[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.
____________________