a district in which the district's bonded 
indebtedness basically has reached or exceeded 90 percent of the debt 
limitation imposed upon school districts pursuant to State law.
  Well, what about a school district in a rural State in which there 
are a lot of elderly people who may not be able to bear the burden of 
property taxes, or they have property tax exemptions because of their 
age, and let's say they have 30 percent of their kids getting free and 
reduced-priced school lunches but their bonded indebtedness is only 15 
percent. You are going to go out to that district with a heavily 
weighted population that is elderly, maybe rural, and you are going to 
say you have to raise your property taxes before you can qualify?
  How unfair is that, I ask you. Again, what kind of paperwork, what 
kind of State requirements are going to have to be set up to do that?
  So, again, I don't know what the Senator is trying to get at, but if 
he is trying to target it, it is not doing it. There is no way this can 
be done. The paperwork and the burden on the States in accounting for 
all this would be incredible.
  Again, he also says the Federal share of the cost of any project 
shall not exceed 50 percent. Well, again, why don't you leave that up 
to the States? In my amendment, I didn't tie the hands of the States 
and say here is exactly what you have to do. The Enzi amendment 
basically says: State, here is A, B, C, D--exactly what you have to 
do--and you can't do anything else. There may be some projects of an 
emergency nature. We have had them in Iowa, such as meeting fire and 
safety codes--things that may need to be done right away. Maybe they 
can't come up with a 50-percent match right away. But the Enzi 
amendment says, tough luck; you don't get any help.
  I understand there is a revolving loan fund also set up--a loan 
authority for loans to be made. Again, there are all kinds of hoops and 
paperwork requirements and findings that a State would have to face. 
The more I look at this amendment, the more I don't want to hear any 
more arguments from that side of the aisle about how Democrats are 
trying to tie the hands of States by specifying exactly what has to be 
done. If you want to learn about specifications, read the Enzi 
amendment.
  It is in here that for revolving loans it says--listen to this: With 
respect to a fiscal year, any State, to receive assistance on the 
revolving fund loan in this part of the bill, has to have four-tenths 
of a percent--in other words, they have to have less than four-tenths 
of a percent of the total amount available in the United States for all 
title I.

  So for a State to qualify for this revolving loan fund, that State 
has to get less than four-tenths of a percent of the entire amount in 
the United States. So I ask, why was it four-tenths? Why wasn't it 
five-tenths? Why wasn't it three-tenths? Why wasn't it 5.5? Why was 
four-tenths a magic number? I would like to know the answer to that 
question. I don't know why.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I will.
  Mr. KENNEDY. We have only had this amendment for a brief period of 
time. However, in reviewing this amendment, I have noticed that on page 
13 it refers to the set-aside of Federal funds. This is the only 
reference in the amendment to the authorization of funds. If the 
Senator has a copy----
  Mr. HARKIN. I don't seem to have page 13 for some reason.
  I have it now.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It says ``set-aside of Federal funds.''
  It reads:

       In General--Notwithstanding any other provisions of law. . 
     .there shall be made available to carry out this section for 
     each fiscal year, an amount equal to 20 percent of the total 
     amount of Federal funds appropriated for such fiscal year for 
     Federal programs to provide assistance for school 
     construction, renovation, or repair.

  The Harkin amendment, of course, expires this year. As such, the only 
funds that I am aware of will be the DOD and the BIA funds and impact 
aid.
  Mr. HARKIN. Impact aid, yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. For school construction. We are talking about an amount 
that is less than $100 million. And here we have a proposal to 
authorize 20 percent of that amount. That totals approximately $20 
million. Do we understand that? I respect my colleague from Wyoming, 
and he knows he is my friend, but it is a hoax to suggest that this is 
a program to help local schools. We are only talking about $20 million; 
$10 million for grants, and $10 million for loans. This is the amount 
that would be available under the restrictions that the Senator from 
Wyoming has outlined. We are calling this a construction program.
  I ask my colleague and friend, does he believe that when Senators 
vote for the Enzi amendment, they will be able to claim that their vote 
is a vote for school construction? They will have voted against the 
Harkin amendment that helps local communities in the neediest areas of 
the nation, both rural and urban, repair and renovate crumbling 
schools. Instead, they will say, ``oh, no, we prefer the Enzi amendment 
that provides $20 million--$10 million in grants, and $10 million in 
loans.''
  I ask the Senator from Iowa whether he reads this amendment the same 
way?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. In fact, I will add one thing to 
that. What the Enzi amendment does this year is it takes away the $1.2 
billion going out to States. That has already been appropriated. He 
wipes that out. Then on the revolving loan fund the Senator talked 
about, he says ``shall be made available to carry out this section for 
each fiscal year amounting to 20 percent of the total amount of the 
Federal budget.''
  What all that means is that after this year we impact the money for 
impact aid and Indian schools. They are going to take 20 percent of 
that money and put it in the revolving loan fund. So here the Senator 
from Wyoming purports in his amendment that he wants to help Indian 
schools and he wants to help impact aid, but in the second part of the 
amendment he takes money out of those programs to put it into a 
revolving loan fund.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I don't know whether the Senator from Wyoming can tell 
us whether we have interpreted the amendment correctly. I invite him to 
correct us if we are incorrect. As I understand it, this amendment 
would equal only 20 percent of the total amount of funds that will be 
appropriated for such fiscal year. We anticipate that next year, 
outside of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, impact aid and military 
schools, that such an amount is less than a million dollars. And this 
amendment proposes 20 percent of that amount for school construction. 
Am I correct, I inquire of the Senator?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, answering on their time, of course, as I 
have said throughout this whole process on the authorization bill, this 
is an authorizing process, and we have an appropriations process that 
comes up later. The amount of dollars allocated would

[[Page S4989]]

be allocated as part of the appropriations process. There is money that 
can be done on this.
  We are getting into a brand new program. This isn't something that 
has been a continuing program. We are getting into something new. Since 
it is new, I was hoping we would handle that through the appropriations 
process. Whatever money is allocated in the process, 20 percent would 
go to that.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I agree with the Senator that the appropriations process 
will determine the amount we will have for resources. If it is not 
authorizing, a point of order is made.

  As I understand it, this amendment authorizes 20 percent of existing 
Federal funds. The only construction funds of which I am aware are 
funds made available through BIA, impact aid, and defense. If we are 
referring to 20 percent of those funds--that is what it says in here--
equal to 20 percent, then 20 percent is the authorization level. That 
amount equals $20 million. That is the authorization. I understand 
further that half of that goes to loans and grants.
  I withhold further comment. I think this is a pale, pale substitute 
for the Harkin amendment. At an appropriate time after the Senator from 
Iowa makes a comment about it, I would like to have 4 or 5 minutes to 
add my support for the Harkin amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. I still have the floor. I ask my 
friend from Wyoming, I just heard the Senator say this is the 
authorization process and he did not want to interfere with the 
appropriations process.
  Again I ask the Senator, does not your amendment wipe out the 
appropriations we made last year? Does it not invade the appropriations 
process? We appropriated this money last year. If I am not mistaken, 
the Senator's amendment wipes that out. The Senator just said this was 
authorization, not appropriations, but if you read the amendment, it 
wipes out our appropriations.
  Am I reading it wrong? I yield to the Senator for a response. It says 
``notwithstanding any other provision of law.'' I ask the Senator, does 
not this invade the $1.2 billion we already appropriated? I will be 
glad to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, if I can use their time, under this bill, 
the $1.2 billion that was appropriated last year would come under the 
formula for this, which would become the current school foundation 
construction program. So, yes, the $1.2 billion the Senator from Iowa 
is talking about would be included in this particular amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the forthrightness of my friend from 
Wyoming. That is exactly what I have been saying. That is the way it is 
written. The $1.2 billion that will be going out to the States this 
summer will not be going out.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is my understanding that school districts all across 
this country that have relied on these funds, and have planned 
accordingly under the assumption that they would receive these funds, 
but will now not receive such funds. Is the Senator from Wyoming saying 
these funds will be snatched back from local communities all over the 
Nation that have budgeted for it, that have received assurances of it? 
Is the Senator proposing to grab that money back to re-allocate its sum 
through a new formula?
  Is the Senator prepared to tell every school district planning to 
receive these funds in the next few weeks that their planning is for 
nought? Is that the purpose of the Senator's amendment? Because it 
seems that this would be the effect.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President----
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think Senator Harkin has the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming for a response. I 
will be glad to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. The purpose of this amendment is to place some constraints 
on Federal school construction so we are not opening up a brand new 
program that will fund any school that needs to be constructed or 
renovated in this country without any requirements. That is why the 
provision is included, for the 90-percent bonding capacity in a 
district to make sure the local district is participating to the level 
it can.

  My colleagues will find that there are school districts across this 
country that are already perhaps at 200-percent bonding. They are doing 
a maximum effort. Ninety percent would be considered a maximum effort. 
It requires a match by the State. The other amendment does not require 
any participation by the State. There is some wording in there about 
supplanting some State funds, but it does not have any requirements.
  The purpose of this amendment is to show there needs to be some 
constraint on how fast the Federal Government gets into a school 
funding program. We are not there yet. We are on our way there, and 
there needs to be some local recognition that they need to have some 
participation and States need to be a part of it. We cannot wipe out 
that obligation under a new program.
  Mr. HARKIN. Again, I thank the Senator for his forthrightness. His 
answer is correct because that is what the Senator is doing.
  I point out to the Senator that the American Society of Civil 
Engineers has said that we need about $121 billion just to repair and 
modernize the schools we have right now. We will need $187 billion over 
the next 10 years. This is a $1.6 billion authorization. We do not know 
how much we can appropriate. We appropriated $1.2 billion last year. I 
do not know how much we can appropriate this next year.
  Certainly, we are not rushing headlong into repairing and modernizing 
schools at $1.2 billion. With the Senator's amendment, it is less than 
a snail's pace. We might get there in about 200 years. We cannot wait 
that long.
  Let us be clear about the Enzi amendment. There are some fatal flaws 
there. No. 1, the Enzi amendment takes away money already going out to 
the States, make no mistake about it. If Senators want to vote to take 
money away from State school construction--I have the list right here. 
My colleagues can look at it. This is what their States are going to 
receive this year, and the Enzi amendment takes it away.
  No. 2, the Senator is right; in my amendment, I do not handcuff the 
States. He is right. I do not prescribe every jot and tittle of exactly 
what they have to do. I trust them. We gave broad outlines. We said put 
this out under competitive grants to go to the lowest income, poorest 
districts that need the help the most. Then we reserve some funds for 
the highest poverty districts. That is it. We trust the States to make 
that decision.
  We had $28 million in my State of Iowa. The State department of 
education put it out for competitive grants. I have not heard one 
complaint, not one because the State believes it went through a very 
fair process and the neediest school districts got that money.
  No. 3, the Enzi amendment shifts money from education to the 
Department of Defense. Why would we want to do that?
  No. 4, the paperwork burden on local school districts, I submit, 
under the Enzi amendment will be more than anything they have ever 
filled out for title I or for anything else. How are you going to 
determine that 50 percent of your kids are below the poverty level? 
There is no census data, and yet you have to do that before you 
qualify.
  Next, it shifts the power from States and local governments to the 
Federal Government. I know the Senator does not intend to do that, but 
that is what really happens in this amendment. If you read the 
revolving loan fund part of the Senator's amendment, it takes money out 
of Indian schools in the future and puts it into the revolving fund. We 
do not need to be taking any more money out of Indian schools.

  I sum up by saying the Enzi amendment guts our commitment to school 
modernization which we made last year. If my colleagues vote for it, 
they are voting to strip education funds from their States. I will 
leave this list up during the vote and Senators can check how much 
money is going out to their States.
  There are poor school districts in every one of these States that 
need that money this year for fire and safety code violations. They 
need it this year.

[[Page S4990]]

  If you do not trust the States, if you can say, well, if we give 
money to the States, they will give it to the richest school districts, 
I do not think that is going to happen. I tend to trust the State 
departments of education.
  Under our guidelines, we say it has to go to the poorest schools and 
put out in competitive grants. Make no mistake about it; if any one of 
my colleagues votes for the Enzi amendment, they are voting to strip 
this money.
  With those fatal flaws, and with the fact we made an agreement last 
year--it was a bipartisan agreement; it was bicameral; it was hammered 
out with the White House; and we reached an agreement on how to do it 
and the money is going to be going out--I do not think we ought to stop 
that money from going out. It is $1.2 billion. We are not rushing 
headlong into something.
  I bet my colleagues will see, when this money goes out to the States 
this year, they are going to have a lot of support from their States, 
thanking you for helping fix up the poorest schools they have.
  I hope the Enzi amendment is not approved because we made this 
agreement last year, and we ought to stick by it for this year.
  In closing I want to share some comments from the officials with the 
Keokuk, IA, school district. This district has received two $100,000 
grants to remedy fire code violations.
  The funds are being used to install fire alarms, replace doors with 
new fire-rated doors and make other repairs at an elementary school and 
at the high school so they meet fire and safety codes. The renovations 
are planned for this summer and next year.
  In a letter from Board President Dr. Wilson Davis, Jr., 
Superintendent Jane Babcock and Business Manager Kate Baldwin wrote; 
``Completion of these building renovations will bring both of these 
student attendance centers into full compliance with all fire-safety 
codes. The availability of these funds have made this district goal a 
reality.''
  Without the modest Federal investment, students in these two schools 
would continue to attend classes in buildings that do not meet State 
and local fire codes. Permitting such situations to continue is simply 
unacceptable.
  The schools in Keokuk are safer today because of a modest Federal 
investment. Our amendment will make it possible to make many more 
schools across the country safer for our children. So if you want safe 
schools for our kids, if you want them to attend modern, well-equipped 
schools, if you want schools that meet fire and safety codes, you 
should support this commonsense amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters of support.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Keokuk Community School District,

                                       Keokuk, IA, April 10, 2001.
     Senator Tom Harkin,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: The Koekuk Community School District 
     is very excited to be selected to receive a federal grant of 
     $100,000 for Fire (Life) Safety facility building 
     renovations. Responding to specific neds as outlined on our 
     annual building safety inspections, the district is focusing 
     the funds to provide necessary egress compliance in eight 
     classrooms and replacing interior and exterior doors with 
     new, fire-rated doors. The necessary building renovations 
     will be during the summer of 2001 at one of our elementary 
     sites and during 2002 at our high school site. Completion of 
     these building renovations will bring both of these student 
     attendance centers into full compliance with all fire-safety 
     codes. The availability of these funds have made this 
     district goal a reality.
       This is the second year Keokuk Schools has received a 
     $100,000 Fire (Life) Safety grant. Funds awarded last year 
     were targeted at installing a new fire alarm system in our 
     high school building. The district began installation during 
     July 2000 and will have this project completed in June 2001.
       The citizens of Keokuk are proud of our school. We 
     sincerely appreciate the efforts you have made to provide 
     additional funding to help meet the increasing costs of 
     maintaining school facilities. Thank you for working for the 
     students, parents, and citizens of Iowa.
           Very truly yours,
     Wilson Davis, Jr., MD.
       President Board of Directors.
     Jane Babcock,
       Superintendent.
     Kate Baldwin,
       Business Manager.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2001.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Education 
     Association's (NEA) 2.6 million members, we urge your support 
     for an amendment to be offered this week by Senator Harkin 
     (D-IA) to the Better Education for Students and Teachers 
     (BEST) Act (S. 1) that would restore the critical school 
     repair program. Votes associated with this issue may be 
     included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 107th 
     Congress.
       Too 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. Yet, 
     many high-need schools and communities simply cannot meet the 
     costs of these urgent repairs absent federal assistance.
       Last year, Congress agreed on a bipartisan basis to provide 
     grants for urgent repairs in high-need schools. In FY 2001, 
     this important program will help repair some 3,500 schools 
     across the country. The Harkin amendment would help ensure 
     every student a safe learning environment by continuing this 
     critical grant program.
       We urge your support for the Harkin school repair program.
           Sincerely,
                                           Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                         Rebuild America's Schools


                                                    Coalition,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: The Rebuild America's School Coalition 
     supports your amendment to S. 1, the Better Education for 
     Students and Teachers (BEST) Act, to restore the emergency 
     school repair program.
       The need for school repairs exists in all communities 
     across the county. According to the American Society of Civil 
     Engineers recently released annual report card on America's 
     infrastructure, the condition of our nation's public schools 
     received the lowest rating.
       Our coalition supported your bipartisan efforts in the last 
     Congress to establish a new program to help schools make 
     emergency school repairs. The emergency school repair program 
     will provide $1.3 billion to states and school districts 
     through competitive grants to make emergency school repairs 
     and to fund IDEA and technology renovations. Your amendment 
     will reauthorize this critically needed program for emergency 
     school repairs.
       Rebuild America's Schools is fighting for these and other 
     programs in this Congress. Rebuild America's Schools is 
     working with Congresswoman Nancy Johnson (R-CT) and 
     Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and other Members of 
     Congress to pass the ``America's Better Classrooms Act.'' 
     With a federal investment of $5 billion, this bill generates 
     $25 billion in bonds to help school districts finance 
     programs to build new schools and to modernize existing 
     schools.
       Communities struggling to find the resources to provide our 
     nation's school children with safe and modern schools ask how 
     can Congress consider more than $1 trillion in tax cuts 
     without investing in safe school buildings.
       Coalition members appreciate the leadership you have 
     provided for this critical issue. We urge your colleagues to 
     support your amendment for the school repair program.
           Sincerely yours,
     Robert P. Canavan.
                                  ____

                                                    Council of the


                                           Great City Schools,

                                     Washington, DC, May 14, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: The Council of the Great City Schools, 
     a coalition representing over fifty of the largest urban 
     public school systems in the country, appreciates your work 
     to improve our nation's school infrastructure, and to 
     highlight school modernization as a Senate priority during 
     reauthorization of ESEA. We support authorization of the 
     School Renovation Program, and will work with you to ensure 
     that the Harkin School Renovation Amendment is included in S. 
     1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers (BEST) Act.
       Last year, a bipartisan Congress agreed that the federal 
     government must not ignore the physical deterioration of our 
     nation's school buildings, and appropriated $1.2 billion for 
     emergency repair and renovation for FY 2001. The School 
     Renovation Program provides these funds to States to assist 
     school districts with infrastructure needs, and represented 
     the most significant federal assistance for school 
     construction in over a decade.
       By authorizing a $1.6 billion School Renovation program in 
     ESEA, your amendment will help to reverse school 
     infrastructure deterioration in urban schools, where the 
     country's oldest buildings have long suffered from

[[Page S4991]]

     overcrowding, as well as scarce funds for maintenance and 
     repair. The School Renovation Program will also help 
     crumbling schools nationwide, which received a grade of ``D'' 
     from the American Society of Civil Engineers in 2001, citing 
     a 75% inadequacy level in facilities across the country.
       The Council of the Great City Schools appreciates your work 
     to end the physical deterioration of our nation's schools. 
     Preserving the bipartisan School Renovation Program is a 
     decision that would help school districts continue to address 
     the emergency repairs and renovation needs of aging and 
     overcrowded schools. The Harkin Amendment assists districts 
     with the support they need to improve the learning 
     environment for all students, and has the full support of the 
     Council of the Great City Schools.
           Sincerely,
                                              Michael D. Casserly,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                         Board of Education of the


                                             City of New York,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Harkin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Harkin: On behalf of Chancellor Harold O. Levy 
     and the New York City Public Schools system, I write to thank 
     you for your commitment to improving our nation's school 
     infrastructure. The Chancellor is very supportive of your 
     current efforts to authorize the School Renovation Program as 
     part of S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers 
     (BEST) Act.
       As you know, the BEST Act repeals current Title XII of 
     ESEA, the School Facilities Infrastructure Improvements Act. 
     This step takes us backwards from last year's bipartisan 
     agreement that provided funds for the School Renovation 
     Program as part of PL 106-544, the Omnibus Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act of 2000. Thanks to your leadership, this 
     legislation provided approximately $1.2 billion to help 
     communities make emergency school repairs and renovations. 
     This urgently needed initiative will help local schools fix 
     leaky roofs, correct faulty plumbing, heating, and electrical 
     systems, and address other dangerous health and safety 
     concerns in our schools, such as the presence of lead paint 
     and asbestos in the classroom. It provided a solid framework 
     for targeting limited federal resources to those districts 
     most in need of assistance, as it reserves funds for high 
     need school districts based on concentrations of poverty, 
     fiscal capacity, safety, and condition of buildings. The 
     agreement also reflected a reasonable and fair balance 
     between competing priorities as it allows a portion of these 
     funds to be used by states and localities for special 
     education and technology upgrades related to school 
     renovation.
       Most importantly, last year's budget agreement recognized 
     that New York City and other school systems around the nation 
     cannot do it alone. Even though the City recently adopted a 
     five-year, $7.1 billion capital plan for our schools--the 
     largest school construction plan in the City's history--it is 
     not sufficient to meet the needs of the system, which are 
     conservatively estimated at $15 billion. Clearly,the 
     infrastructure needs of public schools have outpaced the 
     ability of local governments to meet these demands by 
     themselves. The need for school repair and modernization 
     funds has reached critical proportions and necessitates 
     partnerships among local, state and federal governments.
       ESEA reauthorization presents an excellent opportunity to 
     enhance current law in this area. Specifically, New York City 
     supports your amendment, authorizing $1.6 billion annually 
     for grants and loans to high poverty school districts for 
     emergency school repairs and renovations. It would also 
     provide funds to enhance special education services, and 
     upgrade technology infrastructure.
       Thank you for your consideration of Chancellor Levy's views 
     on this important matter.
           Sincerely,

                                             Kristor W. Cowan,

                                                  Director, NYCBOE
                                                Washington Office.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Harkin 
amendment on school construction, renovation, and repair. I am 
concerned by what I have heard from Senator Harkin as to his analysis 
of the----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator should be advised the Democratic 
time has just expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given 
an additional 5 minutes to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is granted 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Chair. I thank my distinguished colleagues 
from Wyoming and Iowa.
  I am concerned, as Senator Harkin has pointed out, that dollars that 
are already committed to construction projects, to State planning for 
school repair and renovation, under the second-degree amendment, will 
be diverted to other worthy causes. I happen to agree with the Senator 
from Wyoming that the dollars we need as the Federal Government to 
spend to upgrade, repair, and construct BIA schools and DOD schools and 
Impact Aid schools is an obligation we should step up to and fulfill. 
But I do not think we should be robbing Peter to pay Paul, when we have 
so many schools that are in need of the kind of assistance that can be 
provided with Senator Harkin's amendment.

  What I hope is that as we debate the second-degree amendment, we look 
for ways to deal with the very real problem that the Senator from 
Wyoming has pointed out without upsetting and undermining the 
commitments that have already been made. These are commitments for this 
$1.2 billion that my State of New York is counting on, that the cities 
in my State are counting on. As the chart that Senator Harkin has shown 
points out clearly, we have plans for that money. About $105 million of 
it has been allocated to New York. We have a backlog of many hundreds 
of millions of dollars more of repair and renovation.
  I hope that the Senator from Wyoming's amendment as currently written 
will not pass, but that we take the good ideas the Senator from Wyoming 
has brought to the floor with respect to the BIA schools and other 
schools that are particularly part of the Federal responsibility and 
look for additional ways to provide the funds they need.
  Let me also reiterate something I have said on this floor before, and 
then I will yield for final comments to our Democratic leader on this 
issue, Senator Harkin. This bill does not remove State or local 
responsibility for school construction, repair, and renovation. What it 
does is provide necessary funds where we as a nation have gotten so far 
behind in providing decent facilities for our teachers and students. It 
is a partnership. I thought the whole idea behind this reauthorization 
was that we were going to have a partnership. The Federal Government 
was going to step in with the funds it provides and assist the States 
and localities in providing the best possible education for our 
children; that we were going to marry accountability and resources. I 
do not think the $105 million currently in line to come to New York to 
help us with our backlog of construction, repair, and renovation is in 
any way an interference with State or local control over education. It 
is a recognition that we as a nation have fallen woefully behind.
  I am reminded of how many of the schools that children in New York 
attend--some were built 100 years ago, many were built 50 or 60 years 
ago. We have not invested in our children to provide the kind of 
resources they need.
  I stood on the floor and told true stories about what happens in some 
of our schools. The Senator from Iowa may have heard me talk about a 
teacher standing in a classroom in Mechanicville, NY, who had a piece 
of concrete fall on her head. I showed pictures of classrooms that were 
so overcrowded there was literally no place for the children to sit.
  We have schools where we have 100 different languages being spoken, 
where we are in hallways and bathrooms, where we have not a single 
square foot of space left and where the condition of what is there is 
deteriorating.
  This bill that Senator Harkin is promoting, to me, is the right kind 
of partnership. We are not interfering. We are not forcing any money on 
anybody. This is a voluntary program. It adds to, it does not take away 
from, the resources our States and localities are using. But it 
recognizes the fact that States that have made a commitment to using 
these dollars would, under Senator Enzi's amendment, lose money.
  New York will lose at least $22 million off the top because 20 
percent of the funds would first be diverted to smaller states, but in 
all likelihood New York would never see any of the $105 million already 
set aside for Emergency School Renovation and Repair. We have a million 
children in the New York City school district. We have the oldest 
school buildings in America in Buffalo, NY. We want to do the best job 
we can for our children, as every other State represented here does. 
All we need is a little bit of help. I urge we vote for Senator 
Harkin's amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Senator Enzi 
for

[[Page S4992]]

offering an amendment to S.1 concerning the existing obligations the 
Federal Government has to Bureau of Indian Affairs', DOD and Impact aid 
school systems. Through numerous treaties, statutes, and court 
decisions, the Federal Government has assumed a trust responsibility to 
provide a quality education to Indian children.
  This duty includes providing school facilities that have such basic 
amenities as 4 walls, heat and healthy air to breathe. Adequate 
facilities and such essential necessities are not being provided to 
many Indian children attending Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, funded 
schools.
  Unlike communities that have a tax base to fund school construction, 
military reservations and Indian reservations are dependent on Federal 
resources. Nearly 4,500 facilities serve the Bureau's education 
program, consisting of over 20 million square feet of space, including 
dormitories, employee housing, and other buildings providing education 
opportunities to more than 50,000 students. These facilities serve more 
than 330 Federally recognized Indian tribes located in 23 States 
through Self-Determination contracts, compacts and education grants.
  We are not dealing here with ``the unknown.'' The GAO and other 
entities have produced countless studies and surveys showing us that 
half of the school facilities in the inventory have exceeded their 
useful lives of 30 years, and more than 20 percent are over 50 years 
old. Numerous deficiencies in the areas of health, safety, access for 
disabled students, classroom size, ability to integrate computer and 
telecommunications technology, and administrative space have been 
reported by the Bureau.
  As a former teacher myself, I am appalled when I visit reservations 
and see first hand the many schools with leaking roofs, peeling paint, 
overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate heating and cooling systems. The 
studies have shown that such deficiencies have adverse effects on 
student learning. By not providing secure educational facilities, we 
are paralyzing these children and putting them at a disadvantage that 
they may never overcome.
  The Federal Government has responded to the problem in piecemeal 
fashion, often using temporary solutions instead of working on a 
permanent plan of action. For instance, in fiscal year 2001 President 
Clinton's budget requested $2 million for ``portables'' or trailer 
classrooms that have been used since 1993. To date, the BIA has 
purchased 472 portables and 20 percent of the BIA's total education 
buildings are now portable classrooms. The request states these 
trailers are needed due to overcrowding and unhealthy and unsafe 
buildings. It states that portables are used to replace buildings or 
parts of buildings that have ``poor air quality'' that result in what 
the BIA calls ``sick building syndrome.''
  New funds for Indian school construction is one of the major focuses 
of the President Bush's fiscal year 2002 budget request with $292.5 
million slated for such purposes. Of the overall education construction 
budget, $127.8 million has been requested for the construction of six 
schools: Wingate Elementary, NM; Polacca Day School, AZ; Holbrook 
Dormitory, AZ; Santa Fe Indian School, NM; Ojibwa Indian School, ND; 
and Paschal Sherman School, WA.
  As of January 2001, the repair and rehabilitation, and renovation 
backlog for Indian education facilities and quarters stood at $1.1 
billion and is even greater today.
  I understand the underlying notion of the Harkin amendment, but I 
think this body should affirm our existing obligations to this Nation's 
DOD, Indian, and Impact Aid schools before we undertake even greater 
obligations.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Enzi/Snowe 
school construction amendment. I want to thank my colleague from 
Wyoming, Senator Enzi for working with me to provide some much federal 
assistance to states to address serious school construction need. And I 
appreciate his interest in including a part of my bill, the ``Building, 
Renovating, Improving, and Constructing Kids' Schools, BRICKS, Act'' in 
this amendment.
  The amendment before us would provide funding for Impact Aid schools, 
provide a direct grant to states to provide for the construction needs 
of their poorest schools and creates a revolving loan fund for school 
construction.
  The condition of many of our Nation's existing public schools is 
abysmal even as the need for additional schools and classroom space 
grows. Specifically, according to reports issued by the General 
Accounting Office, GAO, in 1995 and 1996, fully one-third of all public 
schools needing extensive repair or replacement.
  As further evidence of this problem, an issue brief prepared by the 
National Center for Education Statistics, NCES, in 1999 stated that the 
average public school in America is 42 years old, with school buildings 
beginning rapid deterioration after 40 years. In addition, the NCES 
brief found that 29 percent of all public schools are in the ``oldest 
condition,'' which means that they were built prior to 1970 and have 
either never been renovated or were renovated prior to 1980.
  Not only are our nation's schools in need of repair and renovation, 
but there is a growing demand for additional schools and classrooms due 
to an ongoing surge in student enrollment. Specifically, according to 
the NCES, at least 2,400 new public schools will need to be built by 
the year 2003 to accommodate our nation's burgeoning school rolls, 
which will grow from a record 52.7 million children today to 54.3 
million by 2008.
  Needless to say, the cost of addressing our nation's need for school 
renovations and construction is enormous. In fact, according to the 
General Accounting Office, GAO, it will cost $112 billion just to bring 
our nation's schools into good overall condition, and a recent report 
by the NEA identified $322 billion in unmet school modernization needs. 
Nowhere is this cost better understood than in my home state of Maine, 
where a 1996 study by the Maine Department of Education and the State 
Board of Education determined that the cost of addressing the state's 
school building and construction needs stood at $637 million.
  We simply cannot allow our Nation's schools to fall into utter 
disrepair and obsolescence with children sitting in classrooms that 
have leaky ceilings or rotting walls. We cannot ignore the need for new 
schools as the record number of children enrolled in K-12 schools 
continues to grow.
  Accordingly, because the cost of repairing and building these 
facilities may prove to be more than many state and local governments 
can bear in a short period of time, I believe the Federal Government 
can and should assist Maine and other State and local governments in 
addressing this growing national crisis.
  Admittedly, not all members support strong Federal intervention in 
what has been historically a state and local responsibility. In fact, 
many argue with merit that the best form of federal assistance for 
school construction or other local educational needs would be for the 
federal government to fulfill its commitment to fund 40 percent of the 
cost of special education. This long-standing commitment was made when 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education, IDEA, Act was signed into 
law more than 20 years ago, but the Federal Government has fallen 
woefully short in upholding its end of the bargain, only recently 
increasing its share above 10 percent.
  Needless to say, I strongly agree with those who argue that the 
Federal Government's failure to fulfill this mandate represents nothing 
less than a raid on the pocketbook of every state and local government. 
That is why I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senators 
Hagel and Jeffords to fully fund IDEA, and I support ongoing efforts to 
achieve the 40 percent federal commitment in the near future.
  Yet, even as we work to fulfill this long-standing commitment and 
thereby free-up local resources to address local needs, I believe the 
Federal Government can and should provide some assistance to state and 
local governments in addressing their school construction needs without 
infringing on local control.
  And that is why our amendment is narrowly drawn. First, our 
legislation will ensure that we meet the federal commitment to Impact 
Aid schools, which provide education to communities serving our 
military families and those where the Federal Government

[[Page S4993]]

owns a substantial share of the property, thereby depriving the 
community of local revenue. The amendment also provides a direct grant 
to states to assist in building or rehabilitating the lowest income 
schools.
  In addition, there is a provision based on my school construction 
bill, BRICKS, that would set aside 20 percent of the Federal money 
appropriated for school construction for a Federal revolving loan fund 
for states that meet the Title I small State minimum allocation. These 
14 States, which receive a de minimus amount of money under the Title I 
program, would be eligible for funding that could be used to fund their 
state revolving loan funds, pay interest owed on construction bonds and 
for other state authorized school construction activities.
  Of importance, these loan monies, which will be distributed on an 
annual basis using the Title I distribution formula, will become 
available to each state at the request of a Governor. While the Federal 
loans can only be used to support bond issues that will supplement, and 
not supplant, the amount of school construction that would have 
occurred in the absence of the loans.
  And to encourage the Federal Government to meet its funding 
commitment for IDEA, and to compensate states for the fact that every 
dollar in foregone IDEA funding is a dollar less that they have for 
school construction or other local needs, our amendment would impose no 
interest on BRICKS loans during the first five years provided the 40 
percent funding commitment is not met.
  Thereafter, the interest rate is pegged to the federal share of IDEA: 
zero in any year that the federal government fails to fund at least 20 
percent of the cost of IDEA; 2.5 percent, the long-term projected 
inflation rate, in years that the Federal share falls between 20 and 30 
percent; 3.5 percent in years the Federal share is 30 to 40 percent; 
and 4.5 percent in years the full 40 percent share is achieved.
  Combined, these provisions will minimize the cost of these loans to 
the states, and maximize the utilization of these loans for school 
construction, renovation, and repair.
  This afternoon the choice we have on school construction is 
philosophical. We can provide assistance to states to address the needs 
of their poorest schools, which is what the Enzi/Snowe amendment does. 
My colleague Senator Harkin's approach seeks to provide a piece of the 
proverbial pie to all schools. But the size of the problem and the 
piece of the pie, I think they would be so thinly cut that a mere 
mouthful would be all that was offered. Better to consolidate our 
efforts on the very neediest so that the Federal assistance will make a 
difference.
  By providing assistance to states to address their most pressing 
school construction needs, I believe our amendment provides important 
assistance to help address a national problem. Our children need a 
safe, clean and healthy environment in which to learn.
  I urge that my colleagues support the Enzi/Snowe amendment 
legislation that will make a tangible difference in the condition of 
America's schools without turning it into a partisan or ideological 
battle that is better suited to sound bites than actual solutions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to make it very clear to 
my colleagues that I do not oppose constructing new schools. In fact, I 
firmly believe that more schools should be built, replaced, repaired, 
and renovated in the United States of America. I suspect there are few 
people in this country who have done as much as I have to make that 
happen.
  Earlier this month, I was in Cleveland, OH, to campaign for a $380 
million local school construction bond and levy initiative. That money 
would be used to leverage $500 million from the State of Ohio.
  Last week, the voters of Cleveland passed that bond and levy by a 
margin of 3 to 2. They voted to tax themselves in order to help build, 
replace, and repair over 100 schools throughout the Cleveland School 
District.
  The citizens of Cleveland know that school construction is a State 
and local responsibility.
  But I am concerned about the Federal Government telling State and 
local officials they have to spend Federal resources on school 
construction instead of spending it on education priorities they have 
determined. Localities should have the freedom to invest their dollars 
in the greatest needs, whether it is teachers, computers, or textbooks, 
and not be locked in.
  We also need to consider the fairness factor. Many of our States have 
committed themselves in a very major way to school construction 
programs. I am concerned that as the Federal Government becomes more 
involved in school construction, the less inclined the States will be 
to invest their own funds in school construction. There will be an 
incredible temptation for States to simply sit back and let the Federal 
Government take care of things. That is something we see too much of in 
this body.
  All we would be doing in passing the Harkin amendment or any 
amendment is giving those States that refuse to step up to the plate 
and provide for their schoolchildren, a free pass from meeting their 
obligations. In my State, we have stepped up to the plate. Under Ohio's 
Classroom Facilities Assistance Program we have appropriated more than 
$2.7 billion to repair and rebuild our schools. By the end of this 
month, 23 schools will have been built or renovated by our program, and 
by the end of the year, 50 schools will be completed by the program.
  For example, in Canton, OH, the State is paying $129 million out of a 
$176 million schools project. In the Springfield City schools, the 
State is paying $135 million out of a $165 million project. In 
Youngstown, the State is picking up $130 million out of $163 million.
  In other words, the lower the wealth in the district, the less they 
have to pay for rebuilding their schools. We are going to get the job 
done in Ohio.
  In fact, a GAO report pointed out that in terms of investing in 
school construction, our State ranks ninth in the Nation in percentage 
terms and the eighth greatest in dollar amount.
  I think it is important for my colleagues to understand that last 
year, the National Governors' Association Center for Best Practices 
looked into the prevalence of State involvement in school construction. 
Here is what they had to report:

       The Center discovered Governors are focusing more attention 
     on school construction and modernization than ever before.

  The report goes on to cite several examples: 11 States subsidize, 
reimburse, or match local funding for construction projects; 10 States 
have an established formula for determining the amount of State funding 
each school district will receive; six States have established a new 
agency to oversee school construction with the State; five States 
provide low-interest loans for low-income school districts to help 
support their school construction efforts; and four States require the 
Governor and State legislature to approve school construction projects 
prior to State funding being made available.

  The States are getting it done, which prompts me to ask my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle, why should the taxpayers of Wyoming, 
Florida, or New Hampshire have to pay to build schools in Ohio? And, 
conversely, why should the taxpayers of Ohio, who are meeting their 
responsibility, pay for those who have not yet done so? What kind of a 
message are we sending to these people? They have done the right thing, 
but we are saying: Tough luck, we are going to take your tax money, the 
tax money we should spend on true Federal responsibilities, and totally 
ignore them so we can do something that is politically popular. That is 
just wrong.
  Mark my words, once the Federal Government gets involved in providing 
direct grants to build schools, there will be pressure like you would 
not believe to ramp-up the funding.
  We just heard from the Senator from New York saying they have already 
committed schools for the money that has been made available to New 
York State. I tell you this, they are lining up in New York and every 
other place. They are letting their Governors and their legislatures 
and their local officials off the hook. The passage of the

[[Page S4994]]

amendment of the Senator from Iowa will do more to discourage States 
from stepping up to the plate and doing what they are supposed to be 
doing than anything I can think of today.
  As chairman of the National Governors' Association, we worked very 
hard to make a real difference in this area.
  I started on this effort back in 1991 when I became Governor of the 
State of Ohio, and we are getting it done. But there is one more thing 
we need to remember: When we spend Federal money on things like this, 
we give up what you could have purchased with the money for other 
Federal responsibilities. Economists call that concept ``opportunity 
cost.'' When the Senate thinks about spending money on one thing, we 
need to recognize we are giving up the ability to use money for other 
worthy causes. When figuring opportunity costs, we need to remember the 
fact that we have a number of unmet Federal needs, needs that are a 
Federal responsibility, and which we should address as part of our full 
and balanced approach to the Federal budget.
  I am going to be talking more about that in this Chamber with my 
colleagues later on this year. I have asked the General Accounting 
Office to do a study on unmet infrastructure needs in our Nation--needs 
that are the responsibility of the Federal Government, not State 
government, not local government, but the Federal Government.
  That GAO study is going to include highways, mass transit, airports, 
drinking water supply, wastewater treatment, public buildings, and 
water resources projects.
  I believe the GAO's final report will give us a better sense of 
exactly how formidable our unmet needs really are.
  We cannot do everything for everyone. Before we start down the road 
to spend billions upon billions of dollars, we need to remember that 
school construction, like the vast majority of education programs, is a 
responsibility best left to our State and local officials. They are the 
ones who are on the front lines. They are the ones who know best the 
needs of their respective communities in their States.
  I think it is time for this body to stop acting like a national 
school board. We are not a national school board. Many States elect 
their school board members. Many States elect their superintendents. 
They are the ones who are charged with the responsibility under the 
Constitution. Under the 10th amendment, that is a responsibility of 
local and State government.
  Let them do the job they are elected to do. And let us allocate our 
resources in those areas where we do have the Federal responsibility.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. Do we have time left? Zero? OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, while I am awaiting the arrival of the 
Senator from Arkansas, I will take a couple more minutes on this 
amendment.
  What we are doing today, through one of the three amendments--or 
maybe all of the three amendments--is setting up a new school 
renovation and construction program. The question is, Do you want to 
just give the money to the States or do you believe there ought to be 
some constrictions on the money?
  Under the amendment I have offered, there is a first priority. That 
first priority is that the Federal Government shall first meet its 
existing obligation to fund the construction and renovation needs of 
Indian schools and federally impacted schools before any other 
construction needs are addressed. That is an area that we have 
underfunded in the past. It is an obligation we already have. That 
obligation stands at $2 billion.
  There is a second priority; that is, once we have assured the funding 
of the Indian schools and the federally impacted schools, which is 
already a Federal obligation, then we would have two mechanisms for 
funding schools, both of which would require that they be targeted 
toward the neediest districts in the States. Those would be determined 
by the States, but they have to be the neediest schools in the States.
  There are two ways of funding that. One of them is Senator Snowe's 
``bricks'' approach, which is a revolving loan fund that is set up to 
pay the interest on the school bonds that are done to build the 
schools. The other one is the proposal that I have put forth that 
targets the 10 percent for the neediest schools and requires that there 
be a 90-percent effort at the local level.

  We keep talking about the local level. There are no provisions for 
funding to get to the local level for an obligation. A needy area has 
very little capability to raise money through bonds. States have 
requirements. Bonding companies have requirements on how much money 
they will allow a district to bond. Some of those districts have 
already reached their entire capacity.
  As I mentioned before, some have exceeded their capacity. How does 
that happen? If the value of the property in the district goes down, 
and they already have existing obligations, then they exceed the 
capacity they are allowed. There is no penalty for exceeding the 
capacity. The bonds are not as valuable and they won't sell with any 
kind of premium. They will probably sell with a discount, but it is a 
mechanism that is out there for local school districts to provide 
funding for their schools. And one of the things I have been concerned 
about through the whole process is how we make sure there is money 
available for the neediest schools, for those districts that do not 
have a very high bonding capacity but still to make sure they do some 
local effort.
  There is a tremendous difference in the kind of a school that is 
built if you get to use somebody else's money as opposed to your own 
money. So we need to make sure there is still that local obligation 
involved.
  The other part of it is that States have always had an obligation to 
do this. In fact, the Federal Government, outside the two areas I 
mentioned, which are the Indian schools and the Federally impacted 
schools, has not had a role in school construction and renovation. We 
have made that a requirement of the States.
  As a result, in order to make sure there is still some State 
participation, there is a 50-percent match requirement. I do not think 
we ought to pass any bill out of this Chamber that does not assure we 
have the local participation and State participation before we do a 
brand new Federal spending program that assures we are going to build 
schools for all of the school districts in the United States.
  I can see the cash register ringing up out there as the wish list for 
new schools goes up. I can tell you that in Wyoming, we have been 
working under an equalization process so that the rich school 
districts, those districts that have a higher property valuation, and 
other resources, help to pay for the schools in poorer areas of the 
State.
  That is always under some court review to make sure that there is 
some equalization. There is a rating system for the school. There are 
some requirements on how big of a school, the fact that it has to go to 
classrooms, that it cannot go to athletic facilities. Athletic 
facilities have to be provided by outside sources in that district--100 
percent by the district. So they have gone through a lot of difficulty 
to arrive at a formula.
  We are talking about launching a new Federal program with no 
constraints. Once you do it with no constraints, it is pretty hard to 
go back and say: Whoops, we bit off a bigger chunk than we can ever 
afford. After everybody in the country is figuring that their school 
can be replaced by Federal dollars, how do we back off of that kind of 
a position?
  I am suggesting that if we get into this kind of a position at all, 
we be sure that we nail down some of the requirements. Something that I 
did not even address is, what size school do you build? If they are 
going to have 16 students, do you allow them to build for 1,000 
students on the possibility that it might be a growth area? No, you 
cannot do that either. You cannot afford unlimited schools.

  I heard someone say that the amendment of the Senator from Iowa does 
not force money on anybody. That certainly is true; It does not force 
money on anybody. It passes it out by the bushel basket, with no 
constraints whatsoever. Can you imagine some school district saying: 
No, no, we would rather take care of the problem ourselves; don't give 
us any money? No. What they are all going to say is: You started a 
program. You said you

[[Page S4995]]

would fix schools. It is underfunded. It is not funded.
  Whatever you want to say, there will never be enough funds to take 
care of the kinds of schools that everybody will be able to envision. 
Architects will be staying up late dreaming of new ways they can build 
logos for schools, let alone the schools, because there are no 
constraints in the Harkin bill.
  This amendment puts in some modest constraints, constraints that say 
they have to have 90 percent bonding capacity in their area; they have 
to be making a local effort. They just have to have the local folks, 
even though it is not much, participating in their own program. Then 
the States have to make sure that 50 percent of it comes either from 
the local districts or the State, in any combination the State chooses, 
before any Federal dollars kick in.
  We have the other solution that provides a revolving fund for States. 
That would provide the money to cover construction bonds. It is another 
alternative, another way that we can do the process.
  I hope people will look at this amendment as being one that is a 
logical way to start the process. I ask that my colleagues consider the 
amendment carefully, and then support the amendment that I have 
offered.
  Another amendment that takes another approach that can have an impact 
on schools is one that the Senator from Arkansas is proposing. So at 
this point, I yield the floor, and I yield the remainder of my time to 
the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 550

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for 
yielding time. I will only take a minute to briefly explain why I ask 
my colleagues to support the amendment I have offered.
  There are, frankly, three amendments that deal with the issue of 
school construction. I believe Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi are 
sincere. They have worked very hard. They understand there is a severe 
problem out there. In fact, there is one area of agreement that we all 
have, and that is that there is a serious need in this country for 
resources for school construction.
  There is a different approach. There are three votes. There are three 
amendments. There is only one that does not create a new Federal 
program addressing school construction. So while there are merits and 
demerits to the various approaches, the other two amendments create a 
new program--both create new programs--for school construction. I 
believe that is wrong. There is only one amendment that preserves the 
prerogative of State and local governments to control the school 
construction issue.
  So my amendment offers a helping hand through the Tax Code for local 
school districts, low-income, poor school districts to better be able 
to address the school construction needs they have. This is an approach 
that passed 20-0 out of the Finance Committee and has been supported 
previously in this body. I believe it is the right approach and 
expresses our concern about this issue and gives help to the local 
governing bodies who need the assistance but preserves that very 
important prerogative of the local school districts to control school 
construction issues.
  So this preserves the whole principle of this bill; that is, local 
flexibility and local control, and does not take us down the road of a 
new Federal program involving us in a brand new area of building 
schools across this country.
  So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. I believe it is 
consistent with what we are trying to do in this bill with greater 
flexibility and greater local control.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 649 offered by the 
Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. 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 yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 649. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) 
is absent attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 62, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bond
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--62

     Akaka
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Carnahan
       
  The amendment (No. 649) was rejected.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How long did that vote take, Mr. President?
  May we have order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate.
  The question is on the Harkin amendment.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 
votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Massachusetts asked how long the last vote 
took. Did he get an answer to his question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-two minutes.
  Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That the next vote be a 10-minute vote.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not know how serious this request is. I 
would like to know first. I will reserve an objection. I know the 
Senator wants to have a 10-minute vote. I know that.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. I know he is serious.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Right.
  Mr. BYRD. But just how much do we mean this in the Chamber? I am not 
making little of the Senator's request. I would like to see a 10-minute 
vote.
  May I ask this question of the leader. I ask unanimous consent that I 
may speak for 1 minute on this reservation.

[[Page S4996]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. May I ask the distinguished majority leader a question. 
There is a request before the Senate to limit this next vote to 10 
minutes, and the only way that can happen is if the majority leader 
steps in at the end of the 10 minutes and closes this vote. Having been 
the majority leader, I do not think it is unfair for me to ask the 
majority leader if he intends to enforce this request if it is agreed 
to, and only the leader can enforce it.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if Senator Byrd will yield, Senator Byrd has 
made this point before, and I certainly understand how he feels, and 
others, as a matter of fact, about the need to cut these votes off in a 
reasonable period of time.
  I would be perfectly happy, and I am sure the managers would be 
happy, to see us limit these to 10 or, I believe, 10 minutes plus 5 
minutes over the time, which has been allowed, for a total of 15 
minutes. I will be glad to do that.
  What happens, of course, is Senator Daschle and I will receive a call 
from a Senator who is on the way. We had last week a mistake where the 
Senator from West Virginia had not been recorded when, in fact, he had 
voted, and we, thinking he had not voted said: No, wait until he gets 
here. We know he wants to be recorded.
  We make a mistake by bending over backwards too much trying to 
accommodate all 100 Senators. But the Senator's point is well taken. 
Since we are all here and listening attentively, this vote will be cut 
off in the prescribed time, as was suggested by the Senator from 
Vermont, if in fact that request is honored.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I remove my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the sequenced votes and any cleared amendments, the Senate then resume 
consideration of the Dayton amendment No. 622 and the Voinovich 
amendment No. 443. I further ask unanimous consent that there then be a 
total of 30 minutes equally divided for closing remarks with respect to 
both amendments.
  Further, I ask unanimous consent that following that time, the Senate 
proceed to a vote in relation to amendment No. 622 to be followed by a 
vote in relation to amendment No. 443, with no amendments in order to 
the amendments prior to the vote. I ask unanimous consent that there be 
2 minutes equally divided prior to the second vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I inquire of the Senator from Vermont, about 
what time, then, would the next two votes occur? Would that be roughly 
in 1 hour--1 hour 10 minutes, excuse me?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The elapsed time would be about an hour.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I regret I was sitting immediately behind the distinguished 
Senator and I did not understand his request. Would he mind repeating 
the request.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that following the sequenced 
votes and any cleared amendments, the Senate then resume consideration 
of the Dayton amendment No. 622 and the Voinovich amendment No. 443. I 
further ask consent that there then be a total of 30 minutes equally 
divided for closing remarks with respect to both amendments.
  Further, I ask consent that following that time, the Senate proceed 
to a vote in relation to amendment No. 622, to be followed by a vote in 
relation to amendment No. 443, with no amendment being in order to 
amendments prior to the vote. I ask that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided prior to the second vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to speak for 30 minutes on the 
matter of reconciliation. Is it expected in the morning we will have an 
opportunity to speak before that bill is taken up?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say if the Senator will yield, I 
would like to have a chance to talk to the managers of the legislation 
about the possibility of yielding some time tonight or we will work 
with you to make sure you have time in the morning. We know you want to 
speak on this matter, and we will work with you to find a time that is 
agreeable with you to do so, either after these votes or in the 
morning. If you will allow us to talk to the managers and get with you, 
we will find a way you can do that.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not want to speak to an empty Chamber 
on the matter of reconciliation. So I would like to speak immediately 
after the next two votes, which I understand are already scheduled. Am 
I correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are two votes that are scheduled at this 
point.
  Mr. BYRD. I would like to speak immediately after those votes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am not sure; does Senator Byrd still have 
the floor?
  Mr. BYRD. I do not have the floor. I was reserving the right to 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator from Vermont will yield, as we try to get 
the unanimous consent agreement worked out, I believe we have requests 
that would allow us to have this sequence and then have two votes in 
about an hour. I think maybe then there would be a time where Senators 
will be in the Chamber and perhaps we could do it after the two votes 
that are supposed to occur in an hour. Would that be agreeable to 
Senator Byrd?

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vermont yield?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield.
  Mr. BYRD. As I understand it, two votes are locked in already.
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I would like to speak following those two votes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know the Senator would like to have an 
opportunity to speak when there would be the maximum opportunity to 
have the arguments heard, but I do not think Senators are going to stay 
after these two stacked votes. We were hoping we could stay on the 
education issue and get through this agreement that has been worked 
out, the final two. Then while we are working on the next amendment we 
thought it would be a good time for Senator Byrd to make his statement.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object to the request.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have two votes that are already 
ordered and we can go to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have an explanation of the amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. We ask for 2 minutes for the proponent, the author of 
the amendment to be able to address the Senate prior to the vote. I ask 
for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the author of the 
amendment explaining it for 2 minutes? One minute?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object. If it is only going to be 1 
minute, I object. I want an explanation on this. We will have it or we 
will have a quorum call and that will take far longer than an 
explanation would require. I want to know what this amendment is about.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Could I renew my request he be given 2 minutes?
  That is too short a time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Let's make that 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S4997]]

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued the call of the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued the call of the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this legislation and 
all those who have been involved in continuing to try to move it 
forward. It is not easy to accommodate the wishes of all Senators in 
terms of time for final debate before amendments or those who would 
like to speak on other issues, but we try very hard to accommodate all 
of those wishes.
  We have come up with an agreement that I think will allow us to make 
progress on the education bill, move to the reconciliation bill, and 
make progress there. So to put it in layman's language, we have two 
votes on amendments back to back that are already ordered. What we 
would do then would be to go to the debate on the next amendments. 
Those two votes would occur in the morning, beginning at 9 o'clock, 
preceded by 3 minutes of time before each vote. Then at 9:30 or so, as 
the votes are completed, we would go to reconciliation, and Senator 
Byrd would be recognized for up to 30 minutes as the first speaker on 
reconciliation. So that is how it would work out.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the votes that 
are ordered, and any cleared amendments, the Senate then resume 
consideration of the Dayton amendment No. 622 and the Voinovich 
amendment No. 443. I further ask consent that there then be a total of 
20 minutes, equally divided, for closing remarks with respect to both 
amendments. Further, I ask consent that following that time, the Senate 
proceed to a period of morning business. I ask consent that these votes 
occur beginning at 9 a.m., with 3 minutes prior to each vote for 
explanation.
  I further ask consent that Senator Byrd be recognized immediately 
following the two stacked votes for up to 30 minutes immediately 
following the reporting of the bill by the clerk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I do not expect to object, but I want to be clear on two 
things. No. 1, when we have a quorum call here, we should be able to 
hear the clerk call the names. No. 2, the 30 minutes that are reserved 
for me to speak----
  Mr. REID. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. No. I did not say 20 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. For Senator Byrd?
  Mr. REID. I am talking about the two votes.
  Mr. BYRD. I am not talking about the two votes. My 30 minutes I do 
not want taken out of the 20 hours tomorrow. I wanted to make it today. 
I wanted to make it today between the votes so that it would not----
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, I think we could probably spend 
more time working through this. Let's make that accommodation. We will 
have two votes in the morning, but Senator Byrd will speak for 30 
minutes. Then we will go to the reconciliation bill, which would be at 
approximately 10 o'clock or 10 after, whatever it would be.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object, it is our understanding 
that the remarks by the Senator from West Virginia would not come out 
of the reconciliation.
  Mr. LOTT. Because of his objection, perhaps others, it would not 
count against that time. But we are going to have to use about 12 hours 
or more tomorrow. So I was thinking that since it was relevant to that 
issue those 30 minutes could count against the 12 or 14 hours we need 
to use tomorrow. But if there is objection to that, it is more 
important we get the agreement, hear what he has to say, and get 
started with the reconciliation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 525

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Harkin 
amendment No. 525.
  The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) 
is absent attending a funeral.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     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
     Specter
     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
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Carnahan
       
  The amendment (No. 525) was rejected.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 550

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on agreeing to the 
Hutchinson amendment No. 550. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. Carnahan) 
is absent attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions

[[Page S4998]]


     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Baucus
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kyl
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Snowe

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Carnahan
       
  The amendment (No. 550) was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I advise my friend from Vermont, the manager 
of this bill, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, wishes to 
offer an amendment. She will do that in just a few minutes. She says 
she will not take more than 5 minutes in presenting the amendment. So I 
ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside to allow 
Senator Feinstein to offer her amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. No objection. I look forward to learning about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.


                     Amendment No. 369, As Modified

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 369. I ask 
unanimous consent to resubmit the amendment with modifications.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modifications?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will please report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 369, as modified.

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

   (Purpose: To specify the purposes for which funds provided under 
              subpart 1 of part A of title I may be used)

       On page 137, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. LIMITATIONS ON FUNDS.

       Subpart 1 of part A of title I (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 1120B (20 U.S.C. 6323) the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 1120C. LIMITATIONS ON FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, a local educational agency shall use funds received 
     under this subpart only to provide academic instruction and 
     services directly related to the instruction of students in 
     preschool through grade 12 to assist eligible children to 
     improve their academic achievement and to meet achievement 
     standards established by the State.
       ``(b) Permissible and Prohibited Activities.--In this 
     section, the term `academic instruction'--
       ``(1) includes--
       ``(A) the implementation of instructional interventions and 
     corrective actions to improve student achievement;
       ``(B) the extension of academic instruction beyond the 
     normal school day and year, including during summer school;
       ``(C) the employment of teachers and other instructional 
     personnel, including providing teachers and instructional 
     personnel with employee benefits;
       ``(D) professional development for instructional personnel;
       ``(E) the provision of instructional services to pre-
     kindergarten children to prepare such children for the 
     transition to kindergarten;
       ``(F) the purchase of instructional resources, such as 
     books, materials, computers, other instructional equipment, 
     and wiring to support instructional equipment;
       ``(G) the development and administration of curricula, 
     educational materials, and assessments; and
       ``(H) the transportation of students to assist the students 
     in improving academic achievement; and
       ``(2) does not include--
       ``(A) the purchase or lease of privately owned facilities;
       ``(B) the purchase or provision of facilities maintenance, 
     gardening, landscaping, or janitorial services, or the 
     payment of utility costs;
       ``(C) the construction of facilities;
       ``(D) the acquisition of real property;
       ``(E) the payment of costs for food and refreshments;
       ``(F) the payment of travel and attendance costs at 
     conferences or other meetings other than travel and 
     attendance necessary for professional development; or
       ``(G) the purchase or lease of vehicles.''.
       ``(3) the chief administrative officer may make exceptions 
     to the prohibitions that are reasonable and necessary to 
     carry out the purposes of the program.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment directs that Title I 
funds be used only for academic instruction. It is true that for the 
most part title I funds are used for academic instruction. It is also 
true, though, that money often goes for other purposes, and this 
amendment would clarify the purposes for which Title I funds can be 
used by school districts.
  The amendment states that the funds be used to improve academic 
achievement, to help students meet State achievement standards. 
Permitted uses would include corrective actions to improve student 
achievement, extending academic instruction beyond the normal school 
day and school year, including summer school, employing teachers and 
instructional personnel, providing instructional services to pre-
kindergarten children to help them transition to kindergarten, 
purchasing instructional resources, conducting or obtaining 
professional development, and developing curriculum, for example.
  What is explicitly not permitted is the purchasing or leasing of 
facilities or vehicles with Title I funds, purchasing or providing 
facilities maintenance, janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services, 
paying for utilities, constructing facilities, acquiring real 
properties, buying food or refreshments, or travel to and attendances 
at conferences except for travel and attendance necessary for 
professional development.
  The purpose of this amendment is to take these critical funds and see 
that they go where they should go, which is toward the core curriculum 
and the teaching of and learning by youngsters. I believe the amendment 
will be accepted.
  Current law on Title I is much too vague.
  It says,

       A State or local educational agency shall use funds 
     received under this part only to supplement the amount of 
     funds that would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be 
     made available from non-Federal sources for the education of 
     pupils participating in programs assisted under this part, 
     and not to supplant such funds.

  Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the 
``education of pupils.'' That is just too nebulous.
  The U.S. Department of Education has given states a guidance document 
that explains how Title I funds can be used. Permitted uses are for the 
following: instructional practices; counseling; mentoring; developing 
curricula; salaries; employee benefits; renting privately-owned 
facilities; janitorial services; utilities; mobile vans; training and 
professional development; equipment; interest on lease purchase 
agreements; travel and conferences; food and refreshments; insurance 
for vehicles; and parent involvement activities.
  Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically 
prohibited: construction or acquisition of real property; and payment 
to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to reimburse a 
parent for salary lost due to attendance at ``parental involvement'' 
meeting.
  I believe we should give the Department, states and districts clearer 
guidance in law. My reason for introducing this amendment is this: Our 
students are not learning; our schools are failing our children. We 
must use our limited federal dollars for the fundamental purpose of 
education: to help students learn.
  A January 2001 study by Education Weekly, titled ``Quality Counts 
2001: A Better Balance,'' brought more bad news about California's 
students. Here's what the report found:
  In fourth grade reading, 20 percent of students are proficient and 52 
percent are below the basic standard.
  In eighth grade reading, 22 percent of students are proficient and 36 
percent are below the basic standard.
  Comparing California to other states, in how well fourth grade 
students read, California ranks 36 out of 39 states. In eighth grade 
reading, California ranks 32 out of 36 states.
  Nationally, the news is similarly distressing:
  U.S. eighth graders are out-performed by their counterparts in math 
and science from Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, Australia, and 
Canada.
  American twelfth graders performed in mathematics better than student 
in

[[Page S4999]]

only two countries, Cyprus and South Africa.
  In writing, 75 percent of U.S. school children cannot compose a well-
organized, coherent essay, according to the National Assessment for 
Education Progress in September 1999.
  We have to put a stop to this bad news. Fortunately, the bill before 
us takes some strong steps and with this amendment, it will take even 
more.
  While it is difficult to ascertain how Title I funds are always being 
used, we do know of a few examples that raise questions in my mind:
  In Alabama, according to the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, 
``dipped into Title 1 to pay the electric bill and for janitorial 
services.''
  While most of Title I's $8 billion appear to be spent on instruction, 
the Los Angeles Times, in a March 12, 2000 editorial, said, ``About 
half that amount is wasted on unskilled though well-meaning teacher 
aides, who are often more babysitter than instructor.''
  Title I has been used ``to pay for everything from playground 
supervisors and field trips to more time for nurses and counselors,'' 
according to the San Diego Union-Tribune, March 16, 2000.
  California school officials have told my staff that Title I has been 
used for pay for clerical assistants in school administrative offices, 
payroll staff, truant officers, schoolyard duty personnel, school bus 
loading assistants, ``curriculum coordinators,'' ``compliance,'' 
attending conferences, and home visits.
  By offering this amendment, I am not suggesting that Title I funds 
are being wasted across the board.
  In fact, an August 2000 report by the Department of Education says, 
``Most--77 percent--of Title I funds were used for instructional 
resources,'' for example, to hire teachers and to provide instructional 
materials. That is good.
  But that report also says, that 12 percent of funds or $835 million 
in 1998, were used for ``program administration.'' Since this report 
does not provide more specificity, it is difficult to tell exactly what 
these funds were used for, but I do think we have to question whether 
we want $835 million spent on administration of this program.
  Another report, a draft by the Citizen Commission on Civil Rights, 
found that in the Fresco, California, school districts, ``15 percent 
[of Title I funds remains in the district office.'' It goes on to say 
that funds are also used for ``supplies, two case workers, Saturday 
schools, and breakfast and lunch programs for about 800 homeless 
students.'' This is just one example and while these uses probably most 
certainly contribute to a child's education, it is my view that Title I 
cannot do everything.
  That is why I am trying to better focus Title I funds on academic 
instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged 
children achieve.
  Federal funding is only seven percent of total funding for elementary 
and secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of 
total support for public schools. We must get the most that we can 
educationally for our limited dollars. It is time to better direct 
Title I funds to the true goal of education: to help students learn. 
This is one step toward that goals.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have no request for time on the 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________